Legal basis.

7 U. S. C. 411: The powers conferred prior to May 11, 1922, and the duties imposed by law on the Bureau of Markets, Bureau of Markets and Crop Estimates and the Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics of the Depart

REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2 OF 1953

X

1 While the Administrative Procedure Act requires the functions prescribed therein to
be performed by examiners appointed in accordance with the strict requirements of that
act, the act does not dictate the place in the agency where such presiding officers shall
administratively be arranged, hence we regard the hearing examiners automatically as
subject to organization by departmental order.

2 The statute here may permit a different form of organization than now exists so long
as the work is performed under the supervision and direction of the Solicitor.
3 While the Bureau of Agricultural Economics was established by the act of May 11,
1922 (7 U. S. C. 411), by the consolidation of several pre-existing units, it appears that
through the years the appropriation acts and administrative orders of the Department
made certain organizational changes contrary to this basic act. For example, while the
work of agricultural statistics appears to have been vested in the original Bureau of Agri-
cultural Economics by the 1922 act, it was placed by departmental order concomitantly
with the appropriation act revisions in the Agricultural Marketing Service during the
fiscal year 1940. By order pursuant to the First War Powers Act (Executive Order 9069),
the Agricultural Statistics Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service was retrans-
ferred to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics where it is now found. The operation
of Executive Order 9069 is presumably expired. Thus the present organization of the
Bureau of Agricultural Economics is not in conflict with its organizing law of 1922.
4 While the so-called Schwellenbach Act (5 U. S. C. 516 (a)-(e)), authorized the Secre-
tary to delegate to not more than 2 ranking officers any of his regulatory functions, the
statute does not require such delegation nor does it control the organization to which the
officers are attached, although it is desirable to have them within the Office of the
Secretary.

5 Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 did not, in fact, cover all functions which are now
being exercised by the Production and Marketing Administration, but as the President's
explanation attached to the order states, the transferred functions were necessarily trans-
ferred to permit the Secretary to perfect his organization. As a matter of fact, many of
the functions of the Production and Marketing Administration are, by the basic statute
providing therefor, originally vested in the Secretary of Agriculture. For example, sec-
tion 32 of the act of August 20, 1935-various appropriations for marketing services, and
marketing functions of the Research and Marketing Act of 1946. Such functions did not
need to be covered by the order.

The reference to the Commodity Credit Corporation in the reorganization plan is, of
course, superseded by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of 1948.

This is a regulatory statute imposing numerous restrictions on the conduct of futures
trading in grain, and the Secretary of Agriculture is given the responsibility for its enforce-
ment. The annual appropriation under this act is made directly to the Secretary. No
agency is provided by law for the administration of the act but a Commission is created,
of which the Secretary is a member, to handle certain appeal functions under the act.
7 The original statutes of February 1, 1905 (16 U. S. C. 472) and June 4, 1897 (16 U. S. C.

551), placed the functions of administering and protecting forests in the Secretary. Num-
erous subsequent statutes, however, have provided authorities or restrictions on the
Forest Service which was established under these basic laws by the then Secretary of
Agriculture, such as 16 United States Code 499, 502, 556, 557, 558, and many others. These
many provisions have thus become associated by legislative practice with the group of
functions relating to national forests which the Secretary has assigned to that Agency
although organically vested in him. It is doubtful, therefore, whether an administrative
order of the Secretary could be made fully effective unless the authorizations placed by
law in the Forest Service are restored to the Secretary

8 As reflected in footnote 7, above, most of the important authorities in the Forest
Service are prescribed by law in the Secretary. Since, however, so many of the lesser
implementing authorities embodied by the Forest Service are vested by law in it, the
Secretary is restricted in the area of delegation of these major program activities such as
forest roads and tracts and protection of forests, etc.

The Farmers' Home Administration Act of 1946, in spite of its title actually vests the
functions therein in the Secretary of Agriculture. It does, however, as indicated above,
provide for an Administrator of the Farmers' Home Administration, and the title of the
act itself implies the intention of Congress. In line with that intention, the Secretary
promptly formed the Farmers' Home Administration and it is thus being administered
at the present time. In addition, title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (Public Law 171,
81st Cong.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to perform certain functions "through
the Farmers' Home Administration." Considerable doubt is felt as to whether the
Secretary would be authorized to administer the functions covered by these acts in any
other organization, although he has assigned some functions thereto not derived from the
Farmers' Home Administration Act, which could readily be transferred. It appears,
therefore, that this agency should, for general classification purposes, be regarded as one
whose organization is fixed by statute.

10 These wholly owned corporations are mentioned incidentally; they were not
specifically referred to in the reorganization plan which transferred Farm Credit to the
Department but were chartered and are supervised by Farm Credit Administration.
Because of the character of these corporations and their close relationship to other cor-
porations in the district organization which are not wholly owned, they are not con-
sidered as major operating units of the Department.

11 By amendment of June 7, 1949 (Public Law 85, 81st Cong.), the Corporation has been
made subject to supervision of the Secretary.

12 The functions of the administration of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, as
established in 1938, were transferred to the Secretary of Agriculture by Reorganization
Plan No. 3 of 1946, effective July 16, 1946. Section 8 of the basic law, however, was
amended and reenacted by the act of Aug. 1, 1947 (7 U. S. C. 1505), the effect of which ap-
pears to have been to restore to the Corporation its own administration, "subject to the
general supervision and direction of the Secretary of Agriculture."

33461-53--13

Senator HUMPHREY. Madam Chairman, I would like to place at this point in the record excerpts from the Congressional Record, page 7233, of May 18, 1950, on Reorganization Plan No. 4.

Senator SMITH. Without objection, the data will be included. (The matter referred to is as follows:)

[From the Congressional Record, 81st Cong., 2d sess., Bound Volume 96, pt. 6, p. 7233, May 18, 1950]

REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 4

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I wish to make a brief statement in reference to Reorganization Plan No. 4, and in reference to the report the committee has prepared, which I believe to be an excellent report, upon the part both of the majority and the minority.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to make his statement under a reservation to object, or under an allotment of time?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I want to make my statement under a reservation to object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.

Mr. HUMPHREY. In a discussion of the resolution disapproving plan No. 4, as presented by the majority and the minority it will be noted that the main point of contention is that the plan as sent to the Congress by the President is a plan without a plan. That seems to be the main objection. I think it should be clear, however, that the proposal as submitted by the President, insofar as its objectives are concerned, is a constructive proposal. It meets the basic need of a reorganization of the Department of Agriculture. It was quite clear from the testimony presented before the committee that each and every affected interest group had some reason why it did not approve the plan, and those reasons were not always identical. In fact, many of them were contradictory.

The second main point that was brought up against the plan was that it altered the substantive law, and permitted the Secretary of Agriculture, by the transfer of funds, to alter the general policy and program as laid down by the Congress.

I believe we should support these reorganization plans. However, it appears to me that the executive branch of the Government would do a great service for the Congress if, when these plans are prepared, the officials of the agency affected would come to the interested standing committee of the United States Senate or House of Representatives and consult the committee. I for one am becoming just a little tired ofhaving plans come before the Congress without those persons in the Congress who are familiar with the basic law of the land being given an opportunity to know what is going on.

The plan we are discussing was presented before the Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. I say, frankly, as a member of that committee, that I am not fully familiar with all the basic law pertaining to agricultural policies. Each Senator has a general knowledge, but the law pertaining to many agencies and bureaus of the Department of Agriculture is complex, and oftentimes it is most difficult to be able to put one's finger on a particular provision at the moment. I should like to have the Secretary of Agriculture and the Director of the Budget, who presented the initial statement of theplan, come to the appropriate committee of the Congress, both of the Senate and the House, and discuss the overall reorganization of the Department of Agriculture. I should like to have that done with the view in mind of following out the basic recommendations of the Hoover Commission insofar as the administrative structure is concerned.

I should like to solicit the attention of my colleagues to the minority report, which points out what those recommendations were, and I should like to solicit the particular attention of my colleagues to the importance of basic reorganization in the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. President, it is perfectly obvious that, in view of the lack of certainty of the plan as proposed, it does not withstand the test of a detailed plan of reorganization. It is general and all-inclusive. I believe it to be the duty of the executive department to do a little more than just send down plans. I think it is about time that the executive branch of the Government send down plans after the officials have consulted the individual Members of the Congress who are responsible for legislation. Once that is done, we are going to get a kind of reorganization that is definitely needed.

Mr. President, this is the view of one of the minority, and I think I am fair in saying that those of us who have taken time to prepare the minority report, primarily as a declaration and statement of policy, feel that the views therein expressed are sound views.