페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

and feasible to consolidate food and drug regulatory functions (including those pertaining to spray residues resulting from the use of pesticides in the production of food) under the administration of agencies best suited to perform such functions. The study shall take into account the necessity for adequate protection of the public health and the prevention of practices unfair to producers, manufacturers, distributors, or consumers as well as the promotion of efficiency and economy of administration. The cost of the study provided for by this section shall be paid out of funds available to the Bureau of the Budget for administrative management purposes.

(Extracts from Staff Memorandum No. 82–2–17]
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

March 21, 1952.
Staff Memorandum No. 82-2-17.
Subject: S. 1149, Reorganization of the Department of Agriculture.

With a view to assisting the committee in its consideration of the bill prepared as a substitute for S. 1149, the following analysis of the basic provisions is submitted as staff interpretations as to the views of the committee as previously expressed. This data was prepared on the premise that the committee desires to report a bill designed to overcome many of the objections to the provisions of the bill proposed by the Citizens Committee for the Hoover report. With this objective in mind, the substitute for S. 1149 proposes the following major changes:

(1) It eliminates the provisions of section 5 which would have vested all functions and reorganization authority in the Secretary (as previously rejected under Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1950).

(2) Provides a revised organizational structure to meet objections raised at the hearings, while conforming as nearly as possible to the Hoover Commission's recommendations. The major changes in this section of the bill (sec. 2) is the consolidation of the Soil Conservation Service and the Production and Marketing Administration into an Agricultural Conservation Production Service, and the creation of a Forest and Range Service. This eliminates the proposed Agricultural Consultation Service, the Agricultural Resources Conservation Service, and the Commodity Marketing and Adjustment Service; and vests regulatory functions in the Secretary instead of creating a Regulatory Service, as proposed by the Hoover Commission. This revised organizational structure has been approved by the Citizens Committee.

In lieu of section 5 of the original bill (No. 1 above), the committee version gives the Secretary authority to make transfers and to bring about better coordination of functions within the statutory structure prescribed when such action would improve administration, reduce expenditures, and promote economy and efficiency, when approved by the jurisdictional committees.

(3) Eliminates the proposal to transfer vocational education functions from the Federal Security Agency to the Department of Agriculture. The deletion of this subsection has been tentatively approved by the committee.

(4) Eliminates all sections (sections 7, 8, and 9) dealing with the creation of State, county, and local advisory committees (or boards) as being substantive legislation and not reorganization.

(5) It provides further safeguards relating to the transfer of the Bureau of Land Management from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture, to insure that functions necessary to the operations of the Department of the Interior are retained within that Department. It also provides that existing laws and regulations relating to the management of forestry and grazing resources will continue in force under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture until a program for integrating

these services has been submitted to the Committees on Agriculture of the two Houses of Congress.

PURPOSE

The Hoover Commission recommended an extension of the functional organization of the Department of Agriculture and a better grouping of activities related to the same major purpose. The subject bill, as amended, is designed to carry out these recommendations, insofar as they are consistent with established legislative policy.

The original bill was drafted by the Citizens Committee for the Hoover Report and introduced in the Senate on March 15, 1951. Its purpose was to effectuate the Hoover Commission's recommendations relating to the Department of Agriculture. Hearings were held from August 28 through September 18, 1951. Vigorous opposition developed to the major provisions of the bill, and the committee, in endeavoring to meet and overcome these objections, has completely revised the original bill.

In reaching a decision as to procedure, the committee was faced with a specific proposal as to determining the character of reorganization to be proposed. Two separate approaches were available. Under S. 1149, as introduced, section 6 would establish a basic structure in line with the approach recommended by the Hoover Commission, but section 5 would then vest in the Secretary of Agriculture complete authority to reorganize that structure, and reassign functions within the Department. It was the opinion of the committee that these sections were inconsistent and that section 5 would completely abrogate the basic reorganizations proposed under section 6.

The alternate approach was to endeavor to conform as nearly as possible to the Hoover Commission's recommendations relative to the establishment of a basic structure for the Department, while insuring the continuation of essential agricultural policies and of statutory functions authorized by the Congress. To conform to Hoover Commission recommendations that administrative controls should be vested in the head of the agency, provision has been made in the amendment which would permit the Secretary to make transfers within the structure prescribed where necessary to improve administration or effect economies of operation.

The committee was faced with the problem of realining the organizational structure recommended by the Hoover Commission to overcome numerous objections raised during the hearings. The Secretary of Agriculture contended that the creation of an agricultural consultation service would confuse rather than improve administration; that it was not practical to operate the proposed Agricultural Resources Conservation Service and the Commodity Marketing and Adjustment Service as completely independent components; and that regulatory services were administered largely through the operating agencies and the creation of a centralized regulatory service would disrupt this program.

After a thorough analysis of the factual information submitted by the Department in support of its views, the committee revised the departmental structure by (a) eliminating the Agricultural Consultation Service; (b) retaining the Cooperative Extension Service; (c) combining the Soil Conservation Service and the Production and Marketing Administration under an Agricultural Conservation and Production Service; and (d) vesting all regulatory functions in the Secretary of Agriculture. In order to properly absorb the functions of the Bureau of Land Management, which eventually are proposed to be consolidated with those of the Forest Service, a new Forest and Range Service was created. The committee staff is of the opinion that these revisions in the departmental structure will meet many of the objections raised to the original bill.

It was also necessary to determine on procedure with reference to certain provisions of the bill which dealt primarily with policy determinations within the jurisdiction of other committees. The amended bill, therefore, is restricted to reorganizations, and does not contemplate any changes in basic programs already authorized by the Congress.

SUMMARY

The proposed amendment has as its major objective the effectuation of the major Hoover Commission recommendations, while overcoming the basic points of opposition developed at the hearings. These may be summarized under the following general features of the revised bill:

1. The Senate has previously rejected Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1950, which would have vested all functions of the Department in the Secretary of Agriculture. The provision in S. 1149, which would have reactivated this plan, has been eliminated by the committee amendment.

2. The organizational structures prescribed in the original bill were found to be impractical of operation and administration. The draft bill, therefore, proposes to completely revise the organization of the Department.

3. The Hoover Commission recommended the establishment of State, county, and local advisory committees to govern the administration of agricultural programs in the field. The committee took the view that this would constitute a complete departure from the accepted principles of administration of the farm program and, therefore, should be considered by substantive committees of the Congress, and not acted upon as a reorganization measure.

4. The provision in S. 149 which proposed the transfer of vocational education functions dealing with agriculture from the Federal Security Agency to the Department of Agriculture was omitted in the proposed committee amendment. This was not a recommendation of the Hoover Commission and the committee held that the functions involved were primarily of an educational nature, and should remain in the agency dealing with education.

The amendment retains sections (a) creating two additional Assistant Secretaries and an Administrative Assistant Secretary; (b) requiring that customs receipts now allocated directly to the Department (sec. 32 funds) be paid into the Treasury and that direct annual appropriations be made by Congress for specified purposes; (c) that new Federal agricultural research stations should generally be established only where existing Federal and State facilities cannot be developed to fill the need; and (d) provides for a study of the Federal regulatory functions exercised with respect to food and drugs.

The following comparative analysis of S. 1149 as introduced, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute reported by the committee, sets forth in detail the differences between the two bills on these points. The section-by-section analysis clearly defines the purposes of each of the provisions of the amendment.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF S. 1149

Section 2 of S. 1149 sets forth five premises on which the Secretary of Agriculo ture should proceed to accomplish the overall reorganizations proposed in other sections of the bill; section 5 transferred to the Secretary of Agriculture all functions of offices and agencies of the Department to the Secretary; and section 6 set forth eight major administrative services into which the Department would be consolidated. (Sec. 5 of the bill (S. 1149) would permit the Secretary to completely nullify section 6 by any subsequent action he might take through the broad reorganization powers vested in him.)

The amendment combines acceptable features of sections 2, 5, and 6, of S. 1149 into section 2. Subsection (a) provides for a revised organizational structure of the Department, consolidating all components into eight major services. It would eliminate the Agricultural Consultation Service and the Regulatory Service proposed by the Hoover Commission, to which considerable opposition developed at the hearings. Instead of the Agricultural Resources Conservation Service and the Commodity Marketing and Adjustment Service, as originally provided, the amendment would establish an Agricultural Conservation and Production Service, consisting of two separate units, namely, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Production and Marketing Administration. Likewise the bill provides that the Agriculture Credit Service shall consist of two constituent units, i. e., the Farm Credit Administration and the Farmers Home Administration. These consolidations are designed to better integrate and coordinate the functions of these agencies, while retaining their present independent operating status.

Section 2 (c) sets forth in detail the various components of the Department which would be transferred to the eight designated services. Subsection (d) (2) would authorize the Secretary, when he finds that such action would promote better administration or reduce expenditures, to transfer any part of the services or other components to any other service or component (outlined in subsection (c)) to better coordinate the functions involved, but specifically provides (subsec. (d) (3)) that the basic structure set forth in subsection 2 (a) shall not be altered. This should overcome objections to the so-called rigid-structure feature of subsection 2 (a), and give the Secretary of Agriculture sufficient flexibility to effect transfers of functions or components in the operating programs and procedures that may be necessary to meet changing conditions.

Subsection (d) (4) contains a saving provision to insure the preservation of the right of the President to submit any reorganization plan to Congress which would alter the basic structure of the Department set forth in subsection 2 (a), so that, if any of the organization structure established under the act is found to be unworkable, a reorganization plan could be submitted to perfect it. Representatives of the Department of Agriculture pointed out that if this bill is enacted into law it might be considered to supersede the Reorganization Act of 1949 as subsequent legislation, and that a provision should be included to insure that this section will not supersede any of the provisions of the Reorganization Act.

A further restriction has been placed on the Secretary under subsection (d) (5) which would require that any major transfers or coordinations proposed by the Secretary must be submitted to the Committees on Agriculture of the Senate and House, and will not become effective until the expiration of 60 days after such submission, unless both of the committees approve the action prior to the expiration of that period.

Subsection (e) (of sec. 2) provides that all regulatory functions of the Department shall be vested in the Secretary. The Citizens Committee bill included a Regulatory Service (sec. 6) as a major administrative service under the supervision of the Secretary, but according to the Secretary in his communication to the chairman of the committee on November 16, 1951, most of these regulatory functions are carried out at the operating level. Since there appears to be no objection to vesting these functions in the Secretary, this subsection would permit him to delegate regulatory functions wherever they may be best effectuated under the provisions of existing regulatory acts coming within the jurisdiction of the Department.

Subsections (f), (g) and (h) (of sec. 2) are routine provisions relating to the exemption of hearing examiners and corporations, etc.; authorizing the Secretary to delegate authority to other offices; and authorizing transfers of records, property, personnel and funds, and are contained in both the bill and the amendment.

Sections 3 and 4, creating two additional Assistant Secretaries and an Administrative Assistant Secretary are also common to both proposals.

Section 5 of the amended bill supersedes section 7 of S. 1149. The amendment, however, eliminates the provision (subsec. 7 (a) (2)) for transfer of the agricultural vocational functions from the Federal Security Agency to the Department of Agriculture, since it appears from the evidence submitted at the hearings that there is little or no support for such transfer. This proposal is contrary to Hoover Commission recommendations, and was therefore deleted from the bill.

The amendment expands the subsection of S. 1149 (7 (a) (1)), providing for the transfer of the Bureau of Land Management, retaining under the control of the Secretary of the Interior (in addition to functions with respect to mining and mineral resources) “the conduct of cadastral surveys on the public lands; the administration (other than the classification functions relating thereto) of homestead and other land disposal and withdrawal laws; and the custody of the publiclands records”, which functions the Secretary of the Interior contended were essential to the operations of that Department in the conduct of its mineral resources activities.

The amendment prescribes that the lands transferred from the Bureau of Land Management to the Department of Agriculture shall not be converted to the same status as those lands presently administered by the Forest Service, but that they shall continue to be administered under existing laws and regulations until å program for such integration is submitted and approved by the Committees on Agriculture. It also provides that the Secretary of the Interior will continue administering the mineral resources and homestead laws and retain custody of the public-lands records.

The amendment attempts to overcome other objections to the proposed transfer of the Bureau of Land Management by requiring that existing laws (including the provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act) now applicable to the operations of functions transferred to the Department of Agriculture under this section shall continue in effect until the Congress has had an opportunity to study the matter and enact legislation to implement a uniform policy with respect grazing and forestry. The Secretary of Agriculture is required to submit to the jurisdictional committees of Congress within 2 years a program for integrating the management of forestry and grazing under the newly created Forest and Range Service, with recommendations for appropriate legislative action necessary to implement such a program. It is also specifically provided that the present methods and bases of determining grazing fees shall continue for 60 days following the expiration of the prescribed 2-year period, unless Congress shall have acted prior to the expiration of that period.

Section 5 also eliminates any requirement for the Secretary to include in his report suggestions relative to changing or eliminating existing rates or payments to counties, towns, or other political subdivisions in the nature of payments in lieu of taxes. This amendment should overcome opposition of the States in which the Oregon and California revested lands are located. It would not, of course, prevent the Congress from including amendments to these laws if found to be desirable.

Section 6 of the amendment (sec. 8 of S. 1149) would require annual appropriation of section 32 funds (customs receipts) and eliminate the present permanent appropriation status of these funds for expenditure by the Secretary. This is in accord with the policy of this committee and the Congress in previous actions designed to bring all appropriations within the annual budget process, under the control of the Appropriations Committees, and thus eliminate permanent annual appropriations without congressional review.

A new section 7 has been included in both the revised Citizens Committee print of August 14 (as sec. 11) and the amendment. It relates to the establishment of advisory boards of grazing permittees and a national advisory board elected by and from the State advisory board of grazing permittees to function with respect to grazing matters at State and national levels. This section was considered to be desirable in order that these new functions may be brought into alinement with the same procedures followed by other field activities of the Department of Agriculture. There are no major changes in the remainder of the bill (secs. 8, 9, and 10) except for technical and language improvements. Details as to these provisions are set forth in the section-by-section analysis which follows.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

In general this bill entitled “Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1952” provides for the reorganization of the Department, including the grouping of its major functions along the lines recommended by the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. The bill also transfers to the Department of Agriculture the functions of the Bureau of Land Management, excepting certain activities deemed to belong more properly in the Department of Interior.

Section 1: This section provides the official title.

Section 2 authorizes and directs the Secretary to reorganize the Department so as to group its existing functions at the seat of government under the following eight major components:

1. Staff Service
2. Agricultural Research Service
3. Cooperative Extension Service
4. Agricultural Conservation and Production Service
5. Forest and Range Service
6. Agricultural Credit Service
7. Rural Electrification Administration

8. Federal Crop Insurance Corporation It is prescribed that the Agricultural Conservation and Production Service shall have two constituent units: The Soil Conservation Service and the Production and Marketing Administration and that the Agricultural Credit Service shall have two constituent units: The Farm Credit Administration and the Farmers' Home Administration. No action is to be taken under the act to alter the basic organizadion so far described. The section further provides for the grouping under the Staff Service of the several existing staff agencies of the Department; for the Agricultural Research Administration to be contained within the Agricultural Research Service; for the Extension Service to be retained within the Cooperative Extension Service; for the Forest Service and transferred functions of the Bureau of Land Management to be contained in the Forest and Range Service; and for the Rural Electrification Administration and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to continue as major components under the same titles.

The section further provides that the grouping of any component is deemed to have been effected by the issignment to the Under Secretary or an Assistant Secretary of the direction of any such component without the establishment of new organizational units. The bill, therefore, does not require the creation of wholly new administrations or similar organizational units but is intended to provide an improved method whereby the Secretary may discharge his responsibilities for management and direction of the existing functions of the Department.

The Secretary is directed to review the work of the Department periodically to insure the maximum and most economical service to the public, efficient organization, good management, and coordination. This provision expresses the principle, strongly emphasized by the Hoover Commission, that the Secretary is responsible for active, continuous review of the Department's organization and management to insure maximum efficiency and economy and should therefore have authority commensurate with his responsibilities as head of the Department.

The Secretary is authorized, whenever he finds such action warranted, to transfer any part of a unit or function contained within a service to the jurisdiction of any other service or component or to coordinate the functions of services or components with any other such organization. Major transfers or coordinations proposed by the Secretary are to be effective only after 60 days' notice to the Committee on Agriculture of the House and the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry of the Senate, except that upon notification by each committee that it does not object, the action may be effective earlier.

« 이전계속 »