be grateful if these can be inserted into the record at this point, and not read. Senator SMITH. Without objection they will both be inserted in the record. (The letters referred to are as follows:) Hon. EZRA T. BENSON, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. MARCH 28, 1953. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: It has been brought to my attention that the President's reorganization plan of the Department of Agriculture prescribes 2 new offices of Assistant Secretary of Agriculture and 1 new office of Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of Agriculture. Also, it is my understanding that the creation of these new offices will not result in an increase in personnel in the Office of the Secretary because other employees will be discharged from the Department. In view of my interests in the Agriculture Department and the effectiveness of the Civil Service Commission, I would like certain information regarding this matter. During 1952 the Subcommittee on Manpower Policies, of which I was chairman, made a very thorough and detailed study in the Department of Agriculture. At the conclusion of this study, it was the opinion of the subcommittee that new administrative personnel may be needed. Therefore, I want to assure you that I am not critical of the creation of these new positions. My reason for writing is to learn whether the employees who will be discharged to make room for the new Assistants are under civil service. Also, I would like to know whether these new Assistants will be under civil service, and, too, I would like to know the names of the persons whom you intend to appoint to these three new positions in your office. My reason for wanting this information is that I do not want to see the Civil Service System neglected or violated. As you know, there are many civil-service employees who have been working at jobs for many years, and they expect to come up through the ranks, and some day obtain top positions. Please rest assured of my continued interest in the Department of Agriculture, and I want you to know that I shall be glad to cooperate in every way in which I feel the American farmers will be benefited. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: I have been delaying an answer to your letter of March 28, 1953, until the subject matter could be discussed with you by Mr. Loos, Solicitor of the Department. I understand such a discussion has been had. As you point out in your letter, Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 proposes 2 new offices of Assistant Secretary of Agriculture and 1 new office of Administrative Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for this Department. The creation of these new offices will not result in an increase in present personnel because it is contemplated that these titles will be conferred upon individuals already employed in the Department. Attached is a copy of Supplement 1 to Memorandum No. 1320, dated March 10, 1953, in which a revised administrative grouping of the Department agencies was described. Attached to this supplement is an organization chart of the Department. You will note from the chart that Mr. John H. Davis is shown as Director of the Commodity Marketing and Adjustment Group and Mr. R. E. Short is shown as the Director of Foreign Agricultural Service. It is intended that Messrs. Davis and Short will be recommended for appointment as Assistant Secretaries of Agriculture if these two new positions are authorized. Mr. Davis, in his position as President of Commodity Credit Corporation which he fills in addition to being Director of the Commodity Marketing and Adjustment Group, draws a salary of $14,800; his salary as Assistant Secretary would be $15,000. Mr. Short, in his capacity as Director of Foreign Agricultural Service, has an authorized salary of $14,800; his salary as Assistant Secretary would be $15,000. Neither of these positions of Assistant Secretary nor the positions now held by Messrs. Davis and Short are under the civil service. Mr. Richard D. Aplin is presently Director of Departmental Administration. If the position of Administrative Assistant Secretary of Agriculture is authorized, it is intended that Mr. Aplin will be appointed to that position. In his present position he draws a salary of $11,300 and the position is not under civil service. The proposed position of Administrative Assistant Secretary of Agriculture is under civil service and the salary authorized for it will be $14,800. While these proposed new positions will result in a total increase in salaries of $3,900 over the present authorized salaries described above, the overall personnel and budget of the immediate Office of the Secretary will not be increased as the result of the pending reorganization plan. Reductions in other personnel of the immediate Office of the Secretary will more than offset the increase above mentioned of $3,900. I trust the foregoing will give you the information you desire to have. If there is any further information you desire, please do not hesitate to request it. Your assurance of continued interest in the Department is greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, E. T. BENSON, Secretary. Senator JOHNSTON. Turning to another aspect of this question, the proponents of this plan would have the Congress believe that without Reorganization Plan No. 2 the Department of Agriculture will fall to pieces. That is just not true. The Department of Agriculture has one of the most energetic management improvement and manpower utilization programs in the Federal Government. The program, moreover, is under the general direction of the Assistant Secretary. He is assisted, in turn, by an executive committee composed of the Director of Personnel, the Director of the Budget, the Director of Plant and Operations, and the Director of Information. The Assistant Secretary serves as chairman. This group, assisted by Bureau management-improvement groups, is responsible for some 2,500 improvements in the Department since 1944. The Department, therefore, is always on the alert for improving its organizational structure, promoting the utilization of its employees, and improving and streamlining its procedures. Therefore, I believe that rather than grant the new Secretary of Agriculture wide authority and power to reorganize himself, we should do three things. And these are my proposals: 1. We should provide the Secretary of Agriculture at this time with an Administrative Assistant Secretary, who would devote his time to management and organization, and we should also provide the Secretary with at least one other Assistant Secretary to assist him in the discharge of his other official duties. 2. We should encourage the Secretary to press his management improvement groups throughout the Department, in Washington and in the field, for specific and concrete proposals for improving the organizational structure and management of the Department. 3. We should invite the Secretary to bring such of these proposals as he desires to Congress for legislation or for adoption under our reorganization rules. Undoubtedly the Secretary will come forth with some sound suggestions for improvement and, when he does, I believe that we in Congress will go along with him on specific proposals. But let us preserve, as a form of insurance, the right of Congress to inspect the proposed reorganizations. I sincerely believe that here in Congress, in our committees of both Houses, we possess the type of organization that will make for critical surveillance prior to the adoption of reorganization plans. I believe that in this way we can more properly protect the interests of the American people in the field of agriculture. Reorganizations of a substantial nature in the Department of Agriculture should occur only after Congress has approved a directive, a guide, or a plan; otherwise, the risk we take is to have the traditional and sound organization of agriculture, not only in Washington, but in our own States, counties, and communities, abruptly altered. Frankly, I do not want to wake up one morning and read of fundamental changes in the organization of the Department of Agriculture as it affects my home State and county or community. I regret to say that in the last few years we have had repeated difficulties with our Secretaries of Agriculture. We seem to get either wild-eyed social and economic planners or arch reactionists. The point is this: no matter how far we might be willing to go in giving arbitrary and unlimited authority to our present Secretary of Agriculture, are you are we in Congress-ready and willing to give this same unbridled power to the next Secretary of Agriculture? Who will he be? What will be his economic and social outlook? What visions of plans will be his? And how far will he stubbornly push the reorganization of the Department in order to gain his social, economic, and political ends? These are some things for us to think about. Madam Chairman, as a concluding observation I want to say that the changes in Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, from the plan submitted to us in 1950 by President Truman, are very slight indeed. In this plan, the Farm Credit Administration is not included, but we are considering separate legislation with respect to that agency at the present time in the Committee on Agriculture. Section 4 (b) requires the Secretary "to the extent deemed practicable" to give appropriate advance public notice of any changes and shall afford an opportunity for interested persons and groups to place their views before the Department of Agriculture. That is mere window dressing. It is obvious that the Secretary would be the plaintiff, the plaintiff's counsel, the judge, and the jury under such an arrangement. Section 4 (c) states a principle that is incumbent upon all Secretaries of Agriculture, under all conditions. Section 5, relating to incidental transfers, is an improvement in that it takes away from the Secretary the authority to alter the purposes of appropriations once they have been made by Congress. Madam Chairman, for all the foregoing reasons I strongly oppose plan No. 2 and urge at this time that the subcommittee take favorable action on Senate Resolution 100. We simply do not have before the Congress any detailed reorganization of the Department of Agriculture in accordance with the intent of Congress as expressed in the Reorganization Act of 1949. I thank you. Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Senator Johnston, for your views. If I understand you correctly, I think you and I pretty much agree that there should be some changes made in the Department of Agriculture and the Government generally that would cut out the inefficiencies, the overlapping, and the duplication. Senator JOHNSTON. There is no question in my mind but what the Senator is correct in that. Senator SMITH. But you also think that the Secretary, in sending up the plan, should have been more specific in what he intends to do? Senator JOHNSTON. That is the main objection I have to the plan, and also I have the further objection that there is no cutoff period in regard to it. That might be some protection, if we had a cutoff period. Senator SMITH. Would you be willing to go along with the plan if there were a cutoff time? Senator JOHNSTON. No. I think it is too broad. I would like it to be more specific. Senator SMITH. There have been several plans which have come up to Congress, but Congress has not done anything about them, and that was, as I understand it, the reason for the Reorganization Act, so that the departments could expedite action as far as reorganization was concerned. Since Congress has not done anything about it, how would we expect to get any reorganization in the Department of Agriculture if Congress refuses to go along with a plan that is not specific, yet when a specific plan comes up they turn it down? Senator JOHNSTON. We will have to cross that bridge when we get to it so far as turning it down is concerned. If they send up a plan and are definite in what they are going to do, then I would know what I was voting on. We do not know what changes we are voting on at this particular time. That is my main objection to it. Senator SMITH. If the Secretary made changes that were not satisfactory to the Congress, would it not be in the hands of Congress to legislate preventing the changes? But I Senator JOHNSTON. Yes, Madame Chairman, that is true. know that the Senator is well aware of the fact that when you start passing legislation through the House, through the Senate, then you would be required to have hearings on it. It is a long and drawn-out process, even if you pass it. But it is very hard to pass a bill through the House and through the Senate contrary to the wishes of the Secretary of Agriculture, as I stated in the beginning. Then, too, you must bear in mind that if the Secretary of Agriculture steps over to the President and says, "Now, I am opposed to this. I think my plan of running the Agriculture Department at the present. time is the proper way," then the President vetoes the bill; then it comes back, and it must pass the House and Senate by a two-thirds vote. Senator SMITH. Senator, the plan provides that the Secretary shall consult with interested persons or groups before reorganizations may become effective. Would you not agree that this provision would require him to consult at least with the Committees on Agriculture, the committee in the House and the committee in the Senate? Senator JOHNSTON. If you will read this closely, I do not think that it requires him to do that. But he would certainly have a right to do that, and I think that he probably would take it up with the committees. I know I would if I were Secretary of Agriculture. Senator SMITH. Would you not think that any Secretary of Agriculture would come to the committees before he made any drastic changes, since he is rather dependent upon Congress for appropriations and authority? Senator JOHNSTON. I will only state, Madam Chairman, that I wrote to the Secretary about 15 days ago about a matter. I have not heard anything from him yet, although I did notice in the newspaper that he had given out a statement down home, in South Carolina, in regard to it, but he has not taken it up with me. Senator SMITH. Senator Dworshak, do you have some questions? Senator DwORSHAK. Just one question. Senator Johnston, on page 6 of your statement you point out thatprices are way down. Farm real estate values have taken a beating. Credit is hard to get. The export market for many of our basic crops is drying up. Apparently you recognize that the agricultural industry of our country is facing many critical threats, and that there should be some salutary action taken. Yet you contend that this is an inopportune time to have any reorganziation plan or to give the Secretary of Agriculture any authority to attempt to solve some of these current problems. Now, what is your approach to that? Senator JOHNSTON. My position is that the Secretary of Agriculture at the present time, as far as cutting down and saving money in the various agencies is concerned, has the authority and a right to do so. I think that he could not make certain reorganization changes. But as I have stated all along, the main thing that I question is, what is he going to do? Let us know. If he is going to take action-the essence of which would be to pass a law, let us know before he does it. Let us know just a little bit of what he is going to do. Senator DWORSHAK. He would be accountable for any changes or adjustments that he makes. If he makes any blunders, of course, the consequences will be most serious to himself and to his party. Senator JOHNSTON. There is no question about that. I think that some of the things that have been going on, in failing to answer certain questions before the committee of which I am a member-the Agriculture Committee-have been hurting back in the fields. Farmers do not know what is going to happen. It has everybody up in the air. They do not know what is going to be the farm program in regard to price supports, acreage controls, and those things. This is true down. home. Every time I go down home, they come to me, not one but many of the farmers and some of them are people who voted for Eisenhower, too. Senator DwORSHAK. I know, Senator Johnston, that you are an alert observer, and you know that the conditions about which you complain affecting agriculture today have not arisen just within the past few months, that those conditions have been a threat for a year or more, and that it is unfair to hold the present Secretary of Agriculture responsible for coming up with immediate solutions to all of these problems. You know that he has inherited this situation to a large |