« 이전계속 »
extent, and he has to have some time to work out desirable policies that will solve these problems.
Senator JOHNSTON. I am not blaming any one individual man. But I do say that we have to be very careful in what we do in the Department of Agriculture at the present time, with things changing as they are in economic conditions. Our world market on a great many of our commodities has shrunk. And we may face a low market in the United States. That is something that is really troubling me a great deal, and I know it is troubling the Senator from Idaho.
Senator DWORSHAK. That is right. I think that that is the responsibility of Congress. Congress ought to do something, if any. thing can be done, to solve that problem.
Senator JOHNSTON. That is true. And for your information, we are holding hearings every day in our Committee on Agriculture and have been for weeks now, working on that very thing, world trade.
Senator DWORSHAK. Thank you, Senator. That is all.
Senator BUTLER. Senator, if it is true that the Congress sets the policy which the Secretary of Agriculture in the operations of the Department must observe, why should he not have a free hand in the reorganization to see that his Department carries out in the most economically and direct way the policies of Congress?
Senator JOHNSTON. I would like to answer the Senator from Maryland by saying that our American way of life does not center in any one man the right to change hundreds of laws on the statute books without the Congress knowing what is going to be changed. That is what I am worrying about at the present time.
Senator BUTLER. That is the point that I am raising. Does he have that power?
Senator JOHNSTON. What is that?
Senator JOHNSTON. I think it will change some of the laws. Some of your departments were set up
Senator BUTLER. Tell me how that would operate.
Senator JOHNSTON. Some of the agencies were set up under specific acts and under this proposal those constituent agencies may be separated. Under this plan I think that he could consolidate those various and sundry agencies.
Senator BUTLER. Yes. But their function and purpose would be the same, and they would have to comply with the law. They would just report to a different person, would they not?
Senator JOHNSTON. You can make one subservient to the other, too. And sometimes you could take one and practically put it out of existence by such subservience, which I do not think was intended by the lawmakers when they created the respective agencies.
Senator BUTLER. I do not think he could do that. A man would be subject to impeachment if he did that sort of thing.
Senator JOHNSTON. No; not if you passed this. If you approve this reorganization plan, I think you give him a blanket power.
Senator BUTLER. I am sincere about this. I am as much interested in this as you are. There is nobody in Congress that is more interested in preserving American Government than I am, and I would be fearful of any plan which would permit any public servant, the President of the United States included, to overrun and impinge on any act of the Congress. But I do not think that this does that, and I would like for you to point out to me wherein you think it does it.
Senator JOHNSTON. Where it
Senator BUTLER. Yes. How could this reorganization effect a change in the policies as laid down by the Congress?
Senator JOHNSTON. It gives him a right to go into and consolidate all of the agencies that it does not exclude; all of them, except the ones that you exclude in this reorganization, every one of them.
Senator BUTLER. Does the consolidation of a department change policy? It still is bound by law to do a certain thing. And so long as it does it economically and within the framework of the law, what difference does it make who he reports to?
Senator JOHNSTON. I think it amounts to a lot. Subservience is the key. Probably we differ in our views in regard to it.
Senator BUTLER. No. We may have exactly the same view. I am hunting for light. This is a new thing to me. I have not given any consideration to this plan. But I would say this: If you set up a department or agency of Government in the executive branch, at the time we do it most usually, we do not spell out every little detail who shall do this and who shall do that. That is why we appoint competent men to head these departments. We lay down the general policies. We tell them what we want them to do, and then we put them to work to do it. We do not sit there at their desk all day and see that they do it.
Senator JOHNSTON. I do not believe that the Senator was here when I started at first. I cited at that time House Report No. 166, regarding the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and on page 9 you will find where the Congress is told what the plan proposes to do. That is what I want them to do in this plan.
Senator BUTLER. That is a mere table of organization, and that table of organization, if it was found after that plan had been adopted that that table of organization was bulky and unworkable, would not the department head have a chance and a right to move one fellow over from here to there without coming back to the Congress?
Senator Johnson. That was given to us, though, as a guiding light for what they were going to do.
Then you will find again here, in Reorganization Plan No. 1, a chart showing just what was proposed, what changes were being made, and all. That is what I want done in this particular plan.
Senator McCLELLAN. Is that the Bureau of Internal Revenue?
Senator JOHNSTON. This the Department of the Treasury, reorganization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Senator BUTLER. Is that No. 1 of 1952?
Senator JOHNSTON. This is plan No. 1 of 1952, and you will find this map on page 9.
Senator BUTLER. Everybody has been very highly critical of that plan, and a lot of them are sorry they voted for it.
Senator JOHNSTON. I voted against that plan.
Senator BUTLER. But what does it mean? No basic law has been disturbed. And it may have been better if the collector or the Commissioner had had a little more latitude. Maybe he could now change some of that.
Senator JOHNSTON. That is your argument, and mine is that I want to know what we are going to do. That is the only thing.
Senator BUTLER. I will admit that I am in a new field, and maybe I have not caught up with my reasoning and theory of government.
Senator JOHNSTON. I know the Senator from Maryland keeps up in everything. We just might have a different philosophy.
Senator BUTLER. I was going to say that when the Senator from Georgia made a pretty strict analysis of this plan, I started to think about it. I would like to have some light on this plan. But I would like to say that up to the moment I do not see where I have heard that there is any real danger inherent in this plan.
Senator SMITH. Are there any further questions?
Senator McClellan is here. Senator McClellan, do you have some observations or questions?
Senator McCLELLAN. Only 1 or 2 questions or observations, Madam Chairman.
The Senator has just referred to the blueprint or plan that was carried out and was submitted along with the reorganization plan of the Bureau of Internal Revenue of the Treasury Department. Now, some say that they are unhappy about it. But at least we had before us a blueprint as to how it was to be reorganized. The plan was spelled out in considerable detail, and everyone knew what changes were going to be made, and how the structure would be changed.
So whether it was good or bad, we had it before us. 1 anticipate I do not know--that Secretary Benson will come down here and present to this committee and to the Congress a similar plan, a similar blueprint. If he does not, I will not vote for this. I can say that very frankly. And even if I approve this plan, if I agree to it generally, that is, as a good reorganization, I would vote for it most reluctantly because we are voting on the basis of promises as to what will be done and not voting for a law that spells out what is to be done.
That is the thing that I think is inherently wrong in all of this reorganization. We are given to taking somebody's promise as to how he is going to do something and how he is going to use the power without submitting a plan saying how the department or the agency will be reorganized.
Now, there is just one thing that the Senator in his prepared statement stated with which I do not quite agree. Some of the statements of the Senator I do agree with very much. But he intimated, at least, that this was no time to reorganize the Department of Agriculture, that reorganization should be deferred because we do not have a longrange farm program as yet, and we have to make a change in that, or the present program will soon expire, and we had better wait.
I do not agree with that. The Department of Agriculture will continue to function with whatever program we have, and it is essential and necessary that very substantial reorganizations be made in it before we determine finally the long-range program, whatever it may be, and that is the responsibility of Congress.
I am anxious to see reorganization, and I want to vote for a plan to reorganize it. But there is a matter of principle I want to preserveI do not want to vote for blanket authority. I did not vote for the Bureau of Internal Revenue plan, but in all fairness they did come down here with a blueprint and laid it right on the line and said what they were going to do.
Now, there is one promise they gave that some of our friends think they did not keep, and that was with reference to civil service, the selection of collectors or deputy commissioners or whatever they were named under the plan. But so far as the basic structure of reorganization, they set it out most clearly, and we had it before us, and so far as I know, they carried out that basic reorganization just as they blueprinted it in the chart to which the Senator has referred.
My hope is-I may express this, and I do not know how I am going to vote on this resolution as yet-my hope is that the Secretary of Agriculture will come down here with a similar blueprint and chart showing exactly what he proposes to do if this power is delegated to him under the reorganization plan. If and when he does that, I would like to make a suggestion—I do not suppose it will be given much consideration--but then I should like to suggest that the President withdraw this plan and send down a plan embodying and incorporating what the Secretary says he is going to do if this authority is granted. If it is all right then, I would be most happy to vote for it, and I think that there is some urgency about this.
I think that the Department needs reorganization. I think that we should get to it. But I would like some time to find a way for the Congress to get legislation through on reorganization without blanket delegation of power and authority over which we then lose control.
The Senator from Maryland here raised the question, and I believe the chairman did, about the necessity of this plan requiring the Secretary to consult with interested groups. He may do so if he thinks it practicable to do so.
Senator JOHNSTON. He does not have to do it.
Senator McCLELLAN. Now, if he does not deem it practicable, he does not have to consult with anyone.
And another thing, about these consultations; they generally mean that the Secretary, or whoever has that authority to consult, simply tells you what he is going to do, and listens to you if he wants to and then goes on and does as he pleases anyhow. There is nothing to keep him from doing as he wants to after consultation.
The point that I am making here is that I want to keep some control of these reorganizations in the Congress, and as I vote for a plan, I want to think I see--at least think I see what the reorganization is going to be like after it is consummated.
That is my objection to this plan. If I vote against it, I will do so most reluctantly. But I do see a way out if the Secretary will come down here and lay before us a blueprint, a chart, as the Bureau of Internal Revenue did last year on plan No. 1. But if he does not do that, I cannot vote for this delegation of power.
Thank you, Vadam Chairman.
Senator JOHNSTON. I do not think that the Senator differs with my statement too much. Of course, in regard to his statement that he did not agree that now was not the time, I believe and agree with the Senator that there ought to be some reorganization and I stated so in my remarks. I want that plainly understood.
I think that we need some reorganization in the Department, and I so told the chairman when I was discussing the matter with her a few minutes ago. But I think my proposals indicate the way we should go about it.
Senator SMITH. The Chair would like to include in the record 2 or 3 observations, simply for the record, not as arguments for the plan.
There has been considerable discussion about the need for reorganization. Some state that it should come by legislation. The Chair feels that was the reason why we had the Reorganization Act, that we could not seem to do the things that were necessary by legislation. As an example of that, and our own reference to 2 additional Assistant Secretaries, the Senator may remember about 2 years ago that the Cooley bill came in to provide for 2 additional Secretaries, and was passed by the House but failed in the Senate. Yet the need for the two officials was justified at that time by the committee.
Does the Senator remember that?
Senator Smith. There has been some difference of opinion as to the delegation of functions, and for the record the Chair would like to read section 4, delegation of functions, section (b):
To the extent that the carrying out of subsection (a) of this section involves the assignment of major functions or major groups of functions to major constituent organizational units of the Department of Agriculture, now or hereafter existing, or to the heads or other officers thereof, and to the extent deemed practicable by the Secretary, he shall give appropriate advance public notice of delegations of functions proposed to be made by him and shall afford appropriate opportunity for interested persons and groups to place before the Department of Agriculture their views with respect to such proposed delegations.
It seems to the Chair that any Secretary would always deem it practicable to keep the Congress informed.
There have been references made also to the differences between the last plan and the present plan, and for the record I would like to read an excerpt from a staff memorandum explaining the differences between the two plans:
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 differs from Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1950 in that
(a) functions of the Farm Credit Administration are not transferred to the Secretary:
(6) the Secretary is required to give public notice of major changes in the departmental structure with opportunity afforded to interested persons and groups for presentation of their views;
(c) in any redistribution of functions, the Secretary is specifically required to simplify and make efficient any operations effected thereby;
(d) the Secretary is required to place the administration of farm programs close to the State and local levels and to adapt the administration of programs to regional, State, and local conditions; and
(e) a limitation is established on the transfer of any unexpended balances of appropriations to insure that they shall be used only for the purposes for
which such appropriations were originally made. (The staff memorandum referred to appears on p. 6.)
Are there any further questions or observations that anyone would care to ask or make to the Senator from South Carolina?
Senator JOHNSTON. I have just one letter here that I would like to put into the record. It is from the president of the South Carolina Farm Bureau, relative to Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1950.
I would like to put that into the record.
Senator Smith. Without objection it will be included in the hearings along with your statement.
(The letter referred to is as follows:)