Secretary BENSON. Mr. Loos-Karl Loos.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Will you identify yourself for the record, please? Mr. Loos. Mr. Chairman, I am Karl Loos, Solicitor for the Department of Agriculture.

I think what Secretary Benson has in mind in connection with the Internal Revenue Bureau plan, which was plan No. 1 of 1951, is that that was a specific plan that did set forth specific changes that were to be made and was what you might call a blueprint plan. It is 1 of 2 of the 28 plans that have become effective under the Reorganization Act of 1949 that was specific.

The other specific plan was plan No. 14 of 1950, I believe, setting up labor standards enforcement. That was also a specific plan.

But the Bureau of Internal Revenue plan, although it was specific, did contain a broad provision making it clear that the authorities and functions should be vested in the Secretary of the Treasury and not in the specific agencies or offices that were set up in the Bureau of Internal Revenue plan; and the Secretary of the Treasury already had authority pursuant to plan No. 26 of 1950, which was then in effect, and is still in effect, to make redelegation and redistribution of functions.

Mr. McCORMACK. Well, that wasn't the question I raised.
Mr. Loos. Now, I think the question you raised-

Mr. McCORMACK. The question

Mr. Loos. What I have said was what the Secretary had in mind. The question you raised, Mr. McCormack, I think, was that in the testimony in support of some of these other plans there was something said in the record

Mr. McCORMACK. Well, that is the point I had—

Mr. Loos. Yes.

Mr. McCORMACK. That is, that when they came up in support of the plan, they were able to give us evidence of an immediate reorganization that they had in mind.

Mr. Loos. In some of the plans, that is true-that there was that in the testimony. But the plan itself contained no specific statement or no limitation, but was comprised of these broad provisions of transfer to the head of the Department and a continuing authority in the head of the Department to delegate his functions.

Mr. McCORMACK. I think we have a meeting of the minds.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Would the gentleman from Massachusetts yield? Mr. McCORMACK. Yes; I am through.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. I think the specific plan that we have been thinking about had in detail a greater outline of what they intended to do-was the Internal Revenue Department. The rest of them were in some detail, but I don't recall any of them that carried out the length that they did in bringing up the plan for the Department of Internal Revenue, and there was certainly some latitude left to the administrator or the Secretary to carry on the program.

Now, I don't think we got in detail from any of the other departments anywhere near that amount of information.

Mr. McCORMACK. I think that is true, except in every one of them we got some detailed information.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Well, we have some here this morning, but not
Mr. McCORMACK. Not much.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. But not apparently to satisfy some people. Mr. McCORMACK. I am not going to say it isn't enough to satisfy me. I don't want to have the record show, by my questions, or I don't want to convey in the record, a misunderstanding as to my impression because I am one of the few Members of Congress who believes in a delegation of power to effectively carry out desired objectives; and I am glad to note my Republican friends are coming to my way of thinking at this particular time.

Mr. HOPE. Pardon me, if I may resume.

Is it not my understanding that these other plans, similar plans-I am speaking about the six now-concerning other executive departments, which have been approved by Congress-they went a little further, but they cover substantially the same authority as contained in this plan, except this plan limits the authority more than those plans did?

I haven't had a chance to go through the hearings in the case of the other agencies, but the clerk has handed me a bound volume containing all of the hearings, and I turn to the first one in the book, which happened to be Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1950, relating to the organization of the Department of Commerce, and I was interested in seeing what Secretary Sawyer said at that time as to what he had in mind specifically and I want to read just a couple of paragraphs here, because it is very apropos, I think, of what we are talking about now. Here is what he says-and I am reading from page 25 of the hearings:

I do not, as a practical matter, contemplate any major or significant changes, as I stated a while ago, by law; neither do we contemplate or foresee any large changes in the administration of presently legal responsibilities.

There are a few areas of bureau discretion where we shall undoubtedly require departmental approval of certain major policy actions as a matter of administrative orderliness. For example, we may wish to require that the National Airport plan be approved by the Secretary before it is formally transmitted to Congress, as required by law. Basically, however, it is expected that the individual bureaus will continue to operate substantially as they are now.

The

The only immediate transfer which we are presently considering, if this plan becomes law, is that relating to the Division of Commercial Standards of the National Bureau of Standards. For some time there has been pending a proposal for the transfer of this Division to the Office of Domestic Commerce. Director of the National Bureau of Standards, himself, has pressed for this. The transfer would involve only about 30 employees. While no final decision has been made, there does seem to be some basis for placing this operation in a promotional rather than retaining it in a scientific agency.

Reorganization Plan No. 5 would permit the Secretary to make this kind of organizational adjustment.

Now, that is what the Secretary of Commerce said at the time that he was before this committee in 1950, and he, also, makes another statement that I think is very much in line with what we are talking about now, as to just what the effective reorganization plan is, and I would like to read that, Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection. He says:

The whole question, it seems to me, is this

Mr. DAWSON. Would you mind giving us the page?

Mr. HOPE. Yes; that is page 23-the same section here.

The whole question, it seems to me, is this: As the Congressman suggested here a while ago, if you are undertaking to apply the thesis of the Hoover Commission, which is that there should be a direct line of authority from the head man on down to the lowest man, you have got to do it. You cannot make excep

tions. You cannot come in and say, "We are in favor of this plan except for the Patent Office," or "except for something else."

My feeling is that at some point you must put responsibility in the officials who are running the particular job. If they do not do the job, the thing to do is to kick them out; but they should be given the power as well as the responsibility-and though I do not claim to be familiar with others, I am familiar with the theory of this plan and the theory of this plan is that I shall have the right to run my Department as I wish, or as I direct, because I am the head of it; and I should be given the power to do that.

Now, personally, that strikes me as very sound theory.

I think that is a very good statement on behalf of this plan as well as any of the other departments, the Department of Commerce, or any other plan.

So, Mr. Chairman, if I might just take another moment or two— Mr. RIEHLMAN. You may.

Mr. HOPE. I came in while Mr. Poage was questioning you, and I am not sure I understand the question but, from the answer, I understood him to ask you if you contemplated merging the Farmers' Home Administration with the Farm Credit Administration. Was that question asked?

Secretary BENSON. I don't think directly.

Mr. HOPE. Well

Mr. POAGE. The question amounted to the same thing.

Secretary BENSON. I assumed he had that in mind. So, I commented on it.

Mr. HOPE. Well, I simply want to point out that couldn't be done under this particular plan because the Farm Credit Administration is excepted from this plan. So, there is no way that consolidation could be effected under this particular plan.

I know 2 years ago, or 3 years ago, when the other proposal was up before the committee. National Grange, or one of the other organizations did raise that objection because the Farm Credit Administration was not excepted at that time, and I think it was a very good point; but it certainly is not one that could be carried out if this plan goes into effect.

Now, I would like to ask this one question, because I think it is a question that is bothering more members of the Committee on Agriculture than any other question, when they think about the powers that might be used under that plan, either now or in the future, and that is: What is going to be done with the Soil Conservation Service?

That hasn't been gone into, has it?

Mr. POAGE. No; we had not reached that item.
Secretary BENSON. No; it hasn't.

Mr. HOPE. There has been talk, as we all know, and there has been discussion, and we have had bills before Congress that would affect the Soil Conservation Service, and the most controversial suggestion that has been made has been the work of the Soil Conservation Service be turned over to the Extension Service; and, without asking you to commit yourself on that matter, unless you care to do so, I would like to ask you: What is your general feeling on the question of whether action agencies, like the Soil Conservation Service, should be consolidated or merged with the educational agencies like the Extension Service?

Secretary BENSON. Well, Congressman Hope, I've always looked upon the Extension Service as being primarily an educational agency,

and Soil Conservation and PMA are action agencies. It has always seemed to me that these action agencies and educational agencies have a different function and, therefore, the work ought to be done in separate organizations, separate agencies.

The soil conservation district setup, as you well know, is provided under State law. This plan would not affect those districts or give the Secretary any authority over them.

It is certainly my feeling at the present that the soil-conservation program should continue very much as it is. I think it's very important, very essential, and it seems to me it ought to continue as an independence agency.

(At this point Mr. Brownson assumed the chair.)

Mr. HOPE. Well, that

Secretary BENSON. I don't see anything in particular to be gained by trying to consolidate those two agencies.

We have had a few complaints from the field that there is some overlapping at the county and State levels. Now, we hope to study that very carefully; but, generally speaking, it seems to me that it may not be practical to try to absorb Soil Conservation into Extension or Extension into Soil Conservation.

Mr. HOPE. Well, as a matter of fact, isn't it true that, excepting in a few instances, where personalities have entered into the situation, there is a very fine working relationship now between Extension and the Soil Conservation Service and between Extension and other active agencies?

Secretary BENSON. Yes; I think on the whole the relationship is excellent. I know it's excellent at the Department level. In our own Department of Agriculture the relationship is very fine; and I think, generally speaking, it is throughout the various States and counties.

Mr. HOPE. I know of no exception in my State. There is absolutely the finest kind of cooperation, and no friction and no overlapping, and the agents are working together, and my impression is that exists in most cases, and the possibility exists in most cases. We know it can exist in all cases if the matter is approached the proper

way.

Mr. Chairman, I think that concludes the questions I wanted to ask. Mr. BROWNSON (presiding). Thank you, Mr. Hope.

Now, we will hear from our colleague on the committee, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Fountain, the author of the resolution of disapproval.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

Mr. Benson, I would like to preface some questions I might ask with a comment.

I, personally, do not feel that this kind of legislation should be passed by default.

I gave quite a little study to Reorganization Plan No. 1 dealing with the Federal Security Agency, not as much as I have given this plan. I personally felt, and my mind was still open to conviction about it, that this is such far-reaching legislation that a resolution of disapproval should be introduced in the absence of an informal hearing, which we haven't had, giving the members of this committee and the

Members of Congress an opportunity to express themselves upon it and to debate its merits and demerits.

I would like to say, to show the nonpartisan way in which I introduced it, I did not know how any member of the North Carolina delegation, the State from which I come, felt about this plan, nor a member of the minority of this committee other than myself, and I would like to say also that it in no way involves personalities.

I believe I had the pleasure of meeting you for the first time this morning.

Secretary BENSON. That is correct.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. I want to say, from what I have heard and what I have read, I believe you are an honest man, sincere man, and an able

man

Secretary BENSON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. And that you will endeavor, with all of your capacities, to carry out the law and to do that which you think is for the best interests of not only the farmers but all of the people of America.

It is a matter of principle with me as to how far Congress is going in the direction of continued centralization of power in the hands of a few people, however honorable their intentions may be; the extent to which Congress is going to delegate its legislative authority without the opportunity of vetoing any plan or proposal which might be offered.

I have spent many hours-I might say days going through the Reorganization Act of 1949, reading it word for word, phrase for phrase, and sentence for sentence, and I am convinced now, in my own thinking, notwithstanding the opinion of your Solicitor, that there is no authorization in the Reorganization Act of 1949 for this particular plan; and, with that thought in mind, I should like to ask you a few questions in particular about the plan and certain questions with respect to the Reorganization Act of 1949.

I was hoping the members of the majority committee would have an opportunity to hear these questions.

Do you have a copy of the Reorganization Act of 1949?

I wonder if you would pass these around to the members.

I have underlined in each of these copies-the Reorganization Act of 1949, as extended-those things which I consider pertinent in making a determination as to whether or not this plan complies even with the letter, the intent, or the spirit of the Reorganization Act.

May I invite your attention, Mr. Benson, to section 8 of the Reorganization Act, which you will find on page 4.

(Sec. 8 is a follows:)

MATTERS DEEMED TO BE REORGANIZATIONS

SEC. 8. For the purposes of this Act the term "reorganization" means any transfer, consolidation, coordination, authorization, or abolition, referred to in section 3.

Secretary BENSON. Yes; I have it.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. Section 8 reads as follows:

For the purposes of this Act the term "reorganization" means any transfer, consolidation, coordination, authorization, or abolition, referred to in section 3. Now, in that section 8 you have the definition of reorganization, but it hinges upon the content of section 3.