there has been no shifting of power away from central Government to the farmers. This is a specific indication in legislative terms of a bona fide intention to carry out the expressed intentions that came forward with plan No. 2.

In 1950 a plan was submitted to the Congress ostensibly reorganizing the Department of Agriculture. We opposed that plan then. We would oppose the same plan now. We would oppose it because that plan did not provide for the safeguards outlined above which are contained in the present plan.

Finally, this plan does not give the Secretary of Agriculture authority to abolish the function of any agency. The Reorganization Act of 1949 authorizes the abolition of functions provided the plan submitted under that act contains express provisions to do so. However, there is nothing in plan No. 2 with respect to the abolition of any functions.

In the execution of this plan, I would expect some people to lose their jobs. I would expect some Federal employees to be shifted to other agencies. I would expect some reports to flow to different agency supervisors-and some even eliminated. I would expect a smaller Federal budget. I would expect more privates and fewer generals in the army of paid agricultural employees. I would expect agencies with the best competence to maintain their position of leadership. I would expect truly State-controlled agencies to have a larger role in future essential programs. I would expect the various affected paid employees, or those who speak for them, to present their grievances to you. Also, I would expect you to hear from those who wish to continue the drift toward more Federal control. We will hear from them too. I will consider their source and weigh them for what they are worth.

As a spokesman for farmers, and as a taxpayer, my concern however will be whether a reorganization effort gets more service to farmers for the amount of money spent, whether farmers themselves have a larger voice in guiding the operation of Government agencies serving them, whether or not State and local units of government are strengthened, and whether the net effect will provide an improved mechanism for dealing with the farmers' economic problems in a way that doesn't lessen our ability to protect our individual freedoms. When reorganization is effected in accordance with the fundamental principles of Reorganization Plan No. 2 and action taken consistent with our resolutions previously quoted, I am confident that we will have taken an important step toward achieving these goals.

As one closing word, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read into the record, if it would meet with your approval, an editorial that appeared in the Washington Post of Thursday, May 21, 1953, which I think does a very good job of summing this up. It is relatively short. Mr. RIEHLMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. WOOLLEY. It is entitled "New Look for Agriculture" and it states as follows:

The opposition that has been raised against the President's plan to reorganize the Department of Agriculture flies directly in the face of the principles laid down by the bipartisan Hoover Commission. The Commission concluded that each executive department should have a "clear line of command from the top to the bottom"; that the head of each department should be held responsible for all its activities and that he should therefore be able to adjust and improve

the organization under him. These principles are basic to both economy and efficiency in government. They have already been applied in various other departments, and it would be a grave error for Congress to prevent their application to Agriculture.

Some critics of the plan seem to think that it would permit the abolition of important functions prescribed by Congress. Secretary Benson completely exploded that idea when he appeared before the Senate Committee on Government Operations the other day. The plan would permit the Secretary to shift functions from one agency to another, but no function could be abolished in whole or in part. At present, the Secretary has full control over only half of the 20 agencies in his Department. If he is to be held responsible for administering the Nation's agricultural program, he should obviously exercise supervision over all the agencies working toward that end.

There are, however, some functions that the Secretary could not transfer under the plan, including the functions of hearing examiners and those of the corporations within the Department. Indeed, the Farm Credit Administration is also placed beyond reach of the function-transfer power, thus eliminating from the present plan one of the most controversial parts of the reorganization plan that Congress rejected in 1950.

One other improvement in the existing plan is its procedural safeguards. The Secretary could transfer functions only after consulting with major farm groups, and his changes would have to aim at simplifying the Department's operations, enhancing its efficiency, adapting its programs to regional and local conditions, and keeping administration close to the grass roots. Surely all these aims are in accord with the wishes of Congress.

The plan also calls for 2 additional Assistant Secretaries and 1 Administrative Assistant Secretary. These new positions are urgently needed to reduce the administrative load on the Secretary. Agriculture is the only department with but one Assistant Secretary. The additions would involve only minor outlays; the total budget for the Secretary's Office in fiscal 1954 is below the outlay for this year.

If Congress will consider this reorganization plan on its merits, the concurrent resolution designed to upset it will be consigned to the dust bin.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Do you have any questions, Mr. Fountain?

Mr. FOUNTAIN. I should like permission to insert into the record immediately following the editorial a letter which I addressed to the editor of the Washington Post in answer to that editorial. However, when it gets here from my office I may like to read it into the record. Mr. RIEHLMAN. Whichever you prefer, Mr. Fountain.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. As I understand the major opposition of the American Farm Bureau Federation to the plan of 1950, known as Reorganization Plan No. 4, was primarily due to the fact that the Farm Credit Administration was not exempted, is it not?

Other

Mr. WOOLLEY. No, sir; that is only one of the reasons. reasons were that there was a definite question as to whether the power would be used to decentralize or whether it would be used to further concentrate power. On the basis of the record, it was reasonable to conclude that if there was power vested in the Secretary at that time, that it would be used not to decentralize but to further centralize, which would of course be in direct contradiction to the resolutions of the American Farm Bureau Federation. A resolution to this effect has been passed annually by the Farm Bureau since 1937.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. You are speaking in terms of a man who happened to be Secretary of Agriculture at that time?

Mr. WOOLLEY. No. I am speaking of the difference between plan No. 2 and plan No. 4. Plan No. 2 specifically directs the Secretary to simplify and make more efficient and to adapt the program to local conditions and put the control of the program in the hands of the local people. This is in the plan. This was not in plan No. 4 of

1950, and on the basis of the record at that time it was clear that the authority would probably be used in the direction of centralization rather than in the reverse direction.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. But with respect to the authority which the Secretary of Agriculture received pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 2, and Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1950, the authority vested in the Secretary is the same, isn't it?

Mr. WOOLLEY. I didn't get your question.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. The authority vested in the Secretary of Agriculture by Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1950 and Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 is essentially the same, is it not?

Mr. WOOLLEY. I view it as very essentially different and I strongly disagree with the statements that are made to the effect they are one and the same. There are 3 or 4 fundamentally different points, practically any 1 of which would make a strong differentiation between the 2 plans.

The direction to decentralize is given and the Secretary cannot avoid giving recognition to that direction in the plan. The fact that he can make no major organizational changes except after having given everyone interested an opportunity to be heard is an extremely important difference, and I think a very important difference is the one which says that the funds, the unexpended balances of the appropriations shall be used for the purpose for which they are appropriated. I think that is very important.

All of that, plus the fact that the Farm Credit Administration is not in this plan and there is specific legislation which is proposed before the Congress to decentralize the Farm Credit Administration, all of those are of extreme significance and the people who are saying that there is no difference apparently are predicating their comments on the fact that both plans are short because any close reading or comparison of the plans impels you to the position that they are very, very fundamentally different.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. I disagree with you. Before you have decentralization, in both plans there is too much centralization of authority. The only thing there is in the plan is the instruction that he is to do a certain amount of decentralizing or simplifying, but there is nothing in the plan as to what is meant by decentralization. It is up to the Secretary of Agriculture.

Mr. WOOLLEY. By that statement you are omitting completely any reference to the Farm Credit Administration which has been a very controversial subject for years.

As the farmers have progressively obtained a greater and greater interest in the capital of the Farm Credit Administration, they have believed that they ought to have more to say about it but no one has taken any steps in that direction. Resistance on the part of the Federal Government has been encountered at every step taken to try to give the farmers real control. I will grant you there have been all kinds of cases and attempts made to put the face on it that there is real control in the hands of farmers. But it hasn't been real. It has only been pseudo.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. Is it your opinion that the Secretary of Agriculture has to call in interested persons, farm leaders, and others interested in this?

Mr. WOOLLEY. The express language of the bill is such that while it says that to the extent practicable he shall do so and so, that in substance means that he has to do it. Any Secretary of Agriculture who makes any major changes without calling interested persons in and giving them an opportunity to be heard will be putting himself in such a position that it will do him infinitely more damage than it will ever possibly do him any good and for practical purposes, that is a strict limitation on the Secretary of Agriculture.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. I think you are right about that, but quite often where a man has a lot of power, where a department head has too much power, he may suffer the consequences of any wrongdoing, whether intentionally or unintentionally, but at the same time other people suffer the consequences from power improperly used.

I would like to read this statement, Mr. Chairman, this letter which I dictated to the Washington Post in answer to the editorial which was read by Mr. Woolley. It is as follows:

DEAR SIR: I very much enjoyed your thoughtful editorial of May 21 about the reorganization plan for the Department of Agriculture, but I was disappointed that it did not mention a couple of the basic considerations which have been brought out in the hearings hy which Congress has tried to learn the reasons for requesting such broad authority.

The Secretary of Agriculture has not yet disclosed to the Congress what serious moves he may have in mind. On at least two earlier occasions, after asking to be excused from discussing any specifics, he has promptly taken reorganization steps. These moves were made with only his existing authority, causing some of us to be concerned about what he might choose to do with unlimited authority.

This point was made forcefully by the farm organizations in 1950, when President Truman asked for the same reorganization plan.

John H. Davis, testifying for the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, said on May 2 that the plan "leaves too much open to discretion and too much latitude for the people who are carrying it out." He also said that "Congress should assume the responsibility for the laying out of the general outline of organization." Pointed out that farm policy was in a state of flux (which it still is) and stated that "it is going to be very difficult for any Secretary of Agriculture *** to build and put into effect from within the Department the outline of a sound reorganization."

The American Farm Bureau Federation, represented by its vice president, Romeo E. Short, felt strongly that the reorganization plan "is really not a plan. A plan should have recommendations, framework, and structure. Plan 4 does not have these. It is therefore not a plan."

The opinions of Mr. Davis and Mr. Short have long been given great weight in agricultural circles-so much so that both men are now top administrators in the Department of Agriculture. Secretary Benson has announced, in fact, that they will be made Assistant Secretaries if Congress approves the reorganization plan, with its provision for two additional positions of that rank.

Extensive hearings on this plan have failed to adduce facts or opinions as to why conditions are any different now than they were 3 years ago when this same authority was articulately opposed and soundly defeated.

As one who comes from an agricultural district, and who is vitally interested in our farm programs, I am well aware that a Secretary must have latitude to run his Department, but I submit that Congress likewise has to be assured that the programs it authorizes will be carried out as it intends. The Washington Post very properly points out about the plan that "no function could be abolished in whole or in part," but we all know that abolition is only one of many forms of mortality. In fact, abolition is the easiest form to correct or reverse by congressional action.

The Secretary testified, first, that he needed this extremely broad authority, but, second, that he had no plans to use it on any agency within the Department. As several Senators asked him at the time: Why, then, does he need it? We are still awaiting the answers.

Many friends of the Department of Agriculture opposed this same plan 3 years ago because no outline was presented for use of the extraordinary authority. The Administration may easily obviate its difficulty-if, indeed, there is any difficulty-by answering the questions of Congress. Your argument that sound principles of public administration call for adequate authority in the chief to do his job is well taken; but blanket authority in government can produce dangerous results, certainly, when dealing with an agency that affects the lives of so many people, directly or indirectly, Congress is entitled to answers to the many questions raised.

Meanwhile, it is apparent from your favorable reference to the Hoover Commission that you were not aware that the task force on agriculture of that Commission testified most vehemently against the plan 3 years ago.

Let me reassure you that many of us who are opposing the plan in this form may be inclined to favor it whenever it is supplemented by complete candor on the part of those who seek its sweeping authority and a reasonable outline of the proposed framework of the plan.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Do you have any questions, Mr. Polk?

Mr. POLK. Yes, I have a question. First of all, I would like to say that I have a very high regard for Mr. Frank Wooley, who has appeared here. I have known him for a number of years. I am sorry I did not have an opportunity of hearing all your testimony.

I was wondering if you would review for me why the American Farm Bureau Federation has reversed itself since the former opposition to the former reorganization plan.

Mr. WOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Polk. I am glad you asked me that question just that way because the American Farm Bureau Federation has not reversed itself. The American Farm Bureau Federation opposed Reorganization Plan No. 4 in 1950 and it would oppose the same plan now. We believe that this plan is substantially different and the belief is predicated on about 4 or 5 major points.

No. 1, the Farm Credit Administration is not included in this plan. It was included in plan No. 4 and we have all along felt like we should put more control in the hands of the owners and the farmers participating in the system and we believe that a board appointed as provided in the draft of numbered H. R. 4353, would do a lot toward moving it out toward the real control by the farmers out in the country. That is not included in the plan and the draft of the pending bill has been approved by the Grange, the National Cooperative Counsel, the executive committee of the N. F. L. A., the executive committee of the P. C. A. and the banks for cooperatives. This is a very fundamental proposition.

No. 2, this plan specifically directs the Secretary to decentralize, to place administration close to State and local levels. We are all for that. In all my experience in the Department of Agriculture, I have always worked for real local control. There has been a group always who talked a very, very good game about being in favor of local control, but all they wanted to do was to give the appearance that there was local control but have invisible strings run back into Washington and pull the strings back here. I could enumerate my experiences and I am sure you know that there are matters that I could bring up that deal with that point specifically.

Here is a plan which says, "You shall go in this direction."

The other plan was silent. Plan No. 4 did not say in which direction you should go, and there is considerable difference in a plan which specifically directs the Secretary to go in the direction that the Farm Bureau wants to go and a plan that is completely silent.