officers in the Bureau of Customs. Action has thus been taken which will almost completely achieve for the Treasury Department the desirable objective of section 203 of eliminating Presidential appointment with Senate confirmation of nonpolicy making officers. Section 204 would authorize the head of a principal executive agency to delegate to subordinates the exercise of functions. The Secretary of the Treasury now has this authority by virtue of Reorganization Plan No. 26 of 1950. Section 205 would authorize the appropriation of funds to enable the head of each principal executive agency to appoint staff assistants for legal, financial, personnel, supply, management research, congressional relations, and public information matters. The objectives of this provision are in general reflected in the present organization of the Treasury Department. Title III of the bills is not of primary concern to the Treasury Department. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hoffman. Mr. HOFFMAN. No questions. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Curtis. Mr. CURTIS. There is nothing in the bill that is objectionable, though? You only comment that you have already done it in the Treasury Department? Mr. PARSONS. We are thoroughly in accord with the principles in the bill. Mr. CURTIS. This is extending it to other departments that might not be doing it. Mr. PARSONS. That is right. Mr. HARDY. Your point is that insofar as the Treasury Department is concerned, the bill is not necessary? Mr. PARSONS. We have already accomplished the major objectives. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bonner. Mr. BONNER. No questions. Mr. DONOHUE. No questions. The CHAIRMAN. You referred to the reorganization of the Internal Revenue Bureau and also to the proposed reorganization of the Customs Bureau. Mr. PARSONS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. We have already transferred to the Treasury all of the functions of the various bureaus; isn't that so? Mr. PARSONS. That is correct, with the exception of the functions of the Comptroller of the Currency. The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe that by the plan involving the Customs Bureau that the Court of Customs would be deprived of any jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that the statute names collectors in talking about that? Mr. PARSONS. We are confident it will not. We have filed a very complete statement with the Government Operations Committee of the Senate in that regard. We would be very happy to provide it for the record here if you would like to have it. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have it, because there seems to be some fear that there will be a question as to jurisdiction of the matters going to the Court of Customs if you abolish the collectors. Mr. PARSONS. We firmly believe those fears are unfounded and will be glad to provide a statement for the record. (The statement referred to above is as follows:) Re plan No. 3. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, June 2, 1952. Chairman, Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kennedy of your staff has informally asked that I give you my advice as to any possibility that any provision of the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1952 could affect in any way the jurisdiction of the United States Customs Court. It is my understanding that there has been some discussion as to whether the abolition by section 1 of the plan of the offices of collectors of customs to which appointments are required to be made by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate would cause or permit any change in the statutory right of protest against certain decisions granted by sections 514 and 516 (b), as amended, of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1514, 1516 (b)). I suppose a question might similarly arise as to whether the abolition of the office of appraiser of merchandise at New York might affect the rights to appeals for reappraisement granted by sections 501, as amended, and 516 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S. C. 1501, 1516 (a)), although none has come to my attention. I can conceive of no suggestion that any other provision of the plan could affect the jurisdiction of the court in any way. Section 1 of the plan contains a direction that the functions of offices (i. e., positions) abolished by the plan, except functions abolished by the plan (i. e., those specified in section 3 (a), none of which has any relation to the jurisdiction of the court), shall be assigned to such civil-service positions as the Secretary of the Treasury may specify. All these functions were vested in the Secretary of the Treasury by Plan No. 26 of 1950 and are now exercised by the field officers specified in the statutes by virtue of their delegation from the Secretary, all without affecting the jurisdiction of the court in any way. It seems, however, that some doubt has arisen as to whether the jurisdiction of the court might be affected if the functions of making decisions which are mentioned in section 514 or 516 (b) as decisions of a collector of customs, or those mentioned in section 501 or 516 (a) as decisions of an appraiser, were assigned to a civil-service position bearing a different title, say "regional director of customs," "district commissioner of customs," "evaluator of merchandise,' "assessor of merchandise,' "" or the like. This, of course, could be done under the plan. If it were done, the result would be the equivalent of a statutory enactment substituting the new position title for the present statutory term "collector" or "appraiser," as the case might be, without any other change in the law whatsoever. An example of this may be found in section 1433, title 19, United States Code (1946 edition), where the term "Commissioner of Customs" was substituted for "Secretary of Commerce" by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946, transferring the function of prescribing certain regulations from the latter officer to the former. I assure you that the most careful reconsideration of every part of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1952 convinces me that there is nothing in it which could effect or permit any action which could affect the jurisdiction of the United States Customs Court in any way. Very truly yours, JOHN S. GRAHAM, Acting Secretary of the Treasury. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much; we appreciate your testimony. Mr. PARSONS. Thank you, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Next we have the Honorable Clarence J. McCormick, Under Secretary of Agriculture, and he will testify for us on H. R. 6243. He has been with us before and we are happy to have him with us again. STATEMENT OF CLARENCE J. MCCORMICK, UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE H. R. 6243 Mr. MCCORMICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a prepared statement, which is being distributed at this moment, which I will be glad to read and answer any questions. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed. Mr. McCORMICK. The views of the Department of Agriculture on H. R. 6243 are set out in its report of May 27, 1952, to the chairman of this committee, but I would like to go further on it. Two provisions of the bill are of particular interest to the Department of Agriculture. One would create in the Executive Office of the President a Board of Analysis for Water Development and Use. The other would authorize the President to appoint a Drainage Area Advisory Commission for each major drainage area. Presumably it would be the purpose of this board and these commissions to improve the water-resources planning and programs of the Federal Government. With this objective we are in full agreement. However, we are convinced that the proposed mechanism which is limited to review and advisory functions, while representing improvement over existing arrangements would not fully meet the major need. This need is for active leadership in coordinating the interrelated land and water resources programs and activities of the Federal Government prior to the review function. The demands upon the Nation's land and water resources are growing at a constantly accelerating rate. In meeting these demands we can no longer draw upon an expanding geographical frontier. In the past the frontier provided a margin of safety and a cushion for absorbing errors of resource misuse. These are no longer available How well we plan for the use of our limited resources and how well we carry out these plans are factors of primary importance in determining our future national security and well-being. to us. The Department of Agriculture has important responsibilities for the sound use and development of the Nation's land and water resources. Over 90 percent of the land area comprising the continental United States is devoted to agricultural use. Land in farm units makes up over 1,100,000,000 acres, or more than one-half of the total area. How these agricultural lands are used will determine not only how well the Nation's growing population will be fed, clothed, and housed this year, next year, and in the future, but will also have important effects on water supplies, stream flows, floods, and related water uses and programs. In this connection we in the Department of Agriculture view the role of the Federal Government as primarily that of rendering assistance, in close cooperation with the States and other governmental units, to the owners and users of these land and water resources to enable them to do the best possible job of production, conservation, and development. It is, of course, a well-established policy of the Federal Government to provide leadership and assistance in resources programs. Much has already been accomplished in soil and water conservation and development, flood control, navigation improvement, hydro-power development, and related land and water fields. Plans for a great amount of additional work in these fields are in various stages of completion. In the interagency studies currently under way in the ArkansasWhite-Red River Basins and in the New England-New York region the Congress and the President are striving to use the existing tools to achieve a greater measure of integration of related resources programs in these areas. As the individual departments and agencies have carried forward the parts of resources programs assigned to them, it has become increasingly apparent that there is need for some mechanism in the Executive Office for leadership in planning and carrying out integrated comprehensive land and water resources programs for major geographical regions or river basins. A primary requirement is a directive from the Congress to the executive branch that hereafter it shall prepare and present for congressional consideration comprehensive programs for the use and development of the interrelated land and water resources of major regions and river basins. The development and carrying out of such programs will require the joint participation of all responsible Federal departments and agencies in closest cooperation with the States, under the general direction and guidance of the Office of the President. To accomplish these objectives we favor the establishment in the Office of the President of a staff facility for land and water resources coordination. It would be the responsibility of this staff to act for the President in providing leadership in, and in coordinating the planning of, these comprehensive resources programs and for integrating them at the national level. Its essential role would be one of positive leadership rather than that of merely reviewing project proposals. Carrying this concept of over-all leadership in resources programs to the field level, we favor the establishment of regional or basin commissions headed by a chairman appointed by the President and charged with the responsibility of preparing comprehensive regional and river basin resources programs. Membership on these commissions should include representatives of the affected States and of the Federal departments and agencies responsible for carrying out resources programs. The leadership function of these commissions should not be diluted with any responsibilities for actually carrying out any part of such programs. This responsibility should remain, in accordance with assignment of responsibility in existing law, in the operating functional agencies. Section 1 (c) of H. R. 6243 would provide for a statement of the views of the Secretary of Agriculture as to the agricultural feasibility and desirability of any irrigation or reclamation proposal. This is an eminently wise provision. The development of new agricultural lands and additional farm units through Federal reclamation projects is an important phase of the Federal Government's broad agricultural program for which the Secretary of Agriculture is primarily responsible. The timing of such developments and their integration into the agriculture and economy of major regions and the Nation as a whole are extremely important. The services of the Department of Agriculture are available to farmers on Federal reclamation projects the same as to other farmers, although often the success of irrigation farming necessitates special assistance from agencies of the Department of Agriculture. In summary, it is our recommendation that the provisions in H. R. 6243 dealing with the establishment of a Board of Analysis for Water Development and Use and Drainage Area Advisory Commissions be amended along the lines indicated in my preceding remarks in the interest of soundly conceived, comprehensive land and water-resources programs. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Holifield. Mr. HOLIFIELD. The main suggestion you have then is, in place of having a board of analysis and review to give post mortem analysis, as you might say, you should have a board that would take the initiative in planning and recommending the type of development in these different river basins and natural-resource areas. Mr. MCCORMICK. That is exactly correct. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hoffman. Mr. HOFFMAN. Am I correct in the assumption that it is your thought that practically all these agencies, the scope of what they do, has grown so broad that each and every one of them must have a new agency to advise and guide it? Mr. MCCORMICK. Not necessarily that, Mr. Hoffman, but rather, with the thought of looking at our total water problems in the United States as one entity, that as a top commission working with each of these agencies they could give guidance that would be much more desirable if it was given in advance of the plan rather than after much time and effort had been spent in developing a plan and finding it was in error or not to their desire. Mr. HOFFMAN. Have you any estimate as to the size of that agency, the number of employees? sir. Mr. McCORMICK. We haven't gone into that point at all; no, Mr. HOFFMAN. Before we do that, wouldn't that be necessary? Mr. MCCORMICK. It would probably be desirable; yes, sir. Mr. HOFFMAN. For example, in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan all the water, with the exception of one or two small streams where the water goes down into Indiana, all the water goes into Lake Huron or Lake Michigan. Would you have an over-all agency handling that? Then in Ohio it goes the other way. They have their own system of flood control and conservation in Ohio. Mr. MCCORMICK. It is our thought that we would have the over-all committee as represented by this bill, but that it be a more active committee, one that worked in advance. |