Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Mr. GRISWOLD. Now, your relations with the Department of Agriculture-I am not interested in the name of this child, but I am interested in its physiology. As I understand that, years ago, due to necessity of getting some department that would understand agriculture, this was originally carved out of the Department of Agriculture or some other department-I mean the Department of the Interior or some other department and made into the Department of Agriculture, with that one purpose in view of having a department that was specialized along agricultural lines; is not that true?

Mr. JONES. I do not know whether it was carved out of some other department or not. It was created, I understand, on the recommendation of some of the Cabinet officers, and possibly it was the Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Now, has not this happened

Mr. JONES. But as I understand it, it was created as an independent agency, as an independent branch of the Government. Of course, its function and its jurisdiction were probably much more limited than they are now, because the Government activity, all business and commerce, was on a much smaller scale.

Mr. GRISWOLD. That is what I am after and what I would like to have the opinion of the Chair on: This child, as it grew up, has reached out and grasped other things that are not, in my opinion, closely related to agriculture, and so diversified itself that it has lost some of its viewpoint of being a specialist in agriculture and reached out into other things.

Mr. JONES. That is possibly true and I think it is probably true of some of the other Departments.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I agree with you. In view of that, if we are to have the benefit of agriculture if agriculture is to have a department that will be specifically interested and active in agricultural matters, would it not be right and proper, in order to lop off some of these loose limbs, to put it somewhere else?

Mr. JONES. Personally, I see no objection to the proposal to do that with any Department that may have exceeded the boundary of what it should logically cover, but I certainly think that you ought not pick out one. If you are going to do that, I think they should all stand on the same dead level of equality.

[ocr errors]

Mr. GRISWOLD. I agree with you, but would it not be possible for you to make a start here to divest the Department of Agriculturewhether you put it in the Department of the Interior or change its name or anything else would it not be possible to divest this Department of its surplus activities, and put them somewhere else?

Mr. JONES. If the committee saw fit to do that, it can do it. I do not see any reason why you should single out agriculture. This committe has jurisdiction of this subject and I do not feel like it would be proper for me to undertake to suggest just what it should do in an affirmative way along that line, but I certainly think that, in the enactment of general legislation, it should be general in its

terms.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I cannot see that this is specifically directed at the Department of Agriculture, myself.

Mr. JONES. Well, it may not be, but I think it would most specifically affect it, because of some very vital conservation matters that are in the Department of Agriculture, and it would authorize the transfer of all of those to the Department of the Interior.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Provided that investigation by the President showed that they could be more economically administered.

Mr. JONES. Yes; but after he did, no matter how poorly they might be operated, after he got them in there you could not get them out. I object to sealing them there when you put them there.

Mr. GRISWOLD. There is nothing to keep the Congress from correcting its error.

Mr. JONES. Yes; you have the same difficulty of securing affirmative legislation.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. One or two questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GASQUE. Mr. Whittington.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Jones, I pass from section 1 to section 2 of this bill, section 2 being the real heart of the measure. I want to call your attention to that which you have already indicated, that section 2 merely provides for the transfer of boards, bureaus, divisions, and agencies from one executive branch of the Government to the other. I ask you what economy would be promoted by transferring wholly, one of these bureaus or agencies from one executive branch to the other?

Mr. JONES. I cannot say, as a general proposition, that it would effect any economy. There might be some special circumstances where that would be true, but, ordinarily, if it is a complete bureau or complete division, it seems to me that would depend upon the administration of that division; and whether it was in A building or C building or in this department or that department would not probably affect its economy, unless

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I remind you that, in all legislation heretofore passed by Congress, including the act of 1932, June 1932, and March 1933, for the reorganization of the executive departments, if the legislation did not stop with the initial matter of transfer, it provided, as it probably should, for reorganization, for regrouping, for the elimination of duplication and waste.

Mr. JONES. I thank the gentleman for that suggestion.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. If section 2 is to be considered, and if the burden for these bureaus and these services is upon the Congress-I am going to refer to that in just a moment-it does strike me that we should at least provide for regrouping, for elimination, as well as for the transfer and for abolition; otherwise there would be no economy in merely transferring bodily a group from one executive branch to the other.

Mr. JONES. That sounds very reasonable.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Now, Mr. Jones, we have heard a lot about elimination of waste and extravagance in the bureaus, and so on. You have been in Congress for 18 years. I direct your attention to this point: Is it not true that practically all of the boards, the bureaus, and services have been established within the departments by Executive orders of the Presidents?

Mr. JONES. I understand that most of them have been. I have not listed those specifically, but I understand, generally, that is true. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Occasionally here and there and no one probably knows the difficulties more than you-Congress has provided by statute for the establishment of agencies or bureaus, and if Congress has seen fit to do that, it strikes me that if they were established by Congress, any legislation for the abolition of those agencies shall be

by Congress, as was the case of the act of 1932, so that the action was to be taken affirmatively by Congress. But inasmuch as practically all of these bureaus, these agencies, and so on, have been established by Executive order, it strikes me that the Executive has the power and the authority, if that is to be recommended-if it is to be for efficiency to abolish those bureaus and divisions that he had the power to establish, whether that President be a Democract or a Republican. Now, we are asking here to provide for the transfer of boards from one executive department to the other. I think that we ought to have the benefit of concrete examples, so that we can go to the Congress of the United States, if we are to report this bill, and put our finger on the department or bureaus here and there that could be better transferred from one department to the other.

Therefore, I ask you if you know of any department or bureau or agency in the Department of Agriculture that could be transferred with greater efficiency and greater economy to some other department or executive agency of the Government?

Mr. JONES. I do not. I certainly think that it should be specific, with the affirmative action, in each instance reserved to the Congress. Mr. WHITTINGTON. And you agree with the general statement that, if we are to provide for reorganization of the executive departments, we ought to provide not only for the mere transfer, but do what we did in the economy act

Mr. JONES. Yes.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Provide for regrouping

Mr. JONES. And abolishing and consolidating. I think that is correct, or at least it would seem so.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. With full power or authority to transfer various sections to other departments.

Now, Mr. Jones, something was said by the gentleman from Massachusetts, about the Executive order of the President of the United States, transmitted to Congress in December 1932. The Executive order, as I recall, provided for the transfer of the Alien Property Custodian, and the very first thing it provided for was the establishment of the Bureau of Public Works; and the first witness that appeared at the hearing was the Director of the Budget, under the Republican administration, who testified that there would not be one dollar saved to the Government by any of the transfers, and for that reason Congress passed the resolution

Mr. JONES. I may suggest to you that I had not thought of that until the question was raised. The old Farm Board was abolished under the terms of that order.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Yes; but all that was accomplished in-—

Mr. JONES. In the transfers. I cannot see where much was accomplished.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. That was accomplished, and we gave the President twice the power to regroup, to consolidate, and to eliminate and to abolish, and practically only the economies that have resulted in that regard, that were affirmative by the Congress-

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Were the two economy acts that we passed in 1932 and 1933. In other words, the situation is, so far as economy and efficiency is concerned, the agencies established largely by the Executive have never been recommended to be abolished or eliminated by him, although we have twice given him the power to do it.

Mr. JONES. I desire to thank you.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. One further question: It is your thought then that if we pass the legislation here for economy and for the elimination of useless expenditures and duplication, we ought to go very much further than section 2 shows, and provide for regrouping and consolidation and abolition?

Mr. JONES. I would think so; yes. men for the courtesy of this hearing.

I desire to thank you gentle

Mr. HOUSTON. You mean eliminate some of the bureaus we now have?

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Yes; I think so.

Mr. GASQUE. Gentlemen, the Secretary was anxious to be heard, but I just got a message that he had to leave and he is not here. Mr. RICH. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Whittington a question? Mr. GASQUE. Yes.

Mr. RICH. I understand, Mr. Whittington, that the President has the power to consolidate and

Mr. WHITTINGTON. What is that?

Mr. RICH. I understood that the President, even at the present time, has the power to consolidate the present offices and bureaus? Mr. WHITTINGTON. No; the act expired by its own terms March 3, 1935. He had 2 years in which to do it.

Mr. GASQUE. Now, Secretary Ickes is present and wants to make a general statement.

Secretary ICKES. I did not finish the last time, Mr. Chairman, as the committee will recall.

It seems to me that the arguments against this bill are largely repetitious; they are all based upon the fallacy that this bill, by the very nature of it, creates a mandate.

The Secretary of Agriculture, at the last hearing, testified that it was a semimandate. Perhaps now maybe it is demiquasi, semimandatory. As a matter of fact, it is not mandatory, at all.

This committee, very patiently, has listened to arguments which would be appropriate if and when the President, in compliance with the present terms of the bill, if it should become a law, makes recommendations. He will have to do the whole thing all over again, ad infinitum, and I am beginning to wonder.

At each hearing, some new organization, composed largely of the same individuals, representing the same interests, appear and ask for a hearing along toward the end. You have the opportunity today, if your patience holds out, to listen to the representative of the American Farm Bureau, and if you question him closely, and ask him whether the members of his organization have passed upon this, will say "yes", they introduced a resolution, and if you ask him when they adopted the resolution, he will say "last December", a month before the bill was written, and that it is opposed to anything the Department of the Interior might, could, or should want to do. He is in favor of everything the Department of Agriculture, by the wildest stretch of the imagination, should want, and you will have the pleasure of listening to, again, to the Forestry Service; this part, however, under the denomination of the Society of American Forestry, which appeared yesterday before the Senate committee in the person of Professor Chapman, of Yale Forestry School, an organization officered and membered a new word, I believe, I just invented it-by present

and former members of the Forestry Service. He will not add anything new to what has been said. He will leave you with the impression that he is--if he is as frank as he was yesterday-that everything connected with the Department of the Interior ought to be abolished. He has no use for any activity of the Department of the Interior; but he, too, will take your time in arguing about something that will probably come before you, if this bill should become a law and if, in his wisdom, the President should make the recommendation of transfer.

I am beginning to wonder whether, in talking about the Department of Agriculture, if there is not the biggest organized lobby in the whole United States.

Mr. HOUSTON. Beg pardon?

Secretary ICKES. It has the best organized lobby of any department in the United States, and you members know it. You know how letters come in to you. Take a case in point: Out in the State of Idaho recently, a member of the Forestry Service wrote letters-and I can prove these things-wrote letters to every chamber of commerce in the State, and in due course the chambers of commerce sent down resolutions here in opposition to this bill, as if, in their wisdon, they had met and considered the thing and knew what it was all about, and had given both sides a hearing.

Now, Secretary Wallace, at the last hearing, disputed my figures on the number of employees, and so forth in the Department of Agriculture as compared with Interior. Well, he was right, only he was not right on the right side. I understated rather than overstated. According to the report of the Civil Service Commission for the month of May, the employees in the Department of Agriculture now number 107,771 as compared with 46,362 in the Department of the Interior.

As of January last, the Department of Agriculture occupied square feet of space in the city of Washington alone of 1,664,900—and they have expanded since and occupy much more space as against 813,700 square feet of space of the Interior Department. There are now 23 bureaus and offices in the Department of Agriculture, as compared with 7 bureaus in the Department of the Interior.

Mr. HAMLIN. Will you give that last thing again?

Secretary ICKES. Twenty-three as against seven in Interior, and they are reaching out for more all the time.

The distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture let the cat out of the bag here today. He told how representations had been made to him to introduce a bill transferring a string of additional bureaus from Interior to Agriculture, and yet these representatives of agriculture will sit here and testify that they have no desire to have any more bureaus brought over from Interior. They have denuded us. This child, which was begotten from the loins of the Interior, has grown so big that they think it is time to shove the old man in the grave and fill in the sod.

Mr. RICH. You have to fight for your life.

Secretary ICKES. We have to fight for our life, and any day we are likely to wake up and find that Agriculture wants more of our activities.

Mr. HOUSTON. Is it true that the War and Navy Departments are going to be in the Department of Agriculture?

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »