Page images
PDF
EPUB

gram of work.

controls and a central organization for the procurement, stocking, and distribution of particular items of supply, equipment, and so on.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. D you not think that there is envisaged in this program here the very things that you have mentioned, the utilization of_cataloging of supplies, and all of the additional functions of the Federal Bureau of Supply would seem to me to come right in line with what you are suggesting?

Mr. SCAMMAHORN. It seems to me, as I read the bill, that the emphasis which the Congress, perhaps, would place upon the activity if this bill were enacted is on a central procurement, supply and control system; whereas

it seems to me that, in looking forward to the longrange program, we need emphasis on management leadership by the central agency.

I am not suggesting that there be a diminution of the controls or the system of control as outlined here, but, rather, that Congress provide for special emphasis on the substantive management problems involved and the recognition of the fact that there must be delegated to or reserved by the operating agencies certain operating functions in this whole supply activity that may not be economically centralized when viewed from the standpoint of carrying on an effective operating pro

Mr. HOLIFIELD. What power would you give this leadership to insure that the departments followed through?

Mr. SCAMMAHORN. It seems to me that in here now you have something providing for the President to issue regulations and for the Administrator to issue regulations.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Your Department has approved the material that is in section 102 and section 104 (g) and (h) as well as other sections before the Senate and House committees; has it not?

Mr. SCAMMAHORN. We were consulted by the Budget Bureau and Federal Works Agency on language appearing in the bills introduced last year, and some of our suggestions were incorporated in the bills. Later we were asked for and furnished our comments in connection with paragraphs (g) and (h). Last year we asked for paragraphs (g) and (h) as they now read in H. R. 2781. However, since that time several acts, including the CCC Charter Act, the Agricultural Act of 1948, and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948, have been placed on the books that set forth current legislative requirements regarding the sale of agricultural commodities, and we would like to suggest the deleţion of part of paragraph (h). Also, the present bill contains certain new provisions under section 102 affecting the traffic-management activities of the Department, which we would like to discuss.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Your Department was also asked for a report to this committee on H. R. 2781 in February, and up to date I do not believe that we have received it.

Mr. SCAMMAHORN. I am very sorry about that, sir. What happened is that we received a request for a report on another bill covering somewhat this same field, and in our efforts to get a comprehensive report we failed to report on H. R. 2781 up to this time.

I would be glad, however, sir, to present such a report.

There is the problem involved of getting all the agency information and getting it coordinated into a single report of recommendations which would be responsive to the widely diverse needs of the many and varied programs carried on by the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think that should have been furnished to this committee before this time, and I hope you will furnish it without any further delay.

I also think that your remarks have not been wholly in accord with the Hoover Commission report which makes the office of general services an independent executive agency and not an arm of the Executive Office of the President.

We are having an analysis made, incidentally, of the Hoover Commission report on this subject, and I think you had better include in your report some points of difference between your statement today and the Hoover Commission's report,

Mr. HARVEY. Might I go back now in order to have you give us a more specific idea of the theury you have advanced here? When we talked about a specific example, I was trying to see in what fashion your proposal would provide for the objectives that we hoped to attain.

Mr. SCAMMAHORN. I do not have language which has been cleared by counsel, but I would propose that something like this, in connection with section 2, be inserted, where it says, “It is the intent of Congress in enacting this legislation --"

Mr. HARVEY. On what page ? Mr. SCAMMAHORN. That is on the first page, just inside the cover. [Reading :)

It is the intent of Congress in enacting this legislation to provide for the Government leadership for supply programs and an economical and efficient system forand so forth.

Mr. Harvey. Still you have not given us, I believe, an answer to the question by giving a specific example to show the committee what you have in mind. As I see it now, you have a theory dangling here in midair, and I cannot correlate that with a definite objective.

Mr. BOLLING. I am not attempting to answer the question for the witness, but it seems to me that what we have here is difference of opinion as to the structural administrative approach, the difference between a line and staff approach.

I have not read the Hoover Commission report on this particular subject too recently, but I understand their recommendation is that in the Office of the President, immediately under his supervision, there be certain staff agencies; and I believe the general trend is in the direction that of necessity procurement and supply will be one of those staff agencies.

It is very difficut to give an illustration of that, but you can give an illustration very easily by using Army terminology.

Mr. BURNSIDE. Does the gentleman contend that you cannot get the right type of staff leadership under the Federal Works Administration!

Mr. SCAMMAHORN. The best illustration I could give you in our experience is the directives that presently come from the Bureau of the Budget concerning activities in the Department of Agriculture.

They have a standing and dignity that may not be exactly the same as those that come from coordinate agencies.

Mr. BURNSIDE. Do you think it might interfere somewhat with the policies of the Department of Agriculture ?

Do you think that the Federal Works Agency might interfere somewhat with the policies of the Department of Agriculture?

Mr. SCAMMAHORN. I cannot say that it would, and have no reason to believe that it would, but there is always that possibility. That is always present when any agency exercises authority under such circumstances. That just comes about naturally.

Mr. BURNSIDE. Can you think of some particular area where it might seriously interfere with the policies of the Department of Agriculture when the Federal Works Agency handles it?

Mr. SCAMMAHORN. There are a great many areas in which the handling of procurements, such as the purchase of forest-fire-fighting equipment, items of insecticides and trail-building equipment as needed by the agencies of the Department, could actually be of criti. cal consequence to the program operations. Now, I do not want to say that the Federal Works Agency would not handle it properly. I do not have that in mind at all.

Mr. BURNSIDE. You do not think you could get the proper leadership from the Federal Works Agency?

Mr. SCAMMAHORN. I think this: that we would run a chance of getting more extensive leadership by the central agency and more accomplished in the long run by having it in an agency which could be presumed to speak in a staff capacity as Mr. Bolling mentioned, for the President.

Mr. BURNSIDE. Yes.

Mr. HARVEY. I do not wish to be contentious, but I still do not think my question has been answered. Mr. SCAMMAHORN. I am sorry; I will certainly try, sir.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think your position should be reduced to writing on this bill. As I understand it, Mr. Carpenter will present a statement.

Mr. SCAMMAHORN. No; this is the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Carpenter, I understand, represents the Military Establishment.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. What was the gentleman's name you gave a few minutes ago?

Mr. SCAMMAHORN. I will be glad to give you the more complete statement which you have requested. I think, perhaps, the Secretary of Agriculture would give it.

Mr. Crow is here now and he can take up these other points.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I would like to have a full statement presented to

It should have been presented before in response to our letter. Mr. SCAMMAHORN. I appreciate that; yes, sir.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I do not think we can get your position correctly unless we have that. I confess it is probably my own fault, but I am a little confused by your presentation.

Are there any further questions?

Mr. HARVEY. I want to suggest that in their statement, if they are going to present a theory, I would like to have a specific'illustration hypothetically that would show something more than just a theory. Mr. HOLIFIELD. I agree with you,

Mr. Harvey. Mr. B'URNSIDE. He shows some fear here that the Federal Works Agency might injure the Department of Agriculture; is not that correct?

Mr. SCAMMAHORN. I did not intend to show that; no, sir.

us.

Mr. BURNSIDE. You did not intend to?

Mr. SCAMMAHORN. No, sir; we have no objection to its being in the Federal Works Agency—we would just as soon do business with the FWA as with any other agency. The question raised is primarily whether any agency-FWA or any other organization which is coordinate with other departmental agencies—can maintain the same perspective in making decisions affecting supply functions of work programs for which it would not have the same degree of responsibility as would be the case if the decisions were made by an authority placed in a staff position directly under the President, who is responsible for the successful execution of all work programs of the Government. Also, the apparent purpose of the provisions of the bill might be more specifically defined if there could be included a statement of policy to the effect that operating functions of the supply activity should be delegated to and performed by the departments and agencies to the greatest practicable degree and that centralization of operating functions would be undertaken only where over-all economies and adequate service can be effected, such as purchasing and supplying common-use items or performance of supply functions for small agencies. Such a statement in the bill might well focus the attention of the central organization on establishing principles and policies, with centralized control and coordination, for the guidance of the departments and agencies in their supply activities to the end that servicing work programs would be paramount rather than the central supply operation itself.

Mr. BURNSIDE. Do you think it would work smoother under the ideas you have presented ?

Mr. SCAMMAHORN. Yes; I think that there would be more improvement in the whole field, and in the long run the whole supply interests of the Government would better serve the operating programs, and we would get what I think everyone is striving for in a better manner.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Would you like to have Mr. Crow take the stand now?

Mr. SCAMMAHORN. Yes, sir.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. CROW, DIRECTOR OF MARKETING

FACILITIES BRANCH, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Crow, will you give your full name and position to the reporter, please!

Mr. Crow. William C. Crow, Director of the Marketing Facilities Branch, Production and Marketing Administration, Department of Agriculture.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. We have about 10 minutes for a short statement, and if you need more time we will arrange for you to appear later. Mr. Crow. That is fine, thank you.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. May I ask if your statement has been cleared with the Secretary?

Mr. Crow. It has been cleared with the Secretary, but it has not been cleared by the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Did the Secretary authorize you to appear before the committee to make this statement ?

Mr. Crow. He did with the understanding that I make it clear that the Bureau of the Budget has not acted on it.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. You may proceed, then.

Mr. Crow. There are two general subjects in the bill that are of interest to the Department. One of them concerns the operations of the Commodity Credit Corporation and some of the other agencies in the Department that procure farm and food products for distribution,

Mr. Harold Hill is here representing the Commodity Credit Corporation, and he can speak toward that point.

The second part of the legislation which is of concern to the Department is that which deals with transportation.

The point that I wish to address my comments to is with regard to a clarification.

I doubt if we are in disagreement, but I would like to request a clarification of section 102 (a), paragraph 4.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. What page is that on?

Mr. Crow. It is on page 9, lines 15 to 20. That is the section which deals with representation of the various agencies of the Government before transportation and regulatory bodies and with carriers.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Do you have the revised print?
Mr. Crow. Yes; I have.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. You do have?

Mr. Crow. Yes, sir; I have, and I would like to say parenthetically that the revised draft goes toward clearing up the thing that I was concerned about. It is considerably clearer in the second draft than it was in the first, which leads me to believe that the points that I will make are not points that the committee would disagree with, but it is just something that I need to tell you about so that you can take it into consideration.

I think that that section could be open to the question as to whether this requirement would apply in all cases when the Department of Agriculture desired to appear before transportation regulatory bodies or railroads, trucking lines, and so forth.

If it does apply to all appearances that the Department might make before transportation regulatory bodies or groups of carriers or individual carriers, it would be in conflict with two laws that are already on the statute books.

I refer first to section 201 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. I have a copy of that which I could read or leave for the record, or both, as you desire.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. We will want it for the record, certainly. If it will clarify your position, you may read it at this time.

Mr. Crow. Section 201 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 reads as follows:

(a) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to make complaint to the Interstate Commerce Commission with respect to rates, charges, tariffs, and practices relating to the transportation of farm products, and to prosecute the same before the Commission. Before hearing or disposing of any complaint (filed by any person other than the Secretary) with respect to rates, charges, tariffs, and practic: s relating to the transportation of farm products, the Commission shall cause the Secretary to be notified, and, upon application by the Secretary, shall permit the Secretary to appear and be heard.

(b) If such rate, charge, tariff, or practice complained of is one affecting the public interest, upon application by the Secretary, the Commission shall make the Secretary a party to the proceeding. In such case the Secretary shall have

« PreviousContinue »