CHANGE THE NAME OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND WORKS TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1935 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10:15 a. m., Hon. William M. Whittington presiding. Mr. WHITTINGTON. In the absence of Mr. Gasque, who planned to be here, as we are already late, and in the absence of the other ranking member, and at the suggestion of the clerk, I call the meeting to order. We have under consideration H. R. 7712, a bill to change the name of the Department of the Interior and to coordinate certain governmental functions. The committee is glad to have, as the first witness, the Secretary of the Interior, and the committee will be glad to have any statement that he cares to submit respecting this bill. STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD L. ICKES SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR Secretary ICKES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have prepared a statement here that I would like to submit. I do not know whether I will impose on you to the extent of reading it all; but, at any rate, I will read portions of it. I did not realize how really serious was this proposal to rename the Department of the Interior until I appeared at the Senate hearings on the companion bill, on which occasion several representatives of the Forest Service voluntarily appeared to voice objection. They had not seen my report to the committee and were not prepared to discuss the merits of the bill, but this did not deter them from solemnly criticizing it and catechizing the committee and myself. Their censorious moments, far-fetched and transcendental as they were, nevertheless surprised me. I had looked on this as a family affair of no interest to the neighbors something like naming the baby. When I heard the testimony presented by the volunteer spokesmen for the Department of Agriculture, I rejoiced that I had not thought of naming the baby "Daisy" because the gardener undoubtedly would have objected to it on the ground that it was a horticultural term. I will admit that all of us may not all like the name "Daisy", but if the fond parents had preferred it, why should anybody pay attention to the gardener? 1 You members who sit on these committees of Congress and see the kaleidoscope of witnesses that pass before you must often ponder on the selfish and meddlesome characteristics of humanity. No matter what somebody wants, there is always somebody else who does not want him to have it. You have an opportunity to study human nature at its worst. You probably discovered long ago that one of the strongest lobbies that attempts to influence Congress is the departmental lobby, which is what this really circumspect bill is facing. I assure you that the child is not physically handicapped. It is eugenically sound, even according to the standards of the Bureau of Animal Industry. However, as I will explain later, for the moment it may be affected by the presence of too many volunteer nurses whose fussy interest may not be altogether above suspicion. Lobbying has become such an established custom by some Govern❤ ment departments that Congress accepts it complacently, perhaps because of the lethargic effect of the pedantic arguments to which members are frequently subjected. It has actually come to pass as to various bills initiated in behalf of the Department of the Interior that we must have pragmatic sanction before they can be passedthe royal edict, of course, emanating from the Department of Agriculture. I consider this practice to be meddlesome so far as my Department is concerned as well as affronting to the legislative branch. I actually was accused at the Senate hearing of misappropriating a generic term-because I want to use the word "conservation" in the new designation of the Department. I am truly sorry that this bill offends the lexicographical sensibilities of certain gentlemen from the Department of Agriculture. I would prefer to discuss the question of Government reorganization along logical and scientific lines, but I cannot do this with critics whose objections are purely metaphysical. Their pseudology reminds me of the soothsayers of old, who mystified their listeners by their unintelligible vocabulary. Just as in seasoning vegetables, we can disguise their flavor until we do not know our vegetables, so in considering this bill we can become so involved in abstruse phraseology that it is easy to forget the only point at issue a new name. This whole question of terminology has become so chaotic that the average man cannot tell a cabbage from a squash. Some people even talk of trees as a growing crop like peanuts or onions and delineate them as an agricultural product. I have read the objections of the Department of Agriculture to this bill, and they seem to me to fall into two categories. First, it objects to the name conservation because it is too inclusive, and secondly, it ambitiously tries to subordinate all Government functions to agriculture. Now, I have heard of various kinds of government, such as oligarches, monarchies, and democracies, but this is the first time that I have ever heard of a farmocracy. We are simply asking that the name Department of the Interior be changed to that of Department of Conservation and Works, as being more properly definitive of our natural functions, and that you authorize the President to transfer agencies to and from the Department with the consent of Congress. The President had such authority for 2 years without doing violence to orderly government. The particular agencies, if any, to be transferred under this bill would be a matter between the President and the Congress after the President had carefully considered whether, in the interest of good administration, any changes should be made. Is it merely another coincidence that no other Department or independent agency of the Government has presumed to appear here in opposition to a change of name on the part of the Department of which I am the head? What is in a name after all? Consider the Department of Agriculture which volunteers its unsupported objection to the use of "conservation" by the Department of the Interior. The term "Agriculture" is actually too restrictive as applied to this growing giant of a department, which already has some 80,000 employees and occupies over a billion square feet of office space in Washington, while reaching out for more. Its 22-two bureaus and offices include weather forecasts, soil conservation, public road construction, forests, wildlife, pure drugs, speculation in commodities, home economics, boating concessions, fishing licenses, camp sites, and summer homes. Of course, these are all purely agricultural functions, but not quite so closely related to it as the distribution of seeds, which was one of the original and major responsibilities of the Department. Frankly, it had never occurred to us to consult the Department of Agriculture about changing the name of the Department of the Interior. And after all, our act really was one of self-abnegation. The term "Department of the Interior" comprises all functions of Government except foreign affairs alone, but we are so modest that we wish to hold ourselves within reasonable bounds. We are really trying to restrict our name and functions to conservation and public works so that we will not be too all-embracing. And the thanks we get is the charge of stealing a generic term. The name "interior" has become more of an epitaph than a designation. Until 2 years ago, the Department had been operated on so successfully that only a few of its vital organs remain. Notwithstanding which we are a virile, progressive department. By a fortuitous circumstance, practically all of the remnants left to us by jealous and predatory colleagues relate directly to conservation and public works. The proposed title of Department of Conservation and Works would be more indicative of the normal functions of the Department of the Interior. Originally established as the home department for the internal development of the country and to promote the welfare of the people, the Department of the Interior has been largely responsible for the social and economic transformation of the West from arid unproductive areas into fertile farms and populous towns which afford profitable markets for the eastern manufacturer. Under the guidance and regulation of the Department, vast mineral wealth also has been uncovered and utilized. Without this epoch of settlement and utilization of our natural wealth, the West would still be practically unoccupied and our eastern industrial expansion would thereby have been correspondingly restricted. The cycle of flush exploitation, however, has been completed and as a nation we must direct ourselves to conserving the unentailed remainder and to preserving the developments of technical skill and human labor. This policy is necessary not entirely for the benefit of future generations, as was urged by conservationists of a few decades ago, but for the preservation and well being of the present population. Modified rainfall, lowering water tables, soil erosion, and stream diversion have already brought disaster to great numbers of people and the threat of the future causes discouragement and weakens initiative among formerly prosperous groups whose livelihood has been affected by these unfavorable conditions. The whole question of conservation has changed from one of idealism to one of practical application. The Department of the Interior for many years has been preeminent in conservation matters and if a national conservation policy is to be seriously followed, as self-preservation demands, it is the natural agency in which to concentrate such necessary functions. And by conservation I do not mean the withholding from use of our natural resources; I mean their prudent use in the interest of the country. The designations of the several executive departments connote their place in orderly government. They owe their genesis to a particular need and they were organized and named to serve a distinctive purpose. The primary concern of the State Department, for example, is foreign relations; the Treasury Department, fiscal affairs; the War and Navy Departments, military defense; the Department of Justice, jurisprudence; the Post Office Department, handling the mail; the Department of Agriculture, agricultural research; the Department of Commerce, business industry, and the Labor Department, matters relating to labor-and when I say that the function of the Department of Agriculture is research, I go to the act under which the Department was set up. (At this point Mr. Gasque entered the room, and Mr. Whittington relinquished the chair to him.) Secretary ICKES. The Department of the Interior has always been concerned chiefly with internal affairs, which comprehend natural resources, such as minerals and water and land, upon which we depend to sustain life and promote economic growth. It has long been known as the "land department" of the Government. It has been foremost in the promotion of conservation legislation. The laws for the protection of the public domain have been sponsored by it as each succeeding abuse arose. The general leasing law of February 25, 1920, which prevents monopolistic control of our basic mineral resources and provides for their proper development, was initiated by the Department of the Interior. The oil scandals did not occur under the general leasing law, however, but under a clause in the Naval Appropriation Act of June 4, 1920, a circumstance that demonstrates the unwisdom of legislating outside of the proper jurisdictional field. Some of the more important laws of a conservation nature initiated or advocated by the Department of the Interior include the reclamation of swamp lands, the classification of public lands, the creation and administration of forest reserves, the reclamation of arid lands, the regulation of grazing on the public domain, the generation and distribution of electrical power, the preservation of American antiquities, the reservation of coal deposits, water-power sites, and mineral deposits, the leasing of coal lands in Alaska, the creation and administration of national parks, the leasing of public lands for potash, coal, phosphate, sodium, oil, fur farming, and grazing, and the unit operation of oil and gas lands. The older departments, such as State, War, Navy, Treasury, Post Office, Justice, and Interior, at first answered the fundamental requirements of government, but subsequently internal expansion called for a fuller consideration of particular activities than was practicable under departments organized for other primary purposes. Thus were established the Departments of Agriculture, Labor, and Commerce. Each of these Departments was created to administer one specific subject pertaining to internal affairs. The importance of agriculture in the economic structure, for example, was responsible for the formation of the Department of Agriculture in 1862 after repeated recommendations by Secretaries of the Interior for 13 yearsthe general design and duties of which In the language of its organic act— shall be to acquire and diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word, and to procure, propagate and distribute among the people, new and available seeds. United States Code, title 5, paragraph 511. Similarly, the Departments of Commerce and Labor were created for other specific purposes. Independent agencies, moreover, have been formed, adding to the complexities of government. Through bureaucratic aggrandizement and in the absence of a legislative policy most of the departments have acquired appendages that have no place under their initial powers, which has resulted in repeated proposals for governmental reorganization. It is axiomatic that the fundamental function of a department is weakened by the extent to which it engages in unrelated activities. Its general importance may be magnified in this way, but competent administration is dissipated by the lack of cohesion. Reorganization, however, is a gradual process that can only be effectuated by time and careful study. It is not the purpose of the present bill or of this report to propose any transfer of specific activities, but rather to present the need for more clearly identifying the Department of the Interior with its primary functions, leaving to the President and the Congress such unification of conservation and public-works activities within the Department as may be practicable in the logical rearrangement of Government business. While the primary activity of the Department of the Interior continues to be conservation, and its corollary public works, nevertheless, the distribution among other agencies of functions relating to our domestic economy threatens the effectiveness of a centralized conservation administration as a national policy through duplication and neglect. The dissipation of energy and funds in administering the numerous conservation activities of the Government can no more be justified than the dissipation of valuable natural resources; in fact, the one is, at least in part, the cause and the other the effect of improper organization. It is clear that conservation can only be established on a sound and permanent basis by adopting it as a national policy and concentrating the responsibility. Uniform principles would thus become established, economy of operation would mean greater accomplishment for the funds expended, and of more importance still, the danger of exploitation would be obviated because policy and precedent would create protective grooves that any temporary transgressor in public office would find it difficult to free himself from for the benefit of himself or others. Knowledge of the character and content of our natural resources is essential to their conservation and no one is competent to forecast the results of their discovery and adaptability except through scien |