tific research. Until man first harnessed the waterfall, the stream did not represent power; and until he discovered that he could divert water from the river by gravity to irrigate his crude agriculture, the stream was an undeveloped resource. It has not been infrequent that minerals of unsuspected value have become some of our most useful resources, as for example, carnotite from western Colorado, which produces radium, and magnesite from Washington and California, which is a valuable refractory mineral used in the steel industry. The Geological Survey has been pioneering in the classification of our lands and their mineral content for many years. A chemist in an Interior laboratory found the clue to helium which 7 years later was discovered by British chemists as an element in the atmosphere. Later two of the technical bureaus of the Department surveyed the helium resources in natural gas and perfected a method for its extraction. The discovery and utilization of an unsuspected resource is a creative process which adds to our national wealth. It is a proper function of the Federal Government to carry on the work of classification and discovery because it promotes the general welfare. The Government for many years has wisely reserved the mineral rights in disposing of public lands. In the light of past experience with the pioneering of science no one can estimate their value.

There are 7 bureaus in the Department of the Interior of which 6 are engaged directly in conserving our natural resources. Three divisions also under the Secretary of the Interior are likewise engaged. The General Land Office administers all laws relating to the public domain; the Bureau of Indian Affairs manages and conserves the property of the American Indians, including timber, agriculture, and mineral lands; the Geological Survey, through its topographic surveys and geological explorations, is one of the outstanding conservation units of the Government; the Bureau of Reclamation conserves water, the West's most necessary resource, and puts it to beneficial use; the National Park Service preserves the scenic beauties and unique characteristics of nature; the Bureau of Mines conserves fuels, ores, petroleum, and natural gas through scientific and technological investigations; the Division of Investigation enforces existing laws for the protection of natural resources; the recently established Division of Grazing will protect injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration and I might say in passing that the grazing bill was strenuously opposed by the Department of Agriculture, although it was obviously a conservation measure- -the Petroleum, Administrative Board is concerned with the control of the oil industry to prevent waste of this valuable resource.

While there is a scattering of conservation activities in other Government establishments, no other single agency is concerned so completely with this important subject. Some of them, like the Department of Agriculture, have a special field touching on conservation in a limited way which should not conflict with a general conservation program. The primary purpose in establishing that Department was to promote crop production which comprehended bringing more acreage into use and increasing the yield per acre. That is the converse, of course, of conservation. I mention the Department of Agriculture particularly because it illustrates without any critical implication the point that as an offspring of the Department of the Interior it was given an important problem of internal development

that required fuller consideration than could be devoted to it by a department engaged in internal affairs generally.

For many years, proposals have been presented to concentrate in the Department of the Interior certain public-works functions on the basis that already it either supplied basic data for public-works projects or was engaged in their actual construction. The transfer and consolidation of the Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital, the Arlington Memorial Bridge Commission, the Public Buildings Commission, the National Memorial Commission, and the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway Commission by Executive order of June 10, 1933, placed additional important public-works agencies in the Department of the Interior.

The combination of a conservation and public-works department is a natural union. Without public works we cannot have conservation. Topographic and public land surveys, stream gaging, waterresource developments, irrigation dams and ditches, and road building are all in this category and have been performed for many years by the Department of the Interior. The allotments by the Public Works Administration to the Department for these and other projects in the interest of conservation numbered 1,364 and totaled $160,000,000. The sympathetic relationship between conservation and public works could be illustrated by many other examples. Good administration would seem to require that the execution of public-works projects. eventually should be coordinated in one of the permanent departments of the Government after the present emergency. Here again the extent to which transfers would be made under the authority of the proposed bill is left for later consideration by the President and the Congress.

In conclusion, I respectfully submit that, subject alone to the will of the Congress and of the President, the Department of the Interior, on the basis of the sound reasons for this bill, ought to be permitted to adopt a new name more consonant with its duties and its responsibilities, more expressive of those real functions. It is respectfully submitted that it is no concern of any other Department whether we choose to change our name or not. I would be in small business indeed if I should appear here in opposition to the Department of Agriculture if it should elect to change its name. And, so far as entrusting the Congress of the United States and the President of the United States with responsibility for making certain changes, if in their judgment they deem such changes to be of advantage to the Government of the United States, I may say that I am at the other end of the poles from my assiduous friends from the Department of Agriculture who, while they dare not openly and honestly avow what their real objection is to this provision of the bill, are nevertheless in fact here in voluntary opposition because they object to conferring any such power upon the President and the Congress.

I will be glad to answer any questions.

Mr. GASQUE. Are there any questions by the members of the committee?

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Secretary, this bill falls into two parts, as I understand it. Section 1 provides for a change in the name, as you suggested and recommend

Secretary ICKES. Yes.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. And the remainder of the bill, beginning with section 2, deals with the transfer to this Department, the name of which it is proposed to change, of any commission, independent establishment, board, bureau, division, service, or office in the executive branch of the Government engaged in conserving the natural resources or in carrying on public works activities in the United States, its Territories or possessions.

Secretary ICKES. Yes.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I should like to ask you if, generally, the provisions of section 2 and of the sections that follow are substantially the provisions of the act of June 30, 1932, that provided for the reorganization of the executive departments?

Secretary ICKES. I believe that they give the precise powers. In other words, transfer may be made by the President, subject to the will of Congress, exercised within 60 days, while Congress is in session.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Yes. Is the provision in the pending bill different from the similar provision in the act of 1932 to which I have referred?

Secretary ICKES. There may be some change in language, but the powers are the same.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. What difference, if any, is there in the provisions of the pending bill, beginning with section 2, and the act for the reorganization of the executive departments, passed by Congress and approved by the President on March 3, 1933, amendatory of the act of 1932, to which I have referred?

Secretary ICKES. If I understand the question, Congressman, my answer would be that the act of 1933 gave the President broad and general powers to organize any department or agency. Under this bill he is restricted. All that he could do, again always with the consent of Congress, would be to take certain bureaus away from Interior, and to bring into Interior bureaus which have to do with the general powers of the Department.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I will ask you if the President, subject to the approval of Congress as provided in the act of 1933, had the power to recommend the transfers provided for in the pending bill?

Secretary ICKES. Undoubtedly.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. And that power continued for 2 years under the terms of the bill?

Secretary ICKES. That is right.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. And the power therefore expired on March 3, 1935?

Secretary ICKES. March 20, I think, is the exact date; but, anyway, in March 1935.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. So that the Executive is without power now either to reorganize the executive departments or to provide for the transfer of any of the functions mentioned in the pending bill, beginning with section 2?

Secretary ICKES. That is right.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Now, I am in accord, as I understand it, with the suggestion for the change in the name, but I should like to ask you particularly with respect to the power of transfer. What publicworks activities would serve as an example of public works that might be transferred under the terms of this act from other executive departments to the Department of Conservation?

Secretary ICKES. I do not know that I can answer that so far as other departments are concerned, but the Public Works Administration itself is now an independent agency. While I am Administrator of Public Works, it is in a separate capacity. That could very well be brought in as a permanent agency, if Congress should determine to go ahead with a permanent program of public works, as has been proposed by the report of the Natural Resources Commission.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. If Congress were to do that, that would be by substantive law, and, under the terms of this bill, I am just wondering if the President, by Executive order, would have the power then to either transfer that or to change its function?

Secretary ICKES. I would think that he could make it a bureau within the Interior Department.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. My general recollection, Mr. Secretary, and I am asking you to refresh my memory, is that under the power of reorganization in the two acts to which I have referred, the President was without power or authority to change any substantive law.

Secretary ICKES. Oh, yes; he would be, undoubtedly.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I take it that if the public works were established by the Congress, and approved by the President by substantive law

Secretary ICKES. Then he could transfer

Mr. WHITTINGTON. You think he could then transfer it under the provisions of this act?

Secretary ICKES. Yes, if the act was still in effect, I think so.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. That was not clear, so I wanted to develop that by my questions.

Now, independently of any proposed permanent public works, or any measure providing for the continuation of existing public works, what existing public works activities in the executive departments would serve as an example that might properly be transferred to the new department, or to the department with the new name?

Secretary ICKES. I really have not considered that. I am not familiar enough with the public works activities in some of these depart

ments.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I will ask you particularly with respect to the public works in the building activities of the Treasury Department. Generally they have done the construction of public buildings, both by acts of Congress and by authority of the Public Works Administration.

Secretary ICKES. Yes.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. For instance, the enormous public works in the District of Columbia are done under the Treasury Department. Secretary ICKES. Some of them are. Some are now under us. For instance, we put on the addition to the new Interior Building, and the new wing to the White House. I think that those activities could be transferred under the terms of this bill.

In that regard I would like to say that the President could have transferred those under the prior power that he had, and Congress always has the check.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. The Administrator of Public Works provided. for the enlargement of the Interior Building, and of the White House but was the work actually done by the Interior Department?

Secretary ICKES. It was actually done by the Interior Department.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. And the Treasury had nothing to do with it? Secretary ICKES. Not a thing.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. In either case?

Secretary ICKES. In either case.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. But the Treasury did construct most of the new buildings in the District under the program in the last 4 years? Secretary ICKES. That is true. There have been some exceptions to that, but I could not tell you what they are.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. But, in the main, I should think that that would be a correct statement.

Secretary ICKES. Yes, in the main that is true.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. The Veterans' Administration is now and has been engaged in the construction of important public works. I have reference to the veterans' facilities and hospitals. Would this language of section 2 be broad enough to transfer those activities to your Department?

Secretary ICKES. It is broad enough so that any activity of that sort could be transferred.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Now, in the War Department there have been large public works from a time that really antedate the organization of the Department of the Interior, and particularly as respects rivers and harbors and flood control, and I will ask you to state whether or not, under the terms of this act, by Executive order as provided, those functions might be transferred to the Department of the Interior?

Secretary ICKES. I would think that that might be in a different category. I think it would be highly doubtful, because that work depends upon the Army Engineers, and they are an integral part of the Army. It would hardly be expected that the President would transfer a section of the Army to the Department of the Interior.

In that connection I might say that historically the Army, under its very efficient Corps of Engineers, has always done the rivers and harbors improvement work. But there is a class of work of that kind that falls into the twilight zone. For instance, the Army built the Bonneville reclamation project, while the Department of the Interior is building Grand Coulee, so that there is a division of authority there that is recognized. One is harbor improvements, and the other is not.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. The Bonneville construction on the Columbia River would probably have a lot more to do with navigation than the Grand Coulee further up the river.

Secretary ICKES. That is the distinction.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. One is being done under your Department, and the other under the Chief of Engineers of the Army.

Secretary ICKES. That is right.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I aked you that, Mr. Secretary, for the reason that this committee conducted many extensive hearings when it was proposed to transfer the activities of the Corps of Engineers from the War Department to another Department, or to give the Executive the power to so transfer.

There are other public-works activities in the War Department, as I understand it, that might be transferred, and I would like to have your view on that.