Mr. HAMLIN. We get so much interested in this.

Mr. GASQUE. We will have further hearings and we will have to have them right away. Those who want to be heard may give their names to the clerk.

(Thereupon, at 11:15 a. m., the committee adjourned to meet again at the call of the acting chairman.)

TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND WORKS

FRIDAY, JULY 12, 1935

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES
IN EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Allard H. Gasque (acting chairman) presiding.

Mr. GASQUE. Gentlemen, the committee will come to order.

The purpose of the meeting is to continue the hearing on H. R. 7712, and we will first hear from Hon. Marvin C. Jones, who is present.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a very brief statement, if I may.

Mr. GASQUE. I hope that it will be brief, and I hope that all of those who wish to be heard will make their statements as brief as possible, because we are anxious to make some disposition of the bill as soon as possible.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARVIN JONES REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I want to make only a very brief statement. I assume that some of you gentlemen and some of the rest of the men who have been able to give more study to this subject than I have are in better position to determine just what should be done.

This involves a controversy that has raged at different times between different Departments ever since I have been a Member of Congress. I recall the effort on the part of the Department of Commerce some years ago to have several of the divisions of the Department of Agriculture transferred to that Department. That was countered with a resolution which was introduced and referred to the Committee on Agriculture. At that time, this committee, I believe, did not have jurisdiction over those things, or with the bill to transfer some of the work of the Department of Commerce having to do with farm matters over to the Department of Agriculture. That resulted in a good deal of irritation and bad feelings.

I have devoted my time, in the main, to keeping these controversies from arising whenever it was possible to do so, because I think it interferes with the effectiveness of the work.

My primary objection to this measure is twofold. First, in the name that is suggested for the Department of the Interior. Ordinarily, I would have no interest in the name of any department; I think that

should be left to the department, so long as they do not choose a name which automatically would bring-or at least logically would bring-under its jurisdiction a number of divisions, not only of the Department of Agriculture but of other departments. If I understand the language of the proposed measure it would have this effect. I understand that the purpose is to change the name to the Department of Conservation and Public Works. Those are very broad terms. That would almost be equivalent to saying "A department of everything." It would be somewhat similar, it seems to me, if the Committee on Agriculture should want to change its name to the Committee on All Constructive Legislation. If they should do that, that would simply accentuate the controversy that has been going on for years.

I have a very high regard and admiration for Secretary Ickes. I like a man who fights for his rights and what he conceives to be the public interest, and I believe he does that; and what I say will have no tinge of criticism for him, because I have a high regard for him and do not blame him for undertaking to fashion his department and its jurisdiction in such way as he deems best.

I am not an expert in the use of words. I went to the new Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, the New International Dictionary, to get the definition of the term "conservation", and it says: "A conserving, preserving, guarding, or protecting; a keeping in a safe or entire state; preservation"; second: "Official care or keeping and supervision, as of a river or forest; conservancy; also a division, as of a forest, under such conservation;" and, third, "Keeping, as of bees or domestic animals"; and then there follows a list. Conservation can refer to practically everything in the way of keeping or preserving.

"Public works" I find is all work constructed or built for public use or enjoyment, as railroads, docks, canals, and so forth, or constructed with public funds and owned by the public, or such works as constitute public improvements, as parks, museums, and so forth.

It rather occurs to me that, if that term is used, logically anything could be transferred to that department.

I try, at all times, to keep these controversies from arising. A certain group came to me with a proposed bill away long earlier in the session to transfer a great many things from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture, including grazing on the public lands, submarginal lands, and such organizations as conducted by the relief administration, reclamation service, subsistence homesteads. They claimed this should be done not only on its intrinsic merits, but as an offset to efforts that were being made by other departments. I declined to introduce that bill, because I did not want this controversy to be a subject of continued agitation.

Of course, if a fight was to be made, there seems to be no other choice but to fight to preserve the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, which I regard as important to all groups of the American people, directly and incidentally to the American people, which has been a long, long fight.

I have been in Congress 18 years and the fight was going on when I came here for recognition and proper recognition of the problems connected with agriculture. They are the least unorganized group in America. If there had been no organized groups, if there had been no legislation in behalf of these other groups, there probably would have

been no need for legislation in behalf of the farmer and rancher. But for a half century they have been hedged about on every side by these organized groups; and living, as they do, thousands of miles apart, producing an infinite variety of crops, they have been met face to face with the efforts of these organized groups.

I do not think there has been anybody that has had it in for those who live on the farm and ranches. I do not think anybody has thought to do them injury, but they have had no one to represent their cause, and I have wanted and felt that it was a matter of supreme importance that everything affecting directly their interests should be administered by those who have sympathy with and an understanding of their problems.

This is a broad, big country. There are many varieties of subjects, and men become interested in things, and naturally so, along certain lines. I think matters pertaining directly to agriculture and agricultural interests should be peculiarly in the hands of those who have that understanding.

The other matter I object to is the peculiar wording of section 2 of the proposed bill. It establishes this bureau and makes it broad enough to include a great deal, and it authorizes the President to transfer to that department all matters affecting the conservation of natural resources or in carrying out public works. It authorizes the transfer from the new department-that is where one of the catches comes in any bureau or activity not engaged in natural resources, in conserving the natural resources or in carrying out the public works in the United States. In other words, when they effect, through those broad terms, the transfer to the other department, they would be forever sealed there under the terms of this definition. There is not any escape from that conclusion; it is just as clear as can be; it authorizes the transfer of all of these matters, if, in the judgment of the President, if he deems wise, to that department, and when they get in there, they close the cage to anything coming out if it falls within the terms of the broad name of the new department.

I submit it is not a broad, free provision for transfer; it evidently was drafted by someone at least who was not hostile to the jurisdiction of the proposed new department. I doubt the wisdom of authorizing a general transfer of this character. I note the clause over here says that the Congress may veto it within 60 days. In my judgment, that is almost a wholly useless provision. If any of these matters that one department has jurisdiction of is transferred to another, and is submitted to Congress, it would be next to impossible to get a veto provision through Congress in 60 days; a controversy then would rage about the proposition.

I do not care what division it might be, or what department might be affected, it would find a champion on both sides. It would immediately become involved in a dispute, and the question of getting the committee to report it out, and-with one committee urging action one way and the other urging action the other way-this committee would probably be slow to report out a bill forbidding the transfer. If it got out, it would have to get a rule, it would have to pass both Houses, both the House and the Senate within 60 days. It seems to me that, if such a provision is considered, at all, it should be to the effect that the recommendation shall be made and then require affirmative legislation to secure the transfer.

The situation would not be quite so delicate if the Chief Executive of the United States had the time to go into all of these matters and make a personal investigation. But with the tremendous development of this country, anyone at all familiar with the tremendous amount of work that is thrown on the shoulders of the Chief Executive, knows that it is impossible for him to give direct personal attention to all these matters. The presidency, as everyone knows, is a mankilling job. I feel sorry for anyone who has to go through its mill. Naturally, he would be forced to rely in a large measure, on those who had an opportunity to present the facts in the most favorable light.

I doubt the wisdom of any bill of this character authorizing these transfers. If the committee should disagree with me, I certainly think, if any transfer is allowed, it should be a broad, general provision, permitting any transfer both to and from any department and it should, above all things, not be effective by virtue of the order, but be effective only upon the actual approval by Congress.

I think, certainly, this upsetting and transferring from one department to another ought not to be done without affirmative legislative approval. I think that because a great deal of misunderstanding and hard feelings might result. I think we have been getting along pretty well as it is. We have our differences. I am just opposed to this character of legislation outright.

I may add that the Committee on Agriculture unanimously passed a resolution authorizing me to appear in opposition to this legislation, after it was laid before it. I felt like I wanted to do that, and I wanted to do it without any feeling whatever, with every intention of being fair to both the departments affected and to the members of this committee.

I believe that is all I have to say.

Mr. GASQUE. Any questions?

Mr. RICH. I would like to ask the gentleman a question.

Mr. GASQUE. Mr. Rich.

Mr. RICH. You say you think that changes of the departments should be by direct authorization of Congress?

Mr. JONES. Yes; if the Executive issues an order, or rather it should be more of a recommendation than a transfer, it should then require an affirmative action by the Congress.

Mr. RICH. That is what this bill calls for, is it not?

Mr. JONES. No; I think the bill calls for an Executive order and then it becomes effective, unless the Congress takes adverse action within 60 days, which is not practical at all.

The gentleman knows that, with one committee representing one department in the main and another committee representing another and the fight over whether it would veto the order, or not, it would be next to impossible to get the legislation through Congress within the 60 days killing such provision. Therefore, it would, in almost all instances, become effective.

Mr. RICH. Then you think we ought to go to Congress and ask it for specific legislation to make the transfer?

Mr. JONES. I think before such transfer becomes effective, there should be affirmative action by the Congress approving it. It might simply be a resolution of approval. If Congress approves it, well and. good.