By the provisions of article 1 of the Constitution the people of the United States have retained to themselves for exercise by the Congress as their chosen representatives, an absolute control over the raising of all revenues and the application of such revenues for the public good. They have retained the right to say what each revenue shall be, how it shall be levied, how it shall be collected, to provide the agencies through which it shall be levied and collected, and the manner in which an accounting therefor shall be made. They have retained the right to say how those revenues shall be appropriated, to provide the agencies through which they may be spent, to impose such restrictions on spending as shall be for the public good, and to prescribe the manner in which an accounting for such expenditures shall be made. These powers and responsibilities are imbedded deeply in our political system. They cannot be alienated, nor should the rigid control which they now impose be, in any respect, relaxed. In connection with the argument of the committee that the settlement of accounts and the supervision of administrative accounting systems are executive rather than legislative functions. I earnestly commend to the committee the statements made by the Comptroller General in his annual report for the fiscal year 1926, under the caption Congressional Control over Public Money. On pages 44 and 45 of the report the committee alleges that the General Accounting Office has extended its authority into administrative matters by the expansion of the preaudit. In the light of a proper understanding of what constitutes a preaudit, the views of the committee cannot be supported. The General Accounting Office did not take the initiative in extending the preaudit action. Such action has been taken only at the request and for the protection of the administrative and accountable officers involved. The origin of preaudit was the Dockery Act of 1894. Such act did not give to the accounting officers any right, on their own motion, to institute a preaudit. It conferred on the accounting officers the right to preaudit only when administrative officers made requests therefor. As has been previously pointed out, preaudit had its inception in requests for advance decisions. The advantages secured by administrative officers were quckly appreciated by such officers, and from time to time the demands therefor increased. At present some administrative officers are having all of their accounts preaudited, not because the General Accounting Office sought to extend its authority into administrative matters but because some well-intentioned administrative officers of the Government have had the wisdom and the foresight to avail themselves of the protection afforded them under the law. If there is to be any criticism whatever of the preaudit method of settling accounts it seems to me that it should be from the standpoint that the practice be made generally effective. The annual reports of the Comptroller General for the fiscal years 1926, 1927, and later years have advised the Congress regarding the preaudit and pointed out the demonstrated advantages to administrative officers. The statements contained in such reports are worthy of very serious consideration at this time. The committee further reports (p. 46) that the General Accounting Office has failed to achieve an independent audit of national expenditures and has not supplied the Congress with the comprehensive information concerning the financial administration of the Government which an audit should render. It is not felt necessary to comment upon the statement of the committee contained in this regard further than to state that the fallacy of such statement will be apparent if this committee will read the annual report of the Comptroller General for the fiscal year 1932 under the caption Reports and review the index made a part of this statement. Now, the General Accounting Office was not asked to testify regarding the criticisms made of the Office by the President's committee but rather to state its views regarding Senate bill 2700. The said committee was afforded ample opportunity to discuss and to emphasize its criticisms and to expound and to stress its theories. It seems only fair, not only to the General Accounting Office and its staff, who have undertaken during the past 15 years faithfully to discharge their duty as they saw it, but to this committee and to the Congress that there be incorporated in the record on which Senate bill 2700 will be considered a specific response to every criticism made. The subject matter is of sufficient national importance to justify very searching and deliberate consideration. The proposal shifts to the executive branch of the Government a power which that branch has not heretofore had and the reasons for making such shift are not found alone in the theory-which incidently is not proven-that under the Constitution the power sought to be transferred is an Executive power. I urge more searching inquiry into the criticisms made and into the reasons advanced for effecting the change sought by the bill. The index requested to some of the recommendations contained in the annual reports of the Comptroller General of the United States is as follows: Accounts, rendition of: Proposed an amendment of sec. 12 of the Dockery Act of Appropriation-supervision: Revision of appropriation methods with a view to Bonds of fiscal officers: Recommended a uniform law with respect to the bonds of Building, General Accounting Office: Called attention to need of a separate building Conservation of personal estates: Conservation of personal estates of American citizens dying within consulates.... Consular invoice lists, forwarding of, to General Accounting Office: Recommended, in interest of economy, the repeal of sec. 4213, Revised Statutes, as amended, which requires "a statement of all certified invoices" (consular) be forwarded to General Accounting Office. Contingent expenses: That language in contingent appropriations be more uniform. Corporations, government by: Elimination of exceptions to the requirement that ac- Customs and internal revenue: That the General Accounting Office be given further revenue. Disbursing officers: That the power to authorize disbursing officers and agents to Disbursing officers, relief of: Suggested that where crediting, validating, or relief legis- Disbursing system: Presents defects in disbursing system and recommends establishment of an independent disbursing agency reducing from 2,000 disbursing agents to approximately 50.. Disposition of unclaimed effects of persons dying subject to military law: Custody of Fees of Federal claim agents and others: Attention of the Congress was invited to the 1926 1927 1931 Subject matter General supply fund for field services: Increased economics would result if all estab- Indian tribal claims jurisdictional statutes: Recommended standardization of such Military Academy-contingent funds: Moneys in this fund derived from use of public Motor-carrier travel: Due to the fact that autobus lines are being used extensively for Oaths of office of Federal personnel: Recommended that a uniform law be enacted in Payment of Federal moneys to States and Territories-Simplification of procedure: Refunds by United States of small amounts: Recommended legislation requiring Retirement of personnel: Recommendation for uniform retirement of Federal per- Returns Office: That the Returns Office be transferred from the Labor Department to the General Accounting Office; draft of bill submitted. Revolving funds, consolidation of: Suggests that if certain revolving funds of pur- Special reports: Specific reference made to special reports during the fiscal year 1932 Welfare and recreational activities: Recommended that Congress consider the entire REORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES THURSDAY, AUGUST 12, 1937 SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON The committee met, Senator James F. Byrnes presiding. STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD L. ICKES, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR Here The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, we have before us S. 2700. tofore I noted that you submitted to Senator Robinson a letter in response to his request. In your letter you set forth your views with reference to the bill. If you desire at this time to make any statement as to anything that has been testified to we would be delighted to hear you. Secretary ICKES. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity. I would have been content to stand on that letter, but it seems that a great many gentlemen have been interested in the particular phases of this bill which apply to, or are intended to apply to my department. So many statements have been made, iterated and reiterated, that I thought I would like to appear and make a brief informal statement. It has struck me as being curious that so many people representing different interests in different parts of the country should have become so excited about changing the name of the Department of the Interior to the Department of Conservation, as is proposed by this bill. It is like insisting on naming the neighbor's baby. You will remember at the last session of the Congress the Senate, without any opposition, passed a bill to change the name of the Department of the Interior to that of the Department of Conservation. Why should not we have a Department of Conservation? More particularly, why should people from Wall Street to the farms object to having a Department of Conservation? I say frankly if I did not believe in conservation I would not want a Department of Conservation, and I think the burden is distinctly upon any man who opposes the creation of any such department to prove that he is a conservationist. The exploiters of our natural resources so far have found this kind of a situation: There are overlapping, jealousies, and unnecessary expenses, because the various conservation activities have been scattered among different departments of the Government. Statements, which seem to me palpably absurd, have been made a number of times, especially by former Governor Pinchot of Pennsylvania, who is the spearhead of a campaign of propaganda which is Nation-wide, seeking to prevent the setting up in a department of conservation the conservation activities of the Government, or, at any rate, those which appear to the President and Congress as being appropriate to set up in such a department. They argue, if you please, that creating a department of conservation will have the tendency to scatter conservation activities. Well, they are scattered now. They could not be scattered any more than they are at present. We have the Department of the Treasury; we have the Department of Agriculture; we have various other departments which, within their fields, deal with cognate subjects. What does the Department of the Interior mean, after all? In its widest significance, it means everything within the boundaries of the United States. It means everything except the State Department, but, in effect, it is meaningless. "Conservation" has come to be one of the major concerns of government. There is nothing more important. Our lives and our welfare as a nation depend upon the prudent use of our natural resources, saving what we can for future generations, preserving, building them up, but using as we go along what we really need to maintain and advance our civilization. That is conservation, as I see it. There is nothing more important. We ought to recognize it as a major function of government, and I think, if we once do that we will have taken the greatest forward step toward the preservation and conservation of our natural resources that the Government has ever taken. I regret that it seems necessary to combat this argument which has been so assiduously advanced by so many people. It seems clear to me that someone is interested in building up propaganda. This is not news to members of the United States Congress, it is nothing new, I mean, to them to find their desks covered with more or less form letters, telegrams, and petitions whenever certain activities of the Government are mentioned. Now, it gets down to this reality in the end-and this question is involved as well-whether we are going to be governed by a lobby or whether questions affecting the welfare of the people and the sound conduct of our Government are to be guided by a rule of reason. Mr. Pinchot has been several weeks in the West viciously attacking the Department of the Interior. If he and others had their way there would not even be a Department of the Interior. They would wipe us out. They would put us on the block, and they would not even give us the benefit of clergy before bumping us off. They seem to be forever against the notion that anyone should set up a department of conservation and concentrate within that department the main conservation activities of the Government. I want to make perfectly clear that I do not have the slightest idea, if this bill passes, what the President would bring into the proposed new department, or what he would take away from the proposed new department. If he has committed himself on that subject to anyone I do not know of it; certainly he has not to me. I do know that he had general powers of rearranging and of transfer for, I think, 3 months, was it not, under the Emergency Act? |