Mr. TREADWAY. Did the competition of rival fuels, such as oil, have any effect on that control of price?

Secretary ICKES. Well, the cost of oil has increased much more rapidly than the cost of coal.

Mr. TREADWAY. Yes; but I am informed-I don't have any experience personally, because I don't buy any coal in Washington, but I do know oil has gone up considerably here.

Secretary ICKES. I know that, too.

Mr. TREADWAY. I understand coal has gone up with it.
Secretary ICKES. Not nearly so fast.

Mr. TREADWAY. But there is a level, is there not, so a person can decide whether he will use coal or oil?

Secretary ICKES. There is a relationship between the two, but if one has an oil burner he cannot readily burn coal. There is the initial investment there.

Mr. TREADWAY. So it is not fair to assume that the Commission or the Division under your supervision has regulated the rate to the full extent of the increase of 1 percent. In other words, there has been the relationship between coal and other types of fuel.

Secretary ICKES. Naturally, I think that is so.

Mr. TREADWAY. Therefore you are simply making it as a statement that it has only increased 1 percent. It may not be entirely the result of the functioning of the Coal Division.

Secretary ICKES. Well, whatever it was-I don't quite get you.

Mr. TREADWAY. Well, it is immaterial. I simply was referring to the rivalry in the methods of producing heat. It is material so far as the competition between oil and coal having something to do with the price of coal.

Secretary ICKES. And, of course, we were fixing the price of coal with our eye on the cost of production. That was the duty that was laid upon us by Congress.

Mr. TREADWAY. Let me ask something that may not perhaps be a pertinent question, but your statement is very strong in approval of this act, and you are recommending a continuation for 2 years.

Secretary ICKES. That is right.

Mr. TREADWAY. If the act is as valuable as your brief indicates you consider it to be, why limit it to 2 years?

Secretary ICKES. Oh, personally I wouldn't.

Mr. TREADWAY. You wouldn't?"

Secretary ICKES. No. Sometimes, you know, you come to Congress and ask for what you think you can get.

Mr. TREADWAY. Well, you have a Yankee sense of proportions, evidently.

Secretary ICKES. I have a lot of Scotch in me.

Mr. TREADWAY. From your personal viewpoint

Secretary ICKES. I think it is a good act, Congressman.

Mr. TREADWAY. It has been so good that you would make the extension permanent?

Secretary ICKES. I wouldn't have said that 2 years ago, but I think now it is a good act, and it ought to be a permanent act.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dingell.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Secretary, at the outset I want to express myself in the most complimentary sort of way toward you, toward your very able administrator, Mr. Gray, and toward Mr. Burlew and Mr.

Margold. I think, on the whole, you gentlemen have performed a very splendid job on a very difficult problem.

Secretary ICKES. Thank you.

Mr. DINGELL. However, I am keenly interested in the question that was explored by my colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Cooper, with regard to the Consumers' Counsel. I think he very aptly and very properly stated, and I want to reiterate, that if it were not for the inclusion of a very strong and a very definite provision for a Consumers' CounselI mean not in name alone, not a functionary, not a factotum of any superior official, but a Consumers' Counsel, as was expressed time and again, who would be absolutely independent-that there would be no such legislation as the Bituminous Coal Act.

If you will permit me to lay a little ground work. I think this thing has been overlooked somewhere along the line, and a change made that is not in accord with the original intent of this act and the intent of this committee and the intent of Congress.

We considered the question of a bituminous-coal bill in the face of rather severe opposition. Within the committee there was opposition in the majority, as well as opposition in the minority. It became necessary to make converts. We were all of the opinion that the industry needed some stabilizing effort, some assistance. We realized it was a worth-while effort which would benefit not only the industry, but likewise would benefit business generally. We, in Detroit, and several other Members similarly situated, at least three of us, that came from big cities who used much coal but produced none, were in a peculiarly difficult position, because of the resistance to the proposed act at that time. I made expression in the committee, and later on on the floor, that I cared naught as to whether the Commission was composed of 3, 5, 7, or 70, just so the public was represented by a real Consumers' Counsel, real in name and real in function; that I didn't care where the Commissioners came from, what part of the country, if that provision was stipulated in the bill.

So, it was agreed in committee we would create a Consumers' Counsel that would meet every idea and ideal of this important committee. It was intended he should have the right to intervene upon his own initiative at any time, at any place, wherever the consumer interest was at stake, or even remotely considered. He should have the right to invade even the inner sanctum of the Commission itself when in an executive meeting in order to be able to listen to what was going on, upon the assumption that whenever the Commission met, the consumer interest was likely to be discussed or touched upon. He was to be privileged to make his annual and his special report directly to Congress without submission to the Secretary of the Interior or to anyone else. We went so far as to consider making the Consumers' Counsel's term a fixed term of 15 years, so that it would not only overlap the Presidential term but would actually possibly overlap the administration. All of this as a safeguard against any influence, any extraneous influence being brought to bear upon the functions of the Consumers' Counsel.

And this I say, Mr. Secretary, without casting any reflection upon anyone. I have the highest regard and the highest respect for all of our officials, but nevertheless that was the intent expressed by this committee and of the Congress at that time.

Then what happened? The reorganization came along, and of course I was in the forefront as an advocate of reorganization. I had been for it long before I came to Congress. The very first thing that happened was the abolition of the Commission of seven members. Frankly, I won't cry over that, I assure you. Likewise there came a transfer of the Consumers' Counsel to the Secretary of the Interior, and in turn the duties of the Consumers' Counsel were put into the hands of the Solicitor of the Department. Whatever administrative detail you are obliged to go through of course I am not familiar with. I am not questioning, Mr. Secretary, your sincerity of purpose, nor in the slightest degree would I indicate any suspicion as regards the present functionary who is performing that duty. But the fact of the matter remains that the fundamental provision under which the act was born has been struck down, and in my estimation, Mr. Secretary, without any reason whatsoever, and the basic purpose, the understanding, clear and definite, of the membership of this committee has been disregarded.

I am very happy to have heard you say that the transfer was made not at your request, but over your protest.

Secretary ICKES. Correct.

Mr. DINGELL. Someone, however, advised the President and I intend to pursue this question throughout the hearings in order to determine from where and for what reason such advice was given to the President. Obviously the President himself did not make this move without some advice from some individual or some interested source, and so far as it lies within my power I shall have to insist upon the reestablishment of the Consumers' Counsel in accordance with the original provisions of the bill. That was my understanding. I have carried out my end of the agreement. I went along with the legislation; others have done likewise. Without it there would have been no Bituminous Coal Act, and I naturally feel that I am obliged to insist upon the reestablishment of the Consumers' Counsel in accord with the original provisions of the bill.

You have said in your prepared statement that the Consumers' Counsel has been functioning in the interests of the consumer. I have no doubt of that. But to what extent I would like to know. I have only a very superficial knowledge of what is going on within that department, or within that branch of the Bituminous Coal Division; I do know from having followed the procedure in a limited way, that there are some 750 petitions now before the Legal Department of the Bituminous Coal Division. How many of those have been acted upon, frankly I do not know, but I should like to have some information upon that score.

As to your price-fixing report, can you tell me, Mr. Secretary, whether the Consumers' Counsel in that instance functioned; whether he made a study of that report?

Secretary ICKES. He did, and he filed three briefs. He filed a brief with the examiners, a brief with the Director of Coal Division, and he subsequently filed a brief with me. The Consumers' Counsel has had and has vigorously exercised all the rights given to him by statute. The Consumers' Counsel examined and cross-examined witnesses, presented affirmative evidence, and had a free hand in the proceedings. Mr. DINGELL. I want to make my position clear; that I have never questioned your very fine attitude in the matter; or saying that at any

time there was any laxity on the part of the Secretary of the Interior. As a matter of fact, I stated at one time that if we always had an Ickes as Secretary of the Interior it wouldn't make so much difference, but if we didn't have an Ickes

Secretary ICKES. You are likely not to have.

Mr. DINGELL. Then it is necessary to throw up certain safeguards around the Consumers' Counsel. That has been my attitude, and I have also said that Secretary Ickes has always been the champion of the rights of the consumer. So in that respect I don't think anything you might ever have to say would be in violation of the rights of the

consumer.

Secretary ICKES. This is an anomolous situation, I admit that, where on the one hand we are charged with the duty of fixing prices, and of laying down regulations

Mr. DINGELL. That is right.

Secretary ICKES. Which necessarily are of great moment to the consumer. On the other hand, we are expected to protect the interests of the consumer. They are inconsistent obligations laid upon the Secretary of the Interior. When I look at the one duty I try to carry that out to the best of my ability, and when I have a consumer problem come up I try to be impartial in that. There has been one change that I think has not been taken into consideration, an administrative change. The commission of seven was a commission made up entirely of producers and labor. The consumers were not represented on the commission itself. Therefore I can understand the anxiety on the part of Members of Congress in seeing that the consumers were represented. The Director of the Coal Division is neither a producer nor a member of a labor union. He never has been and the chances are he never will be. There is no one now charged with any responsibility for this administration that represents either side. I think it is fair to say-I am not arguing against a Consumers' Counsel-I think we ought to have one-but I think it is fair to say that to a degree that could not be argued for the Commission itself, the present administrative set-up represents the public generally, including the

consumer.

As I have already said, I didn't ask for this transfer to the Department of the Interior. Probably when the President considered the Executive order-I am not speaking for him; I haven't discussed it with him he didn't go back into the hearings here, and it may be he did not understand in putting the Consumers' Counsel also in the Interior he was doing something Congress was trying to get away from. I appointed the best man in the Solicitor's office, next to the Solicitor himself, to the job of Consumer's Counsel.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Dingell, will you yield a moment?

Mr. DINGELL. Yes.

Mr. COOPER. For the purpose of keeping the record straight, which I am sure the Secretary wants to do, I am afraid I misunderstood you there, or you were a little confused when you made the statement that all seven members of the original Commission represented producers and workers.

Secretary ICKES. That was not required under the law. The law provides for four, but I am under the impression that the whole seven represented one side or the other.

Mr. COOPER. The act provides two members of the Commission shall have had experience as bituminous coal mine workers.

Secretary ICKES. That is right.

Mr. COOPER. Two shall have had previous experience as producers. Secretary ICKES. That is correct.

Mr. COOPER. That would make four.

And the understanding was, having given two to the producers and two to the workers, the other three would represent the general public. Secretary ICKES. But the law doesn't say, Mr. Congressman, that no more than two may be put on representing one side or the other.

Mr. COOPER. Although it was realized the four would have one more vote than the other three, yet the hope was certainly entertained that the other three would be watching the interests of the consumer.

Secretary ICKES. Well, as a matter of fact, it is my impression that they were all representatives of the miners, or of the producers, or of allied businesses.

Mr. COOPER. I don't recall offhand the personnel of the original Commission. In fact, as I now recall, there were some changes proposed during the life of the Commission.

Secretary ICKES. Yes.

Mr. COOPER. But purely as a matter of information, was Mr. Greenlee, of Indiana, a producer or miner, either one?

Secretary ICKES. I don't know.

Mr. DINGELL. I believe he was a producer.

Secretary ICKES. I think he was a producer.

Mr. COOPER. I can't remember the names of all of them.

Secretary ICKES. Nor can I.

Mr. COOPER. Offhand, I just had the impression he was not a producer of coal, and was not a miner.

Secretary ICKES. In making the statement I did, I was not referring to the provision in the statute but to what actually developed.

Mr. DINGELL. The actual personnel of the Commission was, as a matter of fact, producers and miners?

Secretary ICKES. That is right.

Mr. DINGELL. Almost entirely.

Secretary ICKES. Yes.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Secretary, I don't want to pursue this question beyond reason; I may come back to ask other questions, with the indulgence of the committee, and your willingness, but, as I understood you to say a moment ago, while you did not ask for this change, you feel keenly that there should be a consumers' counsel, and you do not have any objection to the restoration of the act to its original provisions.

Secretary ICKES. I haven't the slightest objection.

Mr. DINGELL. I didn't think you would have, Mr. Secretary. Secretary ICKES. But I don't want to be understood as subscribing to the theory that because a man operates outside the department he is, therefore, more able and more fair.

Mr. DINGELL. That is, of course, conceded.

Secretary ICKES. I think it can operate as it has operated. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. But I haven't the slightest objection to your relieving me of that additional headache. I think, however, it would be better to extend the act before taking up any