Page images

Mr. JENSEN. That is your Grand Coulee rate.

Mr. GOLDSCHMIDT. That is both of them. The rates for delivered power in the Northwest are $17.50 a kilowatt-year. That is a 2-mill rate.

Mr. JENSEN. Grand Coulee gets half of it, so Bonneville retains only 1 mill a kilowatt.

Mr. GOLDSCHMIDT. You are talking about the cost of generating the power at Coulee being lower than at TVA. That is right.

Mr. JENSEN. I am talking about what you get for power. I am asking if the rates that are charged by the Tennessee Valley Authority are not about three times higher than the rates charged by Bonneville power.

Mr. Goldschmidt. The rates are higher, but not three times higher. They are considerably higher.

Mr. JENSEN. Why, certainly, they are considerably higher. The point that I am trying to make is this: I know that this committee would be more liberal in appropriating money for these new projects which you are asking for, and for the completion of the ones that have already been started, if we could be assured that they would pay out in the time in which the law required them to be paid out, which is 50 years. My point is that it should be the purpose of the Department of the Interior to get as much for this power as is feasible rather than to go out and get the least that is possible. It appears to me that is what the Department is doing in most every instance. I think the record will show that.



Mr. DWORSHAK. Mr. Secretary, I listened to your statement with : great deal of interest and was particularly impressed by the justification of your expanded program which is proposed for 1947.

I heard the gentleman from Ohio ask you a question concerning what you thought was necessary for the expenditure of more money to develop our natural resources, particularly mineral and oil resources, You said that you thought it was necessary to spend a great deal of money because we did, to a large extent, deplete those reserves during the war.

I drew the inference from your exchange with Mr. Kirwan that both of you gentlemen feel that the entire responsibility rests upon the Department of the Interior and the Federal Government to spend money to develop our natural resources. Is that a correct impression that I got?

Mr. CHAPMAN. No; it is not. It is the responsibility of the Government, I feel, to do a good share of the exploration work on public lands or on other lands where you cannot get private capital to invest in that kind of exploration.

Mr. DWORSHAK. There is a potential development on private lands also as well as public domain.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DWORSHAK. Do you not believe that if we remove some of the restraints and encourage private industry to invest its sun is with a fair chance of enjoying profits if such enterprises prove successful, that

it will not be necessary for the Federal Government to assume so much of this responsibility?

Mr. CHAPMAN. I do not feel the restraints and restrictions on our exploration of oil and development of the oil industry are such that capital should be frightened away from these projects if it is interested.

Mr. DWORSHAK. You do not feel that capital should be frightened away?

Mir. CHAPMAN. I do not think so.

Mr. DWORSHAK. You do recognize, though, that during the war we have had price ceilings. Mr. CHAPMAN. Oh, yes.

Mr. DWORSHAK. We have had importation of minerals and oil. We have had a host of regulations imposed by the Federal Government on industry which in fact have discouraged private enterprise in the development which it engaged in throughout the prewar years; is that true?

Mr. CHAPMAN. I do not know that it has discouraged the oil people from continuing their exploration. They have made considerable discoveries in the last 3 years in oil.

Mr. DWORSHAK. Why is it necessary for the Federal Government to do much along that line?

Mr. CHAPMAN. Because I think there is much the Federal Government can do to assist in the development of natural resources, particularly regarding minerals. You have many minerals in the West that you may call marginal minerals that require considerable experimentation in pilot plants that private capital is not prepared to do.

Mr. DWORSHAK. I am in accord with you on the experimental work. Mr. CHAPMAN. There must be a combination of exploration and pilot-plant experimental work.

Mr. DWORSHAK. Do you not believe with the banks bursting with money, with these menacing inflationary threats today, and with private capital seeking profitable outlets, we ought to encourage private industry and capital to go out and do some of this work?

Mr. CHAPMAN. Certainly. Mr. DWORSHAK. And we should not make it appear that the Federal Government acknowledges its own responsibility to use the taxpayers' funds to go out and do what rightfully belongs to industry?

Mr. CHAPMAN. "You get back your exploration money when you let your leases. Mr. DWORSHAK. Through royalty payments?

Mr. CHAPMAN. Through bonuses in addition to your royalty payments.

Mr. DWORSHAK. I feel there has been too much of a trend and an inclination to create the impression that we must use Federal funds to do this.

Mr. CHAPMAN. I do not think that Federal funds should be used where private capital is available to carry on the work.

Mr. DWORSAAK. The Interior Department certainly goes not recognize that principle, and you want the fullest cooperation of private capital and enterprise?

Mr. CHAPMAN: Exactly. I think private industry is cooperating with us. I do not think that they would object to the exploration program which we have proposed?

84378446-pt. 1-3

Mr. DWORSHAK. Undoubtedly, there are vast undeveloped natural resources throughout the West and in other sections of the country, We want those developed for the welfare and security of our Nation, but surely we are not justified in trying to create the impression the Federal Government alone must assume this responsibility. Let us encourage private capital and let them know that the Interior Department of the Federal Government, through its control of the public domain and in its supervision of private lands, wants this active investment and this activity on the part of private capital.


What is the proposed civilian personnel in the Interior Department for the 1947 fiscal year as envisioned by these proposals now being submitted to our committee?

Mr. NORTHROP. Mr. Congressman, the estimates for the Interior appropriation for 1947 provide 39,223.8 man-years for permanent employees.

Mr. DWORSHAK. I note that the United States Civil Service Commission report for December 31, 1945, shows a total of 38,346, or about 900 less than you are asking for during the coming year. What is your total authorized personnel strength for the current fiscal year?

Mr. NORTHROP. Our authorized employment strength in manyears is 37,131.

Mr. DWORSHAK. For this fiscal year?

Mr. NORTHROP. Yes. But I might say that the figure I stated for 1947 was for permanent employees only. An additional 9,700 manyears for temporary employees gives a total of 48,924.

Mr. DWORSHAK. For 1947?
Mr. NORTHROP. Yes, sir.

Mr. DWORSHAK. How does that compare with your 1946 years, including both permanent and temporary employees?

Mr. NORTHROP. It proposes an increase of 11,793 man-years.

Mr. DWORSHAK. How much of that is permanent and how much is temporary? What is that classification? Is that the way you break it down?

Mr. NORTHROP. Yes. It would be, roughly, an 8,000 increase in permanent, and approximately 3,600 in temporaries.

Mr. DWORSHAK. By temporary you mean seasonal workers; do you?

Mr. NORTHRUP. Yes, sir.

Mr. DWORSHAK. Workers that work only a few months during the summer season?

Mr. NORTHRUP. That is right.

Mr. DWORSHAK. Can you tell me from your records what your civilian employment was in the fiscal year 1940? I refer to that as the last prewar year ending June 30, 1940.

Mr. NORTHROP. The year ended June 30, 1940, the permanent employees totaled 34,092 and the temporary 14,855, or a grand total of 48,947.

Mr. DWORSHAK. That is within a few of equaling what you propose for 1947?

Mr. NORTHROP. That is right, sir; except that these figures are not entirely comparable because the later figures are in man-years, whereas I believe the figures for 1940 were positions filled as of June 30, 1940.

Mr. DWORSHAK. There would be about an additional 10 percent because you do require more employees for each man-year. Mr. NORTHROP. That is correct. Mr. DWORSHAK. Do you think that it will run 10 percent? Mr. NORHTROP. I would judge that it would.


Mr. DWORSHAK. I note that in 1940 the office of the Secretary asked for $564,720 plus a deficiency of $40,000, or approximately $600,000, and that for 1947 you are asking for $1,350,000. That is in excess of twice as much. How can you justify that more than 100 percent increase in personnel in the Secretary's office?

Mr. Northrop. I would like to be able to supply for the record a break-down of that justification. There are quite a number of functions that have been added in the Secretary's office since that time.

For example, functions financed in 1940 by PWA and CCC funds were transferred later as charges agairst the appropriation for salaries, office of the Secretary.

Mr. DWORSHAK. It does not require twice as much money to operate the Secretary's office, but it requires more funds primarily because of increased duties placed in it?

Mr. NORTHROP. Increased duties, positions that were placed under the Secretary's office that might previously have been under some other appropriation, overtime payments, salary increases, and similar items make up a large part of that difference.

Mr. DWORSHAK. I would like to have you put a brief statement in the record, if there is no objection to it, showing the reason for that increase.

(The information follows:)

Changes in appropriation "Salaries, Office of Secretary of the Interior," fiscal years

1937 to 1946

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Secretarial staff:

$23, 840 Under Secretary

2,000 Assistant Secretary. 6, 780

$3, 200 Special staff service

Office of field representative..

$25,000 Office of land utilization..


$13, 900 Adviser on labor relations..

7,600 Safety engineer

7. 400 Division of Power.

101, 815 Division of Information

16, 450

34, 360 Division of Budget and Administrative Man. sgement...

$4,600 4,200 Division of Personnel Su

16, 500 Dervision and Manage

30, 160/27, 1801 5,7401 - $8,300 32, 740 14,970

19, 900 7,600

7, 400 101,815 50, 810

25, 300

102, 490

Changes in appropriation "Salaries, Office of Secretary of the Interior,fiscal years

1937 to 1946Continued

[blocks in formation]

Division of Administra-
tive Services:
Omice of Chief Clerk

(including garage,
Division of Mails
and Files, Dispen-
sary, Museum, and

telephone section)..- $22, 200 $1,680 - $2,040 - $7, 860 $12, 720 $26, 160 Purchasing office.. 65, 380 2,500 5,700 -1,800

22, 670 Miscellaneous Service Division.. 66, 200 17, 430 -8,700

11,020 Undistributed

18, 380

$60, 455 $42, 450 Total.

216, 560 35, 960 78, 480 -8, 280 176, 175 128, 880 60, 445 42, 450 Appropriated, 1946. Appropriated, 1937.

[blocks in formation]


686, 77

NOTE.-As indicated in the above tabulation the changes in this appropriation from the fiscal year 193 to the fiscal year 1916 involving a net increase of $686,770 consist of a net increase of $322,720 covering trans fers of positions from other appropriations, $102,895 for reallocations and within-grade promotions and

et increase of $261, 155 for new positions require for new activities and the expansion of functions, the latter amount reflecting decreases of $43,900 made in the appropriation for 1945. The transfers from PWA and CCC were made to provide for positions established in connection with the expansion of the Depart ment's functions originally financed from emergency funds, which functions were subsequently provide for under regular appropriations. The transfers from bureau appropriations were made to cover function transferred from the bureaus to the Office of the Secretary. These transfers were offset by reductions in the appropriations from which the transfers were made.


Mr. DWORSHAK. On page 14 of your statement you refer to the reclamation developments under the Bureau of Reclamation, and you state that its power plants in the last fiscal year produced 13% billion kilowatt-hours with gross revenues of $20,942,000.

At the bottom of the same page you state, and I quote:

The record of Federal power in the war was unsurpassed. Moreover, in 1945 revenues from sales of power from the Department of the Interior projects totalec $38,891,326.

I know that there is some reason for that divergence, but I cannot quite figure it out from your statement. Can you tell me the difference between those two figures?

Mr. NORTHROP. The problem involves a duplication in the gross figures presented by Bonneville and by the Bureau of Reclamation. On the Columbia Basin project there is a payment from the Bonneville fund into the reclamation fund which is adjusted in our net figures on revenue to eliminate that duplication. It shows up, however, when either one of the agencies gives a gross figure on receipts.

Mr. DWORSHAK. Is it reasonable to assume in the larger figure of approximately $39,000,000 there is duplication, and it is more accurate to take the lesser figure of about $21,000,000 as representing the gross

« PreviousContinue »