Mr. JENSEN. That is your Grand Coulee rate. Mr. GOLDSCHMIDT. That is both of them. The rates for deliver power in the Northwest are $17.50 a kilowatt-year. That is a 2-m rate. Mr. JENSEN. Grand Coulee gets half of it, so Bonneville retai only 1 mill a kilowatt. Mr. GOLDSCHMIDT. You are talking about the cost of generatin the power at Coulee being lower than at TVA. That is right. Mr. JENSEN. I am talking about what you get for power. I a asking if the rates that are charged by the Tennessee Valley Authorit are not about three times higher than the rates charged by Bonnevil power. Mr. GOLDSCHMIDT. The rates are higher, but not three tim higher. They are considerably higher. Mr. JENSEN. Why, certainly, they are considerably higher. Th point that I am trying to make is this: I know that this committe would be more liberal in appropriating money for these new projec which you are asking for, and for the completion of the ones that hav already been started, if we could be assured that they would pay o in the time in which the law required them to be paid out, which is 5 years. My point is that it should be the purpose of the Departmen of the Interior to get as much for this power as is feasible rather tha to go out and get the least that is possible. It appears to me that what the Department is doing in most every instance. I think th record will show that. DISCUSSION OF NEED FOR EXPANDED PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT O NATURAL RESOURCES Mr. DWORSHAK. Mr. Secretary, I listened to your statement with great deal of interest and was particularly impressed by the justifica tion of your expanded program which is proposed for 1947. I heard the gentleman from Ohio ask you a question concernin what you thought was necessary for the expenditure of more money t develop our natural resources, particularly mineral and oil resource You said that you thought it was necessary to spend a great deal o money because we did, to a large extent, deplete those reserves durin the war. I drew the inference from your exchange with Mr. Kirwan the both of you gentlemen feel that the entire responsibility rests upon th Department of the Interior and the Federal Government to spen money to develop our natural resources. Is that a correct impressio that I got? Mr. CHAPMAN. No; it is not. It is the responsibility of the Govern ment, I feel, to do a good share of the exploration work on public land or on other lands where you cannot get private capital to invest in tha kind of exploration. Mr. DWORSHAK. There is a potential development on private land also as well as public domain. Mr. CHAPMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. DWORSHAK. Do you not believe that if we remove some of th restraints and encourage private industry to invest its funds with fair chance of enjoying profits if such enterprises prove successful, tha 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? Mr. 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 pay ments. 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. DWORSHAK. 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? 84378-46-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 invest ment and this activity on the part of private capital. TOTAL ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT IN 1947 ESTIMATES 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. Secretarial staff: 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? INCREASE IN APPROPRIATIONS FOR OFFICE OF SECRETARY 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 against 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 Special staff services: $3,200 9,980 Office of field repre sentative... Changes in appropriation "Salaries, Office of Secretary of the Interior," fiscal yea 1937 to 1946-Continued NOTE. As indicated in the above tabulation the changes in this appropriation from the fiscal year 19 to the fiscal year 1946 involving a net increase of $686,770 consist of a net increase of $322,720 covering tran fers of positions from other appropriations, $102,895 for reallocations and within-grade promotions and net increase of $261, 155 for new positions required for new activities and the expansion of functions, t latter amount reflecting decreases of $43,900 made in the appropriation for 1945. The transfers from PW and CCC were made to provide for positions established in connection with the expansion of the Depar 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 the appropriations from which the transfers were made. REVENUES FROM SALE OF POWER Mr. DWORSHAK. On page 14 of your statement you refer to th reclamation developments under the Bureau of Reclamation, an 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 1948 revenues from sales of power from the Department of the Interior projects totale $38,891,326. I know that there is some reason for that divergence, but I canno quite figure it out from your statement. Can you tell me the differ ence between those two figures? Mr. NORTHROP. The problem involves a duplication in the gros figures presented by Bonneville and by the Bureau of Reclamation On the Columbia Basin project there is a payment from the Bonne ville fund into the reclamation fund which is adjusted in our ne figures on revenue to eliminate that duplication. It shows up however, when either one of the agencies gives a gross figure o receipts. Mr. DWORSHAK. Is it reasonable to assume in the larger figure o approximately $39,000,000 there is duplication, and it is more accurat to take the lesser figure of about $21,000,000 as representing the gros |