1960 will finance contract earnings and associated costs of 34 projects and 19 units of the Missouri River Basin project. Nine projects and 10 Missouri River Basin units of the total are grouped under drainage and minor construction because of the relatively limited scope of their fiscal year 1960 activities. Two million dollars are included for continuation of investigations in connection with the Missouri River Basin project, consisting of basin surveys, unit investigations and advance planning required to establish plans for future development. A small program for the rehabilitation and betterment of projects which have become obsolete or badly deteriorated is also provided for in the 1960 program. An appropriation of $3,500,000 is requested for this activity and work will be underway on 14 such projects, of which 4 are scheduled for completion by the end of the fiscal year. Financing of other Department of the Interior Bureaus participating in the Missouri River Basin program is also included in the amount of $3 million. During the current year we expect to substantially complete the salinity alleviation works of the McMillan Delta project; the Slaterville diversion works, Pineview Dam and Reservoir enlargement and the Wanship power facilities, all on the Weber Basin project; the Robles diversion dam and the Robles Casitas diversion canal on the Ventura River project; Twitchell Dam and Reservoir of the Santa Maria project; Big Thompson powerplant of the Colorado-Big Thompson project; and the Roza powerplant of the Yakima project, Roza division. Ten projects in the drainage and minor construction status are scheduled to be completed. On the Missouri River Basin project, during the current fiscal year, we expect to complete the Glendo powerplant and switchyard on the Glendo unit; the Helena Valley pumping plant of the Helena Valley unit; Woodston diversion dam of the Webster unit; and the Utica Junction-Sioux Falls 230-kilovolt transmission line and the Greeley-Fort Morgan 115-kilovolt transmission line reconductoring, both on the Transmission division. The Solano, Ventura, Little Wood River and the Wapinitia projects are scheduled to be completed with funds requested in fiscal year 1960. Also programed for functional completion are the Vega Dam and Reservoir of the Collbran project; the Fort Cobb Dam and Reservoir and the Fort Cobb municipal and industrial water facilities of the Washita Basin project; Howard Prairie Dam and Reservoir, Keene Creek Dam and Reservoir, the collection canals and the Green Springs powerplant of the Rogue River project, Talent division; the canals and diversion works of the Middle Rio Grande project; the storage basin, river pump plant and main canal of the lower Rio Grande project, Mercedes division, and the Havre-Shelby 115-kilovolt transmission line of the Fort Peck project. Four projects in the drainage and minor construction status are also scheduled to be completed. During fiscal year 1960 on the Missouri River Basin project, the Owl Creek unit, and the Gray Reef Dam and Reservoir and the Fremont Canyon powerplant on the Glendo unit are to be substantially completed. The transmission division of the Missouri River Basin project has scheduled for completion the BoysenPilot Butte 115-kilovolt transmission line and associated switchyard additions at Boysen and Pilot Butte. For fiscal year 1960 we are requesting $77,035,000 which will provide a sound program for the Colorado River storage project and participating projects. On the Flaming Gorge unit the funds requested will permit continuation of construction on the dam and powerplant, completion of the diversion tunnel, and acquisition of miscellaneous camp equipment. Funds are also included for continuation of construction on the Glen Canyon Dam and powerplant and associated facilities. Government housing and municipal services are essentially completed. On the Navajo unit the funds requested will permit continuation of construction of Navajo Dam and necessary camp facilities. Investigations will continue and preconstruction surveys will be made on the transmission division, and advance planning will continue on the Curecanti unit and on six participating projects and also on related water quality studies. Definite plan reports on the Florida and Silt participating projects are scheduled for completion in 1960. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The estimate for operating and maintaining the Bureau's irrigation, power' municipal and industrial, and other facilities for fiscal year 1960 is $29,131,000' This is $707,000 more than appropriated for the current year after allowance has been made for the pending pay increase supplemental request in House Document 90. The funds requested for 1960 plus about $3,800,000 of funds advanced by water users are needed for the operation and maintenance of 65 projects or divisions of projects, including Missouri River Basin units, for continuance of work on the Colorado River front work and levee system; soil and moisture conservation operations; and halogeton control on Bureau lands. As a permanent activity, the Bureau of Reclamation operates and maintains only power projects and the power facilities and other reserved works of multipurpose projects. Completed irrigation facilities are turned over to water users' organizations for operation and maintenance as rapidly as the necessary agreements can be consummated. Pending completion or until such agreements are executed, the systems are operated by the Bureau with appropriated or advanced funds. Under the power program the Bureau will operate and maintain directly or by contract, during fiscal year 1960, a total nameplate generating capacity of 5,198,250 kilowatts in 42 powerplants, and approximately 9,433 circuit miles of transmission lines. In addition, with money available from a revolving fund, the Bureau operates and maintains approximately 920 miles of Fort Peck project transmission lines. Of the operation and maintenance appropriation requested, approximately 90 percent will be returned to the U.S. Treasury from power, irrigation, and municipal revenues. The balance, which is nonreimbursable by various provisions of the law, is made up principally of two items, the Colorado River front work and levee system and the program for soil and moisture conservation operations. GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES We are asking for an appropriation of $4,400,000 for expenses necessary for the general administration of the Bureau. This 1960 request holds the general administrative expense item to approximately the same level as appropriated for fiscal year 1959 after allowance has been made for the pending pay increase supplemental request in House Document 90. These nonreimbursable funds are used to finance the general overall management-type functions and activities of the Bureau in Washington, Denver, and the seven regional offices. LOAN PROGRAM For fiscal year 1960 we are requesting $220,000 to administer the loan program. This money will be used in connection with the investigation of potential loans and the administrative costs involved in negotiating contracts with qualified non-Federal organizations under either the distribution system or small projects loan program. This work seems to be reaching the peak of its activity. We know of 8 or 10 applications that probably will be submitted for processing during fiscal year 1960. Several other organizations have indicated interest in loans and may also submit applications. Such applications must be considered and if acceptable must be processed. Contract negotiations and other preliminary actions will be required on these and on some of the 16 applications already approved and the 7 now being considered by the Bureau. REDUCTION BELOW 1959 REQUEST Mr. CANNON. Mr. Dominy, do you think the reduced request for funds indicates a reduced need for service? Mr. DOMINY. No, sir; the reduction in our budget in 1960 over that of 1959 is accounted for by the absence of new construction starts. Actually, the Congress put in some new starts in fiscal 1959, and the money we are requesting here is merely that required for an orderly program to carry forward the construction work already underway, including those new starts that Congress put into our budget in fiscal 1959. Mr. CANNON. It is evident now that we will fail to balance the budget. In other words, we will not have enough income this year to pay the expenses of Government under the budget submitted. It is evident if any new starts were requested at this time outside the budget, the money required for those projects would have to be borrowed. We are only able to meet your program, along with the rest of the programs included in the entire budget at this time. The addition of any expenditures not included in the budget would mean that much more money for which bonds must be issued, and it is getting hard to sell bonds. In other words, there would be that much more money to be raised under borrowing through the issuance of bonds and that means an increase in the national debt and a corresponding increase in the cost of living which is now reflected on every family in the United States. So, I congratulate you not only upon your reduced request this year, but upon your failure to request new starts. Are there any questions, gentlemen? Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to concur in the statement which you have just made, that it is encouraging to me, and I am sure every member of this committee, to know that you, Mr. Dominy, are bringing to us this year a budget request which is $14,728,935 below the 1959 budget request. I am sure you feel, Mr. Dominy, that no project which is now under construction will be deterred to a detrimental degree; that is, it will not be slowed up? Mr. DOMINY. I concur fully in that statement, Mr. Jensen. This budget was very carefully prepared with the objective in mind of providing adequate financing for the construction activities already undertaken, with the recommendation of the administration and approval of the Congress. And while we in Reclamation, naturally, believing in the worth of our program would like to see new starts, we recognize that under the conditions of the national budget and the tremendous requirements for other items of national interest, this represents a very appropriate budget for Reclamation under the conditions of the overall Federal budget consideration. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION EMPLOYMENT Mr. JENSEN. May I ask right here what is the situation relative to employees in the Bureau of Reclamation now as compared to a year ago? Are you asking for more employees or less employees? Mr. DOMINY. Mr. Golzé, do you have the breakdown on that? Mr. GoLzÉ. The employees, Mr. Jensen, will stay at approximately the same level that we now have. Mr. JENSEN. Just about the same? Mr. GoLzÉ. Yes, sir. Mr. JENSEN. You can furnish any additional answer you desire for the record. Mr. GoLzÉ. Yes, sir; we do not contemplate any major increases in our staff in 1960. (The additional information referred to follows:) Bureau of Reclamation employees (exclusive of other Interior agencies) participating in Missouri River Basin program The positions shown include full-time equivalent positions for part time and temporary employees. The average number of employees shown above represents man-years of employment. The increase in man-years in 1960 with a decrease in number of positions indicates a forecast of less turnover, or greater employee utilization. Mr. JENSEN. That being the case, we will not complain too much. OUTSIDE INTERESTS OF BUREAU EMPLOYEES Mr. Chairman, there is a matter which has been brought to the attention of certain members of this committee, which I feel should be brought to the attention of the entire membership of this committee, and to the officials of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of the Interior in such a manner that the Department will take interest, and possibly greater interest and be more concerned than they have been in the past, relative to this question which I am now about to state: Information has come to me that a number of Bureau of Reclamation employees have been engaged in activities involving conflicts of interest. It raises a serious question as to whether these and other Bureau employees have been guilty of violations of section 2 and section 281 of title XVIII of the United States Criminal Code. I have reference to the recent hearing before the Federal Power Commission examiner relative to the city of Seattle's proposed boundary project, FPC Project No. 2144. Sworn testimony was presented at that hearing showing that a number of Bureau of Reclamation employees have been engaged, for pay, over a number of years, in performing work relative to matters coming before the Federal Power Commission for determination. One Bureau employee even appeared as a witness for the city of Seattle in these FPC hearings. In addition to the current hearings on FPC project No. 2144, I am told that the records in the Federal Power Commission files on FPC project No. 553, and amendments, the "Skagit River Development of the City of Seattle," indicates that this practice of Bureau employees working on these matters coming before a Federal agency and in which the Federal Government has an interest has been going on for nearly 15 years. At this time I want to read into the record two sections of title 18 of the Criminal Code of the United States. The first section, section 281, reads as follows: Whoever being a Member or a Delegate to Congress, or a Resident Commissioner, either before or after he has qualified, or the head of a department, or other officer or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, directly or indirectly receives or agrees to receive, any compensation for any services rendered or to be rendered, either by himself or another, in relation to any proceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest or other matter in which the United States is a party or directly or indirectly interested, before any department, agency, court-martial, officer, or any civil, military, or naval commission, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Retired officers of the Armed Forces of the United States, while not on active duty, shall not by reason of their status as such be subject to the provisions of this section. Nothing herein shall be construed to allow any retired officer to represent any person in the sale of anything to the Government through the department in whose service he holds a retired status. This section shall not apply to any person because of his membership in the National Guard of the District of Columbia, nor to any person specially excepted by act of Congress. Secondly, section 2 provides as follows: (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal. As you will note, section 281 makes it a criminal offense for any Federal employee to accept payment in any form for working on matters in which the United States is a party or directly or indirectly interested, coming before any Federal agency. Section 2 provides that anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the performance of an act in violition of title 18 of the United States Code also is guilty as a principal. The penalty is up to $10,000 fine, up to 2 years in prison, or both. Any such violators shall be incapable of holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Pages 377 and 378 of the FPC transcript of the hearing on project No. 2144 present the request of a Mr. Ireal A. Winter, a Bureau employee, to appear as a witness for the city of Seattle. Page 379 of the transcript contains a copy of a denial of this request dated October 28, 1958, signed by Alfred R. Golzé, Assistant Commissioner. This is followed by a copy of an approval, granted Mr. Winter to be a witness for the city of Seattle at the forthcoming hearings before the Federal Power Commission. This was dated November 26, 1958 and was signed by W. A. Dexheimer. Page 839 of the transcript discloses that this approval came after a conference with Dr. Raver and other representatives of the city of Seattle, on or about November 26, 1958, with reference to the appearance of Mr. Winter as a witness in the pending proceedings before the FPC. It appears that both Mr. Dexheimer and the city of Seattle representatives who took part in this conference may be guilty of violation of section 2 of title 18 of the United States Code. So that the record may show some of the specific basis for my concern, I would like to have placed in the record at this point, pertinent portions of the following pages of the official transcript of the FPC hearing on project No. 2144: Pages 55, 56, 57, and 58. Pages 376, 377, 378, 379, and 380. Mr. CANNON. They will be included in the record, at this point. Mr. JENSEN. Thank you. |