Senator MAGNUSON. Then comes November 11, or the month of December, when Congress has passed the bill. What Senator Allott wants to know is, When do you start on the new basis?

Mr. SWIDLER. The bill was not passed until December 13.

Senator ALLOTT. Was it December 13?

Senator MAGNUSON. The Friday after the conference.

Mr. SWIDLER. December 19, rather. So that normally, the new apportionment would not be made available by the Bureau of the Budget until after the bill became law. But we proceeded to trim our staff at an earlier date when we saw what was coming up.

PREVIOUS APPROPRIATIONS

Senator ALLOTT. You say you saw what was coming up. I want to get to the main point and I am really just trying to educate myself a little bit this morning.

You had $11,080,000 in 1963. You say you trimmed your sails. We gave you $11,850,000 in 1964, which is $800,000 more than you had the previous year. Why do you say trim your sails from the previous year?

Mr. SWIDLER. In the first place, there was a pay increase in the meantime, this increase does not reflect an increase in staff, nor does it reflect the allotments that were made in accordance with the temporary appropriation authorizations. We were spending at the rate authorized by the Congress, which was less than the rate that we could continue to the end of the fiscal year.

Senator ALLOTT. Now, I am determined to get an answer to my question.

You say that the bill was passed on December 9, and I was just speaking from memory.

Mr. SWIDLER. December 19. It was signed by the President on December 19.

Senator ALLOTT. All right. Now, it was not law and you were under continuing resolution until the President signed it. Mr. SWIDLER. Yes, sir.

OPERATION UNDER NEW APPROPRIATION

Senator ALLOTT. On December 19, then; taking your date, this was the law. Now, when did you start-did you start immediately under the new appropriation, or do you have to then get a new allotment from the Bureau of the Budget and get a release of these funds from the Bureau of the Budget? This is all I want to know. And if so, how long does it take?

Mr. TRAINOR. You have to get an apportionment by quarter, sir. It just takes a few days.

Senator ALLOTT. All right, when? If this was a law on December 19, when did you get it?

Mr. TRAINOR. I can speculate. It was maybe 3 or 4 days later. Senator ALLOTT. Well, who handles these things in the Federal Power Commission?

Mr. CAPAR. I don't know the exact date when we got the authorization from the Bureau, but subsequent to the date of the signing of the appropriation by the President, we had the quarterly request

31-706-64-pt. 1-22

over. They acted within, I think it is, 15 days, sir, of the time the appropriation was signed into law.

Senator ALLOTT. I am not concerned specifically about the Federal Power Commission. I am concerned about all of these agencies, because when these appropriations bills get over here late, they have a bad effect upon all of you and we all know it. Then would it be fair to say that after the bill is passed, you should have the allocation of your funds from the Bureau of the Budget so that you can go ahead within a matter of 4 or 5 or 6 days, something like that, as a general rule?

Mr. CAPAR. It is about that, yes, sir. It is usually 15 days, as I recall the amount. But it is within a very short period of time after the bill is signed into law. We usually get the papers over there prior to that time.

Senator MAGNUSON. You started your January payroll on the new budget?

Mr. CAPAR. Yes, sir.

Senator MAGNUSON. All right.

Senator YOUNG. May I ask a question?

Senator MAGNUSON. Yes; go ahead.

COMMITTEE PROVISION ON COOPERATIVES

Senator YOUNG. The committee wrote this provision in the report and I am wondering when this went into effect:

The committee is advised that the Commission is seeking to assert jurisdiction over rural electric cooperatives. During the 27 years since passage of the REA statute, the Commission has not asserted general jurisdiction over such cooperatives.

This assertion of jurisdiction has raised a number of questions concerning the responsibilities of the two Federal agencies involved, interpretations of the laws establishing them, and the intent of the Congress concerning its actions on these and other related laws. It is the committee's opinion that any new assertion of Federal regulatory authority, especially as it conflicts with, or overlaps the field of another Federal agency, should be a matter for consideration by Congress.

The committee, therefore, feels that no funds should be used by FPC to establish regulatory authority over REA cooperatives until the Congress has had an opportunity to consider appropriate legislation, such as the clarifying legislation which has been introduced in both the House and the Senate.

CONSIDERATION OF PROVISION BY COMMISSION

Now, did you go ahead as you always had, or did you respect this provision?

Mr. SWIDLER. We respected the provision and I wrote Senator Magnuson on December 6 explaining our position. We construe that statement in the committee report as a desire that no final action should be taken on determining the question of jurisdiction before the Congress has an opportunity to act and we pointed out in our response that the way the proceeding was moving, there could be no final action before December and that in the meantime we would assert no jurisdiction. We did not, however, terminate the proceedings that were then underway.

Senator YOUNG. You went ahead the same as you always did?

Mr. SWIDLER. No, sir; we went ahead simply with the matter of determining jurisdiction. This is still before the examiner, sir, and

we have asserted no jurisdiction. We have required no cooperative to file with us, we are merely carrying on these proceedings and not dismissing them.

Senator YOUNG. These proceedings are new. You have never done this before in 27 years.

Mr. SWIDLER. Yes, sir. The Commission has never been very active in asserting its powers of jurisdiction—

Senator YOUNG. I mean over REA.

COMMITTEE JURISDICTION OVER COOPERATIVES

Mr. SWIDLER. The Commission in the past issued orders asserting jurisdiction over cooperatives but has never formally decided the jurisdictional question after a hearing such as is now being conducted. Cooperatives have filed their rates with the Commission on a number of occasions. It is all explained in the correspondence, and if I may, sir, I should like to have put into the record my two letters to Senator Magnuson dated November 14 and December 6, 1963, which I think explain the whole background.

Senator YOUNG. As I understand, this language states clearly that you were not supposed to use any funds to continue your investigations. Mr. SWIDLER. We were merely continuing the proceedings then underway. Had we abandoned those proceedings, the testimony would have become stale, the preparations would have been useless. We did not discontinue the proceedings, but neither have we asserted jurisdiction. If Congress should at any time during this session pass legislation exempting cooperatives from FPC jurisdiction these proceedings would be all washed out and no rate would ever have been filed with this Commission.

Senator YOUNG. Did you find anything wrong with these G. & T. co-ops in your investigation? You spent quite a little money investigating. Did you find anything wrong?

RESPONSIBILITY OF COMMISSION

Mr. SWIDLER. We have not attempted to find anything wrong. This is a question of observing the requirements of the law. If these cooperatives are covered by the statute, they should file. Whether they should be covered is a legislative question. We feel we should not go into that question. When the question whether the statute should contain such a provision comes before the legislative committee, I shall be glad, if the committee wishes, to express my view on that question. We are now simply trying to determine what the existing law means and this we think to be part of our administrative responsibility.

Senator YOUNG. What was your reason for going into these investigations when you had never done it before? Did you have some complaints?

QUESTION OF MEANING OF STATUTE

Mr. SWIDLER. For the first time in the Commission's history, we attempted to determine just what the statute meant and how it should be applied.

We prepared a list, which had never been done before, Senator, of the companies covered by the statute. This posed to us the question

were the cooperatives under the statute or not under the statute? We could not duck that, Senator.

Senator YOUNG. Whenever you engage in some new area when you have had no complaints, it seems to me you just have too much money to operate with.

Mr. SWIDLER. I think, sir, the policy question whether cooperatives should be placed under the statute is a large and complicated question. But the question here is, only, What does the existing statute mean? Can you ignore a part of your statutory obligation? What do you say to the other people who say, "Why don't you ignore me, too? Why pick on me?"

Senator YOUNG. This is the first time it has been done in 27 years and you have proceeded without a complaint being filed.

Mr. SWIDLER. Senator, in 27 years the Commission had never announced a list of the companies subject to its jurisdiction. I for one was not prepared to assume the responsibilities of my job and continue that situation. It seemed to me that if the Commission were to do its job, we had to determine over whom we were charged to exercise jurisdiction.

COMPLAINT OF COOPERATIVES

Senator YOUNG. These cooperatives tell me they have never before been harassed this way-never before in history.

Mr. SWIDLER. They are not being harassed now, sir.

Senator YOUNG. Why this procedure when you have never done it before? Do you have too much money?

Mr. SWIDLER. No, sir; we are confronted with the question-
Senator YOUNG. You had no complaints, did you?

Mr. SWIDLER. We are confronted with the question whether we have jurisdiction, whether they should file under the statute. If they come under the statute, they have an obligation to file. We are charged with administering that statute. It seems to me that we have just as much responsibility to determine whether it applies to this group as to the other group. We don't have the authority to make exemptions. If Congress wants to make exceptions, this is for Congress to do. But it is for us to administer that statute impartially. Senator YOUNG. The committee advised you what they thought you should do. Apparently you paid no attention to it.

ACTION DEFERRED UNTIL CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

Mr. SWIDLER. No, sir; I do not think that is right and I am trying to explain, sir. What we are doing is perfectly consistent with the expression of the committee and we will defer any action until this Congress can act on the legislation. We will take no action against these cooperatives and make no final decision until the end of this session of Congress.

Senator YOUNG. But you are causing these cooperatives

Mr. SWIDLER. If Congress wishes to legislate, it will have opportunity before FPC exercises any jurisdiction.

Senator YOUNG. You are forcing these cooperatives to hire a lot of high-priced attorneys and spend money unnecessarily.

Mr. SWIDLER. The cooperatives themselves determined their expenditures. They have elected to go into a variety of courts to seek to

enjoin these proceedings. They have gone about this the expensive way. It was not necessary for them to apply all these collateral procedural tactics which have been so expensive to them. They could simply have cooperated in this proceeding and it would still have been scheduled in a way that would have avoided any determination during this session of Congress, sir.

Senator MONRONEY. Was not the thrust of this, though, Mr. Chair

man

CORRESPONDENCE FOR RECORD

Senator MAGNUSON. Before you go into that, put those letters into the record at this point.

(The documents referred to follow :)

Hon. JOSEPH P. SWIDLER,

Chairman, Federal Power Commission,
Washington, D.C.

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, D.C., November 5, 1963.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As you know, a bill, S. 2028, has been introduced in the Senate which would amend the Federal Power Act with respect to jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission over nonprofit cooperatives, in particular, rural electric cooperatives. It is our understanding that proceedings are presently pending before the Commission which would extend its jurisdiction to include these cooperatives.

When the Federal Power Act was passed, public utility districts were exempted. At that time the REA was not in existence, but legislation creating it was pending and was enacted shortly thereafter. The cooperatives established subsequent to the creation of the REA are similar in nature to public utilities and, in our opinion, Congress intended that the same exclusion from the Federal Power Act be applicable to such cooperatives.

Apparently, however, the Commission feels there is sufficient uncertainty as to Congress' intent to justify it in assuming jurisdiction. We feel this to be of enough importance to be considered again by the Congress for a final determination as to whether or not Congress wishes rural electric cooperatives to be regulated by the Commission under the Federal Power Act.

Pending a final resolution of this matter by the Congress, we request and strongly urge that the Commission defer action on the proceedings involving extension of its jurisdiction to these cooperatives. We would appreciate your calling this matter to the attention of the other members of the Commission and advising us as soon as possible of your response to this request.

Very truly yours,

WARREN G. MAGNUSON, U.S. Senator.
A. S. MIKE MONRONEY, U.S. Senator.

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., November 14, 1963.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: This is in reply to the letter of November 5 from you and Senator Monroney asking that the Commission defer action on certain proceedings involving the question of the Commission's jurisdiction over electric power cooperatives pending congressional action on S. 2028, which would make parts II and III of the Federal Power Act inapplicable to such cooperatives. Your letter was received on November 7, and has been given extensive Commission consideration. This is the first opportunity we have had following such discussion for reply on behalf of the whole Commission as requested by your letter. The Commission has been apprised of the action of the Senate committee yesterday on the appropriations bill which would provide funds for this agency for the current fiscal year and of the statement in the committee report accompanying the bill that the committee "feels that no funds should be used by FPC to