Mr. CHAPMAN. I will take Mr. Straus first. Mr. Straus has been in the Department for 14 or 15 years. He worked at one time in the informational office of the Department, and he worked as an administrative officer in the Public Works Administration. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Was not his experience primarily that of a newspaperman before coming to the Government? Mr. CHAPMAN. Yes; he had some newspaper experience before coming to the Government. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. He has had no technical experience except as he has picked it up in connection with his work in the Department? Mr. CHAPMAN. That is right. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. How about Mr. Boke? Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Boke has had considerable technical training in the sense that he worked in the field of land-management problems before he came to the Department of the Interior. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I was not a member of the subcommittee which previously considered this question, and I speak from second-hand information only. I want to ask you, however, if you feel that the criticism and lack of satisfaction in the West, particularly in California, as far as the work conducted in the irrigation and reclamation fields is concerned, was without any fair basis or justification? Mr. CHAPMAN. Congressman, in dealing with a program as large as the Central Valley project in California, you are bound to have differences of opinion that may be perfectly honest differences of opinion in the approach to the problems involved. I assume those differences have arisen in many other cases; I and the top officials feel that Mr. Boke has handled the program out there very well considering the obstacles and problems he had to deal with. We feel he has done an excellent job. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. You are, of course, familiar with the criticism that developed and prompted this amendment? Mr. CHAPMAN. I am; I am very familiar with that. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. And you feel there feel there is no fair justification for that criticism? Mr. CHAPMAN. I do not feel it is justified. I think those making the criticism are in error. Mr. KERR. Do you have any questions, Mr. Chairman? Mr. CANNON. There are two men involved here? Mr. CHAPMAN. There are only two men involved-the Commissioner of Reclamation and one of the regional directors. Mr. CANNON. How long had they served, respectively, in these positions? Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Straus has served as Commissioner of Reclamation since 1945, and Mr. Boke was appointed regional director in 1945 or late in 1944. Mr. CANNON. What were their qualifications for these positions, taking them individually? Mr. CHAPMAN. In Mr. Boke's case, his qualifications were that he had had experience in land problems, in dealing with land management and land economies in the West before his appointment. I don't recall how many years he had worked with the Agriculture Department in land problems in the West. In Mr. Straus' case, his experience in administrative work in the Department of the Interior fully qualified him to serve as Commissioner of Reclamation. May I inject one thing here? Mr. CANNON. Yes. Mr. CHAPMAN. I want to show you that this proviso insisting that the Commissioner has to be an engineer is not shared by the people generally interested in reclamation. This has nothing to do with the political aspects as to whether he is a Democrat or a Republican. I want to read an excerpt from a letter dated July 12, 1923, from the Acting Secretary of the Interior in the Coolidge administration, written to Senator Shortridge of California, concerning the removal of Arthur P. Davis from the office of Reclamation Commissioner because he was an engineer. This letter is signed by the Acting Secretary. The distinguished Secretary of the Interior at that time was from my State, Secretary Work, and a very fine Secretary. These are excerpts from the letter. ** * the Secretary felt that the principal problems in the Reclamation Service * * * are not engineering problems, but include the business management and handling of the projects, the settlers thereon, and the lands therein. Among other things which it is felt should be considered is the colonization of more settlers on many of the projects, subdivision of large holdings, more intensive farming, diversification of crops, and advice to the farmers as to the handling and marketing of their products. These being in the nature of business or argicultural problems, the Secretary felt they could be better handled by a businessman familiar with western conditions than by an engineer. Mr. CANNON. I think that is very pertinent and very conclusive. In the years that these two men were in the service there, was there ever any justified or justifiable complaint that they were not qualified or that they were not efficient? Mr. CHAPMAN. No. When I say "No", the Secretary and myself have felt that the criticism made about these two gentlemen is not justified. We have examined the criticism quite carefully, and this examination has not been a perfunctory thing because we realizeand we are both conscious of our obligations-that this important job must be done efficiently. Of course, we found cases where we felt there should be an improvement in the procedure and methods, and we have discussed, suggested, and made changes in procedure in many instances. You always work toward improving your program; you are never static in saying "This is fine; this is the best there is." We have continued to look for improvement; these men have tried to look for improvement, and we feel the criticism against them has not been justified by reason of their being derelict or inefficient in their duties. Mr. CANNON. There was at no time any charge against their integrity or of maladministration? Mr. CHAPMAN. Only some that came out in the hearings and discussions in the last session; but we feel they were never substantiated. Mr. CANNON. They were never substantiated? Mr. CHAPMAN. No; they were not. And apropos of your question, may I read you one other pertinent statement on that? I want to read you one statement from a member of the committee who sat in the hearings. These are excerpts from the minority views of Representative Manasco, a member of the House Subcommittee on Publicity and Propaganda, taken from the Congressional Record of August 4, 1948, at page 9904: In my opinion, the charges that have been made against the officials of the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation are not sustained by the evidence. On the contrary, the record discloses that many obstacles were placed in the way of the Bureau in carrying out the laws as prescribed by the Congress. It is clear that there is intense opposition to the 160-acre limitation and public power provisions of the reclamation laws that have stood unrepealed for more than 45 years. The propaganda that has been spread by that opposition throughout the Central Valley of California has unfortunately necessitated the Bureau to spend considerable time and effort in combating erroneous and misleading statements concerning the applicability of the laws. ** * Many assertions are made throughout the record that the Bureau officials engaged in dishonest and false propaganda. The substantive proof, however, is totally lacking in that respect. No specific instances have been shown where any false or misleading statements were issued by the Bureau of Reclamation or its officials. * * * Many charges were made against representatives of the Bureau that they were flagrantly violating the laws of Congress. However, it is my opinion that the principal objection to the conduct of Bureau employees was based on the fact that they were carrying out the duties imposed upon them by act of Congress to see that the 160-acre limitation and the public-power provisions of the law were observed in the Central Valley of California. Mr. CANNON. Then, if there is any objection to their course in this respect, the remedy would be a modification of the law? Mr. CHAPMAN. Entirely. Mr. CANNON. And you feel that these two men are as well qualified as anyone who could be appointed to these positions? Mr. CHAPMAN. I do. Mr. CANNON. And you feel their retention would inure to the good of the service? Mr. CHAPMAN. I certainly do, Congressman. Mr. CANNON. That is all. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. In quoting the views of Congressman Manasco, you referred to them as the views of a minority member. Mr. CHAPMAN. The views of a minority member of the Subcommittee on Publicity and Propaganda. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Which conducted an investigation? Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Were his views shared by the majority of the committee? Mr. CHAPMAN. No; they were not. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. He made a minority report, so to speak? Mr. CHAPMAN. I do not think so. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Those were minority views and the majority did not agree with them? Mr. CHAPMAN. That is right. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. So the majority of the committee felt Mr. Straus and Mr. Boke had failed to live up to the laws enacted by the Congress? Mr. CHAPMAN. That is right. Mr. KERR. Now, Mr. Chapman, after this law was passed, did these gentlemen, Mr. Straus and Mr. Boke, leave the Department, or were they removed? Mr. CHAPMAN. No. This provision becomes effective on the night of the 31st of January-this month. Mr. KERR. In 10 days. Mr. CHAPMAN. Yes. They will still be in authority on the job. This only takes them off the pay roll until July 1 and, lacking any other legislative action, they will go back on the pay roll on July 1. Mr. KERR. Do you feel that a qualified engineer with 5 years' experience is necessary in order to be Commissioner? Mr. CHAPMAN. No, Congressman; I do not. I think you can hire competent engineers, and I think you could get competent engineers to do the engineering work; but I think it is more important to have a man who understands the social objectives that Congress intended in these laws and who understands the business-management end of it in general. Mr. KERR. Of course, you do not think, then, the Assistant Commissioner or the regional director has to be, of necessity ought to be, a qualified engineer? Mr. CHAPMAN. Not necessarily. We have an engineer who is Assistant Commissioner that this would not affect, because in his case he is a qualified engineer. Mr. KERR. Have you had that position filled by an engineer for some years? Mr. CHAPMAN. Not all the time, but I believe that we have had an engineer in there practically all the time. For a short period he may not have been an engineer. Mr. RABAUT. Just one question. Several times this morning we have talked about this 160-acre provision. What is the purpose of the 160-acre provision as placed in there by Congress? Was that for the protection of the small farmer or the person who wants a small amount of land as this land goes in its relationship to big investors or what? Mr. CHAPMAN. Back in 1902 when the reclamation law was passed, Congress intended that the law would, I am certain from reading the record of those hearings, develop and open the West to small farmers. I do not believe the Congress at any time, in any Congress, had in mind or had any intention of making large appropriations to irrigate landholdings of large corporate structures. We believe it was the intention of the Congress then and is still the intention of the Congress to develop under the reclamation law as many small landholdings as possible, in order to spread the benefits to a large number of people. That has been done, and that has been the policy we have carried out consistently all the time. Now, if Congress, in its wisdom, decided that is not the policy they want and they want to change the law, then the Commissioner of Reclamation would have to abide by that decision or resign. Mr. RABAUT. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CHAPMAN. Congressman, I would like to make this suggested amendment to the language as it appears in House Document No. 35: Effective January 31, 1949, the proviso under this head in the Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1949, which reads— and then follows the proviso contained in that act— is hereby repealed. This suggested amendment would make clear that the repeal would become effective January 31, 1949, even though the bill in which it is placed may not become law until after that date. Mr. KERR. If there is nothing further, we are very glad to have had you with us. Mr. CHAPMAN. Thank you, gentlemen. THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 1948. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BUREAU OF ENTOMOLOGY AND PLANT QUARANTINE STATEMENTS OF DR. S. A. ROHWER, ASSISTANT CHIEF; DR. W. E. POPHAM, ASSISTANT CHIEF; AND E. STEVENS, ASSISTANT CHIEF, BUREAU OF ENTOMOLOGY AND PLANT QUARANTINE; AND J. P. LOFTUS, ASSISTANT TO DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CONTROL OF EMERGENCY OUTBREAKS OF INSECTS AND PLANT DISEASES Mr. KERR. Now, Mr. Rohwer, you are Assistant Chief of the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, and, as shown in House Document No. 44, you are asking for the sum of $1,350,000 for the control of emergency outbreaks of insects and plant diseases. Mr. ROHWER. Yes, sir. GENERAL STATEMENT The estimate for an additional amount of $1,350,000 under the item "Control of emergency outbreaks of insects and plant diseases" is to provide for (1) continuing for the remainder of the fiscal year programs to combat outbreaks of pests currently financed with the appropriation of $1,750,000 included in the regular annual Appropriations Act for 1949 and (2) cooperating with States, particularly Wyoming and Montana, in cooperative work to suppress intensive infestations of grasshoppers during the 1949 season that are increasing in those areas, particularly on range lands. In providing the appropriation of $1,750,000 for the current fiscal year Congress indicated in the reports of the House committee and the Senate committee that the amount was to maintain essential activities until a deficiency appropriation could be provided. The report of the House committee indicated that the appropriation would be sufficient to meet the requirements until Congress could provide an emergency appropriation in such amount as the conditions at that time indicated may be required. The report also indicated that the members of the committee wished to reaffirm their interest in and their intention to support programs of this general type. TYPES OF ACTIVITIES The appropriation for the control of emergency outbreaks of insects and plant diseases is used for a number of different objectives. We have been carrying on activity to combat an introduced pest known as |