Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Will you also insert in the record a table giving the reallocations in the Department between July 1, 1943, and June 30, 1944?

Mr. FORTAS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

(The table requested is as follows:)

Number of positions reallocated during the period July 1, 1943, to June 30, 1944, and increases in salaries on an annual basis involved in the changes

[blocks in formation]

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Will you also insert in the record a table showing the estimates in the bill for 1946 for public works as compared with the 1945 appropriation? Do you have such a table? Mr. FORTAS. Yes, sir; we have that table.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

Appropriations, fiscal year 1945, and estimates, fiscal year 1946, for general public

[blocks in formation]

Appropriations, fiscal year 1945, and estimates, fiscal year 1946, for general public works-Continued

[blocks in formation]

Advances to Colorado River Dam fund, All-American Canal...
Colorado River development fund, expenditure account..
General fund construction:

Central Valley project, California (reimbursable).
Kings River project. California (reimbursable).
Colorado-Big Thompson project, Colorado (reimbursable).
San Luis Valley project. Colorado (reimbursable).
Boise project, Idaho, Anderson ranch (reimbursable)
Tucumcari project, New Mexico (reimbursable).
Lugert-Altus project, Oklahoma (reimbursable).
Columbia Basin project, Washington (reimbursable).
Yakima project, Washington, Roza Division (reimbursable).
General investigations, Bureau of Reclamation (reimburs-

Administrative expenses, Bureau of Reclamation (reim-

Water conservation and utility projects, act of Aug. 11, 1939, as
amended (reimbursable).

Fort Peck project, Montana (reimbursable).

Colorado River front work and levee system.

[blocks in formation]

Total, Bureau of Reclamation, general account..

Total, Bureau of Reclamation, general and special accounts... 23, 078, 200
Total, Department of the Interior......

24, 384, 450

24, 275,000

39, 008, 500+15, 930. 300 44, 827, 750 +20, 443, 300


Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. I am sure the committee would also like to have a table showing, by bureaus, the amounts appropriated in 1945, without overtime, as compared with the estimates for 1946, which are also without overtime pay.

Mr. FORTAS. Yes, sir; I hand you that table. (The table referred to is as follows:)

Comparison of appropriations for fiscal year 1945, exclusive of overtime, and estimates of appropriations for fiscal year 1946

[blocks in formation]


Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. I also ask that you place in the record a statement showing the number of new positions included in the 1946 estimates.

Mr. FORTAS. We will do that, Mr. Chairman.

(The information requested is as follows:)

New permanent positions, man-years, and cost thereof for which funds are being requested in 1946 Budget estimates

[blocks in formation]

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Now, Mr. Fortas, your total estimates or request for funds for 1946 is, I believe, $132,331,047.

Mr. FORTAS. I think that is $133,000,000, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Your figures seemed to have been upped nearly $1,000,000 over the estimates before us.

Mr. FORTAS. No, sir; it involves a difference in reporting $1,000,000 under the Migratory Bird Act.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Then you included that fund which we did not include?

Mr. FORTAS. That is right.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. According to my figures the proposed increase over the 1945 appropriations is nearly $30,000,000-to be exact, $29,133,785.87.

Mr. FORTAS. That is right.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. I can't quite agree it is right, but it is certainly an ambitious request. The total estimates for 1946 are $132,000,000, plus, and the appropriation for 1945, less overtime, was $93,000,000, plus, so there is a proposed increase over 1945, with the overtime for 1945 eliminated, of $38,000,000; is that correct? Mr. FORTAS. That is right.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Or an increase of about 30 percent?

Mr. FORTAS. That is right.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Fortas, I stated at the outset that you are an able under secretary. Now perhaps I should add that you must also be an optimist.

Mr. FORTAS. That would be hard to say, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. I think the committee would like to have some general information before we get to the items for salaries. One thing which concerned the committee considerably last year was the large number of deferments in the Interior Department. Do you have any figures now with reference to deferments for occupational reasons?

Mr. FORTAS. I would like to have Assistant Secretary Chapman who handles deferments for the Department, talk to you about

that matter.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to give you some overall figures on the classification and age break-down of employees. These figures are dated February 15, 1945.

On that date, the total permanent employees numbered 30,645 for the Department.

The break-down of employees by age groups should be of interest to the committee.

First, there were 109 male employees under the age of 18.

The males between 18 and 25 number 742; the males between 26 and 29 number 1,221; the males between 30 and 37 number 4,548; the males between 38 and 44 number 4,427, and the males 45 years of age and over number 9,368.

The number of females working in the Department is 10,238. That gives us a total of 30,645.


As to the number of deferments, there are only 11 employees between 18 and 25 years of age who have been deferred upon the request of the department. Since these figures were prepared 2 of the I have been called into service, and so there are only 9 deferments in this age group at the present time.

Due to deferments by local boards without the request of the Department there are 43 total deferments in this class, while 327 have been disqualified for military service, so they are not counted in these figures?

The number of deferments between the ages of 26 and 29 is 416. Between the ages of 30 and 37 there are 1,953. A total of 2,412 deferments, in all age groups, has been requested by the Department.

There is an additional number of deferments in the Department not requested by the Department, but allowed by the draft boards, upon the employees' own initiative, which number 328.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. That is a better report than last year, is it not, because most of those now deferred are over 30 and were deferred under the policy of the Selective Service System for the deferment of Federal employees. Do you have any now between the ages of 18 and 21 who have been deferred?

« ForrigeFortsett »