Mr. FORTAS. Yes.

Mr. JONES. That is in the record?

Mr. FORTAS. Yes. It is to centralize the legal services for the agencies operating in Alaska.

Mr. JONES. I wish you would put a brief statement in the record about the situation in Alaska, and tell us what the duties of such a position are.

Mr. FORTAS. Yes.

(The information requested is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF DUTIES OF COUNSEL AT LARGE, JUNEAU, ALASKA

The counsel at large is the representative of the Solicitor in the Territory of Alaska. As such, he has complete responsibility for all legal service and advice to the Alaskan field administrative units of the several offices and bureaus of the Department, particularly the Office of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, General Land Office, Bureau of Mines, Division of Territories and Island Possessions, and the Alaska Railroad. The counsel is also available to the Governor for legal assistance. His professional legal work covers an exceptionally wide range of subject matter, including almost every conceivable type of case from the simplest routine legal work to the most difficult, important, and complex cases, all of which he handles alone as he is the only attorney maintained by the Department in the Territory.

The present counsel has lived in Alaska for more than 30 years, of which more than 15 years have been spent in the conduct of the law work of the Federal Government in the Territory. Thus he provides the Department of the Interior with the unique combination of an invaluable knowledge and understanding of the conditions and people in Alaska and superior legal ability in meeting the responsibilities of his position as the sole law officer of the Department in the Territory.

Mr. JONES. Are your estimates for 1946 based in part on the expectation that a good many of the people who transferred to the West, that is that a good deal of this western population who went there for war work, will remain in thier present locations?

Mr. FORTAS. The estimate was based upon the premise that the war will continue throughout the entire fiscal year, on both fronts. That is the way the entire Government is handling its estimates for this fiscal year. That is the policy indicated, or that was the determination by the President, as indicated to the various agencies through the Budget Bureau.

AUDIT OF TRANSPORTATION VOUCHERS

Mr. JENSEN. I would like to ask the Chief Clerk, Mr. Dotson, a question or two.

Does your office audit the departmental expenditure vouchers?

Mr. DOTSON. Not all the vouchers; just the ones for contingent expenses, printing and binding, and pay rolls for the Secretary's office. The bureaus audit their own vouchers.

Mr. JENSEN. You have nothing to do with that?

Mr. DOTSON. Nothing to do with the bureau vouchers other than the contingent appropriations, where an allotment is made to the bureaus.

Mr. JENSEN. It has come to my attention that the Comptroller General recently testified that no administrative audit is made of railroad freight bills and other transportation items. Does that apply to the Interior Department?

Mr. DOTSON. That is right. They are paid before audit in the Department.

Mr. JENSEN. Is it not a fact that the Budget and Accounting Act charges the Comptroller General with the duty of seeing to it that accounts are examined and audited administratively?

Mr. DOTSON. The Comptroller General does that.

Mr. JENSEN. By "administratively" I mean in the administrative or executive departments.

Mr. NORTHROP. Congress passed a law granting specific authority to the Comptroller General to audit these transportation vouchers and for the agency to pass them without audit, the reason being that there are so many variable conditions with respect to rates, affecting landgrant railroads, that it is impossible for the agency to know all the different rate schedules. Therefore, transportation vouchers are subject to payment to the railroads without audit as to rates. When the General Accounting Office makes its post-audit with such large bills involved, they make deductions for any excessive payments made to the railroads. The Government is fully safeguarded.

Mr. JENSEN. Your estimates for 1946 are based, in part at least, are they not, on the expectation that a large part of the western population that migrated there for war work will remain in their present locations? You are basing your estimate on that?

Mr. FORTAS. We are basing our estimate on the assumption that the war will continue, presumably, during the fiscal year, and that the populations will remain more or less where they are now, Congress

man.

Mr. JENSEN. How can we assume that many, if not most of those people who migrated to the West for work will not return to their former homes and localities? I am inclined to think that they will, and I wondered what your idea is about that.

Mr. FORTAS. If we went on the assumption that the war was going to be over before the end of the fiscal year, I think it would affect this budget materially, and the budget of every other agency in the Government would be materially affected, because you would have to take into account the possibility of the return to the East of the population which moved West. But as I say, our instructions were to prepare the budget on the assumption that the war would continue at least through the fiscal year.

APPROPRIATION OF RECLAMATION FUNDS

Mr. JENSEN. You are not proposing to draw very heavily on the reclamation funds for such projects, instead of deferring them for the duration, and putting the reclamation fund into the Treasury?

Mr. FORTAS. We cannot use those reclamation funds, Congressman, without an appropriation by Congress. The reclamation. fund is not a revolving fund like the T. V. A.'s fund.

Mr. JENSEN. I understand that at the present time that is the law, but in this new system you are working out here it appears to me that you are asking that the reclamation fund be used without coming to Congress.

Mr. FORTAS. No.

Mr. JENSEN. That is not your interpretation?

Mr. FORTAS. No-in what system, Congressman?

Mr. JENSEN. This new regional set-up.

Mr. FORTAS. No; we are not contemplating that at all. As a matter of fact, we have not even discussed that. We have absolutely nothing of that sort in mind, converting the reclamation fund into a revolving fund. Perhaps you are talking about the Missouri Valley Authority, and the rest of the Authorities.

Mr. JENSEN. It all hinges on that. Of course, the T. V. A. is a test case on that point. They have used their revenues as they saw fit, and it seems that is what the Department would like to have, if I read the records correctly.

DEPARTMENT FAVORS APPROPRIATIONS BY CONGRESS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES

Mr. FORTAS. No, Congressman; we have never proposed or sponsored a bill which would permit the construction of reclamation or power projects out of income. As a matter of fact, we have been working on bills dealing with the Missouri Valley Authority and the Columbia Valley Authority. In our drafts of bills, none of which has been introduced, we provide that no construction can be undertaken except out of moneys specifically appropriated for that purpose. In other words, the Interior Department has never adopted or sponsored a scheme like the revolving fund plan for construction activities.

Mr. NORRELL. As I take it, the Interior Department favors the regular procedure, and all revenues coming to any authority that might be hereafter established will be put into the Treasury and appropriated in the regular manner.

Mr. FORTAS. Let me put it this way, and state the policy a little more precisely.

We have never favored the use of revenues from these projects for the purpose of constructing additions or betterments or new projects, without an appropriation. In other words our idea has been that any time we wanted to do some construction we should come to Congress and ask first for an authorization and second for appropriations.

There is a lot of opposition to that in various quarters, but that is our idea of proper governmental procedure.

Mr. NORRELL. In the course of construction there are a lot of projects for some of which you are asking appropriations?

Mr. FORTAS. Yes.

Mr. NORRELL. You do not think those projects can be completed and put into use before the war is over, do you? You do not consider them really wartime projects?

Mr. FORTAS. Some of them are.

Mr. NORRELL. Of course, there are some that you want to go to completion. That means that those you are asking that we start now are not large projects?

Mr. FORTAS. I would have to check to find out about those specific projects. But this budget is presented to you as a wartime budget, and we are not asking for the construction of peacetime public works by any means. For example, you will find there are some requests here for various bureaus for the completion of plans for projects to be constructed after the war. These requests, however, relate to plans and surveys and do not request funds for construction.

Mr. DWORSHAK. Mr. Fortas, you are asking for funds to create the Office of Safety Engineer, with one clerk-stenographer?

Mr. FORTAS. Yes.

Mr. DWORSHAK. I notice you call attention to the fact that the Interior Department has the highest per employee compensation cost of any of the executive departments, a comparison showing the Post Office Department has a cost of $1.72 per employee, and the Interior Department is at the foot of the list with a cost of $8.26 during the 5 years from January 1, 1939, to June 30, 1944?

Mr. FORTAS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DWORSHAK. That seems to be so unusual that I think it calls for some explanation. Can you give us any plausible reason why there should be so many hazards for the employees of the Interior Department?

Mr. FORTAS. That is what we would like to find out at the Department level, and that is why we are asking for the creation of the position of safety engineer so we can find out if there is anything we can do to change that.

Mr. DWORSHAK. It seems to me that we could assume that the head of a field office should be better qualified to make a direct study and investigation of the cost of such a division, rather than to expect an engineer sitting here in the Department building in Washington to be able to discern the reasons for that record.

Mr. FORTAS. It is frequently rather astounding what you can do by some central coordination. For example, I have no doubt if we were able to employ a safety engineer, he would find that some of our bureaus do have some pretty good safety practices and some do not, and that by studying each of the bureaus and perhaps working with some of the chiefs of divisions he could see what was needed to be done and bring about some very desirable improvements.

Mr. DWORSHAK. I think one might be justified in the conclusion that the heads of any bureau or the chief of any division who cannot comprehend the work of his own bureau to the extent that he knows what his responsibility is and is unable to take steps to correct the situation is not discharging his duties efficiently.

Mr. FORTAS. One man may have a particular interest or a particular background and be at the head of a bureau or project and be particularly qualified on safety work. Another man equally competent, at the head of another office or project, may not have such a good background on safety work. I think if we could get a safety engineer and put him on the job we would find out what the trouble may be and what the remedy may be. We are worried about the high cost of compensation and the accident rate. I think the most significant comparisons have to do with the figures of the War Department, the Agriculture Department, the Navy Department, and the Commerce Department.

Mr. DWORSHAK. I was going to point that out, but I thought we might have an explanation of that.

Mr. ROONEY. Can you tell us whether the Commerce Department and the Agriculture Department have safety engineers?

Mr. FORTAS. I do not know whether they have a central safety engineer or not.

Mr. NORTHROP. Most of the organizations in the Government have fairly elaborate safety organizations.

Mr. ROONEY. I wondered if you had some information you could put in the record which would show a further reason or justification for this request?

Mr. FORTAS. Yes.

Mr. ROONEY. There must be some reason for the high cost in the Interior Department as compared with that in other departments, whose work is more or less similar.

Mr. FORTAS. We will find out about that and supply a statement for the record.

(The information referred to is as follows:)

Employees of the Department of the Interior are engaged in many hazardous occupations. Some of the more obvious are the construction operations of the Bureau of Reclamation involving major dams and related construction; the work of the Geological Survey which is of an industrial nature, including the operation of the printing-press rooms for map making; and the rescue work of the Bureau of Mines and the National Park Service. As a rule, however, costly injuries occur from activities which are not so spectacular as the foregoing. These injuries occur more frequently in Government service, as well as in industry and private homes, from the fall of persons or in the handling of objects.

The Navy Department has had a safety program since World War I. The safety organization is now headed by a Navy captain who has a staff of 24, including a P-7 engineer and 5 P-5 engineers, and other specialized personnel. The Interior Department's request is extremely modest in comparison with the organization of the Safety Branch of shore estabilshments and civilian personnel of the Navy Department.

The War Department has 14 comprehensive safety programs, consisting of 1 for each of the 9 service commands; 1 in the District of Columbia; and 1 each for the 4 technical services. These programs are coordinated and supervised by the Safety Branch of the Provost Marshal General's Office. The branch is headed by a lieutenant colonel who has a staff of 5, four of whom are commissioned officers.

In addition to the safety staffs in the War and Navy Departments, each Department has a separate professional organization on fire protection engineering. The objectives of the latter are the safeguarding of life and property against loss from fire, explosion, and related hazards.

The Department of Agriculture has had a safety engineer on the departmental level for several years.

The Department of Commerce has no safety engineer on the departmental level at present.

Many of the hazards in the field may not all be familiar to bureau heads. For example, some of the fatalities have resulted from hazards of a technical nature, such as the explosion of liquefied petroleum gas; engineers and architects as a rule are not familiar with the safeguards required for such installations. A competent specialist in fire prevention and accident prevention on the departmental level can be of assistance to bureau heads by advising them in the selection and use of safe practices which are known to some bureau heads but may not be well known to all. The Department of the Interior Committee on Health and Safety has been of assistance in such matters, but the members of the Committee have other important duties; a full-time adviser is needed.

The proposed establishment of a safety engineer in the Department of the Interior conforms to the procedures of other departments and is not a new or experimental activity. Some effective work has been done in safety by the Department as such, as well as by the individual bureaus of the Department, but it is recognized that more can and should be done at the departmental level.

WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE

Mr. NORRELL. Coming back to the Water Resources Committee, you are financed by donations from the agencies that you serve? Mr. FORTAS. Yes, sir.

Mr. NORRELL. That salary set-up would not be shown in the estimates for the appropriations that we make?

71191-45-pt. 1—8