Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

cost of other necessary protection works and systems along the Colorado River between said Yuma project and Boulder Dam."

The report of the Secretary of the Interior recommending that this bill be enacted is as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

Washington, January 2, 1940. Hon. JOSEPH J. MANSFIELD, Chairman, Committee on Rivers and Harbors,

House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. MANSFIELD: I have received your letter of July 14, requesting a report on H. R. 7116 (76th Cong., 1st sess.), a bill to authorize defraying cost of necessary work between the Yuma project and Boulder Dam.

I recommend that the bill be enacted.

The bill would amend the act of January 21, 1927, an act authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes, which authorizes an annual appropriation of $100,000 to defray the cost of operating and maintaining protective works on the Colorado River adjacent to the Yuma project. The amendment would, without increasing the authorized expenditure, authorize the expenditure of the funds on protective works on the river between the Yuma project and Boulder Dam.

The work, for which appropriations are authorized in the bill, is necessary because of the character of the Colorado River. The river follows a meandering course which is constantly changing even in periods of low flow. Although, since the completion of Boulder Dam, floods in the river are not to be expected of such volume or of such frequency as formerly, there will be periods of moderately high water caused by inflows below Boulder Dam and the necessity of releasing excess waters from Lake Mead to provide flood storage capacity. Lands formerly occupied by the river during annual high-water periods have, as a result of the river's controlled state, acquired a covering of vegetation which would tend to retard flows even slightly in excess of normal until such vegetation could be removed by the scouring action of the stream. Protective works are needed to confine the river to its flood channel during these temporary retardations and to prevent meandering encroachments on productive lands during low water.

The Department of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, is believed to be the proper agency to handle this work because of its interest in Boulder Dam, Parker Dam, the All-American Canal, the Yuma project, and other irrigation works in this section of the river.

The annual expenditure of $100,000 previously authorized to defray the cost of the protective works adjacent to the Yuma project is believed to be sufficient to cover the cost of the expanded program which the bill would authorize.

The Director of the Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report to the committee. Sincerely yours,

HAROLD L. ICKES,
Secretary of the Interior.

{

SENATE

76TH CONGRESS

3d Session

}

REPORT No. 1713

AUTHORIZING THE REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES TO CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY

May 28, 1940.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. BAILEY, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the

following

REPORT

(To accompany H. R. 9118]

The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 9118) to provide for the reimbursement of travel expenses to certain employees of the Corps of Engineers, United States Army, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment, with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

Following is the report submitted by the House Committee on Rivers and Harbors:

H. Rept. No. 2012, 76th Cong., 3d Sess.)

The Committee on Rivers and Harbors, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 9118) to provide for the reimbursement of travel expenses to certain employees of the Corps of Engineers, United States Army, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

The purpose of the bill is to reimburse certain employees (58 in number) of the Corps of Engineers, United States Army, for travel expenses in connection with transfers to the Fort Peck Engineer District, Fort Peck, Mont., which have been disallowed by a ruling of the Comptroller General.

The situation is fully explained in the following letter from the Secretary of War, and the committee is of the opinion that the payment of these claims is proper and equitable:

WAR DEPARTMENT,

Washington, April 19, 1940. Hon. J. J. MANSFIELD, Chairman, Committee on Rivers and Harbors,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MANSFIELD: Reference is made to your letter of March 28, enclosing a copy of H. R. 9118, Seventy-sixth Congress, third session, a bill to provide for reimbursement of travel expenses to certain employees of the Corps of Engineers, United States Army.

I have referred your letter to the Chief of Engineers, who has furnished me the enclosed tabulated statement, showing the names of the employees affected, the dates of their transfers to Fort Peck, with information as to costs of transfer and amounts collected from the employees. The amount stated in column 4 of the statement, less the amount stated in column 5, is the amount which was collected from the individual employees. The total shown on the statement is the same as the amount provided in the enclosed bill.

On December 1, 1933, the Fort Peck district was established with temporary headquarters in Glasgow, Mont. This district was charged with the construction of a large dam across the Missouri River at a point about 20 miles southeast of Glasgow, Mont.

In order to assemble an organization for this large undertaking in an isolated locality, it was essential that employees with experience in Engineer Department work be placed in key positions to instruct, train, and supervise the large number of employees required in the construction of this project.

The services of a number of employees were obtained from other districts upon the definite understanding that they would receive an increase in compensation and that transfer would be at Government expense in each case. By the authority of the Secretary of War, necessary travel orders were issued and shipment of household goods made under the provisions of section 5 (d) of the River and Harbor Act of January 21, 1927. The Comptroller General of the United States ruled in decision No. A-60370 (14 C. G. 871), dated June 4, 1935, that since the employee had been involuntarily furloughed from his permanent position and given temporary appointment at higher salary elsewhere, the expenses in connection with the transfer of this employee and all others transferred under similar conditions would be in contravention of section 1765, Revised Statutes, and could not be paid from Government funds.

As shown above, at the time of their transfers the employees were informed that the expenses incident to the transfer would be borne by the Government. Most of them were transferred from positions of a permanent nature where they had reason to expect permanent employment. The construction of the Fort Peck Dam was only expected to last a few years. At the completion of this work, the employees naturally expected to be compelled to seek employment elsewhere. In many cases they would no doubt have preferred to remain in the positions they occupied rather than accept short-time employment and pay their travel and transportation expenses, and the expenses incident to the shipment of their household goods, to this remote locality.

These employees were in the regular service of the Engineer Department. They had paid once before their expenses in reporting to their first duty station. Their transfers were initiated by the Engineer Department in the interest of the Government service and were not for the convenience of the employee. Previous transfers at Government expense within the Engineer Department upon the authority of the Secretary of War had not been questioned by the Comptroller General and the employees had no reason to doubt the authority of the Secretary of War to direct such transfers and no right to question such authority.

It is the view of this Department that the cases of all are worthy and enactment of the enclosed bill for relief is recommended. Sincerely yours,

HARRY H. WOODRING,

Secretary of War.

Statement of transfer expenses disallowed by General Accounting Office in connection

with the transfers of various employees to the Fort Peck engineer district, Fort Peck, Mont.

[graphic]

Berryman, Grant N.. Oct. 1, 1934

$50.83 $50.83 Blomquist, Andreas A.. Sept. 28, 1934 306. 25 206. 25 Botkin, Donal B Dec. 8,1933 318. 50 1 223. 50 Bowen, Mrs. Helen L.Nov. 24, 1933 108. 95 108. 95 Brooks, Beryl.

do.

312.33 312.33 Brown, Charles R. Nov. 25, 1933 126. 27 126. 27 Brubaker,

Thomas C June 6, 1934 87. 54 87.54 Claggett, Thomas D. Feb. 27, 1934 285.98 285.98 Davis, Alton G.

June 6, 1934 104. 89 104. 89 Davis, Clarence O. Apr. 6, 1934 87.04 87.04 Dunham, Howard H. Apr. 4, 1934 53. 70 53. 70 Ervin, Hazel J.

Jan. 11, 1934 159.81 159.81
Evans, George O

May 1, 1934 166. 54 166.54
Evans, Katie
Nov. 24, 1933 114. 54

114.54
Evans, Stanley H
1, 1934 167. 74 167. 74

See note at end of table.
Faulkner, Glen O Mar. 8, 1934 78. 97 78. 97
Gates, Edward L. Jan. 25, 1934 201.08 201.08
Geiger, Jesse C

Mar. 4, 1934 147. 74 147. 74
Gifford, Daniel W Jan. 16, 1934 17. 72 17. 72
Hannon, Berry N. Oct. 16, 1934 80. 30 80. 30

$0.43 Haynes, John A.

Jan. 28, 1934 126. 70 126. 70 Howard, Arthur R

Jan.

7, 1934 59. 73 59. 73 Kendall, Frederick C. Jan. 18, 1934 162. 62 162. 62

4. 50
Leach, James B
Mar. 13, 1934 236.26 236. 26

Deceased employee.
Lynch, Frank J.
Mar. 4, 1934 56.95 56.95

Do.
McDonald, Lawrence D Apr. 4, 1934 54. 60 54. 60
McClintick, Lloyd B. Apr. 1, 1934 44.95 44.95
McPhate, Fielding H. Nov. 24, 1933 252. 23 252. 23

20.02 Middlebrooks, Minnie J.---.do.

22. 20 15. 33

Balance of $6.87 has not been

disallowed by General Accounting Office and has not

been collected fromemployee. Middlebrooks, Thomas Dec. 8,1933 145.37 2112. 87

A.
Midget, George T... Dec. 20, 1933 228.16 128. 26

$99.89 reported for collection
from retirement fund, but
has not yet been collected.
The amount should have

been reported as $99.90. Morris, Claude L. Jan. 11, 1935 58. 21 58. 21 Myers, Jesse D.

Jan. 20, 1934 190.52 190.52 Newell, Francis M Jan. 16, 1934 111.96 111.96 Peters, Gus

Apr. 10, 1934 78. 22 78. 22
Quidor, James S. Jan. 11, 1934 83. 19 83. 19
Ragsdale, Julia D. Nov. 14, 1933 76.34 76. 34
Ragsdale, Theron W Dec. 8, 1933 294.77 3 223. 52
Reed, Charles B. Jan, 16, 1934 37.73 37.73

Deceased employee.
Rossie, George D. Apr. 1, 1934 47. 20 47. 20
Rumfelt, Henry F.C. Oct. 12, 1934 71. 12 71. 12
Ruttinger, Harry W Mar. 29, 1934 58. 95 58. 95
Schweitzer, Minnie G.Mar. 12, 1934 13. 75

13.75 Schultz, Francis B. Jan. 16, 1934

11. 55 11.55 Spicer, Ralph K. Apr. 1, 1934 185. 12 185. 12

38. 06 Staton, Samuel L. Oct. 1, 1934 216.05 216.05

33. 90 See note at end of table. Stoll, William

Sept. 14, 1934 73. 94 73. 94 1 The total cost of transfer, i. e., the amount of $318.50, was collected from the employee but it includes $95 per diem paid to Donal B. Botkin during the period of Nov. 19, 1933, to Dec. 7, 1933, both dates inclusive, while stationed at Glasgow, Mont. The employee was transferred from the U. s. Engineer Office, Vicksburg, Miss., to the U. S. Engineer Office, Glasgow, Mont., effective Dec. 8, 1933; therefore, all per diem paid (895) from the time of arrival at Glasgow, Mont., to the effective date of the transfer has been deducted under column 4 to compute the correct amount for refund, or $223.50.

2 The total cost of transfer, i. e., the amount of $145.37 was collected from the employee but it includes $32.50 per diem paid to Thomas A. Middlebrooks during the period from 12 noon on Dec. 1, 1933, to midnight on Dec. 7, 1933, while stationed at Glasgow, Mont. The employee was transferred from the U.S. Engineer Office, Vicksburg, Miss., to the U.S. Engineer Office, Glasgow, Mont., effective Dec. 8, 1933; therefore, all per diem paid ($32.50) from the time of arrival at Glasgow, Mont., to the effective date of the transfer has been deducted under column 4 to compute the correct amount for refund, or $112.87.

3 The total cost of transfer, i. e., the amount of $294.77 was collected from the employee, but it includes $71.25 per diem paid to Theron W. Ragsdale during the period from 6 p. m., Nov. 23, 1933, to midnight, Dec. 7, 1933, while stationed at Glasgow, Mont. The employee was transferred from the U.S. Engineer Office, Vicksburg, Miss., to the U.S. Engineer Office, Glasgow, Mont., effective Dec. 8, 1933; therefore, all per diem paid ($71.25) from the time of arrival at Glasgow, Mont., to the effective date of the transfer has been deducted from column 4 to compute the correct amount for refund, or $223.52.

Statement of transfer expenses disallowed by General Accounting Office in connection

with the transfers of various employees to the Fort Peck engineer district, Fort Peck, Mont.--Continued

[blocks in formation]

• The total cost of transfer, I. e., the amount of $286.49 was collected from the employee but it includes $38.75 per diem paid to John R. Thatcher during the period from 6 a. m., Nov. 28. 1933, to midnight, Dec. 5, 1933, while stationed at Glasgow, Mont. The employee was trapsferred from the U. S. Engineer Office, Vicksburg, Miss., to the U. S. Engineer Office, Glasgow, Mont., effective Dec 6, 1933; therefore, all per diem paid ($38.75) from the time of arrival at Glasgow, Mont., to the effective date of the transfer has been deducted under column 4 to compute the correct amount for refuni, or $247.74. • The total cost of transfer, i

. e., the amount of $339.51 was collected from the employee, but it includes $53.75 per diem paid to Edward T. Wright during the period from 6 a. m., Nov. 26, 1933, to midnight on Dec. 6, 1933, while stationed at Glasgow, Mont. The employee was transferred from the U. S. Engineer Office, Vicksburg, Miss., to the U.S. Engineer Office, Glasgow, Mont., effective Dec. 7, 1933; therefore, an per diem paid ($53.75) from the time of arrival at Glasgow, Mont., to the etfective date of the transfer has been deducted under column 4 to compute the correct amount for refund, or $285.76.

NOTE.-These employees were transferred to Glasgow, Mont., while under the jurisdiction of the division engineer, Missouri River Division, Kansas City, Mo. The same conditions existed in connection with their transfers as existed in connection with the transfers of the other employees stated hereon who transferred to Glasgow, Mont., under the jurisdiction of the district engineer, U. S. Engineer Office, Glasgow, Mont. All expenses of transfer were paid by the disbursing officer of the Fort Peck Engineer District, either by direct expenditure or by reimbursement to the division engineer, Missouri River Division, Kansas City, Mo.

« AnteriorContinuar »