Statement by the President on the Interior Department Appropriation Act.

YESTERDAY I signed H.R. 6705, the Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1949. I did so only because I had no choice. Since the bill came to me after the Congress had adjourned, a veto would close down the operations of the Department of the Interior on July 1.

If it had been possible to veto this bill without bringing the vital work of the Department to a standstill, I would have done so because of a rider in the bill establishing arbitrary qualifications for the Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioners, and the Regional Directors of the Bureau of Reclamation. This rider is designed to effect the removal of two men now holding such positions who have supported the public power policy of the Government and the 160-acre law which assures that Western lands reclaimed at public expense shall be used for the development of family size farms. No matter what may be the asserted reasons for wanting to remove these men from office, the result would be to serve the purposes of special interests desirous of monopolizing the rich farm lands of the West and intent upon stopping the construction of transmission lines for the delivery of power from Federal dams. These same interests tried first to get the law changed but failed, and having failed then sought to get the management changed.

This type of legislation does great harm to our democratic principles. It is contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of those provisions of the Constitution which guarantee the separation of legislative and executive functions and afford protection against bills of attainder. This type of action subjects Federal officials to the risk of being legislated out of office if they incur the wrath of special interests as a result of vigorous enforcement of the law.

In addition to this attack upon the management of the Bureau of Reclamation, the act will delay important reclamation work in all of the great basin areas of the West, including the Missouri Basin, the Columbia Basin in the Pacific Northwest, the Central Valley in California, and the Colorado Basin. The act makes available $69 million less than I requested to carry on the vital work of the Department. Most of the funds cut out by the Congress were intended for land, water, and power development in the West. This will mean delays in bringing in new lands for settlement, in furnishing water to farms now dry or badly short of water, and in providing additional power badly needed by industries, cities, and farms.

By specific provisions in the act and by statements in the committee reports accompanying its passage, the Congress has also made a broad attack on the national public power policy.

Thus, while appropriating $3 million toward the construction of the Canyon Ferry project in Montana, the Congress has prohibited the construction of previously authorized power facilities and transmission lines for the delivery of power from the project. In the Central Valley of California, the Congress has failed to include funds for the construction of the previously authorized "west-side" transmission line to carry power from Shasta Dam to the San Francisco area. To bottle up power at these and other Federal dams by preventing the construction of previously authorized power facilities and transmission lines, clearly represents a capitulation to special interest groups.

Furthermore, the act and the conference report portend a reversal of the long established policy of using interest collected on the power investment in reclamation projects to pay off a portion of the irrigation costs. The effect of such a change would be to increase public power and water rates to the people throughout the West.

These are but a few of the evidences of an intent to destroy the national power policy. They are representative of the sort of thinking expressed in the report of the House Committee on Appropriations where it was said that the laws of the State of Washington authorizing public utility districts to acquire the properties of privately-owned power companies by condemnation have "the earmarks of a Soviet power policy."

In these and other significant respects the Congress in this act has nullified by indirect action the purposes of permanent legislation which the Congress has refused to change by direct action, and which reflects, I believe, the will of the people.

There are numerous other objectionable features in this act. For example, while protesting the increased cost of Federal construction projects, the Congress by this act limits the amount of construction work which the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bonneville Power Administration can do with their own employees, the result of which may well be to force these agencies to accept excessive bids and thereby increase the cost of their construction projects to the Nation. The act also imposes arbitrary and unreasonable limitations on personnel management services, on the employment of technicians in the higher salary levels, and on regional administration, without regard to the efficient administration of the programs of the Department.

I consider that in this legislation the Congress has disregarded long-standing principles of sound legislative practice and has failed to meet the needs of our people for the development of the great natural resources of the Nation in the public interest.