APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1945

98067

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEVENTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON THE

NATIONAL WAR AGENCIES
APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1945

PART 3

OFFICE OF CIVILIAN DEFENSE

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1914

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

CLARENCE CANNON, Missouri, Chairman

NATIONAL WAR AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, 1945

HEARINGS CONDUCTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IN CHARGE OF DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATIONS, MESSRS. CLARENCE CANNON (CHAIRMAN), CLIFTON A. WOODRUM, LOUIS LUDLOW, J. BUELL SNYDER, EMMET O'NEAL, LOUIS C. RABAUT, JED JOHNSON, JOHN TABER, RICHARD B. WIGGLESWORTH, WILLIAM P. LAMBERTSON, AND D. LANE POWERS, ON THE DAYS FOLLOWING, NAMELY:

TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1944.

APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE OFFICE OF CIVILIAN DEFENSE

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES W. VURSELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

The CHAIRMAN. We have with us Mr. Vursell, of Illinois, whom we are glad to hear at this time.

Mr. VURSELL. Gentlemen, I thought probably some little investigation might be made to see whether or not we could shrink the Office of Civilian Defense, on the theory that the war had progressed rather well and we were not in such imminent danger as we were at the beginning of the war, or thought we might be.

I attempted to make some little investigation. First I talked with Mr. Martin quite at length and was not entirely satisfied that he was willing to go as far toward the reduction of the organization as he might be able to. I took it upon myself to write most of the Governors of the States, to get an idea as to what they thought about it, and I have replies from nearly all of the Governors, some of them directly giving their recommendations. Naturally most of them were very guarded in their replies, as well they should be. But the general consensus of opinion, as I gathered it from contacting the Governors of the States, seemed favorable to a reduction in the Federal department to a skeleton organization.

I should like to read you several paragraphs from letters that I have here, and shall be glad to leave them with the committee, perhaps put some of them in the record later.

The CHAIRMAN. You may file them with the clerk for the inspection of the committee.

Mr. LUDLOW. Was there a difference in the attitude of the Governors of the Coast States?

Mr. VURSELL. Yes, there was.

Mr. LUDLOW. They were a little more zealous in their recommendation that the activity be continued?

Mr. VURSELL. Yes.

1

I should like to speak to you now off the record and will, with the permission of the committee, extend my remarks in the record, later. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has that permission.

(Statement off the record.)

Mr. VURSELL. Now, to conclude my testimony, let me say for the benefit of the record that frankly my investigation, after receiving 35 or 40 letters from the Governors

The CHAIRMAN. Does that include letters from your own Governor?

Mr. VURSELL. No; I did not write to my own Governor because I had been bothering him so much I thought he would probably tell me to mind my own business, so I did not ask him to write.

Mr. LUDLOW. Do you have a letter from the Governor of New York and the Governor of California?

Mr. VURSELL. I did not write to the Governor of New York; I wrote to Mr. Warren. I did not write to Governor Dewey_because I thought it might be embarrassing for him, but I wrote to Governor Warren and I have a very nice letter from Mr. Warren in which he thinks some features of the O. C. D. ought to be continued.

The CHAIRMAN. What other Governors did you not write to, except Illinois and New York?

Mr. VURSELL. Possibly three or four.

Here is my observation from reading all of these letters: I personally do not think the Office of Civilian Defense, nationally, should be abandoned at this time, but there is a definite thought in most of the letters and reports from people who are working with the Governors heading these organizations that it ought to be reduced to a skeleton, with not much coming to the States but suggestions from Washington, and a good many of these letters indicate that this agency has widened its scope and widened its scope and widened its scope until it is getting into a great many activities that were never contemplated when O. C. D. was set up.

The CHAIRMAN. We made available for the current fiscal year, $4,000,000, and the estimate proposed before the committee is $600,000; in other words, it is cut down to almost an eighth. Do you think that is a sufficient cut?

Mr. VURSELL. What did they have for last year?

The CHAIRMAN. For this purpose last year they had $4,000,000 and for this year it is proposed to have only $600,000 or a little over one-eighth of what they had last year.

Mr. VURSELL. What was the over-all entire appropriation for the national office of O. C. D.?

The CHAIRMAN. Exclusive of taking care of property it would be approximately $600,000.

Mr. VURSELL. I think that is a very splendid reduction.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be a satisfactory reduction to you?
Mr. VURSELL. It is satisfactory with me.

Mr. TABER. Do you think that we ought to put in a provision for 20 warehousemen to take care of incoming and outgoing of 840 pounds a month?

Mr. VURSELL. No, I would not think so. It strikes me-and of course I do not have your side of the picture at all, but when I talked with Mr. Martin he spoke of the over-all appropriation of something like, I think, $2,000,000. Now as I understand it is down to a little over a half million dollars.

The CHAIRMAN. Exclusive of protective provision for the property. We have something like $50,000,000 approximately, about $43,000,000 in the States and about $10,000,000 in the Government. Mr. WOODRUM. That is equipment and property?

Mr. VURSELL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. It is valuable property that should be cared for. Mr. VURSELL. Of course, I do not have any knowledge of this whole picture. I was only trying to give you the idea of the Governors on the theory that possibly we could and should rapidly reduce the expense of the organization. I cannot testify as an expert; I can only give you something that I dug up.

Mr. LUDLOW. Each of the Governors, with one or two exceptions, unequivocally stand for continuation of the O. C. D.?

Mr. VURSELL. Yes; they want a modification.

Mr. LUDLOW. With reduction or with modification.

Mr. VURSELL. I never went into that. Nearly all of them, I think, as we progress, feel that a reduction should be made in line with the trend of economy.

I will file a statement with quotations from various Governors.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Vursell.

Mr. VURSELL. Mr. Chairman, on February 24, I addressed a letter to most of the Governors of the 48 States suggesting that the time may have arrived when we might consider the termination of the Office of Civilian Defense or at least seriously contract its personnel and operations. For the benefit of the committee I am filing this letter.

Hon. CHAUNCEY SPARKS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., February 24, 1944.

Governor of Alabama, Montgomery, Ala.

DEAR GOVERNOR SPARKS: I notice the Canadian Government has terminated its Office of Civilian Defense and it is rather my opinion that the Congress should consider taking steps to terminate the Office of Civilian Defense in this country. I have had this matter up with Mr. John B. Martin, who is directing this organization here in Washington, and have so expressed my opinion. While I believe Mr. Martin has done a very good job, still, as I expected, he believes the staff should be cut down and should be retained.

Mr. Martin informs me that he intends to reduce the organization to a personnel of about 240 people and that he anticipates asking the Appropriations Committee for $1,285,000.

It is my thought we are now safe from attack on any quarter from any foe. I believe Mr. Martin holds the same thought. He bases his argument for continuing the Bureau on the fact that they cooperate in various drives such as scrap, bond, and the like. Also they issue a great many pamphlets tending to give the various county and State organizations information as to how they can cooperate in the war effort.

It is my opinion that such work as he refers to is in capable hands through the various State and county organizations and that probably a major part of his work is superfluous, overlapping, and takes time and effort that could be better applied in other directions.

I am writing this letter for the purpose of getting your views on the matter in an effort to get more information for the benefit of myself and other Members of the Congress. Do you believe your State can now function to the extent necessary without the further assistance of the Office of Civilian Defense?

I believe it is important that we begin the elimination of any bureaus that are not necessary to the war work and public welfare even though they may have been helpful and useful in the past.

I shall appreciate an early reply and will keep your letter in confidence if so requested.

Respectfully yours,

C. W. VURSELL, M. C.