« PreviousContinue »
APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1942
s Congresos non
SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE
SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE
APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1942
APPROPRIATIONS (TITLE III)
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
WASHINGTON : 1942
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
CLARENCE CANNON, Missouri, Chairman CLIFTON A. WOODRUM, Virginia JOHN TABER, New York LOUIS LUDLOW, Indiana
RICHARD B. WIGGLESWORTH, Massachusetts MALCOLM C. TARVER, Georgia
WILLIAM P. LAMBERTSON, Kansas JED JOHNSON, Oklahoma
D. LANE POWERS, New Jersey J. BUELL SNYDER, Pennsylvania
J. WILLIAM DITTER, Pennsylvania EMMET O'NEAL, Kentucky
ALBERT E, CARTER, California GEORGE W. JOHNSON, West Virginia ROBERT F. RICH, Pennsylvania JAMES G. SCRUGHAM, Nevada
CHARLES A. PLUMLEY, Vermont JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, New York EVERETT M, DIRKSEN, Illinois LOUIS C. RABAUT, Michigan
ALBERT J. ENGEL, Michigan DAVID D. TERRY, Arkansas
KARL STEFAN, Nebraska JOHN M. HOUSTON, Kansas
FRANCIS CASE, South Dakota JOE STARNES, Alabama
FRANK B. KEEFE, Wisconsin
NOBLE J. JOHNSON, Indiana
MARCELLUS C. SHEILD, Clerk
JOINT SESSIONS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES ON DEFICIENCY AND NAVY DEPARTMENT
APPROPRIATIONS ON TITLE II (NAVAL APPROPRIATIONS) AND SESSIONS OF THE DEFICIENCY SUBCOMMITTEE ON OTHER MATTERS (TITLE III)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFICIENCIES
CLARENCE CANNON, Missouri, Chairman CLIFTON A. WOODRUM, Virginia
JOHN TABER, New York LOUIS LUDLOW, Indiana
RICHARD B. WIGGLESWORTH, Massachusetts
J. WILLIAM DITTER, Pennsylvania
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NAVY DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATIONS
JAMES G. SCRUGHAM, Nevada, Chairman
NOBLE J, JOHNSON, Indiana
SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE
HEARINGS ON NAVAL APPROPRIATIONS (TITLE II) CONDUCTED AT
A JOINT SESSION OF THE SUBCOMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE
MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1942.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
(See p. 448)
ROBERT L. HARRISON, CHIEF ENGINEER, CAPITOL POWER
CAPITOL POWER PLANT
DEFICIENCY ESTIMATE FOR COAL, 1942
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lynn, as a rule you operate economically,
Mr. LYNN. Yes, sir. For the Capitol power plant we have a defi-
For 1942, the amount actually needed for coal, on the basis of
There is, therefore, a deficiency in the item of coal for 1942 amount-
Bids for fuel are received in April or May each year by the Pro-
The amount expended and obligated for coal to March 12, 1942, --
It is estimated that it will be necessary to purchase approximately 24,704 tons during the remainder of the fiscal year 1942, from March 12, to June 30, 1942, or approximately the same amount as was used during those three and a half months in the fiscal year 1941; which, at $5.17 per ton, amounts to $127,559, making the grand total required for the full fiscal year 1942, $421,610 for 81,550 tons at $5.17 per ton, as compared to the $375,960 allowed for 78,000 tons at $4.82 per ton, a deficiency of $45,650.
This is practically the same as the tonnage used in the fiscal year 1941, which was 81,962 tons at an average price of $4.799 per ton, costing for that year $393,324. The estimate of 78,000 tons for the fiscal year 1942 was based upon 78,025 tons purchased for the fiscal year 1940.
In order that sufficient funds may be available to meet the required expenditures for coal for the fiscal year 1942, the deficiency appropriation of $45,650 is requested.
The CHAIRMAN. This deficiency request is based, first, on the increased tonnage necessary to carry the increased load, and, second, on the increased cost of coal per ton. Mr. LYNN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. How do you account for the increased load? Mr. Lynn. Mr. Harrison, our chief engineer, is here, and I would like to have him answer your question.
Mr. HARRISON. The fact that Congress has been in continuous session is the only reason that I can offer for the increase.
The CHAIRMAN. We have had a comparatively mild winter, have we not? The demands for heat have not been as great as we have ordinarily.
Mr. HARRISON. That is true; but last fall we were hit pretty hard by transportation difficulties, which reduced the amount of coal we had in storage. Some of this must be put back in storage so as to have something for a stand-by.
Mr. SNYDER. Is that amount you gave the price per ton at the mine or delivered at the plant?
Mr. Lynn. It is the price delivered at the plant.
Mr. SNYDER. is the freight rate from Goodwill, W. Va., the same as the freight from the Pittsburgh district ?
Mr. HARRISON. I cannot answer that.
Mr. LUDLOW. When you prepared your estimate for 1942, did you have a contract for coal, or were you dependent on fluctuations in the market price?
Mr. LYNN. We have a contract for coal.
Mr. Lynn. Last year the contract price for coal was $4.82 per ton, but beginning with this fiscal year, under the new contract, the price is $5.17 per ton.
Mr. Ludlow. I am trying to clear the question of why that was not taken into consideration when you submitted your estimates.
Mr. LYNN. The estimates for 1942 were prepared and submitted to the Bureau of the Budget in the fall of 1940, at which time the price for coal, under the contract for the fiscal year 1941, was only $4.82 per ton. When contracts for coal for the fiscal year 1942 were awarded, following the opening of bids in April or May 1941, the
vere, 40, at 1941, was 1942, the
price per ton under the new contracts was increased to $5.17 per tonwhich was, of course, after the 1942 Capitol Power Plant estimates had been considered.
Mr. HARRISON. We only had that price of $4.82 per ton before the strike. When we came to make up the estimate, the new price was not in effect.
Mr. Ludlow. The coal strike resulted in an increase of the price.
Mr. LYNN. Under the provisions of existing law, coal for the Capitol Power Plant is contracted for each year by the Procurement Division of the Treasury Department (Government Fuel Yards). As previously stated, bids are received by that Department in April or May each year, and the fuel is contracted for with a provision in the contract allowing for changes in wage and freight rates.
Mr. JOHNSON of West Virginia. I think you could save a whole lot of fuel if you would continue to do what you are now doing in the way of turning out the lights in the halls. There is no necessity for those lights at this time. Do you take that into consideration in estimating your fuel needs? It may be a question of whether you need this money, or not.
Mr. Lynn. I cannot tell just how much would be saved in dollars and cents by turning out the lights, but there would be some saving.
Mr. JOHNSON of West Virginia. We have a policy of economy now, and we are especially criticized up here on the Hill for getting some of the necessities of life even. It occurs to me if you had the system of going over the buildings every 30 days to see where lights could be turned off you could have a lot in coal and power.
Mr. LYNN. Beginning last fall we did turn out a great many of them.
Mr. JOHNSON of West Virginia. Look at the lights right here in this committee room. We could get along with half of them. I think you had better look around and see if you cannot get some economy in the matter of lighting up here on the Hill.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. You say that you used approximately $294,000 for 912 months: Did that include both heating and lighting expense? Mr. LYNN. Yes, sir.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Why should you need 24,000 tors for 31/2 months, including April, May, and June, or some of the tot months of the year?
Mr. HARRISON. Our refrigerating plant will start operation within the next 3 or 4 weeks.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. How does that compare with the heat load?
Mr. HARRISON. The refrigeration load is heavier during certain months than the winter heat load.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. The summer demand is heavier than the winter demand?
Mr. HARRISON. It is heavier during certain months of the summer than in the wintertime.