Page images
PDF
EPUB

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

ALVA B. ADAMS, Colorado, Chairman CARTER GLASS, Virginia

GERALD P. NYE, North Dakota KENNETH MCKELLAR, Tennessee

HENRY CABOT LODGE, JR., Massachusetts CARL HAYDEN, Arizona

RUFUS C. HOLMAN, Oregon
MILLARD E. TYDINGS, Maryland

C. WAYLAND BROOKS, Illinois
RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Georgia
JOHN H. OVERTON, Louisiana
ELMER THOMAS, Oklahoma

EVERARD H. SMITH, Clerk

II

BY THE
NITED STATES OF AMERICA

AL" 18:41

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE

APPROPRIATION BILL, 1942

TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1941

UNITED STATES SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a. m., in the committee room, the Capitol, Hon. Alva B. Adams presiding:

Present: Senators Adams, McKellar, Hayden, Overton, O'Mahoney, and Lodge. Senator ADAMS. The committee will please be in order. Senator Thomas, you have some information for us?

INTERIOR DEPARTMENT

BUREAU OF MINES

STATEMENT OF HON. ELBERT D. THOMAS, A UNITED STATES

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

INVESTIGATION OF RAW MATERIAL RESOURCES, WESTERN STEEL PRODUCTION

Senator Thomas. Mr. Chairman, I am here, as you know, in behalf of Senator Murdock, in our State's interest, and also in the interest of the Bureau of Mines to plead for the insertion in this bill of the item which the Senate accepted in the last deficiency bill. I think the appropriation recommended was $350,000 for the Bureau of Mines, to investigate, by subsurface explorations, the amount and quality of certain iron ores, limestone, and coking coals, essential to expanding steel production in the West, and so forth.

You will find it in this statement on page 4 of the supplemental national defense estimates.

STRATEGIC MATERIALS ACT

This, as I remember, has the Budget Bureau's recommendation, also a recommendation from the President, and is thoroughly consistent with what has been the national scheme so far as strategia materials, necessary materials, and critical materials, are concerned, since the passage of the Strategic Materials Act.

You will remember that in that act there was a provision which gave to the Bureau of Mines and also to the Geological Survey, certain annual appropriations to assist in investigations which will result in our gaining strategic materials.

I would like to make the plea for this at this time, not only because of the recommendations and the implied promise that was made, but from the standpoint of outright necessity.

Senator Adams is familiar with the fact that Senator O'Mahoney has been holding hearings on western resources which would contribute to the national defense.

Our strategic materials committee of the Military Affairs Committee has held several sessions and is a continuous body for keeping track of the country's needs and necessities in regard to these metals.

NEED FOR AUTHORITATIVE SURVEYS

The Metals Procurement Division of the R. F. C. has been working on the same problem, but all of these various agencies that want these materials are, in the final analysis, dependent upon those authoritative surveys which give the actual information about the basic values of our own resources. For example, now, we are discovering that we lack ships to carry what has been the habit of procurement of raw materials for some of our needed manufactures, but they have a division in the 0. P. M. which is working on the problem of getting materials we can obtain without the use of ships, because of the scarcity of ships.

It seems to me that the logic of it at this time, and the value to our country, demands that this information be obtained regardless of the national defense efforts and that the fact that this survey is based upon the gathering together of information which will be useful under all circumstances makes it almost unnecessary to argue in favor of this survey. To one who has been working on this problem so long, it reminds him of an attempt to prove that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points. You just cannot bother with the proof, because you know it.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I trust that the committee will give its most serious consideration to this problem and that we may be able to present the issue again to the conferees as we did before.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you may be sure that it will receive consideration,

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS

STATEMENTS OF JAMES J. McENTEE, DIRECTOR; GLENN G. WOLFE,

BUDGET OFFICER; AND CAPT. R. W. NUSS, OFFICE, CHIEF OF FINANCE, UNITED STATES ARMY

Senator ADAMS. Mr. McEntee, you are interested in an item that is not in the bill, on page 33. That is the item you are interested in, which was placed in the bill by the House Committee and went out on a point of order?

Mr. MCENTEE. That is right. It was placed in the bill by the House committee, Senator. It was stricken out in the Senate because they changed the figure, but when it went to conference, the figure was then reduced, but they never reinserted this provision.

The House committee report made a favorable report on inserting it, but on a point of order it was stricken out in the House and our appearance before you this morning

Senator Adams. Suppose that you just give us the story, forgetting that the matter was considered, or what happened the last time, and just give us what you think it ought to be.

LIMITATION ON OVER-ALL EXPENDITURE PER ENROLLEE PER YEAR

Mr. McENTFE. When the Civilian Conservation Corps appropriation bill was reported to Congress, the House approved a limitation of $950 per enrollee man-year with the proviso that should enrollment fall below 232,500, the $950 could be exceeded.

The committee did that because, based on the evidence presented to them, it was apparent that it does cost more to operate on a low strength than it does on a full strength. In other words, there is almost as much overhead in running a 150-man company as there is in running a 200- or 210-man company.

When the bill reached the Senate, the Senate changed the $950 maximum amount that might be exceeded per enrollee man-year, and inserted $2,060 per enrollee man-year; but excluded the proviso allowing the increase if the enrollment fell below 232,500. When it went to conference, however, the conferees agreed on a $1,000 maximum per enrollee man-year, irrespective of the enrollment.

PURPOSE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 1942 ACT The proposed legislation that is now before this committee reinserts the meaning of the House proviso to the extent that the $1,000 limitation may be exceeded if enrollment falls below 210,000. The difference between that 210,000 and 232,000 was a Budget Bureau recommendation. The Budget recommended 210,000 enrollees before the proviso would be changed, and we, of course, accepted that; but if the enrollment is equal to or exceeds 210,000 the man-year expenditures may not exceed $1,000. However, the proposed legislation also provides that the maximum expenditures may not exceed $210,000,000 so long as the average annual enrollment is below 210,000.

AMENDMENT REQUESTED DELETED BY POINT OF ORDER ON HOUSE FLOOR

The legislation in question has received the approval of the Budget and was approved by the deficiency subcommittee of the House. It was removed on the floor of the House on a point of order in that it was legislation in an appropriation bill, and in that connection I would like at this time to correct a statement made by Representaitve Taber, who made the point of order. He said that we had refused to furnish certain information to the committee as to the number of civilians employed. Mr. Taber asked for that information and specifird particular months back over a period of several years. It took several days for the Chief of Finance to secure this specific information from the old files, but the information was in the hands of the chairman of the committee when the bill was reported on the floor.

NO LIMITATION PRIOR TO 1942 ACT

Senator MCKELLAR. What has been the limit heretofore?
Mr. McENTEE. There has been no limit.
Senator MCKELLAR. There has been no limit?

Mr. McENTEE. No. We operated on approximately a thousand dollars per man-year. I will give you those figures in a moment if I may. Those in charge of the operation of the corps have endeavored to reduce administrative expenses as much as possible, and we have done that over the past several years.

In 1934

Senator McKELLAR. Are you doing it for July; have you done it for July?

INCREASING COSTS

Mr. McENTEE. No; the costs are up in July, Senator.
Senator MCKELLAR. More than a thousand dollars?

Mr. McENTEE. Food costs and clothing costs, and may I Senator, give these figures for the years?

Senator MCKELLAR. Oh, yes.

COST PER ENROLLEE 1935 TO 1940

Mr. MOENTEE. In 1934
Senator McKELLAR. I want you to answer the question, though.
Mr. McENTEE. In 1934 the cost per year was $1,195.32.
In 1935 our man-year cost was $1,364.24.
In 1936 our costs per enrollee per year was $1,211.90.
In 1937 our cost was $1,255.43.
In 1938 our cost was $1,180.58.
In 1939 our cost was $1,023.73.
In 1940 our cost was $1,002.22.

INCREASED COSTS IN 1941

In 1941 the figures will run somewhat over that, about $35 or $10 perhaps I will give you the exact figures in a moment–because our clothing cost has increased $35 per enrollee and our food cost in the last 6 months has gone up about 5 cents a day, which makes $18 per year. (The approximate figure will be about $1,015.)

ENROLLMENT DECREASING

Enrollment in the Civilian Conservation Corps has been declining throughout the past year. This is due to a number of causes, such as numerous jobs being open in defense industry, a large number of young men below the draft age enlisting in the Army and Navy, and the fact that another of the Federal agencies offers training programs that are attractive to young men and will permit them to remain at home.

At the end of July 1940 enrollment was slightly over 277,000 and by July 20, 1941, our enrollment was 188,940.

« PreviousContinue »