Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Hon. JOHN J. COCHRAN,

House of Representatives.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Washington, June 20, 1935.

I note

MY DEAR MR. COCHRAN: Your letter of June 12 has been received. the objection of Secretary Dern to H. R. 7712 on account of the possibility that the work of the Chief of Engineers might be transferred to this Department. I made it clear in the hearings before your committee that this proposal had not even occurred to me and that I had no desire to take over the work of the Army. However, I would not like to see an amendment to the bill excepting the Chief of Engineers from its operation because it would bring on other amendments and the purpose would be defeated. I believe the President can be trusted to use sound judgment in considering transfers under the proposed bill; certainly he did not make any serious blunders, as far as I know, under the previous authority which he had for 2 years to transfer agencies and reorganize the Government.

I think the fears of the Secretary of War are groundless and I hope the committee will understand that it will be time enough for members who might object to transferring the engineering branch of the Army to the new Department of Conservation and Works to handle it in committee if the President should undertake to transfer this function in the future. All of these Executive orders will come before your committee and Congress will have full authority to negative any objectionable features contained in them.

Sincerely yours,

HAROLD L. ICKES, Secretary of the Interior.

I will make this statement for those of you who were not members of this committee when we had before us a few years ago a bill to consolidate all the building activities under one head, and knowing what heretofore has come before this committee, I do not think there should be any fear or any chance that this Department should ever be transferred to any place else than the War Department. I have seen the committee sentiment tested out on it and I do not think it will

occur.

Mr. GINGERY. They are not asking to transfer the Department in this bill.

Mr. GASQUE. No; except that the President has power under this bill to do it.

Mr. MCKEOUGH. No; only the power to recommend to Congress. General MARKHAM. I might say that our only concern about the bill or any other similar matter is that we are perfectly conscious of the fact that the civil engineering profession could handle these internal projects and might want our jobs. That is perfectly natural. We have no objection to them, but I think it would be a great mistake. I think again, having put your Corps of Engineers into a compact and efficient organization for 100 years, that you could not build up an organization under 15 years, although there is enough talent in time, but that is inherently the fact.

Mr. GASQUE. Are there any more questions?

General MARKHAM. I will be glad to answer any questions.

STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL NORMAN M. SMITH, CHIEF OF CIVIL ENGINEERS OF THE NAVY, BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS, NAVY DEPARTMENT

Admiral SMITH. It only came to my attention this morning that the hearing was for today, and last evening I learned that a bill had been proposed. I brought along a letter from the Secretary of the Navy which is in addition to the letter previously written you. The Secretary's first letter pertained to conservation and dealt with naval

oil reserves which the Navy desires to retain under its control. The letter today pertains to public works of the Navy which should be excepted from the bill.

Two years ago when the bill came up for a new Public Works Department the President in his message with regard to the consolidation of the departments, stated that, "Naval, military, and some other highly specialized construction work should not be transferred to this agency. And in the bill that was proposed in January 1932 (H. R. 6670), the wording of that bill was changed to exclude public works used by military or naval establishments in providing for the national defense. The Navy Department is in favor of and highly recommends that similar provision be inserted in this bill to except public works of the Navy as well as a provision that would continue the Navy's control of oil fields that have been reserved or set apart for national defense under the care of the Navy.

Mr. GASQUE. The letter just referred to by Admiral Smith reads as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
Washington, June 21, 1935.

CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN EXECUTIVE DEARTMENTS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On June 1, 1935, you addressed a letter to me in regard to H. R. 7712, a bill to change the name of the Department of the Interior and to coordinate certain governmental functions, to which I replied on June 3, 1935.

In my reply to you, I only commented on the conservation features of the subject bill; it now appears that section 2 of this bill would also make it possible to transfer to the new department public works activities of the Navy Department which are engaged on buildings, drydocks, etc., relating to the national defense.

I do not believe it was ever intended that these functions which are so ably and efficiently administered by a special trained corps of officers (Civil Engineer Corps) should be so transferred. So, therefore, I recommend to you that your committee, if they decide to report this bill out favorably, include a provision exempting the Navy from the operation of this section as far as relates to public works.

Sincerely yours,

CLAUDE A. SWANSON.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
Washington, June 3, 1935.

CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying to letter of June 1, 1935, from your committee, in which Vice Chairman Gasque desires an expression of opinion on H. R. 7712, "To change the name of the Department of the Interior and to coordinate certain governmental functions" the following comment is submitted.

In view of the fact that section 2 of the bill appears to be broad enough to include the naval petroleum and oil shale reserves under the jurisdiction of the Navy Department, it is recommended that suitable provisions be made in the proposed legislation to except the naval petroleum and oil shale reserves from the provisions thereof.

Since these naval fuel reserves were set aside to be conserved for a specific purpose, having as its object the Nation's welfare and defense, it would seem that their status is somewhat different with respect to the conservation of their natural resources from that of other Government-owned lands. The monetary value of the naval petroleum reserves is so great and so well known that any act which would divest the Navy Department of its jurisdiction over these indispensable reserves might seriously jeopardize the Nation's defense in time of war. It is believed that the naval petroleum and other naval fuel reserves should definitely

remain under the control and jurisdiction of the Navy Department until the Congress, by a specific act for that purpose, shall divest it of its jurisdiction over these lands.

It is therefore recommended that the bill H. R. 7712 be amended by adding a new section, reading as follows:

"SEC. 7. That nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting any of the lands included in the naval petroleum reserves, naval oil shale reserves, or other naval fuel reserves.'

[ocr errors]

Sincerely yours,

CLAUDE A. SWANSON.

Mr. QUINN. It is the same argument in dealing with the Army, and we have been told that there is no intention of touching the Navy also. Is it necessary to go all over this again? Will not the same testimony apply as in the case of the Army? It is just a rehash of what we have heard from the previous witness. I think that testimony applies to the Navy as well as the Army.

Mr. GASQUE. I do not see any objection to their stating their position on the bill.

Mr. QUINN. I do not think it is necessary to examine the gentleman any further. It is just covering the same ground as we did with the Army.

Mr. CARPENTER. I understand the Secretary of the Interior made an allotment to the Navy Department somewhat similar to what was made to the War Department for Public Works construction.

Admiral SMITH. Yes, for the development of Pearl Harbor, they gave us over $9,000,000, carry out the development of that base for naval purposes. The projects covered by these funds are now practically completed. This work is all carried out under the Bureau of Yards and Docks.

Mr. MCKEOUGH. May I suggest that Secretary Ickes might want to say a few words before we adjourn.

Secretary ICKES. Just a few minutes, if I may.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I will ask just one general question on the statement that you read from the President, which was a message he submitted to Congress when he was asking for authority for consolidations and eliminations, and we gave him that authority. What work do you have there now? Will you state briefly the work you do and what it amounts to annually?

Admiral SMITH. We design, make estimates, for and construct the public works and public utilities of the naval shore establishment, for whatever purposes of the Navy and Marine Corps they may be needed and from whatever funds their cost may be defrayed, and also carry on repairs and maintenance at navy yards and the more important stations and operate power plants, transportation systems, and miscellaneous services. This work involves all phases of civil and architectural engineering; mechanical engineering pertaining to power plants and distributing systems, heating, ventilation, and refrigeration; electrical engineering embracing power, lighting, and telephone systems; sanitation engineering of water, sewerage, and drainage systems; road and railroad engineering; fire protection; and safety engineering.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I understand the details. Generally, how much do you expend every year in public works on those activities, including the building of ships?

3551-35

Admiral SMITH. We handle the building of stations. We do not build ships. That comes under a different bureau.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. It is in the Navy Department.

Admiral SMITH. Ship construction is under the Bureau of Construction and Repair. We set up a 6-year public works building program in advance, which covers about $12,000,000 annually of new construction.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. About how much does the Navy spend annually in building ships where they are built by force labor?

Admiral SMITH. I could not give you that, but I will put that in. Expenditures at navy yards for ship construction (hull, machinery, and ordnance) are shown in the following table:

Fiscal year 1934.

Fiscal year 1935 (2 months estimated).

$30, 665, 238

47, 933, 479

The estimated expenditures for the fiscal year 1936 exceed those for 1935. Mr. WHITTINGTON. And any other building activities that are necessary.

Admiral SMITH. In addition to our new construction we have maintenance, repairs, and operation. This runs from seven and a half to ten million dollars a year.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Do you recondition your naval vessels and spend large amounts in a year?

Admiral SMITH. Yes..

Mr. WHITTINGTON. As a matter of national defense.

Admiral SMITH. Then in addition to those amounts just given we also carry on construction work for other naval bureaus. The Bureau of Engineering, in regard to radio activities. Other bureaus allot to us considerable funds which materially increase the amount I have just given you.

[ocr errors]

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I will ask that the gentleman be permitted to extend his remarks and include all the building activities of the Government that he has in mind.

Mr. GASQUE. Without objection that will be done.
(The extension of remarks referred to are as follows:)

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF REAR ADMIRAL NORMAN M. SMITH

The Navy Department recommends the definite exception, from the provisions of this bill, of the design, construction, maintenance, repair, and operation of the 'public works and public utilities of the Navy and Marine Corps. These activities comprehend the lands and appurtenances, buildings, structures, facilities, and services at all the components of the shore establishment, including drydocks, marine railways, shipbuilding ways, wharves, piers, quays, harbor works, dredging, moorings, landings, floating and stationary cranes, power plants, streets and grounds, radio towers, fuel plants; heating, lighting, telephone, water, sewer, and railroad systems; and buildings of many types and uses. Their characteristics are so extensive and so varied that complete specific enumeration is not practicable.

The Bureau of Yards and Docks, through consolidations which have been effected in the Navy over a period of years, administers the public works of the Navy. Through the Corps of Civil Engineers it handles all public works construction for all bureaus, and officers of the corps are detailed for duty at the various yards and stations. In addition to the design and construction of new works, the Bureau handles repairs and maintenance at the navy yards and the more important stations, and operates power plants, transportation systems, and miscellaneous services.

For the 4 years, including and prior to 1932, the administrative expense of the Bureau of Yards and Docks in connection with the public works of the. Navy was 0.7 percent, and during the same period the expense of preliminary investigations, estimating, designing, and preparation of plans and specifications was 2.6 per

cent.

Each of those figures includes officers' pay and supplies. Since that period a larger volume of work has been handled without a commensurate increase in force, so that the percentage of expense has been reduced.

The public works of the Navy include not only building activities common to usual engineering pursuits, but also the design and construction of special structures peculiar to naval use and not encountered in normal professional practice; such as drydocks and marine railways for naval vessels; shops for purposes rarely required except at navy yards; magazines for various kinds of explosives; barracks and galleys quite different from anything outside the military establishments; runways for seaplanes; shrinkage pits for large guns; submarine-escape training tanks; and many other equally unusual structures.

The shore establishment of the Navy exists solely for the support of, and service to, the fleet, the operation of which is the primary object of the Navy Department. The construction, maintenance and operation of the navy yards and stations is so closely interwoven with fleet operations that it is impossible to separate one from the other, and unified military control of both is essential in order that the fleet may fulfill its mission.

[ocr errors]

The administration of naval public works must look well into the future, studying the needs of the shore establishment in relation to fleet operations, planning its development and providing for its most effective utilization in war. In addition to current requirements, war-time needs must be envisaged in collaboration with other agencies of the Navy Department and plans made for the fulfillment of the Navy's mission. Also the peace-time administration must anticipate the necessity for expansion for the immediate inauguration of war-time activities, providing a nucleus of trained officers for the direction and training of the augmented force required in war.

Therefore, professionally and administratively, the work of the Corps of Civil Engineers of the Navy is highly specialized, necessitating a special background that can be obtained only by duty at navy yards and stations, and the study of the requirements of naval vessels and the shore work connected with the ships and their personnel. The naval civil engineers have obtained intimate knowledge of the problems encountered in their work through studies for military preparedness and by daily contact with the officers who are operating ships, building and repairing naval craft, training personnel, handling ordnance, flying, and caring for the supply of the fleet. Such a background could be attained by other engineers only after years of study and daily contacts.

Nearly 90 percent of the officers of the Corps of Civil Engineers are on duty at the navy yards and naval stations in such daily contact. Only one-tenth of the corps, and those all officers of long naval experience, are in Washington to carry on the work of the Bureau of Yards and Docks in the Navy Department. There are 107 officers in the corps, 48 of whom are graduates of the Naval Academy, and the remainder appointed from civil life. All of these officers, who were especially selected for appointment in the corps, have been educated in reputable engineering colleges, those officers who are graduates of the Naval Academy being given a 3-year post-graduate course as soon as they are selected for the corps.

At present, and for some years past, officers are selected for appointment to the corps from among graduates of the Naval Academy with a rating of excellent, after about 2 years service at sea. The best of those applying are selected, and are then sent to the Post-Graduate School at Annapolis for a year and to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute for 2 years for a course leading to a master's degree. The record of the officers of the Corps of Civil Engineers for engineering ability and efficiency is high and they have established an enviable reputation for executive ability and probity. There has never been an instance of fraud or corruption in connection with any of them.

The services of the corps are needed in time of peace as well as in war, irrespective of the amount of actual new construction which they may have to do. To take away any of the new construction would remove such work from the specialized background outlined herein, and would take from the officers work which is of vital importance to them to secure experience which will enable them to handle the enormously augmented projects which war would require.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD L. ICKES SECRETARY OF THE

INTERIOR

Secretary ICKES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, just a few general remarks. At the outset I would like to say that certain men in the administration seem to show considerable lack of confidence in the

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »