« AnteriorContinuar »
CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT SECURED FROM WAR DEPARTMENT
Mr. TABER. What sort of equipment was that taken from the War Department?
Mr. MORRELL. There was some machinery, a few tractors, and some small equipment and tools. There were a few trucks.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. There was some clothing, also, was there not?
General TYNER. No, sir; no clothing. We have had only new clothing now for the last 2 years.
Mr. Bacon. The War Department clothing, being uniforms, would not fit this situation at all, would it? They are entirely different.
General TYNER. Yes, sir. We altered them in the beginning.
Mr. Bacon. Why should not that be reimbursed? If you used current War Department stock, we would like to know about that, or whether it is reimbursed.
Mr. WiggLESWORTH. Do I understand that you received both equipment and clothing that the War Department made available?
General TYNER. In the beginning, we used clothing from the reserve stock and surplus stock.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Were you paid for it?
General TYNER. When the thing started in 1933, everything was taken from the War Department stocks and issued to the camps. Then they gradually replaced it by equipment that was purchased from C. C. C. appropriations.
Mr. Bacon. But you did not get reimbursed for the equipment you loaned them to start the camps?
General TYNER. Yes, sir; it was in part.
General TYNER. Yes, sir; we got new equipment in part. I cannot give the figures, but my impression is that a large amount of reserve clothing of the War Department has not yet been reimbursed.
Mr. McENTEE. I think there was a hearing before Congressman Snyder's committee with reference to a lot of that material. The Congressman asked us about it.
Mr. SNYDER. Yes; that information is contained in the hearings on the War Department appropriations bill.
Mr. WIGGLES WORTH. Has there been some reimbursement on account of equipment, through purchases by the quartermaster?
General TYNER. Yes, sir; there are 60 dump trucks. We are estimating for 60 dump trucks to be used for technical work by companies on Army reservations.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Are they new trucks or old trucks?
General Tyner. There are 60 new trucks. Our trucks were worn out, and these replace them. They are dump trucks.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. What is the basis for reimbursement for material, or what has it been in the past? What is the basis of reimbursement? In general, is it the cost of production? Is that the basis of reimbursement?
General TYNER. We are not reimbursed at all. We get it from this appropriation. We are asking for money under this appropriation, for instance, to purchase 60 dump trucks to replace trucks which were worn out. They are to be used now by companies on Army reservations.
Mr. Bacon. Where do they come from originally?
Mr. Bacon. How much reserve Army equipment was turned over in the way of uniforms?
General TYNER. When they started the camps in 1933, everything was from the Army.
Mr. Bacon. Was that provided for in the original act?
General TYNER. Yes, sir. We reported that to the Appropriations Committee on the War Department bill when Mr. Fechner appeared in January
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I understood that the War Department had been reimbursed, from what you said, for equipment, and so forth.
General TYNER. They were reimbursed for tentage.
General TYNER. The Army bought new equipment. Sometimes it was equipment in kind, and sometimes it was not the same equipment.
Mr. Bacon. You have not been reimbursed in toto.
General TYNER. We have not been completely reimbursed for the clothing issued, as I have been informed.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I was under the impression that a great deal was made available which was not new.
General TYNER. There were two kinds of equipment issued—some from surplus war stoek and some from war reserve stock.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. What was the determination of the basis of reimbursement? What determined the money charged for the equipment.
General TYNER. In some cases it was the cost price, and in other cases the sale value. I believe my statement there is correct.
Mr. Bacon. So far as the surplus war stock is concerned, I can see the justification for lending that out, but I can see no justification for going into the war reserve without complete reimbursement being made.
General TYNER. I am informed that the war reserve has not yet been reimbursed completely. This failure to fully reimburse the War Department for issues made to the C. C. C. from war reserve stocks is a result of reductions made by Congress in appropriations for like supplies for current use in the Regular Army by approximately the same amount as the value of the issues made to the C. C. C., the net result being that the Regular Army has been obliged to draw upon its reserve stocks for current requirements, thereby depleting its war reserves.
Mr. McENTEE. I think this is the answer. There has been reimbursement of everything that the C. C. C. has taken over except what was considered free issue; that was surplus clothing in the very beginning and which had been declared surplus by the War Department and had not been sold, for which there was reimbursement.
Mr. Bacon. There seems to be a little conflict of testimony here. As far as the surplus stock is concerned, I can see plenty of justification for turning that over to the C. C. C. camps, but I can see no justification for going into the war reserves without complete reimbursement.
Mr. McENTEE. With all deference to General Tyner, and not contradicting the precise statement he has made, it is our contention that the total reimbursements by the Civilian Conservation Corps, in money or in goods, to the War Department has been adequate to compensate for all supplies or materials which they furnished to us, if the reimbursements are figures on the market value of the material furnished to the C. C. C. by the War Department at the time the material was so furnished. I do not know whether the War Department used reimbursements to build up one kind of reserve or another, but we do feel that we have, on the basis of fair-market value, fully reimbursed the War Department for material which it furnished in early days of the C. C.C. And, may I add, that the material the War Department furnished was greatly needed and thoroughly appreciated by the C. C. C. If Congress, in accordance with General Tyner's statement, has reduced certain War Department appropriations, that is not a C. C. C. matter and does not affect the question of C. C. C. reimbursements to the War Department.
SURPLUS PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT
Mr. Ludlow. Do you have any arrangement to take overseized cars from the various law-enforcement agencies?
Mr. McENTEE. Someone else usually gets them first. They are rather scarce.
Mr. Ludlow. Do you get any at all?
The services may get some; I believe they do.
Mr. WIRTH. We get quite a few. We get copies of the surplus lists, and whenever there is anything we want, we put in a claim for it, and if we are first on the spot, we get it.
Mr. LUDLOW. That is rather a negligible source?
Mr. Wirth. It is. From the equipment standpoint it is usually passenger cars, and they are generally run down and pretty well damaged. They have been used so hard that the machinery usually has to be replaced. It usually costs anywhere from $200 to $400 to put such a car in shape.
Mr. Ludlow. You stated that your equipment takes an awful beating, which is undoubtedly true. What would you say is the life of your equipment?
Mr. MCENTEE. Varying from 3 to 4 years, I think.
Mr. SNYDER. We are abandoning certain camps, of necessity, I understand. Here is a camp, for instance, fully equipped, from which the Government moves out. Then there is a certain procedure that you go through with legally. It is in the hands of the Army and the
Army may release it to the State, and the State, if nobody wants it, can release it to the county, and the county can release it to certain organizations, like the Boy Scouts.
I suggest that you furnish the committee with a statement showing how that may be done legally.
Mr. McENTEE. That procedure is a matter of law. We will supply a statement giving this information.
PAY OF ENROLLEES
Mr. TABER. Apparently your item for C. C. C. enrollees' pay is going to run to approximately $124,000,000, perhaps a little more than that, $124,700,000. You are getting a 20 percent cut.
Why should you not cut that amount by $24,000,000, marking that down to $100,000,000 instead of $113,000,000?
Mr. McENTEE. The pay item is just a matter of how many enrollees we may have. That figure is on the basis of $30 a month.
Mr. Bacon. For how many enrollees?
General TYNER. We are asking for an amount for 290,000 enrollees to be paid; for the fiscal year 1938 we are asking for $109,411,200, as against, in 1937, the current year, $219,975,140. Captain BEAN. That is for enrollees in continental United States
General TYNER. Under the charge of the War Department. We are authorized to have 300,000, and we estimate we will have to pay 290,000.
Mr. Bacon. You provide for subsistence for 290,000, average?
General TYNER. We provide subsistence for 289,885 average in the camps and in hospitals and 115 traveling.
Mr. Bacon. Your amount for pay is based on an average of 290,000?
General TYNER. Yes, on that average strength throughout the month, not throughout the year.
Mr. McENTEE. That cut in enrollees is 14 percent instead of 20 percent.
Mr. TABER. These figures do not jibe with the green-sheet figures.
It seems to me if you have anything like a cut under your authorized number you had this year, and with your enlistments coming as difficult as they have this year, you are not going to have anything like an average of 290,000. 'You have 303,000 estimated for here.
Captain BEAN. That includes 8,580 Indians and 5,000 in the Territories. That, added to the 290,000 we figure will give us an average of 303,000.
Mr. Taber. In your permanent field set-up you run only about 6 percent below last year on your civilian help, and this provides about 8 percent less, in your estimate, here on the green sheets. Why should that amount not come down seven or eight million dollars more than the estimate calls for?
Mr. McENTEE. That is based on the number of camps, and cannot bring your overhead down in the same percentage.
Mr. TABER. How long will you have as many camps as that?
Mr. McENTEE. We will have 1,850 the 1st of July; we will be down to 1,600 at the end of September and down to 1,500 at the first
of the year.
Mr. Taber. That is more than a 20 percent cut in the number of camps.
Mr. McENTEE. It will be at that time.
Mr. TABER. You will have an average of a 20 percent cut. Therefore you ought to be able to cut your labor bill. Where you have an average cut of 20 percent your labor bill ought to be cut 20 percent.
Mr. McENTEE. Are you talking about enrollees?
Mr. McENTEE. May I say in reference to that, that that is a matter that all of the agencies are interested in, and they have all been requested
Mr. TABER. Is there not eight or ten million dollars there that can be taken off?
Mr. McENTEE. I would not say that. A meeting has been scheduled for the 15th of July by the Director for all the agencies. He has written them requesting that they make a careful survey of the personnel and see whether or not those figures cannot be brought down and the personnel curtailed to a large degree. All of these agencies are going to meet on that date. We want to consult them in regard to the matter. In their judgment, they all tell us that their personnel is not any too heavy now, and they say that it is the proper personnel for the proper planning and laying out of this work.
Mr. Wirth. While there is a cut of 20 percent in the total number of camps, the actual number of enrollees is only cut 14 percent.
Mr. TÁBER. You had as high as 375,000 in the camps in the early part of 1937, did you not?
Mr. McENTEE. No, sir; 355,000 was our maximum and only for a few days.
Mr. Wirth. The cut during the year at the camps was only about 13 percent. When we cut the total number of camps, we increased the number of men in each camp from 160 to 200, which means that we have to put on additional foremen to handle that particular work.
At the beginning of the C. C. C. we had 8 foremen for 200 boys, and we are operating with 6 foremen now, and it is impossible to operate properly with 200 men on the basis of 6 foremen. While we are decreasing the number of camps, we are increasing the strength of the camps.
Mr. Taber. We ought not to be asked to make an appropriation before we have these facts, so that we can see if we cannot cut some of these items down.
Mr. McENTEE. You spoke of 20 percent. You are figuring that on a basis of 350,000 enrollees. We lose on an average of from seven to eight thousand men a month who go to other jobs. Their places are not filled until our regular enrollment period comes around, so we do not have in the camps 350,000 men. We have perhaps an average over the year of 333,000. The actual reduction would probably come nearer to 10 percent.
Mr. TABER. And the same thing will apply next year?
Mr. McENTEE. You cannot, because when we talk of closing 500 camps we are now carrying about 163 enrollees per camp.