THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1937. UNITED STATES COURTS STATEMENTS OF S. A. ANDRETTA, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, AND E. R. BUTTS, ASSISTANT GENERAL AGENT FEES OF COMMISSIONERS 1925 Mr. WOODRUM. You have several deficiency estimates in Document No. 273, the first one being $550.25 for fees of commissioners, United States courts, 1925. Mr. BUTTS. That claim has been audited and approved by the Comptroller General. It is just a case where a commissioner did not submit his claim until just recently. Some question might arise as to whether or not it is barred by the statute, which requires commissioners accounts to be submitted within 1 year, but this was incurred prior to the enactment of that statute, and, therefore, it does not come within its purview. SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES PRISONERS, 1929 AND 1932 Mr. WOODRUM. The next two items are for support of United States prsioners, $174.50 for 1929 and $31.86 for 1932. Mr. BUTTS. These items of $174.50 and $31.86 cover a bill submitted by a parish in Louisiana, in the name of the sheriff. Before it was settled he died, and that made it necessary for his widow to resubmit the claim. Before the claim could be audited and a check drawn in payment thereof she, the widow, died, and the next heir in line had to present a claim. Mr. WOODRUM. It has been audited. Mr. BUTTS. Yes, sir; it has been audited and approved by the General Accounting Office. FEES OF JURORS AND WITNESSES, 1938 INCREASE IN INFORMANTS' FUND LIMITATIONS Mr. WOODRUM. The next item relates to fees of jurors and witnesses, United States courts, 1938. Mr. ANDRETTA. This item of fees of jurors and witnesses, United States courts, 1938, involves a change in language relative to the informants' fund. It does not involve the appropriation of additional money. The reason for it is that during last year certain situations. arose whereby the Department was called upon to exhaust the $10,000 limitation, and we would like to have the limitation raised iu order to meet such emergencies as may arise. Mr. WOODRUM. What is the limitation in the regular bill for this purpose? Mr. ANDRETTA. It is $10,000. That has been the limitation for years. Mr. WOODRUM. Is that what you asked for, or did you ask to have the limitation changed in the regular bill? Mr. ANDRETTA. No, sir; it was thought at the time the regular bill was considered that it would be sufficient, but situations arose where we might need more than the $10,000. Mr. TABER. Is this just a temporary situation? Mr. ANDRETTA. I do not believe so, because with the new criminal laws, there is greater activity on the part of the Federal Government in the matter of criminal prosecutions, and the racketeers have more devices and ingenious schemes for extracting money from honest people. We are up against the proposition where we must meet their weapons with our own. Mr. LUDLOW. How long has that limitation been $10,000? Mr. LUDLOW. What have been the past expenditures from that fund? Mr. ANDRETTA. There has been a marked increase. In 1932 we spent $2,827 from the confidential fund; in 1933, $3,100; and then, with the new legislation it jumped to $5,000 in 1934. In 1935 the expenditure was $9,396, and in 1936 it was $9,623. In the present year we have exhausted the $10,000. PRINTING AND BINDING, 1937 Mr. WOODRUM. You ask that not to exceed $30,000 may be transferred from the appropriation "Support of United States prisoners, 1937", to the appropriation "Printing and binding, Department of Justice and courts, 1937." What is the explanation of that? Mr. ANDRETTA. We have a sizeable balance in that appropriation. The item of printing and binding is one item over which we have no control. It has to be used for the printing of records and briefs, and we cannot determine in advance how much will be necessary. For that reason, we have delayed the item as long as possible. We wanted to determine as exactly as possible the amount that will be necessary to carry us through. WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 1937. NAVY DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS STATEMENTS OF REAR ADMIRAL NORMAN M. SMITH, CHIEF, BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS; CAPT. H. E. KIMMELL, BUDGET OFFICER, NAVY DEPARTMENT; CAPTAIN WILLIAMS, BUREAU OF CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR; AND CAPT. FRANK T. WATROUS, BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS IMPROVEMENT OF FACILITIES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BATTLESHIPS AT NEW YORK AND PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARDS Mr. WOODRUM. Admiral, we have in Document No. 302 some supplemental estimates for the Navy Department. The first is an item of $285,000 for improvement of facilities for battleship construction at the New York Navy Yard, and an item of $250,000 for the Philadelphia Navy Yard. Will you give us a brief statement in regard to these items? Admiral SMITH. In connection with the construction of the two authorized battleships, additional facilities are necessary for the construction of those vessels. Mr. WOODRUM. What was the authorization? Admiral SMITH. There were two authorized, and the navy yards at New York and Philadelphia are each building a battleship. Mr. WOODRUM. How much was authorized for the construction of those ships? Admiral SMITH. I think about $60,000,000. Mr. WOODRUM. Why should not the facilities be paid for out of the cost of the battleships? Admiral SMITH. The facilities are not only to be utilized for those ships but will be used in the construction of other vessels and for other yard work. However, they are essential for the construction of those two battleships at the present time. Mr. WOODRUM. The expenditure is made necessary, you say, because of the construction of those ships: Is there any good reason why the cost of the facilities should not be paid for out of the cost of the ships? Admiral SMITH. You would not want to amortize this cost in the construction of these two vessels. When they are completed, you will still have these facilities to be utilized with all the other Navy yard facilities including the various shops. All other public works, public utilities, and plant equipment are appropriated for specially. Mr. WOODRUM. How much money has already been appropriated for the construction of those two battleships? Admiral SMITH. The authorization is $60,000,000. I do not know the exact amount appropriated. Captain KIMMELL. We have a sufficient amount appropriated for them to carry on the construction expenditures for this year. Mr. WOODRUM. For the fiscal year 1938. Captain KIMMELL. Yes, sir. Mr. BACON. As a matter of fact, those expenditures will be made for the preparation of plans, will they not? Captain KIMMELL. No, sir; we expect the contracts to be awarded this year. As a matter of fact, they have already been assigned to the navy yards for construction, and the work is going ahead on them. The plans were submitted to the shipbuilders last spring, and bids were received in June, if I recall correctly. The award has been made for the two ships, one to the navy yard at New York and the other to the navy yard at Philadelphia, for construction. Mr. BACON. I was referring to an item I saw in the press this morning, to the effect that it would take from about 9 months to a year to prepare the detailed plans and drawings, and that it would cost $9,000,000 to prepare the plans. It was stated that the actual construction could hardly begin before another year. Admiral SMITH. Captain Williams, of the Bureau of Construction and Repair, could answer that. Captain WILLIAMS. That statement is not accurate. The plans are being prepared now, and that work will be continued. The work on the plans goes on progressively throughout the whole construction period. We hope to get work in the shops sometime before the end of the calendar year, and certainly before the end of the fiscal year. Mr. BACON. The keels will not be laid this year, will they? Captain WILLIAMS. Probably not; but certain work will be advanced in the shop before the end of the fiscal year, and probably before the end of the calendar year. Mr. BACON. How much money has been spent on those battleships up to this time? Captain WILLIAMS. That is a question I am not prepared to answer. Captain KIMMELL. The estimates submitted last year, as I recall it, were on the order of $25,000,000 for the two ships, to be spent this year. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Are not these costs estimated here included in the computation of the cost of construction? Admiral SMITH. No, sir. Mr. SNYDER. What percentage of this is for the enlargement of the square-foot space? Admiral SMITH. For example, if you will take the modification of the building platforms, and the ways, that item amounts to $155,000. Those two ways were built for battleships, and were used until the work was stopepd in 1922. The vessels on them were scrapped when they were about 38 or 40 percent complete. Since then the ways have been modified for the construction of cruisers, certain parts of them have been placed in condition through the renewal of the foundations with concrete. We are asking $155,000, which is the estimated expense for repairs to those ways. The battleships are longer than the cruisers. These particular battleships will be about 70 feet longer than the old battleships, and we will have to extend and rehabilitate the ways at a cost of about $155,000. Mr. WOODRUM. What is the status of the money allocated for expenditure on those ships in the next fiscal year? I think the committee will want to know definitely whether you will need all of that money, or whether you could use some of the money for this purpose. We are all "from Missouri" on this proposition. Captain KIMMELL. So far as having sufficient money in the appropriation for next year is concerned, we have that, but it is a question of getting the charges properly allocated, and retaining them under the proper titles that have been established, or that you gentlemen have established. This was all discussed by the Bureaus with the Bureau of the Budget in the Navy Department before we went over there—that is, as to the advisability of asking you to put language in RNV to permit us to go ahead and do this, but we thought that it would be much better to keep the accounts straight and the records straight by having it submitted in this way. It can be done either way. Mr. BACON. In other words, this $535,000 to be expended at the New York and Philadelphia Navy Yards is made necessary to prepare the yards for the building of these ships. Captain KIMMELL. Yes, sir. Mr. BACON. What other sums in future years will be necessary at these yards, or items similar to these, that will not go into the cost of the ships? Captain KIMMELL. So far as I know at the present time, for these two ships there will not be any additional charges. There may be some that are not foreseen at this time. Mr. BACON. If any private yards bid on these ships, they probably figured in the price of the ships considerable sums of money to prepare ways to do this work, in order that they could build the battle ships in the private yards. In other words, these extra costs that you are segregating were included in the bids made by the private yards. Admiral SMITH. There is a great deal of it included in bids from private yards. Private yards have a large percentage of equipment and facilities in their plant which they do not include in their bids. Mr. BACON. For example, the yard at Norfolk, Va., probably included a considerable sum in their bid for the preparation of the ways, for equipment and changes in the yard so they could build the ships. All that was added in their bid, whereas the navy yard, bidding in competition with the private yards, segregates all those sums of money which the private yards have to include in their bids. I am trying to get a comparison between the bids or estimates made by the navy yards and the bids of the private yards. Mr. LUDLOW. About what was the differential between the lowest bid of the private yards and the estimated cost in the Government yards? Admiral SMITH. Captain Williams, of the Bureau of Construction and Repair, can tell you about that. Mr. LUDLOW. What is the differentiation between the best bid submitted by a private yard and the estimated cost of the construction of these ships in Government navy yards? Captain WILLIAMS. What actually happened was that we invited bids from private yards, and three bids were submitted. Estimates were sent in from two navy yards, and the differential was about $10,000,000 in favor of the navy yards, or the estimate was that much less than the lowest bid of the private yards. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Including the interest and overhead costs which go into the charges of the private yards? Mr. BACON. In the private yards' bid salaries are included, whereas in the navy yards the officers get their pay anyway. Captain WILLIAMS. In our accounting system that is taken care of in the figures that the navy yards submit. They include the salaries of the officers. There was a considerable sum involved in that. Mr. LUDLOW. What were the factors of cost computed by the private yards that did not enter into the computations of the Government yards? Captain WILLIAMS. There was the element of uncertainty. They were afraid to take a contract of such magnitude over a period of 4 years. Mr. LUDLOW. Uncertainty as to an increase in wages? Captain WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; and increasing cost of materials and the general conditions. Mr. BACON. The private yard must pay a lot of taxes. Captain WILLIAMS. The navy yard pays a large amount--over 20 percent of direct labor for annual leave, sick leaves and holidays. DISTRIBUTION OF ESTIMATES FOR NEW YORK AND PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARDS Mr. WOODRUM. Suppose you give us a break-down of what constitutes these two items. You may furnish that for the record. Admiral SMITH. We will do so. |