WAR DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS MAY 28, 1930.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. WURZBACH, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 4017] The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4017) to amend the act of May 29, 1928, pertaining to certain War Department contracts, by repealing the expiration date of that act, having considered the same, report thereon with the recommendation that it do pass. This legislation is to amend that section of the act of May 29, 1928, which provides that the act shall cease to be in effect after June 30, 1930. It was thought that the bill regarding uniform requirements affecting Government contracts, H. R. 5568, Seventy-first Congress, would have become law before this time had expired. Since there are some provisions that have not been finally accepted and passage may be delayed on H. R. 5568, the indefinite extension of the act of May 29, 1928, is desired. When the uniform contract bill is enacted, the act of May 29, 1928, will be canceled automatically. The report of the War Department clearly explains the purpose of this legislation. Such report is included in the report of the Senate committee on the bill and is therefore made a part of this report, as follows: The Committee on Military Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 4017) to amend the act of May 29, 1928, pertaining to certain War Department contracts by repealing the expiration date of the act, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that it do pass. The purpose of the bill is set forth in a letter from the Secretary of War, March 20, 1930, to the chairman of the Senate Committee on Military Affairs, which is made a part of this report and reads as follows: Hon. DAVID A. REED, Chairman Committee on Military Affairs, WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, March 20, 1930. United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR REED: There is inclosed the draft of a bill to amend the act of May 29, 1928 (45 Stat. 985), by repealing the expiration date, which the War Department presents for the consideration of the Congress with a view to its enactment into law. The act of May 29, 1928 (45 Stat. 985), is a modification of Revised Statute 3744 (41 U. S. C., sec. 16), which requires that every contract made on behalf of the Government shall be reduced to writing and signed by the contracting parties with their names at the end thereof. It should be noted specifically that no change in any of the laws requiring competition were contemplated in the original act and none are contemplated now. The act of May 29, 1928 (45 Stat. 985), simply varies the degree of formality required in the execution of contracts. The existing War Department regulations on this subject are as follows: "The term 'formal contract' means an agreement reduced to writing in one instrument and signed by all the contracting parties at the end thereof. The term 'informal contract' means an agreement in any other form. "Contracts for the procurement of materials, supplies, or services other than personal will be formal: (a) When the amount involved is more than $25,000; (b) when the delivery of performance time is more than 60 days and the amount involved is more than $500; (c) when otherwise required by law or when in the opinion of the chief of branch or of the contracting officer such a contract is necessary to adequately protect the interest of the United States. "In all other cases informal contracts are authorized, provided that oral bids in excess of $500 will be confirmed in writing.' The original bill was introduced in the House as H. R. 12352, Seventieth Congress, first session, without the proviso. It was reported out by the Military Affairs Committee May 5, 1928, Report No. 1552 (70th Cong., 1st sess.), and passed the House on May 16, 1928. A proviso was added by the Senate limiting the act until June 30, 1929. The conferees agreed to limit the act to June 30, 1930. In the Congressional Record for May 29, 1928, page 10748, the statement is made by the managers on the part of the House that the date of expiration was extended to June 30, 1930, to give the War Department time to give the subject further study and to recommend further legislation. The War Department had hoped that the bill introduced by Mr. Cramton to establish uniform requirements affecting Government contracts, H. R. 15713 (70th Cong., 2d sess.), would have become law by this time. This bill has been reintroduced as H. R. 5568, Seventy-first Congress, but it contains some provisions which have not been finally accepted by all concerned and its passage may be delayed. The indefinite extension of the act of May 29, 1928, is desired only until the uniform contract bill, H. R. 5568, is enacted, when the act of May 29, 1928, will be canceled automatically. Property may now be acquired in three ways with respect to the formality of the agreement. (a) In open market in the manner common among business men when the amount is not in excess of $500 (act June 12, 1906). There is no limit on the time of delivery. The offer may be in writing or may be oral. The acceptance by the Government is always in writing. No change is involved in this method. (b) By formal contract: Under War Department regulations now in effect formal contracts are required (1) if the amount involved exceeds $25,000 irrespective of time of delivery; (2) if the amount exceeds $500 and time of delivery exceeds 60 days; (3) in other cases where required by law or to protect the interests of the Government. (c) By informal contract: Where the amount exceeds $500 but is less than $25,000 and performance is to be completed within 60 days, an informal contract is executed. This is accomplished by written bid and written acceptance. The bid is submitted after competition in accordance with existing laws. This is a valid contract and binding on both parties. The interests of the Government are fully protected. The objection that the War Department has to the formal contract is based solely on the time, labor, and expense involved in its execution. A formal contract requires about 60 days to complete its accomplishment. In the meantime, supplies such as subsistence may have been consumed, the contractor can not be paid, and the discounts for prompt payment are lost. In some cases the number of items, number of consignees, and number of successful bidders are very large. In case a formal contract is executed, a complete copy of every paper pertaining to the contract must be made. Copies of contracts are furnished each consignee named thereon, the contractor, each paying finance officer, and each inspector, as well as the usual numbers for the returns office, General Accounting Office, and chief of branch concerned. The informal contract involved issuing a purchase order to the successful bidder listing the items which he is to furnish and to whom to be furnished. The usual copies are furnished the paying officer and the consignee. The original written bid, together with a signed number of the purchase order, are filed with the General Accounting Office. If the proposed amendment is not passed and approved prior to June 30, 1930, the War Department is faced with a tremendous increase in paper work and additional burdens will be placed on successful bidders who will not be paid promptly. It is believed the urgency of the proposed bill justifies its early favorable consideration. Sincerely yours, O PATRICK J. HURLEY, CLAIMS OF ASSINIBOINE INDIANS MAY 28, 1930.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. LEAVITT, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. J. Res. 312] The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. J. Res. 312) to clarify and amend an act entitled "An act conferring jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear, examine, adjudicate, and enter judgment in any claims which the Assiniboine Indians may have against the United States, and for other purposes," approved March 2, 1927, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass without amendment. This joint resolution is for the purpose of clarifying the jurisdictional act by which the Assiniboine Indians were permitted to sue in the Court of Claims for any damages which may have been sustained by violation of their rights. The suit is now pending, and it is thought there might be a question as to whether the original bill was sufficiently clear to cover their claim for damages to land the title to which was obtained by immemorial possession. If that question should be decided adversely, it would mean new legislation would be asked and the claim all tried over. The Secretary of the Interior, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the Attorney General, and the Bureau of the Budget have all favorably considered the joint resolution. This committee unanimously makes this report recommending its passage. The reports herewith attached give the favorable views of the department having jurisdiction over the Indians. Memorandum for the Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, The accompanying letter from Hon. Scott Leavitt, chairman Committee on Indian Affairs, House of Representatives, transmitted for a report a copy of H. J. Res. 312 to clarify and amend an act entitled "An act conferring jurisdic |