back here today. They will not be back immediately. Therefore, when they are released from CA/MG in Germany they revert to the pool and come back under the Military Establishment. These figures are preponderately for civilian employees, as notice on page 1266 of the justifications that we do not in there give the quantity of the number of people. We take the same figure which was actually a lump sum of $190,766, but the figures shown there of 2,000, 2,000, and 2,000 pertain particularly to civilians. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I do not want to dwell on this too long, but the $1,400,000 expended in Germany for travel of employees will include the travel of 1,648 military personnel assigned to CA/MG? Colonel BINNS. Only to the extent that they are traveling from Germany to neighboring areas. That involves individuals whose orders specifically state that they were traveling from here to Germany for military government. Mr. VOORHEES. If this is not a businesslike method of computing it I am the one who is responsible for it. The computations from the theaters were higher, and I reduced them to the amounts that we estimated that we spent in 1948. I did not dare to reduce them below that amount because of this conversion from military to civilian personnel. Colonel BINNS. One reason in that is that most of the ocean transportation back and forth between the occupied areas and this country of military is paid for as a direct military expenditure. Unless there is a specific trip made for military government purposes it would be paid for as a military expenditure, and not out of this appropriation at all. On the other hand all of the civilian employees travel and that for their dependents is paid for our of this appropriation. I did not think due to the decrease in military relative to the number of civilians that we dared reduce it below that amount. Colonel BINNS. I can see why it is confusing, Mr. Wigglesworth, but let me cite the example of my own personal travel last week. Since I went to Germany and Austria my own travel was charged to the 415 project, you know, because I went there primarily for CA/MG activities, although I do not belong to the theater. I traveled to the theater on duty, so that the charge was made against that fund. Colonel Dubbelde and his people, I believe, set the figure at 2,722 people, and we just could not go along with it, and after analyzing it completely, against their will it was reduced to 2,000. Have I answered your question, sir? Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. It would still seem to me that the travel for military personnel to the extent of 1,648, less 425 or 1,223 persons would be removed completely from the travel picture for the fiscal year 1949. Colonel BINNS. As to this 1,648 people their travel was never included in this item because they are Military Establishment people who were detailed from the United States to Germany, and after arriving in Germany they were told you are assigned to the military government. Their travel is under the Military Establishment budget. They were not in here last year, and they are not in here this year. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. But I understood you to say previously that as long as they were doing this CA/MG work that their travel would come out of this item. Colonel BINNS. But until a particular officer was assigned to the military government in Germany he was a member of the Military Establishment. For example, if Lieutenant X is assigned to the European theater, and upon his arrival he is assigned to the military government, assigned to a station in Stuttgart, for example, up to that point the Military Establishment bears the cost of his travel and that of his dependents. On the other hand, let us assume that 6 months from that date he is transferred to travel to Berlin, the travel of the officer and his dependents is then the responsibility of this appropriation. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. And he becomes one of the 1,648 that you have included in your 1948 travel? Colonel BINNS. Yes, sir; that is correct. At the termination of this officer's duty in Europe if he is released merely for return to the United States his travel is paid for under the Military Establishment budget. On the other hand should he be ordered back to civil affairs, military government duty in the United States then this appropriation would pay the cost of returning him and his family to the United States. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Suppose he is ordered to do some travel while in Germany; does not that come out of this? Colone! BINNS. Yes, sir; and it is shown in the last item on page. 126€. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. And any such travel for any one of the 1,223 military personnel in the fiscal year 1948 would be completely out of the picture in 1949, would it not? Colonel BINNS. No; because there will be a certain percentage of them still remaining there. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. The 1,223 are not going to be there, as I understand it. Therefore there cannot be any travel for them as far as anyone of those people want to travel in 1948, and that travel is reflected in the over-all request here. It seems to me that there would be a corresponding reduction made. Colonel BINNS. You visualize, as I see it, that these people will be immediately dropped from the rolls on the first day of July 1948. That is not my understanding, but by the end of the fiscal year 1949 all of them will have been gone. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I do not care when they go. As soon as they go then there is no travel for them. Colonel BINNS. There will be a decreasing amount. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. But there is not any decrease reflected here. Colonel BINNS. But on the other hand we are picking up 425 civilian employees, and we will become responsible for their travel, regardless of what they do it for and their return to the United States. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I guess we have taken up enough time on that. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions on travel? TRANSPORTATION OF THINGS The next item is "Transportation of things," project 420. You have there an over-all figure of $3,000,000 more than the present year. Colonel BINNS. That is Mr. Voorhees' project. Mr. VOORHEES. I will call Colonel Gillespie, the transportation man to handle that. FREIGHT CHARGES The CHAIRMAN. Why do we have as heavy freight charges as we seem to have here? Colonel GILLESPIE. These rates in the budget are the rates which are at present the prevailing rates for the movement of these cargoes. In the case of berth-term cargo they are the commercial rate net less 10 percent. Berth-term cargo is cargo which is moved by berth operators, a berth operator being a steamship company which maintains a schedule from a given port to a given port and moves cargo in bags, boxes, bales, or bundled items. The CHAIRMAN. A good deal of the stuff like coal and grain would certainly go to Germany and Japan by bulk load. It would go to Germany by bulk load, and I would say the same thing about Austria, it seems, and I do not know but what Korea would be in the same class. Why is not that so? Colonel GILLESPIE. That is so. The CHAIRMAN. Then your rates ought not to be as high as your berth-term rate. Colonel GILLESPIE. That is right, they are not. The CHAIRMAN. According to that there ought to be a considerable saving below these figures. Colonel GILLESPIE. I might explain further, sir, that in the case of full cargoes such as grain or coal that they are moved on vessels which are chartered by the Transportation Corps and they are chartered at a much lower rate than in the other rates for that purpose. The CHAIRMAN. Why should there not be a considerable cut in this figure? Colonel GILLESPIE. There figures include that type of transportation, berth-term cargo which I have mentioned, including these items such as dried milk, package goods, and so forth, but all of our full cargoes move on vessels which are chartered by the Transportation Corps and would move in terms of full or bulk cargoes. Mr. VOORHEES. You will notice the difference in the rates, Mr. Chairman, on page 1276 there for Germany between bulk cargoes and the others. For example, grain and flour a ton are about $15, and sugar which is bulk cargo is $18 a ton, and some of the other things that are package cargoes run a great deal higher than that. Colonel GILLESPIE. That is right. Mr. VOORHEES. In each case that can be moved as bulk cargo we, of course, move it in that way. These figures were prepared in detail by Colonel Gillespie, who is a Transportation Corps officer whom I borrowed from the Transportation Corps for the Food Administrator's office last winter, and he is in charge of our transportation, and he has gone over each of the different kinds of products and the quantities involved, and of course the destinations and sources that we will have to move from and have determined on an actual experience basis what he has to pay for the ships in order to move them. This is very close figuring, assuming that there is no change in the transportation rates and that we actually may have the funds for food and other supplies that we have provided for. Colonel GILLESPIE. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Is not that ammonium nitrate bulk cargo? Colonel GILLESPIE. No, sir. Under the maritime regulations, and so forth, we are required to move that under berth terms. Ammonium nitrate is packed in bags, and we are required to move that as berthterm cargo. The CHAIRMAN. Why? Colonel GILLESPIE. The maritime ruling is that the Transportation Corps are required to do that. The CHAIRMAN. There is not any shipping to do any of this except United States shipping, except what little the British contribute, is there? Colonel GILLESPIE. That is right. Mr. VOORHEES. I think I may say that we are planning to move a certain amount of petroleum in those SCAP tankers. The CHAIRMAN. What is that? Mr. VOORHEES. Supreme Commander Allied Powers. General MacArthur, I think, had some tankers that I think we are planning to get. Čolonel GILLESPIE. That is right. These figures are all ex-United States, other than as indicated by the footnotes. TRANSPORTATION OF CIVILIAN SUPPLIES The CHAIRMAN. We will put in the record the table beginning on page 1275. (The matter above referred to is as follows:) In the following table flour is included for purposes of computing transportation costs at its actual product weight, instead of its grain equivalent tonnage as used in other tables herein. The following figure of 3,939,000 tons for grain and flour therefore corresponds with the figure of 4,115,000 tons shown on the tables at pages 1155 and 1171. A similar explanation applies to the grain tonnages shown for Japan and Korea in the tables appearing later. |