PUBLIC BUILDINGS

I note that $65,000,000 has been earmarked for public buildings and the authority for expenditure transferred from the Public Works. Administration to the Treasury and Post Office Departments. This action probably results from our efforts to design post offices to meet actual requirements. Our experience has taught us that it is advisable to have a dispassionate review of the plans and size of buildings. This has been done through the Interdepartmental Committee of Public Works as well as through the Special Board for Public Works. We found in a great many instances that a restudy permitted us to get adequate facilities for Government purposes for which the building was desired at less cost. The natural place for this authority to be lodged is in the Public Works Administration.

Senator DICKINSON. Do I take it from that that it is your desire that the entire public-buildings program be transferred from the former authority over to your administration?

Secretary ICKES. No; I cannot say that it is my desire, merely the Public Works Administration has been allocating for public buildings during the past year, Senator, and I would merely leave it where it is. Senator DICKINSON. I understand that; but you say that you are reviewing all of these proposed buildings and you think you are in a position, with your limited experience here of a few months, to do this?

Secretary ICKES. If you are referring to me, personally, I would say no. I have had no experience that would qualify me to pass upon these projects. It is simply a question of finding men who have the experience, knowledge, and ability necessary to make a study and a proper recommendation.

Senator BYRNES. Who does pass on them Mr. Secretary?

Secretary ICKES. Well, the Interdepartmental Committee; a man from our organization, a man from the Post Office Department, and a man from the Treasury, and a man from the Budget.

Any project for a building is gone into by them; so, Senator, you can readily see that we have available the experience of the two departments that have been most intimately charged with this duty.

Senator DICKINSON. Then, these different departments and personnel that formerly acted on the committee, from the Treasury and the Post Office Department, do not pass upon it?

Secretary ICKES. I do not know, but these gentlemen were chosen by those Departments. They are their own personnel.

Senator DICKINSON. Who are the representatives from those De-partments that you have?

Secretary ICKES. Mr. Dresser, of our Department; the Fourth Assistant Postmaster General; the Director of Procurement, Department of the Treasury, representing the Treasury.

Senator DICKINSON. What is his name?

Secretary ICKES. Admiral Peoples, Director of Procurement.

Senator DICKINSON. Who is the Fourth Assistant Postmaster General?

Secretary ICKES. At the present time, Mr. Purdum; Mr. Silliman Evans was fourth assistant, but he resigned a short time ago.

Senator DICKINSON. Then, you have got people who are absolutely inexperienced, so far as this phase is concerned?

Secretary ICKES. Maybe so. I suppose that the same charge wo lie against the whole administration. It is a new administration. Senator MCKELLAR. Who represents the Director of the Budg Mr. DRESSER. Mr. Fullaway represents the Director of the Bud Senator MCKELLAR. The Director of the Budget does not directly; who acts for him?

Secretary ICKES. Mr. Douglas does sometimes act.

Mr. DRESSER. Mr. Fullaway represents the Director of the Bud as the alternate for the Director.

Senator BYRNES. Does not Mr. Douglas sit in on these conferen at times?

Mr. DRESSER. He does, Senator. I think he has sat in on most of the conferences.

Senator GLASS. Who now represents the Treasury Departme Formerly it was an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. DRESSER. Admiral Peoples, Senator.

Senator GLASS. Who?

Mr. DRESSER. Admiral Peoples.

Senator GLASS. Well, why that change? Do you happen to kn Mr. Dresser?

Mr. DRESSER. That was not a change that we had anything to with. That was administrative.

Senator GLASS. I just wanted to find out. Formerly it was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, in charge of public buildings Mr. DRESSER. Yes.

Senator GLASS. He acted on that Interdepartmental Committ Mr. DRESSER. Yes.

Senator HALE. Is not the Supervising Architect of the Treasury that committee?

Senator GLASS. No; he is under the Assistant Secretary of Treasury.

Mr. DRESSER. He is under Admiral Peoples.

Senator GLASS. Of course, he is called in.

Senator HAYDEN. What has been the average saving in the c struction on buildings?

Mr. DRESSER. About 28 percent.

Senator HAYDEN. We are told repeatedly that there are increa costs of construction which have averaged over 25 percent, so t the delay in the carrying out of the other plans has been offset the increased cost? In other words, if you had taken a building t was, we will say, to cost $100,000, and built it under the then exist plans, even if you are now able to trim down the cost 25 percent, the costs come back to 25 there is not any saving?

Secretary ICKES. I do not think that that is accurate, Sena without assuming that the Treasury was ready to proceed when t were allocated that $100,000, ready to start work the next day. a matter of fact, when this was started the Treasury Department not have the land, and they did not have the plans. They had proceed with the various steps. They were not ready to start, w any number of those.

Senator HAYDEN. Well, there is a number of instances, and I th quite a large number, where the Treasury Department had dra complete plans and specifications and was ready to proceed.

Secretary ICKES. There were some such cases, but our records do show that we saved the Government about 28 percent under this statement.

Senator HAYDEN. But, if you failed to take advantage of the low prices for material, all of which have been increased by the codes, I cannot really see, when you get through, that you have got any dollars and cents savings.

Secretary ICKES. If we cut our production to 80 percent, from $100,000 to $80,000, and then add 20 percent on that, we have certainly saved. If we had had to add 20 percent to the original $100,000, that would have added to the cost.

Senator BYRNES. Mr. Secretary, is this not a fact, that the estimates contained in the document submitted to the Congress was prepared several years ago?

Secretary ICKES. Yes.

Senator BYRNES. And the amounts for buildings then estimated for were based upon cost prices which, as you say, are higher than the existing prices. Is that not a fact?

Secretary ICKES. I think that is probably true.

Senator BYRNES. When was this document prepared—you know the one I am referring to-and the allotments made for these buildings? Secretary IсKES. I do not know.

Senator BYRNES. My recollection is that it was back about 1929 or 1928.

Senator HAYDEN. I think that there would be complete justification for restudies of any buildings for which plans and specifications were not prepared; but where they had the plans and specifications, where the Treasury Department was ready to proceed to let a contract a year ago when prices for land and material were down and contractors were reaching out in every way possible to get some business, to deliberately say, "No; we are going to review those plans, we are going to change them all over another way," in the end did not save the Government any money.

Secretary ICKES. Well, it seems to me then, Senator, that we established a standard public policy.

Senator TOWNSEND. Mr. Ickes, you have made some savings by reducing the size of the buildings.

Secretary ICKES. In some cases, reduction in the size, and in other cases there was a change in the use of material. Instead of having an ornamental building in a setting where it was really out of place, we tried to conform to the surrounding conditions.

Senator TOWNSEND. In other words, you took the steeples off? Secretary ICKES. Well, we took off some of the trim work and that sort of thing, but we tried to give them adequate space in a wellconstructed or commercial type of building instead of the old ornamental type.

Senator BYRNES. You may have this information. In the House hearings-I do not know whether you are familiar with them—but there is a statement at page 224 which contains first of all a list of 28 projects recommended to Special Board of Public Works for approval but not yet released, and then there is another statement "550-3 projects not approved or subject to further consideration as follows." And the list is set out in some pages.

And, I am wondering if anyone present would be able to tell us whether the amount of money which has been earmarked by the bill, by the House, is sufficient to construct these buildings which are listed, and if not, what percentage of them would be, because I do not think that the communities should be misled into the belief that the publication of this list means they will necessarily be constructed, if you have not sufficient funds for the purpose.

Would $65,000,000 build these buildings that are listed here?
Mr. DRESSER. No.

Secretary ICKES. How much more would be required?

Mr. DRESSER. In the House bill there is provided two statements in which the buildings referred to in the first statement, refer to buildings originally in House Document 788; House Document 788 originally contained 1,624 projects.

Senator ADAMS. When that was adopted by the House; what is the date of that?

Mr. DRESSER. That was in 1930, House Document 788, Seventyfirst Congress, third session.

Out of those 1,624 projects, 1,019 are in the works. They have either been built, contracted for or money allotted. That leaves 605 projects. Of those 605 projects, 55 were waived by the departments that were mainly interested, the Department of Justice, and the Post Office Department, as not needed in the light of present-day needs.

The balance of those projects concern those that are in the leased category.

Now, the Public Works Administration has made a study of all of those in that category and gone over the Treasury recommendations.

That leaves those still to be allotted, which the Post Office has considered by their own inspectors in 1930 as being adequate and in good locations, and in good physical condition.

Now, obviously, with rents as they are, to build a building would increase the carrying charge from three to four times beyond what it is today. For that reason, recommendations have been made to the Public Works Administration that these projects in the leased category are economically unsound, and that money should be saved for other purposes.

Now, the other 52 projects, Senator, referred to were passed by the Interdepartmental Committee and, subject to additional funds. They will undoubtedly be allocated by the Public Works Administration, and if we had had the funds would have been before this.

But, referring to that program, so far as House Document 788 is concerned and so far as it was economically feasible, that has been pretty well followed out.

Now, statement no. 3 in the third House document refers to new projects submitted to the Public Works Administration, only 30 days ago and in that statement are 135 projects for building where post offices are occupying leased quarters; 17 garage buildings in cities to be located in various cities where new post offices have been recently completed or are now under construction.

Senator ADAMS. May I ask you to give your name to the reporter, so that we may have clearly in the record what you are saying? Mr. DRESSER. My name is F. J. C. Dresser. I represent the Administrator on the Interdepartmental Committee.

One hundred and twenty-three buildings are proposed, averaging $70,000 per project for site and building, where the postal receipts for 1932 are considerably under $20,000 per year, averaging $11,950, and only 12 projects where the annual receipts are over $20,000 or where the station is a part of a larger city unit. Most of them, in other words, are in the leased category, where the business of that office, as shown by receipts, is practically $11,950. The balance is in the 17 garage buildings and 37 miscellaneous projects for Federal buildings and improvements.

Now, in answer to the original question, the total money involved to complete those in House Docket 788 would involve about $120,000,000, and in statement no. 3 there is involved $32,000,000. Secretary ICKES. Additional?

Mr. DRESSER. Yes. So you have a total money involved in statements 2 and 3 in the House bill of approximately $150,000,000 from which they are supposed to allocate $65,000,000 worth from the public buildings funds.

Senator BYRNES. You say that in statement 3 it is $130,000,000 or $30,000,000?

Mr. DRESSER. What is that?

Senator BYRNES. Statement 3 will cost how much?

Mr. DRESSER. $32,000,000.

Senator MCKELLAR. Mr. Dresser, I understood you to say that they have recommended that all post offices be built where they have made a request for it, where the receipts were more than $11,000 in here?

Mr. DRESSER. I did not quite get your question, Senator.

Senator MCKELLAR. I say, do I understand you to say that you have recommended that post offices be built at all places where receipts are more than $11,000?

Mr. DRESSER. No; we have not. In consideration of these projects before the Interdepartmental Committee we have not allocated or recommended the allocation or construction of projects where the receipts have been less than $20,000 a year.

Senator MCKELLAR. You have not recommended them where they have been more than that, in some cases, have you?

Mr. DRESSER. No, sir; we have not, for the simple reason that the Post Office Department makes the investigation. We do not have the facilities to go out and investigate these quarters in which these facilities are now housed. We depend upon the inspector's reports to the Post Office Department, and in those inspector's reports we find a statement as to the additional carrying charge, plus the condiditions of the facilities, the building itself, and, as I said before, we have made no allocations where the receipts were less than $20,000 annually.

Senator MCKELLAR. Where the Post Office Department makes the recommendation, what rule does the Interdepartmental Committee follow about the building or buildings? How do they select these buildings?

Mr. DRESSER. How do they select them in the first place?

Senator MCKELLAR. Yes; how do you select them? How does your committee select them? What rule do you follow that there must be receipts of at least $20,000?

Mr. DRESSER. That was one feature of the previous legislation.