ponents of ammunition, components of mixed metals not procurable within the United States; and except as may be authorized expressly by law.

It is concerning this proposed amendment that I request permission to address the committee. I would like the opportunity to make a complete general statement of the matter, and should the committee upon completion of my statement desire more detailed information, there are present several of the chiefs of the supply bureaus, who are prepared to explain the effect which the amendment in question would have upon their own procurement activities.

It is the fixed policy of the War Department to give preference to articles and materials of domestic origin to the extent of its legal authority. All contracts for the purchase of supplies contain a provision that " preference will be given articles or materials of domestic production, condition of quality and price, including duty, being equal," but War Department purchases are also governed by the provisions of the act of March 2, 1901 (31 Stat. 905), which require that supplies shall be purchased where they can be purchased the cheapest, quality and the cost of transportation and the interest of the Government considered.

The War Department is in sympathy with Congress in its desire to have the Federal Government patronize home industries. It is our belief that not only the War Department but all the public agencies, as well as private business and American citizens, should give preference to domestic products wherever possible. The War Department is particularly desirous of assisting American manufacturers of supplies essential in the time of war in order that we may become more independent of foreign sources of supply.

However, in order that the committee may be fully cognizant of the effect of legislation which would restrict the War Department's source of supply it is desired to state briefly our position in the matter.

With the exception of a few items purchased abroad for experimental purposes all articles are purchased in the United States. These articles, although purchased in the United States, may have been imported by the contractor, and if the article is a manufactured one some of the raw materials entering into its production may be of foreign origin.

Supplies purchased in the United States which might be affected by this or similar legislation fall into the following general classes: 1. Those not produced in the United States or produced in negligible quantity. Among items in this class are: Coffee, cocoa, chocolate, nutmegs, tapioca, spices, tea, pepper, ginger, vanilla, coconut, cork, tin, shellac, jute, hemp, sisal, silk, gutta-percha, mica, mahogany, asphalt, opium, camphor, iodine, quinine, nux vomica.

Senator JONES. Right there, Mr. Secretary. You mentioned mahogany. That is one of the things that is causing bitter complaint, the amount of mahogany furniture the department is buying. Mr. PAYNE. Yes.

Senator MCKELLAR. There is a very great contention by all of the hardwood people in this country in connection with that.

Senator REED. I would suggest that we let the Secretary finish.

into Hawaii.

Is that true? I did not know that they were producing cement.

Senator REED. They do make cement in Japan now, but, of course, they have to pay duty on it.

General MOSELEY. It comes to the Pacific coast, too.

Senator REED. They have to pay 6 cents a hundred pounds.

Senator McKELLAR. What I want to ask about is wood. You know, in Memphis, Tenn., we have a tremendous hardwood lumber market. I have protests from practically all of the lumber associations in that vicinity saying that the Army apparently prefers mahogany desks and chairs and other things in preference to woods produced in America, and they are very much opposed to that system, and I think that we ought to be patriotic enough to patronize home industries, when it comes to the governmental departments, and patronize our native woods. Can you tell us about that? Mr. PAYNE. In answer to that question

Senator JONES. Before you do that, Mr. Secretary, I want to reiterate the statement of Senator McKellar. We have, of course, great hardwood production out in our country, and now for two or three years they have been protesting against the purchases not only by the War Department, but by all branches of the Federal Government, of mahogany and furniture made out of woods coming from outside of this country. They think we can furnish timber and lumber in this country that will make all of the furniture that is necessary for any of the offices of the Government.

That is the main article that I have had complaints about.

Mr. PAYNE. You will have a real good answer to it, that you can give your people, that all of the new sets we are purchasing are made from lumber that is made in this country, walnut, and for the noncommissioned officers we are purchasing oak.

The mahogany is being purchased to fill in sets that are now in use, to keep the sets of the same wood in the same room.

Senator COPELAND. That is true particularly with regard to that item?

Mr. PAYNE. Yes.

Senator JONES. You can make furniture out of other wood that is pretty hard to tell from mahogany. I think we can very well replace our worn-out mahogany furniture with things that are made in this country.

Senator COPELAND. Are such articles as teak, and lignum vitæ, produced in this country?

Mr. PAYNE. Not that I know of, in this country.

I can say, in further answer to your question, that the other day we purchased a rather large order. Can you say what proportion, in dollars and cents, in that order we placed the other day, what proportion in dollars and cents, I mean, of American wood was involved; can you answer that?

General DE WITT. Ninety per cent.

Mr. PAYNE. What?

General DE WITT. American wood in furniture purchases?

Mr. PAYNE. Yes.

General DE WITT. I can not answer that.

Mr. PAYNE. No; I mean on all of this.

General DE WITT. I can not answer that. I can put it in the record for you.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

Appropriation for furniture for the fiscal year 1931 was $326,400. Cost of mahogany entering furniture was $33,541.34, or approximately 10 per cent.

Senator MCKELLAR. Mr. Secretary, I do not have the papers with me. I have them over at the office. A number of people have been writing to me and protesting, in which they either quote or send to me copies of letters from the department, saying that the department prefers mahogany furniture, for instance, to walnut, and perhaps birch and oak for desks and tables, and things of that sort.

Now, if that is correct, simply because the department prefers these foreign woods which are probably just as expensive, or more expensive than ours, why, it seems to me that that is not sufficient. I am rather inclined to sympathize with the manufacturers of hardwoods in this country, and I think the department ought to take that view of it, even though it is not quite as fine looking as the mahogany.

Senator COPELAND. Is the use of teak, lignum-vitæ, and these other woods mentioned here, of extreme importance to the War Department?

Mr. PAYNE. We have not made any purchases of furniture requiring those woods.

Senator COPELAND. More likely that would be true in the Navy Department.

Mr. PAYNE. Yes.

Senator MCKELLAR. But you do obtain great quantities of mahog

any.

General DE WITT. I may add, Senator, in answer to your question, in the last advertisement of the War Department for furniture, for officers and noncommissioned officers' quarters, we asked for alternate bids, for American woods. Prices were absolutely the same for walnut and mahogany. In order to complete the sets of mahogany, we bought enough mahogany to complete those in existence. We then bought the remainder in walnut, an American wood, and for the noncommissioned officers' quarters, furniture which was entirely of American wood.

Senator JONES. I think we can possibly take the language suggested by the Assistant Secretary and work out something that is satisfactory.

Mr. PAYNE. We ask that.

I have been associated with many business associations for several years in this country and I am very sympathetic toward American woods.

If you wish, Mr. Chairman, we can look that up and send it up. General De Witt can probably answer the question better than I can. On the last big order, we purchased every dollar's worth of domestic wood we could, and only bought mahogany to fill out the sets in existence. The purchase of mahogany has started going down, and the purchase of American wood is going up. That has been inaugurated during the last six months.

Senator REED. I hope that you will feel the same way about American manufacturers, when you come to the purchase of manufactured steel furniture.

Mr. PAYNE. Yes, sir.

Senator JONES. I want to say that our people can manufacture furniture from other woods that, to the untrained eye anyhow, is not distinguishable from regular mahogany.

Senator MCKELLAR. Mr. Secretary, you will undoubtedly put in the record here a statement showing just what the situation is. I have had many, many complaints, and I would like to know what the exact facts are and just the amount of mahogany and just the amount of American woods that were included in this last order. Mr. PAYNE. We will be very glad to put it in the record. (The statement above referred to is as follows:)

In the last order for furniture, amounting to $326,400, the cost of mahogany in the furniture purchased was $33,549.34, or about 10 per cent of the amount involved.

CEMENT

Senator COPELAND. I should like to ask, too, whether the Army is using any foreign-made cement?

Mr. PAYNE. Cement?

Senator COPELAND. Yes, sir.

General MOSELEY. I can, perhaps, answer that, Senator.

General BASH. Not so far as I know; but we do know that there is another way in which we can keep out foreign cement, without the necessity of this restrictive language, and it is a very simple way. Our specifications provide that all cement will be subject to a bin test before being used. Well, if it is a foreign cement, of course, it could not be tested in the bin.

Senator COPELAND. Then, whether you have this restriction or not, you are not going to buy any foreign cement if you can help it? General BASH. Not if we can help it. As a matter of fact, the tariff will keep the foreign cement out in most cases.

Senator COPELAND. Can not the contractors use cement under the construction of public works under the supervision of Army engineers?

General BASH. I am unable to answer that, about the engineers. General MOSELEY. I can answer that.

Senator COPELAND. The general suggests that he can answer that. General MOSELEY. That is happening in the Hawaiian Islands. and occasionally on the Pacific coast, and we have had complaints about that. We had a complaint from the White House that cement was being used-foreign cement. There are only a very few cases where that has been done. And, I also wish to say that it sometimes happens when contract work is done, we do not know what kind of cement is being used.

Senator STEIWER. Do you make any effort to control the origin of the materials that go into the construction work?

General DE WITT. Only when it has to stand certain tests. Senator STEIWER. Do you make any effort to protect American labor by requiring the contractors to use all domestic products? General DE WITT. No, sir.

Senator MCKELLAR. I do not think that they would have the power to do that.

Senator STEIWER. They would have the power if they required it as a condition of the contract in advertising for bids.

BEEF

Senator KENDRICK. Mr. Secretary, from time to time for several years I have had protests from livestock producers, not only in the West but the Middle West, about the purchase by the Army and Navy of large quantities of meat-food products, and I notice in their conventions they are constantly passing resolutions of that kind.

Speaking personally, I do not believe in arbitrary restrictions to be placed on either the Army or the Navy in that connection, but I wish you would explain to the committee, so that we can know just what the situation is.

General DE WITT. They object to meat for the Philippines, used in the Philippines, coming from New Zealand and Australia. Generally, Senator, the Australian and New Zealand meat is the best beef, and the result has been a saving of some three-quarters of a million dollars.

Senator KENDRICK. Do you know where we could get better beef, or better beef is produced than in this country?

Mr. PAYNE. It is better than the native beef.

General DE WITT. Generally, we have had difficulty in getting our beef. We have to obtain it under bids. We thought that we were going to have the local butchers there furnish us with beef, but they actually delivered us the beef that they got by contracts, and they brought in Australian beef.

We had a letter covering that area the other day. They thought that they were going to be furnished local beef, but they advertised and got some Australian beef.

Senator KENDRICK. Well, do you mean to say that the New Zealand and Australian beef is better than we can produce in this country? General DE WITT. It is better than the native beef in those localities.

Now, if you exported our beef to those same ports, American beef, of course, Senator, is just as good, perhaps better.

Senator KENDRICK. We all know that our meat, food products in this country, and especially our meat products of this country, are not excelled in any place in the world.

General DE WITT. That is true.

Senator COPELAND. There is no other place on earth, that I have any information of, where there is anything like the same kind of complicated food given to the livestock, from which to produce the kind of meat we have here.

I want to ask one more question, if you please. To what extent do you plan to purchase these meats? I have never asked the question before. Who would be authorized to speak on the matter? I have seen these resolutions passed and have heard them discussed and passed at conventions, and I have received protests about it.

Now, what can we say to them about the purchase of these foreign products?

Mr. PAYNE. You see, under the present law, as to commodity and prices, we have to conform to the lowest price, provided the quality was equal; and the answer to your question is that the only criticisms are as to the meat purchased, I believe, for Hawaii and the Philippines.

General DE WITT. Yes.