buildings in the District. The General Accounting Office is scattered in 20 different locations, while the Internal Revenue Bureau of the Treasury Department, with its financial problems involving the greater bulk of the Federal Government's receipts, is housed in 11 indifferent and in some cases most unsatisfactory offices. Efficient and economical administration for which we are striving is impossible under these conditions. I repeat my former recommendation that in the interest of good administration of Federal business provision be made at once by the Congress for an annual appropriation of not in excess of $10,000,000 for the construction of buildings in the District of Columbia to properly house the Government's workers. No general building bill has been enacted since before the war. This matter must necessarily come up for consideration. I am not in favor of the passage of an act which would be characterized as a general parceling out of favors that usually bears a name lacking in good repute. I am willing to approve an act similar in character to that which has already passed the House, providing a lump-sum appropriation to be expended under the direction of the Treasury, or any other proper authority, over a term of years, with such annual appropriations as the national finances could provide. In accordance with the President's message I have introduced, and now lay before the committee, H. R. 6559, which is designed to fit the President's recommendations. In the last Congress, at the last session, we had up a bill which was similar to this except that it only provided for $150,000,000 to be used for public buildings, while this bill authorizes $165,000,000; but in almost every way it fits in with the President's recommendations. In the last Congress there were nearly 900 bills before this committee asking for appropriations of $50,000,000 in the aggregate for buildings in the District of Columbia to house the Government's own business, and somewhere in the neighborhood of $226,000,000 for public buildings outside of the District of Columbia. This bill which passed the House last year was offered as a substitute for these bills. The history of the bill is this, that when it went to the House it was taken up under a suspension of the rules and passed by more than two-thirds majority. It went to the Senate and was reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds and was placed on the calendar of the Senate, where it died. It was in the latter part of the session, and it never got before the Senate for consideration. In the present Congress there have been introduced and referred to this committee, up to date, 786 bills asking for appropriations of approximately $250,000,000, which includes the Government buildings in the District and the Government buildings outside of the District of Columbia. In section 3 of the bill before the committee you will find that it refers to Senate Document No. 28, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session. As that document is probably out of print, and there will be a great demand for copies of it, I ask that Senate Document No. 28 be printed in these hearings for the benefit of the Members of the House and of the Senate. Mr. KOPP. Will the chairman suffer an interruption there? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Mr. KOPP. During what Congress was that? The CHAIRMAN. During the last Congress-the Sixty-eighth Congress. Mr. KOPP. The appropriations referred to in that document were made by what Congress? The CHAIRMAN. The bill under which most of them were made was approved March 4, 1913. There were some which dated back to a prior act; but if you will notice, in section 3 of this bill it authorizes the completion of the buildings named in Senate Document No. 28 at an additional cost of not to exceed $15,000,000, and the reason why this should be printed in these hearings is so that anybody who is interested in the hearings may have a copy of the Senate document. Mr. LANHAM. Some of those buildings are buildings for which authorization has never before been asked. The CHAIRMAN. Under the terms of this bill no buildings will be completed, under section 3, unless an authorization has heretofore been made. You will notice in section 3 the names of two cities, St. Louis, Mo., and Newark, N. J. The way that came about was this. In the preparation of Senate Document No. 28 those two names were inadvertently left off, and you will notice that we referred to them as being authorized by certain acts of Congress. There will be no buildings completed under the terms of section 3 of this act except buildings that have heretofore been authorized by Congress. If there is no objection, we will have printed in this record Senate Document No. 28. It is so ordered. (The document referred to is as follows:) ERECTION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS [Senate Document No. 28, 68th Cong., 1st sess.] The PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, January 24, 1924. SIR: In response to Senate Resolution 94, directing the Secretary of the Treasury to furnish certain data in reference to public buildings, I have the honor to submit the following: The information desired,. together with certain additional data not specifically called for by the resolution, but without which the statement in regard to the status of authorized buildings and sites would not be complete, is set forth in Exhibit A, as follows: (a) Name of each city or town (by States) where authorizations have been made for acquisition of a site, construction of a building on site already owned, or for site and building. (b) Date site was acquired; or, if not acquired, its present status. (c) Consideration paid for each site. (d) Amount authorized for site, site and building, or for building only. (e) Balance available for building. (f) Estimated cost of building on site authorized. (g) Amount of increase required where existing authorization is insufficient. There is also submitted Exhibit B, which includes the names of certain projects, mentioned in Exhibit A, where drawings have been prepared, or are contemplated, for buildings of a very simple type that may possibly be provided within the existing limit of cost by the adoption of much cheaper methods of construction than has been the practice heretofore of this department; or by furnishing space to satisfy present needs only, without room for future expansion; or by not including accommodations for Government activities that may be located in the places named but where the legislation is for a post office only. Respectfully, A. W. MELLON, Secretary of the Treasury. EXHIBIT A Names of cities where sites only or sites and buildings have been authorized, limit of cost of each project, amount authorized in each case, cost of land where sites have been acquired, date of acquisition by Government, balance available, estimated cost of project, and increase in limit required Proposition taken up by Committee on Publice Buildings and Grounds in their report to the Senate. |