ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION JANUARY 16, 1930.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. REED of New York, from the Committee on Education, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 7390] The Committee on Education, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 7390) to authorize the appointment of an Assistant Commissioner of Education in the Department of the Interior, having considered said bill, reports favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass as introduced. The bill was introduced at the request of the Secretary of the Interior, who stated: I desire to call your attention to the fact that in the office of education of this department there has never been an assistant commissioner authorized by law. Consequently, it has been necessary in the past for the chief clerk of that office to perform the duties of the Commissioner of Education in the absence of that officer or during a vacancy in that position. The work of that office has expanded and become so technical that there should be in charge, at all times, a technically trained officer to direct the research work and be in responsible charge during the absence of the commissioner. The work is so important that, in my opinion, there should be an assistant commissioner appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Commissioner of Education, Mr. William J. Cooper, appeared before the committee, and, among other things, explained that in reorganizing the Office of Education he has been working on the theory that if Congress sees fit to make it a great research institution the organization is perfected for that purpose, but if on the other hand, the Congress sees fit to create a department of education that department will need in it a research bureau and the organization can come into that department as a research bureau practically without change. The enactment of this bill will not require any increase in the amount appropriated for salaries for the Office of Education. LIMIT OF COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF COAST GUARD ACADEMY JANUARY 16, 1930.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. Hocн, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 8156] The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 8156) to change the limit of cost for the construction of the Coast Guard Academy, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it pass. Amend the bill as follows: Line 7, strike out the figures "$2,500,000" and insert the figures "$3,000,000" in lieu thereof. The sole purpose of this bill is to increase the limit of cost for the construction of the Coast Guard Academy as provided for in the act of February 16, 1929. The bill of course carries no appropriation and requests for appropriations to carry on the work must go before before the Appropriations Committee. The city of New London has donated to the Government a very beautiful site overlooking the city and the Thames River for the location of the new academy buildings. A finer site or one better suited to the needs of the service and the uses of the institution could nowhere be found. The proposal to increase the limit of cost involves in no sense an enlargement of the project. In fact the proposal has been reduced in some particulars but it is thought that such reduction will not impair the efficiency of the institution. The only reason for increasing the limit of cost is that it was found for reasons clearly set forth in the letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, attached hereto, that the project can not be carried through within the limit contemplated. In fact, after hearing the representative of the Supervising Architect and others, the committee believes that a wider margin as to the limit of cost should be provided than carried in the bill and therefore has recommended an amendment increasing the total limit to $3,000,000. While the buildings contemplated are in no sense elaborate, they will be fireproof and suitable for the needs of this great institution from which for so many years the Coast Guard Service has secured its trained young men for commissioned officers. The following quotation is from the committee's report submitted January 15, 1929, to accompany the bill which provided for the construction of the new Coast Guard Academy: The United States Coast Guard Academy was established in 1876, and since 1910 has been located at New London, Conn. This academy bears the same relation to the Coast Guard Service that the West Point Military Academy bears to the Army and the Naval Academy at Annapolis bears to the Navy, and is equally vital to the service. It is maintained for the education and training of cadets who upon graduation are commissioned in the Coast Guard. Three years' instruction is given in professional, technical, and academic subjects. Appointments to cadetships are made after competitive examinations of applicants. The efficiency of the Coast Guard Service depends in very large measure upon the character and training of its commissioned officers, and commissioned officers of proper qualifications could not be secured without the training furnished in the academy. While the enrollment is and always will be very small as compared with the other two academies named, the character of the work done is of a very high order and is comparable to that done at West Point and Annapolis. The work of the academy has been carried on for many years on the old Fort Trumbull Reservation at New London, Conn., and the quarters provided are a disgrace to the service and to the country. The facilities provided there may well be used as they are now for the training of enlisted men, but there are no buildings in any way suitable for the work of the academy. That work is now conducted in two frame buildings erected during the World War as temporary structures to accommodate enlsited men of the Navy. They are fire traps, and in every way inadequate for the needs of the academy. An offer is made on behalf of the city of New London to provide without cost to the Government a beautiful site in every way desirable. This site consists of about 40 acres on high ground overlooking the city. This site is on the Thames River with deep water out to the sound and to the New London harbor, which is one of the finest harbors on the New England coast. The bill has the approval of the Treasury Department, as will appear by the letter attached and which is made a part of this report. Hon. JAMES S. PARKER, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of January 8, 1930, requesting a report upon the bill (H. R. 8156) to change the limit of cost for the construction of the Coast Guard Academy, together with such comment as the department may desire to make. In reply, I beg to refer you to letter to you of December 21, 1929, inclosing draft of a bill which is identical with the bill H. R. 8156, and to add that I strongly recommend the enactment of this bill under consideration. Very truly yours, A. W. MELLON, Secretary of the Treasury. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, December 21, 1929. Hon. JAMES S. PARKER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: There is transmitted herewith a draft of a bill to change the limit of cost for the construction of the Coast Guard academy. If you find this bill consistent with your own ideas, I shall be grateful if you will introduce the measure and further its consideration by Congress. The act of February 16, 1929, authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to acquire, in fee simple, without cost to the United States, a suitable site at New London, Conn., and to construct and equip thereon such buildings and appurtenances as he may deem necessary for the purpose of the Coast Guard academy, all at a total cost not to exceed $1,750,000. In the printed hearings, held before a subcommittee of your committee on January 12, 1929, there appears, on page 10, a list of the buildings and appurtenances that it was proposed to incorporate in the plant for the new academy. The estimated cost indicated for each item was not, and could not be, at the time, other than tentative and approximate. No funds were then available for the preparation of preliminary drawings of the buildings required, nor for the determination of construction costs. In representing to the committee that he felt that the proposed limit of $1,750,000 would provide the necessary plant, the commandant of the Coast Guard simply used his best judgment, in the absence of the technical information that could only be available after preliminary plans and drawings had been perfected. In the second deficiency act, fiscal year 1929, there was appropriated the sum of $10,000 for the preparation of the plans, drawings, designs, specifications and estimates necessary for the construction of the Coast Guard academy, and it was provided that the drawings, estimates, etc., might be prepared in the Office of the Supervising Architect, which should be reimbursed for the cost incident thereto. With this appropriation of $10,000 available, the Office of the Supervising Architect has made the preliminary plans and, with these at hand, has made careful estimates of the cost of the project. In an effort to reduce the total cost as much as possible, some construction items contained in the list submitted to the committee have been eliminated, and every effort has been made to combine activities in as few buildings as possible. I inclose, for your information, a memorandum containing a revised list of construction items, with the estimated cost of each, as determined after careful consideration by the technical experts of the Office of the Supervising Architect. It is found that the total estimate for building the Coast Guard Academy is $2,500,000. The type and style of the buildings proposed are by no means pretentious or elaborate, but are entirely reasonable and simple. I desire to point out that the necessity for an increase in the limit of cost is not due to any elaboration or proposed increase in the extent of the project. Quite the contrary is true, as the proposed extent of the project has been reduced. The necessity is due solely to the fact that it is now found, after careful study by the Office of the Supervising Architect, that the necessary work can not be done within the limit of cost fixed by the act of February 16, 1929. None of the items in the project as now proposed can be eliminated or deferred, because each of them is essential to the administration and functioning of the school. In my opinion, the early completion of the new Coast Guard Academy is an urgent matter and one of the greatest importance to the efficiency of the Coast Guard. I very much hope that early action may be taken looking toward an increase in the limit of cost required to meet existing and unavoidable conditions. It may be added that the Director of the Bureau of the Budget advises that, in so far as the financial program of the President is concerned, there is no objection to the Treasury Department transmitting this proposed legislation to Congress for its consideration. Very truly yours, OGDEN L. MILLS, Acting Secretary of the Treasury. |