4 War Department Appropriation Bill, 1923 MILITARY ACTIVITIES AND OTHER EXPENSES MESSRS. DANIEL R. ANTHONY, JR. (CHAIRMAN), WILLIAM H. IN CHARGE OF WAR DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1923 SIXTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION PART 1 TESTIMONY ON TITLE I OF THE BILL COMPRISING WAR DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 1923-MILITARY ACTIVITIES AND OTHER EXPENSES. HEARINGS CONDUCTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE, MESSRS. DANIEL R. ANTHONY, JR. (CHAIRMAN), WILLIAM H. STAFFORD, C. BASCOM SLEMP, THOMAS UPTON SISSON, AND THOMAS W. HARRISON, OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IN CHARGE OF THE ARMY APPROPRIATION BILL FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1923, ON THE DAYS FOLLOWING, NAMELY: MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1922. STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. H. M. LORD, CHIEF OF FINANCE AND BUDGET OFFICER OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT. GENERAL STATEMENT ON SUBMISSION OF ESTIMATES. Gen. LORD. Mr. Chairman, I was appointed Budget officer of the War Department by the Secretary of War June 11, 1921, under the provisions of section 214 of the act of June 10, 1921, known as the Budget act. On June 22 the Budget officer called the attention of the Secretary of War to the fact that current appropriations under his control for the fiscal year 1922 amounted to $396,356,412.41. These appropriations included not only military items formerly carried in the Army act and the fortifications act and the sundry civil act, but included also many nonmilitary items such as rivers and harbors, the Panama Canal, National Homes for Volunteer Soldiers, national parks, and the like. The Budget officer at that time recommended that some limiting amount be fixed by the Secretary of War within which the estimates must be contained. After some discussion the Secretary of War felt that we should attempt to reduce the estimates to be submitted for 1923 below the current appropriations by at least $50,000,000, and that an honest attempt should be made to make that reduction in the estimates. The method followed after that of distributing this amount was to apportion to the various bills-the Army act, the fortification act, the legislative, executive, and judicial act, and the War Department items in the sundry civil bill-amounts in proportion to the amounts carried in the current bill. For example, the Army act for the current year carried $327,688,529.80; so that there was allotted to the same group of items for 1923, as a tentative allotment from which they must work, the same proportion that this amount bore to the total in the appropriations of $396,000,000, approximately. After this amount had been decided upon for the Army act, the distribution was made to the various agencies interested in that act according to the amount carried in the current act. This 3 same policy was followed in all of the former acts, so that each bureau and each agency under the War Department's control was given a limiting amount from which they should start. This, of course, was an arbitrary and rather unscientific method of distribution, but it accomplished the desired purpose, and that was to prevent what had become a habit, the submitting of estimates frequently in excess of amounts absolutely necessary, requiring the reviewing authorities to determine the cuts to be made and to justify the cuts. Mr. ANTHONY. Who did you say fixed this arbitrary amount? Gen. LORD. That was done by the Budget officer for the War Department. Mr. ANTHONY. Based upon what? Gen. LORD. Upon the proportionate amount carried in the current appropriation, and taking into account a reduction of $50,000,000 from current appropriations. Mr. ANTHONY. That was the object you were aiming at? Gen. LORD. Yes; that was merely a tentative allotment in order to secure a starting point. The chiefs of branches were instructed to make proper distribution of these tentative amounts allotted them among the various projects and purposes under these definite appropriations, and were instructed on submitting same to the Budget officer to state, if the amount seemed inadequate, the extent they thought it inadequate, and why. In this way the process was reversed, and the burden of proof was thrown upon the obligating and expending agency, which must justify, definitely, any increase over the amount allotted. This procedure necessarily resulted in a great deal of readjustment. When the returns were received from the various branches with the reports distributing the amount allotted among purposes and projects, with statements, which accompanied many of these reports, that the amounts were inadequate and stating the amount thought to be needed, a board was appointed by the Budget officer, after consultation with and with the concurrence of the Deputy Chief of Staff, made up of a representative from the Supply Division, the War Plans Division, and the Operations Division of the General Staff, and a representative from the office of the Chief of Finance, who made a careful study of these reports and held hearings, giving the bureaus and activities which were interested a chance to be heard. Mr. ANTHONY. Were these preliminary estimates for the War Department made first by the General Staff? Gen. LORD. They were not. They were made by the Budget officer and a board made up of three representatives of the three great divisions of the General Staff and a representative of the Chief of Finance. Mr. SISSON. How did the Budget officer get his data-by getting it from the bureau chiefs? Gen. LORD. Yes; they were called upon to submit reports in detail of the amounts they thought they would need. This board reported to the Budget officer. The Budget officer, taking the recommendation of the board, proceeded himself to make a very careful study of these same reports and gave further hearings to the parties concerned, reaching in that way a conclusion which was submitted to the Secretary of War for his approval. This report was then considered by the Secretary of War, the Chief of Staff, and the Deputy Chief of Staff, and certain modifications made which were included in the report and recommendation made to the Director of the Budget. The Director of the Budget then appointed a board to study the estimates, as his representatives. This board again made a careful study of the estimates. Mr. ANTHONY. Who made up that board? Gen. LORD. That board was composed of the Budget officer for the War Department; Col. John S. Sewell, a civilian called in at the salary of $1 a year to assist the Director of the Budget, formerly a member of the Engineer Corps of the Army, who went out from the Army into civil life 20 years ago, I think, and was in command of an Engineer regiment in France during the war; J. C. Roop, who is now Assistant Director of the Budget, and who is a business man from New York; and Herbert D. Brown, Chief of the Bureau of Efficiency. This board made its report to the Director of the Budget recommending certain modifications in the report which the Secretary of War had approved. The Director of the Budget submitted the board's recommendations to the Secretary of War for his approval. The Secretary of War recommended certain modifications in the report of the board. The recommendations of the Secretary of War of modifications in the report of the board of the Director of the Budget were accepted by the Director of the Budget, so that the estimate that is now before you has not only the approval of the Director of the Budget, but the approval of the Secretary of War. I thought it well to let you know just the procedure that was adopted. Mr. ANTHONY. How closely have the different bureaus and activities of the War Department been consulted in reference to the estimates? Gen. LORD. All of them have been consulted. The first board, selected by the Budget officer, and composed of representatives of the General Staff and office of the Chief of Finance, considered only the military items. This board had nothing to do with the nonmilitary items such as rivers and harbors and the Panama Canal. Its work was confined exclusively to military items. The nonmilitary items were handled by other boards including, in one instance, Mr. W. T. Abbott, then the Assistant Director of the Budget, and, in another instance, Mr. Herbert D. Brown, of the Bureau of Efficiency; but the first board had nothing to do with the nonmilitary items. Mr. STAFFORD. Was the same machinery of supervision employed in connection with the nonmilitary items as was the case with the military items? Gen. LORD. Yes; the nonmilitary items were considered by the Budget officer and a board from the office of the Director of the Budget. I was referring to the first board, and I did not want to leave the impression that it considered anything except the military items, because it did not. The boards representing the Director of the Budget considered all the items in the War Department estimates. |