proper light for the drafting rooms it would be unsuitable. Then the bureau chiefs would be to far away from the Secretary. The CHAIRMAN. That is nothing. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Let me illustrate that: I figure that we have lost about a week in the actual operations of this war through the fact that many of the Navy Department's bureau chiefs are out of our building. Mr. GILLETT. But you want to perpetuate that condition. Mr. ROOSEVELT. The bureau chiefs will be out of the building; but it is not simply a case of the bureau chiefs meeting with the Secretary, but they must see each other constantly, and the Secretary will be able to have a definite hour in the day at which the bureau chiefs ean come over to see him. Of course, personally I felt that it would be better for them to be all together, but it seems inadvisable to move the present communications of operations from the State, War, and Navy Building, because we have our radio on the roof. The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, will you please furnish us with the cost of the building? Admiral HARRIS. I will get the cost and also put in the cost of the property. The property is quite expensive. NOTE.-Building, $2,000,000; site, $1,300,000; total, $3,300,000. TEMPORARY BUILDING ON WHITE LOT. (See p. 908.) Mr. GILLETT. I would like to ask about the alternative of putting up a building on the White House lot. How much would that cost? Admiral HARRIS. I think we figured $350,000 for that at the time. Mr. GILLETT. It would accommodate how many? Admiral HARRIS. The idea was that it would accommodate on the principal floor-there were to be two floors, as I recollect it-the idea was that it would accommodate on the principal floor the drafting rooms of the technical bureaus and some offices on the lower floor. How many people it would accommodate I can not state, but I think there would have been about 200,000 square feet. The CHAIRMAN. In the whole building? Admiral HARRIS. Yes, sir; and we would retain the Navy Annex and the temporary building and the space we had in the Navy Department. Mr. GILLETT. That would accommodate your force? Admiral HARRIS. Yes, sir. Mr. GILLETT. That would probably accommodate you and the Army, too? Admiral HARRIS. No, sir; that was a different proposition. They would have to give us about 350,000 square feet of office space. Mr. GILLETT. How much are you getting here in the Arlington Building? Admiral HARRIS. In the Arlington Building we are getting 320,000 square feet, plus from 50.000. to 60.000 square feet in the two subbasements, plus 67.000 square feet in the State, War, and Navy Building. Mr. GILLETT. Does that practically cover the lot? Admiral HARRIS. No, sir; that leaves this space on I Stre tween the Lafayette Hotel and this projected building un It will not be built up. Mr. GILLETT. I do not quite understand your statement about the space between the Lafayette and the building being unoccupied. I am talking about the White House lot. Admiral HARRIS. I am talking about the Arlington Building. Admiral HARRIS. I do not know how much. Mr. GILLETT. I heard that there could be enough temporary buildings put up there at a comparatively small cost to accommodate both the War and Navy Departments, and that it could be done within a couple of months. Is that so? Admiral HARRIS. We estimated that we could put up that building at that time in three months, and we will make the exterior sufficiently pleasing in appearance so that it will not shock the artistic sense of anybody. We would use hollow tile for the exterior walls with plaster and give it the appearance of the White House Office Building, with timber floors. Mr. ROOSEVELT. There was a discussion about the end of April as to a large building to hold the surplus of the War and Navy Departments and also the State Department. I do not think any figures were ever obtained on that. Col. Harts would know. Col. HARTS. We made some estimates on the cost of the construction, between $1.75 and $2 a square foot for the cheapest building. If you have 350,000 square feet it would cost close to $750,000. Admiral HARRIS. We had only figured on 200,000 square feet at an estimated cost of $350,000. Mr. GILLETT. About $1.50 a square foot? Admiral HARRIS. About $1.75. Mr. GILLETT. There is room to put up buildings that would accommodate all this work? Col. HARTS. You could build a three-story building, without elevators, and we could put up a building that would hold a tremendous number of clerks, putting in a head building with wings running south, which is the best arrangement to get the breeze and the light and by leaving space between the buildings. I have not figured it out, but that building would unquestionably accommodate as many people as the Navy already calculates for, and if you put on three stories there would be a great deal more room, I think it is safe to say, than you could get in the Arlington building, which is now under construction. Mr. GILLETT. Is there any objection to that, except the use of the park? Col. HARTS. I do not know what other objection there might be beyond the ground of having a great deal of traffic around the White House. Of course, there is something in that. One of the greatest anxieties we have now is the safety of the President. We are protecting him by every possible means we can. This would introduce a new factor. How dangerous it would be I do not know. Mr. ROOSEVELT. There is the other factor-the danger of fire. Mr. GILLETT. You would have sprinklers? Col. HARTS. A building of that kind would be a very dangerous building to erect without an adequate fire apparatus. Mr. GILLETT. You could install a sprinkling apparatus which would not be very expensive? Col. HARTS. We have that now in the little building which was erected in the court of the State, War, and Navy Department Building. We have a sprinkler service that we think will prevent that building injuring the main building in case of fire. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Even with a sprinkling system, a fire at the present time would put entirely out of commission all the bureau records. The CHAIRMAN. None of these buildings is fireproof? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I would rather be in a concrete building than a wooden building. Admiral HARRIS. It confines the fire to one floor. Mr. GILLETT. Sprinklers would confine it closely. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Unless a big fire should get started at night. As far as we are concerned, we look at it a little this way: You put up a temporary building and it will cost you about $2 a square foot to erect it, and you have a purely temporary building. Under this lease arrangement you will get the space for about 60 cents a square foot. You can lease it for three years for the same amount of money that you could build a temporary building. The temporary building would have to come down at the end of the war. In this way we get permanent quarters, which we will probably continue to occupy after the war is over or until Congress gives us a new building. The CHAIRMAN. You certainly do not expect to have the same organization after the war is over? Mr. ROOSEVELT. No; and we do not expect to return to the old prewar organization, either. WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1917. NAVY ANNEX (ARLINGTON BUILDING), SALARIES OF EMPLOYEES AND EXPENSES OF HEATING, LIGHTING, ETC. STATEMENT OF COL. W. W. HARTS, OFFICER IN CHARGE OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS. The CHAIRMAN. Col. Harts, it is estimated that it will cost $90,000 to operate that building. Col. HARTS. Yes, sir; about that for six months. My estimates were $90,000 for the pay roll of the employees on the year basis and $92,000 for fuel, light, and incidental expenses, elevator ropes, wiring, and various other things. I have with me all the details on which this estimate is based, should you desire them. I might say that this estimate is based on the present cost of maintenance of the State, War, and Navy Department building, with certain modifications which we find will be different in this new building. For example, we can reduce the cost of personnel probably very much lower than in the State, War, and Navy Building, but the cost of fuel and light will be very much greater. The CHAIRMAN. Why? Col. HARTS. The State, War and Navy Building is a very economical building as far as heat and light are concerned. We get the heat practically for nothing, as it is a by-product of the lighting by exhaust steam from the lighting plant is used for heating. Our electricity we make for between 1 and 2 cents a kilowat hour. We will have to pay 3 cents at this new building from private commercial plants. Fuel for this new building will now cost $6 a ton. The cost of fuel at the State, War, and Navy Building gives us the heat as a by-product practically for nothing as the fuel for the lighting covers the heat as well. The cost of fuel and light at the new building probably will be very much greater. The cost of personnel will be less, because of several things. The new building is very much higher, the floor space on each floor much less, and the watching and caring of the building will therefore be cheaper. There are only three entrances proposed, whereas in the State, War, and Navy Building there are more than three times that number. Patrolling and protecting the floors and corridors of the State, War, and Navy Department Building requires a larger force than this building will require. We can therefore reduce the watch force from 70 in the State, War, and Navy Department Building to 30. As to a comparison of space, there are 300,000 square feet in the State, War, and Navy Building and 420,000 square feet in the new Arlington Building. The CHAIRMAN. The gross space. Col. HARTS. Yes; in both cases. There are about 679 rooms in the State, War, and Navy Building and although there are no partitions in place, there would be something over 800 rooms, probably 850 rooms in the Arlington Building. Mr. SHERLEY. Could you not use the same system of heating and lighting? Col. HARTS. They have their own plant in the building for heating and the light we will have to buy from the city supply. Mr. SHERLEY. I am wondering. You say you have a plant over in the old building by which you get your heat as a by-product, why not have that in this building? Col. HARTS. I am advised that they asked the owners of the building if they would put in their own plant, but they refused. They said that they could not afford to do it, without a greatly increased rental. Mr. SHERLEY. It would be a matter of economy to them in the long run? Col. HARTS. When they take this building over they might then put in their own system, and they can then put in a more modern system. This system would be used up pretty well by that time. The CHAIRMAN. How much will it cost to put in that plant? Col. HARTS. It will cost at least $60,000 for boilers, and probably cost in the neighborhood of $100,000 for dynamos and installation for the production of electricity. The CHAIRMAN. You now light and heat the Navy Annex? Col. HARTS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You will continue to do that? Col. HARTS. Yes, sir. Mr. CANNON. Can not you heat the building from the central plant? Col. HARTS. No; because we have no ducts, and the legislation does not permit furnishing heat to any rented building. Further, the central heating and lighting plant will not be in operation for some years. Mr. CANNON. What are ducts? Col. HARTS. The underground conduits for heat pipes. Mr. CANNON. You would only have to lay them from the vicinity of the White House? Col. HARTS. Yes, sir. That would also mean additional capacity at the central plant to supply the extra power and light. Mr. CANNON. Are they fully loaded? Col. HARTS. I think every time an additional building has been added to the list of those to be heated they have asked for an increase in their capacity of plant. Mr. CANNON. Would not that be cheaper than an independent plant? If you rent it for 3 years you will probably rent it for 25 years. Col. HARTS. That is the question-if it is going to be rented for a long time it would probably be wise, but if only for a few years it is a question whether the saving in cost would pay to put the ducts into that building. That is a matter which can be decided by calculation, depending on what it costs and how long a time the building is to be rented. WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1917. NAVAL ESTABLISHMENT. CIVILIAN NAVAL CONSULTING BOARD. STATEMENT OF CAPT. W. S. SMITH, UNITED STATES NAVY. EXPENSES. The CHAIRMAN. "For actual expenses incurred by and in connection with the Civilian Naval Consulting Board, fiscal year 1918, $25,000." You have an appropriation of $25,000 now? Capt. SMITH. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What is the necessity for any more money at this time? Capt. SMITH. The expenses in May and June averaged about $3,526, and for 12 months that would be $42,312. The CHAIRMAN. How do they expend this money? Capt. SMITH. They spend it in going to meetings of the boardcommittee meetings, for experiments, watching over experiments, etc. The CHAIRMAN. Can we get a detailed statement of their expenditures? Of course, they would not need any money now before December, anyway. -Capt. SMITH. No, sir. The office in New York is now spending about $900 a month. The Chicago office is spending $300 a month. It costs $500, but the Chicago people are putting up $200 a month. |