Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

NAVY DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 1931

JUNE 3, 1930.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. FRENCH, from the committee of conference, submitted the following

CONFERENCE REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 12236]

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 12236) making appropriations for the Navy Department and the naval service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1931, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the Senate recede from its amendments numbered 7, 8, 16, and 26.

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate numbered 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 21, 22, 23, and 25, and agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 1:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 1, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows:

In lieu of the sum proposed insert $421,000; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 4:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 4, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows:

In lieu of the sum proposed insert $4,720,000; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 19:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 19, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows:

In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment insert $74,000; in all, $680,806; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 20:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 20, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows:

In lieu of the sum proposed insert $16,321,125; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 24:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 24, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows:

In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment insert (not to exceed $20,000), in the Navy Department and in the field; and on page 48 of the bill, in line 19, after the word "and" insert store-; and the Senate agree to the same.

The committee of conference have not agreed on amendments numbered 3, 5, 6, and 17.

BURTON L. FRENCH,

GUY U. HARDY,
JOHN TABER,

W. A. AYRES,

W. B. OLIVER,

Managers on the part of the House.
FREDERICK HALE,
L. C. PHIPPS,

CARTER GLASS,

CLAUDE A. SWANSON,

Managers on the part of the Senate.

STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE

The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 12236) making appropriations for the Navy Department and the naval service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1931, and for other purposes, submit the following statement explaining the effect of the action agreed upon by the conference committee and submitted in the accompanying conference report:

No. 1: Appropriates $421,000 for the Virgin Islands, instead of $327,000, as proposed by the House, and $527,000, as proposed by the Senate.

No. 2: Corrects the text of the appropriation for the operation and conservation of the naval petroleum reserves.

No. 4: Appropriates $4,720,000 for the Naval Reserve, instead of $4,600,000, as proposed by the House, and $4,740,000, as proposed by the Senate.

Nos. 7 to 13, both inclusive, relating to the appropriation for pay, subsistence, and transportation of naval personnel: Restores the limitations proposed by the House on the numbers of commissioned officers of the line and warrant and commissioned warrant officers on the active list; transposes two appropriation subheads, as proposed by the Senate, and makes $1,000,000 immediately available, as proposed by the Senate.

No. 14: Appropriates $9,600,000 for fuel and transportation, Bureau of Supplies and Accounts, as proposed by the Senate, instead of $9,936,000, as proposed by the House.

No. 15: Provides for the purchase of seven passenger-carrying automobiles at $2,000 each, as proposed by the Senate, instead of at $1,800 each, as proposed by the House.

No. 16: Strikes out the appropriation of $75,000, proposed by the Senate, for the reerection of a dirigible hangar at Lakehurst, N. J. No. 18: Places a limitation of $300,000 on obligations for construction at the naval air station, San Diego, Calif., authorized by Public Law No. 222, Seventy-first Congress, approved May 14, 1930, as proposed by the Senate.

Nos. 19 and 20, relating to pay, Marine Corps: Appropriates $74,000 for pay of assigned men, instead of $65,000, as proposed by the House, and $82,875, as proposed by the Senate.

Nos. 21 and 22, relating to general expenses, Marnie Corps: Provides for the purchase of three passenger-carrying automobiles at $2,000 each, as proposed by the Senate, instead of at $1,800 each, as proposed by the House.

No. 23: Strikes out, as proposed by the Senate, the requirement that the appropriation for completing the modernization of the United States ships Pennsylvania and Arizona be allocated in equal amounts to each vessel.

Nos. 24, 25, and 26, relating to increase of the Navy: Restores the limitation proposed by the House on expenditures for the employment of additional store-laborers; removes the limitation inserted by the House on expenditures for personal services in the Navy Department, as proposed by the Senate, and continues as an annual appropriation, as proposed by the House, the amount made available for improving and equipping navy yards for construction of ships.

The managers on the part of the House have agreed to recommend that the House concur in Senate amendments Nos. 3, 5, and 6, and to concur in Senate amendment No. 17 with an amendment. Nos. 3 and 5 relate to subscriptions to newspapers, No. 6 provides a contingent fund for the president of the Naval War College, and No. 17 proposes an appropriation for construction at naval radio and radiocompass stations.

BURTON L. FRENCH,
GUY U. HARDY,
JOHN TABER,

W. A. AYRES,

W. B. OLIVER,

Managers on the part of the House.

[ocr errors]

2d Session

No. 1767

TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUNE 4, 1930.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. BACHMANN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1792]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill S. 1792, after consideration reports the same favorably and recommends that the bill do pass.

The State of California has two Federal judicial districts, with three judges in each district. The business of the Federal courts in the State of California is on the increase, and because of this increase of business in the southern district, an additional judge should be provided.

During the 4-year period, beginning with the fiscal year 1926 and ending with the fiscal year 1929, there were commenced in the southern district of California 1,143 civil cases, in which the Government was a party, 1,560 private cases in which private litigants were involved, and 2,853 criminal cases, making a total of 5,556, or an average of about 1,400 cases per year.

During the same period there were terminated in the southern district, 932 civil cases, 1,407 private cases, and 3,297 criminal cases, or a total of 5,636.

At the end of the fiscal year 1926 there were pending on the court dockets 1,732 cases, while at the end of the fiscal year 1929 there were pending 1,639 cases, showing that during the 4-year period the judges in the southern district were unable to handle all of the new business which was commenced in the court, and make any considerable progress in disposing of the number of cases pending.

There are 85 judicial districts in the United States, and the southern district of California, with 5,556 cases commenced during the period beginning with the fiscal year 1926 and ending with the fiscal year 1929 stands twenty-fifth in the number of cases commenced during the period. Of all the judicial districts, the southern district of California stands twenty-sixth in the amount of business terminated during the 4-year period.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »