Mr. WOODRUM. If you needed additional space, did you call that to the attention of the subcommittee in charge of the regular appropriation bill, and the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. HAMMACK. Yes, sir; that was approved by the Budget and submitted to the committee in connection with the last appropriation act, and while they did not exclude it, we did not have enough money to build the warehouse that we do need.

Mr. BACON. Did you ask the subcommittee in charge of the regular appropriation bill for money for an addition to this storehouse?

Mr. HAMMACK. Yes, sir; $25,000 was the amount of the estimate. Mr. BACON. And it was disallowed?

Mr. HAMMACK. No; it has not been disallowed this year, but you cut the amount of money estimated as being necessary for the additional buildings.

Mr. TABER. But you are fixing to have more than three times as much storage space as you had originally. It was 6,500 to start with, and this makes 22,500.

Mr. HAMMACK. That is right.

Mr. TABER. That means that you either way underestimated, or else you are way out of line now. It seems to me you are way out of line now. You asked for $25,000 originally.

What would it cost to repair the old storehouse?

Mr. HAMMACK. About $17,000 or $18,000.

Mr. TABER. If we gave you $25,000 on top of that, we would give you plenty, would we not?

Mr. HAMMACK. No; you would not, because the prices have gone up a great deal since that estimate was submitted in the first instance. We were doing part of that work with prison labor and doing it cheaper; but this is a woman's institution and we cannot do it with prison labor.

Mr. TABER. Why can you not use prison labor as much as you could when you submitted your estimate last winter? That statement does not sound reasonable?

Mr. HAMMACK. It was considered that it might be possible to have some prisoners there, but that idea has been abandoned because the institution is now overcrowded and we have no room for more pris

oners.

When this storehouse was first built we did have a prison camp at the institution.

Mr. TABER. They were outside of the regular women's part of the prison?

Mr. HAMMACK. Yes, sir.

Mr. TABER. I was there and saw it.

It seems to me there is no reason why they could not do it now with prison labor just the same as they did then.

Mr. HAMMACK. It would be far more expensive. We would have to move the prisoners, provide supervisory personnel, and we would have to maintain the prisoners on the job.

Mr. LUDLOW. It seems to me you are attaching a good deal of new construction to a repair item. What is the necessity for the new building?

Mr. HAMMACK. When this building was first built it was designed as a warehouse for the first group of buildings intended to house 200 women. Later the capacity of the institution was extended to care

for a total of 500 inmates, but there has never been any addition to the storehouse.

This has been advocated for several years. The present storehouse has been practically demolished, and we are proposing to add a far less expensive type of building, with repairs to the other building, so we would then have about 22,000 square feet, which is estimated to be necessary to care for the requirements of an institution of this size. Everything we buy needed to take care of the institution for 3 months, in the way of supplies, or repairs to buildings, and so forth, must go into the central warehouse.

Mr. LUDLOW. Would it not seem that that ought to come up as a separate proposition, in the normal way?

Mr. HAMMACK. Yes; under ordinary circumstances. But here is a warehouse that is out of commission, and when we build it we ought to build it in final form, so it would not be too expensive. It would be far more expensive to do it piecemeal.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1937.

NAVY DEPARTMENT

BUREAUS OF CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR, ENGINEERING AND ORDNANCE

STATEMENTS OF REAR ADMIRAL W. G. DU BOSE, CHIEF, BUREAU OF CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR; CAPT. H. E. KIMMEL, BUDGET OFFICER, NAVY DEPARTMENT; CAPT. R. E. INGERSOLL, OFFICE OF CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS

REPLACEMENT OF NAVAL VESSELS, CONSTRUCTION AND MACHINERY, AND ARMOR, ARMAMENT, AND AMMUNITION

Mr. WOODRUM. We have before us in House Document No. 328 under proposed provisions affecting existing naval appropriations, an item for replacement of naval vessels, construction and machinery, and armor, armament and ammunition. Admiral Du Bose, we shall be glad to bave you make a statement to us on this item.

Admiral Du BOSE. Mr. Chairman, the bill authorizing the construction of six auxiliary vessels only recently passed Congress, so that in the regular estimates we did not include any request for money for starting work on any of these vessels. The Navy Department wants to place contracts and orders for these six vessels some time during the current fiscal year, and we are asking for authority to do the work. We do not want any additional appropriation at this time.

The plans for the vessels are now being prepared. Some of them. are ready for advertisement at the present time; all of them will be ready in the course of the next 2 or 3 months. The present intention of the Department is to advertise for these vessels some time in October or November, and make the awards some time early in January 1938. We would like to have authority to use money already appropriated to the extent of $2,000,000, which is an outside figure, to finance the first year's work, or a part of the first year's work-6 months' work on these six vessels.

Mr. WOODRUM. The authorization was for six vessels at a limit of cost of $50,000,000?

Admiral Du BOSE. $50,000,000.

Mr. WOODRUM. We understand that you say the vessels cannot be built for $50,000,000.

Admiral Du BOSE. The vessels will be built for $50,000,000, according to the Department's present intention; because, if necessary, we will provide the characteristics and plans so as to keep them within the $50,000,000. We will not know definitely what we can do until after we receive the private-shipyards bid and Navy-yard estimates.

Mr. WOODRUM. We understand that a letter has been sent to the Chairman of the Naval Affairs Committee of the House by the Navy Department, when the matter came up in connection with the limit of cost that was put on by the Senate, to the effect that the vessels could not be constructed for $50,000,000. Now, this committee is not going to start out to build vessels that cannot be built within the limit of cost that we have set.

Admiral Du BOSE. The Secretary of the Navy has decided that these six vessels ought to be so designed that they can be built within the limit of $50,000,000 which has been authorized by Congress.

Mr. WOODRUM. And not at the expense of sacrificing their usefulness, purpose, and so forth?

Admiral Du BOSE. We cannot tell absolutely until we get more detail figures as to the cost; but it is confidently believed by the Navy Department that they can be built within the $50,000,000 without any material sacrifice of the present characteristics.

Mr. WOODRUM. Will these vessels be built in public or private yards?

Admiral Du BOSE. The authorization contains the provision that at least three of them be built in private yards and three in Navy yards. That is the present intention of the Navy Department.

ESTIMATES OF COST OF VESSELS

Mr. WOODRUM. How is the estimate of cost figured-so much per vessel, equally divided between the vessels?

Admiral Du BOSE. There were six vessels in the program, and the figure for hull, machinery, armor, and armament was arrived at by the Navy Department for each of the six vessels, and the $50,000,000 is the sum total of those figures, with some small margin.

Mr. WOODRUM. Can you put a break-down in the record showing what the estimates of the cost of those vessels are?

Admiral Du BOSE. I will do so.

Mr. TABER. Can't you give that to us now? There are only six of them.

Admiral Du BOSE. I can give it to you now.

Seaplane tender: hull and machinery, $11,281,800; armor, armament and ammunition, $637,000; total, $11,971,800.

Destroyer tender: Construction and machinery, $11,967,200; armor, armament, and ammunition, $412,000; total, $12,379,200.

Mine sweeper: Construction and machinery, $1,906,000; armor, armament, and ammunition, $148,000; total, $2,054,000.

Submarine tender: Construction and machinery, $12,341,200; armor, armament, and ammunition, $379,000; total, $12,720,200. Fleet tug: Construction and machinery, $1,611,000; armor, armament, and ammunition, $148,000; total, $1,759,000.

Oiler (oil tanker): Construction and machinery, $8,806,800; armor, armament, and ammunition, $362,000; total, $9,168,800. Grand total: $50,000,000.

NEED OF VESSELS AUTHORIZED TO BE CONSTRUCTED

Mr. LUDLOW. These ships have all been authorized and the Department thinks it is essential that you should proceed at once with all of them?

Admiral Du BOSE. The Chief of Naval Operations, in his testimony before the House and the Senate, stated very definitely that all six of these vessels were urgently needed by the fleet. They are replacement vessels, to a considerable extent.

Mr. TABER. For what?

Admiral Du BOSE. For vessels of the same types now in service. Mr. TABER. For instance, the seaplane tender; do you have one. now in service?

Admiral Du BOSE. There are two seaplane tenders in commission, the Langley and the Wright.

Mr. TABER. And which one is going out?

Admiral Du BOSE. The Langley was originally a collier, and she has been converted to an experimental aircraft carrier and is now being adapted as a large seaplane tender. This new vessel will supplement those two.

Mr. TABER. That is not a replacement; that is supplemental.

Admiral Du BOSE. It is an additional vessel. The one seaplane tender that we are talking about now, together with the Wright and the Langley, will be able to take care of about 72 of the present planes that the Navy has in service.

Mr. LUDLOW. Pursuing my previous question, assuming that some of these are more essential than others, what are the more essential ones, and what are the least essential?

Admiral Du BOSE. That is a pretty hard question to answer, because they are all essential.

Mr. LUDLOW. I mean urgent; of immediate necessity. We are trying awfully hard here to make some remote approach to balancing the budget. Is it absolutely necessary that all these vessels be built now? This is for my own information.

Admiral Du BOSE. The Chief of Naval Operations in his testimony to which I referred stated that it was. It is my personal opinion that they are all necessary. They are different types of vessels. The seaplane tender, the destroyer tender, and the submarine tender, I should say, are probably more urgently needed than the others, because they are required for the purpose of taking care of destroyers, submarines, and seaplanes that the Navy now has, but the minesweeper should not be overlooked, because we will need in the Navy large numbers of minesweepers, of which this particular vessel is the prototype.

QUESTION OF BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION OF VESSELS UNDER PROVISION SUBMITTED

Mr. TABER. Under the statute, you would not be able to build any of them under the provisions submitted by the Budget, because all of them, I think, are supplemental. This only allows replacements, and supplementals are not authorized.

Admiral Du BoSE. I understand that the bill does specifically authorize these six vessels.

Mr. TABER. It authorizes them as replacements, but not as supplemental vessels.

Admiral Du BOSE. They will replace existing vessels in the fleet. Mr. TABER. That is not what it says here. The language you have submitted here only allows replacements.

Admiral Du BOSE. Captain Kimmel can answer that question better than I can.

Captain KIMMEL. I do not think there is any question about that. Of course, you know more about that than I do. The title is "Replacement of Naval Vessels", and so far as the legal part is concerned, if you say you can start these vessels under that title, I do not think there is much question about the legality of it.

Mr. TABER. This replacement would authorize the construction of the ships, but to supplement the fleet, or to put an addition to the fleet, is different, and I do not believe you could accomplish that under this language.

Admiral Du BOSE. So far as the appropriation title is concerned, at one time it was called "Increase of the Navy." It is now called "Replacement of Naval Vessels." That is the title of the appropriation now, but it was formerly "Increase of the Navy."

Captain KIMMEL. We built a good many others under that term "Increase of the Navy" which were not increases, but which were replacements.

AMOUNT REQUESTED FOR PREPARATORY WORK

Mr. WOODRUM. How much is asked for here?

Admiral Du BOSE. We want authority to spend about $2,000,000. Mr. WOODRUM. Why is that necessary, or why should it not go in the regular bill?

Admiral Du BOSE. Without having authority to make these expenditures, we cannot place contracts and proceed with the work. Mr. WOODRUM. Is this $2,000,000 to be used for plans?

Admiral Du BOSE. No, sir; it is to be used for any work that we may be required to do. It is for preparatory work, and we would have authority to obligate the appropriation in making requisitions for material that would be paid for in the ensuing fiscal year.

Mr. WOODRUM. To the extent of $2,000,000.

Admiral Du BOSE. We will ask for other money in the 1939 appropriation.

ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEARS

Mr. WOODRUM. Do you have a break-down there of the $2,000,000, showing what it will be used for?

Admiral Du BOSE. I have here a break-down showing the estimated annual expenditures by fiscal years for the entire program.