For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938, the estimated expenditure is $2,000,000-under "C. and M.," and $150,000 under "Ordnance." For 1939, fiscal year, that would be $15,000,000 under "C. and M.," and $750,000 under "Ordnance." For the fiscal year 1940, it would be $18,000,000 under "C. and M.,” and $1,000,000 under "Ordnance". In the fiscal year 1941, it would be $10,000,000 under "C. and M.," and $186,000 under "Ordnance". The break-down of the figures for the 4 fiscal years gives the total of $50,000,000. DISTRIBUTION OF VESSEL CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN AND PRIVATE YARDS GOVERNMENT Mr. WOODRUM. Are you proposing to have these vessels built in Government years or in private yards? Admiral Du BOSE. The authorizing act requires half of them to be built in private yards and half in navy yards, with the proviso or option that was exercised in the case of the battleships, that all of them could be built in private yards or all built in navy yards. The intent of Congress was that half of them should be built in Government yards and half in private yards. The Navy Department intends to get bids from the private yards and estimates from the navy yards on all six vessels. Mr. WOODRUM. What is the capacity of the private yards to do this work, bearing in mind that the Maritime Commission will also be embarking on a shipbuilding program? Admiral Du BOSE. The three vessels that are tentatively scheduled to go to private shipyards can unquestionably be built in private shipyards with the existing facilities. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. As a matter of fact, the work is badly needed in some of the yards. Admiral Du Bose. It would be of great help if they could get them. PROGRESS REPORT OF VESSELS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Mr. WOODRUM. How many vessels does the Navy have of various types already under construction, or that will be laid down during the fiscal year 1938? Admiral Du Bose. Do you mean new vessels, or the construction program of preceding years also? Mr. WOODRUM. I mean vessels either under construction or to be laid down in the fiscal year 1938. Admiral Du BOSE. That information can be furnished by putting in the record a copy of the last monthly progress report, which I will do. That will furnish information as to the vessels now actually under construction. We opened bids today for four destroyers. There are eight, and four of them are scheduled for private yards and four for navy yards. They will not be shown on the progress report. (The progress report referred to is as follows:) 148745-37- -34 Туре Vessels under construction, U. S. Navy, joint report of progress, as of July 1, 1937-Continued Percentage of completion Date of completion Contractor Number Name 1 Ship being constructed under appropriation N. I. R. A. * Reports indicate a delay may be involved. Amount of delay not determined. Authorized by act of Aug. 29, 1916: 1 transport no. 2, no funds for construction. & Commissioned June 12, 1937. Delivered and commissioned June 24, 1937. Delivery indefinite due to strike at contractor's plant. NOTE. The Vinson bill (Public, No. 135, 73d Cong.) was approved Mar. 27, 1934. This bill authorized construction and replacement of vessels within limits established by the Washington and London treaties. Mr. WOODRUM. How do the bids on these vessels check up with the estimates of the navy yards? Admiral Du BOSE. Generally speaking, the figures which were submitted-and let me say that we have not had a chance to analyze them in detail generally speaking the low-bid figures compare very favorably with the navy yard's estimated cost figures. There was no such variation between the navy-yard estimates and the private-yards bids in the case of the destroyer openings as there was in the case of the battleship openings. Mr. WOODRUM. Were the bids under or over the navy-yard estimates? Admiral Du BOSE. I cannot answer that question without further detailed consideration of them. Mr. WOODRUM. How do the bids compare with the limits of cost of the vessels? Admiral Du BOSE. There is no limit of cost imposed by Congress. The figures that the Navy Department had in mind as to what the bids would probably amount to were higher than the actual figures received. In other words, the first consideration that has been given them, which is preliminary and subject to final check, shows that the bids are reasonable. Mr. MCMILLAN. Did I understand you to say that you opened bids for four vessels today? Admiral Du BOSE. Yes, sir. Mr. MCMILLAN. Are there other bids to be submitted later on? Admiral Du BOSE. No, sir. The Department's program, in carrying out the law, provides that four vessels be given to private yards and four to navy yards. We opened the bids on the four vessels that are supposedly going to private yards. Mr. MCMILLAN. But there will be four other vessels in that program which will be sent to navy yards. Admiral Du BOSE. Yes, sir. FUNCTION OF SEAPLANE TENDERS Mr. WOODRUM. What is the function of a seaplane tender? Admiral Du BOSE. The seaplane tender is a mother ship or tender for the big patrol planes. Mr. WOODRUM. How many do we have now? Admiral Du BOSE. We have two-the Wright and the Langley. AMOUNT REQUESTED FOR PREPARATORY WORK Mr. LUDLOW. In the proposed language here, there is no reference to $2,150,000, or any other sum. Would it not be in accord with exact legislation to place that exact limitation on this proposed expenditure? Admiral Du BOSE. Yes, sir; if you gentlemen so decide; but in submitting the proposition to the Bureau of the Budget, we gave them our break-down by fiscal years. We showed it for the coming fiscal year, and we show that for 1938 the most we would spend would be $2,150,000. Mr. LUDLOW. You would have no objection to having that written into the law, would you? |