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.

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