watch the situation in the Senate to see whether or not it is passed there before we take it up in the House. Now, the next matter of business is from Mr. Rivers' Property Disposal Subcommittee. Mr. Rivers? Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, your Subcommittee on Real Estate and Construction met on February 17 and 25, and again, as usual, early this morning and considered real-estate acquisition projects, an emergency construction project, and two classified construction projects. Briefly, the projects involve, in the case of the Army, land for a Nike installation in Seattle, leases in Baltimore, San Juan, and St. Louis, and partial approval of the Nike acquisition for Boston. The one Navy real-estate project involved the acquisition of land at the Marine Corps Air Station, Miami, Fla., and provides for the picking up of miscellaneous parcels within the installation which had not been acquired by the city of Miami at the time the city conveyed the airfield to the United States. The Air Force projects involved a transfer of an airbase at Columbia, S. C.; the renewal of two leases in New Mexico; the acquisition of land for runway extension and base expansion at Bunker Hill Air Force Base, Ind.; the acquisition of 100 acres of land at Altus Air Force Base, Okla.; and the acquisition of land for a radar site for Hanna City, Ill. The subcommittee also considered the expenditure of approximately $1.5 million at Moody Air Force Base, Valdosta, Ga., for emergency construction to rehabilitate a runway which is now closed because of its dangerous condition, and 2 Air Force classified construction projects. Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection, I will place into the record the details relating to these projects, and I move favorable consideration of Army real-estate projects Nos. 124 (partial), 125, 126, and 127; Air Force real-estate projects Nos. 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, and 271; Navy acquisition project No. 102; Air Force emergency construction project at Moody Air Force Base, Ga.; and two Air Force classified construction projects Nos. 15-H and 1–É. (The project details follow:) REAL ESTATE AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ARMY Acquisitions: No. 124. Fiscal year 1955 augmentation of Nike I, Boston defense area, Massachusetts. (Only those sites approved during subcommittee consideration.) No. 125. Fiscal year augmentation of Nike I, Seattle defense area, Washington. No. 126. (Lease) Armed Forces Induction and Examining Center, San Juan, P. R. No. 127. (Lease) Army aviation field service office, St. Louis, Mo. Acquisition: NAVY No. 102. Marine Corps Air Station, Miami, Fla., for acquisition of 128 acres of miscellaneous parcels not acquired when major portion of station was purchased from city of Miami. AIR FORCE Acquisitions: No. 267. Congaree Air Base, S. C., transfer from the Navy to the Air Force. No. 268. Alamogordo bombing and gunnery range, New Mexico, renewal of lease. No. 269. Bunker Hill Air Force Base, Ind.; acquisition of 206 acres of land for runway extension and base expansion. No. 270. Altus Air Force Base, Okla.; acquisition of 100 acres of land for the construction of a 500-unit Wherry housing project. No. 271. P-site 85, Hanna City, Ill.; acquisition of land for a radar site. Construction: Emergency construction, Moody Air Base, Valdosta, Ga., for runway rehabilitation. Two classified construction projects Nos. 1-E and 15–H. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the recommendation of the subcommittee is approved. And I might say that I have had the privilege of examining each and every one of these, and I think the conclusion is sound. Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say about my subcommittee The CHAIRMAN. Wait 1 minute. Mr. RIVERS. Let me say, despite the early hour in which we meet, we have very fine attendance and quite a great deal of interest. And we continued the policy set down by the distinguished gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Cunningham. The CHAIRMAN. That is right. I hope Mr. Cunningham will be at every meeting and I hope the committee will be careful in all of these matters. Now, wait a minute. Now, Mr. Bennett, have you anything to say in regard to what you said on the floor of the House today? Mr. SMART. He wants to be recorded for the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes, Mr. Bennett is recorded favorably for the bill. Mr. BENNETT. I wanted to be recorded. The CHAIRMAN. I read with much interest the statement you made about the bill you introduced yesterday. It is a very important bill. What subcommittee was it referred to? Mr. SMART. You haven't referred it yet, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask Mr. Kilday, in view of the splendid service he and his subcommittee has just rendered, and for which we are all very grateful to him, that after we pass the bill this coming Thursday, I hope his subcommittee can go back to work on next Tuesday, as some very important matters have been referred to him. Mr. KILDAY. Can we have Monday off? The CHAIRMAN. We will take a recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, at which time there will have to be a quorum as we will have a vote on the ship-construction bill. (Whereupon, at 11:45 a. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m., Wednesday, March 9, 1955.) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, D. C., Monday, March 7, 1955. The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Carl Vinson (chairman of the committee) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. Now, let the committee come to order. The purpose of the hearing this morning is to consider H. R. 4393. (The bill follows:) [H. R. 4393, 84th Cong., 1st sess.], A BILL To provide for the construction and conversion of certain modern naval vessels, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and directed to undertake the construction of, or to acquire and convert, the following modern naval vessels: One aircraft carrier of about sixty thousand tons, to be named United States ship Congress. Six destroyer leaders, each of about three thousand nine hundred tons. Two nuclear-powered submarines, each of about two thousand three hundred tons. One nuclear-powered radar picket submarine of about four thousand six hundred tons. Four submarines, each of about one thousand seven hundred tons. One guided-missile submarine of about two thousand nine hundred tons. Two inshore minesweepers, each of about one hundred and twenty tons. Two ammunition ships, each of about seven thousand five hundred tons. SEC. 2. The vessels listed in section 1 of this Act have been previously authorized by law and shall be charged against previously authorized and unobligated tonnage. SEC. 3. The President is further authorized and directed to convert from existing vessels of the United States, the following modern naval vessels : Two aircraft carriers, each of about thirty-six thousand tons. Four aircraft carriers, each of about thirty-five thousand tons. One heavy cruiser of about fifteen thousand tons. One guided-missile light cruiser of about twelve thousand tons. One guided-missile destroyer of about two thousand, eight hundred tons. Twelve radar picket escort vessels, each of about one thousand, four hundred tons. Two cable repairing and laying ships, each of about four thousand, one hundred tons. One seaplane tender of about thirteen thousand tons. Four ocean radar station ships, each of about three thousand, six hundred tons. SEC. 4. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary for the construction, acquisition, or conversion of the foregoing vessels. The CHAIRMAN. Members of the committee, we have the distinguished Secretary of the Navy here with us this morning. I will ask the Secretary and his assistants to come around and make any statement he desires to make in regard to H. R. 4393. Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure to have you here this morning. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. NORBLAD. Is it the intention of the Chair to call the Joint Chiefs of Staff before we conclude the hearings? The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will talk about that later. We have the witnesses here before us now. Go right ahead, Mr. Secretary. Mr. RIVERS. Which means "no." [Laughter.] STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES S. THOMAS, SECRETARY Secretary THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, Admiral Duncan, Admiral Leggett, and I are here today to outline the Navy's fiscal year 1956 shipbuilding program and to give your committee reasons and justifications for it. At the outset, I wish to note, as indicated in section 2 of H. R. 4393, that the proposed legislation does not grant increased shipbuilding or ship conversion authority to the Navy beyond that already authorized by law. This bill would simply indicate the approval of the committee and the Congress for this specific program. In this bill, the committee would give us a bill of particulars. On the occasion of my recent appearance before your committee, I stated that President Eisenhower had indicated that the fundamental policy of the Department of Defense (which Admiral Carney, General Shepherd, and I fully and unequivocally support) is to prepare a military program which is adequate, balanced, and longranged. A program which will prevent war, if possible, which will meet a variety of military contingencies and, at the same time, a program which our national economy can support indefinitely. The naval part of this 1956 program, I feel, meets these demanding requirements, and provides for a strong and balanced Navy and Marine Corps that will have the highest degree of combat readiness and flexibility for discharging our peacetime missions and worldwide commitments, and for carrying out our important tasks if war should occur. In any size or type of war which can now be foreseen, the need of a strong and adequate United States Navy is more essential than it has ever been before. We must have command of the seas so that we can consolidate our strengths with those of our friends and allies. We must always be able to cross the seas to supply our industrial machine-still the free world's arsenal-with the many critical raw materials we need. We must have a Navy for transporting our armies overseas and for keeping them supplied. We must control the oceans in order to operate and supply our worldwide network of bases. And most important, we must be able to exploit the seas to keep the conflict away from our shores, and to carry the fight into the enemy's own territory. One of the major and vital parts of that naval program is the procurement and conversion of combat ships. In these days of rapid progress in fields such as atomic propulsion, guided missiles, metallurgy, plastics, and shipbuilding techniques, ordering a combat ship demands much foresight on the part of the planners to insure that the vessels which they design are superior and advanced in the technical, naval, and engineering fields. To provide this superiority, our planners must not only anticipate the period of the ship's construction-as much as 3 or 4 years-but must also calculate the adaptability and potential of each type vessel during its lifespan of about 20 years. Moreover, the naval needs of a quarter century in advance must also be foreseen with as much vision and wisdom as we can command. For this difficult task, the best-perhaps the only-parameters are experience, logic, and ingenuity. Careful weighing of the many diverse factors of national strategy, probable naval requirements, technical advancements, budgetary limitations, relationship to other military programs-must be taken into account in arriving at a decision. I assure you that all such factors have been most thoroughly and carefully reviewed by Admiral Carney, Admiral Duncan, and myself, and others in authority, in the presentation of this shipbuilding and conversion program for your consideration. I consider it a vital, sound, and well-conceived one. This program also carries the President's approval. The shipbuilding program for fiscal 1956 can be summarized by reference to four types of ships-the carrier, the cruiser, the destroyer, and the submarine. I will take each one of these in turn. The Navy is requesting a fifth aircraft carrier of the Forrestal type; we are also requesting authority to improve six of our older carriers by conversion. First of This carrier program is essential for several reasons. all, new carriers are needed as replacements for World War II carriers which are now 13 and 14 years old. A ship has a life of about 20 years, so beginning in 1960 and until 1965, we will be reaching the economical limit of their service. This carrier-construction program is a plan to gradually replace our older ships over an extended period. Secondly, the fleets are now beginning to receive several types of new and larger jet aircraft whose full performance and potential can only be achieved from these modern carrier bases. The new Forrestals will have the stronger and larger landing areas, including the angled deck, increased hangar-deck heights, improved steam catapults, and faster elevators, stronger arresting gear, and many other new features such as better fire-fighting and damage control ability. The new families of jet aircraft, such as the A3D, a very advanced attack aircraft weighing 70,000 pounds, the A4D, an equally advanced but light-attack aircraft, and several excellent fighter aircraft, such as the F4D and the F9F9, go hand-in-glove with our newest model carriers which have been specifically designed to operate and accommodate such modern, high-performance planes. We are reaching the point, so to speak, where the suit of clothes we bought some 12 to 15 years ago is getting to be a tight fit for the growing young man of jet naval aviation. But the most important reason is that our aircraft carriers-which are the key units of our naval task forces-are absolutely essential |