Admiral Du BOSE. Approximately 70,000 tons. Mr. UMSTEAD. And we are building nine of the 10,000-ton class? Mr. UMSTEAD. Making a total of 160,500 tons in the cruiser category? Admiral Du BOSE. That is correct. Mr. UMSTEAD. The treaty allowance just stated by me was 143,500 tons. Therefore, we will have exceeded our treaty allowance, upon the completion of the ships now building by 17,000 tons, will we not? Admiral Du BOSE. No, sir. The London Treaty of 1930 permitted the United States to have 143,500 tons. After Great Britain invoked article 21 of that treaty to retain 20,270 tons of light cruisers in excess of treaty limits the United States exercised its right to retain an equal amount of tonnage so that our total allowed tonnage in the light cruiser category became 163,770 tons. CRUISERS OVER AGE Mr. UMSTEAD. Of the 10 cruisers of the Omaha class, I believe two are now over age? Admiral Du BOSE. None are over age at the present time, but two will be over age in 1939 and the keels for replacement vessels could have been laid down in 1936 or any subsequent year. Mr. UMSTEAD. In addition to those two, one will be over age in the fiscal year 1943, which we would be permitted to start replacement of in 1940. Admiral Du BOSE. You can lay them down 3 years before becoming over age. Mr. UMSTEAD. Four will be over age in 1944, which would mean that we could begin laying replacements down in 1941. Admiral Du BOSE. Yes, sir. Mr. UMSTEAD. And two in 1945, for which replacements could be laid down in 1942. As to the two which become over age in 1939, disregarding the treaty which is no longer in existence, replacements. could have been started in 1936. Admiral Du BOSE. That is correct, sir. Mr. UMSTEAD. However, we are 17,000 tons over our limit now, and if these two cruisers were not replaced but decommissioned, we would still be over the treaty quota in under-age light cruisers, built and building, would we not? Admiral Du Bose. No, sir, we are not over our allowed tonnage as I have explained in answer to a previous question. STATUS OF DECOMMISSIONED DESTROYERS Mr. FERNANDEZ. Admiral Du Bose, Admiral Leahy told us a few days ago that there were 98 old destroyers in a decommissioned status, 52 at Philadelphia, 45 at San Diego, and one at Mare Island. This number was to be added to by 29, as I recall the figure he used. Those at Philadelphia are in fresh water, and those at San Diego are in salt water, I believe. Admiral Du BOSE. That is correct. Mr. FERNANDEZ. Therefore, in an emergency, those at Philadelpla would be in shape to steam more rapidly and economically than those maintained in salt water at San Diego, I believe. Admiral Du BOSE. In all probability, that is correct, because a vessel in salt water does accumulate marine growth more rapidly than one in fresh water. Mr. FERNANDEZ. I think that was borne out by your statement the other day, in connection with marine growth on the hulls of vessels Admiral Leahy stated that practically all of the decommissioned destroyers were kept in a state of preservation. I assume that most of the labor incident to keeping them in that state is performed by details of enlisted men. Is that correct? Admiral DU BOSE. That is true on the west coast, but not on the east coast. The decommissioned destroyers on the east coast are looked out for by civilian employees of the Navy Yard at Philadelphis Mr. FERNANDEZ. Do these decommissioned destroyers impose any appreciable load on your shore forces, and that inquiry, I should say. should be addressed to all three of the material bureaus? Admiral Du BOSE. Any decommissioned vessel involves certain work from the maintenance bureaus of the Navy Department. You must have watchmen and shipkeepers provided for. You must have periodic inspections made to see that the vessels are not accum lating water, or depreciating any place where it is possible to protect them, and you must have a routine care and preservation gang whics does minor work such as the replacement of broken air ports, repairs leakage of hatch covers, and the miscellaneous things of that kind, to keep the vessels in a reasonably satisfactory state of protection from the weather. Before they are decommissioned they are put ir proper condition for preservation, but there are minor items of work that have to be done from time to time, and the expenditures, while not large, in the case of one boat, do in the aggregate amount to a considerable sum of money. Mr. FERNANDEZ. If there were an emergency, and these boats had to be gotten ready quickly, there would be delay; would there not, owing both to conflict with work in progress and other work of an emergent character? Admiral Du BOSE. If all of the work engaged in now was to go ahead, it would be necessary to take on additional people; but the Navy Department's plan for recommissioning decommissioned vessels contemplates doing the necessary work within a reasonable time. You cannot have them ready for service overnight, but you can do so in a reasonable time. Mr. FERNANDEZ. Admiral, are the stores and outfits of these boats. customarily removed when they are decommissioned, stored at the places where the vessels are maintained in a decommissioned status? Admiral Du BOSE. The perishable material, items which would be adversely affected by leaving them on board, are taken off and properly stored ashore. Mr. FERNANDEZ. Then they are segregated from other stores and appropriately earmarked, in order that they may be quickly made ready and placed aboard the respective vessels from which removed? Admiral Du BOSE. That is correct. Mr. FERNANDEZ. From a preparedness standpoint, would it not be better to have these decommissioned destroyers, and possibly other decommissioned vessels which would be put into use in the event of an emergency, berthed or moored at some establishment, assuming one existed, which had shops and facilities and ample storage unengaged and not needed for any other work in an emergency? Admiral Du BOSE. I think the present method followed by the Navy Department results in the desired purpose with the minimum expenditure of money. Any other arrangement would involve added expense. Mr. FERNANDEZ. If such an establishment were situated on fresh water, then that would be even more desirable, would it not? Admiral Du BOSE. We have such an establishment at the Philadelphia Navy Yard. Mr. FERNANDEZ. Yes; but not on the West coast. Such a policy would free industrial yards, as well as their berthing and mooring facilities, both in time of peace or national emergency, of some congestion normally, and considerable congestion in an emergency in getting decommissioned boats in shape? Admiral Du BOSE. I am of the opinion that the present practice. of the Navy Department will result in the earliest possible readiness for service of the decommissioned ships. If we change the present policy, or do anything along the lines you have mentioned, we could accomplish no improvement in time or the cost of doing the work. Mr. FERNANDEZ. Not even the cost? Admiral Du BOSE. I think not. Mr. FERNANDEZ. I have in mind, as you probably are aware, the closed naval station at New Orleans, which has been maintained in a very good state of repair, and which, as you also are aware, is situated on fresh water, and we have practically 4,200 feet of docking space. Now, if the vessels decommissioned in the future were sent to New Orleans, and those at present decommissioned earmarked for emergency use were sent there, gradually, as time and facilities and perhaps funds permitted, would you say there would be much additional expense after they were there simply to keep them in a state of preservation? Admiral Du BOSE. There would be expense involved in such a procedure in excess of the expense involved under the present procedure, and a considerable amount, in my opinion. Mr. FERNANDEZ. I am not so certain about the amount being considerable. Of course, there should be no objection to a reasonable amount of additional expense if National Defense would be better served. STATUTORY LIMITATIONS FOR PERSONAL SERVICES, CONSTRUCTION AND MACHINERY Admiral Du BOSE. Under the appropriation Replacement Naval Vessels, Construction and Machinery, the limitation of the funds that can be expended in the fiscal year for what are called group IVb employees, that is, stenographers, draftsmen, and so forth, is fixed by Congress at $4,570,000. This limitation did not contemplate certain additional work, chiefly the preparation of battleship plans, which has become necessary. It is apparent that the limitation for 1938 should be increased in order to prevent a retardation of the shipbuilding program and the Navy Department proposes to request an increase in the 1938 limitation. 36929-38-35 The Bureaus of Construction and Repair and Engineering recently have addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Navy in which we have set forth the situation regarding group IVb employees for this fiscal year and have requested that steps be taken to have the present limit increased. That matter will, of course, at the appropriate time be taken up with the Congress. It is simply for the information of the committee that I am referring to it. The present limitation is $4,570,000, and we are asking that the limit for 1938 be increased to $5,035,000. The discrepancy between the necessary 1938 limit and the proposed 1939 limit of $5,500,000 therefore is not so marked. In other words our 1938 limit is estimated to be of the order of $5,035,000, and the 1939 limit is estimated and requested to be set at $5,500,000 There is quiet a long story back of this question of limitations. The Navy Department has been handicapped to a considerable extent by limitations. Congress has seen fit to establish limits in the various maintenance appropriations going back to 1909. In the case of the War Department, there are no limitations set as regards to the use of group IVb employees. In the Navy Department we now have limits in all appropriations undertaking work, including the replacement of naval vessels appropriation. Prior to 1930 there was no limitation in the increase of the Navy appropriation, and until about that time it was not possible to employ any draftsmen and charge them to the building appropriation. A. of the draftsmen and clerks required in connection with shipbuilding were paid from the maintenance appropriations. That situation has been changed and for a period of several years there was provision in the increase of the Navy appropriation acts permitting the Secretary of the Navy to employ the necessary people without any limitation. In 1933, I think it was, for the first time, a limit under the appropriation increase of Navy, new replacement of naval vessels, was set We have constant trouble with that. We cannot estimate very ac curately what the limit should be. Any change in the limit does not necessarily involve any change in the appropriation, because the required people have to be taken on, employed and paid for, but under the present method, which is held over in part from 1909, there are a large number of draftsmen and clerks paid from maintenance appr priations, and specifically Construction and Repair and Engineering. who are actually working on plans for new ships. The salary of those people today is not charged to the shipbuilding appropriation. So that when we get an estimate of cost from a navy yard for a ship, we have to include not only those draftsmen and clerks who are to be charged to the building appropriation but also the other draftsmen and clerks who are charged to the maintenance appropris tions. It would simplify and render more accurate the accounting if we were able to charge to the building appropriation all of the draftsme and the clerks and other group-IVb people who are directly or indirectly concerned with shipbuilding. Mr. UMSTEAD. You are requesting a change to enable you to do that? Admiral Du BOSE. This change in the 1938 amount and the pre ent proposed 1939 amount will not enable us to do that. The question has been raised as to whether or not the amount could be raised sufficiently to permit us to do that without appropriation hanges. I am bringing that question up now to invite the committee's attention to the fact that under existing conditions we are not, in our shipbuilding costs under the appropriation R. N. V., getting the full cost of the draftsmen, clerks, and office employees that are actually required for carrying out that part of the program undertaken. it navy yards. Mr. UMSTEAD. Suppose you insert at that point the letters you referred to a moment ago. Admiral DU BOSE. I will do so, sir. (The matter referred to is as follows:) From: Bureau of Construction and Repair and Bureau of Engineering. Subject: Appropriation Replacement of naval vessels, construction and machinery" fiscal year 1938-limitation for group IV (b) employees- inadequacy of. Reference: (a) Secretary of the Navy letter NBO/HEK-Gr, LL/P14-2 (370511-2), August 13, 1937. (b) Secretary of the Navy circular letter SOSED-4-En, July 2, 1936, Enclosure: (1) Statement of group IV (b) employees under appropriation "Replacement of naval vessels." (B) Estimate of Expenditures, fiscal year 1938. 1. The limitation for group IV (b) employees paid from the subject appropriation for the fiscal year 1938 is $4,570,000. This limitation was calculated on the basis of maintaining a force of employees sufficient to carry on the work load which then was in prospect. 2. Subsequent to the passage of the 1938 appropriation bill, the following unforeseen conditions have arisen: (a) Two years ago the Portsmouth Navy Yard commenced the preparation of plans which hitherto had been furnished by other activities. The increase in drafting force at that time was insufficient and the plan work progressively fell behind. A careful survey of the existing situation and the prospective work load revealed the necessity for an increase in the drafting force to prevent undue delays in the delivery of submarines and the attendant additional cost. (b) Due to the abolition of the central drafting office, and the transfer of its personnel to the Navy Yard, New York, in connection with battleship construction, the Boston Navy Yard was required to perform drafting work for new destroyers which, hitherto, had been done by the central drafting office. (c) A careful survey of the group IV (b) employees under the cognizance of the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts showed the necessity for increases in the force in order to properly maintain services for ship building. As a result, the allotment of funds from the limitation was increased from $440,000 to $470,000 by action of the Secretary of the Navy in reference (a). The Bureau of Supplies and Accounts considers $470,000 inadequate and recently has requested that this be increased by $50,000. (When the 1938 limitation was imposed, it was expected that the battleship plans would be prepared in private yards. The award of battleship construction to navy yards requires a considerable increase in the drafting forces at Philadelphia and New York, even after having transferred personnel from the former central drafting office. As a result of these changes, a number of new vacancies were authorized at the yards in question, which, if shipbuilding progress is not to be delayed, are neces-arv. The need for new personnel has been investigated very carefully, and the authorized vacancies are believed to represent the minimum needs. The details of the force and the authorized vacancies are shown in enclosure (A). 3. In addition to the increases in the number of employees, the question of promotions should be considered. In accordance with the instructions in reference (b), the Department has received recommendations for promotions of one increment for 553 employees, amounting to an annual obligation of $43,940 4. The estimated expenditures against the 1938 limitation are shown in detail in enclosure (B). It will be noted from paragraph (c) of that enclosure that, as |