The CHAIRMAN. This year you have a shore construction bill of about $30,000,000 which I understand is all over the United States. Admiral TAUSSIG. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I know that if you only had a certain amount of money the first duty is to build up the fleet, not shore establishments. But we are getting all the money now we need to build up the fleet and you are expanding now to build up shore establishments. Admiral TAUSSIG. I cannot agree with that.

The CHAIRMAN. To develop these shore establishments on the Pacific coast is necessary, as we all know they need developing far far more than the Gulf or the Atlantic coast.

Admiral TAUSSIG. Our main projects are on the Pacific coast.

The CHAIRMAN. Here is your bill that I am going to introduce this morning, calling for an authorization for $30,000,000. Starting at the Boston Navy Yard, $500,000; Philadelphia Navy Yard, 3 or 4 million dollars; Naval Academy; Norfolk Navy Yard, and so on.

Admiral TAUSSIG. We have to keep up those stations all the time. The CHAIRMAN. I know that. It should be placed so as to be more proportionate in servicing your fleet.

Admiral TAUSSIG. Yes; we have to keep up the shore establishments in order to maintain the fleet.

Senator MCNARY. I suppose the committee will adjourn at 12 o'clock to hear the President's message. I have to be on the floor of the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will take a recess until 10:30 o'clock tomorrow morning, when we will continue with this bill, Senator.

Senator MCNARY. Very well.

(Thereupon, at 11:55 a. m., the committee recessed to meet again at 10:30 a. m., Wednesday, Mar. 4, 1936.)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C., Wednesday, March 4, 1936.

The committee met at 10:30 a. m., Hon. Carl Vinson (chairman of the committee) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. This is a continuation of the hearing on H. R. 10129. Admiral Taussig, will you continue?

Admiral TAUSSIG. Senator McNary has something else that he would like to do and would like to be heard at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear from the Senator.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES L. McNARY, SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Senator MCNARY. I only want a few moments of the committee's time. I do not desire to intrude my opinion so far as the matters that have heretofore been discussed are concerned. I do not want to cover the same grounds that were so thoroughly covered yesterday.

23697-36-No. 542- -2

I may be pardoned for making mention of my participation in some legislation involving this site somewhere, I think, in 1920 and 1921, which resulted in a hearing.

The bill which you have before you, you will recall, contemplates an appropriation of $3,000,000. Subsequently and during this session of Congress I introduced in the Senate, and also my colleague in the House, Mr. Mott, introduced an amendment to the naval appropriations bill calling for appropriations of $1,500,000.

The CHAIRMAN. For maintenance?

Senator MCNARY. For the development of this project in a little different fashion and with more particulars.

I have the amendment here. If you will permit me to read it. It is very brief.

The CHAIRMAN. With pleasure.

Senator McNARY. The amendment is as follows:

AMENDMENT

Intended to be proposed by Mr. McNary to the bill (H. R. —) making appropriations for the Navy Department and the naval service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, and for other purposes, viz: At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:

There is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $1,500,000, to be used for the further development of the naval base at Tongue Point, Oregon.

The Secretary of the Navy is authorized and directed to expend the appropriation of $1,500,000, made pursuant to this Act, for the following purposes:

For constructing hangars, ramps, barracks, shops, storehouses, and any other facilities required for the use and maintenance of naval aviation squadrons and their personnel;

For dredging;

For maintaining existing piers and shore facilities heretofore constructed; For enlarging existing piers and shore facilities heretofore constructed, if found necessary and desirable by the Secretary of the Navy.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all relating to this activity?

Senator McNARY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Isn't that getting away from the purpose for which it was acquired, that is, for submarines?

Senator MCNARY. Yes. It is getting away from the submarines. However, I think the base-and I am using that in a parliamentary sense is sufficiently broad to support this proposed amendment.

Mr. BURNHAM. Senator, may I ask this question: Was this amendment that you have just read offered by Mr. Mott subsequent to this bill?

Senator MCNARY. Yes. Subsequent to the bill. The bill was proposed in January of this year and the amendment 2 weeks later. Mr. BURNHAM. Offered by Mr. Mott? Senator McNARY. I think so.

But I offered it as an amendment to the naval bill. I think that he has offered it in the House. Anyhow, it is a pending proposal.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, before the Committee on Appropriations? Senator MCNARY. That is, before the Appropriations Committee. Mr. MAAS. Are these bases suitable for submarines, or would they be if they were extended?

Senator MCNARY. I think that can be answered better by Mr. Chessman. Are you asking whether they are suitable bases?

Mr. MAAS. Are they suitable? Is that what they are designed for? Admiral TAUSSIG. They were designed for submarines and one mother ship.

Mr. MAAS. Your amendment, Senator, which would go to carry on some additional work in maintaining and enlarging them, would be carrying out the original purpose of a submarine base in addition to this purpose?

Senator MCNARY. That is my position. I realize from a good many years of experience in parliamentary work in the Senate that you must have a base upon which your legislative structure must be built.

I think that the original authorization in 1921 would support this amendment. However, I can see that there is argument that might be suggested in opposition to that statement. And so I talked to the advisory counsel of the Senate and Mr. Watson, the parliamentarian. They took my view that this probably would support the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. There would be no doubt about this being germane, because the original authority for accepting it provided for submarine and aviation activities.

Senator MCNARY. I think that you are quite right, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Let me clear this up, Senator. As to this amendment that has been offered, we have not had the appropriation bill yet. Senator MCNARY. I appreciate that. It is just a pending amendment abiding its time.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what you propose to offer in the Senate? Senator McNARY. That is it exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. And that is what Mr. Mott proposes to offer in the House.

Senator MCNARY. I want to present this base to you in the nature of a parliamentary situation so that you may have full knowledge of the situation.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Senator MCNARY. May I for the record put in this information from the act in H. R. 13108, the act making appropriations for the naval service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1921:

Submarine and destroyer base, Columbia River: Toward the development of a submarine and destroyer base, and the Secretary of the Navy is hereby authorized to accept from the city of Astoria, Oreg., free from encumbrances and conditions and without cost to the United States Government, a certain tract of land at Tongue Point, Columbia River, for use as a site for a naval submarine and destroyer base, and containing 115 acres, more or less, of hard land and 256 acres of submerged land, $250,000.

I think that act itself will support this proposed amendment, but there may be some question in the House concerning the matter; and therefore I should like to see this committee consider-and, of course, favorably if it may-the amendment that has been offered in the nature of an authorization. If you would authorize the appropriation, of course, then it is up to your Appropriations Committee to carry the project through.

On that I have this to suggest: As I read to you a moment ago, this provides an appropriation of $1,500,000. After consultation with Mr. Chessman and my colleague and others, it has been suggested that if we could have an authorization of $700,000 for one patrol squadron, for constructing hangars, ramps, barracks, shops, storehouses, and other facilities required for the use and maintenance of a naval aviation squadron and their personnel, it would be very

helpful to us in presenting the matter fully and finally to the Naval Affairs Committee of the House and the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean the Appropriations Committee? Senator MCNARY. Exactly.

And it would eliminate thereby any question of parliamentary failure to meet the situation as I have suggested. I think that that has been met by the act of 1921.

I leave the whole thing to your good judgment, and I appreciate your kindness in hearing me.

The CHAIRMAN. This is what has been in my mind as to whether or not the conclusion that the Navy Department has reached is well founded in this respect: I think it is rather important for a successful culmination of the defense of the West Coast, whether it is adopted here or adopted on the floor when the naval appropriation bill is up, for us to clarify the position of the Navy Department that this site cannot now be used advantageously for either submarines or aviation activities.

Senator MCNARY. That is a very fair statement, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I think it is quite important to have that cleared up as far as the House bill is concerned.

Senator MCNARY. That is quite true.

Mr. MAAS. Senator, if we should believe that Tongue Point is not a suitable place to develop and my personal opinion is that it is suitable but if it is not, would you still believe that we ought to provide some aviation protection at the mouth of the Columbia River? Senator MCNARY. Yes, indeed.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you think that we can find a suitable place in that vicinity.

Senator McNARY. That is true.

Mr. DELANEY. Would this mean, Mr. Chairman, that the Navy Department would have to purchase land?

The CHAIRMAN. If it is necessary for the national defense to purchase it, it should be purchased. I think it is a wrong idea for a community to tax its people for the purpose of giving something to the Government. It is the duty of the Government to provide for the defense for its people.

Mr. DARDEN. In addition to that, the Government is more and more encroaching with every form of taxation on every possible source of revenue. I think it is utterly unreasonable to expect communities to donate their property to the Government for the sake of getting a base.

Senator MCNARY. I thank you very much, and I would like to say this concluding word: I am very happy, Mr. Chairman and other members of the committee, to see that you are considering this problem of a defense for the most vulnerable place upon the whole coastline.

I appreciate your kindness very much.

STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL J. K. TAUSSIG, ACTING CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS Continued

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be very glad to hear from you, Admiral.

Admiral TAUSSIG. Gentlemen, I will be very brief.

I explained yesterday how we arrived at the projects which the Navy Department approved. I would like to say before I go further that in those some five or six hundred projects in the shore establishment which the Navy Department desires, this project does not appear at all in the present list on account of the urgency, as we consider it, the greater urgency of others.

I should like to quote one paragraph from one of the letters that the Navy Department has written to Mr. Chessman on this subject [reading]:

In the report of the study pains are taken to explain in detail and categorically the points of the naval opinion to which you have specifically taken exception. The study shows that the peacetime basing of a group of destroyers or submarines in the mouth of the Columbia River for operations would be definitely detrimental to their essential training with the fleet and therefore detrimental to the efficiency of the fleet. The development of the site as a repair base for peacetime use would be an uneconomical duplication of facilities which in large part exist elsewhere in more suitable localities. Present considered judgment in the above matters supports the opinion expressed in the report of the Helm board to the effect that operating or repair facilities for aircraft at the mouth of the Columbia River, and the Tongue Point site in itself has drawbacks as an aircraft base which would render it far less suitable for this particular purpose than other sites which might be chosen in this locality.

The CHAIRMAN. What other sites has the Navy Department in mind?

Admiral TAUSSIG. We had no site in mind for operating in peacetime. We know that if we come to war we are going to have to establish a lot of subsidiary or sectional bases, and one of them would be at the mouth of the Columbia River.

A site in the Youngs River to the westward of Astoria has been picked as a more suitable place in which to establish in wartime a base for patrol planes.

I think any technical questions in regard to that Admiral King can

answer.

The CHAIRMAN. What you are talking about applies particularly to submarines?

Admiral TAUSSIG. At that place? Everything.

The CHAIRMAN. Everything is provided for?

Admiral TAUSSIG. Yes.

We consider that in peacetimes the national defense does not require the development of this base; and that we would have no ships or planes which we would wish to operate there right along. We have no ships or planes that we would want to repair there. It would be a dissemination of our facilities, which would be very uneconomical. The CHAIRMAN. This was accepted on the part of the Government in the year 1917, was it not?

Admiral TAUSSIG. 1917.

The CHAIRMAN. The community gave it up to the Government. Admiral TAUSSIG. Yes, sir; but the Government did not ask them to give it.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that.

Mr. BURNHAM. Mr. Chairman, just a moment ago, when Senator McNary was reading that act of 1920, some reference was made to $250,000. Do you recall that that was it? I didn't catch it.

Mr. DARDEN. That was what the Government had spent there. The CHAIRMAN. That was the total amount that the Government has spent there.