Commander REYNOLDS. Welfare and recreational equipment, sir. Mr. LUDLOW. Equipment for welfare and recreational needs. That includes pastime facilities, does it; motion pictures and things of that kind?

Commander REYNOLDS. The motion pictures are in a separate project, sir. This item that we have discussed so far applies only to the allotment system, wherein we make allotments to the commanding officers from which they may purchase games and similar recreational equipment. We do not permit them to purchase from that anything which is available under any other bureau of the Navy Department.

Admiral ALLEN. By games you mean athletic equipment?

Commander REYNOLDS. Yes, sir; athletic equipment-baseball mitts, baseball bats, or balls.

Each station may have its own individual needs, and that is the reason we leave it to the commanding officer to use the money. We have a standard rate for each type of ship, and a basic rate for the shore stations.

Mr. LUDLOW. There is a standard allocation system?
Commander REYNOLDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. What does that amount to per man?

Commander REYNOLDS. By the expansion of the shore stations it is $1.80 per man. In the Navy over all it was $1.63, and for shore stations only that is continuing under normal times-$1.03 per man.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further? If not, we thank you, Commander.

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1942.

BUREAU OF SHIPS

STATEMENTS OF REAR ADMIARAL A. H. VanKEUREN, CHIEF; REAR ADMIRAL W. H. P. BLANDY, CHIEF, BUREAU OF ORDNANCE; AND REAR ADMIRAL E. G. ALLEN, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

DEFENSE INSTALLATIONS ON MERCHANT VESSELS

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral VanKeuren, we have an estimate here in House Document No. 845 of $100,000,000 for defense installations on merchant vessels. You received an appropriation in the 1941 bill of $120,000,000 and, in the January 23, 1942 bill, we appropriated $15,000,000, making a total of $135,000,000 which you have had on this, and the last time you were here, when we gave you the last $15,000,000, you told us that was all you would require.

What has prevailed upon you to change your mind?

Admiral VANKEUREN. The rising costs, and additional items, Mr. Chairman.

May I make a short general statement on it?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; if you will, we will be glad to have a general statement on it.

Admiral VANKEUREN. Defense installations on merchant vessels are made under the supervision of the War Shipping Administration with funds transferred from the Navy Department appropriations.

In addition, the Navy supplies from its funds special technical materials required for offensive and defensive measures found necessary by our own and the British Navy's experience and for armed guard allowances and special equipment required by vessels engaged in

convoy.

To date, defense installations have been partially or completely made on most of the merchant marine. Of the $100,000,000 requested in this appropriation, $63,000,000 is required by the War Shipping Administration for higher unit costs of installations on vessels afloat, and $37,000,000 will be required by the Navy for supplying special technical materials. The increase in funds required by the War Shipping Administration is based on their estimates, which in turn is based on return costs on several hundred vessels. The increase in requirements of funds for the Navy is due in some measure to increased costs of material, but in the main is due to increased list of items to be provided at the Navy's direction and partly to the increased number of vessels in the Maritime Commission's building program.

We have increased the number of items very materially since we started out. Originally it was for gun foundations and provision for the armed guards. Now I have a list of 21 items. I do not know whether the committee wants to take the time to hear them all, or not, but it is growing and growing because of defense requirements. The CHAIRMAN. Briefly, why the need of those additional items? Admiral VANKEUREN. Because of the experience of the war. For instance, camouflage, radio requirements, and the barrage balloon, acoustic warning devices, an increase in number of guns and lookout stations, special signal flares, and all sorts of things of that nature. Every week or two we get an additional request for items in that category.

MAINTENANCE, BUREAU OF SHIPS

PAY, ETC., OF CIVILIAN CREWS TEMPORARILY EMPLOYED ON NAVAL VESSELS

The CHAIRMAN. Now, you have here a proposal to make the appropriation "Maintenance, Bureau of Ships" available for "Pay, subsistence, and incidental expenses of civilian crews temporarily employed on naval vessels.”

Admiral VAN KEUREN. Yes, sir. From time to time situations arise where it is considered necessary to hire civilian crews to operate chartered vessels and to act as instructors of naval personnel in the operation of these vessels. No Navy appropriation has specific language to cover the expenses involved in such cases, whereas the appropriation "Maintenance, Bureau of Ships" does cover the upkeep of such vessels, and it is considered appropriate that it also cover this hire.

We do not ask for any additional funds. The amounts involved will be relatively small. I could give you three or four typical instances, if you would like to take the time to hear them.

For instance, vessels required by the Navy for auxiliary purposes, operated by civilian crews under an operating agreement with the commercial ship operators until such time as naval crews are available. Then vessels taken over by the Navy, as in the case of the Marshal Joffre, operated wholly or partially by civilian crews hired

by the Navy to bring vessels to United States ports where they are to be converted; tuna fishermen required for patrol purposes, partly manned by civilian crews until naval crews can take them over, and small craft obtained from other Government departments for patrol and other purposes and the crews maintained for varying periods.

It is just one of those cases where nothing covers it at the present time, yet we have to operate them for varying periods of time until we can take them over.

INCREASE AND REPLACEMENT OF NAVAL VESSELS

CONSTRUCTION, ACQUISITION, AND CONVERSION OF AUTHORIZED VESSELS

The CHAIRMAN. You have another request on page 3 of House Document No. 845. You have a proposal there to make the subappropriations "Construction and machinery" and "Armor, armament, and ammunition" available for the construction, acquisition, and conversion of certain authorized vessels. What is involved in that request?

Admiral VANKEUREN. In that respect we have 1,900,000 tons of combatant vessels and 1,000 small vessels, and an additional 200,000 tons of auxiliary vessels.

The 1,900,000 tons of combatant vessels was authorized by Public Law, 666, and will be composed of some 570 vessels at a total estimated cost of $5,201,000,000.

Under the same act there was authorized the construction of 800 small vessels and the acquisition of 200 small vessels, which are intended for use as patrol vessels, coastal defense vessels, mine sweeping, and similar purposes.

Public Law 665 authorized the acquisition and conversion of 1,200,000 tons of auxiliary vessels. Public Law 626 made appropriations available for 1,000,000 tons of such vessels.

I testified before the Naval Affairs Committee of the Senate and at the last moment asked for 200,000 tons additional which had cropped up since you made your appropriation, so that there was a gap between the 1,200,000 tons and the 1,000,000 tons. We are asking now to have that covered. We are not asking for any money under this; it is simply covering things already authorized.

The CHAIRMAN. The situation is similar to that under the item you just discussed?

Admiral VANKEUREN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral Blandy, you are in charge of ordnance, and I wonder if you have any supplemental statement to make about defense installations?

Admiral BLANDY. No, sir; I have no particular statement. I will be glad to answer any questions. The figures are shown here in the way of what we require for boats. I can give you any information on the type of armament used, if you desire it.

The CHAIRMAN. I might ask you as to the progress made and the effectiveness of the measures adopted in making the installations. Admiral BLANDY. You are now referring to defense installations on merchant ships?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Admiral BLANDY. Taking the Bureau of Ships and Ordnance together, the Bureau of Ships is looking out for the installation and we

furnish the armament. We have armed merchant ships up to the last information I had, which was about the end of August. (After discussion off the record.)

INSTALLATION OF DEFENSE EQUIPMENT ON PRIVATELY OWNED VESSELS

Mr. LUDLOW. I note from the justifications here under this $100,000,000 appropriation that this appropriation is to apply to installations on privately owned vessels as well as Government-owned vessels. I wondered what the policy of installing defense equipment on privately owned vessels is, and about how many such installations have

been made.

Admiral VAN KEUREN. The policy is anything which is required by the war emergency. The Government pays for them in the way of arming, degaussing and all of these special signal equipments, and so on, and we do not differentiate between the Government and privately owned vessels in such cases. We give the money to Admiral Land and he does the work.

Mr. LUDLOW. And you take over privately owned vessels for the duration of the war?

Admiral ALLEN. It is the American merchant marine; this is the merchant marine for carrying cargo. You authorized us, as you did in the last war, owing to the submarine menace, to put listening devices, radio, and an armed guard crew, with guns, depth charges, and so on, on these merchant ships.

Mr. LUDLOW. But you do not put those installations on privately owned yachts?

Admiral ALLEN. The only privately owned vessels in the category you mention that I know of are those, you remember, the Coast Guard asked for as volunteer lookouts for coastal protection. That has nothing to do with this estimate.

Admiral VAN KEUREN. Of course, we get all of this material back, and we also get a lot of other material that is of benefit.

Admiral ALLEN. We had some of those guns that go back to the last war.

Mr. LUDLOW. They were all serviceable guns?

Admiral BLANDY. They were not all serviceable, but had to be made so. But that was started a year and a half ago, and we have been able to keep up fairly well.

Mr. LUDLOW. They were a good nucleus to start with?
Admiral BLANDY. Yes, sir; excellent.

Mr. TABER. What is the status of the $120,000,000 you have already had?

Admiral VANKEUREN. That is practically all expended.

Mr. TABER. Could you tell us just what the situation is?

Admiral VANKEUREN. $95,000,000 of that was given to War Shipping for work already performed, and we transfer funds as rapidly as they request. They are always a little behind.

Mr. LUDLOW. Does that $95,000,000 figure cover the only withdrawal you have had from the fund, or have you had other withdrawals?

Admiral VANKEUREN. We buy special material and we have to pay for that ourselves, and they install it for us.

Mr. TABER. How much of the funds are left at the present time? Admiral VANKEUREN. $9,000,000, out of all we have had so farout of the $135,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further?

(After discussion off the record:)

SEPTEMBER 24, 1942.

BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS

STATEMENTS OF REAR ADMIRAL W. B. YOUNG, CHIEF, BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS; CAPT. V. H. RAGSDALE, BUREAU OF AERONAUTICS; AND COMMANDER G. W. MEAD, BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL

PAY, SUBSISTENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, NAVY, 1943

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral Young, I believe this is the first time you have appeared before us in your capacity as paymaster general of the Navy.

Admiral YOUNG. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We congratulate you and wish you a very successful administration.

Admiral YOUNG. I thank you very much, sir.

FURLOUGH RATIONS

The CHAIRMAN. We will take up next the item in House Document No. 845, under Bureau of Supplies and Accounts. Turning to page 17 of the justifications, we have there a proposition relating to furlough pay. What is the reason for that change?

Admiral YOUNG. This languarge provides that enlisted men of the Navy on authorized leave may be paid commuted rations instead of furlough rations heretofore credited under authority contained in section 12 (a) of the act of September 16, 1940, which was repealed, effective June 1, 1942.

The payment of commuted rations under such circumstances would place enlisted men of the Navy on a parity with enlisted men of the Army who receive furlough rations based on the garrison ration, when on furlough, and would permit payment of commuted rations to enlisted men on leave, at the same rate as now provided in the annual appropriation act for commuted rations of enlisted men not subsisted in the mess.

The CHAIRMAN. Is this a change of policy? What has been the practice heretofore with reference to furlough rations?

Admiral YOUNG. Until June 1, 1942, the Navy followed the Army. Now that law has been repealed, it is not on the same basis. This puts it on the same basis as the Army, which follows the garrison ration. The Navy will follow the commuted ration when men are on leave.

EMPLOYMENT OF ENLISTED MEN IS BACHELOR OFFICERS' QUARTERS AND MESSES

The CHAIRMAN. We also find a provision for the employment of enlisted men in bachelor officers' quarters and messes. What is the necessity for that?