Mr. WOODRUFF. A very substantial sum, would it not? Secretary WILBUR. He is asking about saving money by doing the work all together. That is not so important as the other. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, may I ask you when that bill was originally drawn was it contemplated that they would raise these guns? Secretary WILBUR. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. I thought so. Secretary WILBUR. Let me say a word about that. The CHAIRMAN. I wanted Congress to know just exactly how that money was being used, and therefore I took the liberty of adding that. The committee has not passed on that. Secretary WILBUR. We felt it much better to inform the committee and inform Congress on the floor that that was contemplated and allow the matter to be taken up diplomatically in regard to procedure afterwards, but we felt the bill ought to be broad enough in its authorization to permit the department to go ahead and complete the modernization, including the gun elevation, if there was no diplomatic objection to it being done. The CHAIRMAN. If that language comes out, will you elevate the guns on those boats? Secretary WILBUR. Haven't I covered that sufficiently by what I have already said, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. No doubt you intended to do it, sir, because you are always plain in what you say, but I confess I did not hear all that was said. It was the original purpose of the department to elevate the guns on these ships out of this sum of $13,050,000? Secretary WILBUR. We desire the bill to be drawn in a way that would permit that to be done, and we wish to take up the question diplomatically before the actual elevation of the guns is made. The CHAIRMAN. Then can it be put this way: That if it is determined it is not a violation of the treaty, that these guns will be elevated? Secretary WILBUR. Yes. Mr. LINEBERGER. We know it is not a violation. Mr. MAGEE. The last paragraph of the bill covers that. Secretary WILBUR. I would rather have that matter postponed than have it presented in the way the committee has written the bill. The CHAIRMAN. You see, in order to keep within the Secretary WILBUR. When will this bill probably come up on the floor? Mr. LINEBERGER. We have not got a rule on it yet. Secretary WILBUR. It would not be for six weeks, probably? Mr. LINEBERGER. Whenever the chairman presses for a rule. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, I think you will find it is the determination of this committee to assist you as far as it is possible to help you keep this fleet up to a high state of efficiency. Therefore, Mr. Secretary, in order to have this bill enacted into law it will be necessary for us to move at an early date. So that Congress might express its determination to keep this treaty as it has been written and the spirit of the treaty, I have added the words you find in the bill, to which I have referred, with the idea that the inclusion of this language would save us at all times and show clearly it is the purpose of Congress not to violate this treaty. Secretary WILBUR. That is true, but I do not think the bill is any different with that in than without it. Mr. LINEBERGER. It would make the issue the same. Secretary WILBUR. I think we are in a rather better position if it is left out. Mr. Chairman, let me say one other thing about this bill. The reason that we presented this at this time and are anxious for its passage is that it affects the appropriations for men and provisions in the service, and as the bill stands to-day, the appropriation bill, it is feasible upon the theory that we will have these two ships in reserve with a crew of 300 each, instead of 1,200. We do not desire to have our battleships tied up at the wharf because we haven't men enough to man them, but if they are undergoing repair and modernization there is no occasion for having a full crew, and the appropriation bill now before the Senate, having passed the House, is upon the theory, as I understand it, that the two ships will be undergoing modernization during a part of the fiscal year. Mr. LINEBERGER. Wouldn't it be necessary, Mr. Secretary, in view of your statement of what is liable to happen, with reference to any legislation for elevating the guns, to state in the bill specifically what repairs are contemplated on the Oklahoma and the Nevada? For instance, antiaircraft, deck protection, and submarine protection, all permitted under the treaty; put that in the bill and for the time being forget all about the elevation of the guns, because we are going to be confronted with Secretary Hughes's letter the very moment we try to do this thing. Are we within our rights under the treaty? Secretary WILBUR. I would rather confer with the committee in executive session on the details of procedure rather than make a statement publicly in that regard. I will be perfectly willing to make a statement before the committee in executive session. Mr. MCCLINTIC. I would like to know if any member of the committee has any idea how the $6,500,000 is going to be expended on any one of these ships. In other words, how much of this, and how much of that? Mr. BRITTEN. That has all been explained. Secretary WILBUR. We presented that in detail. Mr. MCCLINTIC. Did the navy yard recondition the Texas, or was that done by some private concern under contract? Secretary WILBUR. The three ships modernized and the three others undergoing modernization are all in the navy yards. Mr. MCCLINTIC. Are we elevating the guns on any of the three ships being modernized? Secretary WILBUR. No. Mr. MCCLINTIC. Has any nation on earth ever elevated the guns on any ship, that you know of, as Secretary of the Navy? Secretary WILBUR. You mean Mr. MCCLINTIC. Including Japan, France, or any other country. Secretary WILBUR. You mean recently? Mr. MCCLINTIC. Yes. Mr. BRITTEN. Since 1923. Secretary WILBUR. Great Britain has not. We are informed by Japan, and that information has come to you through Secretary Hughes's letter, that they did not consider the elevation of guns as prohibited by the treaty. Mr. MCCLINTIC. That is not exactly my question. Secretary WILBUR. I know it is not your question. We believe that the Japanese have elevated their guns, but we do not know it. The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand you to say that it is the belief that the Japanese have elevated their guns? Secretary WILBUR. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any way to learn that? Mr. MCCLINTIC. Have you any written documents or any reports that would substantiate that fact? Secretary WILBUR. That they have elevated their guns? Mr. MCCLINTIC. Yes. Secretary WILBUR. We have no direct communication with the Japanese Government on that question. We think we know practi cally what the gun elevation is of all the powers. Mr. MCCLINTIC. But you are not in a position to make a positive statement; you can not name the ship-you can not make a positive statement to the effect that they have elevated their guns since 1923? Secretary WILBUR. Just now I don't want to give an offhand answer on that. Mr. BRITTEN. Mr. Secretary, the Navy Department sent to this committee a bill for modernization of the Oklahoma and the Nevada, requesting $13,050,000 in all. That bill is before the committee. The committee, on the request of chairman included words in line 5 added to your bill, "including such changes as will increase the range of turret guns." As near as I can tell that is the only change from the bill which was originally drawn by the department. My idea, Mr. Chairman, after hearing the Secretary is that those words ought to be eliminated, and the amount left the same, $13,050,000. Mr. MCCLINTIC. That amount includes the cost of the gun elevation. Mr. BRITTEN. Yes, it does; and that is what the department desires. Mr. LINEBERGER. Mr. Chairman, let us not do anything under Cover. If we are going to do it, do it open and aboveboard. There is no need of having an authorization of $13,050,000, then have the Secretary take it up diplomatically, then have the Secretary actually elevate the guns, and then have the country confronted the next year with the accusation that we violated the treaty. Of course, I don't think we have. Mr. BRITTEN. We are going to tell Congress all about this. Mr. LINEBERGER. If we are going to do it, do it in black and white, like the bill states. Mr. BRITTEN. The department didn't feel it was necessary to state it in black and white, any more than other repairs. Mr. LINEBERGER. The other repairs are specified in the bill, because the treaty specifies what can be done. The CHAIRMAN. Inasmuch as the Secretary of State once asked Congress not to elevate these guns, for certain reasons I thought, after consulting my colleagues, that we ought to put it plainly in the bill that it was the purpose to elevate them. Now, then, Mr. Secretary, if that language is eliminated, and I am perfectly willing to take it out, and if the question is asked us by any other members of the House if it is the purpose to elevate these guns, what will the answer be? Secretary WILBUR. Of course, the answer is yes, but if I am to go into details in this manner The CHAIRMAN. You should have the privilege of doing that. Mr. LINEBERGER. I move that we go into executive session. (Whereupon, at 12.30 o'clock p. m. the committee went into executive session.) 0. [No. 791 TO AUTHORIZE AN INCREASE IN THE LIMIT OF COST OF CERTAIN NAVAL VESSELS (H. R. 15830) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Saturday, January 15, 1927. The committee this day met, Hon. Thomas S. Butler (chairman) presiding, for consideration of H. R. 15830, which reads as follows: [H. R. 15830, Sixty-ninth Congress, second session] A BILL To authorize an increase in the limit of cost of certain naval vessels Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the limit of cost for the construction of the United States ships Lexington and Saratoga, the conversion of which vessels into airplane carriers, in accordance with the terms of the treaty providing for the limitation of naval armament, was authorized by the act of July 1, 1922, is hereby increased to $40,000,000 each. (The report of the Navy Department on this bill reads as follows:) NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, December 29, 1926. The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I have the honor to transmit herewith a proposed draft of a bill "To authorize an increase in the limit of cost of certain naval vessels." The purpose of this proposed legislation is to secure congressional authorization for an increase in the limit of cost of the aircraft carriers Lexington and Saratoga from $34,000,000 to $40,000,000 each. The conversion of the Lexington and Saratoga from battle cruisers to airplane carriers was made by the act approved July 1, 1922 (42 Stat. 814). The limit of cost fixed for the vessels as battle cruisers was $23,000,000 each and was not changed by the act converting these vessels to airplane carriers. The act approved February 11, 1925 (43 Stat. 882), authorized an increase in this limit of cost to $34,000,000 each, this increase being based on the best estimates then available of the probable final cost of the vessels. As the work on the aircraft carriers neared completion, it has been apparent that the limit of cost fixed by the act of February 11, 1925, would prove insufficient. The department has deferred making recommendations for an extension of the limit of cost to as late a date as practicable, in order to permit a more accurate estimate of the probable cost. The estimated progress as of December 1, 1926, was, on the Lexington, 872 per cent, and on the Saratoga, 922 per cent. Based on the expenditures already made under the contracts and on an estimate of the cost of the work still remaining to be performed, together with the expenditures already made and an estimate of the further expenditures required for material furnished by the Government and for work undertaken at navy yards, the Navy Department recommends that the limit of cost be fixed at $40,000,000 each. At the time the conversion was made, the Lexington was building at the Fore River plant of the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Quincy, Mass., and the Saratoga at the plant of the New York Shipbuilding Corporation, Camden, N. J., since renamed the American Brown Boveri Electric Corporation. The vessels were on the stocks at the yards of the two companies named and it was not practicable to secure competition for their completion. The companies were unwilling to undertake the completion of these airplane carriers on a fixed price basis, due in part to the difficulty of estimating the exact amount of work required and in part to the uncertain state of the labor and material market, and it was necessary to enter into supplementary agreements with the companies (413) 20038-27-No. 79 |