a greater extent than is estimated, thus reducing overhead expenses, we are accumulating a little surplus over our expenditures in the naval hospital fund.

Mr. ANDREW. Do the naval patients not suffering from something not connected with the war increase in numbers from year to year? Admiral STITT. We can hospitalize an ex-service man of the Navy only if he has a pension. If he has not a pension, he can not be hospitalized in a naval hospital after he is discharged.

Mr. ANDREW. Are the purely navy patients not service connected increasing from year to year or do they remain stationary?

Admiral STITT. I should think that the service-connected and nonservice-connected conditions

Mr. ANDREW (interposing). I meant war service connected. Admiral STITT. At the present time I think all of our cases connected with the World War have been disposed of, because a man who looks forward to the 20 or 16 year benefits, and of course was in service during the war, is going to take the Navy benefit rather than the Veterans' Bureau benefit. The Veterans' Bureau will not give a man benefits until he is completely separated from the Navy. Mr. VINSON. The report filed with the bill in this case is illuminating and we have it before us. I now move that we stand adjourned until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.

о

STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL JOHN D. BEURET, CONSTRUCTION CORPS, UNITED STATES NAVY, ON H. R. 13249, A BILL "TO AUTHORIZE AN INCREASE IN THE LIMIT OF COST OF ALTERATIONS AND REPAIRS TO CERTAIN NAVAL VESSELS"

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,
Thursday, December 6, 1928.

The committee this day met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Fred A. Britten (chairman), presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. A quorum evidently is present, and the committee will give consideration to H. R. 13249, which is a bill to authorize an increase in the limit of cost of alterations and repairs to the battleships Oklahoma and Nevada, which reads as follows:

A BILL To authorize an increase in the limit of cost of alterations and repairs to 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 alterations and repairs to the United States ships Oklahoma and Nevada, authorized to be modernized by the act of March 2, 1927 (Forty-fourth Statutes at Large, page 1343), in accordance with the limitations prescribed in the treaty limiting naval armaments ratified August 17, 1923, is hereby increased from $13,150,000 to $13,600,000 in all.

STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL JOHN D. BEURET, CONSTRUCTION CORPS, UNITED STATES NAVY, CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral Beuret, when you and Admiral Hughes were before the committee during the last session in connection with this bill it was impossible for you to tell definitely just how much of an additional authorization you desired in connection with the altering and repairing of these two ships. The amount varied between $250,000 and $450,000. That was the reason the committee took no action on the bill last session.

However, I am told that the department now considers it very necessary to get action on this bill next week. What have you to say to the committee about it?

Admiral BEURET. At the time we were before the committee last spring the estimated expenditures, as I remember, were $13,194,000, of which the department authorized $13,138,000 and deferred the remainder; but, as we stated, that left no margin for unforeseen work that might arise in the course of a job of this character. It is impossible to tell in advance just what the extent of the work will be. When the chairman of the committee informed the Navy Department that the committee had decided not to report out the bill, but (83)

2197-28-No. 26-1

would be glad to hear the department further in December, the department instructed the navy yards to send in revised estimates as soon as their October costs were completed. When these estimates were received, we had representatives of the two navy yards concerned come to Washington for the purpose of going over these estimates in detail.

Mr. ANDREW. Which two yards were those?

Admiral BEURET. The Oklahoma is being modernized at Philadelphia and the Nevada at Norfolk. The total amount of the November estimates was $13,980,000, including the work that had been authorized, additional repairs, the necessity for which had become apparent in the course of the work, and additional authorizations which the yards submitted for consideration after consultation with the ships. That was in accordance with the instructions of the department. That is to say, we wanted to have everything clearly before the department; but after going over carefully the additional work proposed the department felt that to spend in excess of the amount that had already been recommended would be dipping into the total funds for naval work for the purpose of doing work on these ships that we are not able to do on the later battleships. In other words, the department considers not these two ships alone but the full amount of money to be spent on the fleet as a whole. Having that in mind. it was thought advisable to defer some of the work proposed that was considered desirable but not immediately urgent. The present estimate on the items that we had already authorized with the expectation that they could be completed within the then limit of cost, is $155,000 in excess of the original estimate. We authorized work that on its face would cost $13,138,000. The present estimate is $167,000 in excess of that $13,138,000, or $155,000 in excess of the authorized limit.

The CHAIRMAN. After our hearings last spring, I, as chairman of the committee, had a conference with the Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of the Navy, and the department suggested that it might go ahead with the additions you are now talking about, and the committee would later grant an increased authorization.

Admiral BEURET. The department did not feel it was necessary to authorize anything beyond the present limit. The only additional items that the Secretary authorized at the navy yards amounted to a total of $100,000, which was balanced by an expected saving under ordnance. The expenditures under the Bureau of Ordnance, which do not take place at the navy yards, but take place at the gun factory and elsewhere, are below the estimates due principally to the fact that better prices for ammunition were received than had been anticipated. It appeared at that time that there would be a saving of about $100,000, and the Secretary authorized us to approve additional navy-yard work to that amount. We approved work, I think, to the amount of about $95,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Have any items covering alterations or additions occurred to either of these ships, these alterations or additions being new and distinct from your original estimate?

Admiral BEURET. They are new in the sense that they were not entered as individual items but they are part of the whole job.

The CHAIRMAN. By "new" you suggest that they were unforeseen? Admiral BEURET. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. And could not be anticipated?

Admiral BEURET. If we had known them we could have calculated them. We were not able to do so. These estimates were gone into with a great deal of care. What we did was this: When the money was appropriated last December we made a preliminary allotment and authorized the yards to proceed, but we instructed them that until the estimates were approved they were not to undertake any miscellaneous alterations and repairs except work that had to be undertaken in proceeding with the main items that Congress had approved, such as the extra deck protection, the blisters, and the elevation of the guns. When the estimates came in they were in excess of the authorized limit, and were not in entire agreement. We had the yards' representatives come to Washington at the end of February to go over them. They went back with the information that had been compiled, revised their estimates, and came to Washington again early in April. We had a further discussion of the estimates, and at that time the total was $13,194,000, after we cut out everything we thought not absolutely necessary and without any margin. We cut out items of miscellaneous alterations enough to bring the figure to $13,138,000, but the Secretary felt that to go into a job like that without any leeway at all was inadvisable and should not be done without informing Congress of the situation. Therefore he recommended that the limit of cost be increased from $13,150,000 to $13,600,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you tell the committee, Admiral, the principal items that make up the $450,000 now requested?

Admiral BEURET. The reason we are in this situation is, primarily, because of the change in the arrangement for the elevation of the turret guns. The ammunition-handling devices were not satisfactory and had to be changed. It did not seem advisable to increase the elevation of the guns if we decreased the service to the guns. That amounted to about $450,000 and wiped out the margin we expected to have. The work of installing the antiaircraft guns and elevation of the secondary batteries, the arrangement of the ammunition-handling devices, miscellaneous fittings, and so forth, amounted to more than we had expected.

The CHAIRMAN. How far had you proceeded with the actual construction of the so-called service to the turret guns from the ammunition holes when you determined upon making this change? Admiral BEURET. We had not proceeded at all.

The CHAIRMAN. So that no money was expended?

Admiral BEURET. Not at that time. When we came before the committee we had expended altogether to the end of March about $700,000.

The CHAIRMAN. That was in 1928?

Admiral BEURET. In 1928.

The CHAIRMAN. In various directions?

Admiral BEURET. To the end of October we had spent about $4,000,000. That is for the navy-yard work. Of course the ordnance work was going on in the meantime, covering the manufacture of the antiaircraft guns and the alteration of the turret guns and apparatus.

The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand that this request for an additional $450,000 is largely due to the change made in your plans in connection with the turrets?

Admiral BEURET. Yes; that is what we explained when we were here before. That change was what got us in the trouble, because it wiped out our margin. We had to have a margin. As a matter of fact, even with the saving in the price of ammunition, which was fortunate, we still need the $450,000 to cover these increased expenditures, the necessity of which has appeared during the course of the work.

The CHAIRMAN. The question was asked on the floor of the House about changes to guns and turrets. Will you be able to use the original turrets?

Admiral BEURET. Yes; there was no change in those.

The CHAIRMAN. There will be no change in the turrets at all? Admiral BEURET. The only change is that the elevating apparatus, the screws and the support for the elevating screws, has to be changed so as to permit the guns to tilt to 30° instead of 15°, as originally designed. That interferred with our ammunition-handling arrangement and we had to change those, but the turning gear and armor and the guns themselves are all right.

The CHAIRMAN. The superstructure of the turret will remain as it is?

Admiral BEURET. Yes. We increased the size of the ports slightly, because the guns when coming up require more of an opening in the front plate.

The CHAIRMAN. You could not pull off any at the top?

Admiral BEURET. Yes; we took it all off to get the guns out, but we will put it all on again. We had to completely dismantle the

turrets.

The CHAIRMAN. But the turret itself is exactly as it was with the exception of the slight change in the port or opening? Admiral BEURET. Yes; the remainder is the same.

The CHAIRMAN. That was my impression.

Admiral BEURET. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that conclude your statement to the committee concerning this matter?

Admiral BEURET. Yes; unless you desire to ask further questions. The CHAIRMAN. Then, as I understand, this request for an additional $450,000 is not due to any miscalculations?

Admiral BEURET. Yes; it is due to it.

The CHAIRMAN. I was going to put it another way. could not foresee a situation.

You simply

Admiral BEURET. The work on the turrets, I think, might have been foreseen. The original proposition was based on a consideration of the turrets on all the battleships as a whole, and the individual studies showed that there was quite a bit of difference. The work on the Pennsylvania and the Arizona turrets will be less than on the turrets of the Oklahoma and Nevada because of the different arrangements of the turrets themselves.

Mr. VINSON. If I may interrupt, then if that be true why did you estimate $600,000 for the Arizona and the Pennsylvania? If the work is less on the Pennsylvania and the Arizona, why did you make that estimate for them?

Admiral BEURET. The cost of these was originally placed at $470,000, but there is now an addition of about $450,000 to that.