I am not expecting to be able to bring about a material decrease in actual expenditures under this head in the immediate future. although I am striving toward that end, as I have in the past, with some success, each year. I have made some cuts in actual expenditures under that head continuously, with the exception, as I say, of the fiscal year 1924, when the change in pay was effective.

We have had a limitation of $1,475,000 for 1924 and for 1925, and I am requesting that that be continued for 1926; not that I expect to spend that much money, for, as I have previously said, I cut the actual expenditure down as far as I can. The money that I spend that way I do not have available for the making of repairs to ships. But I want to have a legal right to spend $1,475,000, so that emergencies may be provided for to the limited extent of the difference between the expected expenditure of $1,383,000 and the limit included in the bill of $1,475,000. Such difference between the limit fixed by the law and the expected expenditures will, I expect and intend, provide for such possible emergencies as the undertaking of new construction, such as is included in the legislation pending in the Senate, which has already passed the Housethe bill for modernization, construction of new cruisers, etc.

We will, I think, spend for clerical and technical services at navy yards $750,000; for clerical and technical services at military stations, $127,000; for inspection of machinery, $102,000; for the inspection of engineering material, $167,000; for clerical and technical services at the engineering experiment station, $62.000; for drafting at navy yards for new construction, $175,000.

Of that total of $1,383,000, $114,000 will have been charged in in previous items to jobs under our bookkeeping work at navy yards. leaving a net sum of $1,269,000, which is the total amount that should be added to the previous items to determine the total expenditures under the entire appropriation.

We show a slight decrease in the clerical and technical forces at industrial yards. We show a slight increase at nonindustrial yards. That is due to undertaking additional research work at Bellevuе.

I call your attention to the fact that the cost of our inspection service is decreasing; that is, in proportion to the work done. We made a cut in cost per ton from $3 to $2.94 last year. I hope we can continue to make improvements.

MAINTENANCE OF SHIPS OUT OF COMMISSION

Mr. Byrnes asked me a question the other day as to whether or not the total sum here was sufficient to maintain the machinery of the Navy in a first-class condition. I replied, "Yes," and that is a correct answer so far as pertains to the present active fleet or the fleet that will be active in the year 1926; but it does not include any provision for the first-class maintenance of vessels out of commission, for which an additional sum of $1,435,000 was included in my original estimates. Those estimates were deleted by the Bureau of the Budget, and I am not authorized to ask for that sum.

Mr. BYRNES. That $1,400,000 estimated for ships out of commis sion refers to the destroyers? Admiral ROBISON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BYRNES. Your statement did not contemplate keeping in first-class condition those ships out of commission?

Admiral ROBISON. Precisely. I wanted to be sure that I made that clear.

Mr. BYRNES. Does it contemplate doing anything to the ships out of commission?

Admiral ROBISON. Except their preservation, practically nothing. Mr. BYRNES. But as to those in commission, if you are given the sum recommended by the Budget, you undertake to keep the ships that are in commission in first-class condition during the year 1926? Admiral ROBISON. I said it could be done.

Mr. BYRNES. I presume, if it can be done, that you will do it? Admiral ROBISON. I expect to have nothing to do with it. There will be others, however.'

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION, ANNAPOLIS, MD.

Mr. FRENCH. The next item is for the engineering experiment station at United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md., where you are asking for 1926 $175,000, the current appropriation being of the same amount.

Admiral ROBISON. Yes, sir.

Mr. FRENCH. Will you indicate to the committee your allocation of the amount requested.

Admiral ROBISON. We spent last year at the experiment station for the maintenance of the station $18,405.25; for investigations and experiments, $141,513.; for the purchase and installation of machines for tests, etc., $5,483.57; for additions and improvements to the station, in the form of apparatus chiefly, $6,951.75; making a gross expenditure of $172,353.51. The balance was not expended during the year. This year we have allocated the expenditure along approximately the same lines, making no allowance for any improvements at the station but increasing the amount we hope to be able to devote 'to original investigations and experiments to $152.000. The work of that station is responsible for a great deal of the economies in the general engineering work of the Navy. We obtain from there knowledge as to the relative service of different materials, the relative wear of different types of apparatus, etc. Mr. FRENCH. There you test out the complete thing. Admiral ROBISON. We determine there, also, methods of operation, etc.

Mr. FRENCH. You test out the completed thing, in contradistinction to the work done at the research laboratory where original investigations are conducted.

Admiral ROBISON. Yes, sir. I have here several pages containing a list of the things that they are working on and have been working on. This is a list of the things that they are to work on or which they are working on at this time. I do not think there is any necessity of including that in full in my report to you.

Mr. FRENCH. I think not, but the committee will have it before them.

Admiral ROBISON. There is also a detailed analysis of the expenditures for last year. It is more in detail than the statement I have given you. However, I do not think you will require that. I can only say in general that the money you are expending at the experiment station is returned to you each year at least five-fold. and it is of permanent value. One of the chief things we have done there has been to develop standards of lubricants, standards of packing, etc. We believe our standards to be the best in the world in those particulars, and that we are getting better service per dollar from our lubricants and from our packing than anybody else. In doing that we have depended largely upon the results of the work done at the engineering experiment station. That institution now is nearly 30 years old. It is one of growing value and of growing prestige throughout the engineering world. Because of the data that have been developed at that station, or because of facts we have developed there, the naval specifications for material are being copied very largely by the Federal Specifications Board. We are leaders in naval engineering in no small sense of the word because of that experiment station.

SALARIES, BUREAU OF ENGINEERING

Mr. FRENCH. The next item is for the salaries in the bureau. There you are asking for $286,000 against a current appropriation of $283,800.

Admiral ROBISON. Yes, sir. That is to provide for minor promotions that will be in order during the year. I will say that it is my hope to live well within that figure. I do not want to be bound by my hopes, however. I now have in hand a plan of reorganization of the bureau that I hope will reduce the operating expenditures of the bureau and at the same time give it a better working organization; I have here a list of the people I have employed-not by name, but by ratings, with the several rates of pay. I am merely asking for a continuance of the present force with an increase of $2,200 total to provide for allocations.

For instance, $1,340 is required to cover the increased cost caused by regarding that has been approved by the Personnel Classification Board; $860 is the total genuine increase that I am asking for. This does not bring the pay of the employees of the Bureau of Engineering up to the average pay in the grades that they are in, but it may be that I will be able to bring about some inmprovements in the organization that will accomplish that. If you will give me the money that I have asked for, I will take care of the personnel by improving the organization, if I possibly can. If not. I will come back here and ask for it.

Mr. BYRNES. What is the explanation of the small increase of $2,220 over last year!

Admiral ROBISON. $1,340 of it is caused by changes in the classifications that have been approved by the Personnel Classification Board. The classification as originally made was lower than the Personnel Board has determined is the proper classification of those employees; $860 of the increase that I have asked for is to enable me to accomplish promotions for one or two people in the lowest grade.

Mr. BYRNES. It is for promotions, and not for an increase in the number of employees.

Admiral ROBISON. No, sir; there is no increase contemplated in the number of employees. As a mater of fact, I am hoping, as I said a moment ago, to bring about some decrease in the number of employees, and then by that means to accomplish an increase in the average pay of the Bureau of Engineering employees toward the average pay of their ratings, which they are not now getting. Mr. BYRNES. It seems to me that you ought to do that. Admiral ROBISON. That is what I am trying to bring about. If I can bring about any increase in administrative efficiency, then those upon whom I am relying to accomplish that should get a reward, where they are getting less than the average pay of their ratings. That undoubtedly would be the proper thing to to do.

Mr. FRENCH. Of course, it has not necessarily been the policy of The Congress or of the administration of the law to try to establish the average pay of the grade as the ideal. Rather, it is the ideal to De attained if the service of the individuals warrant it.

Admiral ROBISON. If I can bring about an increase in the efficiency of the individuals they would deserve an increase in pay. I am asking for nothing that will enable me to do that at the expense of Congress or the appropriation, but I am asking for the opportunity to reward efficiency where it appears. If I could get the work done with, say, 10 less men, then the remaining men ought to get a little more pay for the extra work that they will be called upon to do. That is true, unless I have an awfully bad organization now, and I do not think I have.

Mr. FRENCH. Admiral Robison, I am sure I voice the sentiment of all the members of this committee when I tell you of our appreciation of the splendid analysis and the clear and comprehensive statements that you have made to the committee touching all the activities of the Bureau of Engineering. I thank you for your statements and for the cooperation of your associates before the committee.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1924.

BUREAU OF AERONAUTICS

STATEMENTS OF REAR ADMIRAL WILLIAM A. MOFFETT, CHIEF; CAPT. E. S. LAND, LIEUT. COMMANDER M. A. MITSCHER, AND LIEUT. COMMANDER L. T. DU BOSE, BUREAU OF AERONAUTICS; COMMANDER J. M. SMEALLIE, BUREAU OF NAVIGATION; AND LIEUT. COL. T. C. TURNER, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

Mr. FRENCH. At this point we take up the consideration of the Bureau of Aeronautics, and we have with us Admiral Moffett, who will present the viewpoint of the Navy Department touching the items asked for in the bill that has come before the committee.

Before taking up the details of the bill, Admiral, we should be glad to hear from you any general statement that you may desire to present.

GENERAL STATEMENT

POLICY

Admiral MoFFETT. The Bureau of Aeronautics, under the Secretary of the Navy, is guided in all its acts and operations by the policy established by the Navy Department, by the General Board of the Navy, by the Joint Board of the Army and the Navy, by the coordination of activities with the Army through the Aeronautical Board, by the Budget, and ultimately by Congress.

The General Board of the Navy passes upon the types of the planes that we have, their finding is approved by the Secretary, and we go ahead with it.

INSTALLATION OF AIRCRAFT ABOARD VESSELS AND AT FLEET BASES

The primary mission of the Bureau of Aeronautics is to furnish suitable aircraft to the fleet. It has been our earnest endeavor to install on each battleship two fighting planes and one observation plane; on each scout cruiser, two observation planes; on a limited number of destroyers, one observation plane; on a limited number of submarines, one small observation plane; on selected ships of the train, three fighting planes; on carriers, the maximum number of fighting planes and combined scouting, bombing, and torpedo planes that can be satisfactorily carried. One squadron of observation planes will also be carried on the carrier assigned to the Battle Fleet. This primary mission has been carried out by the bureau as far as the exigencies of the service permit, due consideration being given to the funds available for proper types of fleet aircraft.

Following this primary mission, our next important duty is the assignment of proper types of planes to outlying bases, the most important of which are the key bases of Pearl Harbor and Coco Solo. In order to satisfactorily accomplish this purpose, it is essential to furnish these key positions with the latest and best types of aircraft, the majority of which are called for in the new construction program now being presented to the Congress.

The next function of the Bureau of Aeronautics is to supply our fleet bases with suitable aircraft for the protection of our coastwise shipping, our lines of communication, and joint operations with the fleet for convoy and patrol.

Our function in coast defense depends on the policy enunciated by the Joint Board of the Army and the Navy.

REDUCTION IN TYPES OF AIRCRAFT

It has been the policy of the Bureau of Aeronautics to reduce the number of types of aircraft to the minimum practicable with the absolute needs of the service. At the present time the following are the primary types involved in this program:

1. Training planes.

2. Fighting planes

3. Observation planes:

One-seater__

Two-seater

Three-seater

4. "Combined service" planes (torpedo, scouting, and bombing planes)

VN

VF

VO(1)

VO (2)

VO (3)

VT