materials, including subsistence supplies, which alone account for an increase of $2,327,242. Fully 85 percent of the Budget increase is responsive either to legislation or the present policy to upbuild our Navy to treaty proportions. The Budget was not conceived nor has it been shaped at any stage with any thought of the imminence of war. The load falls particularly heavy now because of the policy the Government pursued following the Washington Treaty of attempting to curb naval expansion by cotreaty nations by the example of undertaking but relatively little new construction either in the way of additional tonnage or replacement of overage tonnage. The folly and futility of that course, however laudable its purpose, is well exemplified in the table appearing on the folder after page 78 of the hearings. There it is shown that from and including the year of the Washington Treaty (1922) to and including the year of the London Treaty (1930) the United States laid down 21 vessels, the British Empire laid down 86 vessels, and Japan laid down 125 vessels. The details of our present and projected construction programs appear hereinafter under the head of "Increase of the Navy." To attain and properly maintain a "treaty navy" of the proportions now permissible mean increasingly larger naval budgets, expected to stabilize around $555,000,000 per annum. (See p. 53 of the hearings.) That figure contemplates the possession of complete under-age tonnage in all categories, of a commensurate air force, requisite and suitable auxiliary vessels, and operation of such a force with no units out of commission beyond such as may be undergoing overhaul. The pending Budget, in conjunction with shipbuilding being prosecuted out of funds to relieve unemployment, is in consonance with the present policy to achieve that end. And this bill, which the committee is presenting, is similarly premised, despite the fact that in direct appropriations it calls for $27,657,586 less than the aggregate of the Budget estimates. In some respects manifestly it is a better measure; in no essential respect may it fairly be said to be a less effective one, with the possible exception of the proposal to appropriate but one-half of the sum of $29,380,000 included in the Budget for beginning the construction, all of a replacement character, of 1 aircraft carrier, two 6-inch-gun or light cruisers, 15 destroyers, and 6 submarines. However much we may be determined to live up to the letter and spirit of that tenet of the United States naval policy which reads: "To create, maintain, and operate a Navy second to none and in conformity with treaty provisions", the fact remains that the present and ultimate annual cost must be disturbing to us and must be equally disquieting to other "treaty navy" powers. It would seem that continued limitation and some contraction of tonnages now permitted must be the wish of all educated, unselfish people the world Another conference will be held during the present calendar year. The committee's proposal to halve the estimate for additional new construction is offered with the thought that the administration might wish to defer the commencement of such construction until that conference shall have been concluded. Such a course should be interpreted as an expression of our faith and confidence that the principle of limitation will survive and that out of such conference a new and better accord will be born. Holding up construction on over. the eve of another conference would be tangible proof of our wish and hope and faith that limitation will be continued and in some respects curtailed. Possibly, and perhaps very probably, a new agreement would not dispel the need to proceed with most if not all of the new construction the commencement of which it is proposed to defer, but there would appear to be no hazard in the delay and the course our action contemplates should challenge in a most effective way the attention of the peoples of those nations parties to the present naval limitation agreements and to the consequences if limitation be abandoned or even continued as now provided. If, for reasons deemed to outweigh those here advanced, the administration should elect not to defer the construction of such ships, there is nothing in the bill to hinder that course, which, however, most likely would necessitate the provision of a supplemental appropriation early in the next session. Commencing on page 20 of this report will be found a table comparing each of the total amounts proposed in the accompanying bill under each appropriation head with the Budget recommendation and the current appropriation. The following statement details every change effected by the committee in the Budget estimates in the order in which they occur in the accompanying bill: materials, including subsistence supplies, which alone account for an increase of $2,327,242. Fully 85 percent of the Budget increase is responsive either to legislation or the present policy to upbuild our Navy to treaty proportions. The Budget was not conceived nor has it been shaped at any stage with any thought of the imminence of war. The load falls particularly heavy now because of the policy the Government pursued following the Washington Treaty of attempting to curb naval expansion by cotreaty nations by the example of undertaking but relatively little new construction either in the way of additional tonnage or replacement of overage tonnage. The folly and futility of that course, however laudable its purpose, is well exemplified in the table appearing on the folder after page 78 of the hearings. There it is shown that from and including the year of the Washington Treaty (1922) to and including the year of the London Treaty (1930) the United States laid down 21 vessels, the British Empire laid down 86 vessels, and Japan laid down 125 vessels. The details of our present and projected construction programs appear hereinafter under the head of "Increase of the Navy." To attain and properly maintain a "treaty navy" of the proportions now permissible mean increasingly larger naval budgets, expected to stabilize around $555,000,000 per annum. (See p. 53 of the hearings.) That figure contemplates the possession of complete under-age tonnage in all categories, of a commensurate air force, requisite and suitable auxiliary vessels, and operation of such a force with no units out of commission beyond such as may be undergoing overhaul. The pending Budget, in conjunction with shipbuilding being prosecuted out of funds to relieve unemployment, is in consonance with the present policy to achieve that end. And this bill, which the committee is presenting, is similarly premised, despite the fact that in direct appropriations it calls for $27,657,586 less than the aggregate of the Budget estimates. In some respects manifestly it is a better measure; in no essential respect may it fairly be said to be a less effective one, with the possible exception of the proposal to appropriate but one-half of the sum of $29,380,000 included in the Budget for beginning the construction, all of a replacement character, of 1 aircraft carrier, two 6-inch-gun or light cruisers, 15 destroyers, and 6 submarines. However much we may be determined to live up to the letter and spirit of that tenet of the United States naval policy which reads: "To create, maintain, and operate a Navy second to none and in conformity with treaty provisions", the fact remains that the present and ultimate annual cost must be disturbing to us and must be equally disquieting to other "treaty navy" powers. It would seem that continued limitation and some contraction of tonnages now permitted must be the wish of all educated, unselfish people the world Another conference will be held during the present calendar year. The committee's proposal to halve the estimate for additional new construction is offered with the thought that the administration might wish to defer the commencement of such construction until that conference shall have been concluded. Such a course should be interpreted as an expression of our faith and confidence that the principle of limitation will survive and that out of such conference a new and better accord will be born. Holding up construction on over. Most of the changes just enumerated speak for themselves. Such as it would seem need further explanation will be taken up in the order stated, together with related subjects, interpolating at appropriate places comments upon some phases of the bill not disturbed as to money but as to text. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES The committee has added to this appropriation $75,000 for improving the Naval Intelligence Service. În addition, as appears elsewhere in the foregoing table, it has increased the estimate for the civil staff of the Intelligence Office in Washington by $16,800 and has added $4,250 to the printing and binding appropriation on account of this activity. As to the first amount, it was represented to the committee that a considerably larger sum could be employed to advantage in directions it is not deemed appropriate to disclose, and that is probably true, but before expanding too greatly the committee felt that a study should be made of the participation in this work of the Army and the Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Justice and the extent to which there is or may be had a correlation of efforts. NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY The accomplishments of this institution in the field of new developments, especially in transmission and reception of radiation waves, has been of inestimable value to the Navy. Great possibilities offer promise of early attainment if there be adequate expansion in the staff of scientists whom it is now our good fortune to have identified with the laboratory. The committee has increased the estimate for this establishment from $210,000 to $310,000. Of the increase of $100,000, the sum of $30,000 additional has been allocated for the engagement of more scientific and technical personnel. The construction of a modern warship requires the application of practically all of the arts and sciences. The improvements in the designs of the future will depend upon the scientific advancements and their applications. Naval research should be aggressively prosecuted in times of peace in order that the benefits of science be available for use in war, because months and often years are required to incorporate the results of research into the fleet. Mobilization for war is too late for the mobilization of science for long-time problems. The character of naval material requires that the Navy look to itself for a large part of its research, particularly that part which is secret or has no commercial application. In the solution of its research problems the Navy should be unhampered by pressing current needs in other directions; in other words, the Naval Research Laboratory should have adequate funds for research work, independent of the Bureau's appropriations. The class of problem that now suffers most is the difficult, expensive, and often long-time problem that requires the establishment of new facts for proper solution. BUREAU OF NAVIGATION NAVAL TRAINING STATION, NEWPORT The estimate for this establishment includes an item of $15,000 for contingent expenses, the justification for which is that it may be needed to rehabilitate power and telephone conduits if an allotment for such purpose is not granted by the P. W. A. Obviously, no appropriation should be provided in response to a request founded upon such a contingency. The committee,t herefore, has disallowed $12,500, leaving $2,500 for purely contingent uses. NAVAL TRAINING STATION, GREAT LAKES Consistent with its action of a year ago, the committee again has made provision for reopening the training station at Great Lakes, Ill. It has added to the estimate of $66,578 the sum of $183,422, making the total available under this head $250,000. Owing to the high rate of reenlistments since there has been a scarcity of civil jobs and to the administratively enforced economies. in the fiscal year 1934, two of the four recruit training stations were closed in that fiscal year. The stations at Norfolk and San Diego continued to operate, the former handling 4,687 recruits, and the latter 3,324, or a total of 8,011. In the preceding year, although but 5,148 recruits were trained, all four training stations were continued in operation. Next year, owing to the proposal to enlist an additional |