If it was planned like the Vinson (2-Ocean Navy) Act, I'd agree; what I have in mind (as said) is also a jobs bill, masquerading as defense, so starting on as many ships as possible ASAP is an implicit goal. I agree, this may be the biggest "hole", & once war starts (presuming the Japanese still get stupid), the "penetration" cruiser might be among the first new designs laid down; in this bill, no.
I don't like it, but the more I think about it the more I find myself thinking that waiting for future bills is for the best, simply because of how much argument there's going to be about the desired characteristics of such a ship. In all honesty, these may end up being ordered in between the 1936 bill and the likely, even bigger 1940 bill.
I'm satisfied to use an existing design (tho IMO the
Simses are a bit small), so building could start right away. I'm more doubtful about the
rate of construction; how fast could slipways be added? Doubling the speed of construction shouldn't be a problem, & that might do it for the subs; I'd like to add ways at Groton, Portsmouth, & Mare Island, too (if not Manitowoc on top of that

).
The US had, at one point during the 1930s, 40 destroyers in various stages of construction. And those numbers only went up as the wartime programs kicked in, to the point that the US Navy ended up begging Congress to stop ordering destroyers, and this all on existing slips and with simultaneous mass DE construction. Slip numbers are not going to be a problem for destroyer construction, even without building new ones.
This does bring up a way to fit new designs into the jobs program: contract out some of the private shipyards for destroyer designs. The US Navy would howl, but Bethlehem Iron Works significantly modified the designs of the Bensons they were initially contracted to build, and by all accounts they worked just as well as their sisters. So the usual problems with private designs were at least lessened enough in destroyers to hopefully not be a problem.
I think it was '44-'45
The Omahas weren't counted and neither was Ranger, I think Wasp was
So time enough for two rounds of construction, then. In that case...
Naval Act of 1936:
Battleships: 8. These would be the core of a new Standard-type battle line, as the equivalent tactical characteristics of the OG Standard line were a huge advantage the US Navy keenly recognized. These will be armed with 16" guns, have a top speed around 27-28 knots. One will likely be a slightly enlarged 35,000-ton type, probably similar to the OTL South Dakotas, to make use of all the post-Washington design studies. The other will likely be a 45,000-ton type similar to the slower, twelve-gun designs that were part of the Iowa-class preliminaries.
Carriers: 4. Short-hull Essex type. Only four, as the US only expected to need a dozen carriers, and the target completion date for the Rainbow fleet was in 1944. More will have to wait until the 1940 bill.
Heavy cruisers: 4. Modified Wichita-type with twin 5"/38 and greater stability, probably via increased beam. Will likely work out to around 11,000 tons standard. May be modified for super-heavy 8" shells.
CL: 8. With the number of battleships ordered this is one place where Congress is likely to balk at spending a lot of money all at once. Either repeat St. Louis or OTL Cleveland. Fast offensive cruiser and/or AA cruiser would have to wait for a 1938 Naval Act.
DD: Pick a number. Some repeat Sims to start with, and then because destroyer construction being far more of a continuous ordering rather than the bursts associated with larger ships, oodles of Bensons.
Naval Act of 1938:
Battleships: 4. Fast type to complement new Standard line, counter the Kongo-class battlecruisers, and provide heavy carrier escort.
Carriers: none.
Heavy cruisers: none.
CL: 8. Four each of AA cruiser and fast attack cruiser.
DD: Pick a number. Extended run of Bensons.
Naval Act of 1940:
Battleships: 4. Last four of new Standard line. Likely Montana-type.
Carriers: 4+. Either long-hull Essex, or new, larger armored carrier. Some sort of light carrier design is also likely.
Heavy cruisers: 4+. Either Baltimore-type, or any one of a number of possible large cruisers (12 8", some variety of Alaska)
CL: 18+. Another four AA cruisers, either fourteen fast cruisers or a mix of fast cruisers and Cleveland type.
DD: Pick a number. Finally start building 2000+ ton destroyers.
Above numbers are likely to increase if and when war comes. Submarines I'll let you decide.