Island continue to be unsatisfactory. The training station at Hampton Roads is still in urgent need of five new barracks buildings and a mess hall, to replace war-time frame buildings, expensive to maintain and heat. At San Diego a trade school building and auditorium are needed to complete that station. The housing situation at Annapolis for officers attached to the Naval Academy and to the Post-graduate School remains most unsatisfactory. Funds have been requested from those appropriated under the National Industrial Recovery Act for the building of ten 6-family apartment houses which would relieve the situation. A decision to

retain the Fleet Submarine Base at Coco Solo has necessitated the continuation of the housing program which will provide additional quarters for 20 married officers, and six 4-family apartment houses for chief petty officers at the air station and 8 sets of quarters for chief petty officers at the submarine base.

Barracks are badly needed at Pearl Harbor for men attached to the navy yard, and some additional officers' quarters. At the fleet air base, barracks, mess hall, and officers' quarters are all desirable and are included in the shore development program.

HOUSING CONDITIONS AT ANNAPOLIS

Mr. AYRES. Referring to the housing situation at Annapolis, I read recently that is it planned, if the Coast Guard be turned over to the Navy, to use the Coast Guard. Academy at New London as a post-graduate school. If that be correct, it seems to me you might need to withdraw or modify your request for N.R.A. funds.

1

Admiral LEAHY. I have not seen the Coast Guard Academy at New London. I am informed that it would provide adequate and very excellent facilities for the post-graduate school if it should be made available for that use. The housing situation at Annapolis is sufficiently serious to warrant, the construction of additional quarters for officers on duty at the Naval Academy, even if the post-graduate school were moved elsewhere.

1

Mr. AYRES. I suppose that is true. It seems to me that Annapolis during all these years has failed to appreciate what it had there. When I say "Annapolis", I mean the officials, or, rather, the leading citizens of that city or possibly both. I do not know what the remedy is. The matter has been up time and again before this committee that is, the way in which officers have been treated there, including students of the post-graduate school. I happen to know personally how students taking post-graduate courses have absolutely been held up in the rents charged.

Admiral LEAHY. That has been corrected insofar as it appeared possible to do it by administrative action on the part of the naval authorities at Annapolis, tip de l

Mr. HART. I do not know whether the statement is correct or not, but I was told this summer that the city of Annapolis had an ordinance prohibiting the use of elevators in buildings there. The statement was that that ordinance was put through for the purpose of keeping capital from building large apartments there! I am told that they have an ordinance of that kind. 284

Admiral LEAHY. I am not informed as to that. Admiral Hart will be able to tell you about that when he appears.ft on top floor ma

Mr. HART. I was told that by an officer who was returning from Annapolis. He was a student from the postgraduate school, or something of that kind. He said there was an ordinance prohibiting the ase of elevators in buildings, and that that was for the purpose of preventing large apartment houses there. Apartment houses would naturally put out of business some of those old shacks in which the people are now compelled to live. It would be an effort to stop modernization, and if that is the situation, it is a terrible one.

EFFECT OF ECONOMY ACT ON PAY OF THE NAVY

Admiral LEAHY. The pay of the Navy continues to be affected by the 15 percent reduction that is applied to all Government services and that may, in view of increased prices, be corrected in part or in total by administrative action of the President at the beginning of a new calendar year.

In addition to this generally applied reduction of 15 percent which Las been cheerfully accepted as a proper and equitable contribution to an effort to balance the national Budget, the Navy is subjected to 1.rther and serious reductions in pay because of the application of section 201 of the Economy Act.

Provisions of the Economy Act are of a temporary nature, and nless renewed by affirmative congressional action will cease to be flective as of July 1, 1934. I propose, however, to inform the comattee in regard to some of the inequities in the application of the Economy Act as applied to naval personnel with the hope that they ay be corrected in case Congress should pass another Economy

Act.

Section 201 has been interpreted to prevent any increase of pay pon promotion to advanced ranks and new duties as well as any acrease of pay for length of service.

Mr. AYRES. That is not wholly true, Admiral, is it? Take our friend Admiral Land, for example: He is a permanent captain in his rade. As chief constructor with the rank of rear admiral, is he not drawing the pay and allowances of a rear admiral of the upper half?/

BURDEN OF ECONOMY UPON OFFICERS OF CERTAIN NAVAL ACADEMY

Admiral LEAHY. That is correct, but that is neither a promotion increase for length of service. It is a new appointment made by he President, and it is in no sense a promotion or increase in pay for ength of service.

A greater part of the burden of this economy is, at the present time, ne by officers of the Naval Academy classes of 1913, 1914, 1919,

24, and 1930, and by staff officers in a comparable pay status. The

amber of these officers of the line is 677, and of the staff 38, a total

of 715 officers.

Mr. AYRES, Why those particular classes?, to

*』

Admiral LEAHY. The reason is that those particular classes have ce July 1 last reached a point in their careers where they are due me goes on, if the Economy Act continues to be effective, other promotion and increased pay on account of length of service. As

asses will get into this position and will fail to receive their promo

tions or increased pay for length of service, and, as you know, the pay of the officer personnel of the Navy is based almost entirely on length of service and not on promotion,

Mr. HART. The only way to correct that would be to strike out the law entirely.

Admiral LEAHY. In my opinion, the Economy Act was not directed against the military services. The provisions in the Economy Act, the purpose of which was to economize in expenditures for the Government service, were intended to prevent promotions generally in the civil establishment, and to prevent automatic increases in pay.

Now in the Navy we do not consider that there are any automatic increases of pay. In the civil establishment if employees are moved from one position to another in a higher grade they are paid the salary of the higher grade. I understand it is considered a rerating and appointment rather than a promotion. As a matter of fact, in some cases, since the Economy Act was passed, civil employees have been given new positions with higher rates of pay, and that has not been considered a promotion. I presume they are reappointed. That is impossible in the Navy. In the Navy, the pay is based mainly on length of service, and the rank of the officer may have little or nothing to do with the amount of pay received. We have officers in the Navy of the grade of lieutenant commander drawing more pay than a rear admiral in the Navy. That is because they have been in the Navy long enough to get that pay. Therefore, it is not the position or the responsibility on which pay is based, but it is based on length of service. When a law is passed preventing an officer in the the military service from having his pay increased for length of service, it has the effect of making it impossible to ever increase his pay. Such a law is not properly applicable to the military service. In order to correct it, it will be necessary to exempt the military service from that provision of the law which prohibits increase of pay for promotions or for length of service, or else to have an entirely new pay system.

EQUITABLE BASIS OF REDUCTION AS CONTRASTED WITH PRESENT MANNER!

い

Mr. HART. What would you suggest as an equitable way to reduce pay in the military service? Have you some plan in mind that would be equitable?

Admiral LEAHY. If it is necessary for the Government to economize on the pay of officers in the military service, I would suggest that they make a flat percentage reduction of the pay, using whatever percentage. is necessary.

I Mr. Swick. Was not that the intention of Congress when they made this 15 percent reduction?

when

Admiral LEAHY, That appears to have been the intention of Congress, and the Navy has no objection to that. The Navy is quite prepared and pleased to carry its share of the burden; but some individuals in the service are losing 40 percent of their pay, while others are losing only 15 percent, there is an inequality of distribution that should not exist.

Mr. Swick. Of course, I am not speaking for Congress but for myself, and I know it was my thought when I voted for the economy

measure that it would effect a 15 percent reduction of every individual's salary. Admiral LEAHY. It has been interpreted to be entirely different from that.

Mr. AYRES. Your illustration a few moments ago of the different treatment accorded a civil employee and a man in the military service. pon promotion is very interesting. You say that a man in the civil stablishment, given a new position, may be given an advance of pay, while an officer, upon advance of rank and the assumption of new duties incident thereto, continues at the same pay he was receiving before the change.

Admiral LEAHY. I understand that to be the case.

Mr. AYRES. If a lieutenant in the Navy, for example, should be promoted to the rank of lieutenant commander, he would still draw a Beutenant's pay?

Admiral LEAHY. That is correct.

Mr. HART. Under the pay bill, if you promote a lieutenant commander to the rank of commander, would he draw the same pay? Admiral LEAHY. No, sir; not exactly the same pay. There is a small increase regardless of length of service.

Mr. HART. The increase is for length of service and not for pro

otion?

PROMOTED NAVAL OFFICERS NOT ENTITLED TO INCREASED PAY

Admiral LEAHY. There would be a small increase with the promotion.

As an illustration of the adverse effects on naval personnel of the application of the provisions of the Economy Act, it seems proper to vite attention to a decision of the Comptroller General that officers f the Army or Marine Corps appointed to general rank are entitled to pay for the new rank, but that officers of the Navy promoted to qual rank are not entitled to any increase of pay.

Mr. AYRES. Briefly, what reason was assigned for such discrimi

Lation?

Admiral LEAHY. I am told that the reason given is that the general cers of the Army and Marine Corps are appointed, and that flag ers of the Navy are promoted.

Mr. AYRES. That gives a military officer the same advantage that civil employee has over a naval officer, that you spoke of a few ments ago. In other words, Army and Marine officers are being rated like persons in the civil establishment. It savors of a distincn without a difference.

Admiral LEAHY. That applies only to the general rank in the Army nd Marine Corps, as I understand it, and not to promotions in the wer grades.

Mr. SwICK. How many officers would that affect?

Admiral LEAHY. In the Navy, eventually, 55, as time passes, or all the flag officers that are promoted after the first of last July. re would be 55 flag officers in the Navy.

Fourteen flag officers of the lower half have attained that rank Sare the enactment of the economy bill. Their advancements have a considered as promotions and they have been denied any increase n pay.

Some officers of the Navy recently promoted from the rank of lieutenant to new duties and responsibilities as lieutenant commanders, who would normally receive an increase of $1,830 per annum upon promotion to this new office, are permitted no increase.

It is my understanding that officials of the nonmilitary departments of the Government do receive the pay of their new office when promoted or "appointed" to perform more important duties. It does not seem possible that Congress intended any such discrimination against the Navy.

Mr. AYRES. I am inclined to agree with you, Admiral; certainly so, when the promotion carries with it new duties and responsibilities. Admiral LEAHY. The Chief of Bureau of Navigation, last year, pointed out that pay of the Government services since 1908 has been increased by the following stated percentages, which shows that the Army and Navy are the only services that have not received a substantial increase over the 1908 schedule, and shows further that they now receive substantially less than they did receive under the 1908 schedule of pay:

1

1914

Percent

175

153

145

111

92

87

62

33%

25

11

EFFECT OF PAY REDUCTION UPON MORALE OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL

Enlisted men of the Navy, as was to be expected have accepted the 15 percent reduction of pay as necessary and without much complaint. In the lower pay grades, however, the lowest of which was $21, per month, now reduced to $17.85, the reduction has resulted in serious deprivation to the men and to their dependent families.

Cancelation of the reenlistment allowance which was, in the opinion of the men concerned, at least an implied agreement on the part of the Government, is unfortunate in its effect on the enlisted personnel. This provision, depriving enlisted men of the reenlistment gratuity, is section 18 of the act of March 3, 1933, (Post Office-Treasury bill) and expires on June 30, 1934. However, the estimates for the pay of the Navy as submitted to Congress for 1935 carry no provision for the payment of reenlistment gratuities. The amount involved is $2,442,150.

In view of the certainly adverse effect on the morale of the Navy of discriminatory application of measures designed to balance the National Budget, and in view of a certain personal conviction that the Congress did not intend that the Navy should assume any more than