« PreviousContinue »
The White House,
Washington, December 22, 1943. The Honorable the SECRETARY OF THE Navy,
Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: In order to recruit and keep manpower in war plants, and thereby maintain and increase production for war, it is necessary that proper cafeterias, rest rooms, toilets, and locker facilities be provided wherever necessary and feasible. This is particularly essential now because of the necessity of increasing the number of women employees in our war industries.
I am informed that many war production plants are now badly in need of these facilities. As a consequence, much production is being lost by loss of time during working hours and through induced absenteeism.
Employment of an increasing number of women in war production makes it even more important that such adequate and proper in-plant facilities be installed
Therefore, in order to prevent unnecessary loss of man-hours and productive effort in our essential industries and to increase the employment of women, it is my desire that your agency make the necessary funds and materials available for such facilities as may appropriately be installed in the plants under your jurisdiction. Very sincerely yours,
FRANKLIN D. RoosEVELT
Washington, 27 December 1943.
Chief of Naval Operations.
Commandant, United States Coast Guard.
Department. 1. By enclosure (A), the President has directed attention to the need for proper feeding facilities, rest rooms, lockers, and toilets in plants under Navy jurisdiction.
2. Cognizant bureaus will continue to determine the necessity for, and the feasibility, of, the installation of appropriate employee facilities in accordance with production requirements. War Production Board clearance of facility requests will be obtained by bureaus through the Office of Procurement and Material.
3. It is management's prime responsibility to provide adequate employee facilities. Only when private management appears negligent or financially unable to provide such facilities to an extent that production is impeded does the Navy initiate recommendations of this nature.
4. Major factors in determining the necessity for the above-mentioned facilities will remain:
(a) The degree of essentiality of the plant's work and period of time such plants production is needed by the Navy.
(6) "Necessity," "appropriateness," or "feasibility of installation" of facilities will be based on the merits of each individual case.
(c) The effective utilization of manpower and materials. 5. Bureaus concerned will transmit this information to their field activities with any supplementary instructions considered necessary.
TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION UPON DISCHARGE FOR PHYSICAL DISABILITY OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL OF THE NAVAL SERVICE IN CASES WHERE DISABILITY IS SERVICE-CONNECTED BUT NOT THE RESULT OF OWN MISCONDUCT (H. R. 3543). MR. RIVERS.
Washington, February 19, 1944.
' Hon. CARL VINSON, Chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. My Dear Mr. CHAIRMAN: The bill (H. R. 3543) to provide compensation upon discharge for physical disability of enlisted personnel of the naval service in cases where disability is service-connected but not the result of own misconduct, was referred by your committee to the Navy Department with request for a report thereon.
The bill H. R. 3543 would provide a monthly payment of $50 by the Veterans' Administration to enlisted men of the naval service who are discharged under honorable conditions for physical disability incurred in line of duty.
The purpose of the bill is to make provision for the support of men discharged for physical disability after the date of their discharge and until such time as compensation payments from the Veterans' Administration actually commence.
There is a period between the date of a man's discharge for physical disability and the determination of his compensation status by the Veterans' Administration when the man is not entitled to and does not receive either pay or compensation.
The Navy Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, in view of (a) the administrative program inaugurated by the Veterans' Administration to facilitate the adjudication of pension claims of disabled military personnel (which is the general objective of the bill), (b) the desirability of centering all veterans' disability benefits in one responsible agency, and (c) the recent approval by the President of mustering-out pay legislation, the enactment of the bill H. R. 3543 should not be considered in accord with the program of the President. Respectfully,
HEARING ON S. 397 FOR THE RELIEF OF LT. (JR. GR.) SVEND J.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C., Wednesday, February 16, 1944. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a. m., the Honorable Michael J. Bradley presiding, for consideration of S. 397, which is as follows:
(S. 397, 78th Cong., 1st sess.)
AN ACT For the relief of Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Svend J. Skou
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congrese assembled, That the retired pay of Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Svend J. Skou, United States Navy, retired, shall be three-fourths of the highest pay of his grade: Provided, That no back pay or allowances shall be held to have accrued under the provisions of this Act prior to the date of its enactment.
Passed the Senate May 20, 1943.
EDWIN A. HALSEY, Secretary.
House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The bill (S. 397) for the relief of Lt. (Jr. Gr.) Svend J. Skou, was referred to the Navy Department by your committee with request for comment and recommendation.
The purpose of the bill S. 397 is to provide that the retired pay of Lt. (Jr. Gr.) Svend J. Skou, United States Navy, retired, shall be three-fourths of the highest pay of his grade.
The records of the Navy Department show that Chief Boatswain Svend J. Skou, United States Navy, retired, was retired on December 1, 1935, in accordance with the provision of the act of January 28, 1929, as amended by the act of April 23, 1930 (46 Stat. 253), having reached the statutory retirement age of 64 years. He was advanced to the rank of lieutenant (junior grade) on the same date, December 1, 1935, in accordance with the act of June 21, 1930 (46 Stat. 793).
At the time of his retirement, Lieutenant Skou had completed more than 42 years of active service, but he had only 15 years' commissioned service to his credit for the purpose of computation of active-duty pay. He received retired pay at the rate of 75 percent of the active-duty pay he was receiving at the time of retirement, which amounted to $2,250 per year. If he had retired voluntarily before reaching the age of 64 years, in accordance with the provisions of the act of May 13, 1908 (35 Stat. 128), he would have received retired pay at the rate of 75 percent of the highest pay of his grade, or $2,700 per year. He, therefore, receives less retired pay than other chief warrant officers with much less service who were retired on their own application.
In other words, because he continued to serve he is getting less money than if he had retired voluntarily.
As a general policy, the Navy Department does not consider that any officer should receive greater retired pay than three-fourths of his active-duty pay at the time of his retirement. In order to eliminate the discrimination noted above,
the Navy Department requested the legislation provided in S. 1529, Seventyseventh Congress, which bill passed the Senate on June 15, 1941, but failed to pass the House during that Congress.
In view of the fact that the Congress has recently enacted legislation to count all service, enlisted and commissioned, for pay purposes for practically all military and naval personnel (sec. 15, par. 4, of the Pay Act of 1942, approved June 16, 1942, Public Law 607), the Navy Department is of the opinion that a person who has completed 42 years' active service, which period has been characterized by efficiency, loyalty, and marked devotion to duty, should not receive less retired pay than other persons with much less service.
The bill, S. 397, if enacted into law, would involve an additional cost to the Government of $450, the difference between $2,250 and $2,700.
The Navy Department recommends enactment of the bill S. 397.
The Navy Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this recommendation. Sincerely yours,
Ralph A. BARD, Acting. I think that is a very good bill.
Mr. GRANT. I do, too, and I have a question I would like to ask the captain along that line. I have a bill pending which applies not only to the Navy, but to all branches of the service, and consequently it has been referred to the Military Affairs Committee, and it would have the effect of counting in some service for longevity that is not now counted in longevity. As I understand the law today the Reserve officer of many years standing who went to camp many years during the summertime intermittently while in civilian life, that all of that time counts in determining his longevity, does it not?
Captain HEDERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. GRANT. Is there any reason why you should not count the 4 years that a man spends at the Naval Academy?
Captain HEDERMAN. No, sir.
Mr. Bradley. Captain, can you tell me this, is there any provision of law at the present time working to the disadvantage of chief warrant officers with respect to longevity pay?
Captain HEDERMAN. Yes, sir. The present Pay Readjustment Act, as amended, does work against chief warrant officers, and H. R. 1506, which has passed the House and is now pending in the Senate, will take care of that.
Mr. BRADLEY. It will take care of the situation with respect to those officers on duty at the present time?
Captain HEDERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BRADLEY. Without objection, it will be reported favorably, and the clerk will draw up the report.
(Thereupon, at 12:20 p. m., the committee adjourned until Friday, February 18, 1944, at 10 a. m.)