A HEARING ON (H. R. 13614) A BILL TO EQUALIZE THE PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF OFFICERS OF THE NAVY AND MARINE CORPS ON SEA DUTY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Fred A. Britten (chairman) presiding. LUKE STATEMENTS OF REAR ADMIRAL RICHARD H. LEIGH, CHIEF, BUREAU OF NAVIGATION, AND REAR ADMIRAL MCNAMEE, OFFICE OF NAVAL OPERATIONS The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order and we will take up the Hale bill, H. R. 13614, "To equalize the pay and allowances of officers of the Navy and Marine Corps on sea duty." Mr. VINSON. Is Mr. Hale present? The CHAIRMAN. I do not think Mr. Hale will be present this morning. Admiral Leigh and Admiral McNamee are present and will make statements on the bill. The bill reads as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That hereafter officers of the Navy and Marine Corps, without dependents, on sea duty shall receive the same pay and allowances as are paid to officers of the same rank and service with dependents. Before calling on either of these officers of the Navy to make statements, I would like to read an extract from a report which comes from a board of ranking officers of the Navy as late as September 12, 1928, or about two months ago. I quote this statement from their report: There is no relative merit of efficiency as between the married and unmarried officers, if their grade, length of service in grade, and duties performed are alike. Such being true, it necessarily follows that a corresponding equality in compensation should be allowed. To give to one officer performing arduous duties at sea or the hazardous duty incident to overseas expeditionary service an allowance solely because he is married and to deny it to another in like service, merely because he is unmarried, produces an injustice and dissatisfaction and results in the grant to many officers junior to the unmarried, performing less responsible duties, a higher compensation. This abnormality in that phase of service life where it is of the greatest moment that the highest efficiency obtain, viz, in the fleet and in its overseas expeditionary service, gives to this proposed enactment an especial importance. The board recommends that that inequality be stricken out. Admiral LEIGH. When this bill was introduced by Representative Hale on the 8th of May last, it was referred to the Navy Department. It was taken up with the Secretary of the Navy, and he considered it of so great importance that he ordered a board to consider it. Rear Admiral McNamee was the head of the board, which was made up of some ranking officers of the Navy. They were directed to consider this question, particularly in connection with the Hale bill. After hearing witnesses from all grades of the service and the different staff corps, the board made its report, and referring specifically to this bill they said that they recommended That the department give its immediate approval to this bill and that every effort be made to secure its early enactment into law, for it constitutes a definite move, not only toward the definite equalization of pay in cases of officers performing the same duties with the same responsibilities, but, also, gives emphasis to the fact that has profoundly impressed this board, namely, that the joint service pay act of 1922 is not adapted to conditions existing in the naval service. Based upon this recommendation and upon my knowledge of the conditions in the naval service, I strongly recommended to the Secretary that the department approve the bill, with a slight amendment, which I will discuss later. The department has informed the Director of the Bureau of the Budget that it contemplates recommending the enactment of the bill, and has requested information as to whether or not it is in conflict with the financial program of the President. This bill has not been returned from the Budget to the Navy Department, and therefore the Navy Department is not in a position to recommend it, and I, as Chief of the Bureau of Navigation, am not in a position to make a recommendation. I can only give you the facts in regard to the service conditions, and Admiral McNamee can give you a more detailed statement, but we can make no recommendations at the present time. The CHAIRMAN. Admiral Leigh, let me get clearly in my mind's eye, at least, the situation of this bill. The Secretary of the Navy, you say, has forwarded a copy of this bill to the Bureau of the Budget, with the statement that the department desires to recommend its passage to Congress. Admiral LEIGH. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And that the bill is still resting in the hands of the Bureau of the Budget. That is, it has not been returned to the department objected to or favored by the Bureau of the Budget. Admiral LEIGH. That is true. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, nothing has been done by the Bureau of the Budget up to the present time, or no report has been made upon the bill. Admiral LEIGH. That is true. Mr. MILLER. When was it submitted to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget? Admiral LEIGH. On November 20, 1928, it was sent to the Budget Bureau. The CHAIRMAN. Then, it was very recent. Admiral LEIGH. Yes, sir; it was sent over quite recently. The CHAIRMAN. Does any gentleman desire to ask Admiral Leigh any further questions about this particular phase of the bill? Have you finished with your general statement, Admiral? Admiral LEIGH. Yes, sir. I would like, however, to insert in the record the remainder of a prepared statement: In the endeavor to forestall the statutory expiration of certain allowances made to officers of the Navy during the war in partial compenstaion for the suddenly and greatly increased cost of living, the joint service pay act of June 10, 1922, was enacted. This act confined, within rigid limitations of standardization, six services, both military and quasimilitary, of widely varying conditions of service and responsibility. The result has been most unsatisfactory to the Navy, although it is admitted that its representatives shared in the preparation of the act. It is my hope, and that I believe of all naval officers that in the not too distant future a general act, whether for all six services or for the Navy alone, which in its terms will be more equitable and more suitable to the Navy will be enacted. In the meantime, however, this bill has been introduced and corrects one of the major faults, but not by any means all of these faults, in the application to the Navy of that act, a fault which is seriously destructive of the morale of the officer personnel of the Navy. Briefly this fault is the material reduction of the total of pay and allowances received by officers without legally defined dependents on sea duty as compared with their own pay and allowances on shore duty, and the still greater reduction when compared with the pay and allowances of officers of equal rank and service. The bill removes this fault by providing that officers without dependents on sea duty shall receive the same pay and allowances as those with the same rank and service with dependents. In explanation: The joint service pay act provides a certain actual pay for officers of varying grades and length of service and provides allowances in addition, called subsistence and rental allowances. All officers of whatsoever rank receive at least one subsistence allowance, $219 per year. For officers with de pendents, as defined by the law-that is, wife, a child or children, or a dependent mother-one additional subsistence allowance is granted in certain ranks and pay grades and two in others. All officers when on shore duty but not in Government quarters receive a rental allowance. For officers without dependents this varies according to rank and pay period from $480 to $960; for officers with dependents it varies from $480 to $1,440. When the officer without legally defined dependents proceeds to sea he automatically loses this allowance; the officer with legally defined dependents continues to receive it when on sea duty. This is the crux of the entire matter and the condition which this bill is designed to remedy, the fact that two officers of the same rank and of the same service and on the same ship and performing the same duties receive widely different rates of emoluments. In theory, if we are to accept the principles somewhat socialistic, though it may be that the Government is to care for the family of an officer, it may be presumed excellent in that the officer without legally defined dependents needs only one subsistence allowance and obviously does not need any rental allowance while he has a room, sometimes only a bunk, on a ship. In practice, however, as is often the case, the result does not bear up to theory: (a) The substantial reduction in the pay of officers proceeding to sea duty establishes in effect a reward for performing shore duty and a punishment for performing sea duty, the most responsible duty that falls to the lot of a commissioned officer of the Navy. (b) On board a ship or within the limits of a command of several ships not only officers of the same rank are receiving vastly different amounts (often as much as $1,878, or 38 per cent, more for one officer than another of the same rank and service) but in fact junior officers are receiving more than their seniors. For instance, on the Maryland, now conveying President-elect Hoover, the captain is third on the pay list, which is headed by a lieutenant commander doctor, two ranks below the captain, and the second on which is the executive officer, a commander, one rank below the captain. In the two light cruiser divisions the rear admirals in command of these divisions receive less than the captain and the executive officer of their respective flagships, and in the destroyer squadrons, Scouting Fleet, the rear admiral in command of the entire unit, 39 destroyers, 2 large tenders, and 1 light cruiser, is receiving less, by the vagaries of the pay law, not only than the captain and executive officer of the flagship but also less than two lieutenants on the Whitney, one of the tenders. These lieutenants are four grades in rank below the rear admiral. Such a condition of affairs is naturally subversive of discipline to some degree, because of the human valuation of a man in part by the salary he receives as well as the rank he enjoys. In fact, even the theoretical results are not obtained by this act, because an officer may not have the strictly limited legally defined dependents, but may have other righteous and deserving claims upon his support which are not recognized by the law, such as an invalid father or an orphaned young brother or sister. Practically every adult human being is to some degree financially responsible for the welfare of one or more others, and the legal definition of dependents is extremely difficult to accomplish and yet to preserve fairness to all. The amendment to which I have referred, and which is recommended by the board, is the inclusion of the words "or overseas expeditionary duty" after the words "sea duty," in order to cover the officers of the Navy and Marine Corps who are serving in such expeditions, as at present in Nicaragua and in China, and who by virtue of the Comptroller General's decision that "field duty," to which is also denied rental allowances, is duty in the fact of an actual or potential enemy. The comments of the board upon this bill are contained in paragraphs 70 to 79, inclusive, of its report: 70. This board was convened under the terms of its precept for a study in general of conditions existing in the commissioned and warrant personnel as affected by the present pay laws, and to make a specific report as to the effect upon the naval service of bill H. R. 13614, if enacted into law. 71. This proposed enactment (H. R. 13614) was introduced May 8, 1928, by Representative Fletcher Hale, of New Hampshire, and referred to the committee on Naval Affairs of the House for report. It has for its object to equalize the pay and allowances of the unmarried with those of the married officers, but is restricted by its terms solely to the service afloat. There, under existing law, the officer with dependents receives rental and subsistence allowances, while the officer without dependents does not. It proposes there to give to both the same allowances; that is to say, to the unmarried officer not what he would otherwise receive in his own right were he serving elsewhere, but the allowances that the married officer of like pay period receives at sea. 72. This bill is therefore intended partially to correct but one of the inequities of the joint service pay act of June 10, 1922. It meets, however, the situation where the discriminations or inequalities of existing laws are most acutely felt, viz, in the service afloat. There the circumstances of the daily life of the officers affected are such that the adverse conditions created are unduly aggravated. So large a number of the commissioned and warrant personnel serve afloat in the close contact incident to life aboard ship that the evil effects of existing pay laws have an importance that does not obtain elsewhere. 73. The bills fails to include within its terms corrective measures to meet like conditions existing in the cases of officers of the Navy and Marine Corps serving on overseas expeditionary duty. There, by reason of the hazard of life involved, that duty has become classed as “field duty," and like allowances are under the law to be forfeited by the unmarried officer. 74. There is no relative merit of efficiency as between the married and unmarried officers, if their grade, length of service in grade, and the duties performed are alike. Such being true, it necessarily follows that a corresponding equality in compensation should be allowed. To give to one officer performing arduous duties at sea or the hazardous duties incident to overseas expeditionary service an allowance solely because he is married, and to deny it to another in like service merely because he is unmarried, produces an injustice and dissatisfaction and results in the grant to many officers junior to the unmarried, performing less responsible duties, a higher compensation. This abnormality in that phase of service life where it is of the greatest moment that the highest efficiency obtain, viz, in the fleet and in its overseas expeditionary service, gives to this proposed enactment an especial importance. 75. The board, therefore, recommends that the department give its immediate approval to this bill, and that every effort be made to secure its early enactment into law, for it constitutes a definite move not only toward the equalization of pay in cases of officers performing the same duties with the same responsibilities, but also gives emphasis to the fact that has profoundly impressed this board, namely, that the joint service pay act of 1922 is not adapted to conditions existing in the naval service. 76. It is recommended, for these reasons, if practicable, that consideration be given to an amendment or change in its text so as to include "overseas expeditionary duty" as well as "sea duty" within its terms, in about the following phraseology: "Be it enacted, etc., That hereafter officers of the Navy and Marine Corps, without dependents, on sea duty or overseas expeditionary duty shall receive, the same pay and allowances as are paid to officers of the same rank and service with dependents." HALE BILL NOT AN ADVERSE INFLUENCE 77. In submitting this recommendation, the board complies with its instructions in the belief that the immediate enactment into law of the partial relief afforded by the Hale amendment, as amended, will not influence adversely or otherwise prejudice the orderly and thorough consideration of the complete remedy heretofore proposed by this board as vital fully to correct the anomalous conditions that now prevail throughout the naval service. 78. It should be added that the Hale bill should be enacted as an amendment to the joint service pay act of June 10, 1922, as amended May 31, 1924, in order to insure that "overseas expeditionary duty" may be exclusively defined in the presidential regulations authorized by the amendatory act of 1924. EXACT COST NOT DETERMINED 79. The board, in the time available, is unable accurately to determine the costs involved in the adoption of all of the foregoing measures. Computations have, however, been made to determine the cost of the Hale amendment, which would average approximately $748,250 per annum. It is estimated that the adoption of the proposed pay schedules of paragraphs 56 and 69 would not exceed 20 per cent of the existing cost for commissioned and warrant personnel, including the retired list. It should be noted that these schedules contemplate an approaching equalization of pay in grade within a short time much less than within the 20-year period contemplated by existing law-once equalized a uniformly lower annual appropriation will obtain with resultant savings. As just indicated, the cost of this bill with reference to the naval personnel is estimated as $748,250 per year. With regard to the Marine Corps, under normal peace conditions, without a large expeditionary force in the field, the additional cost would be approximately $15,000 per year, but at the present moment, because of the forces in Nicaragua and China, the cost for the Marine Corps will be approximately $100,000 per year. I would like to insert in the record notes as to the position in the pay roster of their commands of the admirals I have mentioned earlier and also a table showing the rates of pay received by officers with and without dependents when on sea duty throughout all ranks. 1. Instances below are shown of the pay of various officers now serving (October 1, 1928) in the same commands at sea, arranged in order of pay: Lieut. M. A. Thormahlen, U. S. S. Whitney__. 6, 357 ing Fleet, flagship Concord... Rear Admiral Frank H. Clark, commanding destroyer squadrons, Scout 6, 357 Capt. J. P. Lannon, commanding Concord.. 6, 219 Lieut. P. A. Caro (SC), paymaster.. Lieut. Commander E. M. Williams, navigator, Concord 6, 219 .5, 907 5,757 Light Cruiser Division 3 Capt. H. W. Osterhaus, commanding Richmond.. Commander H. E. Welte, executive officer, Richmond_ 7, 200 Lieut. H. G. Turner, watch officer... Lieut. David McWhorter, watch officer, Detroit. Rear Admiral G. C. Day, commander Light Cruiser Division 3, flagship 6, 997 6, 219 6, 057 Lieut. Commander K. R. R. Wallace, gunnery officer.. 5, 907 5, 757 Rear Admiral J. R. Y. Blakely, commander Light Cruiser Division 2, flagship Trenton..... 6, 997 6, 219 5, 907 5, 757 |