Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The language of the present law limits the use of clerks and this limitation is not satisfactory. The change will make it possible for adjutants general of the several States, who hire and fire these clerks, to tell the clerks what to do so long as they are actually working on administration of the National Guard.

Section 2: The change in this section is the addition of a paragraph to section 92, National Defense Act, authorizing any air flight ordered by competent authority and performed by an appropriately rated Air Corps officer or enlisted man of the National Guard to be credited for the same purpose and to the same extent as attendance at drill. Section 3: Section 109, National Defense Act, is changed in this section so as to direct that pay authorized for officers of the National Guard not belonging to organizations, heretofore computed on a time basis, shall be authorized and computed upon a drill-unit basis or other period of appropriate duty or equivalent period of training. The present law with respect to armory-drill pay is unfair to a large group of National Guard officers. Last winter when the President ordered extra drills many officers actually drilled but could not receive pay. The present language is designed to correct this condition and pay officers on the basis of the drills performed.

Section 4: By this section a paragraph is added to section 3618, Revised Statutes, which statute relates to proceeds of sale of material, authorizing the sale of stable refuse and empty grain sacks and containers at public or private sale and apply the proceeds to the purchase of feed, stable equipment, and so forth.

Section 5: The act of July 15, 1939, is repealed and reenacted in new language. The act of July 15, 1939, authorized hospitalization and medical care of members of the National Guard. The new language authorizes surgical treatment and domiciliary care so long as any or all are necessary of persons who suffer injury or contract disease in the active military service or on active duty, or in training under sections 92, 94, 97, 99, and 113 of the National Defense Act. A provision is also added to the original act that the act shall not include those individuals who are on an armory-drill status, except officers, warrant officers, and enlisted men of the National Guard who suffer personal injury (as distinguished from disease) when participating in aerial flights prescribed under the provisions of section. 92 of the National Defense Act.

The War Department has estimated that the additional direct charge upon appropriations in the fiscal year 1941 which would result from the enactment of this measure would be approximately $242,000. In considering this bill careful consideration has been given to the War Department report and as the bill now reads it is in accordance with the statements of the Department.

War Department letter follows:

Hon. MORRIS SHEPPARD,

Chairman, Committee on Military Affairs,

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, May 14, 1940.

United States Senate.

DEAR SENATOR SHEPPARD: Following is the report which you have requested on S. 3619, a bill relating to changes in the administration of the National Guard of the United States bearing on Federal recognition, pay, allotment of funds, drill, training, and so forth.

The language of the bill makes no reference to "Federal recognition," consequently it is suggested that these words be eliminated from the title of the bill.

Section 1 of the bill reenacts section 90 of the National Defense Act with certain changes. The language of paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the proposed new section 90 is identical with the language of present law except that the word "unit," in lines 1, 3, and 4, and "units," in lines 6 and 17 of page 2 of the bill are substituted for the words "organization," and "organizations," respectively. The statutory limitations of existing law on the number of caretakers that may be employed is omitted, leaving the determination to the Secretary of War. The War Department would have no objection to the latter change. The War Department is opposed to the other changes stated above. The words "organization" and 'organizations" have been in the present law for 20 years. No reason is known why these terms should be changed as they are proposed to be changed. The change might have far-reaching effects not contemplated and which cannot be estimated without an extensive search of past rulings of the Department and the General Accounting Office. It is therefore recommended that if the bill is favorably considered the word "unit" in lines 1, 3, and 4 of page 2, and the word "units" in lines 6 and 17 of the same page be deleted, and the words "organization" and "organizations" be substituted therefor.

Paragraph 4 of the proposed new section 90 (lines 21 to 25, both inclusive, of page 2 of the bill), should be omitted. This validating provision, referring to the employment of caretakers in pools, was enacted June 19, 1925, as part of an amendment to the National Defense Act. It has accomplished its purpose and is no longer necessary. Furthermore, this paragraph, omitting as it does all reference to the Secretary of War, is not in consonance with the language contained in lines 20 to 25 (both inclusive), page 3, and lines 1 to 6 (both inclusive), page 4, which specifically fixes responsibility for validation on the Secretary of War.

There would be no objection to paragraph 5 of the proposed new section 90, providing it be amended in line 6, page 3, by insertion of the words "such common" immediately preceding the word "pool" so that the phrase will read: "and one such officer not above the grade of captain for each such common pool may be employed."

The language of lines 10 to 16 (both inclusive), page 3, of the bill is not contained in existing law. It is designed to authorizè funds appropriated for the National Guard to be used to supplement non-Federal funds for the use of caretakers and clerks. The Department would have no objection to this paragraph. The first proviso of paragraph 6 of the proposed new section 90 (lines 17 to 20, p. 3), is the same as contained in present law except for the addition of the words "and clerks," in line 18. There would be no objection to this change. The War Department, however, is opposed to the second proviso, beginning in line 20 of page 3. That proviso in effect transfers from the General Accounting Office to the Secretary of War the important duty of determining whether or not appropriations from which disbursements have been made were available for such disbursements and it authorizes the Secretary of War, even though such funds may not have been legally available, to validate all or any part of such disbursements in such amounts as he may determine have been actually expended in the administration, supply, maintenance, and training of the National Guard. Such transfer of functions seems to be in conflict with Presidential and congressional policies respecting the reorganization of Government departments and agencies, and is not favored by the Department. However, should the proviso be favorably considered by the committee it is recommended that the language be amended in line 21 by inserting immediately after the word "made" the words "for said caretakers and clerks." As now written, the proviso is so all inclusive in its terms that the Secretary of War would have to examine into all disbursements heretofore made in the administration, supply, maintenance, and training of the National Guard, if such disbursements have been or are in the future disallowed. The War Department is not prepared to carry out any such task.

Section 2 of the bill reenacts section 92 of the National Defense Act, as amended (with exception noted following), and adds two provisos beginning in line 22 of page 5 of the bill. In line 19 of page 5, the word "such" should be inserted immediately following the word "each." The italicized word appears in section 92, as now written, and is necessary in order to specifically refer to the definition of "assembly for drill and instruction" contained in the first proviso of section 92 as proposed for reenactment. The War Department recommends elimination of the last proviso of section 2 of the bill, beginning in line 10 of page 6. Regardless of the legality of the proposal, it is not considered desirable to authorize two drills in any one calendar day. Most National Guard units hold non-commissionedofficer and specialist schools, in addition to their regular drill, on the same night, and could not double this instruction should two drills be held. Furthermore,

the 12-hour period is intended by the National Defense Act to be a minimum, and permitting two such drills to be scheduled in a single calendar day would, in fact, make this present minimum become also the maximum. The holding of two drills on one night would result in material lowering of the efficiency of the instruction, and would give the Government far less return for the money expended than it now gets under the present system.

Section 3 of the bill repeals and reenacts section 109 of the National Defense Act, as amended. The essential change in the language is contained in the first proviso and the sentence immediately following (lines 4 to 11, p. 7 of the bill). The purpose of the revision is to provide uniform pay for each commissioned grade, including grades above captain, regardless of whether the officer attends drill as a member of an organization or as a staff officer, or performs other appropriate duties. Officers would be entitled to receive drill pay for satisfactory performance of appropriate duties, in addition to compensation for attendance at field or coast-defense instruction or maneuvers. The effect of the proposed legislation, on the basis of 48 drills or authorized periods of instruction per year, would be to increase slightly the pay of colonels. On the basis of 60 drills per year the increase in annual compensation would be as follows: For colonels, $166; for lieutenant colonels, $83; for majors, none. Captains, first lieutenants, and second lieutenants of the staff would receive increases of $80, $67, and $50, respectively. No increase would be provided for warrant officers. Officers above the grade of captain would, in addition, receive an increase in compensation due to removal of the present deduction for the pay received while undergoing field training. It is estimated that the increased costs in the fiscal year 1941 would approximate $242,000, based on 60 drills a year. The Bureau of the Budget advises that enactment of this section would not be in accord with the financial program of the President. The Department, therefore, does not recommend favorable consideration of this proposed legislation.

Section 4 of the bill would repeal section 3 of the act of May 28, 1928, which authorizes the appropriation annually of not to exceed $7,500 for specified incidental expenditures of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice. This section is not related to the general purposes of the bill. The War Department is opposed to repealing the existing authorization.

Section 5 of the bill amends section 3618, Revised Statutes, by adding language authorizing commanding officers of mounted units of the National Guard, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War, to sell stable refuse and apply the funds thus derived for the purchase of feed and specified equipment. The War Department would have no objection to enactment of this section of the bill. It is recommended that section 6 be eliminated from the bill in view of the fact that, upon request of the War Department, bills have been introduced in the Congress, which, with minor exception, are identical with section 6 in language. Section 7 of the bill would, in effect, obligate the Government to pay for the medical and surgical care and treatment, in civilian hospitals, of members of the National Guard who require such medical or surgical care or treatment while engaged in any form of training, including drills authorized by law for the National Guard. The act of June 15, 1936 (49 Stat. 1507), as amended by the act of July 15, 1939, provides a means whereby commanding officers may legally expend Government funds in emergencies to preserve the health of military personnel in active service without having a necessary expenditure disallowed later if the injury or disease which required medical attention should be found to have been incurred not in line of duty. Provisions of section 7 of the proposed bill would broaden the existing law beyond any reasonable requirement, and it is believed might result in abuse, as well as many administrative difficulties. For this reason the War Department is opposed to the provisions of this section. However, there would be no objection to amending the act of June 15, 1936, so as to permit expenditure of Government funds under the conditions described in that act, as amended by the act of July 15, 1939, for the hospitalization and medical treatment of a member of the National Guard engaged in training other than armory drill, target practice at home stations, and similar instruction.

This report covers only the essential features of the proposed legislation. In view of the many details involved it is requested, in event hearings are held by the committee, that the War Department be afforded opportunity to present in greater detail the views and suggestions of the Department relative to the measure.

It is estimated that the additional direct charge upon appropriations in the fiscal year 1941, which would result from enactment of the bill, would be approximately $242,000.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there would be no objection to submitting this report to the committee.

Sincerely yours,

HARRY H. WOODRING,

Secretary of War.

The statements of the Comptroller General contained in the following report were also carefully considered and some of his changes were accepted:

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, May 28, 1940.

Hon. MORRIS SHEPPARD,
Chairman, Committee on Military Affairs,

United States Senate.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Further reference is made to your letter of May 18, 1940, with enclosure, as follows:

"Under date of May 4, 1940, you furnished the Senate Committee on Military Affairs a detailed analysis of S. 3494 relating to changes in the administration of the National Guard of the United States bearing on Federal recognition, pay, allotment of funds, drill, training, etc.

"After the introduction of S. 3494, I introduced S. 3619 on the same subject. The latter bill has been revised, and I enclose herewith a committee print. Inasmuch as this revision of the measure, in the committee print, is materially different from S. 3494, I shall appreciate it if you will furnish the committee a further report, in the light of the provisions of S. 3619 revised.

"The committee would like to take action on the measure in the near future." At the present time the first paragraph of section 90 of the National Defense Act, as amended (32 U. S. C. 42), limits the number of caretakers authorized to be employed by any one organization of the National Guard to 5, except as to heavier-than-air squadrons for whom a maximum of 13 each is authorized. The first paragraph of section 90 as contained in section 1 of the revised S. 3619 eliminates these limitations upon the maximum number of caretakers who may be employed in such organizations and would permit such employment in unlimited numbers under such regulations as the Secretary of War may prescribe. The fifth paragraph of section 90 as contained in section 1 of revised S. 3619 will make available funds appropriated under the provisions of the National Defense Act, as amended, and as supplemented by State funds, for the employment of clerks. Existing law now provides that caretakers of the National Guard may perform clerical duties. See the act of June 25, 1938 (52 Stat. 1173, 32 U. S. C. 42 a), which provides as follows:

"That moneys hereafter appropriated under the provisions of the National Defense Act, as amended, for compensation of help for care of material, animals, armament, and equipment in the hands of the National Guard of the several States, Territories, and the District of Columbia shall be available for the hire of caretakers who may also perform clerical duties incidental to their employment, and such moneys may be used as supplemental to money appropriated by the several States, Territories, and the District of Columbia for the support of the National Guard; Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the utilization of the services of such caretakers on duties other than those indicated above, if such additional services do not interfere with the complete performance of the duties for which they are employed under the provisions of this Act: Provided further, That payments heretofore made for said help which now stand disallowed or would hereafter be disallowed but for this Act are hereby ratified and validated as to the bisbursing officers making the same in such amounts only as are approved by the Secretary of War, whose determination shall be final and conclusive, and the Comptroller General of the United States is hereby directed to allow credit in the accounts of said disbursing officers for and on account of such payments in said amounts: And provided further, That nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the collection from the personnel concerned of any amounts determined by the Secretary of War to be due the United States." [Italics supplied.]

In addition to the above provision of law the Congress in the military appropriation act for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1939, appropriated $210,000 for the compensation of employees engaged upon Federal property and custodial work in the offices of United States property and disbursing officers. It is understood, also, to be the universal practice to have an enlisted man, usually a noncommissioned officer, of each National Guard organization to act as clerk,

S. Repts., 76-3, vol. 3- 48

and in addition the Congress has provided by section 109 of the National Defense Act for payment to the various commanding officers approximately $20 per month for performing the incidental paper work in connection with his organization. Therefore, I am unable to understand why any further provision is necessary for clerk hire. It is my opinion that the fifth paragraph of section 90 as

contained in section 1 of the revised S. 3619 could be eliminated without doing any violence whatever to the effective and proper care and maintenance of National Guard property and equipment.

The purpose of section 92 of the National Defense Act, as amended, as contained in section 2 of revised S. 3619 appears to be strictly a military matter and this office has no comments to offer with respect thereto.

One of the effects of section 3 of revised S. 3619 is to amend section 109 of the National Defense Act, as amended, in order that the pay authorized for officers not belonging to organizations, heretofore computed on a time basis, shall be authorized and computed upon a drill unit basis or other period of appropriate duty or equivalent period of training, and in some respects it follows the language and probable purpose of section 313 of the Naval Reserve Act of 1939 (52 Stat. 1184), which also provides for pay at the rate of one-thirtieth of the monthly base pay of the respective grade of the officer for each such drill or other period of training duty or instruction. In the Naval Reserve Act, however, it is noted that a maximum of $10 is authorized for attendance at any one drill or period of equivalent instruction or duty. Under section 109 of the National Defense Act the maximum pay of officers of the National Guard above the grade of captain not belonging to organizations is $500 per annum. On the basis of 60 drills or periods of appropriate duty or other equivalent period of training, the annual drill pay to which a colonel would become entitled, based upon one-thirtieth of the monthly base pay per drill, would amount to $666.66; that of a lieutenant colonel would be $582.34 and that of a major $500 per annum. The old and proposed new maximum yearly drill pay under section 3 of S. 3619, as revised, would be as follows for officers below the grade of major not belonging to companies, that is, staff officers:

Captain, per annum..

First lieutenant, per annum.
Second lieutenant, per annum.

Old

$320.00
266. 88
200.00

New

$400.00 333.34 250.00

It is believed desirable that the language contained in lines 19 to 21, page 7 of the bill, namely, "and that nothing in this Act shall operate to reduce the present pay of majors and lieutenant colonels" should be omitted as in the opinion of this office it will merely tend toward confusion for the reason that since payments heretofore made upon a time basis to majors and lieutenant colonels was fixed only as to the maximum authorized to be paid, it could be and was in many instances less than the maximum whenever such officers failed to perform sufficient appropriate duties to entitle them to the maximum, and the same would be true with reference to payment to these same officers if paid upon a drill-pay basis as provided in section 109 of the National Defense Act as amended by section 3 of S. 3619. That is to say, if a major under section 3 is required to perform 60 drills or other periods of duty in order to be entitled to $500 per annum, it is clear that should he perform less than the maximum drills fixed therein it reasonably could not be contended that he was still entitled to the maximum pay provided under the former section 109.

The revised proposed amendment of section 109 contains in lines 17, 18, 19, 22, and 23, page 7, the following language:

* * * Provided, That such pay shall be in addition to compensation for attendance at field- or coast-defense instruction or maneuvers, *

[blocks in formation]

*

*

in addition to compensation for attendance at field- or coast-defense instruction or maneuvers,

*

*

In line 11 on page 8, there is a change from existing law by the introduction of the qualifying clause "Except as otherwise herein provided." As pay and allowances of the grade of a National Guard officer are paid for performance of the duties of his grade while attending field- or coast-defense instruction or maneuvers, as provided under section 94 of the National Defense Act, the language in lines 17, 18, 19, 22, and 23, page 7, is entirely useless unless it is intended

« AnteriorContinuar »