ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

for his transfer from one job to another. The law might be stronger in regard to that.

Mr. MOSER. Then the whole responsibility for the determination lies with the administrator here?

Mr. RICE. No; I hold it is with the State administrators. I know from the contacts that I have made that if the State public-welfare agencies decide that a man's compensation should not be considered in determining his need for W. P. A. employment, the W. P. A. would not question it. In fact, they have done it in various States according to information that I have obtained from other of the States.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us not go further into that. That is something we cannot regulate in this case.

At this point I would like to insert in the record the letter I received from Carl Gardner, editor of the Army Magazine, in opposition to the provisions in H. R. 5101. The telegram is as follows:

Provisions in the bill H. R. 5101 which take civil-service preference from Regular veterans and their dependents are most distasteful. Our Army magazine strongly urges that this bill be not favorably considered by the committee as it will deny just one more benefit to the poorest paid Government employees whose service and sacrifice to the Nation during times other than war are just as valuable to the Nation. The Regular is still suffering from pay cuts imposed by the 1933 economy act and this bill is another thrust at his defenseless head as he cannot appeal to his Congressmen and Senators. There is no excuse for legislation of this nature and no justification whatsoever.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nieman, how much time do you want?

Mr. NIEMAN. Mr. Chairman, we have several representatives of the Regulars here.

The CHAIRMAN. How much time do you need?

Mr. NIEMAN. It will take me about 5 minutes and I believe our group can finish in about 15 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. We will hear you first, Mr. Nieman.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness will be Mr. J. E. Nieman, educational director of the Regular Veterans Association.

STATEMENT OF J. E. NIEMAN, EDUCATIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE REGULAR VETERANS ASSOCIATION

Mr. NIEMAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am J. E. Nieman, educational director, Regular Veterans Association, with national headquarters at 1115 Fifteenth Street NW., Washington, D. C.

I am directed by the national commander to make known to you the unalterable opposition of our association to the bill H. R. 5101 as it is now written and to submit reasons therefor. I am further directed by the national commander to make known to the committee the policy of the association pertaining to our appearances before congressional committees, which is to state facts, only facts, and adhere strictly to our convictions.

Webster's Universal (unabridged) Dictionary defines the adverb term "veteran" as: "Having been long exercised in anything; long practiced or experienced."

As a noun the term "veteran" is defined:

"1. One who has been long exercised in any service or art. One who has grown old in service or has had much experience.

"2. A soldier who, during the Civil War in the United States, reenlisted when his first term of enlistment had expired."

The terms "veteranize, veteranized, veteranizing" are defined: "To reenlist for service as a soldier."

Universal Graphic Dictionary defines the term "veteran" as "Long exercised or experienced especially in military life: (n) One thus experienced; one grown old in service; especially as a soldier who has seen much military service."

If the gentlemen will refer to page 1 of the bill starting on line 5, section 2 (a), they will find that they are being called upon to legislate against the Americans who have served in the Regular Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, who are now serving and who will hereafter serve therein in a time other than a war, campaign, or expedition.

Gentlemen, this bill is unknowingly a direct slap in the face, I am sure, to the Regulars and it is also, unpremeditatedly, I know, but nevertheless true, an attack on the morale of the personnel of the armed forces who are just as much Government employees as any person employed under civil-service appointment and drawing his pay from the United States Treasurer.

Let me elaborate a bit on the statement I have just made. I state that the bill is a direct slap in the face to Regulars. It is. Regulars must go where they are ordered. The service and sacrifices of Regulars are, without question, just as valuable to the Nation as the service and sacrifice of a war veteran. I think no one will take exception to this obvious fact. If a person who went into service during the World War, served a few days or weeks in a training camp, thousands of miles from the enemy, was then discharged and returned to his home and gainful pursuits is entitled to any preference whatsoever in any manner whatsoever, then every man that dons the uniform of the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard is likewise entitled, whether he served 10 days, or 10 months, or 10 years, and the same statement, gentlemen, stands for application to every part of section 2 of the bill, and to every other section thereof.

I stated that the bill was an attack on the morale of service personnel. It is nothing short of that, for there are now so many discriminations against Regulars that it is a marvel how their chins stay so high in the air, the only reason being that they are real Americans all the way through, are serving their country loyally, freely, and fully, giving of their health and life as the demand arises, and they feel, gentlemen, that the Seventy-sixth Congress is not going to let them down. Naming but a very few of these discriminations, we find the line-of-duty disabled Regular drawing a pension that is but 45 percent that paid war veterans for like disabilities, similarly incurred; we find the mother of a line-of-duty deceased war veteran, we find the men in service are drawing a pay, all allowances considered, that is less than half that which the Government pays its other employees on comparable pursuits; we find the enlisted men in the seventh grade in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard drawing $9 a month less than we pay our C. C. C. enrollees. As a matter of fact, the disabled Regular is not even entitled by law to an American flag for his casket.

Men in service are alive to these discriminations. They are watching the movements of the Seventy-sixth Congress, and their friends and relatives are watching. These Regulars are watching efforts of various groups to take from them. They are still suffering from the

effects of the so-called Economy Act which took their reenlistment allowance pay away from them, and these Regulars are a cross section of our Nation's employed.

R. V. A. realizes that there should be teeth put in the civil-service preference for "veterans." We are fully in accord with the need of such preference, for we are convinced that the best employees the Nation can have are those who have had military training, for these who have served under our flag have a bond and feeling for their Nation which others do not have. But we decry the selfishness, the thoughtlessness, the heartless efforts of various groups to take from the Regulars, and this bill, gentlemen, is criterion of such efforts.

R. V. A. has fought now for 2 years to point out to the groups interested in civil-service preference the utter futility of taking preference from the Regulars. It should be perfectly obvious to all that the first move is to take it from the Regulars and then set the age limit to where war veterans could not qualify. This move has been under consideration for some time and certainly no Congress is going to be so careless as to remove age limits of employability for the Government employees to where we would, or could have several hundred thousand ancients sitting at Government desks all over the Nation, for such would be the height of uneconomical management.

R. V. A. appeared 2 years ago before the Civil Service Commission in an effort to point out the value of service personnel in Government jobs. Our efforts were fruitless, as evidenced by the fact that they are still using the same worn argument that it is not just to the citizens of the Nation to have a young man who served a few months in the Army or Navy come out and have 5 percent preference in getting another job with Uncle Sam.

In the first place a man must serve at least 1 year before he can purchase his discharge. Discharge can only be purchased in the Army. Not the other services. He can be discharged as undesirable, minority, physical disabilities existing prior to enlistment. Very, very few are so discharged. The service undesirable should be in the same status with the Civil Service Commission. If a minor, he is not readily absorbed. If he has physical disabilities, then the Commission is fully protected; for they have well-defined limits to physical abilities— and use them very carefully--when it pertains to a "veteran" particularly. The number is very negligible, not even enough to warrant the "excuse" let alone sustain it.

[ocr errors]

R. V. A. strongly recommends that the entire bill be unanimously defeated by this committee or amended to where Regular "veterans' and their dependents shall be equally entitled to war, campaign, and expeditionary "veterans"; and we are perfectly frank in stating that we do not believe it fair to the citizens of the Nation to set an age limit that should be entirely within the province of the Civil Service Commission, for they are charged with the securing of efficient governmental employees. We approve of H. R. 5147, but we do not necessarily approve, or believe it fair to the citizens of the Nation, that the widow or wife of a "veteran," other than one disabled or deceased in line of duty, should be given any preference whatsoever or of advancing priority of any 5-percent veteran.

The present law of allowing 10 percent preference to line-of-duty disabled "veterans" or their wife in the event the "veteran" is not qualified and 5 percent to those who have served in the military or

naval establishments is a long-established law, and one that should be continued, for it is fair to the "veteran" and fair to the Nation's citizens.

Placing "teeth" in the present law is an approved solution to the problem-not changing the law or taking from any equally entitled by virtue of service as a "veteran" to give to the other.

In preparing our statement to the committee due consideration has been given to section 18 of the bill H. R. 5101 which is lauded as being "protection to Regulars in civil-service preference.”

This section is adding insult to injury to Regulars in lauding it as such. Note please that it provides "modification of existing laws to conform." It also provides, "and this Act shall not be construed to take away from any preference eligible any rights heretofore granted If the gentlemen will now refer to page 2, lines 14, 15, and 16, the import of the interpretation of section 18 will be fully grasped.

* *

* *

Section 19 further adds insult to injury as it provides, "It shall be the duty of the Civil Service Commission to make and enforce appropriate rules and regulations to carry into full effect the provisions, intent, and purpose of this act In other words, if the term "provisions" did not provide sufficient latitude then the Commission would be in position to interpret the intent and purpose of the bill.

Before closing I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Chief of Staff of the United States Army, the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation of the United States Navy, the Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, and the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard be requested to furnish their reactions as to the effect of H. R. 5101, or any bill for civil-service preference, which would take away anything from the Regulars.

It has been said before the committee today that the men in the service in what you might call the peacetime service, do not face hazards. I think by that statement it was meant that they did not face the great hazards that the World War veterans did. That is true to a great extent, but let us not pass over the fact that last year and the previous year there were 3,000 who were disabled that were added to the pension rolls, and there were over 500 who were killed and their dependents are now on the pension roll.

Gentlemen, I have been with R. V. A. since 4 months after its inception in 1934, and my earnest prayer is that R. V. A. will never appear before any congressional committee and ask for that which is unreasonable, unjust, or unfair to the Nation and its citizenry. R. V. A. implores you to defeat this bill in its entirety or amend it to where the Regular and his dependents have equal rights with the war veteran and his dependents.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Nieman.

Mr. MOSER. You used the term and phraseology that you were "watching the Seventy-sixth Congress." I take it that having served your country and the colors and flag that you would be just as patriotic as any of us. Now, do you want to let it stand as you have stated, that you are "watching the Seventy-sixth Congress," and put yourself in the position of the Workers Alliance and the Communist Party that they are watching it?

Mr. NIEMAN. I had no intention of inferring that.

Mr. MOSER. That being so, do you wish to delete that part of your statement?

Mr. NIEMAN. If that inference would be taken I certainly would want to delete it.

Mr. MOSER. I resent it, and I do not like it.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. If there are no questions, we will hear the next witness.

The next witness will be Mr. Lofgren.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES LOFGREN, NATIONAL SECRETARY OF THE FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION HEADQUARTERS, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Charles Lofgren, and I am national secretary of the Fleet Reserve Association Headquarters, Washington, D. C. The association which I represent is interested in the welfare of long service in the Navy and Marine Corps-enlisted men of the Regular Navy, Fleet Reserve, and retired.

My organization is opposed to the enactment of H. R. 5101, which is cited as "The Veterans' Preference Act of 1939," as now written. Under the terms of the bill proposed, all acts and parts thereof inconsistent with its provisions are modified. The effect of the new proposal will deny to Regular service veterans of the uniformed services, preference for employment in the Federal Civil Service. It preserves veterans' preference for appointment in the cases of war veterans and members of campaigns and expeditions for which a campaign badge has been or may be authorized.

I should like to point out that this is class legislation, which continues existing war veterans preference for appointment in the Federal civil service, but for the peacetime veterans it singles out only those enlisted men and officers who have served in the armed forces during time of peace, in campaigns or expeditions, for which a campaign badge has been or may be authorized.

My comments will be confined principally to the Naval Service, but they are equally applicable to the peacetime soldiers and sailors of the Army and Coast Guard.

The enlisted man has no choice as to the assignment of duty. He must go where ordered by his superior officers. If this bill were enacted as law, he would be fortunate should he perform duty that would entitle him to a campaign badge, the possession of which would grant him a five-point preference for appointment in the Federal civil service when he leaves the Navy.

Thousands of peacetime veterans are that unfortunate as not to be assigned to duty that might earn them a campaign medal. They carry out the orders of their superior officers, accept without grumbling the assignment which they draw, whether it be duty on the Asiatic station, on a battleship, submarine, destroyer, or surveying duty in the Caribbean Sea. Many of these assignments keep them away from the continental limits of the United States, and away from their families, for long periods at a time. Simply because they were not fortunate enough to participate in a campaign or an expedition, this group of loyal Navy peacetime veterans is singled out in the bill under consideration as not worthy of a 5-point veterans' preference, or if disabled in the line of duty, the 10-point disability preference.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »