Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

County, N. Y., for Buffalo as the location for the new hospital recommended for western New York; an increase of $345,000 in the special fund; and the elimination of any reference to the number of beds to be acquired at each project. The program approved by the committee is as follows:

Hospital construction program approved by World War Veterans' Committee, House of Representatives, February 10, 1931

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

1 Special fund designated to cover: Alexandria, La., laundry; Atlanta, Ga., duplex quarters; Oteen, N. C., personnel quarters, steam distribution plant, boiler plant, laundry; Hines, Ill., recreation building; Walla Walla, Wash., new kitchen and mess hall; Hartford, Conn., recreation building, duplex quarters; Fargo, N. Dak., administration building; Dwight, Ill., personnel quarters, laundry, etc.; Sunmount, N. Y., nurses' quarters; Indiana, nurses' quarters.

NOTE. Probably the $1,000.000 special fund will have to be supplemented by fiscal funds from regular appropriations, as it is thought that General Hines's original suggestion of $655,000 would have to be so supplemented to accomplish the first 7 items above (his list).

In recommending the changes above noted the committee was influenced by the following factors: The additional building at Canandaigua was eliminated for the reason that the hospital authorized at that location by the act of December 23, 1929, has not yet been placed under contract, and there were other sections of the country that appeared to be in more urgent need of additional beds at this time. New hospitals of the general medical and surgical type were recommended for Vermont and South Dakota because of the comparatively great distance now traveled by patients residing in the populous areas thereof to reach Government facilities of the type mentioned and in order that the regional office of these States, both of which are in leased buildings, might be consolidated with the hospital activities. The railroad distance from the regional office at Burlington, Vt., to the naval hospital at Portsmouth, N. H., is 218.7 miles and from Sioux Falls, S. Dak., to the Veterans' hospital at Fort Snelling, Minn., 246.3 miles. A new hospital was recommended for Cincinnati, Ohio, in order that the diagnostic center and regional office of the Veterans' Bureau at that location, both of which are in

leased facilities, might be consolidated and located in a Government building. A new hospital was recommended for Arkansas in order that facilities of the general medical and surgical type under the control of the Veterans' Administration might be available in that State and the regional office now in leased quarters at Little Rock might be transferred thereto. While it is true that the Army is operating a general hospital at Hot Springs within that State, the demands upon that institution are far beyond its capacity. The additions to existing hospitals at Tuscaloosa, Ala., and Gulfport, Miss., are recommended because of the large military population served by these hospitals and the fact that their present size is apparently inadequate to meet the normal demand of such areas.

The substitution of Chautauqua County, N. Y., for Buffalo as the location of the new hospital recommended for western New York was considered advisable by reason of the fact that the Public Health Service is planning to erect 100 additional beds at the marine hospital at Buffalo. The special fund recommended by the administrator was increased from $655,000 to $1,000,000, because it appeared evident that the new construction considered necessary to round out existing hospitals to make them complete units could not be accomplished under the original estimate.

The committee also recommends the transfer from the War Department to the Veterans' Administration of the property now operated as a veterans' hospital at Whipple, Ariz. This property has been continuously used for hospital purposes, first by the Public Health Service and then the Veterans' Bureau, since 1920, and its average patient load has been such as to warrant the conclusion that it will be required for a good many years to come. It is understood that the War Department has no objection to the proposed transfer.

This bill has been indorsed by the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The committee has found the suggestions of these veterans' organizations very helpful as they constantly make surveys of the hospitalization problem. While your committee did not see fit to recommend all that these organizations requested, it did attempt to fill the greatest need.

O

H R-71-3-VOL 2-20

TO AMEND THE ACT FOR THE RELIEF OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE NAVY AND MARINE CORPS WHO WERE DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF MISREPRESENTATION OF AGE, APPROVED JANUARY 19, 1929

FEBRUARY 13, 1931.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. BURDICK, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT

(To accompany S. 2429]

The committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2429) to amend the act entitled "An act for the relief of certain members of the Navy and Marine Corps who were discharged because of misrepresentation of age," approved January 19, 1929, having had the same under consideration, report favorably thereon without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

The purpose of the bill is to extend the benefits of existing law to those men who through patriotic motives enlisted in the service during the period from January 31 to April 6, 1917, and misrepresented their age in order to be accepted for service. It is stated by the Navy Department that about 10 men are estimated to be involved by the bill, and that the average service of each would be one year.

In acompliance with clause 2a of Rule XIII there is herewith printed the act sought to be amended, the language sought to be repealed appearing in brackets and the amendatory language appearing in italics:

That in the administration of any laws conferring rights, privileges, or benefits upon honorably discharged members of the military or naval forces of the United States, their widows and dependent children, a member of the Navy or Marine Corps who was enlisted between [April 6, 1917] January 31, 1917, and November 11, 1918, both dates inclusive, and who was discharged for fraudulent enlistment on account of misrepresentation of his age, shall hereafter be held and considered to have been honorably discharged from the Navy or Marine Corps on the date of his actual separation therefrom, if his service otherwise was such as would have entitled him to a discharge under honorable conditions. No back pay or allowances shall accrue by reason of the passage of this act. In any such case the Secretary of the Navy shall, upon request grant to such individual or his widow

or next of kin a discharge certificate showing that such former member of the Navy or Marine Corps is held and considered to have been honorably discharged under the provisions of this act.

This bill involves the same class of men as are now cared for by existing legislation, but broadens the period by two months, i. e., January 31, 1917, whereas existing law designates April 6, 1917, as the date from which men who enlisted under misrepresentation of age shall be entitled to the benefits granted honorably discharged men.

The following letter from the Acting Secretary of the Navy addressed to the Chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs of the United States Senate, sets forth the views of the Navy Department and is hereby made a part of this report:

The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, March 3, 1930.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying further to the committee's communication dated December 6, 1929, transmitting the bill (S. 2429) to amend the act entitled "An act for the relief of certain members of the Navy and Marine Corps who were discharged because of misrepresentation of age," approved January 19, 1929, and requesting the views of the Navy Department relative this measure, I have the honor to inform the committee as follows:

The purpose of this bill is to amend the act entitled "An act for the relief of certain members of the Navy and Marine Corps who were discharged because of misrepresentation of age," approved January 19, 1929, by striking out "April 16, 1917" and inserting in lieu thereof "January 31, 1917," thereby giving the benefit provided in said act to those who enlisted between January 31, 1917, and April 6, 1917.

The act of January 19, 1929 (45 Stat. 1084; U. S. C., Sup. III, title 34, sec. 204), provides that in the administration of laws conferring benefits on honorably discharged members of the military and naval forces, their widows and dependent children, a member of the Navy or Marine Corps who was enlisted between April 6, 1917, and November 11, 1918, and who was discharged for fraudulent enlistment on account of misrepresentation of his age, shall be held to have been honorably discharged on the date of his actual separation from the service.

The act of January 19, 1929, it is understood, was designed to relieve those men who through patriotic response to the call for enlistments at the outbreak of the war had misrepresented their age in order to be accepted for service. In view of the presumed purpose of the act of January 19, 1929, and the fact that the date of the entrance of the United States into the World War was April 6, 1917, the Navy Department does not feel that an earlier date should be selected after which relief for misrepresentation of age will be granted.

It is estimated that the proposed change in date would affect not more than 10 men of the Navy.

The bill S. 2429, if enacted, will result in no additional cost so far as naval appropriations are concerned, but it is possible that there will be pension charges against the Veterans' Bureau either now or in the future.

In view of the foregoing the Navy Department recommends against the enactment of the bill S. 2429.

Sincerely yours

о

ERNEST LEE JAHNCKE,

The Acting Secretary of the Navy.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »