This proposal has been the subject of a careful study by the Coast Guard, as a result of which the Commandant of the Coast Guard presents the following views: At the present time the Coast Guard is without authority for the establishment of any Coast Guard station on the west coast of Florida south of Pass-a-Grille Beach, Fla. (near St. Petersburg), a distance to the region of Key West of approximately 210 miles. It is considered essential, in order to provide for effective protection to marine commerce and activities and for carrying on efficiently the other prescribed duties of the Coast Guard, that provisions be made for the estab lishment of a station at the most advantageous point in this particular coastal section. The stretch of coast between Pass-a-Grille Beach and Key West is one along which there is a large movement of marine commerce, with every indication of future expansion. The proposed location of a station in the vicinity of Fort Myers is a central and strategic one along a coastal area which is now without Coast Guard protection, being approximately 90 miles south of the contemplated station at Pass-a-Grille Beach and approximately 120 miles from the southern end of the west coast of Florida. Such location will permit of the maximum range of action both southward and northward. There is a large number of fishing boats and pleasure craft operating in this general vicinity, and the expected increase of marine traffic incident to the recent opening of the Caloosahatchee-Okeechobee-Cross State waterway, which has its western terminus on the Gulf coast at this point, indicates a positive need for provision being made for the establishment of a station in the vicinity of Fort Myers. This section of the coast is within the general region subject to visitation by hurricanes, and in such emergencies a Coast Guard station would be of material aid in spreading warnings of an approaching hurricane and in affording assistance to marine commerce and persons in distress. A station in this region would also serve to great advantage in collaboration with Coast Guard aircraft and in facilitating the operations of that branch of the service through the dispatch of boats and shore equipment to places where needed. in connection with both the protective and law-enforcement activities of the Coast Guard. In a survey (made entirely independent of the present study) conducted by the Coast Guard in 1936 of its needs along the Florida coast to provide for an efficient organization and distribution of service units, it was recommended that a Coast Guard station be established in the vicinity of Fort Myers. For the above reasons the Department considers a sound need exists for the establishment of a Coast Guard station as proposed in the bill under notice, and accordingly recommends its enactment. I am advised that the proposed legislation is in accordance with the program of the President. Very truly yours, STEPHEN B. GIBBONS, Acting Secretary of the Treasury. О COAST GUARD STATION, DAUPHIN ISLAND, ALA. JULY 6, 1937.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. BOYKIN, from the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 6976] The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 6976) to provide for the establishment of a Coast Guard station on the coast of Alabama at or near Dauphin Island, Ala., having had the same under consideration report thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass. The purpose of the bill is to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a Coast Guard station on the coast of Alabama, at or near Dauphin Island, Ala. Dauphin Island is located at the mouth of Mobile Bay. The bill was referred to the Treasury Department and the report of the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, dated June 25, 1937, and appended as a part of this report, sets out fully the need for the establishment of the Coast Guard station proposed. It will be noted that the Acting Secretary of the Treasury advises that the measure is in accord with the program of the President. Considerable correspondence has been received by your committee urging the establishment of this station. Among others, the enactment of the bill is urged by the Mobile Chamber of Commerce, the Rotary Club of Mobile, the Mobile Kiwanis Club, the Mobile Lions Club, the Alabama Deep Sea Fishing Rodeo, the Buccaneer Yacht Club of Mobile, Inc., Strachan Shipping Co., Star Fish & Oyster Co., both of Mobile, and the Bayou Labatre (Ala.) Chamber of Commerce. In view of the apparent need for and the advantages to be derived from the establishment of a Coast Guard station at or near Dauphin Island, Ala., your committee is glad of this opportunity to recommend favorable action on the bill (H. R. 6976) at an early date. The report of the Treasury Department is as follows: Hon. S. O. BLAND, TREASURY Department, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of May 13, 1937, enclosing a copy of bill H. R. 6976 (75th Cong., 1st sess.) to provide for the establishment of a Coast Guard station on the coast of Alabama at or near Dauphin Island, Ala., and requesting to be furnished the views and recommendations of this Department thereon. This proposal has been the subject of a careful study by the Commandant of the Coast Guard, who submits the following information and views bearing thereupon: There is at the present time no Coast Guard station for a stretch of 220 miles along the Gulf coast from the existing Santa Rosa, Fla., station to the Grand Isle, La., station. In considering a location along this expanse of coast line most advantageous for meeting the needs of the Coast Guard to afford protection to marine commerce, in carrying on law-enforcement duties, and as a part of our national defense, the conclusion was reached that Dauphin Island, or vicinity (at mouth of Mobile Bay), is the logical place for the establishment of a Coast Guard station. Customhouse records indicate that during the year 1936, 1,408 vessels entered Mobile Bay from the sea and that approximately 7,000 additional craft navigated Mobile Bay by way of Mississippi Sound and the Intercoastal Canal (which enters Mobile Bay approximately 5 miles north of the proposed location). About 400 boats are engaged in commercial fishing in the vicinity of Dauphin Island, and, in addition, this general region is a rendezvous for large numbers of fishing parties, yachts, and pleasure craft, with every indication of an appreciable increase in the future. The fact that strong tidal currents run close to Dauphin Island and are hazardous to small craft; that there is an average of 66 days a year on which winds in excess of 25 miles per hour were observed in this coastal region, and that the hurricane season lasts for about 31⁄2 months each year presents elements indicating the need of the protective and assistance services of a Coast Guard station. Recognizing the need of Coast Guard protection in this region, it has been the practice of the Coast Guard to dispatch patrol boats to the lower Mobile Bay region for assistance duty at such times as they might be spared for such service. During the year 1936 there were 27 cases of assistance rendered by Coast Guard craft, which gives evidence of the great value which a permanent shore unit could render in this region. In addition to its protective value, a station at or near Dauphin Island would provide the Coast Guard with means for the better enforcement of the customs, navigation, and other maritime laws in a region where the character and amount of marine traffic especially warrants such control. A well-studied plan of distribution of Coast Guard stations at strategic points along our coast to insure the maximum usefulness of Coast Guard facilities in carrying on the day-by-day duties of the Service, and to provide for the prompt dispatch of assistance over the widest range of coastal territory in emergencies and marine casualties, supports the need of a station at this point. Also, as the result of a survey of Service needs made about a year ago entirely independent of the present study, it was recommended that a station be established at or near Dauphin Island. For the above reasons the Department recommends the enactment of bill H. R. 6976. I am advised that the proposed legislation is in accord with the program of the President. Very truly yours, STEPHEN B. GIBBONS, Acting Secretary of the Treasury. O AFFORD PROTECTION OF PENSION BENEFITS TO PEACETIME VETERANS PLACED ON THE PENSION ROLLS AFTER MARCH 19, 1933 JULY 6, 1937.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. GASQUE, from the Committee on Pensions, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 7531] The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 7531) to afford protection of pension benefits to peacetime veterans placed on the pension rolls after March 19, 1933, and for other purposes, having had the bill under consideration, respectfully submit the following report with the recommendation that the bill (H. R. 7531) do pass. ENDORSEMENT OF THE BILL This bill as reported by the committee has the endorsement of the Veterans' Administration (which includes the Bureau of the Budget), Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, United Spanish War Veterans, Disabled Emergency Officers of the World War, Army and Navy Union, and the American Veterans' Association. The favorable report from the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs fully explains the bill and sets forth the necessity for favorable consideration of this measure. The report from the Veterans' Adminis tration is as follows: Hon. ALLARD H. GASQUE, Chairman, Committee on Pensions, House of Representatives, JUNE 14, 1937. Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. GASQUE: Further reference is made to your letter of March 27, 1937, enclosing a draft of a proposed amendment to paragraph X, veterans' regulation no. 10 series, and requesting the comments and recommendations of the Veterans' Administration. The proposal, if adopted, would amend the paragraph so as to make it read as follows, the new language being underscored: "X. No person holding an office or position, appointive or elective, under the United States Government, or the municipal government of the District of Columbia, or under any corporation, the majority of the stock of which is owned by the United States, shall be paid a pension, or emergency officers' retirement pay, so H. Repts., 75-1, vol. 2-83 long as he continues to draw a salary from such employment, except (1) those receiving pension or emergency officers' retirement pay for disabilities incurred in combat with an enemy of the United States or for disabilities resulting from an explosion of an instrumentality of war in line of duty during an enlistment or employment as provided in veterans' regulation no. 1 (a), part I, paragraph I; (2) those persons so employed whose pension is protected by the provisions of the act, or, who are entitled under veterans' regulation no. 1 (a), part II; however, the rate of pension as to this class shall not exceed $6 per month; (3) those unmarried persons whose salary or compensation for service as such employee is in an amount not in excess of $1,000 per annum, computed monthly, or any married person or any person with minor children whose salary or compensation for service as such employee is in an amount not in excess of $2,500 per annum, computed monthly; and (4) widows of veterans." The effect of this proposed amendment would be to place the peacetime veteran in the same category as those whose pension is protected by the provisions of Public, No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, as amended, thus eliminating what may be considered a discrimination presently existing in favor of veterans on the rolls March 19, 1933, against members of the peacetime group placed on the rolls originally under the veterans' regulations. Where benefits under veterans' regulation no. 1 scries, part I, would be subject to suspension or reduction under the terms of paragraph X, veterans' regulation no. 10 series, the World War veteran is awarded compensation under Public, No. 141, Seventy-third Congress, and the Spanish-American War veteran is awarded pension under Public, No. 269, Seventy-fourth Congress, which laws contain no restriction as to Government employment. In some cases of World War veterans the amount payable under the regulation is higher than under Public, No. 141, but if the veteran is employed by the Government he would elect to receive the lesser rate under Public, No. 141, in order to avoid suspension or reduction under the regulation. From a practical standpoint the only groups now affected by the regulation are peacetime veterans not on the rolls March 19, 1933, receiving pension under part II, veterans' regulation no. 1 series, war veterans receiving pension for non-serviceconnected disabilities under part III of the same regulation, and retired emergency officers receiving retirement pay for disabilities other than those incurred in combat with an enemy of the United States or resulting from an explosion of an instrumentality of war in line of duty during an enlistment or employment as provided in veterans' regulation no. 1 (a), part I, paragraph I. Concerning the second group, part III of veterans' regulation no. 1 (a) as amended, also contains an income limitation of $1,000 to an unmarried person, or $2,500 to any married person or any person with minor children. As to the emergency officers' group, except as to "combat" cases, the act of June 30, 1932 (5 U. S. C. 59a), enacted prior to the promulgation of the regulation, prohibits receipt of salary from a Government position and retired pay when the combined amount from both sources exceeds $3,000. With regard to the group mentioned in the second exception of paragraph X, veterans' regulation no. 10 series, viz. "those persons so employed whose pension is protected by the provisions of the Act", as to which group pension is limited to $6 a month, it may be said that the provision of pension to these cases was not intended to be in the nature of a grant but rather to avoid a conflict which would otherwise have resulted from the second paragraph of section 17, Public, No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, protecting compensation or pension being paid on March 19, 1933, under the circumstances outlined in the paragraph. Accordingly, in these cases the minimum rate of pension prescribed by Public, No. 2, was awarded, thus giving effect to the requirements of section 17, Public, No. 2. In affording to peacetime men placed on the rolls after March 19, 1933, the same protection now accorded wartime cases or peacetime cases on the rolls prior to March 20, 1933, where the rate is protected by Public, No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, the proposed amendment would accomplish equality and eliminate discrimination. There are no actual records on which to base an estimate of cost of this proposed bill. However, considering the number of employees of the Federal Government on the peacetime rolls who were on the rolls March 20, 1933, and applying this percentage to the number of peacetime cases who are entitled only under part II of the Veterans' regulation no. 1 (a), it is estimated that approximately five cases would be affected at an annual cost of $360. This, however, is simply an approxi mation to indicate that the cost probably would be small and it should not be considered as an actual estimate of cost. For the reasons heretofore set forth, the Veterans' Administration would interpose no objection to the enactment of your proposal. However, since a study of |