« PreviousContinue »
Mr. WINSTEAD. We want to get that clear, because we will certainly run into that problem on the floor.
Mr. RIVERS. I am glad you brought that up, General, because I was not exactly clear on it. I knew there was a double indemnity, so to speak, and he couldn't have both of them.
Colonel BOYER. Yes.
Mr. BARTIMO. Mr. Chairman, your counsel and I have just conferred.
Section 6 of the present law on the books, which we are amending and not repealing, reads as follows:
A person who upon release from active duty * * * is eligible for disability compensation under the laws administered by the Veterans' Administration.
However, such a person may elect to receive either readjustment pay under this section or disability compensation under laws administered by the Veterans' Administration, but not both. Election of readjustment pay shall not deprive a person of any disability compensation to which he may become entitled on the basis of subsequent service under laws administered by the Veterans' Administration.
We are not touching that. That still stays on the books.
Mr. RIVERS. Where is (e) and (h)? Tell us what they are. We better take the time now, because it will help us in the future.
Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir; (e) and (h) are the existing sections of Public Law 676, providing lump-sum readjustment for Reserves. I will read them to you.
(e) A member of a Reserve component who on the effective date of this section is serving on active duty under an agreement authorized by section 235 of this Act and who is involuntarily released from active duty before completing his agreed term of service may elect in lieu of separation payment under that section to receive readjustment pay under this section.
(h) For the purpose of this section, the term “involuntarily release" shall include release under conditions wherein a member of a Reserve component who has completed a tour of duty volunteers for an additional tour of duty and the service concerned does not extend or accept
Mr. RIVERS. This just rewrites those sections?
Sec. 4. Except with the consent of that member and the Secretary concerned, section 679 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by this act, does not apply to any member who, on the effective date of this act, has not served the full term of his agreement, entered into before that date, to serve a specified minimum period of active duty. However, upon completing that period of ac tive duty, he is thereafter subject to that section, as amended by this act.
Mr. RIVERS Now, we get to Mr. Morris' amendment.
Mr. RIVERs. Everything after line 4 is stricken out? Mr. SLATINSHEK. AndMr. RIVERS. From line 4 through line 7, and in lieu thereofMr. SLATINSHEK. We would substitute the following: “Sec. 5." Mr. RIVERS. Known as the Morris amendment. Mr. WINSTEAD. You strike line 4, too. Mr. RIVERS. You strike lines 4, 5, 6 and what is left of 7. Mr. SLATINSHEK. Seven. Mr. RIVERS. Yes, sir. I think we understand the Morris amendment. Mr. SLATINSHEK. All right, sir. Mr. RIVERS. We have read it. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman--maybe he was going to submit a comment about it first.
Mr. SLATINSHEK. I was going to go further, General. Go ahead. Mr. ANDERSON. I had a question on the Morris amendment. I am not an attorney and maybe I am unduly suspicious. But I am wondering if there is any confusion with respect to the firm fact that these people will have a contract from 14 through 20. Because we start out saying “During the 1-year period following the date of enactment of this act,” and so on, and then we say, “However," and there is a possible question in my mind whether or not—then this presumption that they have it under contract
Mr. RIVERS. From
Mr. ANDERSON. Maybe a presumption that only extends through a single year and not å presumption that extends for the next 6 years.
Mr. RIVERS. I think we clarified that awhile ago.
Mr. SLATINSHEK. Even in this grace period he is protected, as I understand it by the counsel-he is protected from the very second that he enters into that 15th year.
Mr. BARTIMO. Right.
Mr. ANDERSON. It isn't my question about the first year, but it is about after the first year.
Mr. RIVERS. Oh, yes.
Mr. ANDERSON. This section refers to the 1-year period following the enactment of this act.
Mr. SLATINSHEK. I see your point, General. Your point is: Could this language possibly lend itself to an interpretation to mean that this caveat or this exception would only be in fact applied
during the 1-year period and then could be interpreted not to apply thereafter?
Mr. ANDERSON. That is the question.
Mr. RIVERS. Wait now, Mr. Slatinshek. Don't you get mixed up on your own language.
Mr. SLATINSHEK. No, sir.
My colleagues here have recommended this change. They say there could possibly-this is stretching the point and I don't think the Department of Defense would utilize that fact, but legally, perhaps, there would be that loophole. They suggest that we make this slight change.
On line 10, after the words "concerned". Mr. RIVERS. Line 10. We don't have line 10. Mr. SLATINSHEK. No, sir. I just counted them down. Mr. ANDERSON. Tenth line of the amendment. Mr. SLATINSHEK. Of the amendment; yes, sir. Mr. RIVERS. I see. Mr. ANDERSON. I wrote it in on the amendment. Mr. SLATINSHEK. The words "be considered to be serving”-instead of that we will say "be considered to have accepted a contract.”
Mr. MINOR. I think there is some danger there, that the original wording—it says he shall during the first year be considered to have one. But what you really mean is that although it is during the first year that he gets it, he is considered to have it from then on.
Mr. ANDERSON. That is what I wanted to be sure of.
Mr. MINOR. And if he is considered to have accepted that from the first year, then it is good forever, if that is what you mean.
I think this change will take care of that.
Mr. RIVERS. That even makes it better, General Anderson. I think that clarifies it even better.
Mr. BARTIMO. Mr. Chairman-
Mr. BARTIMO. Mr. Chairman, I think we should make it clear for the record that this exception only applies during the grace period of 1 year. It does not continue thereafter. The regular provisions of the bill apply thereafter. That is agreed and clear, is it not!
Mr. ANDERBON. No question about that.
Mr. RIVERS. Let me get this straight. He is serving under a con: tract. When the grace period is expired, he is constructively under contract, if they overlook him. But in that period of time he will have been tendered a contract or whatever the story is.
Mr. BARTIMO. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I want to be sure that future implementers of this law are not confused from our previous discussion. What we are dealing with here is only an exception for the grace period, the 1-year in which we are not mandated to give contrarts.
Mr. RIVERS. That is right.
Mr. BARTIMO. After that 1-year period, the provision that officers must get contracts under the terms of the act is applicable.
Mr. RIVERS. I think we understand that don't we?
Mr. WINSTEAD. Let me ask one question along that line. If a man has 141/2 years or 15 years, he is entitled to a 5-year contract !
Mr. BARTIMO. Yes, sir; he is.
Mr. WINSTEAD. You have 12 months in which to negotiate the contract.
Mr. BARTIMO. Right, sir.
Mr. WINSTEAD. But if you do not negotiate the contract, is he automatically at the end of 12 months put under a 5-year contract regardless of whether you got around to him, overlooked him or not?
Mr. BARTIMO. That is the interpretation of this section, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. Then if you terminate him at the 15th year, he is terminated as though he had a 6-year contract.
Mr. BARTIMO. Correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MORRIS. While we are on that, let's see what amendment you made there, if you did make an amendment.
Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir. I can read the entire Mr. MORRIS. I don't think it is necessary, unless the chairman wants it.
Mr. RIVERS. I don't want it. Mr. SLATINSHEK. On the 10th line, after the words "concerned," instead of the language "be considered to be serving”, we say "be considered to have accepted a contract under that section?
Mr. MORRIS. Why wouldn't it be better to say "be considered to have accepted and to be serving”?
Mr. SLATINSHEK. All right, sir. I think-
Mr. MORRIS. If he accepted, it will show that he has not only
Is not tendered an appointment as a regular officer of the Armed Force con-
Mr. RIVER. I think that is even better.
Mr. WINSTEAD. Mr. Chairman, there is one other point that I raised a while ago, that I don't know whether I am clear on or not. The language of the amendment says, I believe, 14 years' service and the statement or the explanation says the excess service to 14 years. One of them
14 years and the other one says more than 14 years. Now are we saying that a man who has 14 years comes under this or are
Mr. MINOR. Sir, we are drawing a line in this bill all the way through at the exact 14-year point. The bill is consistent on that point.
Mr. WINSTEAD. It would mean any man that has had at least 14 years.
Mr. MINOR. At least 14. The minute he gets to 14 years he is covered.
Mr. WINSTEAD. One time it says in excess of 14 and the other time Mr. RIVERS. When he gets 14 years, if they don't need him they pay him. But if they keep him 1 minute over 14 years, the Morris amendment comes in, in fact.
Mr. SLATINSHEK. As far as people who are on active duty, the moment this law.goes into effect.
Colonel BoYER. That is right.
it says 14.
SS 14 years.
Mr. SLATINSHEK. Who has completed 14 years. In other words, what they are saying is more than 14 years.
Mr. MORRIS. At least 14 years.
Mr. WINSTEAD. At least 14. If he has 14, this amendment means you have to give him a contract right then for 6 more, if he has had
Mr. SLATINSHEK. On the effective day of this act.
Mr. WINSTEAD. Oh, on the effective date of this act. But hereafter it has to be more.
Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes.
Mr. RIVERS. Now comes the bill for action of the committee. I haven't had any requests by any of those who have had to leave
Mr. SLATINSHEK. Mr. Chairman, I have some other changes here on this bill, recommended by Defense. I would like your opinion on them.
Mr. RIVERS. Now can we report this bill out today? Can we finish? Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir.
Mr. MORRIS. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. Are they just merely typographical or minor amendments!
Mr. SLATINSHEK. There are two major language changes, but they make no policy change at all.
Mr. RIVERS. Without objection, I am going to ask the committee to accept Mr. Chamberlain's proxy for the reporting of this bill. He has an appointment that he can't break.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Thank you.
Mr. RIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain. Go ahead; what are they?
Mr. SLATINSHEK. They are actually two major language changes of considerable length but they do not in any way change the policy or the breadth or scope of this bill. But they are intended to clarify.
The first one has to do with it would add a new section 6. Perhaps Mr. Bartimo could address himself to that language.
Mr. RIVERS. Don't take too much time if you could do without it
Mr. BARTIMO, Let me first read it, Mr. Chairman. It reads as follows:
(Section 679(b) of title 10, United States Code, does not require an agreement to be made with a person who before the date of enactment of this Act has agreed to serve on active duty as a Reserve commissioned officer for a period of at least three years upon being appointed as a commissioned officer, Such a person shall for the purpose of sections 679 and 680 of title 10, United States Code, and section 1016 of title 50, United States Code, be considered as having made an agreement under section 679 of the title 10, United States Code, for the period he so agreed to serve in excess of two years.
Very succinctly, Mr. Chairman, this helps the Marine Corps. As you know, the Marine Corps has already in effect active-duty agreements. This amendment would simply relieve them from some administrative work in making new agreements. In effect, it would