down there for 8 months. Or he is assigned there as an instructor for 8 months or anything else that might happen.

Now, he is still in the same fiscal year so he automatically gets a dislocation allowance. Now, during that same fiscal year he is sent to Harvard College for the business administration course. That college is not a service school. Therefore, the exclusion in the bill would not apply to him. In order for him to be authorized the payment of an additional dislocation allowance because he had 2 changes in 1 fiscal year, would require a special finding by the Secretary that he was entitled to it.

Mr. KILDAY. Of course, you would anticipate the Secretary would make such a finding.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes. I am trying to show a difference between a service school and what would not be a service school.

Now, there is a school of military law at the University of Virginia at Charlottesville, that is considered to be a service school for purposes of identity. So I would assume that an individual who had already had one permanent change of station during a fiscal year, who during that fiscal year was assigned to that school of law at Charlottesville, would be within the exception and therefore would be entitled to an additional dislocation allowance during that year without a finding by the Secretary.

That would also be true of a man who is sent to the postgraduate school at Monterey or the Air College at Montgomery or it would be true of the School of Naval Justice at Newport.

Mr. KILDAY. You have included a number of the smaller ones. The major ones would be the Infantry School, Staff School at Leavenworth, War College, Industrial College.

Mr. BLANDFORD. That is right, those are all service schools.

Mr. BATES. Then there will be no question on that point as to what a service school might be; is that right?

Captain MARTINEAU. Yes.

Mr. KILDAY. I think the language is sufficiently flexible that if there should be any borderline question as to what constitutes a service school, the Secretary still has the power to make a finding and to authorize the change. And if it should be administered in the spirit of the language and with due regard for what we are attempting to prevent, there ought not to be any difficulty.

What we are trying to discourage is a too frequent change of permanent station.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. The length of the duration of the school would not be involved?

Mr. KILDAY. Yes, under regulations I believe, a school

Captain MARTINEAU. Present regulations now, Mr. Chairman, state that persons ordered to schools of less than 20 weeks' duration will not be a permanent change of station.

Mr. HARDY. Of course, that is a regulation and that could be modified.

Mr. KILDAY. It could be, but this language takes care of that, I believe.

"Ordered to service schools as a permanent change of station," I think that that recognizes the existence of a regulation. It would not, of course, prevent its change.

Mr. HARDY. In any event it would require a finding by the Secretary even to change the regulation, so let it go.

You are going to give him that responsibility anyway, so it is inconsequential.

Mr. KILDAY. I think the only question would arise on relatively small borderline cases. I don't think the Secretary would be too busy to act on those.

Mr. BLANDFORD. I think the legislative history that has been developed on this section is going to certainly act as a great stimulant for the services to reduce their changes of station, and at the same time I think we certainly have enough in the record here to indicate that this is intended as definitely restrictive language.

Mr. HARDY. I move the adoption of that language.

Mr. KILDAY. Without objection, the language will be adopted. We will move to the next section.

Mr. BLANDFORD. This is to increase the pay of cadets at the United States Military Academy, midshipmen at the United States Naval Academy, cadets at the United States Air Force Academy, and cadets at the Coast Guard Academy, so that they will now, upon enactment of this law, be entitled to 50 percent of the basic pay for commissioned officers in pay grade O-1.

Now the pay of an O-1 is $222.30 a month. This would, therefore, take their pay to $111.15 a month. I believe this gives them $1,333 a year as contrasted with $980 a year they are now receiving.

Captain Martineau indicated yesterday he would put in the record the justification, in addition to that which we discussed for this increase for these people at the Academy.

Mr. KILDAY. Without objection, the information will be included in the record.

(The information was not supplied in time for the printed record.) Mr. KILDAY. Without objection, the provision will be approved. (No response.)

Mr. BLANDFORD. The next section is a very important section which applies to a handful of people to give them double-time credit in computing their retired pay as officers

Mr. KILDAY. Without objection, the provision will be approved.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Now, section 5 we rewrote in part and I call this section to your particular attention and I will read it because it is very important to the group of people who might not otherwise benefit by the passage of the Career Incentive Act.

The section will now read:

Any person now or hereafter entitled to retired pay, retirement pay, retainer pay, or equivalent pay (including persons entitled to temporary disability retirement pay) computed at the rates prescribed in section 201 (a) of the Career Compensation Act of 1949, is entitled to have his pay computed at the rates prescribed by that section, as amended by this Act. For the purposes of that computation, an officer with less than three years of service for pay purposes, or a warrant officer or an enlisted person with less than two years of service for pay purposes, retired for physical disability or placed on the temporary disability retired list, shall have those rates increased by 6 per centum.

If you will recall yesterday we did that in order to take care of the man, the officer, enlisted man, or warrant officer who might be retired for disability and it would almost invariably be as a result of a training accident or combat.

Mr. KILDAY. I believe we thoroughly went into that yesterday. I would like to remark that the language of this provision and the one on dislocation allowance seems to me to be in rather novel legislative language. It is more like a letter to somebody than it is like a legislative enactment.

Mr. HARDY. You don't object to it on account of that, do you? Mr. KILDAY. I was just wondering if we ought to get into this type of legislative expression. I don't recall any other legislation in which we have worded it this way.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Actually we were faced with the problem here of attempting to put in as clear language as possible what the committee intended.

Mr. KILDAY. We have never said "Is entitled to have his pay computed." "Shall have his pay computed" is legislative language..

Mr. BLANDFORD. We didn't want to put it on the basis of "shall be paid," because we have people who prefer not to draw their pay. We run into that situation.

Mr. KILDAY. Do you anticipate that someone is going to refuse dislocation allowance? It is worded in the same language.

Mr. BLANDFORD. I can't think of anybody offhand.

Mr. KILDAY. "Under such regulations as may be approved by the Secretary concerned, a member of a uniformed service whose dependents are authorized to move and actually move in connection with his permanent change of station is entitled to a dislocation allowance equal to his monthly basic allowance for quarters."

Mr. BLANDFORD. That was the original drafting language, if I am not mistaken. I can't explain that, because I had nothing to do with that language.

Mr. KILDAY. Was there any reason for departing from customary legislative language on this?

Colonel STEPHENS. No specific reason.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Down in line 9, they say "shall have those rates increased by 6 percent."

Mr. BLANDFORD. I think "shall be entitled" is better than "is entitled."

Mr. KILDAY. I think it doesn't make any difference in the provision we are making, but I think it is more in accordance with prior legislation. Wouldn't the Judge Advocate agree?

Colonel CORBIN. In the past few years there have been a great many changes. I understand they are unifying and this reflects that unifi

cation.

Mr. KILDAY. I have no objection to being uniform.

Mr. BLANDFORD. I think it should be "shall be," Mr. Chairman. I think "is entitled" raises a new type of grammatical construction which would require new interpretations by the Comptroller General. Mr. KILDAY. I think we would be better off in being positive. "Shall be" let us revise it that way. It doesn't make any change in the provision. It is just in the form of language.

Mr. BENNETT. It still leaves open the question of election.

Mr. BLANDFORD. I think Mr. Kilday's point is what we are trying to do is give him an entitlement.

Mr. BENNETT. If you are substituting "shall be" for the phrase "is entitled to"

Mr. BLANDFORD. "Shall be entitled" I think is correct.

Mr. BENNETT. "Shall be entitled" doesn't make any more certain the question of whether the man has to make an election or not. But if you said "Shall have his pay computed" then you have really done something. Then you eliminate any possibility that there is any election in it at all.

Mr. KILDAY. At one place here we want to preserve an election. Mr. HARDY. "Shall be" suits me.

Mr. KILDAY. I think so. I don't like this

Mr. BENNETT. I hope it is understood that nobody has to take any initiative in the matter.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Here it is right here (indicating).

Mr. BLANDFORD. I think the same change should appear on page 13, line 3.

Mr. KILDAY. That is true. I mean in both provisions, they should be changed.

Let us move on.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Section 6 is a very important section with regard to those persons who did not qualify under the Career Compensation Act and this provision says:

Members and former members of the uniformed services who are entitled to received retired pay, retirement pay, retainer pay, or equivalent pay under laws in effect prior to October 1, 1949, shall be entitled to an increase of 6 per centum of such retired pay, retirement pay, retainer pay, or equivalent pay. Section 7 is the effective day, section 8 is the savings provision. Mr. KILDAY. I believe that concludes the bill. All of these.

We won't take action on voting on the bill because tomorrow and Friday we will have persons from outside of the Department to express their views on the bill. We thought it would be better to mark it up the way we had it in mind rather than having them speak to provisions that we didn't intend to report, anyway. So they will not be foreclosed from their suggestions or proposed amendments. But so that any proposed amendment would be directed toward what the committee has in mind. This way I think we will probably save a good many pages of the record.

Mr. HARDY. Will we have a revised committee draft?

Mr. BLANDFORD. I don't think so. There are no changes other than the corrections. We can correct them by writing.

Mr. HARDY. The principal thing is whether or not the people from the outside who are going to testify are going to do so on the basis of committee action, the committee print, or the original bill.

Mr. BLANDFORD. They will have H. R. 2607, but tomorrow morning and this afternoon, if we can get it to them, we will try to get them a copy of the confidential committee print.

Mr. KILDAY. Try to do that this afternoon. I think that is the value of having marked the bill up in advance, so they won't waste effort on things already eliminated.

We will meet tomorrow morning in open session at 10 o'clock to hear persons who have requested an opportunity to be heard and they have been notified to be present tomorrow and on Friday. Of course, the drafting committee will be here in case questions are asked.

We will adjourn until tomorrow at 10.

(Thereupon, at 11:29 a. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m., Thursday, March 3, 1955.)