The proposed amendments to the fifth sentence of section 4c of the National Defense Act appear in italics, as follows:

SECTION 4C. ASSIGNMENTS

In time of peace no officer of the line shall be or remain detailed as a member of the General Staff Corps unless he has served for two of the next preceding six years in actual command of, or on duty other than General Staff duty, with troops of one or more of the combatant arms or as instructor with the National Guard or Organized Reserves: and in time of peace every officer serving in a grade below that of brigadier general shall perform duty with troops of one or more of the combatant arms for at least one year in every period of five consecutive years, except that officers of less than one year's commissioned service in the Regular Army may be detailed as students at service schools: Provided, That an officer commissioned in a staff corps shall not be or remain detailed as a member of the General Staff Corps unless he has served for one of the next preceding five years with troops of one or more of the combatant arms or as instructor with the National Guard or Organized Reserves.

Particular attention is directed to that part of the above-quoted language in section 4c of the National Defense Act which reads: "actual command of troops." The words "actual command of troops" have been legally interpreted to apply to those officers who are in fact, by orders and by rank, the actual commanding officers of the various units of troops. Thus, in a regiment of Infantry, the only officers in "actual command of troops" are the colonel of the regiment, the majors commanding the battalions, and the captains commanding the companies. The lieutenant colonel of the regiment, the adjutant, the training officer, the intelligence officer, and other staff officers of the regiment, as well as the corresponding staff officers of the battalion, are not in "actual command of troops."

The same situation is true with respect to all the officers charged with the training and tactical handling of troops in the headquarters of brigades and divisions with the sole exception of the brigade and division commanders themselves. For instance, in the same regiment there might be two majors of equal qualifications and ability, one of whom might be in command of a battalion and the other of whom might be the regimental plans and training officer charged with drawing up and supervising the training plans of the whole regiment. The major who commanded the battalion would be in "actual command of troops" and would thereby be available to be detailed in the General Staff Corps. On the other hand, the major who was assigned to make the plans for the training and operation of the regiment would not be in "actual command of troops," and he would thereby not be available for duty in the General Staff Corps, although, he might by experience be better fitted for such duty than the major commanding the battalion.

In order to remedy this situation, the bill S. 3590 proposes to add to the existing requirement "in actual command of" the modifying requirement "or on duty other than General Staff duty, with troops of one or more of the combatant arms." This additional provision will permit the detail on General Staff duty, if otherwise qualified and eligible under the law, of officers, such as have been illustrated above in the example given for a regiment of Infantry, who do the same or even more difficult work with combat troops but are not among the limited number who now are the only ones legally in "actual command of troops." Under this additional language, the only officers added to the list of those available for General Staff duty would be those officers "on duty" with combat troops but whose combat duties are

not in "actual command of" combat troops. These officers would still have to serve 2 years on duty with combat troops before they could be placed on General Staff duty.

The only other change in existing law which S. 3590 proposes to make is found in the following language: "or as instructor with the National Guard or Organized Reserves." Under existing law, these instructors are not among the officers who are available for General Staff duty although among them are many highly qualified and otherwise eligible officers. The fact that they are not available for selection for General Staff duty is due to the further fact that they are not in "actual command of troops." The fact that these officers are not available for General Staff duty works an unnecessary hardship on the National Guard and Organized Reserves, the War Department, and the officers themselves for the following reasons: The officers sent as instructors are carefully selected from among those who have graduated from the various service schools and in most cases are on the list of those eligible for General Staff duty. However, when an officer serves as an instructor with the National Guard or Organized Reserves for a tour of duty he is no longer available for General Staff duty under the present law until and unless he can then serve for at least 2 years in "actual command of troops."

The War Department deems it highly desirable to be able to place on General Staff duty certain officers at the time they complete tours of duty as instructors with the National Guard and Organized Reserves in order that the Department may have the benefit of their service with and intimate knowledge of the problems of the National Guard and Organized Reserves in carrying on the work of the General Staff. Furthermore, the fact that a tour of duty as instructor with the National Guard or Organized Reserves will render an officer unavailable for General Staff duty for at least 6 years under the present law, assignment to National Guard and Organized Reserve duty is made undesirable in the opinion of a number of highly qualified officers who otherwise would desire such duty. The National Guard Association has gone on record to the effect that it is strongly in favor of the proposed modification of the present law as embodied in S. 3590.

This measure does not in any way modify the requirements for eligibility for General Staff duty. It only, and to a limited extent, modifies the too-restrictive present law as to availability for detail to General Staff duty and makes available for such duty a limited number of officers, otherwise eligible, who have performed the same service except in name and who are as efficient and experienced as those who fulfill the technical requirements of "actual command of troops." Report of the War Department on S. 3590 follows:

Hon. MORRIS SHEPPARD,

Chairman, Committee on Military Affairs,

United States Senate.

MARCH 2, 1938.

DEAR SENATOR SHEPPARD: Careful consideration has been given to S. 3590 (75th Cong., 3d sess.), a bill to amend an act entitled "An Act for making further and more effectual provision for the national defense and for other purposes,' approved June 3, 1916, as amended by the act of June 4, 1920, which you referred to the War Department under date of March 2, 1938, with request for the views of the War Department relative to the proposed legislation.

The bill is intended to amend section 4c of the National Defense Act, as amended, so as to authorize for the purposes of eligibility for detail as a member of the General Staff Corps the counting of duty with troops other than General Staff duty, and duty as instructor with the National Guard or Organized Reserves

in the same manner and to the same extent as is now accorded "command" duty. There is a definite need for liberalization of existing law so as to widen the field of selection of officers for detail to the General Staff Corps. At present, officers completing a tour of duty with combat units, other than duty in actual command of combat units, and as instructors with the National Guard and Organized Reserves, may not, under existing law, be detailed to the General Staff Corps for duty because these before-mentioned types of duty are not "command" 'duty. The increasing number of officers required for duty with the civilian components especially warrants a broadening of the law so as to enable the War Department to select qualified officers for General Staff duty who have had recent experience with these elements of our system of national defense. Likewise, it is desirable that the existing law be liberalized so that an officer on duty with troops, in positions, for example, such as those of unit staff officers, be authorized to count such duty as conferring eligibilty for detail as a member of the General Staff Corps. Liberalization of the law affecting officers of the Staff Corps, for example the Quartermaster Corps, the Ordnance Department, etc., is necessary because there are an insufficient number of command positions with units of the combatant arms to which these officers may be assigned so as to render them eligible for detail to the General Staff. The result has been that the existing pool of officers commissioned in the Staff Corps who are available for detail to the General Staff is too greatly restricted, with resultant detriment to the service.

The proposed legislation will make it possible to avoid to a considerable extent the shifting of duty assignments so as to legally qualify otherwise eligible and desirable appointees, which the restrictions of existing law force upon the War Department. The necessity for shifts in officers because of these restrictions has had the tendency, in spite of the greatest attention to economy, to increase the expense to the Government for the travel of officers. There has likewise been a very practical disadvantage with respect to the active troop units in certain cases where it has been necessary to rotate General Staff eligibles in troop command so that a sufficient pool could be maintained from which to make details to the General Staff Corps. The effect has been to reduce the normal 4-year period of assignment to troop units, which, from the point of view of continuity of command and economy of travel funds, is a disadvantage.

Under existing law, officers completing a tour of duty as instructors with the National Guard and Organized Reserves may not be detailed to General Staff duty because such duty is not "command" duty within the meaning of existing law. Under our system of national defense, reliance is placed in large part upon the civilian components. The number of active combat units of the Regular Army is relatively small. Our system of national defense requires a considerable number of Regular officers in addition to those required for the command of combat units. Consequently, it is not possible to rotate all officers in such command position without disrupting continuity of command and increasing travel expenses. As a result the War Department is experiencing great difficulty in respect to the detail of officers with the General Staff Corps. It is recognized that officers should serve as frequently as possible in command positions with combat units, but it is believed that duties performed with troop units, other than in the position of a commander, or duty with the National Guard or the Organized Reserves, are equally important in providing the prospective General Staff Officer with a well-rounded experience. The enactment of the proposed legislation will correct in large measure existing discriminations and will tend to prevent rapid turn-over in field grade commands in our regiments.

The proposed legislation will not put the Government to additional cost; on the contrary, a small saving should result in travel cost in view of the fact that the measure will have the effect of reducing certain changes of station now necessitated through operation of the existing law.

For the foregoing reasons the War Department favors the enactment of the proposed legislation.

The War Department was advised by the Bureau of the Budget that proposed legislation, relating to this subject, submitted to the Congress under date of August 21, 1937, would not be in conflict with the financial program of the President. S. 3590, is essentially similar in character to the aforementioned proposed legislation but more restrictive in its provisions.

Sincerely yours,

LOUIS JOHNSON, Acting Secretary of War.

о

75TH CONGRESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 3d Session

REPORT No. 2100

READING MATTER FOR THE BLIND

APRIL 6, 1938.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. HAINES, from the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 9601]

The Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 9601) to amend the acts for promoting the circulation of reading matter among the blind, report the same back to the House with the following amendments and, so amended, recommend that the bill do pass.

Page 2, line 1, after the word "blind," insert "in packages not exceeding the weight prescribed by the Postmaster General,".

Page 3, strike out lines 14 to 18, inclusive, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

The Postmaster General may in his discretion extend this rate of 1 cent per pound or fraction thereof to reproducers for sound-reproduction records for the blind, or parts thereof, which are the property of State governments or subdivisions thereof, or of public libraries, or of private agencies for the blind not conducted for private profit, or of blind individuals, under such regulations as he may prescribe.

The above amendments are made at the suggestion of the Post Office Department.

The bill embodies the provisions of existing law with two exceptions: (1) It removes the present 12-pound limit of weight for packages of books, pamphlets, and other reading matter for the blind, including sound-reproduction records, mailed free of postage; and (2) the bill extends the present rate of 1 cent a pound to reproducers for soundreproduction records for the blind, or parts thereof, when shipped for repair purposes, including those which are the property of the United States Government and also, under certain conditions at the discretion of the Postmaster General, those privately owned.

Talking books are books recorded on long-playing phonograph records developed especially for the use of the blind who for various

reasons cannot learn to read with their fingers. The Government appropriates to the Library of Congress $175,000 annually for the manufacture of talking book records for the blind, which records are deposited in 27 distributing libraries located in various parts of the United States. These books may be borrowed by any blind person who has a suitable instrument for playing them. The Post Office Department carries them through the mails free of charge both from the library to the blind borrower and back again to the library.

As most blind people cannot afford to buy the special kind of phonograph used in "reading" these records, the Government has maintained for the past 2 years in New York City a work-relief project upon which 17,000 of these machines have been made. They are lent to needy blind people in any part of the country. To date over $700,000 has been expended in the construction of machines of this kind. Each machine weighs slightly over 40 pounds.

The bill (H. R. 9601) carries certain proposed amendments to the law governing the free circulation through the mails of talking-book records and includes a provision permitting talking-book machines to be sent through the mails at 1 cent per pound when shipped for repair purposes.

The present limit of weight of packages of talking-book records, which are now sent through the mails free of charge, is 12 pounds. Experience has shown that many talking books run to 13 pounds, thus necessitating the purchase by the Library of Congress of an additional mailing container to take care of this extra pound. By removing this weight limit and authorizing the Postmaster General to set such limits of weight as experience dictates, the limit could be raised to 13. or 13%1⁄2 pounds, thus saving considerable money each year which is now expended on mailing containers.

The Post Office Department suggests that the words "in packages not exceeding the weight prescribed by the Postmaster General" be written into the bill. The committee has accepted this suggestion.

Eighty-five percent of the talking-book machines now used by the blind are owned by the United States Government. It is of advantage to the Government to have these machines repaired by experienced mechanics. Many blind people to whom these machines have been lent live in small communities where such experienced repair services are not available. Several nonprofit organizations for the blind have set up repair shops for talking-book machines, and the work can be done there at a low cost, prolonging the life of the machines. Shipments of this nature will be facilitated by the bill, which provides a special postal rate of 1 cent a pound in such instances.

Of the 15 percent of the talking-book machines not owned by the Federal Government, part are owned by individual blind people, most of whom are in very modest circumstances; part are owned by nonprofit agencies for the blind, who have purchased the instruments and lent them to blind persons; and still others are owned by State departments for the blind which lend them to blind persons. The bill as amended permits the Post Office Department to extend the special mailing rate of 1 cent a pound to other than Government-owned machines when and if the Postmaster General finds it does not constitute an undue burden upon the Postal Service.