and Fleet Marine Corps reservists who were former members of the Naval Reserve or Marine Corps Reserve shall be transferred to the appropriate Retired Reserve under the same conditions now prescribed for the transfer of former regulars to the retired list of the Regular Navy or the Regular Marine Corps.

It would also amend title 10, United States Code, section 6332, relating to the conclusiveness of transfers to and from the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, to reflect the amendments made to the two preceding sections. No change would be made in title 10, United States Code, section 6485, relating to recall to active duty; that section, without amendment, would apply to all members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve regardless of the component from which they were transferred.

It would seem to me that Reserves who serve on active duty for 20 years or more are as truly career members of the naval service as Regulars having the same amount of active duty, and should, as a matter of equity, be entitled to the same benefits. I believe that more Reserves would be willing to serve on active duty for 20 years if they could look forward to transfer to the Fleet Reserve or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve with retainer pay upon completing that amount of active service.

Members of the Enlisted Reserve on active duty are required primarily for assignments in connection with the training and administration of the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve programs. It would seem most desirable that turnover among this group be kept at a minimum. Loss of experienced men not only endangers the quality of the training program, but is also costly, in that replacements must be recruited and trained. To obtain and retain high-caliber, experienced personnel for this duty, it is believed that an incentive equal to that extended to Enlisted Regulars should be extended to Enlisted Reserves.

Section 6327 of title 10, United States Code, applies only to persons who were members of the Naval Reserve or the Marine Corps Reserve on January 1, 1953, and it expires on January 1, 1973. Members to whom it applies would probably prefer retirement under it, immediately upon completing the required service, instead of being transferred to the Fleet Reserve or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, with later retirement, under the proposed legislation.

On the other hand, it would be to the advantage of some few members to choose transfer to the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve because in their cases the formula for computing retainer pay would result in their receiving more money than they would receive if retired under title 10, United States Code, section 6327. In order that there can be no doubt of a member's right to make either choice, the proposed legislation would amend section 6327 (e) to provide for an election.

Warrant officers, both Regular and Reserve, who complete 20 or more years of active service may be retired at their request under title 10, United States Code, section 1293.

Commissioner officers of the Navy and the Marine Corps, both Regular and Reserve, who complete more than 20 years of active service of which at least 10 years was commissioned service may be retired at their request under title 10, United States Code, section 6323.

The above sections provide equal benefits for officers, whether they are career Regulars or career Reserves. H. R. 11504 will do the same for enlisted members. I strongly recommend its enactment as a matter of equity.

Mr. KILDAY. Commander, do you have a statement?

Commander LEISCHNER. Yes, sir; I have a statement here which I am prepared to read at this time.

Mr. KILDAY. Go ahead and read your statement.

Commander LEISCHNER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee in support of H. R. 11504, and to urge that it be enacted in the present session of the Congress.

The purpose of that bill, in short, is to make enlisted members of the Naval Reserve and the Marine Corps Reserve eligible for transfer to the Fleet Reserve or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve udon completion of 20 years of active service in the Armed Forces. This eligibility to transfer into the Fleet Reserve will provide enlisted reser

vists the opportunity for ultimate retirement, which they do not now have, and will serve as a strong incentive for Enlisted Reserves to continue on active duty in the Reserve program.

Present law now provides that an enlisted member of the Regular Navy or the Regular Marine Corps who has completed 20 or more years of active service in the Armed Forces may, at his request, be transferred to the Fleet Reserve or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, as appropriate. A member so transferred is entitled, when not on active duty, to retainer pay at the rate of 22 percent of his basic pay at the time of transfer multiplied by the number of his years of active service.

The law provides that a member of the Fleet Reserve or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve shall be transferred to the retired list of the Regular Navy or the Regular Marine Corps, with retired pay, upon being found physically disqualified or upon completing 30 years of service, including active and inactive service in the Fleet Reserve or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.

The Naval Reserve Act of 1938 contained authority for the retirement of Reserves who had completed 30 years of active duty, or 20 years of active duty under certain circumstances, with 50 percent of their active duty pay. That authority was repealed by the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952, except as to those persons who were members on or before January 1, 1953.

Under title III of Public Law 810, 80th Congress, a Reserve may become eligible for retired pay at age 60 if he has completed at least 20 years of active and inactive service.

As a result there is at present no authority for the retirement of those Enlisted Reserves of the Navy and Marine Corps, who have become members since January 1, 1953, upon completion of 20 or more years of active duty. Thus, there is little or no inducement for an enlisted reservist to remain on active duty for 20 years, since he cannot thereupon retire or even draw retired pay until he reaches 60 years of age. This situation causes a rapid turnover of members upon the completion of their minimum obligated service with the result that few personnel are being retained for extended service.

For the foreseeable future the Navy has a requirement for at least 10,000 Enlisted Reserves on active duty. The Marine Corps has a requirement for 500. These members are required primarily for assignments in connection with the training and administration of the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve programs. It is most desirable that turnover among this group of personnel be kept to a minimum.

Loss of experienced men not only endangers the quality of the training program but is also costly in that replacements must be recruited and trained or Regulars who are needed elsewhere must be used. To obtain and retain high-caliber, experienced personnel for this duty, it is believed that an incentive equal to that extended to Enlisted Regulars should be extended to Enlisted Reserves. Those who serve on active duty for 20 years or more are as truly career members of the naval service as Regulars having the same amount of active duty and should, as a matter of equity, be entitled to the same benefits. It appears certain that more Reserves would be willing to serve on active duty for 20 years if they could look forward to transfer to the Fleet Reserve or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve with retainer pay upon completing that amount of active service.

At the present time there are several thousand enlisted reservists serving on active duty who have from 2 to 5 years' service. It is known that many of them who would like to complete 20 years' service are presently continuing on active duty with the knowledge that this legislation is being sought in their behalf and with the hope that the provision will be made for their ultimate retirement.

delay or failure to enact this legislation will inevitably have a most deleterious effect on the further retention of trained and experienced personnel on active duty and the recruiting of high-caliber members for long service in the Reserve programs.

It is very strongly urged and recommended that this committee give its early and favorable endorsement to the bill, H. R. 11504, and that this legislation be enacted during the present session of the Congress. Mr. KILDAY. Thank you, Commander. Are there any questions from members of the committee?

(No response.)

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Blandford.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Just one question, Mr. Chairman.

We are going to give reservists now the right to the same benefits that regular enlisted personnel have in the Marine Corps and the Navy. Now when we give these people who are going to retire in the future the same benefits that Regulars now have, how long will it be before those Reserves who were limited to 50-percent retired pay who completed more than 20 years of active duty, are going to claim that they are entitled to the same benefits that the Regulars got when they were retired?

Commander LEISCHNER. Actually, of course, anybody who is retired, of course, has gone into this permanent status of retired. There has never been any retroactive feature.

of

Mr. BLANDFORD. Under this proposal, a Reserve with 25 years enlisted service will retire with 6212 percent retired pay or transferred to the Fleet Reserve with 6212 percent retired pay; is that right?

Commander LEISCHNER. That is right.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Then he would be retired upon the completion of 30 years of service.

A Reserve who retired with 25 years of active service prior to this date, with 25 years of service, only gets 50 percent retired pay, isn't

that correct?

Commander LEISCHNER. That is correct.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Do we have such cases as that?

Commander LEISCHNER. That is right.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Because we will find out about them.

Commander LEISCHNER. Yes, we have such cases.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Well I suggest that you start writing the legisla tion now to correct it, because we are probably going to have themwe will have that problem, that is what I am pointing out.

Mr. KILDAY. Anything further?

Mr. BATES. What is going to be the cost of this bill?

Commander LEISCHNER. The cost will be very nominal, sir, actually, because we expect probably to have about 10,000 in this program. At any time there will be a maximum of 500 in any 1 year that will become eligible for this retirement benefit.

Mr. KILDAY. Thank you, Commander.

The next bill will be 11636. Capt. Daniel Carrison, come around, Captain.

This is a bill to repeal section 6018 of title 10, United States Code, requiring the Secretary of the Navy to determine that the employment of officers of the Regular Navy on shore duty is required by the public interest.

(The bill is as follows:)

[H. R. 11636, 85th Cong., 2d sess.]

A BILL To repeal section 6018 of title 10, United States Code, requiring the Secretary of the Navy to determine that the employment of officers of the Regular Navy on shore duty is required by the public interest

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 6018 of title 10, United States Code, is repealed.

SEC. 2. The analysis of chapter 555 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking out the following item:

6018. Naval officers shore duty; limitations".

Mr. KILDAY. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Rivers, is the author of the bill. The Chair recognizes him at this time.

Mr. RIVERS. This is a Department bill and it repeals that statute of 1883 which required all Regular officers to be certified by the Secretary before they can do shore duty. Back in the days of the early Navy a sailorman was supposed to be a sailorman and go to the sea, and before they could get shore duty the Secretary had to certify that they were put there in the public interest. That has become obsolete because the Navy has grown into such a vast establishment, industrial and otherwise, and it requires so much unnecessary bookkeeping.

That is the reason they want this thing repealed. Am I right, Captain?

Captain CARRISON. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. Isn't that a pretty fast explanation?

Captain CARRISON. Yes.

Mr. RIVERS. No further statement.

Mr. KILDAY. Do you care to add anything to the statement of the author of the bill?

Captain CARRISON. No, I have a statement which I would offer for the record.

Mr. KILDAY. Without objection, it will be included in the record. (The statement above referred to is as follows:)

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the opportunity to appear here for the purpose of recommending enactment of H. R. 11636 is appreciated.

The purpose of this legislation is to repeal a rather antiquated provision in the law which requires the Secretary of the Navy to make the determination that all assignments of officers of the Regular Navy to shore duty are required by the public interest and that the Secretary's determination to that effect is stated in the officers' orders to shore duty. This provision was originally enacted as part of the Naval Appropriation Act of 1883, and was recently codified as section 6018 of title 10, United States Code.

In the application and administration of this section the Secretary may, by a single order and a single signature, determine generally that the employment of a specified number of officers is required at one or more naval activities. When the Secretary determines that the employment of certain officers, or of a certain number of officers, on prescribed shore duty is required by the public interest, the orders to such officers, in conformity with such determination, may be signed by the Chief of Naval Personnel but must contain a statement to the

effect that the Secretary of the Navy has determined that this employment on shore duty is required by the public interest.

The requirements of this section do not apply in cases where shore duty of a particular kind is "specifically provided for by law" as, for example, is the case with respect to the assignment of officers to duty as chiefs of bureaus or assistants to chiefs of bureaus in the Department of the Navy.

While there may have been a valid reason for this provision of law at the time it was enacted in 1883, the present-day functions of the Navy have rendered the provision obsolete. In essence, therefore, it imposes an administrative requirement of a statement in the orders of officers which serves no useful purpose. It is respectfully urged that this committee and the Congress give this legislation favorable endorsement during this session of the Congress.

Mr. BATES. That is all there is to this bill?

Captain CARRISON. Yes, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. Anything further?

(No response.)

Mr. KILDAY. Thank you, Captain Carrison. The committee will now go into executive session to consider the bills that occurred yesterday and today.

(Whereupon, at 11:05 a. m., the subcommittee proceeded in executive session.)

O