1957 NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION, ATLANTIC CITY, N. J., SEPTEMBER 16-19, 1957 Resolution No. 364 Committee: Credentials and internal organization. Subject: Government provide memorial grave markers for those missing in action. Whereas upon application by the next of kin the remains of veterans may be returned to the family cemeteries, and headstones erected at the expense of a grateful Government; and Whereas the unidentified who gave their lives in the armed services of their country are remembered by the monument to the Unknown Soldier; and Whereas those who have been declared missing in action and deceased are unremembered by Government memorials; and Whereas the next of kin in many cases have requested grave markers: therefore, be it Resolved by the American Legion in convention assembled in Atlantic City, N. J., September 16, 17, 18, 19, 1957, that the American Legion request the Congress of the American people to respond to the requests of the next of kin by providing, at Government expense, memorial grave markers of the type and quality now provided by the Government for erection in the cemetery chosen by the next of kin. Approved. Mr. BROOKS. Thank you very much, Mr. Kennedy. We appreciate your coming. Now, are there any other witnesses on the bill? H. R. 8775 which is the next one? Mr. BROOKS. Now, H. R. - Mr. BROOKS. That bill is by myself to amend section 709, title 32, of the United States Code. (H. R. 8775 is as follows:) [H. R. 8775, 85th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend section 709 of title 32, United States Code Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 709 of title 32, United States Code, is amended as follows: (a) Strike out the last sentence of subsection (c). (b) Change subsection (d) to read as follows: (d) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary concerned personnel of the National Guard may be employed as caretakers in a civilian capacity without regard to military grade.". Mr. DUCANDER. Colonel Blatt, of the National Guard Bureau. Mr. DUCANDER. Did you give me a statement, Colonel Blatt? Mr. BROOKS. You gentlemen, those that are going to testify, if you will come up here and have a seat it can speed up a little bit. Now, Lt. Col. William M. Blatt, legal adviser for the National Guard Bureau. If you have a short statement we will be glad to have it. Colonel BLATT. I do, Mr. Chairman. Copies have been submitted to committee counsel. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, the Department of the Army, on behalf of the Department of Defense, recommends adoption of H. R. 8775, 85th Congress, 2d session. If enacted, this legislation would remove the limitation imposed by section 709 of title 32, United States Code, in the number and military grade of civilian employees (caretakers) that may be employed for maintenance and storage pools of the National Guard. Under section 709 of title 32, United States Code, not more than 15 caretakers may be employed at any one maintenance or storage pool, nor may any officer above the grade of captain be employed by the National Guard in a civilian capacity. Neither of these prohibitions have had a practical effect since 1947, for in the Military Establishment Appropriation Act for fiscal year 1947 (60 Stat. 556), and appropriation acts in subsequent years, language has been inserted permitting employment without regard to these two limitations. Civilian employees required at a flying base, which is regarded as a "pool" will number from 120 to 160, depending on the number of squadrons supported at the base. Combined field maintenance shops have been found in most cases to be the most economical in servicing the vast amounts of vehicles in the hands of the National Guard. From 40 to 250 Army National Guard civilian employees may be employed at such shops, and there is at least one such shop in every State. The limitation on numbers imposed by section 709 of title 32, United States Code, are therefore unrealistic, now and in the foreseeable future. Similarly, permitting the National Guard to employ only one officer below the grade of major in a civilian capacity and prohibiting the employment of all other officers in higher grades is unsound. A number of civilian jobs are in the higher grades of GS-11 to GS-14, the duties of which would, in the military service, be discharged by officers of field grade. The individual possessing the requisite qualifications will oftentimes be found to have advanced in military grade accordingly. National Guard regulations require membership in National Guard units as a condition to civilian employment, thereby assuring availability in case of mobilization. It is a practical impossibility to fill these high-level civilian positions from individuals occupying the lower military grades. As a practical matter, such a practice, if feasible, would disrupt the organization upon mobilization since the civilian incumbent would be required to perform the duties of his military occupation, different from his prior civilian employment, and field-grade officers would be required to perform jobs they had not been permitted to fill as civilians. Accordingly, section 709 of title 32, United States Code, if applied, would preclude the civilian employment of the best qualified individuals obtainable, and prevent field-grade officers from obtaining the best possible experience appropriate to their military assignments. In addition, since the demonstrated weaknesses of present section 709 are permanent rather than temporary in nature, it appears desirable to amend the basic law rather than suspend the provisions on a year-by-year basis in appropriation acts. The practice of enacting legislation in appropriation acts is undesirable since the needed relief may be lost on a "point of order" motion. For the foregoing reasons the Department of the Army, on behalf of the Department of Defense, is strongly in favor of the purposes of the proposed legislation. However, if section 709 (d) of title 32 is amended as provided in H. R. 8775 there may be some question raised concerning the interpretation of that subsection unless subsection (b) is amended also. Since both subsections deal with the same subject matter, it is recommended that they be combined. A substitute draft bill accomplishing this purpose has been submitted and the Department recommends its enactment. The enactment of this legislation will cause no apparent increase in the budgetary requirements for the Department of Defense, The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of the earlier report recommending enactment of this legislation. Mr. BROOKS. You represent the Defense Department here? Mr. BROOKS. So there is no objection from the Department of the Army. They recommend it? Colonel BLATT. They do, sir. Mr. BROOKS. The Department of Defense recommends it, and the Bureau of the Budget recommends it? Colonel BLATT. That is correct, sir. Mr. BROOKS. It will cost no additional money? Colonel BLATT. That is correct. Mr. BROOKS. Because, as I understand from your statement, the appropriation bills carry appropriations for this particular purpose and each year we suspend the operations of section 709 of title 32 in order to make the appropriations? Colonel BLATT. Exactly so, sir. Mr. BROOKS. And this will really close the door after the horse has left the barn. This will make legal the action, permanently legal the action we have already taken? Colonel BLATT. Yes, sir. Mr. BROOKS. Any questions? Mr. DUCANDER. Colonel, can you tell us why-first, when was section 709 of title 32 enacted? Colonel BLATT. It was originally enacted as section 90 of the National Defense Act of 1916, June 3, 1916. Mr. DUCANDER. And why were caretakers limited to 15 for a pool? Colonel BLATT. I don't know exactly, Mr. Ducander, excepting thinking back on the type of equipment which was issued to the National Guard at that time. Mr. DUCANDER. In the first place, you didn't have the Air Guard then, did you? Colonel BLATT. That is correct, nor did we have motor vehicles in large quantity. Mr. DUCANDEP. I see. Colonel BLATT. Mostly McClelland saddles and horses. Mr. DUCANDEP. Now, what is the reason for your recommended amendment? Colonel BLATT. In order that it will not be necessary to suspend what would otherwise be a statutory prohibition. So long as 709 in its present form stands, it is necessary to provide in each appropriation act for the suspension of that prohibition Mr. DUCANDER. No; I think you misunderstand me, Colonel. What is the reason for your wishing to amend the bill before the committee? Colonel BLATT. Because of the fact that if amended in the form proposed by the bill it would not amend another subsection of 709 and there may be some difficulty in interpreting the two. Mr. BROOKS. Your objection is to (d), sub (d) under this bill? Colonel BLATT. We are recommending that (b) and (d) be consolidated, in effect, Mr. Chairman. Both of them relate to the employment of caretakers in the civilian capacity. Subsection (d) relates to the grade of commissioned officers; (b) also relates to the employment of civilians as caretakers. Mr. DUCANDEP. You think there would be difficulty in interpreting the bill if it was not amended as you recommend? Colonel BLATT. That is correct, Mr. Ducander. It is felt, as the point is made in the prepared statement, if section 709 (d) of title 322 is amended as provided in H. R. 8775 there may be some question raised concerning the interpretation of that subsection unless subsection (b) is amended as well. Mr. DUCANDER. Do you have a copy of your amendment? Colonel BLATT. I believe I do, sir. I believe that has been submitted to counsel. Mr. DUCANDER. Well, perhaps I better read it in the record. It is very short, Mr. Chairman. I do have a copy of it. Mr. BROOKS. Will you read it into the record, Mr. Ducander. Mr. DUCANDER. Strike all after the enacting clause and insert: That section 709 of title 32, United States Code, is amended (1) by amending Mr. BROOKS. Leave off "as follows." Mr. DUCANDER. Sir? Mr. BROOKS. I was reading here. Mr. DUCANDER. Oh. Mr. BROOKS. The words "as follows" are left out. Mr. DUCANDER. I don't have the bill. Mr. BROOKS. Go ahead with your reading. Mr. DUCANDER. The amendment would read as follows: That section 709 of title 32, United States Code, is amended (1) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows: (b) Civilians may be employed as caretakers under this section. In addition, members of the National Guard may be employed as caretakers under this section in a civilian capacity without regard to their military grade. Compensation for such a member under this section is in addition to compensation otherwise provided for a member of the National Guard." (2) by striking out the last sentence of subsection (c); (3) by striking out subsection (d); and (4) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively. Mr. BROOKS. You better explain some of those changes. Colonel BLATT. Very well, sir. The first sentence of the amendment: "Civilians may be employed as caretakers under this section," is already provided in current language. The second sentence: In addition, members of the National Guard may be employed as caretakers under this section in a civilian capacity without regard to their military grade— 20066-58-No. 88 is an amendment to (d), present 709 (d), the first sentence, which reads: Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary concerned, one commissioned officer of the National Guard in a grade below major may be employed for each pool set up under subsection (c) and for each squadron of the Air National Guard. This, then, permits one officer below the grade-commissioned officer below the grade of major to be employed, and no others. This present language, "without regard to their military grade," proposed in the amendment removes that limitation and permits them to be employed in a civilian capacity without respect to their military grade. The next sentence: Compensation for such a member under this section is in addition to compensation otherwise provided is a repetition of present language, which provides that the pay which he receives for his civilian employment shall be in addition to his military pay which he receives. Mr. BROOKS. It brings it out in the open that what we are going to do is provide him with 2 checks, 1 for the National Guard and 1 for his civilian employment? Colonel BLATT. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman. That is already done, isn't it? Colonel BLATT. That is correct, Mr. Bray. Mr. BRAY. But here is what it means: Whether he is a master sergeant or whether he is a lieutenant colonel, he has a status in the guard and he also has a status as a civilian employee, and you are not placing any restriction as to what his rank, military rank, should be and his civilian job? Colonel BLATT. That is correct. And this particular provision states that he shall receive both pays. The one is not offset against the other. Mr. BROOKS. That may be so. But let me ask you this, now, Colonel: Suppose you call a colonel on active duty. He gets the pay of a colonel. Then do you employ him also in a civilian capacity? Colonel BLATT. Not while on active duty, sir. Mr. BROOKS. He has to be on Inactive Reserve duty? Colonel BLATT. This is 5-day-a-week employment, his civilian employment, from 8 until 4, or whatever other hours there may be. Mr. BROOKS. You wouldn't take an officer and call him to active duty and then give him a position as a civilian and let him draw both active-duty pay and civilian pay? Colonel BLATT. No, sir. Mr. DUCANDER. He could merely draw drill pay? Mr. BROOKS. He would draw weekly drill pay? Colonel BLATT. That is correct, and during annual field training, Mr. Chairman, he is granted military leave, as any Federal civilian employee would be. Mr. VAN ZANDT. That is right. Colonel BLATT. And during that period he receives his military pay. Mr. BROOKS. So that pay would not exceed 60 days a year? Colonel BLATT. Conceivably it could, sir. He might go to a service school, for example. Take our on-site technicians. Many of them are going through |