Page images
PDF
EPUB

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. DUCANDER. 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

2008658_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) *f 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. he 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 }. 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? Colonel BLATT. At the present time. 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. WAN 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— - -

Mr. BRooks. Would you pay him as a civilian when he went to 90-day service schools? Colonel BLATT. No, sir. He is ordered to duty—not to duty, but, rather, to perform—to a service school under title 32, United States Code, section 504. Mr. BRooks. He wouldn’t draw civilian pay, then? Colonel BLATT. Not currently; no, sir. Mr. BRooks. If he went to field duty, 2 weeks' field training, he would draw civilian pay and the military pay? Colonel BLATT. That is correct, sir. Mr. BRooks. And if he did not—of course, do you have any cases where he would have to be required to take 30 days’ field duty, like some reservists do? l Colonel BLATT. We do not have any such provision under current aW. Mr. BRooks. So it could not exceed 2 weeks, then? Mr. DUCANDER. No. The Federal Government by statute permits all of its employees to go to 2 weeks of active duty. It is specified 14 days, I think it is. Beyond that Mr. BRooks. I understand that. Colonel BLATT. Right. Mr. BRooks. What I am driving at is what would be the maximum amount of time which a reservist would be entitled to both full military pay and for active military pay and civilian pay under this law? olonel BLATT. Only Mr. DUCANDER. Two weeks. Colonel BLATT. Only for the annual 15 days which the statute— Mr. VAN ZANDT. Two weeks' summer training plus drill. Colonel BLATT. Of course, during drill he does not receive full pay and allowances. He would not receive subsistence and quarters allowance during that time. He would receive only pay. Mr. BRAY. Colonel, the only thing that this legislation does is rei. any limitation on the military rank that that civilian employee olds? Colonel BLATT. And also the present prohibition, Mr. Bray, to be found in the last sentence of section 709 (c) of title 32, which states, “N . more than 15 caretakers may be employed for each of these pools.” Mr. BRAY. Yes, sir. That is the only two changes? Colonel BLATT. That is correct, sir. Mr. WINSTEAD. If I understand you correctly, they could not operate with that limitation imposed. And the appropriations committee have been granting more than that, but it would be subject to a point of order and one member could knock the whole appropriation out and you could not operate? Colonel BLATT. That is correct. Mr. WINSTEAD. So we are just raising that limitation, so it would be legal to do what we are now doing. Mr. DUCANDER. That is right. Colonel BLATT. What the Congress Mr. BRooks. Now, how many do you propose to employ? Colonel BLATT. There will be no additional employees resulting from this legislation. Mr. BRooks. What is the total number you employ now, I mean in any one unit?

Colonel BLATT. They vary from State to State, and it depends on what type of a pool. As stated here, Mr. Chairman, in a flying base you may have anywhere from 120 to 160 at a particular pool, and in the combined field maintenance shop conducted on the Army side, the Army National Guard, that is, there may be as many as 250 employees at such a single installation, which technically would be o as a pool.

. BRooks. Any further questions?

If not, thank you very much, Colonel.

Do we have anybody else here in reference to this bill?

Mr. DUCANDER. No, sir.

Mr. BRooks. What is the pleasure of the subcommittee?

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption.

Mr. BRooks. You heard the motion, duly seconded.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. As amended.

Mr. BRooks. As amended.

All in favor, say “Aye.”

All opposed.

The ayes have it. It is unanimously carried. It will be reported to the full committee.

H. R. 781

Now, the next bill, Mr. Ducander.

Mr. DUCANDER. We have Mr. Marshall of Minnesota on H. R. 781.

Mr. BRooks. Thank you, Colonel.

Mr. Marshall is here?

Mr. DUCANDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRooks. Mr. Marshall, will you come forward?

We have our colleague from Minnesota this morning who is very much interested in H. R. 781, a bill to make the retirement benefits of the Army and the Air Force Vitalization and Retirement Equalization Act of 1948 available to certain persons who rendered active Federal service during the Korean conflict.

Now, Mr. Marshall has talked to me several times about the measure—not recently, but some time back. At that time it was not, as I recall, assigned to this subcommittee. Since then it has been assigned to the subcommittee.

I want to ask you before I ask you for a statement, Mr. Marshall. This is substantially the same bill that passed this subcommittee a year ago, isn't it?

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate—

Mr. DUCANDER. Passed the House.

Mr. BRooks. And then later passed the House. It passed the subcommittee, approved by the full committee, and passed the House and went to the Senate. That was in the last Congress.

Mr. MARSHALL. That is right, Mr. Chairman, it was a bill that passed in the closing days and it didn't give the other body an opportunity to work on it.

I % want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am very appreciative to you and members of your committee for the interest you have shown on this particular measure.

Mr. BROOKs. Will you explain to the members of the subcommittee just what your bill does.

(H. R. 781 is as follows:)

[ocr errors]

A BILL To make the retirement benefits of the Army and Air Force Vitalization and Retirement Equaliza #. Act of 1948 available to certain persons who rendered active Federal service during the Korean cont t.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the third proviso of subsection (a) of section 302 of the Army and Air Force Vitalization and Retirement Equalization Act of 1948 is hereby amended to read as follows: “Provided further, That no person who was a member of a Reserve component on or before August 15, 1945, shall be eligible for retirement benefits under this title unless he performed active Federal service during any portion of either of the two periods beginning April 6, 1917, and ending November 11, 1918, or beginning September 9, 1940, and ending December 31, 1946, or performed active duty, as defined in subsection 101 (b) of the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952 (66 Stat. 481), during any portion of the period beginning June 27, 1950, and ending July 27, 1953”. Mr. MARSHALL. This bill makes it possible for men who served in the Reserve components of the Army in Korea to be treated the same as those that served in the Reserve components in World War I and World War II. It seemed when the legislation was passed we didn't anticipate the Korean conflict or we didn't anticipate that there would be people who did not serve in World War II who served in Korea. There are very few, as I understand it, that are affected throughout the United States, but there are a few. It was called to my attention by one case in my district. When our National Guard was activated, this man was excused from service because of his family obligations at that time. This man was a very patriotic man and he was almost heartbroken at the time that the guard was activated that he was unable to fulfill his obligations. But he did stay with the National Guard and at the time that our guard was activated—our State guard was activated at the time of the Korean conflict. Then his family obligations had changed to the extent that he could go, and he served in Korea. After returning, the people in the community were quite upset to think that this man was not entitled to some of his retirement benefits. The postmaster, the Legion post, a member of the State legislature, and a number of other people in the community came to me and urged that I do something and look into the matter, which we proceeded to do. The Defense Department has told us that it would require legislation to make him eligible. They do support the legislation. Mr. Brooks. In other words, this bill applies to a case where a man was passed over for some reason in World War II and didn't go into active duty, but he was called in Korea and he had been a member of the Reserve establishment over a period of years and was used on active duty in Korea but not in World War II, although he might have been available for some reason? Mr. MARSHALL. The chairman is entirely correct in that matter. Mr. BRooks. That is it, isn't it? Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, sir. Mr. BRooks. All right. Now, questions? Mr. WAN ZANDT. Will you state that again? I didn't hear it. Mr. BRooks. Just off the record because it is repetitious. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. BRooks. Mr. Marshall has in mind a National Guard man who was available but for some reason they didn't call him—perhaps physical. They left him out.

« PreviousContinue »