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?

Colonel BLATT. We do not have any such provision under current law.

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? Colonel 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 remove any limitation on the military rank that that civilian employee holds?

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, "Not 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 regarded as a pool.

Mr. 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 do 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:)

[H. R. 781, 85th Cong., 1st sess.]

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

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. VAN 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.

Now, he was called up in Korea. You know the standards were reduced there and men were called up for physical reasons that had been rejected in World War II.

Mr. DUCANDER. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROOKS. Yes.

Mr. DUCANDER. Another example, which is a real good example, I think, is the case of an airline pilot who volunteered for active duty during World War II as a member of a Reserve component. He was & Reserve officer. But they would not take him because he was of more use in his civilian occupation. After the war he leaves his occupation as an airline pilot, he is doing something else, and he is continuing in the Reserve and then Korea comes along and he is called up as a Reserve officer. The law says that a member of the Reserve component prior to August 1945, in order to secure retirement benefits as a Reserve officer, must have served in World War I or World War II. Therefore, the man who serves in Korea under the law today is not eligible.

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you very much, Mr. Marshall.

Mr. PRICE. Were there a great number of those cases?
Mr. BROOKS. No.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I wish to call to your attention that the Defense Department has recommended a change because of the recodification of some of these regulations, which I believe they have sent up to you. And I would like to say that that is in accord with

my

wishes also.

Mr. BROOKS. Why don't you have a seat right there, sir, and let's hear from the Defense Department witness while you are here.

Mr. MARSHALL. All right.

Mr. BROOKS. Then we see what they recommend in the way of an amendment.

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, and other members of your committee, for the opportunity of appearing.

Mr. BROOKS. We are happy to have you, sir.

Mr. DUCANDER. Colonel Zehala.

Mr. BROOKS. Colonel, you are Col. Michael A. Zehala?

Colonel ZEHALA. Right, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. And you have a short statement in reference to H. R. 781, by Mr. Marshall, of Minnesota?

Colonel ZEHALA. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. Would you care to take your statement up, sir?
Colonel ZEHALA. If I may, sir.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Lt. Col. Michael A. Zehala, Office of the Adjutant General, Department of the Army. The Department of the Army has been designated as the representative of the Department of Defense on this legislation.

I have a prepared statement which I would like to present to the subcommittee.

The purpose of H. R. 781 is to make eligible for retirement benefits under title III of the Army and Air Force Vitalization and Retirement Equalization Act of 1948, now codified as chapter 67 of title 10, United States Code, those individuals who were members of the Reserve components, on or before August 15, 1945, but who did not perform active duty in either the World War I or World War II periods but did perform active duty during the period of the Korean

war.

The Department of Defense favors the extension of such retirement benefits to a small group of Reserve personnel who would be eligible for this benefit but for the fact that they do not meet the requirement of having performed active service during World Wars I or IÍ. During World War II these persons were employed in the merchant marine, in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or as commercial airline pilots or in defense work, and because of the critical nature of their employment they were not ordered to active service. They did, however, perform active service during the Korean war. As they were subject during that service to the same hardships and dangers that confronted personnel who served during World War I or II, it is felt that in all fairness and equity they should be eligible for this Reserve benefit.

Accordingly, the Department of Defense favors enactment of H. R. 781, as amended to reflect the codification of laws affecting the Armed Forces.

I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before the subcommittee and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. BROOKS. Colonel, how many people are involved in this bill, that will be benefited by it?

Colonel ZEHALA. We have not made a firm estimation due to the amount of work in reviewing the thousands of records of individuals who were called during the Korean conflict.

However, in the preceding consideration by the House of the bill, it was estimated approximately 200.

Mr. BROOKS. Do you think that that estimate is a fairly accurate estimate?

Colonel ZEHALA. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. BROOKS. At this time?

Colonel ZEHALA. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. BROOKS. Now, what benefits, additional benefits will these men who served in Korea, who were reservists during World War II or World War I-what additional benefits will they receive?

Colonel ZEHALA. In addition to the entitlement to retired pay, they are permitted post exchange privileges, post theater privileges—well, the last one is hardly possible. If they had 8 years active duty immediately preceding being granted retirement pay, they could also get hospitalization. But I doubt seriously that any of these would fit in the latter category.

Mr. BROOKS. I don't see how they could have 8 years active.
Colonel ZEHALA. No, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. Continuous active duty.

Colonel ZEHALA. No, sir.

Those are the benefits that are allowed

individuals retired under this title III, public law 810.

Mr. BROOKS. Would it be continuous active duty or 8 years prior active duty?

Colonel ZEHALA. Eight years prior active duty.

Mr. BROOKS. But not continuous active duty?

Colonel ZEHALA. No, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. Of course, it is possible that a man on active duty might have been placed on inactive duty during World War II and then called back to active duty, and have a total of 8 years prior active duty?

Colonel ZEHALA. Yes, sir.