As a result of it, here, we are in perhaps the last meeting of this committee, and nothing has been done in reference to this r. i. f. program. This bill is intended to be a stopgap piece of legislation. It will give the reservist who is riffed the same benefits that the regular gets when he is riffed in the program for the regulars. Heretofore, the reservist has had one-fourth of what the regular gets. Now, this would give him exactly what the regular gets. On page 2, subparagraphs 1 and 2, set forth exactly what the Reserve will get if they are riffed. And we get rumors of a big RIF program coming this fall. So this will tie it down and the reservist riffed will get the same consideration that the regular will get if he is riffed. In other words, 2 months' basic pay in the grade which he is serving at the time of release from active duty for each year of active service, ending at the close of the 18th year, not to exceed a total of 2 years' basic pay in that grade. And two: One month's basic pay in that grade for each year of service, not to exceed a total of 1 year's basic pay in that grade, if he is so discharged because of failure to achieve these standards. That is all the bill does. It puts the reservist on the same basis as the regular in the RIF program. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Brooks. I think the subcommittee is warranted in bringing this bill in. I was hoping that it might have been possible to work out what is known as the term contract retention bill, that is when a reservist is called to active duty and put in with the regulars that he should be given a definite period of time to know that he is going to serve. As it has been running in the past, some of them have been called in to serve a year, 5 and 10 and 15 years, and taken away from their business. They were dropped by the Army without notice and it disturbed their economic condition and it disturbed their method of life. I was hoping that a bill might have been brought out whereby we could make a contract with each reservist, assuring him of so many years, based upon the type of contract. But that was not able to have been accomplished. So we examined this matter and we found that the severance pay between a regular and a reservist is not the same. So Mr. Brooks' subcommittee acted wisely, notwithstanding the fact that this has not been cleared by the budget or submitted to the committee by the Department of Defense. They have acted wisely in giving the reservist the same severance benefits that a regular has. Mr. RIVERS. You said, Mr. Chairman, it was dropped by the Army. They have been dropped by each member of the armed services. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that. I was just dealing with the Army. Mr. RIVERS. Yes. Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman The CHAIRMAN. Any questions on this bill? Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bates. Mr. BATES. For the purpose of the record, what is the situation when a reservist is released from active duty on different occasions? Ordinarily a regular is released once, but a reservist might we released several times during the course of his overall active duty service. What would be the situation then? Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Ducander, you want to answer that? Mr. DUCANDER. Well, the second time he was released from active duty he would have to refund the readjustment pay he had received the first time. Mr. BATES. Is there any provision that takes that into consideration in the bill? Mr. DUCANDER. This is merely an amendment of the Readjustment Pay Act. This just changes the wording in the Pay Adjustment Act to change the rates of pay. The CHAIRMAN. That is definitely covered in the other portion of the act. Mr. BATES. If we had a situation like Korea where a man might have served up to 1948 or so since 1940 and he got this pay in 1948, if he was to be recalled in 1950 at the time of Korea, even though he didn't want to, would he have to reimburse the Government for that lump sum? Mr. DUCANDER. Of course, the Readjustment Pay Act was not enacted until 1955. Mr. BATES. No; I am saying if a similar situation developed in the future as developed in those years, where a man went on active duty in 1940 and stayed on until 1948 or 1949 and was given the benefits of this bill and then he was recalled in a situation similar to Korea, do I understand the man who was involuntarily recalled would have to pay back the money which he had been given? Mr. DUCANDER. Yes, sir; he could only receive the readjustment pay one time. The CHAIRMAN. Is that the law today? Mr. DUCANDER. He can only receive the readjustment pay one time. The CHAIRMAN. One time. Mr. DUCANDER. That is right. Mr. BROOKS. That would be credited though in the calculation. Mr. BATES. That is a bit different than the one I raised. I would think a man, if he were given it for a certain number of years in which he served-if he was recalled to active duty and later released he would get it only for the new period of active duty service. But I can't see really a man serving 8 or 9 years and going out and coming back and not getting any pay for almost a year. Mr. BROOKS. I think that is what Mr. Ducander has in mind. Mr. DUCANDER. That is what I am trying to say, Mr. Bates, that he would receive the readjustment pay after the first time released. Then the second time released, he could not compute the same years. Mr. BATES. That is fair enough. Mr. DUCANDER. For the readjustment pay. Mr. BATES. But he wouldn't have to refund it? Mr. DUCANDER. He just wouldn't compute it on the same years. Mr. BATES. The only thing that would happen is he would get credit for the future years. Mr. DUCANDER. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the bill will be favorably reported. Mr. Brooks, report the bill. Mr. BROOKS. Here is a bill, Mr. Chairman, H. R. 9721. members, so we can understand what these bills are about. To amend section 1482 of title 10 of the United States Code to provide for the payment of transportation expenses of certain survivors of deceased servicemen to attend group burials in national cemeteries. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, as a result of a disaster involving multiple deaths of persons where the remains cannot be individually identified and burial is to be made in a common grave at a national cemetery, the Department concerned may pay the transportation expenses of round-trip transportation to the cemetery for interment services of (1) the person who is the personal representative of the deceased, and (2) an additional two persons to be selected by him. The transportation expenses authorized by the bill could not exceed the transportation allowances authorized for members of the Armed Forces for travel on official business. Under joint travel regulations the present limitation on allowances is 5 cents per mile when performed by a common carrier or 4 cents per mile when performed by privately owned conveyance. At the present time when a serviceman dies and he can be identified, the survivors have the right to have the body shipped elsewhere anywhere in the world. Consequently, the problem of having relatives at the interment does not exist in these cases. However, there is no provision of law which would allow the payment of transportation expenses for survivors of deceased servicemen who die and whose remains can't be identified. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a very worthwhile bill. And the cost is relatively small. As a matter of fact, the Department of the Army estimates that the average transportation cost would approximate $200 per person. The Department of the Army is strongly in favor of the enactment of the bill and no objection was interposed by the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. Chairman, I therefore move favorable consideration. The CHAIRMAN. Any questions by any members of the committee? Mr. DURHAM. How are you going to identify the relatives or whoever is involved in this kind of death? Mr. BROOKS. Well, when they are in a mass burial-they know who lost their lives in the particular catastrophe and, therefore, they bury all of the remains of all of them together. Mr. GAVIN. What is the rate of transportation, how much a mile? Mr. BROOKS. Five cents a mile, or four cents a mile in private conveyance. The CHAIRMAN. What is the custom and law in reference to members of the family attending a burial at a national cemetery? Mr. BROOKS. Well, that is set forth in the law. The next of kin is first contacted and the next of kin then will designate the 2 others, making a total of 3. The CHAIRMAN. The Government pays the expense? Mr. BROOKS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection Mr. ARENDS. That is the way it is now? Mr. BROOKS. Yes, the 5 cents and 4 cents a mile is that way. There is no provision now for the Government to pay anything here. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the bill will be favorably reported. Mr. Brooks, report the bill. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, H. R. 13373. Mr. SMART. You already reported that one. The CHAIRMAN. H. R. 13374, to provide for the retention of deferment or exemption upon change of membership in a reserve component, Army National Guard or Air National Guard. Is that it? Mr. BROOKS. Yes. Mr. Chairman, as you know The CHAIRMAN. Let there be order now. Mr. BROOKS. This committee has been awaiting proposed legislation Mr. DUCANDER. No. Mr. BROOKS. We took care of that. Mr. DUCANDER. You took that one. The next one ought to be H. R. 13374, Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. Do you wish to explain that, Mr. Ducander? Mr. DUCANDER. Å. R. 13374. The purpose of this bill is to provide for the transfer between components of deferred persons without loss of such deferments. A person who enlists in the Army or Air National Guard before attaining age 181⁄2 or a person who enlists in the Army Reserve before that age is deferred from induction so long as he continues to serve satisfactorily in the Reserve component in which he enlisted. If, however, this same person after reaching age 181⁄2 ceases to be a member of the Reserve component in which he enlisted and joins another Reserve component he would no longer be deferred because he would not be serving in the same enlistment which provided the deferment. This situation legally exists even though he is serving satisfactorily in the other Reserve component. For example, supposing a young man enlists in the Army Reserve, completes his 6 months' active duty for training and after that moves to another State. There is no Army Reserve unit at his new home, but there is an Army National Guard unit. Consequently, he enlists in the Army National Guard unit and satisfactorily continues to participate in Reserve training. Under the law he has lost his deferment because he is no longer serving in the service in which he originally enlisted. Mr. Chairman, this is merely a technical amendment of the law to insure that the intent of the law is carried out, and that is that when a person has enlisted in a Reserve component prior to reaching age 18% and satisfactorily continues to participate in training he will thereafter not be subject to induction for training and services. The subcommittee amended the bill by striking all after the enacting clause and introducing a clean bill. The original bill left room for doubt concerning the transfer to a National Guard unit without the consent of the Governor concerned. The clean bill now being considered by the committee has the approval of the Department of Defense and the Bureau of the Budget. There would be no additional cost to the Government if the bill is enacted, and I move its favorable consideration by the committee. Mr. BROOKS. I move favorable consideration of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Any questions from any members of the committee? Mr. GAVIN. The question is this, Mr. Ducander: After he removes. from one locality to another, does he then apply or notify the local draft board in a new location that he is there, or what is the situation? If they don't recognize it, nothing is done about it, or what happens to it? Mr. DUCANDER. Actually, when he removes to another jurisdiction and he leaves the unit in the place from which he moved, that unit would notify the draft board. Mr. GAVIN. They would notify it? Mr. DUCANDER. Unless he got into another unit in the new State or the new jurisdiction, then they would draft him, because he is not completing his satisfactory service. But the trouble is that the man who joins the Army Reserve and then moves from Texas to Nebraska, moves to a city where there is no Army Reserve. He can't participate, therefore, with the Army Reserve. But there is an Army National Guard unit. He goes and joins that unit. And here he is participating satisfactorily. But the draft board can pick him up because he is not participating with the Reserve which he enlisted in. It is merely a technicality. Mr. KILDAY. A question, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kilday Mr. GAVIN. Will this clarify the situation? Mr. DUCANDER. Yes, sir. Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Chairman, the discussion is centered on the individual who moves. As I understand it, the bill is general. If he changes services for any reason at all. Mr. DUCANDER. Yes, sir. I was using that only as a hypothetical example. Mr. KILDAY. As an illustration. Mr. DUCANDER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Now, I find nothing in here, Mr. Ducander, where the consent of the Governor must be obtained. Mr. DUCANDER. I should remember the amendment adopted by the subcommittee. The CHAIRMAN. Then H. R. 13374 as presented is not the bill— Mr. DUCANDER. Oh, I didn't know you had that in front of you. Yes, sir; this does not The CHAIRMAN. Is that the same bill? Mr. DUCANDER. Yes, sir; that is the same, the same bill. The CHAIRMAN. This bill does not have anything about consent of the Governor in it. Mr. DUCANDER. But there is in this bill nothing concerning a transfer. That is where you need the words "the Governor must give his consent." But this was drafted in the Department with the concurrence of the National Guard, and they fell The CHAIRMAN. Then the bill to be submitted is H. R. 13374? The CHAIRMAN. And that is a clean bill? Mr. DUCANDER. That is a clean bill. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the bill will be favorably reported. |