Senator AUSTIN. That is just the point. That is what I want to find out.

Captain CROSLAND. Yes, sir.

Senator JOHNSON. But it is not retroactive?

Captain CROSLAND. No, sir.

Senator JOHNSON. That is, onyone who has earned anything under the previous law does not lose that, only he does not continue to earn it under this act.

Captain CROSLAND. That is right, sir. It is not retroactive in any respect, sir.

Senator HILL. The letter says:

The War Department does not believe that provisions of the proposed legislation should be retrospective so as to divest the rights to lump-sum payments which may have accrued to those persons who were appointed as officers in the Air Corps Reserve under the provisions of the act of June 16, 1936, as amended. Accordingly the proposed legislation, if enacted, would deny such payments only for service performed from the effective date of the proposed act and for the duration of the present wars and 6 months thereafter. That is the gist of it, isn't it?

Captain CROSLAND. Yes, sir.

Senator LODGE. What is the difference between "retrospective" and "retroactive"?

Senator HILL. I think we will have to ask the captain that. He is a good lawyer. I would have used the word "retroactive" myself. What does Bouvier's Law Dictionary say about the two words, do you know?

Captain CROSLAND. The way it is used there they mean one and the same thing. It will not be retroactive to cut off any rights that have accrued.

Colonel PATTERSON. I think the word "retroactive" would be more proper than "retrospective."

Senator HILL. That is what I would think. The average lawyer would certainly use the word "retroactive" rather than "retrospective." Senator JOHNSON. I thought the word "retrospective" meant looking back.

Senator HILL. One conveys the idea of looking back and the other conveys the idea of acting back.

Colonel PATTERSON. I think the language of the proposed bill is unequivocal in that regard. There is no doubt about that.

Senator JOHNSON. I have already moved favorable consideration. The CHAIRMAN. Anything further, gentlemen?

Senator AUSTIN. I am sorry to delay you so much, but it is not entirely clear to me.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all right, Senator.

Senator JOHNSON. Captain, do you have anything you want to put in the record on that, that you have not stated?

Captain CROSLAND. No, sir; Senator.

Senator AUSTIN. In order to get this in chronological order I think it would be well for the captain to refer to the law as it is today. Captain CROSLAND. The present law, section 6 of the act of June 3. 1941 (55 Stat. 240), is as follows:

SEC. 6. Section 2 of the act of June 16, 1936 (49 Stat. 1524), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 2. Whenever any Air Corps Reserve officer who has not been selected for commission in the Regular Army is released from active duty that has been

continuous for one or more years, he shall be paid a lump sum of $500 for each complete year of active service as such officer, and if released from active duty otherwise than upon his own request, or as a result of inefficient or unsatisfactory service as determined by the Secretary of War, such lump-sum payment shall be prorated for fractional parts of each year of such active service. The lump-sum payments herein authorized shall be in addition to any pay, allowances, compensation, or benefits which such officers may otherwise be entitled to receive."

That, gentlemen, is the law which we are now endeavoring to have suspended, in effect, for the duration of the war and 6 months thereafter.

Under section 3 of the act of June 3, 1941, the enlistment or appointment of persons in the special enlisted grade of aviation cadet in the Air Corps, Regular Army, was authorized. Upon the successful completion of a period of training or instruction, these men were appointed to the commission of second lieutenant in the Air Corps Reserve. Upon appointment as aviation cadets they agreed to serve on active duty for 3 years, unless sooner released, as second lieutenants in the Air Corps Reserve.

There were a number of aviation cadets, of course, appointed under that act who are now Air Corps Reserve officers on active duty. There are also a number of other Air Corps Reserve officers who were appointed some time prior to this who have been called to active duty. All of these men are entitled to receive the lump-sum payments of $500 or a pro rata share for a fractional part of a year served if they are not selected for commission in the Regular Army.

Under the act of July 8, 1942, the right to appoint aviation cadets under the act of June 3, 1941, was suspended for the duration of the war. All aviation cadets are now appointed under the act of July 8, 1942. Upon the completion of their training they are commissioned as second lieutenants or are appointed as flight officers in the Army of the United States. These officers and other officers of components of the Army of the United States, other than the Air Corps Reserve, are not entitled to receive the lump-sum payments provided by the act of June 16, 1936, as amended. However, all Air Corps officers, generally speaking, are undergoing the same hardships and are serving under equal danger. The War Department feels it is only fair to stop the right to these lump-sum payments which would accrue during the remainder of the war to the Air Corps Reserve officers, but which National Guard flying officers and flying officers of components of the Army of the United States, other than the Air Corps Reserve, would not be entitled to receive.

The primary purpose for the enactment of the provisions of the act of June 3, 1941, which authorized the payment of lump-sum payments, was to encourage young men to enter the air forces and to compensate them for relinquishing the right to enter business or professional pursuits. If they were not appointed as officers in the Regular Army, after seving a period of up to 3 years, they were placed on inactive duty and these funds served to assist them in their rehabilitation in civil life. Does that, Senator, explain it sufficiently?

Senator GURNEY. Yes, sir.

Senator AUSTIN. I understand that the object of the bill is to remove a discrimination which now exists on account of these two acts-one of 1941 and one of 1942; is that right?

Captain CROSLAND. That is partially it; yes, sir.

Senator AUSTIN. Now, what is the rest of the object?

For example, when I was a boy I learned to ride a bicycle. For many years I have not ridden a bicycle, but I have no doubt that I can crawl on a bicycle today and start right out. I may not be able to keep it up, pull up the grades, but I would know how to ride it.

I learned to swim years ago, and my opportunities to swim now are very limited, but I have no doubt but that, if I got into the water, I could make my way back, if I wasn't too far from shore.

I think the qualities of leadership that men have gained over a long period of active service never really leave them, and, in my opinion, these men, if brought back into active service, would be far better qualified as military leaders than men who have just been picked up out of civilian life, without any previous military training, and I might even add further, that they might be better qualified than many of the Reserve officers who have been assigned to active duty.

Certainly, I don't want to be a party to any legislation that would give these men an undue advantage, but it seems to me that it is not unreasonable to believe that, with commissions being issued as they have been in this war, a man who has had 17 years' experience ought to be a colonel.

I know a few lieutenant colonels that personally I don't think are qualified to be first lieutenants. But that is just my opinion of the thing.

Now, the War Department no doubt is basing their objection to this on the ground that these men who have been retired previously by a board, may be for some reasons known only to the officers who recommended their retirement. They don't want to see them come in and possibly outrank other officers that have remained in the service. They probably would not outrank anyone that has remained in, but they would go above certain others who had a lesser grade.

Senator HILL. Let me ask you this question in connection with that. Under the bill, when the war is over, they would revert back to the retirement list?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. KETCHUM. I don't know whether they would be called temporary, or what they would be called, but certainly they would be in the same category as other men who are on the rolls.

I don't think this new legislation that you are talking about to give these men disability retirement in case something happens to them would make one whit of difference once they go back to duty.

They are already on the retirement list; there is no advantage that accrues to them by reason of recent legislation. In this recent disability retirement law, they get no advantage out of that.

They are already on the retirement list.

Senator HILL. As I understand that legislation which we passed in the Senate, and which the House committee has just reported, they would have this advantage:

Take Captain Jackson. He is retired now as a captain.

If he came back into the service and suffered some kind of physical disability after having been made a major or a colonel, say a colonel, and were retired, then he would be retired as a colonel.

That is my understanding of it.

Colonel PARTLOW. That is right.

Mr. KETCHUM. I think that is reasonable and fair.

Senator HILL. I agree with you. That is the reason I supported The legislation.

But I just state that as being my understanding. I agree with you, hey ought to have it.

Certainly, if they are serving as colonels and they get retired, they hould be retired at the rank in which they were serving at that time. Mr. KETCHUM. I have yet, Senator, to learn why the War Departnent is objecting to taking these men back.

We have one case which the colonel here mentioned, where Captain Walker was restored to active duty. The colonel indicates that when Captain Walker was accepted during the emergency at Pearl Harbor, e performed meritorious service, that his services were good, and hey were so good that later it was determined that he was entitled o promotion, and that he has been promoted.

Now, isn't it reasonable to assume that many of these other men re in exactly the same position and if given an opportunity would so render good service to the military?

In other words, it seems to me that that is the best argument in the orld for the bill. One man, through an emergency, or accident, let s say, was restored to active duty and he made good, and he was romoted.

Why would it not be reasonable to assume that Captain Jackson ere, or any of the others, would render equally efficient service to e military effort if given an opportunity?

I quite agree with the colonel in one particular, that perhaps it is ad policy to force upon the War Department, by legislative direcve, whom they shall call and shall not call, for active duty, but til the War Department can show to the Congress some very und reason why these men's services cannot be used, they may e times when the Congress has to take the bull by the horns and o something about it.

I don't know every one of these men. Maybe there are some who uldn't perform competent, efficient service. I don't know. Surely at can be determined if they were once taken back.

There is nothing to prevent the War Department from getting rid them if they can't cut the mustard, because they have been taken ck into active service.

That is all I want to add.

Senator HILL. Now, Colonel, do you want to say something? Colonel PARTLow. Only regarding longevity pay credit for inactive rvice.

That is not only applicable to Reserve officers but it is applicable to ational Guard officers, to Regular Army officers, to retired officers. hen a retired officer is wanted in active duty, he gets longevity edit for pay benefits for the time he has been on the retired list. Mr. KETCHUM. That was the point I was making. Someone veloped the thought awhile ago that it seemed like it was just a tle unfair for men on the retired list for many years to come back to active service and receive credit for that just as if they had been the active list, when the legislation actually provides for that. Pretty nearly everything is covered.

Colonel PARTLOW. Even enlisted service during time of war.

Mr. KETCHUM. Yes; as a matter of fact, our organization was ite interested and active in that particular legislation, I remember

because I followed it all the way through. That was one thing we certainly were interested in, seeing to it that men who had years of service as enlisted men and were advanced to temporary commissioned status should have some credit for longevity for the enlisted service, at least when Reserve officers were being given credit for their Reserve service. That is all I have to say, Senator.

Senator HILL. Is there anything further, Captain?

Mr. JACKSON. No.

Senator HILL. I am certainly very much obliged to you gentlemen. The committee is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p. m. the committee adjourned.)