Mr. WAMPLER. That is right.

Commander PORTER. And that is principally what we had in mind. Mr. RIVERS. Excuse me, Mr. Wampler. May I inquire?

Mr. WAMPLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. Now, you say that there is a difference between an Academy cadet and an aviation cadet.

Commander PORTER. An Academy-well, of course.

Mr. RIVERS. They are both in the U.S. Navy, aren't they? Commander PORTER. Yes, sir. First of all, he isn't a cadet, but a midshipman.

Mr. RIVERS. Midshipman.

Commander PORTER. But in the second place, we have two types of cadet time. Before 1952 he was not-he had no status except that as a cadet. After 1942 he had dual status.

Mr. RIVERS. He had what?

Commander PORTER. He had dual status.
Mr. RIVERS. I see.

Commander PORTER. He was both an enlisted man and a cadet. Mr. RIVERS. I thought so. When you are a cadet you are an enlisted man in the Navy?

Commander PORTER. That is after 1942.

Mr. RIVERS. Yes.

Commander PORTER. But the wording of Public Law 810 is such that only an enlisted man, an officer, or a warrant officer

Mr. RIVERS. Who wrote that act?

Mr. SLATINSHEK. This committee.

Mr. RIVERS. That came from the Department?

Mr. SLATINSHEK. No, sir.

Mr. WINSTEAD. When was that written?

Mr. SLATINSHEK. In the 80th Congress.

Mr. RIVERS. It came from the Department, didn't it?

Mr. SLATIKSHEK. I believe it was written here by this committee. Commander PORTER. I am not qualified to answer that, sir. I don't know where it came from.

Mr. PHILBIN. In 1947 or 1948.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Something around that time.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can get straight. If I understand you correctly, you are trying to make a few corrections here to bring reservists in line with the Regulars?

Commander PORTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. WINSTEAD. You are trying to avoid these other controversial issues in order to get this established at the present time?

Commander PORTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Because you can involve this legislation with other propositions which may have a lot of merit, that can get this so confused that we will never get this irregularity straightened out.

Commander PORTER. Yes, sir. What we are trying to do is rectify Public Law 810, which has to do with Reserve retirements, and if we are going to bring in academy time with it we would be concerned with other laws.

Mr. RIVERS. We are not concerned with this. We haven't any authority to take that up.

Commander PORTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. But it was just brought up in the overall discussion. I will say, like Mr. Vinson, if we corrected all the mistakes that you down in the Navy have made, and in the bills that you sent up here to this committee, and the old Naval Affairs Committee, on which I was, too, we would be out of business. So we have to correct your mistakes as we find them. When I say "yours," I am talking about the Navy, and others.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman.

And sometimes our own.

Mr. RIVERS. Well, we are not infallible.

[Laughter.]

Mr. RIVERS. I think you made a very fine presentation of the Navy's problem, commander.

Now, are there any other questions of the commander?

(No response.)

Mr. RIVERS. If not, we will get-who is the next supporting witness? Mr. SLATINSHEK. Lieutenant Colonel Eggleton.

Mr. BRAY. Just one question.

Who is speaking on behalf of the Department of Defense on this bill?

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Mr. Bray, may I answer that?

(Mr. Bray nods.)

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Actually the commander is appearing on behalf of the Department of Defense. However, because of the technical nature of the matter, we thought it best to break up the testimony of witnesses and confine them to their particular areas of knowledge. The commander is conversant with the Navy problems, and the gentlemen who follow, that is, the representatives of the Army and Air Force, will be able to give us the answers in their respective areas of

concern.

Mr. BRAY. Maybe he can answer this question, or maybe it should be addressed to someone else.

The Department of Defense also at the same time sent down requests for bills to be introduced rectifying some change in a similar situation, in the WAAC of the Army, didn't they? Are you aware of that bill that was sent down?

Commander PORTER. No, sir. I haven't seen that bill.

Mr. BRAY. It is not before this committee. But there was such a bill sent down by the Department of Defense. I wondered whether you knew about that bill.

Commander PORTER. Normally, sir, unless the bill does concern the Navy, it isn't sent to my department there for comment.

Mr. BRAY. It is a little bit difficult, now. Because often the Department of Defense supersedes the three services. I imagine you are well aware of that. We just kind of want to know what your policy is. That is all.

Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question.

About how many would this affect if it were acceptable?

Commander PORTER. Well, I was afraid of that question. That is an almost impossible thing to determine. We can tell pretty well with

the nurses

Mr. RIVERS. You don't want to leave that in the record, that you are afraid of any question. You are not afraid of any question. Commander PORTER. No, sir.

Mr. PHILBIN. You are taking it out of the cost.

Mr. RIVERS. We must obtain figures as nearly as you can estimate as to how many it will affect and how much it will cost.

Commander PORTER. Yes, sir; Department of Defense has come up with a figure. But the difficulty in the cadet situation is this: We don't know how many are going to continue to participate and be eligible for 810 retirement. There has been a heavy mortality along the way. It has reached the point of course, as the law is written, the number that retire is, as intended, 5 percent. Now, that would be 5 percent of several thousand.

However, many of them integrated and many of them dropped out, and we have no mechanism whereby we can pick up the numbers.

We can in the Nurse Corps because they have kept better track of it, and there are fewer of them. They feel that of all the nurses that they had there would probably be somewhere around 670.

Mr. PHILBIN. What would that cost be?

Commander PORTER. The cost would be less than $100,000.

Mr. RIVERS. For the whole business?

Commander PORTER. Yes, sir; for the nurses.

Mr. PHILBIN. Per year?

Commander PORTER. But that is not the Defense Department.

That is the Navy. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. That is the Navy.
Let us have Colonel Eggleton.
Is it Eggleton?

Colonel EGGLETON. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. Have a seat, Colonel. I think we have had you up here before, haven't we?

Colonel ÉGGLETON. Yes, sir; all week.

Mr. RIVERS. You just have a seat and bring your assistants and your professional people, and let us hear how this affects the Army. Colonel EGGLETON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RIVERS. I think it affects the Army more than anybody else? Colonel EGGLETON. Yes, sir; it does.

Mr. RIVERS. Really, when you explain the Army's side of it, it really takes in just all the bill, does it?"

Colonel EGGLETON. Yes, sir. It takes in the National GuardMr. RIVERS. Go ahead.

Colonel EGGLETON. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. You want to read your statement?

Colonel EGGLETON. Yes, sir; if I may.

Mr. RIVERS. We will not interrupt you until you finish.

Colonel EGGLETON. As you desire, sir.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Lieutenant Colonel Eggleton, Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Reserve Components, Department of the Army. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss H.R. 3365, as it affects personnel of the Army.

With me is Colonel Kidder, from the Office of the Surgeon General of the Army; Mr. Blatt, legal adviser to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau; Lieutenant Colonel Quinlan, from the Office of Chief of Finance; and Major Helterbran, of the Office of the Adjutant General.

First, with respect to service in the National Guard. Sections 1(A) and (2) of the bill would authorize the crediting of service in the

federally recognized National Guard in determining eligibility for, and the amount of retired pay for, non-Regular service after June 14, 1933, and, if the person concerned served continuously in the National Guard from the date of his enlistment, or Federal recognition as an officer, until the date of his enlistment or appointment in the National Guard of the United States, the Army National Guard of the United States, and the Air National Guard of the United States.

Under present law, service in the federally recognized National Guard or in a federally recognized status is creditable in determining eligibility for retired pay only with respect to service prior to June 15, 1933, on which date the National Guard of the United States was established. National Guard service after that date is creditable only for the period during which the individual was also a member of the National Guard of the United States, the Army National Guard of the United States, or the Air National Guard of the United States. Mr. RIVERS. You said for the federally recognized National Guard. Do we have any that is not federally recognized?

Colonel EGGLETON. Mr. Blatt.

Mr. BLATT. I am Mr. Blatt, legal adviser to the Chief, National Guard Bureau.

Mr. Chairman, the words "National Guard," as defined in title 32 of the United States Code, specifically defines the term "National Guard" as meaning the federally recognized National Guard.

Mr. RIVERS. Well, now, which ones are not recognized? Where in the United States is the National Guard not recognized?

Mr. BLATT. The term "National Guard" is sometimes used in the States, Mr. Chairman, to describe the State militia, the so-called Kentucky colonel being sometimes known as a member of the National Guard in the State. And there are at times units awaiting Federal recognition that would be National Guard units awaiting Federal recognition.

Mr. RIVERS. I see.

Mr. BLATT. These are the only circumstances I can see.

Mr. RIVERS. Go ahead.

Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Chairman.

Does every State have a National Guard or similar organization that is recognized-federally recognized?

Mr. BLATT. All the States, Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia have a federally recognized National Guard. A National Guard is authorized for the Canal Zone, for example, and none exists there. None exists in Guam.

Mr. RIVERS. I mean-what I had in mind also: Could some State be denied Federal recognition by the whims of somebody down at the Department of Defense?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes.

Mr. BLATT. The federally recognized National Guard consists of authorized units within the tables of organization, for example.

Mr. RIVERS. Well, the table of organization. But if they meet the minimum requirements of the National Guard basic law, they have to recognize them, don't they.

Mr. BLATT. I don't know that I understand your question, Mr. Chairman.

34066-59 No. 8

For example, should a State decide to organize a horse cavalry regiment at the present time, they would not be federally recognized. Mr. RIVERS. Of course that is stretching the point.

Mr. PHILBIN. I understand they are eligible for recognition by the Federal Government if they meet the standards that are prescribed. Mr. RIVERS. Yes. But

Mr. BLATT. First of all, they must come within the troop allotment as made by the Department of the Army and the like.

Mr. RIVERS. That is right.

Mr. BLATT. And then when they meet the strength requirement of persons who have the physical and mental qualification and the like, and the officers, and indicate that they have the wherewithal to safeguard the Federal property, the inspection is made and thereupon Federal recognition is granted.

Federal recognition may also be taken-I mean withdrawn in the event the unit fails to maintain its strength or otherwise comply with the requirements.

Mr. RIVERS. You are a lawyer, aren't you?

Mr. BLATT. That is correct.

Mr. RIVERS. You sound like you are pretty good.

Now, if somebody down in the Department were to decide that certain things should go on in the National Guard in any one State, he decides that, and they set up a certain criteria, either by way of numbers or what the unit shall contain in its makeup. He could deny that State with having a National Guard unit if he saw fit, under the law, couldn't he, despite the fact that Congress had passed a law saying that the National Guard shall be 400,000-what did we pass last year?

Mr. PHILBIN. 400,000.

Mr. RIVERS. They could decide down there in the Defense Department that the National Guard doesn't need to have but 50,000, and hold the money up. And they wouldn't have any National Guard. Isn't that so?

Mr. WINSTEAD. And if they didn't meet requirements, they could withhold recognition.

Mr. RIVERS. Why, certainly.

Mr. BLATT. Yes, sir.

I am not certain that I follow your question; that is, is your question, then, that if the Department of Defense decided that the National Guard should be at the strength of 55,000 rather than 400,000, that the Congress had stipulated, that this could be made effective?

Mr. RIVERS. Yes. We can't go down to stick them, to make them spend the money. That might be a good way to do it down there some time, but you can't do it. I would certainly recommend it.

Mr. BLATT. The release of funds is one thing, Mr. Chairman, that is the one set of controls. And collaterally it might be said that although the Congress might set a strength of 400,000, unless you had some mandatory induction, if voluntary recruiting methods failed, that is, neither would there be a means of maintaining that strength. Mr. RIVERS. I didn't say that. I am not talking about that. I am talking about what I said. If somebody decided down there in the Defense Department that they would have an X-number of National Guard, despite the authorization by Congress and the providing of funds by Congress, it would be 50,000. You don't agree with that?