there would be that loophole. They suggest that we make this slight change. On line 10, after the words "concerned" Mr. RIVERS. Line 10. We don't have line 10. Mr. SLATINSHEK. No, sir. I just counted them down. Mr. ANDERSON. Tenth line of the amendment. Mr. SLATINSHEK. Of the amendment; yes, sir. Mr. RIVERS. I see. Mr. ANDERSON. I wrote it in on the amendment. Mr. SLATINSHEK. The words "be considered to be serving"-instead of that we will say "be considered to have accepted a contract." Mr. MINOR. I think there is some danger there, that the original wording it says he shall during the first year be considered to have one. But what you really mean is that although it is during the first year that he gets it, he is considered to have it from then on. Mr. ANDERSON. That is what I wanted to be sure of. Mr. MINOR. And if he is considered to have accepted that from the first year, then it is good forever, if that is what you mean. I think this change will take care of that. Mr. RIVERS. That even makes it better, General Anderson. I think that clarifies it even better. Mr. BARTIMO. Mr. Chairman Mr. RIVERS. It is a good thing he wasn't a lawyer. [Laughter.] Mr. BARTIMO. Mr. Chairman, I think we should make it clear for the record that this exception only applies during the grace period of 1 year. It does not continue thereafter. The regular provisions of the bill apply thereafter. That is agreed and clear, is it not? Mr. ANDERSON. No question about that. Mr. BARTIMO. Good. Mr. RIVERS. Let me get this straight. He is serving under a contract. When the grace period is expired, he is constructively under contract, if they overlook him. But in that period of time he will have been tendered a contract or whatever the story is. Mr. BARTIMO. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I want to be sure that future implementers of this law are not confused from our previous discussion. What we are dealing with here is only an exception for the grace period, the 1-year in which we are not mandated to give contracts. Mr. RIVERS. That is right. Mr. BARTIMO. After that 1-year period, the provision that officers must get contracts under the terms of the act is applicable. Mr. RIVERS. I think we understand that, don't we? Mr. WINSTEAD. Let me ask one question along that line. If a man has 1411⁄2 years or 15 years, he is entitled to a 5-year contract? Mr. BARTIMO. Yes, sir; he is. Mr. WINSTEAD. You have 12 months in which to negotiate the contract. Mr. BARTIMO. Right, sir. Mr. WINSTEAD. But if you do not negotiate the contract, is he automatically at the end of 12 months put under a 5-year contract regardless of whether you got around to him, overlooked him or not? Mr. BARTIMO. That is the interpretation of this section, sir. Mr. RIVERS. Then if you terminate him at the 15th year, he is terminated as though he had a 6-year contract. Mr. RIVERS. Now is there anything else to discuss? Mr. MORRIS. While we are on that, let's see what amendment you made there, if you did make an amendment. it. Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir. I can read the entire Mr. MORRIS. I don't think it is necessary, unless the chairman wants Mr. RIVERS. I don't want it. Mr. SLATINSHEK. On the 10th line, after the words "concerned," instead of the language "be considered to be serving", we say “be considered to have accepted a contract under that section". Mr. MORRIS. Why wouldn't it be better to say "be considered to have accepted and to be serving"? Mr. STATINSHEK. All right, sir. I think Mr. MORRIS. And to be serving. Mr. RIVERS. That won't hurt. Mr. MORRIS. If he accepted, it will show that he has not only accepted but the Government is admitting he is serving under it. Mr. RIVERS. That is right. It can't hurt it. Mr. MORRIS. And be serving. Mr. SLATINSHEK. I will read it now. Is not tendered an appointment as a regular officer of the Armed Force concerned, be considered to have accepted and to be serving under a contract under that section, of such duration *et cetera. Mr. RIVERS. I think that is even better. Mr. WINSTEAD. Mr. Chairman, there is one other point that I raised a while ago, that I don't know whether I am clear on or not. The language of the amendment says, I believe, 14 years' service and the statement or the explanation says the excess service to 14 years. One of them says 14 years and the other one says more than 14 years. Now are we saying that a man who has 14 years comes under this or areMr. MINOR. Sir, we are drawing a line in this bill all the way through at the exact 14-year point. The bill is consistent on that point. Mr. WINSTEAD. It would mean any man that has had at least 14 years. Mr. MINOR. At least 14. The minute he gets to 14 years he is covered. Mr. WINSTEAD. One time it says in excess of 14 and the other time it says 14. Mr. RIVERS. When he gets 14 years, if they don't need him they pay him. But if they keep him 1 minute over 14 years, the Morris amendment comes in, in fact. Mr. SLATINSHEK. As far as people who are on active duty, the moment this law goes into effect. Colonel BOYER. That is right. Mr. WINSTEAD. I wanted to get that clear. Mr.SLATINSHEK. Now, sir-does that complete Mr. WINSTEAD. What about the language of the bill? Doesn't it specifically say 14 years? Mr. SLATINSHEK. Who has completed 14 years. In other words, what they are saying is more than 14 years. Mr. MORRIS. At least 14 years. Mr. SLATINSHEK. At least 14 years. Mr. MORRIS. 14 or more. Mr. MINOR. 14 or more. Mr. SLATINSHEK. Or more. Mr. WINSTEAD. At least 14. If he has 14, this amendment means you have to give him a contract right then for 6 more, if he has had 14 years. Mr. SLATINSHEK. On the effective day of this act. Mr. WINSTEAD. Oh, on the effective date of this act. But hereafter it has to be more. Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes. Mr. WINSTEAD. You cleared me up. Mr. MORRIS. It is all right. Mr. RIVERS. Now comes the bill for action of the committee. I haven't had any requests by any of those who have had to leave Mr. SLATINSHEK. Mr. Chairman, I have some other changes here on this bill, recommended by Defense. I would like your opinion on them. Mr. RIVERS. Now can we report this bill out today? Can we finish? Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir. Mr. MORRIS. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. Are they just merely typographical or minor amendments? Mr. SLATINSHEK. There are two major language changes, but they make no policy change at all. Mr. RIVERS. Without objection, I am going to ask the committee to accept Mr. Chamberlain's proxy for the reporting of this bill. He has an appointment that he can't break. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Thank you. Mr. RIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain. Go ahead; what are they? Per Mr. SLATINSHEK. They are actually two major language changes of considerable length but they do not in any way change the policy or the breadth or scope of this bill. But they are intended to clarify. The first one has to do with-it would add a new section 6. haps Mr. Bartimo could address himself to that language. Mr. RIVERS. Don't take too much time if you could do without it. Mr. BARTIMO. Let me first read it, Mr. Chairman. It reads as follows: (Section 679 (b) of title 10, United States Code, does not require an agreement to be made with a person who before the date of enactment of this Act has agreed to serve on active duty as a Reserve commissioned officer for a period of at least three years upon being appointed as a commissioned officer. Such a person shall for the purpose of sections 679 and 680 of title 10, United States Code, and section 1016 of title 50, United States Code, be considered as having made an agreement under section 679 of the title 10, United States Code, for the period he so agreed to serve in excess of two years. Very succinctly, Mr. Chairman, this helps the Marine Corps. As you know, the Marine Corps has already in effect active-duty agreements. This amendment would simply relieve them from some administrative work in making new agreements. In effect, it would provide that for the first 2 years of active duty these ROTC officers would not get what we call readjustment pay. For the third year, however, without having a new contract, they would begin getting readjustment pay under the bill. It is as simple as that. It is merely an administrative device to save the corps from the necessity of making new contracts. Mr. RIVERS. Will it liquidate itself after a period of time? Mr. MINOR. Yes, sir; it only applies to people on board on the effective date of this act. Mr. RIVERS. I see. That is all right. accept that. What is the next one? Without objection, we wil} Mr. Bartimo and Mr. Minor They had done this prior to Mr. SLATINSHEK. There is one other. have recast the language of section 3. the time hearings had commenced on this bill. Section 3 is, as you gentlemen discovered, very confusing. That is the section, Mr. Wampler, that you had questioned. Their rewrite simply puts it in language that is understandable, let's put it that way. Mr. RIVERS. If you can do that, we will accept that. [Laughter.] I think it has confused all of us. As many as are in favor to report on this bill to the full committee will say "aye." (Chorus of "ayes.") Mr. RIVERS. Opposed. (No response.) Mr. RIVERS. A quorum being present, the bill is favorably reported to the full committee now. Mr. MORRIS. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, you mean the bill as amended. Mr. RIVERS. The bill as amended. Now, Mr. Slatinshek. Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir. Mr. Rivers. Following the policy of the Armed Services Committee off the record. (Further statement off the record.) Mr. WINSTEAD. Mr. Chairman, I guess the record shows it, but I believe that the Defense Department and members of the committee and the staff members and the Reserve organizations have unanimously approved what we have done almost totally in this bill. Am I right in that? Mr. BARTIMO. Yes. Colonel BOYER. Yes. Mr. WINSTEAD. You all have been certainly of great help. Mr. RIVERS. I want to thank everybody for the fine cooperation. And also the patience of the committee and the faithful attendance and participation of the committee. You have certainly made my job very simple. I want to thank all of you. Mr. WINSTEAD. May I say this in connection with the chairman of this subcommittee: I believe he has been more to my satisfaction than any subcommittee I ever served on, on a problem that has as many involvements. He certainly tried to explore every possibility. I will say for the Defense Department none of us meant to be antagonistic in hammering so heavily for so many figures and other figures. But I do think we have had wonderful cooperation from you, and the chairman has done an excellent job in giving each one of us a chance to ask any questions as we want to ask. Mr. MORRIS. For brevity sake, I just want to say "amen," Mr. Chairman. Mr. RIVERS. Tomorrow morning we will meet-where are we going to meet? Mr. SLATINSHEK. Right here, sir, on H.R. 4144. That is the military construction bill, for Reserve facilities. (Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned until 10 a.m. Friday, February 27, 1959.) |