FULL COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H. R. 9428

SHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, D. C., Tuesday, April 24, 1956. The committee met at 10 a. m., the Honorable Carl Vinson, chairman, presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Members of the committee, Mr. Smart just announced that it is impossible to get a quorum. So, therefore, we will just have to let these bills go over until next Tuesday. But I do think that we will be clearly authorized to instruct Mr. Kilday to agree to the Senate amendments on the bill, the dependents' medical care bill.

Let's see what those amendments are.

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Chairman, this is the bill to grant pay incentives to doctors and dentists. It passed the House, I believe, unanimously. As we had it, it provided for a continuance of the present $100 a month in special pay to doctors and dentists during the first 3 years of service. At the end of 3 years, it would be increased from $100 to $150. At the end of 6, it would be increased to $200. At the end of 10 and throughout the remainder of the service, it would be increased to $250. In the pay scales the only change the Senate made was to reduce that first 3 years to 2 years. I believe we should accept it. The point is that those persons, doctors and dentists, who come in because of a threat of the doctors draft act, have an obligated term of 2 years. So the pay increase here would coincide with the termination of the obligated period of service. I think there is a great deal to be said for the Senate provision, that the incentive should come when he is making his first determination as to whether he will stay in the service or leave the service. I don't believe that we would be justified in going to conference on that provision.

That is the only substantive change that they made in the bill. They did make it clear that there would not be constructive service for internships of dentists. That was the idea that the committee had of the House bill. It was so presented to the House and the specific statement made in the House that while internship for dentists was now regarded as desirable, it had not reached the point of being rerequired as it is for M. D.'s. And they just spell it out specifically that it does not. And then they insert some clarifying language that accomplishes what we felt our language also accomplished. But it does make it clear, for instance, that medical and dental officers retired prior to May 1, 1956, would not receive the pay increase. And the specific statement that it did not apply to retired personnel was made on the floor in answer to a question that was propounded by a Member of the House.

It grants an additional year in which officers, medical and dental officers, may elect to come under the Contingency Option Act. It should have been in our bill, but was not. You probably will remember that under that, an officer must elect during the first 18 years of his service to come under the Contingency Option Act and thereby accept somewhat reduced retirement himself, so as to provide survivors' annuity for his widow and dependents.

Some of these will be integrated into the Regular service-will be granted constructive service here which would put them over 18 years of service, so they would never have had an opportunity to make that election. This gives them a year in which to do it.

I think we should agree to the Senate amendments and send the bill on to the President.

The CHAIRMAN. In view of the subcommittee chairman's statement I think the committee would be warranted in interposing no objection. So, Mr. Kilday, you will call to the Speaker's table this bill and agree to the Senate amendments.

Any comments from any member of the committee?

Mr. DEVEREUX. Mr. Chairman, wasn't there some question about whether they would be allowed constructive service for retirement? Mr. KILDAY. I would like to have Mr. Blandford answer that.

Mr. BLANDFORD. That service will be creditable, General Devereux, if a man retires after May 1, 1956, provided he otherwise has the number of years of service necessary to qualify for retirement. That, of course, is contained in Public Law 305 and Public Law 810, which you will recall provides that when an officer completes 20 years of active service and retires, or completes 20 years of active duty of which 10 years has been commissioned service, he may use as a multiplier in determining his retired pay, all service creditable to him for pay purposes.

This service now will be creditable to him for pay purposes and thus individuals who retire in the future, will be able to count this as a multiplier. But we could not make it retroactive because there would be-well, there would be just no reason for it. This is an incentive act to keep people in the service. But they may not use it for determining eligibility for voluntary retirement or involuntary retirement. Mr. KILDAY. That is right. It does not accelerate retirement. If anything, we want to delay retirement.

Mr. DEVEREUX. That was the point.

Mr. KILDAY. So that once he gets 20 years of actual active service and has, therefore, accumulated the right to retire, he could retire and having 20 years plus constructive service he would draw the additional longevity. But he couldn't use his constructive service. to make him the 20. That would be entirely contrary to what we propose by the bill. We could be accelerating service 5 years ahead of time and we are trying to keep him in the service.

The CHAIRMAN. Strictly speaking, it is not necessary to lay these amendments before the committee, but it is the proper thing to do. And if there is no objection-the one that is handling the bill has the authority to ask the House to agree to the Senate amendments. If the committee so desires to handle it in that fashion, we agree to the Senate amendments.

Now we have 14 members this morning. If there is no objection from any one of the group here, I think Mr. Kilday is perfectly within

his rights if he asks the Speaker to recognize him to agree to the Senate amendments and save the trouble of going to conference. This is all we are accomplishing here.

Now, members of the committee, we will have to take a recess subject to the call of the Chair. Some of these other members had to go away on very important business to California. When they get back, why we will have a committee meeting. We will take a

recess

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Chairman, Subcommittee 2 will hold a meeting right now in room 304 to hear a witness from out of town.

Mr. PRICE. Subcommittee 3 will hold a meeting right now in this room, correct?

Mr. KELLEHER. Correct.

The CHAIRMAN. We will recess subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 10:20 a. m., the committee recessed subject to the call of the Chair.)