FULL COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SPECIAL SUB- COMMITTEE ON PROPOSED UNDERSEAS WARFARE LABORATORY LOS ALAMITOS CALIF.; AND H. R. 5784, H. R. 5787, H. R. 5788, H. R. 2630, H. R. 8375, H. R. 10242, H. R. 839, H. R. 5645, H. R. 80

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 25
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 8, 2004
• Sequence Number: 113
• Publication Date: August 1, 1967
• Content Type: REGULATION

Approved For Release 2004/05/05 CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
FULL COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SPECIAL SUB-
COMMITTEE ON PROPOSED UNDERSEAS WARFARE LABORAT'ORY'
LOS ALAMITOS, CALIF.; AND H.R. 5784, H.R. 5787, R.R. 51S8,
H.R. 2630, H.R. 8375, H.R.; 10242, H.R. 839, H.R. 5645, Hat. 8609,
AND H.R..11144
IloiJsE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMIr ITE ON ARMED SERVICES,
TTTaslzington, D.C., Tuesday, Auguste t 1,1967.
The committee met at 10 :04 a.m., the Honorable L. Mendel Rivers,
chairman, presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. Let the committee come to order.
Members of the committee, this morning we have a very full agenda,
as well as the construction bill, on the floor today. This is the last of
our large. bills, with the exception of,the military pay bill, which, of
course, Is as important as any piece of legislation Co come before this
committee. We have very good reasons for waiting to bring up. the
military pay bill at 'a later, date. As soon as we find out just whatdi-
rection the civil service and postal bill is taking, then we will know
exactly what we can do with the military pay bill. When the military
pay bill comes up we will not require long hearings. All we need is
a decision. And, of course, our committee has made great strides in
this regard, and I am sure we can make a fast decision. It won't take
us long. That is all we have left. I want to thank the subcommittees Very much=Mr. Hebert, ,Mr.
Philbin and all of you-for the extraordinary work you have done in
meeting your subcommittees' crowded agenda, making it ready for the
full committee to act on your recommendations.
This morning I have a number of things I want to bring to 'the
attention of the committee before I ask the subcommittees for reports.
The very first thing this morning is something that ]!as caiised`ino
ot of worry;.and J
m~mb Mr Hardy., .hair lIi -. I eb6rk: , MI' ?wSti attLtYly.~r'.
Lug
eek; Mr__LZicliuou.
Hall
Mr. Bates and I will serve as ex officio members.
The subcommittee will proceed immediately to determine the status
of plans, including contingency plans, for achieving a military victory
in Southeast Asia; the ability of our Armed Forces to simultaneously
meet resent commitments in Southeast Asia, as well as treaty obli-
gationp.s, including the availability of military equipment and present
and projected force levels. In this connection, the subcommittee will
inquire into the existence of "shortages" in equipment and/or person-
85-006-67-No. 16-1 (3997)
inquiry- into-
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
3998
nel as well as the extent to which they may be affected or eliminated
by directed reductions in requirements, tables of organization, combat
support inventories, manning levels, and reserve stocks.
In addition, the subcommittee will inform itself with respect to
projected time estimates for achieving a military victory in Southeast
Asia, if a plan exists for such a victory, and the number of military
personnel required to achieve either a military victory or the cessation
of hostilities and in the establishment of a viable government in
South Vietnam.
The subcommittee will also ascertain the extent to which our naval
vessels require replacement, modernization, or weapons improvements ,;
the present status of major weapons systems previously authorized and.
funded; and the existence of any plans, studies, or recommendations
that may affect the assigned roles and missions of each of the four
services.
For the purposes of the inquiry herein directed, the subcommittee
will be vested with the authority granted and conferred in House
Resolution 124 in the conduct of said inquiry. All witnesses testifying
before the subcommittee will be sworn.
I hope it will be possible for the subcommittee to complete its hear-
ings prior to the convening of the second session of the 90th Congress,.
Gentlemen, this is a very important subcommittee, and Mr. Hardy,,
you have all the help you need, and you note that Mr. Hebert has
agreed to serve on this committee because of his long, long experience
in this regard.
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express appreciation
for the confidence which you placed in me to head this subcommittee,:
and particularly my appreciation for the selection of the members that
you have assigned to work with me on this subcommittee.
I think unquestionably with the background of experience and
knowledge and dedication of this group there will be assured a
smoother working and effective subcommittee.
You may be certain, Mr. Chairman, that you will have the full vigor
of this grout) working together to try to carry out the mission which.
you have assigned.
I think, Mr. Chairman, this is perhaps, without any doubt, the most
difficult and the most significant assignment that I have had in the.
more than 20 years I have been in the Congress. I just want you to
know how much I appreciate the confidence you have shown in me
to head this, and how much I appreciate the membership you have
assigned, and to tell you that you can count on us for the best effort we
can make.
I do want to make this observation, however : The period between
now and the 90th Congress is short, the second session of the 90th
Congress, is short. We will do our best to meet that deadline, but there,
is going to be a lot of difficulty in trying to do it.
The CrinrxaIArr. Mr. Hardy, today I am going to introduce a
resolution to get additional money. I am going to ask for $150,000 to
be sure you won't be requiring any additional money.
I assume that you have Mr. Reddan as your top counsel for this
committee, but I am going to make available to you additional special-
ized personnel who are qualified and who will be qualified to assist
you in this undertaking.
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/0gggiA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
This committee has been reading where other committees have gone
into areas for which we are charged. Our investigations of some of
the small things which you people have called to our attention-we
have maybe in the past overlooked some of the very vital things to the
security of this country.
One of the reasons I put Mr. Stratton on this committee, is his ap-
preciation and concern about the status of our fleet, the weapons sys-
tems on this fleet, the training of the men aboard our carriers, and the
weapons at hand.
Mr. Stratton knows. a lot about this Navy. He is a Reserve captain.
He has had the ASW-Antisubmarine Warfare Subcommittee-and
he has given great attention to this.
I know that Mr. Stratton is going to give the same dedication to this
assignment that he has given to other assignments.
While he outranks you on this committee, Mr. Hebert has agreed to
.serve with you, which is a compliment to the committee and a compli-
ment to you, Mr. Hardy.
Mr. HARDY. It is, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to express a
.special appreciation to him for giving us the-benefit of his wise counsel
and effort on this subcommittee.
The CHAIRMAN. Big things are expected of you gentlemen, and I
am sure that you will fulfill every feeling we have of the great job I
know you will do.
Mr. Dickinson, you are a new member. That is a great compliment
to you that Mr. Bates has elected you. Mr. Halleck, of course, has been
in Congress longer than anybody on this committee. Only Mr. Hobert
.and I are next to Mr. Halleck in seniority overall in the Congress.
Having been minority leader, majority leader, and so many other
things Mr. Halleck has a vast store of legislative knowledge that most
of us don't have.
Mr. DICKINSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join in with our
chairman and express my appreciation for being placed on this very
august and distinguished committee. Looking over the seniority rep-
resented resented on this committee, since I am new on the committee, I figured
maybe I was to tote the water. I didn't know what else I, could do. I
,sure appreciate the opportunity.
The CHAIRMAN. Whatever Mr. Hardy assigns you to do, you, do it,
Mr. HARDY. You will have to do more than that.
The CHAIRMAN. You will find out you will come out a very, very
well informed young man. There will be plenty of work to go around.
We know you will carry out your work. We know all about you, or you
wouldn't be on the committee.
If there are no other questions, we will get to the next subject matter.
The next thing is the draft.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by Committee Resolution
No. 4 of the 90th Congress, I hereby establish a Special Subcommittee
To Monitor and Review the Operation and Administration of the Mili-
tary Selective Service Act of 1967.
The special subcommittee will be composed of the following mem-
bers.!, F. Edward Hebert, Democrat from. Louisiana, chairman; Alexander
Pirnie, Republican from New York; and E. S. Johnny Walker,
Democrat from New Mexico.
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/05 40W-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
Mr. Bates and I will serve as ex officio members,
This special subcommittee will act as a legislative oversight sub-
committee on all aspects of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967.
In performing this function, the subcommittee will take such -action as
may be necessary to properly perform its mission and will, among other
things-
(a) Review the semi-annual written report submitted to the
Congress by the Director of Selective Service together with such
other specific kinds of information which may be required by the
Congress from time to time relative to the administration of the
Military Selective Service Act;
(b) Initiate such inquiries as may, in its discretion, be necessary
to attempt to'respond promptly and fully to alleged irregularities
and inequities in the administration and operation of the act when
requested by Members of Congress;
(c) Institute such measures as may be necessary t.o.insure that
all local draft boards and the respective directors of selective
service of the various States-axe apprised of the purpose of the
subcommittee and its willingness to receive and consider, from
such sources, pertinent recommendations and criticisms of the
Selective Service System; and
. (d) Submit annually to the chairman of the full Committee
on Armed Services a written report, outlining the subcommittee's
activities for the previous calendar year together with such rec-
ommendations as may be indicated.
The subcommittee's attention is invited to the recommendation of
the committee's "Civilian Advisory Panel on Military Manpower Pro-
curement" with respect to monitoring the Selective Service System.
This recommendation; which appears on pages 10 and 11 of the Panel's
report, emphasizes that the proper monitoring of the overall operation
of the System by a committee of theCongress would increase the level
of uniformity without detracting from the present independent char-
acter of local ?draft boards.
The subcommittee should develop its procedures in a way that will
effectively supplement the present audit procedures being carried
out by the Director of Selective Service and in a manner that per-
mits the subcommittee to assist in achieving a reasonable degree of
uniformity throughout the Selective Service System. '
You, will recall, members of the committee, we are quite concerned
about uniformity.
We are going to look into this very, very carefully.
Now, Mr. Herbert, you will select your counsel, and I guess I know
who it will be. You all get busy as soon as you can. I have every con-
fidence--and I am sure the committee does-in that subcommittee.
What is the next one?
Mr. BLANDFeRD. Mr. Hardy's report.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hardy, you have a report?
Mr. HARDY. Yes.
The CF[AIRn7AN. Gentlemen, you remember, I asked Mr. Hardy to
go to California to look into a project out in the Pasadena-Los
Alamitos area, concerning the antisubmarine warfare. On that sub-
committee were Mr. Hardy, I think Mr. Irwin, and Mr. Smith of
Oklahoma.
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/,,iCIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
Mr..-Tardy, I. wish you wouuld mak& your. report.
Mr. LARDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
.Your snbcQrmnittee put in aft intensive weekend, in Cali forbia, sir,
inspecting the various sites ;and ,the various existing facilities.
Zhe Ci1AIR IAN I, want everybody' tolisten now.
'Mr. HARDY." WVe went first to Pasadena, where we went' through
the NOTS facility there. Then wewent to Los Alamitos and went
over the proposed area and had discussions with the civic leadership
of that area. Then we went to San Diego.
Mr. Chairman, as a result of discussions with the city officials,
chambers of commerce presidents, other civic leadership in all three
of these localities; your subcommittee has come up with a unanimous
report, the principal recommendations of which are that we retain
the present laboratory at Pasadena, but provide it with new buildings
adequate to do what is needed at this location, including the purchase
of the property next door needed to give the site adequate room.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me interrupt you, Mr. Hardy.
This was for the purpose of establishing an undersea warfare
laboratory. Now, they have one out there now, don't they?
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, maybe I should give a little more
background.
Included in the full report which I have transmitted to, you by the
entire membership of the subcommittee, there are at present two
facilities that are engaged in conducting laboratory work in undersea
warfare.
The CHAIRMAN. Undersea warfare, one of our most vital areas.
Mr. HARDY. One is at Pasadena, and the other is at San Diego.
The one at Pasadena his, heretofore, been affiliated with the China
Lake operation, but it is to be separated under a reorganization. And
the proposal was to consolidate the entire activity at one location in
Los Alamitos which would have entailed moving of a facility from
Pasadena and the facility from San Diego to the one location at Los
Alamitos, with the construction of entirely new facilities to accom=
modate the entire operation; plus a new' function involving a group of
systems .analysts, along with the headquarters establishment. `
Now, your committee, your subcommittee in reviewing this situa-
tion took into account the recommendations of the Science Advisory
Panel, which indicated it was not,necessary these functions all be in
one geographical location, and as a consequence, because of the exist-
ence of a very close relationship between the facility at Pasadena and
the technical faculty people at Cal Tech, your subcommittee has con-
eluded it would be unwise to move that facility from Pasadena.
A similar situation exists in San Diego, where there is a close work-
ing relationship between the -undersea warfare activity there and the
Scripps Oceanographic Institute, which is located nearby.
There is also a close working relationship with the scientific per-
sonnel at TJCLA, the University of California at San Diego.
So your subcommittee, "after examining all of the information avail-
able, discussing the subject with the officials at both of the installa-
tions, at San Diego and at Pasadena, finally reached the conclusion
which is discussed fully in this report, but the key recommendations
are, Mr. Chairman., that the laboratory be retained at Pasadena, that
there be an acquisition of additional space which is adjacent to the
property in Pasadena to continue with the functions now being per-
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
4002
formed there, and retain the cooperation and the scientific advice and
skills of Cal Tech.
Similarly, the subcommittee recommends that the functions now
being conducted at San Diego be retained there so that they will con-
tinue to have the benefit of the scientific advice of the Scripps and
17CL A ggroup there.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it was estimated that, if either of these facili-
ties were moved, at least 50 percent of the present personnel would
refuse to move with them, and some estimates ran as high as 80 percent.
Your subcommittee did not feel that in either case it would be safe
to try to move these facilities and lose all of that dedicated and
competent personnel.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, this is the reason I asked Mr. Hardy,
Mr. Irwin, and Mr. Smith to go out there. To begin with, there was a
line item in the bill submitted by DOD to put this project at Los
Alamitos, and somebody had said-I think it was one of our counsel,
Mr. Norris--that Admiral Martell, who is in charge of a task force
charged with the responsibility of developing undersea warfare de-
fenses, didn't know anything about this line item, or about this project
being moved from its present location to Los Alamitos. He knew noth-
ing about it.
There were also some charges, I believe, Mr. Hardy bear me out,
that the. base at Los Alamitos was announced to be .closed, I think.
Mr. HARDY. That is correct. There was a statement made about a year
ago that the Los Alamitos facility would be closed in 5 years.
The CHAIRMAN. Anyway, to get all these things together and find
out just, what the facts were, I asked Mr. Hardy, to go out there. I
didn't put anybody from California on the subcommittee. Just to. be
positive I asked these gentlemen who have not had the great privilege
of living in California, and the great honor to actually have come from
California, and to have represented California, and all of those things,
and furthermore, I wanted the committee to see California, because
I want ever body to see this great country and discover it.
Mr. Hardy comes from Norfolk, and I wanted him to see we have
another ocean besides the Atlantic. He found that out, too. Anyway,
he went out there and made this fine report. That is the reason for the
report. gentlemen.
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, if I might make one observation----
The CHAIRMAN. This is a unanimous report?
Mr. HARDY. It is.
I would just like to make this observation: I think the unanimous
view of the scientists out there was that considering all of the factors,
this is perhaps the best solution that could possibly be arrived at.
Your subcommittee really worked hard to try to come up with the
best possible recommendation on this, and I would like to suggest
first of all that we have at least an expression from Mr. Irwin and Mr.
Smith, and after that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the report be
adopted by the full committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Irwin, would you like to add anything?
Mr. IRWIN. No, Mr. Chairman. It was a pleasure to be with Mr.
Hardy. He was a good chairman, although he worked us terribly hard.
It was a pleasure.
The CHAIRMAN. You go around with Mr. Hardy and you will work.
That is a fact.
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/4,pclA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
Thank you, Mr. Irwin. I appreciate your serving.
Mr. Smith, would you like to say something?
Mr. Smimi. I might say a word.
Mr. Hardy is a most able chairman. He pursued the object at hand
with diligence, just as he does here on this committee.
I appreciate the privilege of having had an opportunity to. par-
ticipate in this committee work, and I believe that the decision that
was made is in the best interests of national defense, and will save
the Government money in the long run, and I think Mr. Hardy
has well covered in his statement, this morning the basic precepts and
considerations that we had to consider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. CHARLES WILSON. Just a matter of information to me
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wilson of California.
Mr. CHARLES WILSON. As you realize, Mr. Hanna has made quite
a to do about this thing. Just for my own 'information is it.true that
Admiral Martell, did the subcommittee, find out he did not know about
this line item?
The CHAIRMAN. Ask Mr. Norris.
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Norris, our counsel, did go into that on behalf of
the subconunittee.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Norris, sit down there and respond to Mr.
Wilson's inquiry.
Mr. Norris. Mr. Chairman,. I had two conversations in the Penta-
gon that related to this. I never discussed' it directly with Admiral.
Martell himself.
No. 1 was with Dr. Raney, when he said he was chewed out by
Admiral Martell for not telling him about this in advance.
No. 2 was from Commander Denton, who said everything came
up later in the session after everything had been 'submitted to the
Congress.
Mr. CHARGES WILSON. Mr. Chairman, again, was there any way of
determining who was responsible for putting this in, or what. the
reason for it was?
Mr. HARDY. It, is a little difficult, I think, Mr. Chairman-you mean
as to who made the decision to put it in the bill?
Mr. CHARLES WILSON. Yes.
Mr. IIARDY. It is a little difficult.
The CHAIRMAN. Only tell what you know of your own knowledge.
Mr. HARDY. What Say?
The CHAIRMAN. Don't conjecture; just tell him what you know.
Mr. HARDY. I was just leading up to this. I don't think we have any
definite information as to how it got in there, except for the fact there
is available land to put it on. There was a desire on the part of the
local community to have it. We did discover those two facts do exist.
The local community wants it. The land is there. But beyond that, we
couldn't find any compelling reason for putting it at Los Alamitos.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you have something else to say?
Mr. NORRis. Yes. We had sought an opportunity to discuss the mat-
ter with Admiral Martell, but Admiral Martell was in the hospital
with some ailment for a couple of weeks.
The second thing is, when the subcommittee was in San Diego, they
had a session with Admiral Karaberis, who had preceded Admiral
Abhau in the Antisubmarine Warfare Systems Projects office. He told
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/05 4 -RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
us that he had specifically asked to have a briefing on the matter; be-
cause he had not heard about it in advance, and he was afraid it was
undercutting the systems analysis group he had put together for the
operations, for which he and Admiral Martell were responsible.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we have a responsibility. This is a vital
area. As you know, Mr. Wilson, you must have the cooperation of these
scientists. And you have your share of them in California. They are
making a great contribution, and I want to be certain that we continue
to get the help of these great men, because this is a vital area.
Mr. CHARLES WILSON. I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman, following Mr.
Hardy's report, this is a thorough, investigation, and I am sure that
the right thing is being done.
The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank Mr. Hardy, Mr. Irwin, and Mr.
Smith, because this takes time, to go out there. over a weekend and
interview all these people, and without objection, Mr. Hardy's motion
is agreed to and without objection the report is approved.
What is the next one?
Now we come to Mr. Philbin, the distinguished ranking member.
Mr. Philbin, you have three stockpile bills "I wish you would report
on.
Mr. PHILBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
H.P. 5784, H.R. 5787, H.P. 5788
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Subcommittee No. 1
met and received testimony on. five stockpile bills on April 19, 1967.
The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me, Mr. Phil'bin, just a minute. I don't want
to overlook the important thing.
We have a policy in this committee when we have a very distin-
guished visitor to present them to the committee. In that regard, we
have Mrs. Porter Hardy here this morning. We are very happy to
have you. [Applause.]
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Philbin, you can see why I interrupted you.
Mr. PHILBIN. That is quite a delightful interruption. I am sure we
all feel that way. We are happy to have this charming young lady here
with us today.
Because certain problems were raised concerning some of the bills,
we did not act immediately following that meeting. lire met on May 24,
'1967, and again reviewed these bills with representatives of the Gov-
ernmer1t. We particularly looked into the reduction of stockpile objec-
tives together with current and future production figures and current
and projected consumption rates. I am happy to say that we unani-
mously reported out three of the bills. We have two remaining bills
under further consideration.
We agreed to vote out H.R. 5784, a bill to dispose of 15 million
pounds.of molybdenum from the national stockpile; H.T. 5787, a bill
to dispose of approximately 7,640 short dry tons of rare-earth ma-
terials from the national and supplemental stockpiles; and H.R. 5788,
bill to dispose of 1,200,000 pounds of bismuth from the national and
supplemental stockpiles.
The remaining two bills that we are holding up concern magnesium
and,, platinum. I am hopeful that we can find satisfactory solutions to
some rather. complex problems regarding the disposal of these two
materials.,
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05AQ65 CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve without amendments ILII.
5784, I1.11. 5787, and H.P. 5788.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Philbin, were these unanimous reports?
Mr. P11111 ,111N, These were unanimous reports, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ARENDS. I second the motion.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, on the motion of Mr. Philbin, the
committee approves H.R. 5784, II.P. 5787, and H.1,. 5788, stockpile
bills, and without objection each of them is approved, and Mr. Philbin
will file them on the proper calendar.
I would also like to note that a quorum is present.
Mr. Lennon.
Mr. LENNON. Thank you., Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Philbin, with respect to your platinum and magnesium bills, is
it likely that some reasonable area of agreement will be reached during
this session of Congress in order that your committee could report out
a bill in either of those two categories, on magnesium or platinum?
Mr. PHILBIN. I may say I am glad the distinguished colleague from
North Carolina propounded that question.
We are doing the best we can on these bills. We are seeking now to
strike a consensus, as we like to do, with the industry. GSA and some
of the Government agencies are working in that area. The committee
will continue to give these bills very careful consideration, I assure
you.
Mr. LRNNON. I thank the gentleman, because I know he is cognizant
of the need, according to industry's point of view.
Mr. PiiimniN. Yes, indeed, we are ; we are working on it. We hope
to get good results.
Mr. LENNON. Thank you, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Off the record.
(Discusion off the record.)
The CHAIRMAN. On the record.
'Thank you very much, Mr. Philbin.
Who is next?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. IIebert.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. IIebert, you have a report from your subcom-
mittee.
Mr. HrBERr.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Subcommittee No. 2 met
on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of this past week, July 24, 25,
and 26, in both open and executive sessions for the purpose of con-
sidering 10 bills previously assigned to it by the chairman.
. The subcommittee, after very careful consideration of these various
legislative proposals, voted to report seven of these bills, and passed
over three.
More specifically, the subcommittee took no final action on :
II.1. 585, to increase the membership of the Board of Visitors to
the Naval Academy.
H.R. 5790, to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit mem-
bers of the Armed Forces to accept fellowships, scholarships, or grants
offered by a foreign government.
H.R. 8232, to amend title 10, United States Code, with respect to the
retired grade and pay of members who have served under certain
permanent appointments.
85-066-67-No. 16-2
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : qh~dRDP69B00369R000100230113-5
Of the remaining seven bills which were ordered reported by the
subcommittee, three were reported with amendment :
H.R. 2630 to provide for the furnishing of a uniform and the presen-
tation of a flag of the United States for deceased members of the Na-
tional Guard.
H.R. 8375, to amend title 37, United States Code to authorize a
dislocation allowance under certain circumstances, certain reimburse-
ments, transportation for dependents, and travel and transportation
allowances under certain circumstances, and for other purposes.
H.R. 10242, to amend title 10, United States Code, relating to the
authorized strengths by grade for medical officers on active duty in
the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
The following four bills were reported without amendment:
H.R. 839, to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide that
members of the Armed Forces shall be retired in the highest, grade
satisfactorily held in any awned force.
H.R. 5645, to revise the provisions of title 10, United States Code,
relating to the recoupment of disability severance pay under certain
conditions.
H.R. 8009, to amend title 10, United States Code, to remove the
restriction on the use of certain private institutions under the de-
pendents' medical care program.
11.1t. 11144, to authorize an increase in the number of Marine Corps
Reserve officers who may serve in an active status in the combined
grades of brigadier and major general.
There is placed before each of the members of the committee a
brief summary of each of the bills reported by the subcommittee, to-
gether with an explanation of the action taken.
With the permission of the Chair, I would like committee counsel
to read these short statements into the record on each bill, at which
point I would be happy to attempt to reply to questions from men-i-
bers of the committee.
The CHAIR AN. Thank you, Mr. Hebert.
Mr. Slatinshek, you go ahead and read each of the short statements
on each of the bills, so every member can have an opportunity to ask
questions if they have any.
Mr. SLATINSHFK. The first bill was handled by Mr. Marshall, H.R.
2630. With your permission, Mr. Marshall will discuss it for the
committee.
H.R. 2630
Mr. MARSHALL. The objective of this bill is to authorize the ap-
propriate service secretaries to furnish a uniform to certain deceased
members of the National Guard and present a flag of the United
States to certain persons in cases where members of the National
Guard die under honorable circumstances but are not covered by sec-
tion 1482 of title 10, United States Code.
Briefly, section 1482 of title 10, United States Code, provides that
the Secretary concerned may provide for the recovery, care, and dis-
position of the remains of Regular and reservists who die in an active
duty or active duty training status, or who die on authorized inactive
duty training or while undergoing treatment at the expense of the
United States for injury or disease contacted during such duty or
training.
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/05(k0tIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
This section--1482 of title to, United States Code-therefore -pro-
vides broad authority to the Secretary of the, service concerned to
properly provide for members of the 4rnled,Forces who die, under the
circumstances outlined in the preceding paragraph. However, there
is no authority for the Secretary to provide National Guard members
or other reservists with either a flag or uniform if their death is .not
directly related to their Reserve status. The only exception occurs in
instances in which such reservist had also enjoyed it veteran's status
within the meaning of section 901 of title 38, United States Code. In
such an instance; the deceased reservist with -a veteran's status is en-
titled to a flag presented by the Administrator of Veterans Affairs.
In summary, active reservists who die under honorable conditions
not related to their performance of training; and who do not 'have
a veteran's status, are presently ineligible for the presentation of
either a uniform or a flag at the time, of burial.
The Department of the Army, on behalf of the Department of De-
fense, considers it desirable that such authority be provided in the
law in instances in which the next of kin or other appropriate person
requests them. The Department points out that the fraternity of the
military does not draw the line depending on the cause or time of
death when the circumstances are honorable. Therefore, the entitle-
ment which the bill would provide is deemed desirable as evidence
of the public service performed by the deceased citizen-soldier. The
Department, however, recommends that the bill be broadened to in-
elude not only members of the National Guard but all members of
The Department estimates that the annual death rate of persons
covered by 1I.R. 2630 with the amendment recommended by the De-
partment is estimated as follows:
Army National Guard-------- ------------------------- --------------------
Army Reserve --------------------?---- --------------------------
Navy and Marine Corps ---------------------------------------------------------
Air N ational Guard-----
Air Force Reserve ------------------------ --------
380
515
165
68
35
The Department further estimates that the annual cost of meeting
requests for uniforms and flags would not exceed $48,000 annually.
No funds have been requested to defray the costs which the enact-
ment of this bill would create. DOD considers experience in adminis-
tering these new provisions will provide a basis for ascertaining and
including such costs in subsequent budget requests submitted to the
Congress.
The subcommittee recommends favorable action on II.R.. 2630 with
an amendment which would broaden the bill to include not only mem-
bers of the National Guard, but all members of the Ready Reserve of
the Armed Forces.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, H.R. 2630 is approved.
Now, the next one
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/05 4W-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, one point : This bill was amended
to include the Ready Reserve, along with the National Guard.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection the bill, as amended, will be
approved.
Now, the next one.
Mr. SLAnNsiiEK. The next bill considered by the subcommittee was
H.I.8375.
The bill makes five distinct changes in existing law. It would
1. Authorize reimbursements to members of the uniformed services
for the actual costs of parking fees, road tolls, et cetera, incurred dur-
ing official travel performed in privately owned vehicles, as is author-
ized Federal civilian employees.
(Previously approved by House as H.R. 12615 of the 89th Congress,
but not acted on by Senate-Report No. 1630.)
(Estimated annual cost-approximately $5,291,000.)
2. Authorize the Secretaries of the services concerned to publish
joint regulations which will permit the payment of travel allowances
for members ordered from a temporary duty station to a newly as-
signed permanent duty station with an interim trip, if necessary,
to the original duty station.
Under present law, a member who receives orders to a new per-
manent duty station while at a temporary duty station is entitled to
allowances for travel to the old permanent station only if orders
specifically direct his return to the old permanent station on official
business. The proposed legislation will permit such travel and trans-
portation allowances when members are required to return to their
former stations because of the lack of opportunity to close out personal
affairs at the original permanent duty station.
(Previously approved by the House as H.R. 8095, 89th Congress, but
not acted on by Senate-Report No. 562.)
(The Department estimates increased annual costs of approximately
$625000.)
3. Authorize the payment of a dislocation allowance to a member
of a uniformed service whose dependents travel prior to the effective
date of orders directing a change of permanent station when sub-
sequently such orders are later canceled, revoked, or modified to direct,
transfer to another station. The change will alleviate financial hard-
ships which now are created when orders are canceled, modified, or
revoked for the convenience of the Government.
(Previously considered by committee as H.R. 12616 of 89th. Con-
gress, but no final action taken because of inconclusive testimony re
retroactive aspects.)
(The Department advises that the cost of this change would be
negligible.)
4. Authorize the payment of a dislocation allowance for a member
of a uniformed service when his dependents make an authorized more
in connection with his prolonged treatment (6 months or more) in a
hospital. Under the present law, dependents are entitled to transporta-
tion but no dislocation allowance when a member is transferred from
a duty station to a hospital for observation or treatment. The Comp-
troller General has ruled that the dislocation allowance is payable
only when dependents move in connection with a permanent change of
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
4009
station and that transfer to a hospital does not constitute a permanent
change of the member's duty station. The change will alleviate the
financial hardships which occur in such moves by dependents.
This is a new request by the Department. The Department estimates
its annual cost of implementation will be approximately $178,300.
No. 5. Authorize transportation of dependents and shipment of
household goods incident to a member's transfer from sea duty on
one ship to sea duty on another ship for a regular tour of duty, when
the vessels involved have identical home harbors or home ports. Pres-
ently, such a transfer involved with two consecutive tours of sea duty
preclude a member from entitlement to transportation of his depend-
ents and household effects. The Department justifies this change by
stating that in the absence of this change in the law "the member must
either endure separation'fr?m his family for two consecutive tours,
or personally assume the costs of reuniting his family * ? ".
The Department states that it cannot predict the cost of this legisla-
tive change, but believes it would result in savings to the U.S. Govern-
lnent.
For example, the shipment of household goods would be less costly
to the Government than the continued nontemporary storage for the
second tour of duty.
This was not previously requested by the Department of Defense.
This is a Department of Defense legislative recommendation, as
evidenced by the letter dated April 3, 196t, to the Speaker of the House
of Representatives.
The cost of enactment of the proposal is as previously indicated and
totals approximately $5,531,300.
The subcommittee had no objection to the various provisions of
II.R. 8375 as recommended by the Department of Defense except for
the language which 'appeared 'ln section 7 of the bill amending the
definition of "permanent station" to include "the transfer of a mem-
ber from sea duty to sea duty when the vessels or afloat-mobile units
involved have identical home yards or home ports * * * .
The effect of this change, if enacted into law, would have created
an entitlement in every instance 'in which such a transfer occurred,
and therefore, in the view of the subcommittee, could lend itself to
possible abuse.
The Navy therefore was requested by the subcommittee to provide
language which would permit the Secretary concerned to authorize
such travel, transportation allowances, and dislocation allowances,
when they are justified so as to preclude possible abuses.
The Navy has submitted language, which, in the subcommittee's
view, will accomplish this objective. The language would appear as a
new subsection (i) of section 406 of title 37, United States Code, and
would read as follows :
!(i) Where a member is ordered to sea duty on a vessel or with a mobile unit
and although otherwise entitled moves his dependents and household effects
to other than the homeport or homeyard of the vessel or mobile unit because of
atnicipated extended deployment of such vessel or mobile unit, and he is sub-
sequently ordered to a different vessel or mobile unit which has the identical
homeport or homeyard, the Secretaries concerned may authorize the movement
of the dependents, baggage, and household effects to the homeport or homeyard
and prescribe transportation in kind, reimbursement therefor or a monetary
allowance in place thereof, as the case may be, as authorized. under subsection
(a) or (b) of this section.
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
4010
The language is clear on its face since it provides the Secretaries
concerned with discretionary authority to provide the various trans-
portation and monetary allowances ordinarily authorized on perma-
nent change of station. The language clearly identifies the type of
situation which is involved and requires Secretarial determination
as to the individual entitlements.
In other words, if the member concerned cannot justify his failure to
move his family to his original home port or home yard because of
anticipated extended deployment, of such vessel or mobile unit, the
Secretary can and will deny him transportation allowances.
The amendment offered by the Navy also strikes from section 7 of
the bill as introduced the language "or the transfer of a member from
sea duty to sea duty when the vessels or afloat mobile units involved
have identical home yards or home ports." This is the language which
would have created an en'titlemen't in every instance by identifying
such a change as a change of permanent station.
The subcommittee recommends favorable action on H.R. 8375 sub-
ject to the amendment provided by the Navy Department. The sub-
committee, therefore, recommends that H.R. 8375 be amended by
striking all after the enacting clause and substituting new language
in the form of an amendment incorporating the language previously
cited.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions on this bill? This is a very
important bill, gentlemen.
Without objection, this bill, as amended, is approved.
Get to the next, one.
Mr. SLATE SFLEK. The next is H.R. 10242.
H.R. 10242
The purpose of this proposal is to permit each service Secretary the
right to determine the grade authorizations (below general and flag
officer rank) for medical officers of his service based on the needs of
his service, under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense.
Under existing law, the authorized officer strength by grade is fixed
by statute-Army 10, United States Code 3202; Navy Chapter 545,
10 United States Code; Air Force 10, United States Code 8208.
These grade limitations apply to all officers, whether line or staff
corps. Thus, the promotion opportunity for all officers, whether in the
line or staff corps, has ordinarily been uniform..
The Department of Defense advises, by letter dated May 17, 1967,
that., because of the unique and special problems that confront officers
in the Medical Corps of the respective services, increased promotion
opportunity for such officers is highly desirable. However, in order
to cope with these special problems and afford increased promotion
opportunity to officers of the Medical Corps, the Military Depart-
ments are faced, under present law, with the dilemma of either. :
1. Continuing to offer the same promotion opportunities to
medical officers as are afforded line officers and thereby ignoring
the special consideration and problems that apply to the military
physician, or
2. Taking these special considerations into account by afford-
ing the officers in question (medical officers) special and. addi-
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
4011
tional promotion opportunities, but at the same time, offsetting
this action by reducing by a, comparable degree the promotion
opportunities of line officers.
Neither alternative is desirable and consequently the Department has
recommended legislation which will provide physicians with special
promotion opportunities without penalizing their line contemporaries.
In support of its recommendations, the Department of Defense
advises that in order to insure the continued availability of a high level
of medical competence in each of the armed services it is imperative
that each service maintain an adequate career medical corps. However,
because of the unusually high rewards available to physicians, both
economic as well as professional in our civilian society, the military
departments are finding the task of maintaining a career medical corps
almost impossible.
Indicative of the inability of, the armed services, to persuade physi-
cians to accept a military career is the extremely high turnover of
physicians in the Armed Forces. Nearly one-half of the military physi-
cians are less than 30 years of age, fresh from internship or barely out
of residency training.
Among the various increased incentives deemed necessary to cope
with the problem is the development of greater promotion opportunity
for medical officers.
The draft bill (II.R. 1.0242) recommended by the Department of
Defense is limited to officer grades from 0-4 to 0-6 (majors to
colonels) and excludes general and flag grade authorizations and pro-
motions from its provisions. The Department advises that the promo-
tion problem in respect to these flag and general officer grades is of
such a nature and complexity that it wishes to continue to study the
problem before recommending a suitable solution.
The Department of Defense estimates that the enactment of this
proposal as introduced would result in a first-year cost of approxi-
mately $2 million and annual costs thereafter of approximately
$500,000.
Hearings conducted by the subcommittee substantiate the need for
increased promotion opportunity for medical officers are recommended
by the Department of Defense. However, the Department had not
addressed itself to the career retention problem of dental. officers and,
therefore, had not included them within the provisions of H.R. 10242.
Testimony received by the subcommittee strongly indicated that the
dental corps of each of the three services is confronted with a similar
career retention problem. For example, the annual turnover of the Air
Force dental officer personnel is, at present, nearly 30 percent. In the
fiscal year period 1958 to 1966, the Air Force retained only 4.5 to 6.5
percent of those dental officers eligible for separation after comple-
tion of their obligatory 2-year period of active duty.
Since H.R. 10242 is fundamentally a permissive authorization it
provides the Secretary of Defense with a management tool to take
action whenever a need becomes apparent in respect to accelerated
promotion opportunity. The subcommittee therefore believes that this
legislation should properly be amended to make this management tool,
available to the Secretary for possible use in coping with career reten-
tion problems in the dental corps as well as the Marine Corps.
The subcommittee subscribes to the view that increased promotion
opportunity will provide increased career incentives for medical and
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
4012
dental officers. Therefore, it was not persuaded that this accelerated
promotion authority should be limited to officer grades or colonel and
below. Consequently, the subcommittee amended the bill to remove this
restrictive provision recommended by the Department.
The subcommittee recommends favorable action on H.R. 10242 with
an amendment which would :
(a) Extend the provisions of the bill to officers of the dental corps
and,
(b) Also include flag and general officer grades within the pro-
visions of the bill.
That concludes the statement, Mr. Chairman.
(Charts relevant to H.R. 10242 are as follows:)
Physicians
Dentists
Number
Number
I Percent
Total--------------------------------------
12,237
100.0
--------------- ------------------------
3,192
26.1
2,898
46.0
2:820
23.0
802
6.6
713
11.3
-------------------------------------
683
5.6
266
4.2
`---------------------------------`------------
512
4.2
189
3.0
----------------------------------------------
47
7
3.9
171
2.7
----------------? --------------------------
'
43
3.6
171.
2.7
7--------------------
---------------------------
531
4.3
148
2.3
-------------------------------------------?-
550
4.5
150
2
4
---------------------------
268
2.2
130
.
2. 1
10----------------- ---- --------------------
153
1.3
119
1, 9
11--------------------_-----------------------
140
1.2
107
1
7
12.
75
.6
57
.
.9
105
.9
72
1
14
7
70
.
1.1
124
1.0
102
1
6
16
--------------------------
17
119
1.0
102
.
1.6
----
18
152
198
1.2
1.6
133
123
2.1
2
0
19---------------------------------------------
187
1. 5
129
.
2
0
20
159
1.3
71
.
1
1
21
91
.7
74
.
1
2
22--------------
73
.6
86
.
1
4
23
84
.7
79
.
1.3
24--------------- --------------------------
65
.5
49
.8
25------------ ----------------------------------
38
.3
16
3
Over 25
117
.9
74
.
1.2
PHYSICIANS AND DENTISTS I N ACTIVE SERVICE IN RELATION TO TOTAL ACTIVE PHYSICIANS AND DENTISTS IN
THE UNITED STATES, 1966
Percent
distribution
Number
Percent
distribution
Total active in the United States-------------
292,200
97,000
100.0
In active service:
Department of Defense ----------------- ......
13,400
4.6
6.5
Army ----------------------------------
5
,600
1.9
2
600
2
7
Navy -----------
4,
000
1.4
,
1
800
.
1
9
Air Force
3,800
1.3
,
1,90 0
.
2.0
Public Health Service________________________
2,400
,
.8
500
.5
Allothers---------------------------------------
I
276
400
94.6
90, 200
93.0
r Source: American Medical Association Directory Report Service, vol. 17, Supplement No 60, Apr. 4, 1966.
2 Source: American Dental Association, as of July 1965.
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/05t0c1A-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, this is a bill by Mr. Bennett. Mr. Ben-
nett was way out front in his leadership on this.
It just does not make sense to have this severe shortage of medical
personnel, both physicians and dentists, and DOD to do nothing
about it.
We have extreme shortages. We have cases of these men being passed.
over and released when they wanted to stay in and were doing a good
job. This is just ridiculous-ridiculous. In every civilian community
there is a shortage of physicians and dentists. I want to thank the
committee for going into this, Bill, as fully as you have, and for your
report. It gives the Secretary of Defense an excellent management
tool to alleviate these conditions.
Now, nobody can charge this committee with not grasping the
gravity of the situation and trying to do something about it. We must
not permit our military to o without adequate numbers of experienced
career medical personnel, both physicians and dentists.
Mr. Hebert has been toying with the, idea of pressing his bill to
establish a military medical academy for military medical officers.
We may have to come around to that, because there is an extreme
shortage. And to pass over pphysicians and dentists, the same as you
do line officers, and release them when they are needed, with good fit-
ness reports, is just plain ridiculous.
It is like Mr. Bennett has always said, it is so ridiculous it is
ridiculous. That is what Mr. Bennett says.
That is why we want to do something about it.
Mr. RANnALL. I agree; I think the subcommittee should be pa`rt.ie-
ularly commended for its action, and I call the attention of the chair-
man to the subcommittee which you "created on dental care for de-
pendents, going into this problem as far as dentists are concerned.
The CHAIRMAN. You have not made your report yet, though.
Mr. RANDALL. I understand. I want to mention this. At that time the
distinction between doctors and dentists was brought out. I think wem
all should recognize they are in the same category, the dentists and
doctors are in exactly the same category. It is so good to see the dentists
have been included in this bill.
The CIIAIRMAN. I know :Mr. Byrne will get his report out pretty
soon, pretty soon, Mr. Byrne. Get that outjust as fast as, you can,
because we have to prepare to get this dental care for these dependents.
I am very insistent on that..'These dependents need dental care. They
have to get it. I know you will make a great report.
Mr. Mncii.LN. Just a point of information, Mr. Chairman.
Aren't they normally required to serve a minimum of 2 years, once
they go on active duty?
Mr. SLAMNSiir.n.That is correct.
Mr. 1\ZACiiKN. Why is there a great drop in your percentage in the
first and second year on the statistic table? It drops from 31-I don't
know what the 2,800 is-then it :drops in the second year down to
802, in your statistics, coupled with that report.
Why wouldn't they have to have almost the same? They have to serve
2 years.
The CHAIRMAN. Can you explain that to Mr. Machen? If you can't
let Mr. Blandford do it.
Without objection, the bill is approved as amended.
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/051011A-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
Mr. SI 4r1 'sluvic. I can't explain this one. This is. a Department of
Defense table you have reference to, however, it appears. to be simply
a difference in reporting.
The C11.tri0lAN. Naturally you can't explain that..
Now, yon will. notice that the DOD-did you get the answer Mr.
Iachen
Mr. B .IlNETT. We can let it go, but I think I might be able to
ansi er it.
What was the question you asked?
Mr. MACH.EN. Well, on that table, in connection with the_ report it
show's first year, on active duty, 3,100. Then there is a figure of 2,820,
right under it. I don't know what that refers to, But, second year it
drops down to approximately one-fourth of the, 3,100, only 602; yet
they' are supposed to have 2 years of active duty.
Mr.. BIANTTFORD. I can explain it.
Actually, the 1 year is those with less than 7., and those with more
than 1 year, and then you drop off at the end of 2 because your. obli-
gated service has been completed. They did that for dentists; they just
gave. you a combined total.
What they are trying to show you immediately after they complete
the: 2 years of obligated service, practically everybody goes out.
Mr. BENNETT. That is correct.
The CHAIu n N. That is particularly true of the junior officers.
You notice that the Pentagon said they wanted to study this. This
is a very historic and well-practiced Pentagon pastime. So they can
study all they please. We will have to make the decision.
Without objection the report of the subcommittee is approved,
and Mr. Hebert, you will get the proper calendar, and follow it
through. Without objection the amended bill is approved.
Now, the next one.
Mr. SLATINSI1EK. There are four other bills which were reported
by the subcommittee, and these were all reported without amendment.
With the permission of the Chair, I will briefly review each of these.
II.R. 839 is identical with the bill previously reported out by this
committee last year and passed by the House, H.R. 2450. There are
no changes in it, and it was supported by the Department of Defense.
(The report on H.R. 839 is as follows:)
AMENDING TITLE 10, U.S. CODE, To PROVIDE T HAT ATF,IMBERS OF TIIE ARMED .FORCES
SHALL BE RETIRED IN TIIE HIGHEST (TRADE SATISFACTORILY HELD IN ANY
ARMED FORCES.
The purpose of the proposal is to provide that members of the Armed Forces
shall lie retired in the highest grade held in any of the Armed Forces provided
the service performed was satisfactory as determined by the Secretary of the
Department concerned.
This proposal would entitle a member heretofore or hereafter retired to
be advanced on the retired list or retired in a higher grade in which he has
served satisfactorily in an armed force other than the armed force in which he
was serving at the time of retirement. Existing law precludes this result.
Except in the cases of certain Air Force members, retired pay based on such
higher grade would accrue from the date of enactment. In the case of an Air
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/05404JA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
Force member who previously has retired in a grade lower than the highest
grade in which he had served satisfactorily in the Army, the higher pay would
accrue from the date of retirement but not earlier than June 29, 1948.
Additionally, the bill would correct an omission in a law pertaining to the
naval service, which authorizes advancement to a higher temporary grade in
which an individual previously has served satisfactorily but not a higher
permanent grade. In any case, a member who is retired in, or is advanced on
tho retired list to, the highest grade in which he has served satisfactorily,
may elect to receive retired pay based on any lower grade in which he has
served satisfactorily.
This bill is identical to I3.R. 2450 passed by the -louse of Representatives
during the 89th Congress, but not acted upon by the Senate.
DEPARTMENTAL POSITION The Department of Defense has no objection to the provisions of this bill.
The Department estimates that enactment of II.R. 839 would generate an
estimated cost for Fiscal Year 1968 of $2,530,914. The normal annual cost for
subsequent years is estimated as $798,456.
The Subcommittee recommends favorable action on 1-LR. 839, without amend-
ment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.
What is the purpose of it?
Mr. BLANDFORD. highest grade for retirement.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.
Mr. SLAnINSnEK. The next bill is II.R. 5645.
Mr. Sr ATiNSnEi . This is a Veterans' Administration recommenda-
tion.
The executive branch had requested a, very minor change in the
recoupmen.t provisions relating to disability severance pay to take
care of hardship situations that occur when a veteran subsequent to
his separation from the military experiences a rather dramatic change
in the degree of his physical disability. This change will simply per-
mit him to concurrently pay back his severance pay and receive the
difference in compensation, as a result of the increase in this
disability.
The CHAIRMAN. This obviates the needs of introducing separate
legislation for all these overpayment things?
Mr. SLATINST U~,nu. No, sir. Actually, what this amounts to-perhaps
I ought to read it. It is very simple.
The purpose is to modify the statutory requirement relating to the
recoupment of disability severance pay. The change would permit
the concurrent receipt of disability compensation from the Veterans'
Administration while at the same time limiting the rate at which
the disability severance pay will be recouped by the Federal
Government.
Under present law, disability compensation payments from the
Veterans' Administration are not authorized until a member has
paid back the entire amount of severance pay provided him upon. his
discharge from the military service for medical disability rated at
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/05bplA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
less than 30 percent. Therefore, in those cases in which a veteran ex-
periences a dramatice increase in his degree of disability after his dis-
charge, he is nonetheless precluded from receiving any monthly com-
pensation benefits until the total amount of monthly compensation
benefits withheld equal the amount of severance pay previously pro-
vided him.
This is a Veterans' Administration legislative proposal approved by
the Bureau of the Budget.
The Veterans' Administration, by letter dated February 7, 1967,
to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, recommended en-
actment of this legislation. The Speaker's letter, however, failed to
identify possible cost implications of this measure. However, it ap-
pears that no additional cost. will accrue to the Government as a result
of enactment of this proposal.
The subcommittee recommends that the committee act favorably
on the bill without amendment.
Mr. BATES. He gets the reduced figure until the amount is paid
back ?
Mr. SLATINSIIEK. Until the amount withheld equals the amount of
severance pay. It does not penalize his family which is now the
case.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, 5645 is approved.
Is this without amendment, too?
Mr. SLATIN51371x. Without amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The next is H.P. 8009.
Mr. SLAT]NSHEK. The next bill is H.R. 8009, to amend title 10,
United States Code, to remove the restriction on the use of certain
private institutions under the dependents' medical care program.
The purpose of the bill is as indicated in the title.
The present language of the Dependents' Medical Care Act as
authorized by Congress in Public Law 89-614 limits the program of
financial assistance to private institutional care for disadvantaged de-
pendents to care in-"institutional care in private, nonprofit, public
te institutions and facilities * *."
and St,
The language quoted above, therefore, precludes the use, of so-called
profit-type private institutions despite the fact that the care pro-
vided by such institutions may be available at a reasonable cost and
may be the only institution in the area providing such care.
The original restriction was that recommended by the Department
-of Defense because of concern over the possibility of excessive costs.
The Department of Defense now finds that this prohibition is both
unnecessary and actually unduly restrictive.
The application of this restriction therefore creates an unnecessary
burden on military families.
The Department of Defense, by letter dated June 12, 1967, supports
the bill without amendment and recommends its enactment and points
out that the "advance approval" concept under which the program now
operates affords the Department an ample opportunity to exclude from
participation those private profit institutions not offering quality care
or which have unreasonable charges.
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/019IA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
The Departmental letter also points out that there is in existing
law (10 U.S.C. 1079(f)) a provision which already excludes the use
of any private institutions when public facilities itre ,adequate and
available.
The Department estimates that the enactment of this legislation will
result in annual increased costs of approximately $50,000.
The subcommittee recommends that the committee act favorably on
the bill without amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, the lave now doesn't include these in-
stitutions, and Mr. Leggett's bill makes them .eligible.
Mr. SLATINSHEK.. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. That is all it does.
Without objection.
Mr. Leggett, that is a fine piece of legislation. I want to congratulate
you. It is going to serve a fine purpose. Without objection, this is
approved.
Mr. SLATINSIIEIC. The final bill considered by the subcommittee is
H.R.11144.
H.R. 11144
(The report on H.R.11144 is as follows:)
AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF MARINE CORPS RESERVE OFFICERS
WHO MAY SERVE IN AN ACTIVE STATUS IN THE COMBINED GRADES OF BRIGADIER
AND MAJOR GENERAL
PURPOSE
The purpose of the proposal is to increase the statutory ceiling on the authorized
number of Marine Corps Reserve general officers from the present ceiling of 10,
to a new ceiling of 15. This would be accomplished by modifying Section 5458 of
10 TT Q C.,.7.,
JUSTIFICATION
Section 5458 of title 10, U. S. Code, now establishes a ceiling of 10 on the num-
ber of Marine Corps Reserve general officers who can be maintained in an active
status (Ready Reserve). This statutory ceiling is not adequate to meet either gen-
eral mobilization requirements nor does it provide an adequate promotionopporL
tunity to officers in the grade of colonel. . .
Under conditions of general mobilization, Marine Corps general officer require-
ments will increase by 10 above the peacetime level.
At the present time there are 76 active duty general officer, billets authorized
the Marine Corps Establishment, of which 72 are filled. However, in the event of
mobilization, there would be required an additional 20 general officers to meet
mobilization billet requirements. Therefore, the gap between this total require-
ment for 92 general officers and the present 72 filled positions could largely be met
by increasing the number of available Reserve general officers. (Shortage of 20
general officers-today only 10 of these could be met by available Reserve general
officers=under the provisions of the bill-15 of these billets could be filled by
Reserve general officers.)
In addition to mobilization requirements, an increase in the number of Reserve
general officer billets is desirable to provide a reasonable promotion opportunity
for Reserve officers in the grade of colonel.
At the present time, during the period FY 1968 through FY 1971, the promotion
opportunity for this grade will average 1.2% If there is not an increase author-
ized in the number of Reserve general officers as recommended by H.R. 11144.
For purposes of comparison, the promotion opportunity to Rear Admiral
in the Naval Reserve over the same period will average 4%.
If the Marine Corps were provided the recommended increase of 5 Reserve
generals, the promotion opportunity for Marine Corps Reserve colonels over
the same 4-year, period would: average approximately 3.9%.
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
4018
EXECUTIVE BRANCH POSITION
The Department of Defense, by letter dated 24 July
strongly supported the provisions of H.R. 11144.
Enactment of the proposed legislation will have no appreciable effect upon
available appropriations.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Subcommittee recommends that the Committee act favorably on the bill
without amendment.
The CHAIIiMAN. I want to thank the committee. They had General
Walt appear, the first time General Walt has appeared before a com-
mittee of Congress. He made a splendid presentation. Mr. Hebert told
me about it.
This is vital. The Marines are very highly expanded now. We have
four divisions. The Marines are fighting a character of warfare they
have never been called on to fight before. This is very very much needed.
Without objection.
That is all of the committee reports, gentlemen. I have one other
matter to bring before the committee.
Gentlemen, I plan to appoint a special subcommittee in the very
near future to keep the committee informed on the status of the Na-
tional Guard.
It is past time right now for people to criticize the Guard. They are
doing it every day in the paper. Everybody is trying to get somebody
off his back.
As you know, the President, in his message to the American people
Thursday night, directed the Secretary of defense to "issue training
standards for riot control procedures to National Guard units across
the country."
IIe said the training would begin immediately. The conditions that
exist in the Nation today require us to ascertain just how effective our
Guard units are when they serve in their capacities as members of
State Militia.
After all, their equipment is furnished by the Federal Government,
and their training is paid for by the Federal Government, and it is
incumbent upon this committee to ascertain whether our Guard units
have the necessary equipment and whether they have received the
kind of training they need for this type of duty. And finally, what
we can do as a committee to help the Governors of every State in the
Union to control the riots that confront them and threaten them.
If additional training facilities are required, then they should be
authorized immediately. If new weapons are required, they should be
obtained immediately. There is only one language that rioters under-
stand, then, and that is the language of power, and the fear of physical
destruction. The sooner rioters and looters find out that they are going
to meet serious deadly opposition, the sooner these riots will stop.
I will announce the al "ointment of the subcommittee in the very
near future. I want to tell you that I am planning to appoint such a
committee. Of course, we can't. make the Governors issue orders, and.
we can't make the Governors do anything, but, we are going to have
to do what is .our own responsibility ; give the Guard everything they
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
401,9,
need for the fulfillment of their constitutional mission, because, after-
all, the Guard is the Governors' Army.
As I said on the floor the other day, everytime there is a riot or some-
body sees smoke coming up on the other side of the hill, we can't send
the U.S. Army in there. This can't happen. The Guard is for this, to
keep order.
Only under the law and the statutes, when the Guard cannot keep
order and the Governors are confronted with conditions beyond their
control, then may the President send the Army into any area-I don't
care where it is. But first the Guard is our responsibility for this sort
of a thing. We have got to be sure, Dr. Hall, as all of you have said,,
we must carry out our mission, and that is to see that the Guard is
properly cared for and properly equipped and properly trained.
In this bill today, gentlemen, I want you to listen-all of you-in
this bill today that we have on the floor we have provided $10 million
for each of the Departments for. military construction for the Guard
Come up here, Mr. Cook, and sit down right in that chair right there.
What is that $10 million for, Mr. Cook?
Mr. Cooii. We have $10 million for construction of facilities for the
Army Reserve, and $10 million for the Army National Guard.
The CHAIRMAN. We got it for both, for the 1rmy Reserve and the
Guard; and I might call to your attention, Secretary McNamara did
not request it, and indeed, he says lie has no use for it.
This is not our responsibility. We make it available because the Re-
serve and the Guard said they needed it. I want you gentlemen to,
know that I am trying to keep on top of these things, because that is.
what you want me to do.
Mr. Bennett.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, before the President's speech, a short
time ago, I had introduced a measure which was identical, as I under-
stand it, with what the President says he is going to do and that is to
provide for special training and riot techniques, and material and
things of that type, within the National Guard. This gives us a struc-
ture which we have already, and we can improve it.
I think we, ought to give consideration to the possibility of passing
that bill out. In the first place, you see, the President's statement is
the thing that can come or go. I think we ought to make a determina-
tion of our own in the Congress that we feel that riot control tech-
niques are a good thing to put in the hands of the National Guard, and
I think it would serve a useful purpose to enact this bill, even though
the President has said at this particular moment in history he is going
to do the same thing.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, it appears that the President doesn't need any
more authority. He has all the authority he needs.
Mr. BE, NNETT. He may not need authority, but he can withdraw the
authority.
I think we should enact u law. I don't think we should turn it over
to the Executive to -decide whether we need it or not.
The CHAIRMAN. We are going to have an investigation to see if we
need it, Mr. Bennett. I would rather trust the Guard with a gun than
some of these people with magnesium bombs running around here
promising to burn up the Capitol.
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/05 --RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
I will appoint the committee as fast as I can. I am breaking my neck
to try to get finished. As you know, we passed your bill, Mr. Leggett.
Go ahead, Mr. Leggett.
Mr. LEGGETT. I hoped the committee would perhaps go into the
question of the numbers of authorized strengths in our Guards in var-
ious States, because it seems to me that the primary mission of the
Guard is tq control problems that arise within a State, and for a situa-
tion to arise as it did in Michigan, where I guess they were 3 days into
a riot and they had to call for outside Federal troops, I think psycho-
logically that is poor. It is poor for our public relations outside of the
United States.
I think we should be able to solve these problems within a State for
a reasonable period of time, and I would hope that we could reassess
these strengths, looking forward to situations being handled on a local
level.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me say this : When did we pass H.R. 2?
Mr. SLA'INSHHEK. We passed H.R. 2 this session of Congress. We also
passed 17195 in the last Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. We passed H.R. 2 in February.
Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, s'ir.
The CHAIRMAN. We passed H.R. 2 in February. It has been over in
the other body since February.
Now, if that had been promptly enacted, Mr. Hebert's distinguished
subcommittee and the conferees appointed-I planned to be a cone
feree, and I do plan to be a conferee-we could have met with the
Senate and did just what you are talking about. WWWre know exactly where
we stand. So this is one thing against us.
This subcommittee can look into that.
Every time I see Senator Russell, I urge him to complete action on
this bill.
Mr. Lennon.
Mr. LENNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't want to be repetitious, but I do want to associate myself with
the remarks made by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bennett.
I do feel the Congress has a legislative respponsibility, irrespective of
what the President may have directed the Secretary of Defense to do
with respect to the training of the National Guard.
The gentleman from Florida's bill is an authorization or a direction
by the Congress to the Secretary of Defense to do what the President
has asked him to do, but the President tomorrow, for one reason or
another, can change that position.
That is the reason I think personally that the Congress has the
responsibility in this field. And I want to identify myself with the
remarks of the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bennett.
The CHAIRMAN. We still, have an opportunity to do a lot of things
if we can ever get the bill through the other body.
Thank you, Mr. Lennon.
Are there any other questions?
Thank you very much, gentlemen. We meet at 12 o'clock., I want
everybody to be on hand.
Gentlemen, everybody here has wondered why this committee has
never had the jurisdiction of foreign military assistance. There are
a lot of developments moving fast across the scene. I notice by the
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
 Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5
4021,
paper Senator Fulbright has introduced a resolution which has gotten
bipartisan support on the review of our commitments treatywise, and
a lot of strong men over there are behind it.
This could materially change our present commitments, something
the Nation has been requesting from where I come from.
This may make it more timely that our committee get the juris-
diction to handle the military assistance legislation. There may be
some discussion on that on the floor, and I urge and beg each member,
each one of you, to be on the floor, because I understand there may be
an effort made to take from us the jurisdiction we now have, properly,
in Southeast Asia, and indeed, the infrastructure part of the bill on
the floor today for NATO.
We will finish the bill today, gentlemen.
This is all subject to the call of the Chair.
(Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the committee was adjourned to the call
of the Chair.)
Approved For Release 2004/05/05 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100230113-5