DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE EIGHTY EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON NOMINATION OF FRANKLIN B. DRYDEN TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000800130001-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 28
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 31, 2001
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: January 1, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
DRYDEN NOMINATION AND
MISCELLANEOUS BILLS
HEARING
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
NOMINATION OF FRANKLIN B. DRYDEN TO BE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, OFFICE: OF EMERGENCY PLANNING
H.R. 2989
MISSING PERSONS ACT.AMENDMENTS
H.R. 4739
ADVANCE RETURN OF DEPENDENTS AND BAGGAGE
H.R. 8676
AUTOMOBILE SHIPMENT TO ALASKA
H.R. 10319
INCREASE IN PRICE OF OCEANOGRAPHIC OFFICE
PUBLICATIONS
H.R. 11035
LOAN OF NAVAL VESSELS
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
0
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
3e-773 WASHINGTON : 1964
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
C()MMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Georgia, Chairman
JOHN STENNI 9, Mississippi
HARRY FLOOD BYRD, Virginia
STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
SAM J. ERV1N, JB., North Carolina
STROM THDR:VIOND, South Carolina
HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
STEPHEN ii:..YkOUNG, Ohio
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
LEVERETT SALTONSTALL, Massachusetts
MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine
J. GLENN BEALL, Maryland
BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona
CLIFFORD P. CASE, New Jersey
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
CONTENTS
Statements :
Franklin B. Dryden, nominated to be Deputy Director, Office of Page
Emergency Planning----------------------------------------- 2
Hayden, Hon. Carl, U.S. Senator from Arizona-------------------- 2
Watts, Hon. John C., Congressman from Sixth Congressional District
of Kentucky------------------------------------------------ I
IL R.2989------------------------- 22
Cook, Col. Walter V., Acting Chief, Policy Division, Directorate of
Personnel Planning, Office, Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel,
Department of Air Force------------------------------------- 23
H.R.4739------------------------- 6
Clark, Maj. E. D., Office of Chief of Finance, Department of Army-- 7
Parsons, Miss Mabel, Office, Chief of Finance, Department of Army-- 10,
H.R. 8676------------------------- 14
Allen, Roy L., Office, Chief of Transportation, Department of Army-- 14
H.R. 10319------------------------- 17
Moitoret, Capt. Victor A., USN Deputy Oceanographer of the Navy-- 18,
H.R. 11035------------------------- 3
Lyndon, Rear Adm. D. C., Director of Foreign Military Assistance,
Office, Chief of Naval Operations------------------------------ 4
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
NOMINATION OF FRANKLIN B. DRYDEN TO BE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING, AND
MISCELLANEOUS BILLS
THURSDAY, JULY 30, 1964
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE: ON ARMED SERVICES,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in room 212,
Old Senate Office Building.
Present: Senators Russell (presiding), Symington, Ervin, Thur-
mond, Cannon, Young of Ohio, Inouye, Saltonstall, Smith, and Case.
Also present : William H. Darden, T. Edward Braswell, Gordon A.
Nease, professional staff members; Charles B. Kirbow, chief clerk;
and H. S. Atkinson, assistant chief clerk.
Chairman RUSSELL. The committee will come to order. The first
order on the agenda this morning is the consideration of the nomi-
nation of Franklin B. Dryden of Kentucky, who has been nominated
by the President to be the Deputy Director of the Office of Emer-
gency Planning, to succeed Justice M. Chambers, resigned. The
nomination of Mr. Dryden has been before the committee for more
than the required 7 days.
I understand Mr. Dryden is accompanied by Congressman Watts
of Kentucky who is well and favorably known to this committee.
Do you desire to present Mr. Dryden, Congressman Watts?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN C. WATTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE SIXTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE
STATE OF KENTUCKY
Mr. WATTS. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure on my part to present
to this committee somebody whom they already know real well and
are well acquainted with his services, a constituent of mine and a
lifetime friend. I think the appointment was select, and I deem it a
privilege to be here this morning to do anything I can to further it
along although I know it needs no assistance from me. It is a
pleasure to be here.
Chairman RussELL. We are glad you could be here. Will you have
a seat, Mr. Dryden. Mr. Dryden has served as a member of the staff
of the Appropriations Committee and of the Committee on Rules
and Administration, and prior to that time as I recall was admin-
istrative assistant to former Senator Clements of Kentucky, and is
of course known to some of the members of the committee, if not all
of them.
1
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
2 DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS
Mr. Dryden, I congratulate you on this nomination for myself and
on behalf of the committee. We will be glad to have you give us a
brief biographical statement bej'ore we consider your nomination.
STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN B. DRYDEN, NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY
DI:RECTOR, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING
Mr. DiiYDETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Franklin B.
Dryden. I. am presently employed by the Senate Appropriations
Committee, handling the independent offices appropriations bill. I
ani a graduate of the lJniversit v of Kentucky in 1937, after which I
came to Washington and was employed with the Department of Agri-
culture as tobacco specialist, staying there until World War II.
I joined the Army, was a lieutenant in the Infantry, captain in the
Infantry, and served overseas :`:n the Pacific theater with the 111th
Infantry Combat Team. After the Army I returned to the Depart-
ment of Agriculture, staying there until 1953, when I came to the
U.S. Senate as administrative assistant to former Senator Earl(,, C.
Clement. :[n 1957 I became professional staff assistant on the Sen-
ate Appropriations Committee, ind a year later, at Senator Hayden's
request, became deputy chief clerk of the Rules Committee, where I
remained until 1962, I believe, when I returned to the Senate Ap-oro-
priations Committee. In 1960 and 1961 I served as director of the
Senate-House Joint Inaugural Committee, which of course was a
matter of 6 or 8 months in duration. I am married. I have two
children. :[ presently reside in Arlington, Va.
Chairman RUSSELL. Mr. Dryden, this office has certain authority
with respect to fixing the import of oil and petroleum products into
this country.
I)o you own any stock in any oil producing company?
Mr. DRYEEY. No sir, I do not.
Chairman RUSSELL. Do you have any questions, Senator Young?
Senator YOUNG. No indeed, I haven't. I thoroughly approve.
Chairman RUSSELL. We are very happy to have had you here.
Thank ycu, Mr. Dryden.
Mr. DiiVVUEX . Thank you, sir.
Chairman Rus.s1 LL. Senator Hayden has just come in. We are
honored by the presence of the dean of the Senate, our honorable
colleague from Arizona. I don't know for what purpose he appears
here but we are delighted to have him for any purpose, even if he
intends to castigate the committf e.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARL HAYDEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ARIZONA
Senator HAYDEN. You are so prompt that you took action before I
arrived. I understood you were to meet at 11 o'clock to consider the
nomination of Frank Dryden.
Chairman RUSSELL. We haven't taken any action.
Senator HAYDEN. I would lie to put in a good word for him.
He served on my Committee on Appropriations and has rendered
very valuable service. I am sure he is well qualified for the position
to which the President has nominated him and I am glad to know
that he is getting the consideration of your committee.
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 20R2/g~1/?3 bCl M
DRYDEN NOMIN TI
OI*
Chairman RussELL. We are delighted to have you here, sir.
Senator HAYDEN. Thank you.
(The nomination of Mr. Dryden to be Deputy Director, Office of
Emergency Planning, was subsequently approved by the commit-
tee in executive session and confirmed by the Senate on July 31 1964.)
(The nomination and biographical sketch of Mr. Dryden follows:)
NOMINATION REFERENCE AND REPORT
IN EXECUTIVE SESSION,
SENATE OF TIIE UNITED STATES,
July 6, 1964.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on
Armed Services :
Franklin B. Dryden, of Kentucky, to be Deputy Director of the
Office of Emergency Planning, vice Justice M. Chambers, resigned.
Born : Frankfort, Ky., June 11, 1915.
Education : Paris (Ky.) city schools, University of Kentucky, A.B., 1937.
Experience: Member of the professional staff, U.S. Senate. Committee on
Appropriations, 1957-58 and 1962 to present. Deputy chief clerk, U.S. Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration, 1958-62. Administrative assistant to
former Senator Earle C. Clements, Kentucky, 1953-56. Marketing specialist,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1.939-53. Director, Joint Congressional Inaug-
ural Committee for the 1961 presidential inauguration.
Other activities : Alternate member, President's Conference on Administrative
Procedures. Active reservist, U.S. Army, major, Infantry. Kiwanis Interna-
tional. Christian Church. Capitol Hill Burro Club (past president 1961).
Capitol Hill Administrative Assistants Club. Cub Scouts of America. Phi
Delta Theta.
Military experience: Infantry officer, World War II, Pacific theater. Awards:
Combat Infantryman's Badge, Beach Arrowhead, Bronze Star.
Family : Married to the former Dorothy Joyce, Montgomery, Ala. Two chil-
dren, Steven, age 10, and Susannah, age 7, Arlington, Va.
Legal residence : Virginia.
H.R. 11035, TO AUTHORIZE THE EXTENSION OF CERTAIN NAVAL
VESSEL LOANS NOW IN EXISTENCE
Chairman RussELL. The first bill on the agenda today is H.R.
11035, which is a bill extending the existing loans of 40 ships to 12
different countries. No new loans are involved. The ship types
effected are submarines, destroyers, and destroyer escorts. The coun-
tries to which the loans would be extended are Argentina, Brazil,
Nationalist China, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Peru,
Spain, Thailand, and Turkey.
The witness here to present this matter is Rear Adm. D. C. Lyndon,
who is Director of the Foreign Military Assistance Division, Office
of Chief of Naval Operations.
There may be serious doubt about the wisdom of the committee
embracing all of these loans in the first instance as eagerly as we did,
but we have made them now and I know of no way we can recall
them, so if you will offer your statement for the record, Admiral, we
will proceed to the next bill.
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
3> FA0080013J 001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
4 DRYDEN NOMINATION E,ND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS
(The bill,.H:.R.11035, follows:)
[H.R. 1:1035, 83th Cong., 2d sess.]
AN ACT To authorize the extension of certain naval vessel loans now in existence
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding section 7307 of title
10, United Stares Code, or any other law, the, President may extend on such terns
and under such. conditions as he deem3 appropriate the loan of ships, previously
authorized as :indicated, as follows: (1) Argentina, two submarines (Act of July
18, 1958 (72 Stat. 376)) ; (2) Brazil, two destroyers (Act of July 18, 1958 (72
Stat. 376)) ; (3) China, four destroyers (Act of August 5, 19.53 (67 Stat. 3(3),
as amended) ; (4) Germany, five destroyers (Act of July 18, 1958 (72 Stat.
376)) ; (5) Greece, four destroyers (Act of July 18, 1958 (72 Stat. 376)) ; (6)
Italy, three submarines (Act of August 5, 1953 (67 Stat. 363), as amended, and
Act of July 18, 1958 (72 Stat. 376) ) ; (7) Japan, one submarine (Act of August
5, 1953 (67 St at. 363)) ; four destroyers (Act of August 5, 1953 (67 Stat. 3433)
and Act of July 18, 1958 (72 Stat. 376)), and two destroyers escorts (Act of
August 5, 1953 (67 Stat. 363)) ; (8) Netherlands, two submarines (Act of July
11, 1952 (66 Stat. 587), as amended) ; (9) Peru, one destroyer (Act of July 18,
1958 (72 Stat. 376) ) ; (10) Spain, one submarine and three destroyers (Act of
July 18, 1958 172 Stat. 376)) ; (11) Thailand, one destroyer escort (Act of July
18, 1958 (72 Stat. 376)) ; and (12) Turkey, five submarines (Act of August 7,
1953 (67 Stat. 47L), as amended, and Act of July 18, 1958 (72 Stat. 376) ).
SEc. 2. All loans extensions executed under this Act shall be for periods not
exceeding five years, but the President may in his discretion extend such loans
for an additional period of not more than five years. They shall be made on the
condition that they may be terminated at an earlier date if necessitated by the
defense requirements of the United States.
SEC. 3. No loan may be extended under this Act unless the Secretary of De-
fense, after consultation with the joint Chiefs of Staff, determines that such
extension is in the best interest of the I'nited States. The Secretary of Defense
shall keep the Congress currently advi ;ed of all extensions made under authority
of this Act.
SEC. 4. The President may promulgato such rules and regulations as he deems
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
Passed the House of Representative; June 1, 1964.
Attest :
RALPH It. Ronasrs, Clerk.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. D. C. LYNDON, U.S. NAVY, DIRECTOR
OF FOREIGN MILITARY ASSISTANCE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF
NAVAL OPERATIONS
Admiral L-i":vDON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
this legislation provides the authority to extend current loans of ships
which are now in use by 12 friendly foreign nations. Forty shi.ps
are involved in this bill, 23 destroyers, 3 destroyer escorts, and 14 sub-
marines. This legislation merely authorizes continuation of loans. It
involves no cost to the United St:Ites and it is important to note that
all loan agreements provide that the ships may be recalled when re-
quired by TT.S. defense needs.
Normally, these loans have been for 5-year periods and extensions
have also been _For 5 years. By the end of calendar year 1965 40 of the
70 existing ship loans will reach their termination date, and it is for
these 40 that we are asking for au ,hority to negotiate extensions under
the same conditions that are in ef_-ect. The reason we are covering all
of those in calendar year 1965 as well as 1964 is to provide for better
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved F fse 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000800130001-3
R N NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS
planning by the countries involved. Unless they have an advance
indication that we are willing to continue the loan, the planning and
budgeting for future support of the ships becomes difficult for the
countries concerned.
I should point out that the proposed bill contains a. clause which
would authorize the President to extend these loans for an additional
period of not more than 5 years. There is a precedent for this provi-
sion in Public Law 84-484. At the end of the first 5-year loan period
and prior to the renegotiations with each country involved, the Secre-
tary of Defense, after consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
would determine whether or not the extensions were in the best interest
of the United States.
As to the ships themselves, they are all World War II vintage and
excess to our needs, but useful in the role in which they are used. The
destroyers are Fletcher class, and we still have 38 of this class in active
service. However, we also have 65 of them in our reserve fleet. The
number of those in the reserve fleet that we can expect to put back in
commission in an emergency in a reasonable period of time will of
course vary with the priority accorded the type and the length of time
permitted by the events causing the emergency.
It is apparent that if a friendly free world nation will maintain and
operate a ship it will be of greater value to the United States and to the
free world than it would be if kept in mothballs where it would
take 3, 6, or 9 months to. get it in commission in an emergency.
These friendly and capable forces in being can make a significant con-
tribution to the defense of the free world, and we depend on these
forces to complement our efforts in time of war. Additionally, the
recall provisions in the loan agreements make the ships available
to us when needed. This does not mean that at the first sign of an
emergency we would recall all or any of the loans. That is an option
that would remain available to us at any time, but we would also
consider whether our interests would, under the circumstances at that
time, best be served by continuing the loan or recalling it. These loans,
therefore, have significantly favorable aspects from a purely U.S.
national consideration.
If the ships were to be recalled, we would be faced with the choice
of mothballing them at about $200,000 to $300,000, each or of disposing
of them as scrap. The former course would entail considerable ex-
pense to add to our already adequate mobilization reserve of these
types of ships, and we would not recommend it. The latter alterna-
tive of recalling and scrapping ships which a friendly nation desired
to use would, of course, have significant implications.
The oceans are so vast and so vital to the survival of the free world
that we in the U.S. Navy know that in time of trouble our abilities
will be strained to the utmost. Any assistance then will be worth
many times the money and effort expended now in preparation for
such eventuality.
In essence, we in the Navy consider that the pro osed legislation is
very definitely in the best interests of the United States.
(Subsequently, in executive session, the committee voted to report
H.R..11035, without amendment, as covered by S. Rept. 1273.)
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
6 DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS
H.R. 4739, TO AMEND SECTION 406 OF TITLE 37, UNITED STATES
CODE, WITH REGARD TO THE ADVANCE MOVEMENT' OF ]DE-
PENDENTS AND BAGGAGE AND, HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS OF MEM-
BERS OF THE UNIFORMED, SERVICES
Chairman. EUSSELL. The next bill is H.R. 4739, advance movement
of dependents and baggage and household effects from oversea ardas.
(H.It. 4x719 i'ollow-s:)
[H.R. 4739, 8#>th Cong., Ist secs.]
Amo ement ofderendents and baggage 3and household effects eof membersrof the uniformed
services
Ile it enac.'ed by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That section 406 of title 37, United
States Code, is amended by adding the following new subsection at the end
thereof :
"(h) In the case of a member who is serving at a station outside the United
States or in Hawaii or Alaska, if tie Secretary concerned determines it t5 be
in the best interests of the member or his dependents and the United States,
he may, when orders directing a change of permanent station for the member
concerned have not been issued, or when they have been issued but cannot be
uesd as author[ry for the transporta -ion of his dependents, baggage, and house-
hold effects-
"(1) authorize the movement of the member's dependents, baggage, and
household effects at that station to an appropriate location in the United
States or its possessions and prescribe transportation in kind, reimbursement
therefor, or a monetary allowance in place thereof, as the case may be, as
authorized ender subsection (a) c)r (b) of this section; and
" (2) authorize the transportation of one motor vehicle owned by the
member and for his or his dependents' personal use to that location on a
vessel owned, leased, or chartered by the United States or by privately
owned American shipping services.
If the members baggage and household effects are in nontemporary storage
under subsection (d) of this section, the Secretary concerned may authorize
their movement. to the location concerned and prescribe transportation in kind
or reimbursement therefor, as authorized under subsection (b) of this section.
For the purposes of this section, a member's unmarried child for whom the mem-
ber received transportation in kind to his station outside the United States or in
Hawaii or Llauka, reimbursement therefor, or a monetary allowance in place
thereof and who became 21 years of age while the member was serving at that
station shall be conisdered as a dependent of the member."
(b) The text of section 2634 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to
read as foilo?ws :
"When a :member of an armed force is ordered to make a permanent change
of station, one motor vehicle owned by him and for his personal use may be
transported ro his new station at the expense of the United States--
"(].) on a vessel owned, leased, or chartered by the United States; or
"(2) by privately owned American shipping services;
unless a moi:or vehicle owned by hire was transported in advance of that perrna-
nent change of station under section 406 (h) of title 37."
(c) (1) Section 3(a) of the Act of August 10, 1956, ch. 1041, as amended
(33 U.S.C. 5557a (a) ), is amended by adding the following new clause at the end
thereof :
"(11) Section 2634, Motor vehicles : for members on permanent caange
of station."
(2) Section 20 of the Coast and Geodetic Survey Commissioned Offrcers' Act
of 1948 (33 J.S.C. K )3s) is repealed.
(d) Section 221(a) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
213a(a)), is amended by adding the following new clause at the end thereof:
"(10) Section 2634, Motor vehicles: for members on permanent change
of station.."
Passed the E[ouse of Representatives July 8, 1963.
Attest : Jerk.
Approved For Release 2002/01/23: CIA-RDP75B~2~8>81~30001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS 7
Senator RUSSELL. This bill would authorize the advance movement
of dependents, baggage and household effects from oversea areas if
the Secretary concerned determines such movement to be in the best
interest of the member or his dependents and the United States.
The witness who is sent to us this morning is Maj. E. D. Clark, Office
of the Chief of Finance, Department of the Army.
You may file your statement, Major Clark, and give us a very brief
outline of what this bill accomplishes.
STATEMENT OF MAJ. E. D. CLARK, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF
FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OFTHE ARMY; ACCOMPANIED BY MISS
MABEL PARSONS, OFFICE, CHIEF OF FINANCE
Major CLARK.. Pardon me, sir, am Ito read the statement?
Chairman RUSSELL. How long is the written statement?
Major CLARK. It is about four pages, sir.
Chairman RUSSELL. All right, you can read it. Go ahead.
Major CLARK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am
Maj. E. D. Clark, Office, Chief of Finance, U.S. Army. I have with
me Miss Mabel Parsons, Office, Chief of Finance, who will assist in
answering any technical questions.
The purpose of this legislation is to permit the Secretaries concerned
to authorize by appropriate regulations the advance return of depend-
ents, household goods, and privately owned vehicles of military mem-
bers from oversea areas to locations in the United States when such
return is determined to be in the best interests of the member or de-
pendent and the Government, and to authorize return transportation
to the United States of unmarried children of a member who become 21
years of age while the member is assigned on dut overseas.
Under the present provisions of section 406 (a) of title 37, United
States Code, authority for advance return of dependents and house-
hold goods of members is limited to "unusual or emergency circum-
stances." These limitations have been found undesirable, and too re-
strictive to meet the needs of the services. The advance return of de-
pendents under circumstances which under present law and rulings of
the Comptroller General may not be regarded as "unusual or emer-
gency" in nature is considered essential from the standpoint of the
morale and welfare of members and their dependents.
Unforeseen family problems, changes in a member's status, and
changing economic and political conditions in the various oversea areas
at times require the advance return of dependents, household goods
and privately owned vehicles from an oversea area to the United
States, as being in the best interest of the individual and the Govern-
ment. Such instances, however, often do not satisfy the "unusual or
emergency circumstances" requirements of the present law. Depend-
ents who are confronted with compelling personal problems for which
advance return is not now authorized place an additional administra-
tive burden on oversea commanders.
Those dependents may also have an adverse effect on the sponsor's
performance of duty and the operational readiness of our combat
forces. In certain instances in the past they have caused incidents
prejudicial to the best interests of the United States. Examples of
situations warranting advance return of dependents would include
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
8 DRYDI:N NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS 13ILLS
such compelling personal reasons as marital difficulties, extreme finan-
cial difli:'ulties brought about by circumstances such as confinement or
reduction in grade of the rnember, which preclude the furnish of ade-
quate support for dependents, death or serious illness of close rela-
tives, and other situations in which the appropriate commander deter-
mines that; the best, interests of t he Government and the member or
dependent w:.ll be served. It is normally best to permit, or if necessary
require, these dependents to be returned to locations in. the United
States in adva,nme of the return of t he sponsors.
Under present law, section 7 of the Administrative Expense Act of
1946, as amended by the act of August 31, 1954 (5 U.S.C. 73b-3), and
regulations issued pursuant thereto, members of the immediate family
and household goods of a civilian employee serving outside the United
States may be returned to the United States, prior to return of the
employee, at Government expense when determined in the public in-
terest, or if the; return is for any other reason the employee may be
reimbursed for such expenses upon completion of his agreed period of
service. It is considered that military personnel should be afforded
return transportation benefits at least equivalent to those provided
for civilian employees serving overseas, and since military members
are required to complete assignee' oversea tours of duty, the legisla-
tion proposed would in this respect extend to the military members
substantially the same rights now provided for civilian employees
serving overseas.
Upon tho permanent change of station of a member from overseas
io the United States, present law authorizes the return of a privately
owned vehicle, however, there is no authority for its advance return.
When dependents are returned in advance, an automobile for use by
dependents in th e United States would in most instances be a necessity.
.Authority for the advance return of a privately owned vehicle at the
time dependents are returned is, therefore, considered necessary.
Movement of an automobile under such authority would of course pre-
elude the return transportation to the United States at Government
expense any additional vehicle that may be owned or acquired by the
sponsor subsequent to the advance movement of his dependents.
Under the proposed bill transportation of privately owned vehicles
would be on vessels, owned, leased or chartered by the United States,
or by privately owned American shipping services.
With respect `,o the return of the children of a member who attain
the age of 21 years while overseas, it is considered that the Govern-
ment has a responsibility to provide return transportation to the
United State s of the children of a member who were transported over-
seas at Government expense, incident to a sponsor's change of perme-
nent duty station, and who attain the age of 21 years while the member
is serving overseas.
Under the proposed bill the Government's responsibility for the re-
turn of such children upon advance return of dependents or upon the
assignment of the member to duty in the United States would be
recognized.
Inasmuch as the Government would ultimately be required to pay
the costs of return transportation of dependents, and movement of
baggage, household goods, and privately owned vehicles, on permanent
change of station of the sponsor, in almost every instance, the enact,
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B00380R0008001a0001-3
DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS
ment of this legislation would result in only nominal increases in budg-
etary requirements, which can be absorbed within existing appropri-
ations.
Sir, that concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
Chairman RussELL. Do I understand that this gives the dependents
and to military personnel only the rights that are now given civilian
personnel, Major?
Major CLARK. Essentially the same rights, yes, sir. Our current
regulations do not give us the same latitude in returning dependents
as the civilians now have.
Chairman RussELL. I might say that the willingness with which you
are always going to absorb these increased costs doesn't very well
subscribe with your presentation before the Appropriations Commit-
tee. There you can't take a time reduction anywhere at any time.
Are there any questions of the major ?
Senator SALT'ONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, just this one question.
This bill really puts its right up to the commander to make the deci-
sion to return these dependents, regardless of whether it is an extreme
emergency or not. The buck is passed to the commanding officer.
That is about what it amounts to, isn't it?
Major CLARK. Yes, sir. He would have the authority to make the
decision.
Senator SALTONSTALL. He is going to make the decision if the people
are unhappy together, or sickness or anything else, whereas under the
present law there has got to be an emergency.
Chairman RUSSELL. Will there be any regulations issued by the
Department that apply to all stations, Major?
Major CLARK. Yes, sir; the joint travel regulations would imple-
ment this particular provision, sir.
Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, it just seems to me unless
there are regulations, unless there is something in this act to put the
regulation in that gives the commander some guide, I think it would
put an awful burden on him to decide whether I should be allowed to
have my dependents return home, and the chairman couldn't have his
dependents return home.
He has to make a personality decision. That would be my only
feeling on this matter. It would be rough on him, unless there is
something in this bill to say that there should be a certain sort of
guideline. Do you agree to that?
Major CLARK. Yes, sir. It would be difficult for the commander,
but he is in the best position to decide, based on the circumstances,
whether it should happen or not, whether they should be returned to
the United States. He is the person who best knows what the effect
will be upon his command if they remain.
Chairman RUSSELL. Any further questions?
Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman RUSSELL. All right, Senator Case.
Senator CASE. What is it that costs the additional money? It is the
people or the baggage or the cars or whatnots, is that right?
Major CLARK. You see, sir, under the current rule the `individual
would be entitled to this return trip at some date.
Senator CASE. I understand, but why is there any additional cost?
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
10 DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOTJS BILLS
Major CLARK. Heretofore, sir, the person who becomes over 21 years
of age would not be entitled to reimbursement upon return. Wewwant
to take care of a situation where the individual might have a dependent
who is 19 ears old, who went over there and attains the age of 21
while then.,.' and would be entitled to receive reimbursement for that
dependent when he returns.
Senator OOASE. Is that the sole reason for this $632,000?
Major CLARK. There may be one other difference. If I may, sir,
I would call on Miss Parsons to give a statement on that.
Chairman RusSELL. Give your name please.
Miss I':~rsoNs. Miss Mabel Parsons, Office of Finance. As I under-
stand it, the $632,000 was. partly the result of budgetary requirements
of moving this cost up to the yea. r before it would normally be incurred.
Senator CAsj. You mean the cost is not increased. It is just paid
sooner, is that, right?
Miss PAT-SONS. Yes; it is paid sooner, but part of it is an increase
such as children over 21.
Senator CASE. And such increase as there actually is is indicted
by the face, that children can now be sent out while they are still
entitled to get reimbursement as opposed to waiting until they can't
get it; is that the point?
Miss PAnsor-Ts. Well, they go ever. They are entitled to come back
if they are not 21 years old.
Senator CASE. Is the whole additional cost fact that under this legis-
lation children might be permitted to anticipate the fact they are
going to be g otting overage anc. therefore come home while they can
still get it?
Miss PAra;o2TS. No; they will come home after 21. No; that wouldn't
be it. As we understand from the, budgetary people this was an
advance budgeting for it.
Senator CASE. Does somebody understand my question? I haven't
made myself clear.
Major (liar:K. I understand the question. We haven't a complete
analysis of this cost to tell you the details.
Senator CASE. I am not asking about the figures now. I am asking
why should there be any additional cost?
Miss PARSONS. Because we are bringing back children who arrive
at the age of 21 when they are over there. We took them over there
before they were 21, but now we will bring them back. We have not
heretofore been bringing them back after 21 if we took them over
prior to being :21.
Chairmar. IRussELL. It liberal: zes the present law, does it not, Miss
Parsons, to where now if a dependent of any kind becomes 21 after the
foreign. tour of duty commences, this. bill would place the obligation
on the Government to defray the expenses on it, whereas under the
present law if he becomes 21 he is his own man and the Government
has no obligation.
Miss PARsor s. They have no obligation to him.
Senator CASE. I see. In other words if somebody has dependents
over 21 you don't ship them anyw:lere ?
Miss PARSONS. Today we do not ship him anywhere, but if we had
taken him over, under this new law we will bring him back, even if
he is over 21.
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For,"seNg9P#/Q113 ~PAAJWF
,L#9&W F80013qg01-3
Senator CASE. Why is the word "advance" in the title? What does
that mean?
Miss PARSONS. "Advance" means that it is in advance of the issuance
of the man's permanent change of duty station orders. He has entitle-
ment when his orders are issued.
Major CLARK. Sir, to the best of my knowledge that is the sole
reason.
Senator CASE. So the advance movement of either people or baggage
or household effects has nothing to do with any additional cost. It is
only that you are now broadening it to include dependents.
Chairman RUSSELL. Under the present law it doesn't change that?
Major CLARK. It accelerates the cost.
Senator CASE. So you could have an advance movement without
broadening the dependents reimbursement.
Miss PARSONS. Oh, yes sir, we could.
Senator CASE. And you want both in one?
Miss PARSONS. Yes.
Senator YOUNG. What change is made if any in transporting-it
says here-
one motor vehicle owned by him and for his personal use may be transferred to
the new station at the expense of the United States on a vessel owned, leased,
or chartered and also. by a privately owned American shipping service.
Miss PARSONS. It is only in advance. It is done before he gets his
permanent change of station order. He goes back with the wife so
she can visit at home.
Senator YOUNG. Suppose those orders are changed as they often
are. Then our good Uncle has to pay again. Why isn't the present
law adequate for moving vehicles?
Miss PARSONS. It is adequate to move them when the man has his
order to come back but if the vehicle comes home ahead of the man,
there is no authority to bring it back with the wife and children.
Senator YOUNG. So the child who attains the age of 21, if he is
using the family automobile, will that be sent ahead of time?
Miss PARSONS. If the wife is going with him, yes. It wouldn't
just be one child.
Senator YOUNG. Then if the order for the man in the service is
changed, we are stuck with the transportation charges on the automo-
bile. Is that part of the additional $6'32,000?
Miss PARSONS. It could be, but we do have authority for cancellation
of orders, but not on the advance movement.
Senator YOUNG. That must necessarily be part of that cost.
Miss PARSONS. There are little nominal figures in there, yes.
Senator YOUNG. $632,000 isn't a. little nominal figure to me. That
is all I have.
Miss PARSONS. It isn't to me either, but across the board with the
three services having this, it is small in comparison with their whole
budget.
Senator CASE. Just one further question, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman RUSSELL. Yes indeed, go ahead.
Senator CASE. A member of the Armed Forces has a child who is
now 22 in Germany. He is sent back. Is the child brought back
now at Government expense?
Miss PARSONS. No.
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
12 DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS
Senator CASE. Whether in advance of or at the same time makes
no difference.
Miss PARSONS. Neither.
Senator CASE. So there is slippec in here somehow or other, and I.
am not saying; .t shouldn't be done, out you are now taking care of all
dependents whet.aer under or over 21 regardless of whether it is
advance or concurrently with the me:nber of the Armed Forces' return ?
Miss PARSONS. Only if we took them over and they became 21 while
overseas.
Senator CASE. This has nothing to do with the advance or not.
Miss PARSONS. No, sir, it is forbot:i.
Senator CASE. Just so we undu'stand. I do think this isn't as
clear as it ought to be. It may be a very simple point and we ought to
go along with it I. think.
Chairman RUSSELL. Any further questions?
Senator SAr.roNSTALL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. May I ask this ques-
tion of the ma jc r?
As I read this bill, on the first page, line 7, "if the Secretary con
corned determines it to be in the best interests" and so on.. Now if I
read the House report, the present rules on page 2 of the report, the
paragraph next to the bottom, this is all guided by joint travel regu-
lations paragraph. 7103 and 8303, which govern the advance return of
dependents and household goods under the present law. Now this
bill says nothing about the commanc`:er. It puts it up to the Secretary.
Now, is it your understanding that the rules and regulations will be
changed to cover this new situation?
Major CLARE:. Yes, sir, the commander will make the decision.
Senator SALTONSTALL. So that there will be a change in the regula-
tions putting up more responsibility to the commander in question, or
this isn't going';o''be left to the Secretary ?,
Major CLARK. Sir, these paragraphs. right now provide that the
commander will make the decision.
Senator SA LTO N-STALL. I don't see that in the bill. Could you point
it out to mein the bill ?
Major CLARE.. No, sir, it is not in the bill, but the joint travel regu-
lation now provides that the commander will make this decision.
Senator SA UTONSTALL. So what you would propose to do would be
to change these two travel regulations, these two sections, paragraphs
7103 and 830" of the joint travel regulations, to cover the term of this
bill if this bill becomes law ?
Major CLARK. Yes, sir.
Senator SALZOS STALL. Thank you.
Chairman RusIELL. Of course, one of the coming fixings of the
whole law, indeed of our whole systam of government, is the fact that
Congress delegates authority to someone and that person delegates it
to someone else. There are hundreds of statutes that say the Presi-
dent of the United States shall do so and so. There is not 1 case out
or 10,000 the President ever knows any action is taken under it. Ile
delegates it to someone else. This law doesn't say anything' about the
commanding officers of the post. The Secretary of the department
involved is responsible to this committee.
If the commanding officer of the post makes a mistake or anything'
noes wrong, tha commanding officer may be responsible to the Joint
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS 13
Chiefs or to the Army. But he has no responsibility to this com-
mittee. This committee would be looking to the Secretary of the
Army to correctly administer this act.
While, of course, as a practical matter all of these determinations
are made by the commanding officer of the post, they have to be done
in the name of the Secretary of Defense, and there is no way that the
Secretary of Defense can escape responsibility therefor.
He can't come in here and say "I didn't know anything about that
colonel out there at that base issuing this order."
The law says he shall do it. As I say, that is probably the most
common fiction in the American system. We delegate to the Presi-
dent authority to do this thing, that thinand the other thing, and it
would be the rarest thing on earth for the-President to even know any-
thing about 1 case out of 10,000. It is all done by someone else whom
ho delegates authority to.
Senator CANNON.'Mr. Chairman, the Secretary already has this
authority under, as I understand it, unusual or emergency circum-
stances now and the joint regulations prescribe regulations to the local
commander. All this change does is simply provide so that the
Secretary has the authority to do it other than under unusual or
emergency circumstances, isn't that the sole change except for the
dependency, the 21-year-old provision, and the automobile provision?
If the dependent went over under age you have the authority to bring
him back. On the automobile provision you have the authority to
bring the automobile back concurrently now, or under unusual or
emergency circumstances, and this provision would simply make it
so that you would now have the authority to transport the automobile
if the dependent were sent back under. other than unusual circum-
stances, is that correct
Miss PARSONS. Yes.
Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman RUSSELL. There is one other minor difference.
Under existing law I believe this has to be done on ships owned by
the U.S. Government and this law permits it to be done on ships that
are leased by the U.S. Government. That is another very profound
change in the law of which the committee may take due cognizance.
Senator Inouye?
Senator INOUYE. Major, if the dependent is confronted with a com-
pelling personal problem, a.s you stated in your testimony, and an
advance return is authorized, let's assume that during the tour of duty
the compelling personal reason disappears, the domestic problem. Can
the commanding officer now authorize the return of the dependents?
Major CLARK. Under this expanded authority,, no, sir. It is not
intended that that be done.
Senator INouyE. So once the dependents leave they will stay back
on the mainland?
Major CLARK. Yes, sir.
Senator INOUYE. Even if there is a compelling personal reason for
them to return?
Major CLARK. In the report before the House it was made part of
the conditions that this be a one-trip affair.
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
14 D11YDE N NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS
Senator INOUTE. Major, I don't suppose you have made a study of
this, but if this Law had been in effect in 1963, about how many families
would have been involved?
Major CLARK. I am sorry, sir, I do not have statistics. I will be
ha py to get them if you desire them,
Senator INOUY..E. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, Major.
Chairman PUssELL. Any furthercuestions?
If not, we thank you very much foi your presentation.
(Subsequently, in executive session, the committee voted to report
H.R. 4739, without amendment, as covered by S. Rept. 1284.)
H.R. 8676, TO AMEND SECTION 264 OF TITLE 10, UNITED STATES
CODE, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS, IN
CERTAIN CA3E13, TO SHIP AUTOM 9BIL:ES TO AND FROM THE STATE
OF ALASKA BY COMMERCIAL MOTOR CARRIER VIA HIGHWAYS
AND THE ALASKA FERRY SYS".'EM
(The bill, H.R. 8676, follows:)
[H.R. 8676, 88th Cong., 2d sess.]
AN ACT To amend section 2634 of title 10, united states Code, so as to authorize tho
military departments, in certain cases, to ship automobiles to and from the State of
Alaska by co nmercial motor carrier via hi;hways and the Alaska ferry system
Be it enacted by Me Senate and Rouse of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That section 2634 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by-
(1) striking out the word "or" at .he end of clause (1) ;
(2) striking out the period at the end of clause (2) and inserting in lieu
thereof a semicolon and the word "or"; and
(3) adding at the end thereof a new clause as follows:
"(3) in the case of movement to and from Alaska, by commercial motor
carrier via highways and the Alaskiz ferry system or by railroad and train-
ship between customary ports of embarkation and debarkation, if such
means of transport is more economical for the United States than other
authorized means."
Passed the House of Representative. June 29, 1964.
RALPH R. ROBERTS. Clerk.
Chairman RUSSELL. The next bill. we will consider is H.R. 8676,
shipment of automobiles to Alaska by motor carrier or railroad. The
witness on this bill is Mr. Roy L. Allen, Office, Chief of Transporta-
tion of the Army.
STATEMENT OF ROY L. ALLEN, OFFICE, CHIEF OF TRANSPORTA-
TION, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Mr. Ai.LEN. Mr. Chairman, I have a three-page statement here. I
can either file it or read it.
Chairman RUSSELL. Use your jrdgment as to the way you can get
the idea of this bill best across to the committee. If you think you
can do it better by reading the statement go ahead and read it.
Mr. Ara,EV. I. will file the statement, sir, with your approval.
Chairman RUSSELL. All right.
(The prepared. statement of Mr. Allen follows :)
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Mr. Roy L. Allen, Office,
Chief of Transportation, Department >f the Army. The Department of the
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
DRYDEN NOMI2STATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS
Army has been designated as the representative of the Department of Defense
for this legislation. I represent the Department of the Army for that purpose.
Under present law (10 U.S.C. 2634), the transportation of a privately owned
vehicle of a member of the Armed Forces on a change of permanent station at
Government expense is limited to shipment by a vessel owned by the United
States, or by privately owned American shipping services. The purpose of H.R.
8676, as passed by the House, is to amend this statute to permit, in the case of
movements to and from Alaska, the use of commercial motor carriers by high-
ways and the Alaska ferry system, or railroads and trainship. This permissive
authority does not affect the military member's present entitlement, since the
shipment of his privately owned vehicle by these modes is limited under the pro-
visions of the bill to movement between customary ports of embarkation and
debarkation. Moreover, it is provided that these added methods of transport
would be utilized only if found to be more economical than presently authorized
means.
In movements of military cargo, the military departments are required, as a
matter of general policy, to evaluate all modes of transport and available serv-
ices and to select that mode which is the most economical and satisfies the re-
quirements of the movement. While it is true that water transportation is
usually the most economical mode of transportation, in the case of shipment of
privately owned motor vehicles, other modes of transportation cannot be con-
sidered because present authority for shipment Is limited to ocean transporta-
tion. This situation warrants correction in the case of Alaska, an oversea
station also accessible by land. Due to the recent development of highways, and
the Alaska ferry system operating between Prince Rupert and points in Alaska,
motor carriers have recently become competitive with water carriers and con-
ceivably could provide more economical transportation services.
In our testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, it was pointed
out that while the permissive authority contained in H.R. 8676 as originally
introduced is considered desirable, in order that the military departments
may consider all modes and benefit by the economies which may be available
through the utilization of motor carriers, it was our belief that the bill should
be expanded to include railroad and trainship service as another mode of
transport. Such broader authority would give the military departments greater
flexibility in their logistical planning and possibly result in further reduction
of costs because of the additional competition. In this respect, it should be
noted that several American railroads already provide rail and trainship
service, to a limited degree, to Whittier, Alaska. We, therefore, recommended
that H.R. 8076 be amended to- also provide authority for the use of railroad
and trainship in the transportation of privately owned vehicles to and from
Alaska. The suggested revision of H.R. 8676 incorporating this amendment
was approved by the (louse Armed Services Committee and subsequently passed
by the House. The Department of the Army, on behalf of the Department of
Defense, therefore supports enactment of H.R. 8676 In the form passed by the
House.
Our comments here today are necessarily general in nature because carrier
interests in these movements, as well as the rates which may later become
available due to increased competition, are unknown. Therefore, the precise
fiscal effects of this bill cannot be estimated. However, since the bill specific-
ally provides that the additional authority in the shipment of privately owned
vehicles to and from Alaska will be used only if the utilization of the additional
modes is more economical, enactment of H.R. 8676 would result in no increased
-costs to the Government.
I have appreciated this opportunity of appearing before your committee and
shall be happy to answer any questions you may have on this bill.
Mr. ALLEN. We have a bill here that has a possibility of saving
money. It concerns right now the return and also the shipment of
privately owned vehicles to and from Alaska. It gives us authority
to consider modes other than ocean transportation, such as up and
down the Alaskan Highway or a combination of land and the Alaska
ferry system, and land again to Seattle. We don't have this author-
ity.now; so these modes are excluded from consideration, and there is
possibility of a savings on this.
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
This in no wav affects the law of the utilization of American-flag
vessels, because the rail carriers-one of the rail carriers to and from
Alaska does have a ship that doesn't fall in the category of the
American flag. That is excluded. Our policy is that we don't use
foreign-flag vessels to ship military supplies.
Chairman R1 JSSELL. Any question so f Mr. Allen ?
Senator CANNON. What is the estimated annual saving?
Mr. ALLEN. Well, actually we are talking about trying to estimate
how much a motor carrier presently costs to take motor cars up the
Alaskan Highway with specialized pieces of equipment, what the
rates are. We, haven't arrived at the savings because we don't know
what the rates are he will submit. Right now the truck is con-
structed in such a manner that it can only carry vehicles and he will
be very much iru.,erested in this. However, the bill. clearly states that
we wouldn't use it unless this authority was more economical.
Senator CA.NNNTON7. But it may not necessarily be more economical
and his rates may be just as high.
Mr. ALLEN. Only if it is eeonorsical. if it puts more competition cn
the thing, wli ch we believe will bring about economy.
Senator CA NNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman RUSSELL. Mr. Allen, doesn't this represent special trmt-
ment to the. State of Alaska, to soldiers, personnel that might be trans-
ferred there" If a man was transferred today, let us say from Fort
Lewis, Wasli., to Fort Benning, Ga., which I don't think would be
much further than to Alaska, he would either be allowed his mileage
or his own transportation expense, but lie would have to get his car
there himself. Now why do we have to get a man's car up to Alaska
when we don't have that responsibility to any other State in the
Union?
Mr. ALLEN. In Alaska the theater is considered to be overseas
under the present law. In other words, he is authorized additional
pay as he would be overseas to a certain extent, and it is considered an
oversew area.
I don't think if it was my car I would want to drive it up the
.Alaskan Highway myself and take my family, nor would I want to be
bound, to pay an ocean voyage to jet my car to Alaska, where I
wouldn't be bound between the other States.
Chairman RussELL,. You might not care to drive your car from
Fort, Lewis to some arsenal in Massachusetts.
Mr. ALLON. Yes.
Chairman RUSSELL. While wider existing law you would either have
to do it, or else resion from the service, one or the other, because they
wouldn't pay both &e transportation of your car and your mileage.
Mr. ALLEN. Right, sir.
Chairman RUSSELL. As you (to in Alaska.
Mr. ALLEN. You can get mileage going over the Alaskan Highway,
but it is up to the individual cimseif whether he wants to drive it or
whether lie wants to take it to the closest west coast port, Seattle, and
and have it transported by the, military, to say the port of Anchorage,
and then he conies down to Anchorage and gets it.
Chairman RUSSELL. Yes, I understand that, but of course we have
now admitted these two territories to statehood so they may enjoy
every privilege and every benefit that any of the 48 States enjoyed
before they were admitted, and I have, therefore, except in a few rare
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS 17
instances where it seems there wasn't any alternative, always assumed
that these States now should take their part of the responsibility in
carrying on the functions of government there, and they ought to
carry them on under the same conditions that they do in the other 48
.States.
It is about as far from Fort Lewis to Fort Benning as it is from
Fort Lewis to Alaska, isn't it?
Is it farther?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir.
Chairman RUSSELL. It is closer to Alaska. Any further questions?
Senator CANNON. Are you inferring Alaska shouldn't be given the
same authority as Hawaii?
Chairman RussELL. I didn't want to stir up the Senator from
Hawaii.
Senator INouYE. I am not saying.a word.
Senator CASE. I gather they can already under existing law, ship
by water. They want to extend this for rail and highway.
Chairman RUSSELL. That is correct.
Senator CASE. So that the preference to people in the Alaskan serv-
ice already exists.
Chairman RUSSELL. That is true. They have an advantage now.
That is the point I was making. They already have an advantage
over any other State. If he is transferred from Fort Lewis down to
a base in southern California, he can't ship- it by water and get any
advantage of it at all.
He has to pay the freight.
Any further questions?
Thank you, Mr. Allen.
H.R. 10319, TO AMEND TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE, TO AU-
THORIZE INCREASED FEES FOR THE SALE OF U.S. NAVAL
OCEANOGRAPHIC OFFICE PUBLICATIONS
(The bill, 11R. 10319, follows:)
[H.R. 10319, 88th Cong., 2d sees.]
AN ACT To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize increased fees for the sale of
United States Naval Oceanographic Office publications
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That (a) section 7394 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows :
"9 7394. Price of maps, charts, and navigational publications
"All maps, charts, and other publications offered for sale by the United States
Naval Oceanographic Office shall be sold at such prices and under such regula-
tions as may be determined by the Secretary of the Navy. Money received from
the sales shall be covered into the Treasury."
(b) The analysis of chapter 639 of title 10, United States Code, is nmended by
striking out the following item :
'7394. Price of maps, charts, and nautical books."
and inserting the following item in place thereof :
`7394. Price of maps, charts, and navigational publications."
Sic. 2. The proviso under the subtitle "Bureau of Navigation" in the Act
oof February 14, 1879, ch. 68 (20 Stat. 284, 286; 44 U.S.C. 279x), is repealed.
Passed the House of Representatives May 18, 1964.
Attest :
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
18 DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS
Chairman RrUSSELL,. The next, bill is H.R. 10319 which increases
fees for the sale of publications of the U.S. Naval Oceanographic
Office.
The witness is Capt. Victor A. Moitoret, deputy commander, U.S.
Naval Oceanographic Office.
Have a. seat, Captain and tell us why it is necessary to increase these
fees. Do you have a greater demand for them?
STATEMENT OF CAPT. VICTOR A. MOITORET', U.S. NAVY, DEPUTY
OCEANOGRAPHER OF THE, NAVY
Captain MOITORET. Mr. Chai:-man, I am Capt. Victor. A. Moitoret,
deputy oceanographer of the ]Navy. I have a prepared statement
which is in your hands and I would suggest I file it for the record.
(The statement of Captain Moitoret follows:)
Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, the legislation proposed for enactment will en-
able our Government to recover all reasonable costs incurred in the production
and handling of navigational charts, maps, and related publications which are
made available for sale to the public by the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office.
The proposal has been approved by the Bureau of the Budget as a part of the
Department of Defense legislative program for the 88th Congress. The specific
statutory authority recommended for revision is United States Code, title 10,
section 7394 which reads as follows:
"All map,, charts, and other publications issued by the United States
Naval Oceanographic Office, fur:ushed to navigators, shall be paid for at
the cost to the United States of the paper and printing. Money received
from the sales shall be covered into the Treasury."
As best as can be determined at this late date, "the cost * * * of the paper
and printing" was applied literally from 1879 through 1948.
During fiscal year 1.949 budget hearings, a recommendation originated in the
House Approprition Committee to thI effect that our Office liberalize its inter-
pretation of the requirement that charts be sold "at the cost of printing and
paper." Accordingly, a study was ,onducted to determine the adequacy of
chart prices then in effect and as a result of the study, prices were increased
by aproximatel:y one-third, which n ore nearly reflected the actual costs of
production.
In addition to he cost of printing and paper, the cost of research, compilation,
drafting, revision, maintenance of corrections, distribution, warning services, ad-
ministrative charges, indirect labor, a_nd indirect material were computed and
included in the selling price of each dart. This change in pricing policy is still
in effect; at the present time. There have been no other general price increases
since 1949.
There is attached herewith as enclosure (1), a table setting forth in some de-
tail, the basis for present costing and an explanation of each of the factors
involved.
It will be notec'.that the costs of actual oceanic survey operations are not in-
cluded in this title because these are carried out largely for military purposes.
In many respects, the issuance and updating of nonmilitary charts is a byproduct
of the military data collection effort involving 15 survey and oceanographic re-
search ships evith operating costs of more than $12 million each year. Even ii' it
were practieab:'.e to relate the proper percentage of their effort to specific charts,
the final selling price of each product vs ould be prohibitive.
A few additional comments appear appropriate to assist in a review of this
table. The column headed "1947" represents the study made in connection with
the aforementioned hearings and was a study of a full year of production. An-
other review and updating was carried )ut in 1957, largely as a result of inquiries
by bulk sellers as to pricing policies but no changes were initiated. In 1901,
growing Bureau o;' the Budget interest n this area was noted and another review
was conducted. The figures under the :1964 column are largely projections based
on average wage and material cost increases and do not represent as comprehen-
:;ive a study as was conducted in 1947 or 1957.
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS 19
Item 3, "Revision," being blank in all years as pertains to aviation and special
charts, indicates that this function is not required for these particular products.
Item 4, "Maintenance of Corrections," is a function that was transferred from
the Oceanographic Office to the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts with the estab-
lishment of the Naval Oceanographic Distribution Offices. This is a valid cost
factor and, with approval of the proposed legislation, the current cost will be
determined by the Oceanographic Office in collaboration with the Bureau of
Supplies and Accounts and included in the total cost of a nautical chart.
Enclosure (1) indicates that the average cost to produce a nautical chart in
1947 was $0.50. As a result of the proposed legislation the total cost of each
nautical chart will increase approximately 120 percent over the 1947 cost. The
cost increase is based on current wage levels and material costs and the inclusion
of proposed cost factors such as, (1) costs of transporting charts from production
points to distribution outlets, (2) costs of maintenance and storage at distribu-
tion outlets and (3) costs of handling, wrapping for mailing and postage fees.
Thus a chart that cost $0.50 to produce in 1947 and sold for $0.75 will cost at least
$1.10 to produce and maintain in 1964 and sell for $1.65. There is a rounded-off
markup of approximately 50 percent on the production cost of each chart to allow
for a 331/3-percent discount on the selling price.
In order to carry out the statutory mission of making charts available to the
merchant marine and other interested parties, a system of commercial sales
agents has been authorized by the Secretary of the Navy. These sales agents,
small businessmen for the most part, are allowed a discount of 331/3 percent on
charts and 25 percent on publications to cover their costs of selling our products
and of making a reasonable profit. These discounts are consistent with those
allowed. by the Coast and Geodetic Survey and the Superintendent of Documents.
Costs for the purpose of revising the sale price of each product are predicated
on a general increase effective January 1, 1965, and a review of actual costs
when charts and publications are subsequently scheduled for production. This
approach should result in the application of latest personnel and material
costs. Announcing a general increase will be accomplished by disseminating
revised price lists to distribution points and private sales agents.
Conversion costs-i.e., changing the prices on individual copies in stock-can
be spread over an extended period of years for the following reasons. Only a
limited volume of products, as compared with total inventory, are actually sold
each year. Small inventories of charts are also destroyed when a new edition
is printed because it is more economical to print a chart with. numerous incor-
porated corrections than it is to hand correct the older chart. For these
reasons, it will be possible to minimize costly hand corrections at field distribu-
tion outlets. Field costs should drop substantially each year as replenishments
with revised prices imprinted thereon are produced.
Estimated field costs and plant costs-i.e., costs for analysis and surveillance,
plate correction, catalog revision, announcing or recording price changes in other
publications, and minor administrative changes to accounting and stock records=
are shown in enclosure (2). Conversion costs are more than completely offset by
anticipated revenue.
Cash sales for this Office approximated $400,000 during fiscal year 1963. On
the assumption that the proposed legislation becomes effective during fiscal year
1965 and price revision is made effective on January 1, 1965, the following projec-
tion are submitted as anticipated revenues:,
The remaining 6 months of fiscal year 1965 (represents average 6-month
sales of $200,000 plus $167,250 additional revenue as a result of proposed
price increases), $367,250.
Beginning with full fiscal year 1966 and succeeding years (represents
average yearly sales of $400,000 plus $337,500 additional revenue as a result
of proposed price increases), $737,500.
The above estimates assume an increase of 120 percent on the selling price
of charts. A detailed cost study of publications similar to that made for charts
is not necessary, as prices for individual publications are established at the time
of printing based upon recommendation of Superintendent of Documents.
These estimates of income are higher than those previously submitted by this
Office since continued analysis of cost factors indicates that chart prices will be
higher than originally anticipated. At a minimum, our Government should
initially recover into the Treasury an additional $300,000 each year.
In conclusion, the proposed legislation is designed to accomplish several pur-
poses:
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
20 DRY:DEl NOMINATION AND 'ISCELLANEOUS BILLS
(1) Enact into law, the wishes of the Congress.
(2) Conform to Bureau of the Budget recommendations and the current
Department of :De:lense legislative program.
(3) Clarify for the general public and bulk sellers the basis and authority
for pricing.
There is no question in my mind as tc the fairness of raising prices and review-
ing them periodically to assure a continued fair return. Our overall objective
remains that of providing the best paasible navigational product at the lowest
possible price to the public.
ENOrosuun 1.--Average nautical, aeronautical, and special chart Costs for ftsoal
year 1947 and 1957, and projected for fiscal year 1964
[Cents]
R
h
----
0.026
0.035
0.054
0.003
0.004
0.006
0.026
0.037
(.056
244
esearc
----------------------
1.
Compilation and 41-afting_________
2
.200
.235
.338
.174
.287
.432
.120
.161
_
.
Revision .------------------- ---
3
.003
.004
.006
-------
-------
.
____
e of corrections
an
i
t
M
.003
-------
-------
-------
-------
135
..-_
c
n
en
a
4.
----
tion
ib
Di
t
.070
.106
.1.85
.070
.106
.135
.070
.106
.
019
_ ,.--------------
r
u
s
5.
_
rvices
iti
.020
.126
.039
.004
.005
.008
.010
.013
.
43
________________
me se
6. Mar
_---
trative eheages
i
i
Ad
.020
.134
.043
.020
.034
.043
.020
.034
.0
017
_______
m
s
n
7.
__
__
bor
I
di
t l
.012
.614
.019
.009
.011
.015
.010
.012
.
013
_
_.______________
n
rec
a
8.
9. Indirect materi%l__________________
--
. 006
.070
.613
.085
.013
.085
.006
.040
.013
.050
.013
.050
.006
.050
.013
.060
.
.060
040
10. Paper -------------------------
11. Printing --------------------------
.072
.100
.125
.070
.097
.121
.023
.032
.
Average cost per chart --________
.502
.052
.857
.396
.607
1 Additional costs for correction, transportation, and storage noted in body of statement.
EXPLANATION OF CHART COST ITEMS
1. Includes hydragraphic and navigational science research.
2. Includes plotting of original surveys and photogrammetric compilations.
3. Maintenance of chart correction standards.
4. Hand corrections in field distribution offices prior to issue.
5. Includes cost of storage, handling, and wrapping for mailing.
6. Includes prep oration of Notices to Mariners end maintenance of geographic names.
7. General admtaistration, billing, bookkeeping procurement and storage of supplies etc.
8. Includes supervisory and other labor expom:es not directly chargeable to an individual chart, also
handling o(supplis required in the various processes during production.
9. Includes materials not directly chargeable to an individual chart such as printing Inks, chemicals,
photo supplies, drafting supplies and instruments, etc.
to. Average price for 1 sheet of paper.
11. Includes pbctog?aphy, negative engraving,:?latemaking and offset printing, also all direct materials
used in printing processes.
Fiscal year
Field
Plant
Total
Fiacal year
Field
costs
Plant
costs
Total
costs
costs
1965 (6 month ,)_-__
$7, 6W
$5,000 $12,?.D6
(00
000 20
1970_______________
1971
-----------
'$1,000
1,000
$5,000
0
10
5
0
'16,000
6
1968---------------
1967---------------
12,000
9,000
,
8,
8,000 17,000
----
1972
500
0
0
,
0
000
5
5
5,500
1968---------------
6,000
000
3
7,000 13,(00
6
000 9,(100 1
1973---------------
1 1974------- --------
250
,
5,000
5,250
1969---------------
,
,
I Break-in costs indicate completion of turnover of most popular, salable items.
Captain MOITORET. This bill, H.R. 10319, is intended to give the
Secretary of the Navy the authority to adjust the price at which. we
sell our navigational charts.
The present statute price the, they shall be sold at now is the cost
of the printing paper. This was held to rigidly up until 1948 when
we received directions from the committee that the Congress wanted
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved Fo jfs 002/01/23: CIA-RDP75B00380R000800V10001-3
N TION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS
us to take a little closer look and make a little broader interpretation
of what we called printing, to include a little more in the category.
The House committee and the Bureau of the Budget have again sug-
gested the necessity or the desirability of getting a truer return to the
Government for the sale of these products.
Chairman RUSSELL. The present operations are at a loss?
Captain MoIToaET. They are not at a loss.
Chairman RUSSELL. How about the handling?
Captain MoITOxET. They are at a loss if you consider that we don't
get the full return that we might be able to get if the law were changed,
but under the present law the return we get does cover technically the
cost of printing and paper.
Chairman RUSSELL. The demand for various maps, I understand,
has increased tremendously in the last few years, is that correct.
Captain MOITORET. That is not quite accurate, Mr. Chairman. The
demand fluctuates by years. I have figures here for the last 10 years,
and we have had peaks where the return to the Treasury-I must
explain that the Navy doesn't get this money. It is returned into the
U.S. Treasury for the sale of these products. We have had as high
as $450,000 sales in a year and also within the past 10 years since the
$450,000 we have had $300,000 and some.
Chairman RUSSELL. I recall now. I am in error. The information
I had in mind related to the tremendous increase in boats operated
on the reservoirs created by the Army Engineers.
I believe that has increased some tenfold in the last several years,.
Captain MOITORET. I think you are correct, Mr. Chairman. The
inland waters of the United States for which the Coast and Geodetic
Survey prepare the charts.
Chairman RUSSELL. I did have some information on it but I put
it in the wrong place. You are right. The purpose of this bill then
is to increase the deposits into the Treasury as a result of these trans-
actions by some $300,000 ?
Captain MorroRET. That is our estimate of the gain that the Treas-
ury would derive from the increased prices we would set on our charts.
Chairman RUSSELL. This is one place where the Government almost
has to be in business. Even the most zealous person to exclude the
Government from business would be hard put to find much complaint
about this operation, and if you are going to run it, I hope you run
it at a profit, Captain.
Any questions
Senator SALTONSTALL. May I ask a very difficult question?
Chairman RUSSELL. Yes, sir. The captain looks qualified to answer
it.
Senator SALTONSTALL. Does this change the number of free charts
that a Senator or Congressman gg'et?
Captain MoITORET. Senator Saltonstall, this has no effect whatso-
ever on that.
Senator SALTONSTALL. So that Senator Smith and I of Massachu-
setts and Maine can get the same number of free charts ?
Captain MorroRET. A telephone call will bring them to you the same
day I hope, sir.
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
22 DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS
Chairman ItnssFlL. Any further questions.
If not we thank you very much, Captain.
(Subsequently, in executive session the committee voted to report
H.R. 10319, w:.thout amendment,, as covered by S. Rept. 1272.)
H.R. 2989, TO FURTHER AMEND THE MISSING PERSONS ACT TO
COVER cER'rAIN PERSONS DETAINED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES
AGAINST THEIR WILL, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Chairman PussrLL. The next matter for consideration before the
committee is, an. amendment to the Missing Persons Act which comes
to us in the form of H.R. 2989. The bill proposes to permit the con-
tinued crediting of pay to a person who is detained in a foreign coun-
try against his will. The bill will be presented by Col. Walter V.
Cook, Actin,z Chief, Policy Division, Directorate of Personnel Plan-
ning, Office, Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel, Department of the .Air
Force.
Have a seat, Colonel. I hope you can recall that title correctly when
you go to giving your MOS.
(The bill, I3.R. 2989, follows:;
[H.R. 2989, 8f th Cong., 1st sess.]
AN ACT To further amend the Missing Persons Act to cover certain persons detained in
foreign countries against their will, and for other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and Hoscse of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That the Missing Persons Act, as amended
(50 U.S.C., App. i001 et seq.), is amended as follows :
(1) Section 1(a) is amended-
(A) by striking out clauses (]) and (2) and by inserting the following
in place thereof :
"(I) a member of the uniformed services as defined in section 101 (3) and
(23) or title 37, United States Cede;" and
(B) by re designating clause (I;) as clause "(2)".
(2) Section 1 ;b) is amended-
(A) by inserting the words "Air Force," after the word "Navy,"; and
(B) by striking out the words "paragraph (a) (3) above" and inserting
the word, "paragraph (a) (2) above" in place thereof.
(3) Section. 2(a) is amended-
(A) by striking out the words "or besieged by a hostile force" in the
first sentence and inserting the words "besieged by a hostile force, or de-
tained in a foreign country against his will" in place thereof ;
(B) by inserting the words "or employment" after the word "service" in
the second sentence; and
(0) by s?''riking out the words "or besieged by a hostile force" in the
last sentence and inserting the words "besieged by a hostile force, or
detained in a foreign country against their will" in place thereof.
(4) The first sentence of section 5 _s amended-
(A) by striking out the words "missing or missing in action" and insert-
ing the words "entitled under section 2 of this Act to receive or be credited
with pay and allowances" in place thereof ; and
(B) by striking out the words "being a prisoner or of being interned"
and lnsertiilg the words "the circumstances of the continued absence" in
place thereof.
(5) Section 6 Is amended-
(A) by striking out the words "an' . in the hands of a hostile force 4r is
interned in a foreign country" in the first sentence; and
(B) by striking out the words "or missing in action" In the second sen-
tence and inserting the words "under the conditions specified in section 2
of this Act" in place thereof.
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved F % VW~99#r oP3A CIOIRDPL5B0o0U3s80$R0008001~gO01-3
fqD (6) Section 7 is amended :by striking out the words ."in November 1941 and
any month subsequent thereto.".
(7) Section 10 is amended by inserting. the words "Air Force," after the
word "Navy".
(8) The first sentence of section 12 is amended by striking out the words "miss-
ing for a period of thirty days or more, interned in a foreign country, or cap-
tured by a hostile force" and inserting the words "absent for a period of thirty
days or more in any status listed in section 2 of this Act" in place thereof.
(9) Section 13 is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 13. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of any
taxable year beginning after December 31, 1940, no Federal income tax return of,
or payment of any Federal income tax by-
"(1) a member of the uniformed services as defined in section 101 (3)
and (23) of title 37, United States Code; or
" (2) any civilan officer or employee of any department ;
who, at the time any such return or payment would otherwise become due, is
absent from his duty station under the conditions specified in section 2 of this
Act, shall become due until the earlier of the following dates-
"(A) the fifteenth day of the third month in which he ceased (except by
reason of death or incompetency) to be absent from his duty station tinder
the conditions specified in section 2 of this Act, unless before the expiration
of that fifteenth day he again is absent from his duty station under the
conditions specified in section 2 of this Act ; or
"(B) the fifteenth 'day of the third month following the month in which
an executor, administrator, or conservator of the estate of the taxpayer is
appointed.
Such due date is prescribed subject to the power of the Secretary of the Treasury
or his delegate to extend the time for filing such return or paying such tax, as
in other cases, and to assess and collect the tax as provided in sections 6851, 6861,
and 6871 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 in cases in which such assessment
or collection is jeopardized and in cases of bankruptcy or receivership."
Passed the House of Representatives July 8, 1963.
Attest: RALPH R. RonziTS, Cleric.
STATEMENT OF COL. WALTER V. COOK, ACTING CHIEF, POLICY
DIVISION, DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL PLANNING, OFFICE,
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, PERSONNEL, D'EPARTMENT' OF THE
AIR FORCE
Colonel CooK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am
Col. Walter V. Cook, Acting Chief, Policy Division, Directorate of
Personnel Planning, Ileadquarters, U.S. Air Force.
I have 'a short statement, Mr. Chairman, which I can file and then
I can briefly summarize the amendments that this bill proposes.
Chairman RUSSELL. You can do as you choose, sir.
(The prepared statement of Colonel Cook follows:)
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Col. Walter V. Cook, Acting
Chief of the Policy Division, Directorate of Personnel Planning, Headquarters,
U.S. Air Force. It is a privilege for me to appear before you today to express the
unqualified support of the Department of Defense for the provisions of H.R.
2989.
The purpose of this proposed legislation is to clarify existing legislation to per-
fect the administration of the Missing Persons Act. At present, the benefits
of the Missing Persons Act are provided for persons within the scope of the act
who are "officially determined to be absent in a status of missing, missing in
action, interned in a foreign country, captured by a hostile force, or besieged by a
hostile force." 'All of these terms with the exception of the word "missing"
standing alone and possibly "interned in a foreign country" were originally predi-
cated upon a declared war and if treated literally would imply . a condition of
declared war. The amendment to the Missing Persons Act is to provide for specific
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
24 DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS
coverage in coil war situations for military and civilian personnel employed by
the Federal Government. To assist further in an orderly and equitable adminis-
tration of the act, amendment to reestablish former policy of deferment of Federal
income tax reporting and payment during the period such personnel are in a miss-
ing status is also recommended.
The need for clarifying legislation to perfect the administration of the Missing
Persons Act (M:PA) is illustrated by the cases of the two R13-47 pilots shot down
by the Soviets over the Barents Sea on July 1, 1960. Capt. John R. McKone and
Capt. Freeman B. Olmstead were released on January 26, 1961, without having
been tried. The carrying of Captain M:cKone and Captain Olmstead, the RB-47
pilots, in a "miss'ng" status during their absence, the only term of the Missing
Persons Act that :had literal appl.icatio:i to their situation, when for all praetical
purposes their whereabouts were known, provided an administrative anomaly
for the Air Force. In addition, had Ca;?taln McKone and Captain Olmstead been
tried and forced to serve 10-year sentences, administration under the present
terminology of the act would be strained.
Section 13 of tie Missing Persons Act is amended to provide for the filing and
payment of income tax on the 15th da3 of the 3d month after termination of :he
"missing" status or after an executor, administrator or conservator of the estate-
of a missing person has been appointed. This provision was an integral part of the
Missing Persons Act when it was approved in 1942 and continued in effect until
December 31. 1947. It was not reestablished. when the remainder of the act was
reactivated by the Selective Service Act of 1448. As in the illustration above, in
a cold war situation there is increased potential that individuals determined to
be covered under the Missing Persons Act may continue in the "missing" status
for an extended period of time. During such disability the individual is unable
to file and pay taxes on his own behalf, and under the Revenue Code, there is no
one who is responsible for filing on hi=. behalf. Should the normal 3-year period
for filing for refund by the individual ran out during the period of disability, or if
interest is running on additional tax die from him, no relief is authorized by the
Revenue Code. The requested prrovisicn is considered to be necessary for orderly
and equitable administration of the affairs of missing persons.
The balance of the changes are for lie purpose of defining the military per.on
nel who are covered under the act it consonance with the definition provided
in 37 U.S.C. 231. The clarification will allow for common application of the
present definitior.s and obviate the need for future amendment to meet changes
in military personnel designations.
Colonel COOK. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Missing
Persons Act by adding the words "detained in a foreign country
against his will" so as to provide : pecific coverage in the cold war situa
tion for military and civilian ::?ersonnel employed by the Federal
Government who are in this situation. In addition, the proposed
legislation woctld assist further ir_ an equitable administration of exist-
ing law by -reE-stablishing the former policy of deferring Federal in-
come tax reporting and payment during the period such personnel are
in a missing status.
I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that this bill has no additional
cost to the Government for this amendment.
Chairman ]ZUSSFLL. Give us the facts in the actual case that
prompted the submission of this legislation, will you, Colonel?
Colonel Coos. One of the ch.ssic examples is the well-publicized
case of the two Air Force captains who were shot down on July,1,1960,
Mr. Chairman, Capt. John R. McCone and Capt. Freeman B. Olm-
stead. They were shot down by the Soviets over the Baren Sea on
the date that I. mentioned. Theme two captains were released the 26th
of January 1961, without having been tried. The carrying of Cap-
tain McCone and Captain Olm.tead,, the RB-47 pilots, in a missing
status during their absence, the only term of the Missing Persons Act
that had literal application to their situation, when for all practical
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3
DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS 25
purposes their whereabouts were known, provided an administrative
anomaly for the Air Force.
In addition, Captain McCone and Captain Olmstead, had they been
tried and forced to serve 10 years sentence, administration under the
present terminology of the Missing Persons Act would be strained to
provide the payment to their dependents, sir.
Chairman RUSSELL. It could conceivably apply to personnel en-
gaged in trainin in Vietnam in the present hostilities against the
Vietcong in Asia
Colonel Coos. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. A more recent case, Mr.
Chairman, was the two Army captains that were legally inspecting the
zone of demarcation in Korea who were shot down about a year ago,
:and have now been returned to U.S. custody.
Chairman RUSSELL. Any questions?
Senator CASE. And the benefits that follow the application of the
Missing Persons Act, again just quickly what are they?
Colonel Coog. Sir, they cover six specific points which this amend-
ment will straighten out for the cold war situation. The benefits of
the Missing Persons Act are provided for persons within the scope
of the act who are officially determined to be absent in a status of
missing, missing in action--
Senator CASE. I understand, but what are the benefits?
Colonel Coos. Sir, this carries on their pay and allowances to their
dependents while they are in this missing status.
Senator CASE. And the income tax, does the income tax matter
cote in this at all?
Colonel Cooic. Yes, sir. This will amend that and restore what used
to be in the act, that they don't have to file for income tax purposes
until the 15th day of the third month following their return or release
from the status of missing.
Senator CASE. Just a delay?
Colonel Coog. Yes, sir.
Senator CASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman RUSSELL. Any further questions?
Thank you, Colonel.
The committee will now go into executive session.
(Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the committee went into executive
session.)
(Subsequently, in executive session, the committee voted to report
HA 2989, without amendment, as covered by S. Rept. 1286.)
0
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000800130001-3