. Ar 5/3:

.89

CI)

IA) -0

2 co

GOVERNMEN1

Storage EN NOMINATION AND

imoCELLANEOUS BILLS

< n

co

7.1 0

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

UNITED STATES SENATE

"7 SEP

1964

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

JULY 30, 1964

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

-77 i WASHINGTON : 1964

25 'if)
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Georgia, Chairman

JOHN STENNIS, Mississippi

HARRY FLOOD BYRD, Virginia

STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington

SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina

HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

STEPHEN M. YOUNG, Ohio

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

CHARLES

II

LEVERETT SALTONSTALL, Massachusetts

MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine

J. GLENN BEALL, Maryland

BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona

CLIFFORD P. CASE, New Jersey

B. KIRBOW, Chief Clerk
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 1

H.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

UI

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 .0 .

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in room 212,

Old Senate Office Building.

Present: Senators Russell (presiding), Symington, Ervin Thurmond, 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 nomination of Franklin B. Dryden of Kentucky, who has been nominated

by the President to be the Deputy Director of the Office of Emergency 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 REPRESENTA'TIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM TIER 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 administrative 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.
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 before we consider your nomination.

STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN B. DRYDEN, NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING

Mr. DRYDEN. 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

am a graduate of the University 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 in the Pacific theater with the 111th Infantry Combat Team. After the Army I returned to the Department of Agriculture, staying there until 1953, when I came to the U.S. Senate as administrative assistant to former Senator Earle C. Clement. In 1957 I became professional staff assistant on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and 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 Appro- 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. I 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.

Do you own any stock in any oil producing company?

Mr. DRYDEN. 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 you, Mr. Dryden.

Mr. DRYDEN. Thank you, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. 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 committee.

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 like 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.
DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS 3

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 committee 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 THE 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.

FRANKLIN B. DRYDEN

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, 1939-53. Director, Joint Congressional Inaugural Committee for the 1961 presidential inauguration.

Other activities: Alternate member, President's Conference on Administrative

Procedures. Active reservist, U.S. Army, major, Infantry. Kiwanis International. 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 children, 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 countries 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.
4 DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS

(The bill, H.R. 11035, follows:)

[H.R. 11035, 88th 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 State

of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding section 7307 of title

10, United States Code, or any other law, the President may extend on such terms

and under such conditions as he deems 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, 1953 (67 Stat. 363),

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 Stat. 363) ) ; four destroyers (Act of August 5, 1953 (67 Stat. 363)

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 (72 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. 471), as amended, and Act of July 18, 1958 (72 Stat. 376) ).

SEC. 2. All loan 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 Defense, after consultation with the joint Chiefs of Staff, determines that such

extension is in the best interest of the United States. The Secretary of Defense

shall keep the Congress currently advised of all extensions made under authority

of this Act.

SEC. 4. The President may promulgate such rules and regulations as he deems

necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives June 1, 1964.

Attest:

RALPH R. ROBERTS, Cleric.

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. D. C. LYNDON, 'U.S. NAVY, DIRECTOR

OF FOREIGN MILITARY ASSISTANCE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF

NAVAL OPERATIONS

Admiral LYNDON% 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 ships

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 States and it is important to note that

all loan agreements provide that the ships may be recalled when re- quired by U.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 authority to negotiate extensions under the same conditions that are in effect. The reason we are covering all of those in calendar year 1965 as well as 1964 is to provide for better
DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS 5

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 provision in Public Law 81 184. At the end of the first 5-year loan period

and prior to the renegotiations with each country involved, the Secretary 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 contribution 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 expense to add to our already adequate mobilization reserve of these

types of ships, and we would not recommend it. The latter alternative 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 proposed 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.)

36-773-64--2
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-

•PENDENT'S AND BAGGAGE AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES

Chairman RUSSELL. The next bill is H.R. 4739, advance movement

of dependents and baggage and household effects from oversea areas.

(H.R. 4739 follows:)

[H.R. 4739, 88th Cong., 1st sess.]

AN ACT To amend section 406 of title 37, United States Code, with regard to the advance

movement of dependents and baggage and household effects of members of the uniformed

services

Be it enacted 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 the Secretary concerned determines it to 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 authority for the transportation of his dependents, baggage, and household 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 under subsection (a) or (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 member's 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 member received transportation in kind to his station outside the United States or in

Hawaii or Alaska, 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 follows:

"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 to his new station at the expense of the United States—

"(1) on a vessel owned, leased, or chartered by the United States; or

"(2) by privately owned American shipping services;

unless a motor vehicle owned by him was transported in advance of that permanent 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. 857a (a) ), is amended by adding the following new clause at the end

thereof:

"(11) Section 2634, Motor vehicles: for members on permanent change

of station."

(2) Section 20 of the Coast and Geodetic Survey Commissioned Officers' Act

of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 853s) 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 House of Representatives July 8, 1963.

Attest:

RALPH R. ROBERTS, Clerk.
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 OF THE ARMY; ACCOMPANIED BY MISS

MABEL PARSONS, OFFICE, CHIEF OF FINANCE

Major CLARK. Pardon me, sir, am I to 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 dependents, household goods, and privately owned vehicles of military members from oversea areas to locations in the United States when such

return is determined to be in the best interests of the member or dependent 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 duty overseas.

Under the present provisions of section 406(a) of title 37, United

States Code, authority for advance return of dependents and household goods of members is limited to "unusual or emergency circumstances." These limitations have been found undesirable, and too restrictive to meet the needs of the services. The advance return of dependents under circumstances which under present law and rulings of

the Comptroller General may not be regarded as "unusual or emergency" 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 Government. Such instances, however, often do not satisfy the "unusual or

emergency circumstances" requirements of the present law. Dependents who are confronted with compelling personal problems for which

advance return is not now authorized place an additional administrative 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
8 DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS

such compelling personal reasons as marital difficulties, extreme financial difficulties 'Drought about by circumstances such as confinement or

reduction in grade of the member, which preclude the furnish of adequate support for dependents, death or serious illness of close relatives, and other situations in which the appropriate commander determines that the best interests of the Government and the member or

dependent will be served. It is normally best to permit, or if necessary

require, these dependents to be returned to locations in the United

States in advance of the return of the 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 interest, 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 assigned oversea tours of duty, the legislation proposed would in this respect extend to the military members

substantially the same rights now provided for civilian employees

serving overseas.

Upon filo permanent change of station of a member from overseas

to 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 the 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 preclude 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 to the return of the children of a member who attain

the age of 21 years while overseas, it is considered that the Government has a responsibility to provide return transportation to the

United States of the children of a member who were transported overseas at Government expense, incident to a sponsor's change of permanent 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 return 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-
DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS 9

ment of this legislation would result in only nominal increases in budgetary requirements, which can be absorbed within existing appropriations.

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 Committee. There you can't take a time reduction anywhere at any time.

Are there any questions of the major?

Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, just this one question.

This bill really puts its right up to the commander to make the decision 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 implement 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?
10 DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS

Major CLARK. Heretofore, sir, the person who becomes over 21 years

of age would not be entitled to reimbursement upon return. We want

to take care of a situation where the individual might have a dependent

who is 19 years old, who went over there and attains the age of 21

while there and would be entitled to receive reimbursement for that

dependent when he returns.

Senator CASE. 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 PARSONS. Miss Mabel Parsons, Office of Finance. As I understand it, the $632,000 was partly the result of budgetary requirements

of moving this cost up to the year before it would normally be incurred.

Senator CASE. You mean the cost is not increased. It is just paid

sooner, is that right?

Miss PARSONS. 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 indicated

by the fact 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 PARSONS. Well, they go over. They are entitled to come back

if they are not 21 years old.

Senator CASE. Is the whole additional cost fact that under this legislation children might be permitted to anticipate the fact they are

going to be getting overage and therefore come home while they can

still get it?

Miss PARSONS. 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 CLARK. 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.

Chairman RUSSELL. It liberalizes 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 PARSONS. They have no obligation to him.

Senator CASE. I see. In other words if somebody has dependents

over 21 you don't ship them anywhere?

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.
DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS 11

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 entitlement 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 automobile. Is that part of the additional $632,000?

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.
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 slipped in here somehow or other, and I

am not saying it shouldn't be done, but you are now taking care of all

dependents whether under or over 21 regardless of whether it is

advance or concurrently with the member 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 for both.

Senator CASE. Just so we understand. 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 SALTONSTALL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. May I ask this question of the major?

As I read this bill, on the first page, line 7, "if the Secretary concerned determines it to be in the best interests" and so on. Now if

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 regulations 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 commander. 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 CLARK. Yes, sir, the commander will make the decision.

Senator SALTONSTALL. So that there will be a change in the regulations putting up more responsibility to the commander in question, or

this isn't going to be left to the Secretary?

Major CLARK. Sir, these paragraphs "right now provide that the

commander will make the decision.

Senator SALTONSTALL. I don't see that in the bill. Could you point'

it out to me in the bill?

Major CLARK. No, sir, it is not in the bill, but the joint travel regulation now provides that the commander will make this decisiofi.

Senator SALTONSTALL. SO what you would propose to do would be

to change these two travel regulations these two sections, paragraphs

7103 and 8303 of the joint travel regulations, to cover the term of this

bill if this bill becomes law'?

Major CLARK. Yes, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you.

Chairman RUSSELL. Of course, one of the coming fixings of the

whole law, indeed of our whole system of government, is thfact that

Congress delegates authority to someone and that person delegates it

to someone else. There are hundreds of statutes that say the President of the United States shall do so and so. There is not 1 case out

of 10,000 the President ever knows any action is taken under it. • He

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

goes wrong, the commanding officer may be responsible to the Joint
DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS 13

Chiefs or to the Army. But he has no responsibility to this committee. 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 President authority to do this thing, that thing and the other thing, and it

would be the rarest thing on earth for the President to even know anything about 1 case out of 10,000. It is all done by someone else whom

he delegates authority to.

Senator CANNON. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary already has this

authority under, as I understand it, unusual or emergency circumstances 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 circumstances, 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 INou YE. Major, if the dependent is confronted with a compelling personal problem, as 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.
14 DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS

Senator INOUYE. 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

happy to get them if you desire them.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank

you, Major.

Chairman RUSSELL. Any further questions?

If not, we thank you very much for 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 2634 OF TITLE 10, UNITED STATES

CODE, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS, IN

CERTAIN CASES, TO SHIP AUTOMOBILES TO AND FROM THE STATE

OF ALASKA BY COMMERCIAL MOTOR CARRIER VIA HIGHWAYS

AND THE ALASKA FERRY SYSTEM

(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 the military departments, in certain cases, to ship automobiles to and from the State of Alaska by commercial motor carrier via highways and the Alaska ferry system

Be it enacted by the Senate and House 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 the 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 Alaska ferry system or by railroad and trainship 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 Representatives June 29, 1964.

Attest:

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 Transportation of the Army.

STATEMENT OF ROY L. ALLEN, OFFICE, CHIEF OF TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I have a three-page statement here. I

can either file it or read it.

Chairman RUSSELL. Use your judgment 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. ALLEN. 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 of the Army. The Department of the
DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS 15

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 highways 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 provisions 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 services and to select that mode which is the most economical and satisfies the requirements 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 considered because present authority for shipment is limited to ocean transportation. 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 conceivably 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. 8676 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 House 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 specifically 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 authority now, so these modes are excluded from consideration, and there is

a possibility of a savings on this.
16 DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS

This in no way 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 RUSSELL. Any questions of 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 constructed in such a manner that it can only carry vehicles and he will

be very much interested in this. However, the bill clearly states that

we wouldn't use it unless this authority was more economical.

Senator CANNON. But it may not necessarily be more economical

and his rates may be just as high.

Mr. ALLEN. Only if it is economical, if it puts more competition in

the thing, which we believe will bring about economy.

Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Mr. Allen, doesn't this represent special treatment to the State of Alaska, to soldiers, personnel that might be transferred there? If a man was transferred today, let us say from Fort

Lewis, Wash., 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 he 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

oversea 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 get 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. ALLEN. Yes.

Chairman RUSSEL*L. While under existing law you would either have

to do it, or else resign from the service, one or the other, because they

wouldn't pay both the transportation of your car and your mileage.

Mr. ALLEN. Right, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. As you do in Alaska.

Mr. ALLEN. You can get mileage going over the Alaskan Highway,

but it is up to the individual himself whether he wants to drive it or

whether he 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 comes 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
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 service 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 AUTHORIZE INCREASED FEES FOR THE SALE OF U.S. NAVAL

OCEANOGRAPHIC OFFICE PUBLICATIONS

(The bill, H.R. 10319, follows:)

[H.R. 10319, 88th Cong., 2d sess.]

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:

"§ 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 regulations 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 amended by

striking out the following item:

"7,394. Price of maps, charts, and nautical books."

and inserting the following item in place thereof:

"7394. Price of maps, charts, and navigational publications."

SEC. 2. The proviso under the subtitle "Bureau of Navigation" in the Act

of February 14, 1879, ch. 68 (20 Stat. 284, 286; 44 U.S.C. 279a), is repealed.

Passed the House of Representatives May 18, 1964.

Attest:

RALPH R. ROBERTS, Clerk.
18 DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS

Chairman RUSSELL. 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. Chairman, 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 enable 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 maps, charts, and other publications issued by the United States Naval Oceanographic Office, furnished 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 1949 budget hearings, a recommendation originated in the House Approprition Committee to the 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 conducted to determine the adequacy of chart prices then in effect and as a result of the study, prices were increased by aproximately one-third, which more nearly reflected the actual costs of production.

In addition to the cost of printing and paper, the cost of research, compilation, drafting, revision, maintenance of corrections, distribution, warning services, ad- ministrative charges, indirect labor, and indirect material were computed and included in the selling price of each chart. 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 noted that the costs of actual oceanic survey operations are not in- cluded in this table 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 with operating costs of more than $12 million each year. Even if it

were practicable to relate the proper percentage of their effort to specific charts, the final selling price of each product would 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 out in 1957, largely as a result of inquiries by bulk sellers as to pricing policies but no changes were initiated. In 1961, growing Bureau of the Budget interest in 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- sive a study as was conducted in 1947 or 1957.
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 establishment 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 distribution 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 incorporated corrections than it is to hand correct the older chart. For these

reasons, it will be possible to minimize costly hand corrections at field distribution 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 projection 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 purposes:
20 DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS

,(1) Enact into law, the wishes of the Congress.

(2) Conform to Bureau of the Budget recommendations and the current

Department of Defense 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 to the fairness of raising prices and reviewing them periodically to assure a continued fair return. Our overall objective

remains that of providing the best possible navigational product at the lowest

possible price to the public.

ENCLOSURE 1.-Average nautical, aeronautical, and special chart costs for fiscal

year 1947 and 1957, and projected for fiscal year 1964 1

[Cents]

Nautical charts Aviation charts Special charts

1947 1957 1964 1947 1957 1964 1947 -1957 1964

1. Research 0.026 0.035 0.054 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.026 0.037 0.056

2. Compilation and drafting .200 . 235 .338 . 174 . 287 . 432 . 120 . 161 . 244

3. Revision 003 004 006 

4. Maintenance of corrections 003 

5. Distribution .070 . 106 .135 .070 .106 .135 .070 .106 . 135

6. Maritime services . 020 .026 .039 . 004 .005 . 008 . 010 . 013 .019

7. Administrative charges 020 .034 .043 .020 . 034 .043 .020 . 034 .043

8. Indirect labor .012 . 014 . 019 .009 . 011 . 015 .010 . 012 .017

9. Indirect material 006 . 013 . 013 .006 . 013 . 013 . 006 . 013 . 013

10. Paper . 070 . 085 . 085 .040 . 050 . 050 . 050 .060 . 060

11. Printing_ .072 . 100 . 125 .070 .097 .121 .023 .032 .040

Average cost per chart . 502 . 652 .857 .396 .607 .823 .335 .468 .627

Additional costs for correction, transportation, and storage noted in body of statement.

EXPLANATION OF CHART COST ITEMS

1. Includes hydrographic and navigational science research.

2. Includes plotting of original surveys and photogrammetrie 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 preparation of Notices to Mariners and maintenance of geographic names.

7. General administration, billing, bookkeeping, procurement and storage of supplies, etc.

8. Includes supervisory and other labor expenses not directly chargeable to an individual chart, also handling of supplies 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.

10. Average price for 1 sheet of paper.

11. Includes photography, negative engraving, platemaking and offset printing, also all direct materials

used in printing processes.

ENCLOSURE 2.-Estimated conversion costs

Fiscal year Field

costs

Plant

costs

Total Fiscal year Field

costs

Plant

costs

Total

1965 (6 months)____ $7,500 $5,000 $12,500 1970 I $1, 000 $5,000 $6,000

1966 12, 000 8, 000 20, 000 1971 1, 000 5,000 6, 000

1967 9,000 8,000 17,000 1972 500 5,000 5,500

1968 6,000 7,000 13, 000 1973 500 5,000 5,500

1969 3, 000 6,000 9,000 1974 250 5, 000 5, 250

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 that 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
DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS 21

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 suggested 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 MOITORET. They are not at a loss.

Chairman RUSSELL. How about the handling?

Captain MOITORET. 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 transactions by some $300,000?

Captain MorroRET. That is our estimate of the gain that the Treasury 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 get?

Captain MOITORET. Senator Saltonstall, this has no effect whatsoever on that.

Senator SALTONSTALL. So that Senator Smith and I of Massachusetts 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.
22 DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS

Chairman RUSSELL. Any further questions.

If not we thank you very much, Captain.

(Subsequently, in executive session the committee voted to report

H.R. 10319, without amendment, as covered by S. Rept. 1272.)

H.R. 2989, TO FURTHER AMEND THE MISSING PERSONS ACT TO

COVER CERTAIN PERSONS DETAINED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES

AGAINST THEIR WILL, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Chairman RUSSELL. 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 continued crediting of pay to a person who is detained in a foreign country against his will. The bill will be presented by Col. Walter V.

Cook, Acting Chief, Policy Division, Directorate of Personnel Planning, 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, H.R. 2989, follows:)

[H.R. 2989, 58th 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 House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled, That the Missing Persons Act, as amended

(50 U.S.C., App. 1001 et seq.), is amended as follows:

(1) Section 1(a) is amended—

(A) by striking out clauses (1) and (2) and by inserting the following

in place thereof:

"(1) a member of the uniformed services as defined in section 101 (3) and

(23) of title 37, United States Code ;" and

(B) by redesignating clause (3) 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 words "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 detained 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

(C) by striking 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 is amended—

(A) by striking out the words "missing or missing in action" and inserting 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 inserting the words "the circumstances of the continued absence" in

place thereof.

(5) Section 6 is amended—

(A) by striking out the words "and in the hands of a hostile force or is

interned in a foreign country" in the first sentence; and

(B) by striking out the words "or missing in action" in the second sentence and inserting the words "under the conditions specified in section 2

of this Act" in place thereof.
DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS 23

(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 "missing for a period of thirty days or more, interned in a foreign country, or captured 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 under

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. ROBERTS, Clerk.

STATEMENT OF COL. WALTER V. COOK, ACTING CHIEF, POLICY

DIVISION, DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL PLANNING, OFFICE,

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, PERSONNEL, DEPARTMENT 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, Headquarters, 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 perfect 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 predicated 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
24 DRYDEN NOMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS

coverage in cold war situations for military and civilian personnel employed by

the Federal Government. To assist further in an orderly and equitable administration 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 missing status is also recommended.

The need for clarifying legislation to perfect the administration of the Missing

Persons Act (MPA) is illustrated by the cases of the two RB-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 McKone and Captain Olmstead, 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

purposes their whereabouts were known, provided an administrative anomaly

for the Air Force. In addition, had Captain 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 the Missing Persons Act is amended to provide for the filing and

payment of income tax on the 15th day of the 3d month after termination of the

"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 1948. 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 his behalf. Should the normal 3-year period

for filing for refund by the individual run out during the period of disability, or if

interest is running on additional tax due from him, no relief is authorized by the

Revenue Code. The requested provision is considered to be necessary for orderly

and equitable administration of the affairs of missing persons.

The balance of the changes are for the purpose of defining the military personnel who are covered under the act in consonance with the definition provided

in 37 U.S.C. 231. The clarification will allow for common application of the

present definitions 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 specific coverage in the cold war situation for military and civilian personnel employed by the Federal

Government who are in this situation. In addition, the proposed

legislation would assist further in an equitable administration of existing law by reestablishing the former policy of deferring Federal income 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 RUSSELL. Give us the facts in the actual case that

prompted the submission of this legislation, will you, Colonel?

Colonel COOK. One of the classic 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. Olmstead. They were shot down by the Soviets over the Baren Sea on

the date that I mentioned. These two captains were released the 26th

of January 1961, without having been tried. The carrying of Captain McCone and Captain Olmstead, 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
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 engaged in training in Vietnam in the present hostilities against the

Vietcong in Asia?

Colonel COOK. 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 COOK. Sir, they cover six specific points which this amendment 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 actionSenator CASE. I understand, but what are the benefits?

Colonel COOK. 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

come in this at all?

Colonel COOK. 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 COOK. 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

H.R. 2989, without amendment, as covered by S. Rept. 1286.)

0
r

400 

(rit 0 17961 " d3S 

F

, 1/