« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
Chairman RUSSELL. I think that the evidence would tend to indicate that perhaps the Government got by a little cheaper in transportation by trailer than in other cases.
Colonel VETTER. Right now, Senator, the approximate cost of movement for enlisted personnel of household goods is about $167 and $222 for officers. Travel allowance, if the individual hauls his trailer, amounts to 11 cents per mile, and if he has a call, he is allowed up to 20 cents a mile, and under the present law it is true that frequently you get off cheaper.
Chairman RUSSELL. Any questions, Senator Smith?
(The prepared statement of Col. Fred W. Vetter, Jr., on H. R. 7912 follows:)
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Col. Fred W. Vetter, Jr., Directorate of Personnel Planning, Office, Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel, Department of the Air Force.
The Department of the Air Force has been designated as the representative of the Department of Defense for this legislation. I represent the Air Force for that purpose.
This bill will amend section 303 (c) of the Career Compensation Act, as amended (37 U. S. C. 253 (c)) to authorize, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the service concerned, the payment of a trailer allowance in lieu of transportation of baggage and household goods for departments of members who die on active duty.
The Career Incentive Act of 1955 (69 Stat. 18) authorized payment of a trailer allowance for members of the uniformed services who move a trailer within the continental United States for use as a residence. This allowance is payable only to members entitled to transportation of baggage and household goods and is in lieu of such transportation, at the election of the member. The Comptroller General rule (B-126607, April 25, 1956) that trailer allowance could not be paid as an alternate to shipment of baggage and household goods after the death of a member. This ruling has resulted in inequitable treatment for survivors of members whose trailers constitute their entire household. The ruling has the practical effect of denying any transportation benefits to these dependents, for the purpose of relocating their household, and creates inequitable treatment and hardship.
The current average payment made for movement of a trailer on permanent change of station is approximately $167. The average cost of transportation of household goods upon separation from service is approximately $222 for officers and approximately $147 for enlisted men. Notwithstanding the fact that the trailer allowance is paid in lieu of the transportation of household goods, this proposal may result in small increased costs, since as a practical matter, dependents of deceased members who now reside in trailers currently receive little, if any, transportation entitlements for movemne of household effects. Costs of the proposal would, however, be nominal. They are not expected to exceed $10,000 per annum for the entire Department of Defense and can be absorbed from existing appropriations. The Department of Defense strongly recommends that the proposal be given favorable consideration.
This concludes my prepared statement. I shall be pleased to answer any question you may have with regard to this matter.
(Subsequently, in executive session, the committee voted to report the bill, without amendment, as covered by S. Rept. 1330.)
H. R. 5237
Chairman RUSSELL. The last bill for the open hearing is H. R. 5237, another Department of Defense proposal. (H. R. 5237 is as follows:)
[H. R. 5237, 85th Cong., 1st sess. ] AN ACT To authorize the Secretary of the Navy to furnish supplies and services to foreign
vessels and aircraft, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 7227 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: "87227. Foreign naval vessels and aircraft: supplies and services
“(a) The Secretary of the Navy, under such regulations as he prescribes, may authorize any United States naval vessel or activity to furnish, on a reimbursable basis without advance of funds, to na val vessels and military aircraft of any foreign country which makes a vailable comparable assistance
"(1) supplies and services such as overhauling, repairs, and alterations, including the installation of equipment; and
“(2) miscellaneous supplies such as fuel, provisions, spare parts, and general stores. "(b) The Secretary may authorize any United States naval activity to furnish on a reciprocal basis to foreign vessels or aircraft, without cost where such services are provided by Navy personnel or equipment without direct cost to the Navy, or on a reimbursable basis without advance of funds where direct costs to the Navy are involved
“(1) routine port services such as pilotage, tugs, garbage removal, line handling, and utilities; and
“(2) routine airport services such as landing and takeoff assistance, use of runways, parking, and servicing. “(c) Payments for supplies and services furnished under this section may be credited to current appropriations so as to be available for the same purpose as the appropriation initially charged.”
SEC. 2. The analysis of chapter 631 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking out the item "7227. Foreign naval vessels : supplies and services." and inserting the following item in place thereof : "7227. Foreign naval vessels and aircraft : supplies and services".
Passed the House of Representatives May 20, 1957.
RALPH R. ROBERTS, Clerk. Chairman RUSSELL. This bill apparently seeks to broaden the existing authority under which the Secretary of the Navy may furnish routine port services and miscellaneous supplies to foreign naval vessels. Unless there is immediate payment, these port services and supplies may now be furnished only to foreign naval vessels at ports and naval bases of the United States.
The bill apparently would authorize the furnishing of supplies and services without an advance of funds at places other than ports and naval bases of the United States.
It also would authorize the furnishing of supplies and services to foreign aircraft, and it would permit overhauling and repairs without an immediate advance of funds.
The witness from the Department on this bill is Capt. Thomas C. Roberts from the Supply Policy Section, Office of Chief of Naval Operations.
STATEMENT OF CAPT. THOMAS C. ROBERTS, USN, SUPPLY POLICY
SECTION, OFFICE OF CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS Captain ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement if you would like me to read it.
Chairman RUSSELL. Very well.
The act of May 27, 1953, commonly referred to as Public Law 33 (83d Cong.), was sponsored by the Department of the Navy for the purpose of expediting the furnishing of supplies and services to foreign naval vessels in United States ports.
That legislation provides that services and supplies can be furnished on a reimbursable basis to naval vessels of those friendly foreign nations with whom reciprocal agreements have been negotiated. Reciprocal agreements pursuant to this authority have been consummated with Canada, Peru, Ecuador, and Cuba.
Subsequent to the preparation of this paper, Australia and Pakistan have been added.
Negotiations are still underway with a number of other foreign countries. It is now apparent that the provisions of this act are not sufficiently broad and flexible to permit adequate support of our worldwide operations with friendly foreign military forces. The following important considerations have led us to this conclusion.
Senator Bush. If I may interrupt, when you say “reciprocal agreements,” is that reciprocal trade agreements or are they outside of that act?
Captain ROBERTS. It is outside of that.
First, the original act applies to furnishing supplies and services to foreign naval vessels in United States ports only. There is no other legislation to authorize the sale of material and services to foreign naval units other than this act. It has been concluded that our worldwide operations, many of which require continued close support of friendly foreign naval units, necessitate extending this authority, to enable the United States Navy to provide logistic support at locations other than in a United States port.
The limitation imposed by the act necessitated disapproval of a COMSIXTHFLT request to approve the issue of supplies to Allied Forces incident to joint exercises, for items which could be spared, and for which the allied naval officials concerned agreed their governments would promptly reimburse the United States. Thus, the act precluded our providing minor repairs and services to NATO foreign naval units which frequently operate with United States naval task forces.
A second consideration is the restriction that supplies and services can only be furnished when a prior agreement conferring reciprocal rights on the United States has been negotiated with the country concerned. Negotiations with NATO counties of agreements pursuant to Public Law 33, and importantly with Great Britain, revealed the inadvisability of having separate formal reciprocal agreements. British authorities maintain that a formal agreement is not necessary, since supplies and services have been done heretofore on a basis of long-standing custom and honored verbal agreement.
NATO, through its Military Agency for Standardization, has generated a single agreement for all NATO nations providing for the furnishing of port services and supplies on a reimbursable basis without an advance of funds.
There are a number of advantages to having a single agreement under NATO. However, due to the conflict of the NATO agreement with Public Law 33, it has not been possible for the United States to approve the NATO agreement. Enactment of the proposed amendment, which still requires that a foreign government furnish comparable assistance, will give the required authority for the United States to approve the NATO standardization agreement.
A third consideration is the restriction that supplies and services such as overhauling, repairs, and alterations be accomplished only after receipt of an advance of funds.
This presents no problem under normal peacetime conditions, when a repair is accomplished at a United States facility. Our concern is to have authority to enable us to render this type of service to a friendly foreign naval ship anywhere in the world and under emergency conditions when it is to our advantage to furnish the service.
The requirement of an advance of funds under emergency conditions would delay, and in some cases obviate, the advantage of providing the services.
In addition, we have experienced difficulty in negotiating agreements which include this restriction. Great Britain is our best illustration. Frequent repairs are made to United States naval vessels in British yards and no advance of funds to the Royal Navy is required. Infrequent repairs of British naval ships are accomplished by United States naval facilities. As previously mentioned, British authorities are reluctant to enter into an agreement formalizing this restriction which is in opposition to established long-standing naval custom and honored oral agreement.
This has placed the United States in an embarrassing position, since, by law, we are required to receive payment in advance for services which are performed by other governments without the requirement of making an advance of funds.
Last is the matter of including foreign military aircraft within the scope of the act. Current and future naval operations, many of which are performed in conjunction with foreign forces, include the use of aircraft. It is therefore important that the Navy have authority to furnish supplies and services to military aircraft for the same reasons as apply to naval ships.
This amendment to Public Law 33, as proposed, is not intended to place the Navy in the position of being the major source of supplies and services for support of foreign naval units. It does not place an obligation upon the United States. It is permissive only, in that it would authorize the furnishing of supplies and services only when they are readily available, and as the situation warrants.
Accordingly, the Department of the Navy recommends extension of its authority to permit providing support to friendly foreign naval ships and aircraft on a reimbursable basis as required to support national policy under peacetime and emergency conditions.
Chairman RUSSELL. I am not sure I understand this bill, Captain. We passed a law here sometime ago that let us enter into agreements with foreign countries to supply those foreign ships; did we not!
Captain ROBERTS. That was Public Law 33, 83d Congress.
Chairman RUSSELL. Why cannot that be made applicable to all cases?
Captain ROBERTS. Because it is restricted. In other words, it is restricted to United States ports and it is on a reimbursable basis only with the nation, the friendly foreign nation that had signed a reciprocal agreement with the United States.
It has been very difficult to accomplish those agreements.
Chairman RUSSELL. Well, I though that we could furnish any country in a United States port under existing law.
Captain ROBERTS. I have no personal knowledge, sir, of furnishing any country. We do it on an emergency basis many times to enable a ship to go back to its home port. In other words we can repair a ship and we are providing particular supplies in emergencies to enable the ship to reach its home port. I think that is as far as it goes.
Chairman RUSSELL. Will you give me an illustration of just how this bill would work? Let us have an emergency one.
Captain ROBERTS. Well, when the 6th United States Fleet is operating in the Mediterranean, we have joint exercises with foreign naval vessels. For instance, there would be an amphibious exercise where you have landing craft and landing ships of foreign nations or we may have a convoy exercise to work out convoy techniques.
If they are very short exercises, then it is not too difficult, but if the exercises entail some days then the task force commander is hampered inasmuch as he is not permitted by the law to support the foreign vessels.
And then also there are the ships coming into United States ports that requires services or supplies or repairs. Those foreign warships, if they are not the ships of a nation that is a signatory to this agreement, they will have to provide in advance the funds for that. In peacetime that is not too bad, but in wartime it means that the commandant of the yard gets an estimate and he submits to the foreign country embassy. Foreign warhips carry no money or very little money and it takes some time before the authority for the money and the money is available to do that work in advance of the work.
Chairman RUSSELL. We have to do that now in United States ports?
Captain ROBERTS. We do, sir, on exercises. We have exercises in the Atlantic and ships of foreign nations, say, South American, sometimes find it necessary to make repairs to those ships before they can participate in the exercises
Senator Bush. What authority would you have to proceed? Captain ROBERTS. To be able to do this on a reimbursable basis, in other words, without the requirement of advance payment
Senator BUSH. I mean, what authority do the owners or operators of the ships have to give you, do you get a cable from his government?
Captain ROBERTS. No, Senator. It is a request for repairs and then he would have to get the money in advance before the repairs were done, but he can authorize the repairs, the commanding officer of the naval vessel.
Senator SALTONSTALL. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
Senator SALTONSTALL. Would this mean, Captain, that if an airplane of another country landed on the deck of one of our carriers,