Page images
PDF
EPUB

strict management controls make it impossible for any installation or agency to indulge in indiscriminate hiring for any reason or purpose.

It is well known that present laws and regulations prohibit officials from taking any personnel action on the basis of lawful political affiliation.

Reduction in force regulations, veteran preference, the new Civil Service Commission merit promotion program, and other well established employment policies and practices provide ample and positive controls over the Navy's industrial managers in all personnel actions including, of course, hiring practices.

In summary:

(a) The present requirements of section 7475 of title 10, United States Code, impose a costly administrative burden upon the various components of the Department of the Navy.

(b) No other Government agency, to our knowledge, is so burdened or restricted in carrying out its normal function.

(c) Delays in hiring needed, essential, and critical personnel can seriously hamper the ability of the Navy to properly staff its field installations, bureaus, and offices particularly in the engineering and

scientific fields.

(d) Many existing laws and regulations now adequately and fully control the practices for which section 7475 of title 10, United States Code, was designed to control,

(e) H.R. 4068 will correct the situations and burdens which I have described in my remarks.

I appreciate this opportunity to discuss this problem with you and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. KILDAY. Admiral, I don't believe 1875 was a presidential year, so that would mean that some Congressman or Senator was defeated and charged it up to employing people in the navy yard.

Do you know who it was?

Admiral CRONIN. Actually, sir, there was an investigation at that time by a committee of the House in which they looked into charges of indiscriminate hiring of several hundred employees in the previous election, and they just came to the investigation-I believe it was in 1875, and the law was effective in 1876.

Mr. KILDAY. Any questions of the Admiral?

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Admiral, we have a similar provision in the code dealing with Air Force and Army installations?

Admiral CRONIN. No, sir; none whatsoever.

I might say, Mr. Huddleston, that the Navy of course has had industrial installations for a great deal longer time than either the Army or the Air Force.

At the time the Navy had the navy yards back as far as 1800, these practices probably did create troubles which caused the corrective legislation to be introduced; the Army and the Air Force at that time having no such agencies.

Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, I think a couple of things in this situation might be worthy of comment.

In the first place, the extension of this unnecessary provision to "all naval activities," instead of just "navy yards" indicates that a little better care is called for in the reclassification of the laws.

That is something that is virtualy impossible for the membership to handle. When we are fastening on a recodification bill, and the boys working these things out just take advantage of the authority they have-maybe not intentionally, but nevertheless it is a bad situation.

Now, the second aspect of it that makes it particularly desirable that we proceed quickly to pass this bill is that there seems to be a habit of doing a lot of legislating and never repealing anything. I am delighted to get rid of it, Admiral. There are a lot of other things that I think the Navy and the other services have in the form of administrative law that is perhaps worse than some that we have passed. You would do well to get rid of it.

I wish you would bring some bills up here to abolish a lot of them.

Mr. BATES. Does that ever have any application to military forces, Admiral?

Admiral CRONIN. No, this was to cover only navy yards and when recodified, as Mr. Hardy indicated, in 1956, the wording, to bring it up to date, was changed to "all naval activities" instead of "naval shipyards," but never to "military."

Mr. BATES. My question was more in the sense of military versus civilian. Does this apply to your enlisted or officer personnel? Admiral CRONIN. Not to military personnel.

Mr. BATES. It says "the force at naval activities."

Admiral CRONIN. I am sure it has been interpreted over the years to apply only to the civilian work force. I am positive that is what it was intended to cover.

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Stratton.

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I wondered whether the Navy would be willing, if we were agreeable to deleting this section, to incorporate another section that no force could be reduced after a national election.

Mr. HARDY. I think you have a point there. I join with you in substituting that language.

Mr. STRATTON. I have a bill in the hopper which is designed to do something of the same kind. I thought maybe we could make a switch here.

Mr. KILDAY. Is there anything further?

(No response.)

Mr. KILDAY. Thank you, Admiral.

(Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee proceeded to further business.)

[blocks in formation]

SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 3 CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3366, TO AUTHORIZE THE EXTENSION OF LOANS OF NAVAL VESSELS TO THE GOVERNMENTS OF ITALY AND TURKEY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
SUBCOMMITTEE No. 3,

Washington, D.C., Wednesday, February 25, 1959.

The subcommittee met at 2 p.m., Hon. L. Mendel Rivers (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. RIVERS. The committee will have under consideration for the first part of our hearing this afternoon the ship loan bill entitled "H.R. 3366." A copy of the bill follows:

[H.R. 3366, 86th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To authorize the extension of loans of naval vessels to the Governments of Italy and Turkey

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding section 7307 of title 10, United States Code, or any other law, the President may extend the loan of two submarines to the Government of Italy and may extend the loan of two submarines to the Government of Turkey on such terms and under such conditions as he deems are appropriate. The President may promulgate such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 2. The extension of the loan to Italy authorized under this Act is an extension of the loan made under the authority granted by the Act of August 5, 1953 (67 Stat. 363). The extension of the loan to Turkey authorized under this Act is an extension of the loan made under the authority granted by the Act of August 7, 1953 (67 Stat. 471).

SEC. 3. Extensions shall be for periods of not to exceed five years and shall be made on the conditions that they may be terminated at an earlier date if necessitated by the defense requirements of the United States.

SEC. 4. 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.

Mr. RIVERS. NOW, Mr. Kelleher, you will take charge of this.

Mr. KELLEHER. Yes, sir. Admiral, if you will sit down and present your prepared statement.

Admiral RITTEN HOUSE. All right. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Rear Adm. Basil M. Rittenhouse, Director of the Foreign Military Assistance Division, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the committee as a representative of the Department of Defense in connection with the extension of certain loans of naval vessels currently on loan to certain foreign governments.

One of the most effective ways to assist our friends and allies is to assist them from our naval reserve fleet. By lending certain countries our ships, we achieve a preparedness that would be otherwise virtually impossible. By this I mean that the ships we lend are automatically deployed in vital areas, fully manned by our allies and organized for immediate action at the outbreak of any hostilities.

[blocks in formation]

Also, readiness and maintenance of our reserve fleet is improved. The best way to have a piece of equipment ready for use and in proper condition is to operate it frequently. This is particularly true of ships. Although the U.S. Navy reserve fleet comprises a strong potential, that potential would be vastly increased if it could be properly manned, operated and maintained in an active status.

The cost of this in terms of money and personnel would be prohibitive in peacetime. However, it is entirely feasible for certain of our allies to man and operate some of our reserve ships with their personnel. Turkey and Italy have been outstanding in connection with this proposal. The proposal contained in H.R. 3366 to authorize the extension of loans of vessels to the Governments of Italy and Turkey is designed to assist these countries to carry out their responsibilities in the North Atlantic Treaty area, implementing the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff concerning support of Allied forces under the mutual defense assistance program.

Both Italy and Turkey are capable of manning and operating submarines. They have proven this ability and demonstrated their proficiency in the operation of submarines over the past 5 years. Because of their vital strategic position, it is mandatory that Turkey and Italy maintain an effective submarine fleet in order to defend their positions. The major naval tasks of these countries as derived from multilateral agreements are to defend coastal waters, essential bases and ports, and to maintain close surveillance of the ports of hostile nations, all requiring that they maintain an active submarine fleet.

In view of the unstable situation in the Middle East, both Turkey and Italy are in vital positions to support the NATO organization and the 6th Fleet, if required. This support dictates that the submarine potential of these countries be the most effective that it is possible to achieve within the capability of the United States to assist.

It is considered a matter of political and military necessity that the existing loans of submarines from the United States to Italy and Turkey be extended for a period of 5 years. Further, gentlemen, it is recommended that the existing loans of two destroyers to China which expire in February and March of this calendar year be extended for an additional 5 years and the authority for the extension be included in this bill.

The Navy originally thought that the loan of the two destroyers to China could be extended under the authority of the law which authorized their loan, Public Law 188 of the 83d Congress as amended. After consultation with committee counsel and service counsel, there was a question in the Navy's mind if possibly we had not exhausted the authority originally granted by Public Law 188.

Therefore, it is believed that it would be far better to err on the side of safety by requesting the inclusion in H.R. 3366 of the authority to extend the loan of these destroyers to China for another 5 years, rather than to rely on controversial opinions regarding the authority

of Public Law 188.

In view of the early expiration dates, prompt action is necessary. The major combatant vessels of the Chinese Navy include three destroyers and five destroyer escorts which are on loan from the United States.

« PreviousContinue »