Mr. PRICE. It is a matter of inquiry for the committee, which will possibly have to develop a little later on when we see where we stand. Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Lee has a comment if he may make one, please Mr. LEE. I believe you might wish to speak with the Army witness subsequently about this particular point, because the Army has a very excellent policy issued more recently, just within the last 2 or 3 months, whereby, when a contract, even though it is an economical one, would replace a civilian employee, it is required to be submitted to headquar ters of the Department of the Army for thorough study and review as to the justification of the contract, and that is a policy that has a bearing on the point of this telegram, and I think the Army people would elaborate on that for you more fully.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Mr. Chairman, we have a case involving some custodial employees at St. Louis, and it is a similar case in which the work was contracted out and there was considerable discussion about it. When we come to that case perhaps the Army witness could address himself to the general policy.

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Becker.

Mr. BECKER. I am wondering here, and of course I certainly can be corrected. I did not have any idea that the hiring of civilian employees or contracting was within the scope of this committee. I thought the scope of the committee was the utilization of military personnel.

Mr. PRICE. No; civilian and military manpower, within the Defense Establishment.

Mr. BECKER. I thought where one could replace the other.

Mr. PRICE. NO. The jurisdiction of the committee goes into the civilian and military manpower of the Defense Establishment. Would you proceed, Mr. Jackson?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. With regard to the tours of military personnel overseas, concerning which we were asked by a letter from the chairman and I might say here again, Chairman Price, that we have now, it is actually on Mr. Finucane's desk, it arrived there late last night, a very fulsome response to the particular question of shorter oversea tours, and it should have been here. Mr. Finucane was at hearings all day yesterday. He was at hearings Monday, and we are getting ready for later hearings. This paper should be here, be out of the Pentagon today.

Mr. PRICE. You will probably have it before the committee for tomorrow's hearings?

Mr. JACKSON. I will see if I can get it out. Mr. Finucane has yet to approve it, but it is thoroughly responsive to your question and would have been out. We were working over the weekend on other matters for hearings and it was actually brought to my desk as a matter of fact; we have so many problems just at the moment, but it will be out, sir, and I think you will find it thoroughly responsive. My prepared statement deals a little bit more with the subject if I may proceed.

We have now reached the point in staffing our support activities with civilians where further progress along these lines must be carefully considered to insure that the military rotation base is not adversely effected. As requested by Chairman Price, detailed information on our rotation problem is now being prepared.

Mr. STRATTON. One other question, Mr. Secretary.

Would it be possible to estimate to what extent as a result of the investigations initiated in response to the activities of this subcommittee to what extent men have been released from noncombat jobs into combat jobs? I mean you have indicated the work has been helpful, you have tightened up your administrative policies, you are in the process of taking military people out of the commissaries and so on. Would it be possible to estimate any kind of a figure as to how many more individuals have been made available to the fighting forces as a result of the activities that you have conducted?

Mr. JACKSON. I think it would be difficult in terms of the question. We do have in the overall efforts generated by other committees in other areas, as well as this committee, a favorable balance of support vis-a-vis combat in the Armed Forces.

Now, to delineate to what degree this is attributable to the results of this committee and the efforts it stimulated would be rather difficult. Mr. STRATTON. Let me put it the other way around.

The suggestion I think was made last year at the time that the Selective Service Act was up for extension, and in connection with some of the charges that led to the formation of this subcommittee, that we had two, three, or four divisions who were available but were being misemployed, and that if we could get these people out of their improper functions that we would perhaps completely restaff our combat forces.

Has the switch been anything on that order, would you judge?

Mr. JACKSON. Very definitely not. And the prospect of any such contribution to increased combat as a result of our hearings, I think, is extremely doubtful.

There have been corrections of malutilization, which were brought to our attention, by this committee and perhaps also through the general interest, but the net gain as a result of that, or of our continued efforts, in terms of anything like a division or anything like ceptible increase in our combat effectiveness I think is extremely questionable.

per

Mr. STRATTON. In the order of maybe hundreds of individuals, something like that, at the most?

Mr. JACKSON. Well, certainly I would consider it numerically to be far more related to hundreds than thousands, yes, sir.

Mr. PRICE. Members of the committee, Mr. Jackson, I think possibly the most expeditious manner in which to handle this is to go through the reports which we have received from the Department on the various cases which we presented to the Department for investigation.

Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, before you proceed.

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Cohelan.

Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Secretary, I was wondering about the statement on the commissary business. This is going to be a service-wide reform?

Mr. JACKSON. This will apply to all services, yes, sir.

Mr. COHELAN. It will apply to all services, and it is for all practical purposes effective immediately, but it will be implemented in March? Mr. JACKSON. I corrected myself, in June of 1962, yes, sir.

Mr. COHELAN. I happened to favor this policy but I am not unmindful there will be some problems.

For example, on the west coast, I found in the Navy Establishments there was great concern about this. In fact I found most frequent use of military personnel in the naval establishments, or at least more universally so than the other services, as I saw it on my limited tour.

But the point was persistently raised, Congressman, we do not know how we are going to solve this problem, because we have a problem of rotation. Our men are coming off from sea duty and we have to find places to put them.

What are you going to do?

Mr. JACKSON. Well, as I indicated, and it is quite true, that the problem of the numbers of military personnel in commissaries is larger in the Navy, and the reason given for it is that of sea to shore rotation.

We have indicated that we will have to make some allowances and the directive so prescribed for rotation needs-actual rotation needs, which with the ship-to-shore problem is probably more definitive in terms of necessity than it would be in the other services where they are not on sea duty. But we recognize that problem. The directive will be applicable to the Navy as well as all other services.

Mr. COHELAN. I see. But you have not got-can you help me by telling me what they are going to do? Alternatively, what are they going to do? They are not going to be working in the commissary, but what are they going to be doing, that is my question.

Mr. JACKSON. Our problem here is being resolved similar, I think, in terms of the percentage in requirements, very parallel to what we did in the post exchanges with regard to military personnel. A major exception with regard to the Navy for instance, or anyone else, would be on a bona fide requirement for rotation.

We feel that the numbers there now are not required for rotation. Mr. LEE. Those reassigned, if I might add a sentence, would, under the Navy's policies, be likely reassigned in the fleet if they were at that time eligible for a tour of duty in the fleet.

Mr. COHELAN. Thank you.

Mr. PRICE. Will the gentleman from California yield? I think our staff member can cite references to some of the reports we received that touches on this question.

Mr. COHELAN. Yes.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Mr. Chairman, since we are on this question of commissaries, I would like to address a question to Admiral Semmes that is pertinent to the question raised by Mr. Cohelan.

In going through the files, there were three cases, and I identify them as 54-9, 54-1, and 42-7. These files are concerned with the utilization of military personnel in commissaries, grocery stackers, and the like. The stations involved are in NOTS Inyokern, Patuxent, and Norfolk.

Now the Navy has acknowledged the use of Navy personnel in commissaries and it advises will continue to do so, and has recently reduced civilian billets in commissary stores in the continental United States by 177 employees, in order to make funds available for hiring of additional employees overseas, in commissaries. The Navy stated this in their report.

The Navy also advises these 177 billets will now be filled by military personnel.

Mr. BECKER. I wonder then if you could just look at it, and afterward come back to this point, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LEE. If I may add a sentence. While Mr. Jackson was appearing before another committee and was not present, Assistant Secretary of Defense Mr. Finucane asked that I call the proper authorities in the Air Force and express his view that the pamphlet had an unfortunate effect, and that has been done, and the Air Force already, we are advised, has discontinued publication, and I am sure they can elaborate on that to you. But Mr. Finucane himself took a great deal of interest in getting the pamphlet withdrawn.

Mr. PRICE. I think anyone would, if he would just read one paragraph of this pamphlet: This is about the care and control of pets.

Feeding pets may become a part of your daily chore. Necessity demands that pets be fed properly. Overfeeding is more dangerous than underfeeding. The manufactured foods for pets are easy to use and perhaps the best for unexperienced personnel. Diets are usually balanced and require only following directions prepared by the manufacturer.

Grown pets require feeding once a day. The young pets may require several small feedings daily. The base veterinarian will be ready to assist you in any particular problems of pet feedings. To keep pets healthy, treat food and food containers with the same sanitation measures as you do humans. Most sickness in pets is through carelessness in feeding and preparing them.

Here is some very sound advice:

Occasionally pets require baths. The best way to accomplish this is by using soap and plenty of elbow grease. Fingers are better than any mechanical device for applying soap. Rinse animal thoroughly by pouring water over him, then keep him warm until he is dry if the weather is cold or damp. To prevent cold. a good way is to walk the pet at night and keep him in until the next morning. He will dry by then.

Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairman, I wish you would turn to the other marked page here, or if you would permit me, the other marked page. This, I think, is devastating in itself, and it would be funny if it were not so pathetic, but the other item that was checked in here, Mr. Slatinshek knows the page number,

Your contribution to the overall mission of the Air Force can be even more important than that of an air crew member, a mechanic, or any other individual airman, the job of bathing a dog and keeping warm and telling him he must not let him out until the next morning.

To me, if this were written by a Communist to destroy the effective morale of a combat unit, I do not know of anything that could be done more devastating to the morale of a combat military force, than to have a combat man, a crew member, read one little paragraph such as that.

Now, how this got by, I know that the name of General White is on the forepart of this, but I am sure, God knows, that man never saw this thing, and how it got out I do not know, but what I am getting at, Mr. Secretary is not merely the withdrawal of this pamphlet, but what is being done to get down into the Air Force, both the civilians. and others who may write this stuff, and getting down into the commanders of the various units.

That this thing is "out", that this sort of thing must be stopped. That is what I am getting at, not merely the withdrawal of the pamphlet.

Do you follow what I am getting at, Mr. Secretary?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir.