« PreviousContinue »
Colonel HAMBLEN. That is correct, sir. A lot of these young men have seen movies and TV on West Point and not the hard work that goes with it, and, of course, that's the time when they feel the full brunt of it.
Mr. BROOKS. Then, too, some of them drop out because of physical imperfections that show up during that rigorous physical training period.
Colonel HAMBLEN. A small percentage of them; that is correct, sir.
Mr. BROOKS. I think that covers it. Now let me ask you this. Suppose the substitute wording were adopted. For instance, take Mr. Bray; he has no appointment to make this year, but he does have an alternate or two alternates qualified from last year.
Could those alternates be considered?
General COUNTS. We just don't carry them along once the year terminates for which they have been nominated and they did not get in. I think the mechanism of that would be difficult and believe it would be difficult and I don't believe it would be worthwhile.
Mr. BROOKS. Is there anything in here that says if they are otherwise qualified that they should not be considered ?
General COUNTS. No, that isn't written in here. But he loses that right. Once that appointment is washed out, has failed, he loses all rights. He has no further rights to the Military Academy unless he is reappointed.
Mr. BROOKS. If he is just not reached
General COUNTS. If he is reappointed next year, he would be reconsidered.
Mr. Brooks. Suppose, say, the Congressman has no appointment to make the following year.
Mr. WINSTEAD. He has his quota in the Academy.
Mr. WINSTEAD. He has it in there or he has a right to make it from year to year.
Mr. BROOKS. I understand that. What I am getting at is different. If the appointing authority has his capacity there already in the Academy, but he has all of it—like I had for instance, 1 year 3 men who were brilliant and they qualified as to age, academically and still interested in it, why shouldn't they be considered also under this wording?
General Counts. I have no particular answer to it except what I have said already, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BROOKS. It has not been the practice to do it.
General COUNTS. It has not been the practice. The practice has been that each Congressman has four appointments and once that appointment is filled, that is his quota. It is someone else's quota that are making the appointments next time.
Mr. WINSTEAD. In other words, if I skipped some 2 or 3 years suppose I have 4 appointments, 1 each year. If I make them in order and they stick, if 1 fails, then I have two accumulated, say, for this year.
General COUNTS. Correct.
Mr. WINSTEAD. If I appoint those boys and they stick, there will be 1 year that I don't have a right to nominate a new man to the
Academy because I had my quota. If I understand you correctly, each year stands on its own, but each Member of Congress would still either have his quota or the right to make the appointment.
General Cor NTS. That's right.
Mr. WINSTEAD. It would keep any one Member from getting more than his quota at any one time.
General COUNTS. Yes, sir; that is correct.
Colonel HAMBLEN. Mr. Brooks, sir, the point is as to the law, they are qualified alternates, and each Congressman nominates a principal and behind that principal, alternates. Consequently, if the principal goes in, they are no longer qualified alternates after that year's appointments. Mr. BROOKS. Unless you carry them over.
But I don't know of anything in the law that says you can't carry over for consideration. The point that my colleague just referred to about being overstrength, if you have two vacancies and you fill them both and they both stiek, then you are qualified to capacity.
But, on the other hand, if you have some alternates there that same year, then those alternates can be considered and you might be overstrength.
Mr. Burns. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. BROOKS. What I am driving at is this: If there are years when a man does not have an appointment to make to the Academy, then his alternates are not considered because he has no appointment.
Colonel HAMBLEN. You mean alternates from a previous year? Mr. BROOKS. Yes.
Colonel HAMBLEN. You are suggesting, then, sir, that last year's alternates be reconsidered this year!
Mr. BROOKS. I am asking you why they are not, since there is nothing in the law that prohibits it.
Mr. Burns. Mr. Chairman, if you will yield, I think that actually these alternates would have a chance if this new and suggested law were adopted, wouldn't they, in the year when his principal was appointed!
Colonel HAMBLEN. Absolutely, in the year in which his principal were introduced he would have a much greater chance of having those alternates considered.
Mr. Burns. If you had 4 or 5 good, A No. 1 people on there, he would be liable to wind up with more.
Colonel HAMBLEN. What Mr. Brooks said is absolutely true. When Mr. Brooks had a year when he had three very fine men, under the provisions of this bill now the chances of all those men getting in are greatly increased because we are looking for quality. We don't really look at where he comes from. As long as the Congressman says "He is our man,” we review him thoroughly. If something happened one year that we get a very outstanding group from one State, more would go in because of the quality.
Mr. BROOKS. I have nothing further to say on that point.
Mr. WINSTEAD. Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Bray on the practice that you have. But if you do produce 20 more, that means it will be about 20 more r. i. fid out if they reduce themselves. That is not your responsibility, but that is ours. The thing I am confused on, if we keep increasing to get more officers, you might have more
than you are asking for. I don't know. Maybe it is better. But if so, the Defense Department or the Congress or somebody should stop taking in so many of these others to r. i. f. them out from year to year as we increase the Academy product to replace them. As I said, we pay to get them in. We pay them bonuses to reenlist. We are going to give them a contract here to pay them when we kick them out. Then we lift this thing up here. We are just meeting ourselves coming back someplace, somehow. Until this thing can be thrashed out and settled, I just don't know whether General Counts. I will only say this: That 20 are coming in from someplace. If they don't come in from West Point, they are coming in from someplace else. Mr. WINSTEAD. They might maintain some of those we thin out, is what I am thinking about. We have got to have so many officers in the setup. The more you take in, the more they have got to kick out from someplace. Colonel HAMBLEN. Sir, as you perhaps know, we have already taken steps to do something about that this year. We are limiting the number of ROTC students who may compete in the advanced course, realizing that we must look ahead to next year; otherwise, the output will be too great. In an effort to be sure we don't have that circumstance arise we are trying to do the best we can to limit— Mr. WINSTEAD. May #". it seems to me that what you are requesting here is for us to find an answer to the whole problem. Mr. BRooks. What would you think of this: You are working on an omnibus bill to cover all of the Academies, and I grant you they all ought to be the same in rules. Why not wait, and when you bring this omnibus bill up, incorporate the provisions covering all academies of this sort. Colonel HAMBLEN. The basic reason, sir, is because of the difficulty in coordinating such a bill, and it has been in coordination now for 4 years, sir; it was completely revised as a result of the bill you submitted, and I think greatly improved, but nevertheless has been in coordination that long. Discussions we have had with the Bureau of the Budget have been that this particular bill does not present a great controversial measure. The provisions are pretty obvious as to what we are trying to do and it would probably have a pretty fair chance of getting through, whereas if we ... a bill that is as controversial as getting all service Academies the same strength and increasing the appointments to Congressmen, and so forth, we would undoubtedly no many days of discussion. Time being precious, we want to keep getting more graduates out if we can and not keep putting off another 4 years on the hope that sometime it may be done in a better fashion. Mr. BURNS, Mr. Chairman, may I get one more question in here? Mr. Brooks. Yes. Mr. BURNs. This thought occurs to me, that by adoption of this bill you actually answer the questions that my distinguished friend from Indiana and my distinguished friend from Mississippi asked. If you take these in and add these 20, you do not take in people who later will be liable to be r. i. f.’d. Mr. WINSTEAD. You are answering the future, but you are not answering the r. i. f. that comes this year.
Mr. DUCANDER. Just one thing now. We have been speaking about 20, o under the revised language that was adopted, that is up, isn't it General Counts. Under this change; yes. Mr. DUCANDER. What will it be? General Counts. Someplace around 50 or 60. Mr. DUCANDER. About 100 would be in, but about 50 or 60 would COme Out. General Counts. It will be more. We will put in probably 50 to 65 a year if it is changed to what you will change it to. That is a worthwhile number and that will put us up to about 600 graduates a year. Colonel HAMBLEN. We would increase about 50 to 65 per year. Mr. BRooks. Any further questions? If not, we certainly thank you, General, and you too, sir, for your fine help here on this bill. We will go into it in a few minutes. (Whereupon, at 11 a.m. the committee proceeded to the discussion of other business.)
[No. 97] SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 3 CONSIDERATION OF H. R. 12640, TO
AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY TO CONVEY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE No. 3,
Washington, D. C., Tuesday, August 5, 1958. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., room 313-A, Old House Office Building, Hon. Carl T. Durham (chairman) presiding.
Mr. DURHAM. The committee will come to order.
This meeting today is called for a hearing on H. R. 12640 introduced by our colleague, Mr. Barrett. (The bill referred to follows:)
[H. R. 12640, 85th Cong., 2d sess.] A BILL To authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey to the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
certain piers and other facilities of the United States located in such city Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Army is directed to convey by quitclaim deed to the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the facilities of the United States in Philadelphia known as the Philadelphia Army Supply Base situated at the foot of Oregon Avenue and including Delaware piers 96, 98, and 100 south, the upland between the bulkhead line of said piers and the reservation fences on the easterly side of Delaware Avenue, and the plot on the westerly side of Delaware Avenue containing approximately twenty-five acres of land known as the lumber storage and concentration yard together with all improvements located on this property.
SEC. 2. Such conveyance shall take place within one year of the date of approval of this Act and shall be made upon the condition that the deed executed by the Secretary of the Army include provisions:
(a) Requiring that until December 31, 1985, the facility be used for marine terminal purposes and for other services incidental thereto;
(b) Requiring that the city of Philadelphia invest at least $2,500,000 by December 31, 1965, in the deferred maintenance and improvements necessary for the facility in addition to normal repair and maintenance) and assure its preservation in condition satisfactory for marine terminal operations until December 31, 1985 (except in the event of major casualties); and
(c) Requiring that the city of Philadelphia lease the facility to the United States in the event of war or other national emergency declared by the Congress on fair and reasonable terms in relation to the city's investment and that, in such event, the city give the United States immediate possession subject only to valid leases or other agreements covering use and occupancy of the facility.
Sec. 3. Based on the present fair market value of the facility in terms of its earnings and operating costs, and taking into account the restriction on its use and the commitment for its extensive rehabilitation and improvement and preservation in condition for immediate and effective defense utilization as set forth above, such conveyance shall be made for the sum of $500,000—to be paid by the city of Philadelphia to the United States in ten annual installments of $50,000.
Mr. DURHAM. I believe that our first witness this morning is the mayor of Philadelphia..
(8141) 20066_-58No. 97-1