Hearings ... on Sundry Legislation Affecting the Naval and Military Establishments

Mr. COLE. Just point out the change which this bill makes to section 7227 of existing law.

Mr. KELLEHER. I don't know that that can be done that easily, Mr. Cole.
Mr. COLE. Well-

Captain ROBERTS. I can tell you the changes in the form.

Mr. KELLEHER. I can tell you in narrative form very quickly and very easily. Mr. COLE. That is what the captain can do.

Go ahead.

Captain ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

The bill as now written, or the act as now written, provides for the furnishing of port services on a reimbursable basis if those are furnished on a reciprocal basis by other countries.

It also provides for the furnishing of supplies to other naval vessels.
Mr. DOYLE. In port?

Captain ROBERTS. In port, in U.S. ports, only.

Mr. DOYLE. All right.

Captain ROBERTS. It provides for supplies to other vessels, the original act does, on a reimbursable basis if an agreement has been signed with each country. It also provides for the furnishing of overhauling services and repairs on a cash basis only-in other words, on advance of funds.

The new bill, or the new amendment, places it all on a reimbursable basis without an advance of funds.

Mr. COLE. Or without agreement.

Captain ROBERTS. Or without an agreement.
Mr. COLE. I see.

Captain ROBERTS. Anywhere in the world.

It also includes naval aircraft this time.

Mr. COLE. I see.

Mr. DURHAM. Go ahead and proceed with your statement.

Captain ROBERTS. Very well, sir.

First, the original act applies to furnishing supplies and services to foreign naval vessels in U.S. 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 U.S. Navy to provide logistic support at locations other than in a U.S. port. The limitation imposed by the act necessitated disapproval of a commander, 6th Fleet, request to approve the issue of supplies to allied forces incident to joint exercises, for items which could be spared

Mr. DURHAM. Captain, I think since this is a rather lengthy statement-you stated, well, that the only thing that the measure does in changing law is to give you worldwide operation in other ports.

Captain ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. KELLEHER. And adds aircraft, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DURHAM. And adds aircraft.

Captain ROBERTS. And adds aircraft.

Mr. DURHAM. We will put your statement in the record.

Are there any questions?

Mr. COLE. I want to change that the effect of this bill is only to eliminate the requirement of a basic agreement, mutual agreement to exchange services. Captain ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLE. And eliminates the requirement of cash payment.

Captain ROBERTS. Cash in advance, yes.

Mr. COLE. Outside of those two eliminations, the present law remains.

Captain ROBERTS. Yes, sir; and to do business overseas wherever we do business.

Mr. LANKFORD. And it makes it all ports instead of United States.

Mr. KELLEHER. And adds aircraft.

Mr. BENNETT. Could we understand why it is necessary?

Offhand, I don't know the reasons why we should do this. I understand what

it does, but why should we do this?

Captain ROBERTS. My statement is very brief, sir.

Mr. DURHAM. He can read his statement, if you want to hear it.

Mr. BENNETT. All right.

Mr. DURHAM. I thought probably we could save some time.

It is primarily due to worldwide operations?

Captain ROBERTS. Yes, sir. We operate in joint task forces, and it is necessary to facilitate operations and to the interest of the United States to be able to provide services on an emergency basis, primarily to foreign vessels, foreign naval units operating with U.S. forces.

Mr. COLE. And this service does not result in any cost to the U.S. Government? Captain ROBERTS. No, sir. And the amendment makes it only permissive. It is not mandatory. It is to facilitate operations as desired by the commanding officer or the area commander.

Mr. DUBHAM. You don't necessarily have to do it, unless you feel you are really accommodating and accomplishing something for the allies?

Captain ROBERTS. Exactly, sir.

Mr. DURHAM. Our allies overseas.
Captain ROBERTS. Exactly, sir.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman.

Won't it also enable the United States to get accommodations for our vessels that we do not now have?

Captain ROBERTS. It has been very embarrassing to date, sir. We are the beneficiary of many services in foreign ports around the world.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You can't do to them like they do to us?
Captain ROBERTS. We cannot do to them like they do to us.

Mr. DURHAM. Does the gentleman-are you satisfied?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DURHAM. Any further questions?

(No response.)

Mr. DURHAM. Without objection, you cant put the rest of your statement in the record, Captain.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF CAPT. THOMAS C. ROBERTS, SUPPLY CORPS, U.S. NAVY

"Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 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. 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.

"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 have been negotiated with the country concerned. Negotiations with NATO countries 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 amendments, 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 sup port 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."

Mr. DURHAM. Without objection, H.R. 5237 is reported favorably to the committee.

Thank you, Captain.

Captain ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

H.R. 3291

Mr. KELLEHER. The next bill, Mr. Chairman, is an Air Force bill, H.R. 3291, and it involves the change in names of medals for the Air Force. The bill follows:

A BILL To amend title 10, United States Code, with respect to certain medals

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That chapter 857 of title 10, United States Code, is amended as follows:

(1) Section 8742 is amended—