amounts to the Government as a result of this Comptroller General decision.

(c) Validate any such payments heretofore made where travel was directed and performed for such escort purposes.

(d) Relieve disbursing officers from responsibility for such payments already made and otherwise proper.

A typical situation developed this last year when an Air Force sergeant and his wife were killed in an automobile accident near his duty station in Turkey. In this catastrophe, two children, one 6 years old and the other 6 months old, were injured. One of the children sustained a broken leg and required extensive hospitalization. The other child was less seriously injured and, after a short period of hospitalization, was placed in the care of friends of the deceased parents.

In addition to the problems involved in locating someone to be responsible to receive the remains of the sergeant and his wife and to defray the cost of interring the wife's remains, the Air Force was confronted with the problem of seeing that the children were returned to the United States and delivered into the custody of members of the family who could and would be responsible for them.

Other incidents of this nature have come to the attention of Members of Congress resulting in the introduction, in at least one case, of a private bill to authorize payment of a travel allowance.

As early as 1951, the General Accounting Office noticed, but did not take exception to, occasional vouchers representing reimbursement for travel on the part of persons acting in an escort capacity. In 1953, the Judge Advocate General of one of the military departments, after extensive study and research, expressed the opinion that authority existed for the travel of escorts under such unusual circumstances. This opinion was concurred in by his counterparts in the other two military departments.

The services did believe that authority to arrange for such escort travel existed, and moreover, that it was a responsibility of the military departments, owed both to the member and to the public, to care for dependents in those extreme, and fortunately very few, instances.

As a basic philosophy, the services feel a high moral obligation to assist in the relocation of such dependents.

The Comptroller General of the United States, even though agreeing with the worthy humanitarian reasons for providing escorts for such dependents, rendered his opinion in 1956 that, in the absence of specific statutory authority, the payment of travel and transportation allowances in such circumstances could not be allowed.

If this bill is enacted, it is the view of the respective military departments that the authority therein conferred would be exercised only in cases arising out of unusual and uniquely difficult circumstances. Inasmuch as the escort would, in effect, be performing travel that the military member himself would normally have performed had he been alive and able, and in view of the low incidence of such cases, this legislation is not expected to result in any increase in the obligation of funds nor in expenses which cannot be met from normal appropriations.

I shall be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Mr. KILDAY. Colonel, you referred to one private bill that has been offered. Do you know the number and style of the bill?

Colonel GUNDERSON. Sir, that is H.R. 4315.

Mr. KILDAY. Who is the officer involved?

Colonel GUNDERSON. That refers to a Captain Shotwell, USAF. Mr. KILDAY. I don't believe Captain Shotwell is even my constituent. He was stationed in Texas and brought this to my attention. Just on the face of it, I felt that it was so obviously unjust to charge this back to him that I offered the bill.

That bill is, of course, pending before the Committee on the Judiciary, and I wanted to make sure that this bill would cover the case involved in the Shotwell bill so there would be no necessity for two legislative actions on it. It will be covered by this bill.

Colonel GUNDERSON. This bill very definitely would cover it.
Mr. KILDAY. Are there any questions?

Mr. Bates.

Mr. BATES. Is there any information at all today in travel instructions pertaining to cases of this nature?

Colonel GUNDERSON. No, sir; not clearly.

Mr. BATES. It has never been covered in the military travel instructions to disbursing officers?

Colonel GUNDERSON. Only in the Air Force, Mr. Bates. The Air Force thought it had authority to authorize such travel and in fact issued a regulation, which it later withdrew in the face of this Comptroller General decision.

Mr. BATES. Were those payments made at that time under those instructions at a local level, or were they paid at the central disbursing office?

Colonel GUNDERSON. They were made at local levels, sir.
Mr. BATES. What is the retroactive cost of this?

Colonel GUNDERSON. Sir, the best estimate we could offer on the basis of known pending claims appears to involve only about $1,600. Mr. BATES. Now, who are the escorts? Are they military personnel? Colonel GUNDERSON. They may be anyone, sir. They may be either military or they may be civilians. For example, the wife of another military member who is willing to assume this escort duty.

Mr. BATES. Well, now, could you issue orders to military personnel to travel to a certain place to perform certain duties? Would that be questioned by the Comptroller General?

Colonel GUNDERSON. We believe it would, so long as it was clear that they were performing escort duty.

Mr. BATES. So you don't believe you could give a regular set of officers for duty as assigned?

Colonel GUNDERSON. No, sir. In fact, I would like to mention there are certain instances where infants would be involved. Obviously, it would be better if we were able to use a dependent wife of another family who is willing to look after them, who might be able to take better care of them.

Mr. BATES. How do you usually make arrangements under such circumstances? Do you contact folks being transferred stateside and ask them to do it?

Colonel GUNDERSON. Yes, sir; that is correct, and we usually have very good fortune in getting someone who will volunteer to stay with them as far as the port of debarkation in the United States.

I would like to mention that we have as many or more situations where we require an escort arising here in the States as we do between the oversea point and the States.

In other words, if a dependent family is headed for a destination in the States off the beaten airline and rail routes, there are instances when we cannot provide for them as well as we feel we should and where their family, living relatives, cannot seem to take care of them. Mr. BATES. In a good many cases there won't be any cost involved because the military personnel or their wives will be traveling back to the States anyway; is that correct?

Colonel GUNDERSON. Oh, yes, sir; very definitely.

Mr. BATES. Is this going to be a complete delegation of authority by the Secretary-I presume it would have to be to certain field commands; wouldn't it?

Colonel GUNDERSON. We do not intend at the moment to delegate it all the way down to the local level, but we intend to seek this as a permissive type of legislation which would authorize our major commanders in appropriate cases where the urgency exists to permit the appointment of such an escort.

Mr. BATES. So your area commander would have authority?
Colonel GUNDERSON. That is right.

Mr. BATES. Do you have authority today to designate military escorts for the remains of deceased service personnel?

Colonel GUNDERSON. Yes, sir; and we have no problem in that area. Mr. BATES. Is that specific authority that has been granted, or do you do it merely because it hasn't been questioned by the Comptroller General?

Colonel GUNDERSON. No, sir; I understand that is very specific authority.

Mr. BATES. I have nothing further.

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Huddleston?

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Colonel, as I understand this legislation, it would authorize the payment of travel and transportation allowances for escorts to accompany the dependents of servicemen, providing one of three conditions exist: Either the serviceman is dead, he is missing, or otherwise unable to accompany his dependents.

Now, just what kind of situation would arise where the serviceman would be otherwise unable to accompany his dependents?

Colonel GUNDERSON. A typical example would be if he was a terminal case of cancer, or something, at a military hospital. Or if he had been so severely injured in an accident that he would have to be transferred to another hospital for long-term care.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Would the legislation cover a situation where a service member is ordered by his service to a particular station and he wants to send his family back to the United States-say, he is ordered to a station where dependents are not permitted and he wants to send his family back to the United States, would you authorize an escort for his dependents in that kind of a case?

Colonel GUNDERSON. I would say no, sir.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Is there anything in the bill that would eliminate that kind of a situation?

Colonel GUNDERSON. Yes, sir.

If I may emphasize, the bill uses the word "designated," and by that we mean that it is contemplated an escort could not be compensated unless the escort was properly designated on orders, in advance of the need for travel.

In the kind of case you mentioned there would not be the type of hardship or unusual circumstances that we have contemplated.

Mr. KITCHIN. May I interject, you could imagine, though, where circumstances would justify. Suppose there were infant children, and the wife was an invalid or recuperating from some operation and could not be responsible for the children herself.

Colonel GUNDERSON. I think we can clear this up by pointing out that where there now exists authority to direct the travel of a dependent as might occur in that kind of case mentioned by Mr. Huddleston, and if she were ordinarily well, able to travel, and take care of her family there would be no need for an escort.

If, as you mentioned, there was some reason why she could not perform the travel competently herself or take care of her family on travel already authorized, this bill would permit an escort to be desig nated to accompany her.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. A situation could develop that would be entirely of the making of the Air Force, where this law would be applicable. Suppose the Air Force would assign a man to Greenland and he had three or four children and no wife, then under this bill the Air Force would be authorized, or would be allowed to authorize escort travel for an escort to accompany those children back to the United States. Colonel GUNDERSON. This does not set up any new entitlement to travel for either the dependents or the military, but it will only set up a permissive arrangement by which escorts may be designated to accompany dependents on travel occasions which are already otherwise provided for in regulations, and in the type of circumstance you mention, Mr. Huddleston, I know that it is possible if a man is ordered to a foreign station where his dependents cannot join him but where he would be ordinarily authorized to take dependents if facilities there were such that he could-in other words, if he was in eligible rank to have his dependents go with him, the existing laws provide relief to enable his dependents to be sent to a permanent home in the States while he is overseas.

In other words, that kind of arrangement is not affected by this proposal.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Now, what I am asking, Colonel, is, would this bill give approval for an escort to accompany those dependents if they met all the qualifications spelled out in the bill? Would this permit authority for the use of an escort to take those children back to the United States?

Colonel GUNDERSON. I believe they would.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. In other words, the Air Force itself could order a man from, say, Turkey to Greenland, and then also authorize an escort to bring his children back to the United States, under this bill? Colonel GUNDERSON. Yes, sir; if it was necessary and urgent. Mr. HARDY. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Yes.

Mr. HARDY. I had a case very recently along this line that frankly I am not sure it has ever been settled, and I think it probably ties in

with the same type of thing that the gentleman from Alabama is raising.

This happened to be a case of an airman stationed in Hawaii, whose wife had an emergency situation that put her in the hospital for neuropsychiatric treatment of some kind. They had two infant children.

The request came through to either arrange to have this boy's mother come out to take care of the children or send the children back to the Sates for his mother to take care of them here. And apparently there was no provision either to get the children back or-obviously, the airman couldn't be transferred and his wife couldn't be transferred.

Now, to what extent would this legislation meet the necessities of that kind of a situation?

Colonel GUNDERSON. Sir, I don't represent this legislation as aimed to remedy that kind of a case. It will help those where travel entitlements are already in existence for dependents to be moved.

Mr. HARDY. Is there a provision under which an emergency situation of that kind can be legally adjusted on a reasonable basis? Mr. KILDAY. Why wouldn't compassionate reassignment take care of it?

Colonel GUNDERSON. That is sone way.

Mr. HARDY. No; I don't think she could travel. Here was an airman, an enlisted man with two infant children, who, even if he employed somebody to stay with them he had a very serious sort of a problem, but he couldn't leave his wife over there in a hospital and be transferred over here.

The problem was to get somebody who was related or was capable of taking care of the children to come and look after his situation or get the children back to a grandparent where they could be cared for.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make my point. and then I will conclude.

Colonel, then under this bill the Air Force itself could order a man transferred from one station to another and then could, in addition, authorize the appointment or employment of an escort to carry his dependent children back to the United States.

In other words, the situation could develop where it was the Air Force's own making and still they could come within the authority granted in this bill. Is that a fact?

Colonel GUNDERSON. I believe that would be possible, Mr. Huddleston. I seriously doubt that kind of a situation would arise. It could.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Huddleston, if I may read the joint travel regulations, there are two provisions of existing law which probably shed some light on this.

When we wrote the Career Compensation Act, we put a provision in the law:

Regulations shall be promulgated by the Secretaries of the uniformed services, as provided herein, and such regulations shall be uniform for all services insofar as practicable: Provided, That no provisions of this section shall become effective until such regulations have been issued.

As a result, they established a Joint Travel Committee who handled all of these regulations because the law is fairly broad, always attach