I think as far as leaving this to the Defense Department, it is sort of like the old adage. When the devil was sick the devil a monk would be, but when the devil was well the devil of a monk was he. I think if we leave it to the Defense Department, as one of these letters states, after a little time goes by and the congressional pressure subsides, all these pressures are going to renew. And, of course, you do not have to court-martial a man who violates this law. It is rather a discretionary matter for the commander. I think this bill would be a deterrent. If these men do not get some protection from the hands of Congress, they are not going to get it anywhere.

Mr. FITT. Senator, we do not oppose continuing congressional pressure on the Department to eliminate coercive practices. We are all opposed to those practices. I think if we need to have congressional pressure on this score, we certainly should continue to receive it. We just do not happen to believe that the bill in question is a necessary or useful device to bring about the end of the kinds of practices that you have described, which you abhor and which all of us do. But I certainly urge that you keep up the pressure, sir.

Senator ERVIN. There is no use keeping up the pressure. I am bringing this to the Congress now. Nobody is going to protect these boys except Congress. I have a letter written by a general. He said that the President wanted 100-percent participation. He was not going to be satisfied with less and neither was the general.

This puts pressure on the top commanders and they put pressure on the lower echelons until we get to a point like this.

Here is another letter. This is from a man who has had many years service:

I saw officers with over 20 years in the service who have been forced to buy bonds themselves and in turn forced to coerce their men to buy. Sometimes you consider what the general thinks is important to the military unit.

And so I just do not think there is any protection just leaving things to the Department of Defense. You cannot call many cases to the Department because these people do not want to be put in jeopardy. That is one place where a man has no protection.

Here is a letter from a lieutenant colonel written on March 5 of this year:

Of course the bond drives are notorious. It does not matter that the men cash in the bonds as fast as they buy them. The big thing is to be able to report 100 percent are buying bonds. My efficiency report for one period of command contains the derogatory statement that I could not get my command up to 90 percent bond buyers. This is the only derogatory statement in many ratings, but it has probably cost me a promotion. The fact is I deliberately refused to push bond sales. My command was in the 60 percent bracket on an entirely voluntary basis, which I thought was pretty good to do what you want. The soldier has always been a soft touch for the money grabbers and they will find ways to get his money every time.

That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Symington, do you have any questions? Senator SYMINGTON. Mr. Secretary, in business we found at times that people were prone to take advantage of supervisory positions to suggest that employees put their money in various things they thought were desirable. We would take steps to soften any undue pressure. The independence of a person working in a plant, or in an office is greater than independence in the military.

When a Secretary in the Pentagon, we found the same problem. Whether anything is a good buy or a bad buy, or donation, I personally

do not think we have the right to instruct people how to use their money.

All we allowed was solicitation for the community chest fund which pooled all the various charities. No other drives for funds were allowed.

Having felt that way in private business, I feel even more that way in Government.

There is merit in this bill, and I am surprised at so much objection to it. It seems, reading the bill casually, all the bill does is make a law out of what you believe should be done anyway. I would not vote for the bill unless it included civilians, because coercion comes

Senator ERVIN. If you will pardon me, the Senate passed S. 1035, 79 to 4. That bill protests civilians. The military is covered in S. 1035 with respect to civilians because in that situation injunctive power can be granted to the courts. Civilian employees can go into court and get an injunction against military supervisors. But there is no way that a buck private can go in the court and get an injunction against his sergeant or company commander. That is why a separate bill is necessary and why a criminal sanction must be provided.

Senator SYMINGTON. If they are covered, based on what the Senator from Mississippi said, I did not know that.

Senator ERVIN. All civilians in the Government are covered in the bill.

Senator SYMINGTON. That being true, I would think it logical, if you are going to cover the civilians in the Pentagon, to cover the officers also. Actually it would be a defense if an officer was being pressured by his superior to make a collection record for a particular

cause.

We have had some trouble recently in my State. I do not know who was right or who was wrong, but it got to be quite a situation. I have great respect for you, but do not see what harm would be in this bill. I would think most military would want to be covered themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ERVIN. I might state for the record that S. 1035 has not yet passed the House. It has passed the Senate. Under the bill passed in the Senate, it provides that no civilian employee of the Government can be coerced by any civilian official, and that no civilian employee of the military can be coerced by military officers. Both bills employ virtually the same phraseology.

I do not make violation of S. 1035 a criminal offense because civilians have access to the Federal courts. But the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps have no civil remedies. That is the reason I have to make it a criminal offense because that is the only way you can reach them. I do not anticipate that many people will be prosecuted under this, but I think it would be a deterrent against these abuses. Senator THURMOND. Will the Senator yield?

Senator ERVIN. I might say further that I tried to get one boy to give me authority to use his name and I sent the case to the Defense Department. I tried to be very careful so that the boy wouldn't get into trouble for complaining. Two colonels assured my staff the boy would be protected. His case was investigated and he wrote me back to please not to try to help him any more, that his situation was much

worse.

Senator THURMOND. Would the Senator yield?

Senator ERVIN. Yes.

Senator THURMOND. S. 1035, the bill we have passed, probably covers the civilians, except maybe the Secretary of Defense and the President.

Senator ERVIN. I do not know that it would cover the Presiden ti but I think it would cover any other officer in the executive branch of the Government. I think it would cover the Secretary. S. 1035 applies to any officer of the executive branch of the Government, or any person acting under his authority or purporting to act under his authority.

Senator THURMOND. I had some question as to whether it was broad enough. I wanted to get your interpretation of it, whether it was. broad enough to cover the Secretary of Defense. I do not think it covers the President.

Senator ERVIN. It says any officer of any department or agency or any person acting or purporting to act under his authority. I think it covers everybody but the President.

The CHAIRMAN. When was that bill passed? We passed that some time ago.

Senator ERVIN. Yes. We passed it about 2 months ago, September 13th. That was the one that had the provision about the CIA. That was the only controversy.

Senator THURMOND. That was in the Judiciary Committee.

Senator ERVIN. And I might state that between the cosponsors and the Senators who voted for it, the bill had the support of 90 percent of the Senate. The only question was a minor point about the provisions concerning the CIA and NSA.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. FITT. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. There will be inserted in the record at this point a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union in support of S. 1036. (The letter follows:)

Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL,

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,
Washington, D.C., November 9, 1967.

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to you to indicate the support of the American Civil Liberties Union for S. 1036, a bill to protect members of the Armed Forces of the United States by prohibiting coercion in the solicitation of charitable contributions and the purchase of Government securities.

We have had a number of cases reported to us of the attempts to coerce servicemen to purchase U.S. Savings Bonds in order to make creditable records for their superiors. Often the pressure is exerted the most when a unit is within reach of a 100% record. Desirable as this goal might be, nevertheless, it has been responsible for cases of harrassment, when soldiers have been called in repeatedly by superior officers to be lectured as to why they should sign up for U.S. Savings Bonds to be deducted from their pay.

Complaints to the Military have been unavailing. Generally there is a denial that anything improper occurred. Whether this bill will result in any affirmative corrective measures I am not entirely sure. However, it is to be hoped so. No serviceman should be subject to overbearing pressure in order to make creditable records for his superiors by purchasing U.S. Savings Bonds, or contributing to favorite charities.

Sincerely yours,

LAWRENCE SPEISER, Director, Washington Office.

(Subsequently, in executive session, the Committee voted to report S. 1036, without amendment, as covered by S. Rept. 796.)

Mr. CHAIRMAN. The next bill is H.R. 12910. That is a bill relating to the Judge Advocate General's Corps in the Navy. The witness on this bill is Adm. Wilfred Hearn. Proceed, Admiral.

STATEMENT OF ADM. WILFRED HEARN, JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY

Admiral HEARN. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before this committee to testify in support of H.R. 12910, which would establish a Judge Advocate General's Corps in the Navy. I wish to thank the committee, and especially Senator Ervin, for his interest in this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement which, with your permission, I propose to submit for the record. I do desire, however, to speak very briefly to the needs of this legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

(The prepared statement of Admiral Hearn follows:)

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the invitation to appear and testify with respect to H. R. 12910 which would establish a Judge Advocate General's Corps in the Navy. Needless to say, I fully support the enactment of this legislation as cleared by the Department of Defense in its report dated August 7, 1967. Briefly stated, the proposal would establish a Staff Corps for Navy lawyers in place of their present status as special duty officers. If enacted, uniformed Navy lawyers will have the same type of internal Navy organization as the other Staff Corps: Supply, Civil Engineer, Medical, Dental, Nurse and Medical Service.

Utilization of uniformed Navy lawyers began in 1864 when a Solicitor was appointed and the following year confirmed by an Act of Congress which designated him as both the Solicitor and the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. Prior to World War II Navy legal business was handled by a small group of uniformed lawyers, most of whom did legal duty on occasion when not performing line duty. It was not until after World War II-in 1946-that the need for fulltime legal officers became apparent. In that year the Secretary of the Navy on the basis of a recommendation of a board headed by an eminent civilian jurist, Arthur A. Ballantine, directed the procurement of 300 lawyers who would function as full-time legal officers. In the last twenty years this number has progressively increased to our present strength.

The increased demand for legal officers is attributable to a number of circumstances, one of the chief factors being the enactment of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in May 1950. That law required that officer laywers be used in all general courts-martial. Concern of this nature for the rights of the individual has found further expression since then both in Congress and in the courts. In both houses of Congress legislation is pending which would require that lawyers be used in the trial of any special court-martial which might impose a bad conduct discharge. In the recent Tempia decision handed down by the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, this right of representation has been extended to those under interrogation.

As you know, in 1962 the Congress enacted the Medical Care Recovery Act which directs us to recover the cost of medical care furnished a serviceman or his dependents who were negligently injured by someone else. The Judge Advocate General is responsible for making and processing the claims under this law and last year we recovered one and one-half million dollars.

In 1966 Congress amended the Federal Tort Claims Act, which amendment requires us to endeavor to settle all tort claims of any amount filed against the Navy. Prior to this amendment we only settled claims up to $2,500 and those in excess of that amount were handled by the Department of Justice.

Then too, the demands for legal assistance-especially for those serving in Vietnam-have increased several fold. The Retention Task Force which recently studied lawyer manpower requirements in the Navy recognized that legal assistance is a great morale factor. Particularly is this true in the case of personnel who are serving in Vietnam. Being separated from their wives and children, many for the first time, it is reassuring to know that they and those at home have someone to turn to for legal services if the need arises.

Speaking of Vietnam, the increased tempo of our operations in that theater has greatly increased the need for uniformed lawyers.

Of perhaps equal significance is the fact that the experience level in the Navy officer-lawyer community has been steadily declining since 1957. The retention of both junior and senior officers since that time has failed to offset regular officer losses through voluntary and involuntary retirements. While our numerical losses can be replaced numberwise by three year active duty reservists whose motivation largely is the discharge of their service obligation, there is no corresponding replacement in the level of experience. As this level of experience declines, it is axiomatic that it takes more man-hours to do the job and then in most instances, not as effectively.

Presently our major source of lawyers is from that group of young men who after completion of law school comes in the Navy to perform their three year draft imposed military service. Nearly all of them return to civilian life upon completion of their service obligation. As a result, each year we experience a growing deficit of career lawyers, that is, the older and more experienced group is retiring in greater numbers than we are able to replace with young career lawyers. For example, as Chart 1 (attached) shows, in Fiscal Year 1960 we had 332 Regular Navy legal officers; by Fiscal Year 1964 the number had dropped to 319; in Fiscal Year 1968 we have 260; by projecting our estimates into the future, the number will have declined to 217 by Fiscal Year 1972. To further point up the problem-a study which we recently concluded indicates that career losses since 1960, through voluntary and involuntary retirements, have exceeded career gains in every year except one. This is demonstrated in Chart 2 (attached). The net result of this attrition in career officers is demonstrated in Chart 3 (attached). The 311 billets which we have in the combined grades of captain, commander and lieutenant commander are all considered career officer billets. Chart 3 shows that we have only 250 Regular career officers to fill these 311 career officer billets. The deficit is being made up from the group serving their obligated military service. They are however inexperienced and from this standpoint, are unable to discharge all the functions required of career officers.