DUAL EMPLOYMENT AND DUAL COMPENSATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 22
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 28, 2005
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: July 22, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN

For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE :15765
DUAL EMPLOYMENT AND DUAL
COMPENSATION
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate resume the con-
sideration of the unfinished business.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Senate resumed the consideration of the
bill (H.R. 7381) to simplify, modernize,
and consolidate the laws relating to the
employment of civilians in more than one
position and the laws concerning the
civilian employment of retired members
of the armed services, and for other
purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under
the unanimous-consent agreement, the
majority leader has 60 minutes on the
bill, and the minority leader has 60 min-
utes on the bill.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Sen-
ator from Wisconsin.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the dis-
tinguished majority leader.
I had intended to offer an amendment
to H.R. 7381, the so-called Dual Compen-
sation Act. The amendment would elim-
inate Senate confirmation of nomina-
tions of U.S. postmasters in the top three
classes. The amendment would enhance
the efficiency of the postal service by
extending to postmasters all the merit
service principles which now apply to
classified Government personnel.
In my judgment, Senate confirmation
of the nominations of postmasters is a
carryover from horse-and-buggy days,
when the country was- far smaller, our
Government was far less busy, and much
more time was available to Senators.
For Senators to spend their time
scrutinizing the qualifications of a post-
master in "East Overshoes" does not
make any sense. We know we do not do
it. We rely on those who are partisans
in our States to make recommendations
to us. To be frank about it, our partisans
do the best they can to assess the quali-
fications of postmasters; but the only
qualification on which they will insist,
whether they be Republicans or Demo-
crats, is that the nominee be a good party
worker or be active in the party and
have participated in political activities.
How can any postal employee aspire
to be postmaster when his employment
by the Government prohibits political ac-
tivity, and Senate confirmation makes
political activity a virtual necessity for
Senate approval of postmasters?
This single ridiculous legal require-
ment that the U.S. Senate act on the
confirmation of the nominations of post-
masters compels Senators to devote many
hours of valuable time and requires ex-
cessive staff time, whenever the Senator
belongs to the same party as the Presi-
dent.
I tried to keep a record of the amount
of time we had to spend in our office,
which is fairly typical, on postal appoint-
ments. It is shocking. It is a ridiculous
waste of time for the staff and for the
Senator.
The only argument for immersing
postmasters in politics this way is
that the nominations of postmasters give
Senators a chance to build some patron-
age; to enhance their position in the
political party, to give them some influ-
ence, so that they can build a little or-
ganization in the State. We who have
had experience for even a little while
realize how empty such patronage is.
From a political standpoint, the pa-
tronage leads to nothing but grief. If
we recommend a man for appointment,
and he becomes postmaster, then he can-
not take part locally in political activity.
The county chairman may have served
faithfully in that post, but if he is made
postmaster in a little town, he has to
remove himself from political activity.
That does not make sense. Also, for
every successful appointee there are from
2 to 10 or more unhappy or even infuri-
ated "rejectees" who will long resent
their Senator's action.
I have had pending for years in the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice a bill to stop this nonsense. I know
at least one other Senator, the distin-
guished senior Senator from Delaware
[Mr. WILLIAMS], has had a similar bill
pending for many years. I introduced
my first bill for this purpose several
years ago and have reintroduced it at
each session, to end this ridiculous situa-
tion, but I cannot obtain hearings.
Under the circumstances, my only al-
ternative is to call up my bill as an
amendment, which I hesitate to do on
this occasion, because it is not directly
related to the dual compensation bill.
But apparently there is no other bill to
be reported by the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service this year which
could be amended and would have a
chance of passage except this particu-
lar one.
Mr. President, I am happy to yield to
the distinguished Senator from Dela-
ware. -
Mr.. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, I join in support of the argu-
ment of the distinguished Senator from
Wisconsin. The Senate should not con-
tinue the farce of requiring the Senate
confirmation of the nominations of post-
masters. Certainly I am not qualified
to pass on the merits of postmasters in
Wisconsin. I do not have the time to
study the background of all these indi-
viduals.
Sooner or later we should pass a bill
similar to that which both the Senator
from Wisconsin and I have introduced.
Several years ago I introduced a com-
panion bill to achieve the same objec-
tive. The sooner we pass such a bill
and take postmasters out of the political
arena the better it will be for the postal
service, the Senate, and the country.
If the Senator from Wisconsin does
not press his amendment now I will join
him in continuing to urge the chairman
of the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service to afford us the opportunity to
have hearings on one bill and to get
some action on it. The time is long over-
due when the Senate should stop this
procedure.
Mr.- PROXMIRE. I thank the Sena-
tor from Delaware.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Wisconsin yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield to the Sena-
from Ohio.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Do I correctly under-
stand the Senator from Wisconsin to
have said that he has a bill pending upon
which he cannot obtain hearings in the
committee? - - -
Mr. PROXMIRE. I have written to.
the chairman of the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service who, in my esti-
mation, is one of the finest Members of
this body, a most considerate and
thoughtful. man, but I have not been
able to get any hearings. I have asked
for hearings, but hearings have not been
forthcoming.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The Senator would
not seek to amend the pending bill-
Mr. PROXMIRE. I had intended to
amend the pending bill, but I hope that
the distinguished Senator from South
Carolina. who has been most considerate
and is such an able man, will consider
the possibility of scheduling hearings, if
not this year, which I know is very late,
then perhaps next year, if I return to
the Senate.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, in
reply to the Senator from Wisconsin, let
me say that I believe he realizes the
situation in-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Wisconsin has
expired.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, I yield 4 minutes to the Sena-
tor from South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from South Carolina is recog-
nized for 4 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I am sure the Sena-
tor realizes that there have been many
bills in the committee. They should be
acted upon and will require hearings, but
I assure the Senator from Wisconsin that
there will be hearings on his bill as soon
as possible.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Will the Senator
indicate that in the event hearings are
not possible this year, hearings will be
held as early as possible in 1965?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I agree to that. - Of
course, I am not holding up the meas-
ure. It was taken up in committee and
discussed. We went over the bills before
the committee. The committee thought
it best not to try to press for action im-
mediately; but we should certainly have
hearings on the pay bill and other mat-
ters which are believed to be important.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Wisconsin yield for a
question?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Under the Senator's
bill, how would the appointments be
made? - -
Mr. PROXMIRE. The appointments
would be made strictly on the basis of a
civil service examination, on the merit
principle, on the basis of the person be-
ing qualified through a civil service ex-
amination.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Thus liberating Sena-
tors from the responsibility of making
approvals solely upon the word of polit-
ical leaders back home and nothing more,
because a Senator does not have the time
to delve into the matter as deeply as he
would like to in making his approval. .
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator is cor-
rect. It would have three effects. First,
it would mean that a person would be ap-
pointed on the basis of merit. Second,
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD -SENATE
it would mean a far greater incentive In
the postal service for people to aspire to
the top jobs, which In most local com-
munities would be that of postmaster.
Third, Senators would be relieved of a
burden which is excessive and irrelevant.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I thank the Senator
very much.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from Ohio very much.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I thank the dis-
tinguished Senator from Wisconsin for
not pressing his amendment at this
time, since the bill before us is the dual
compensation bill relating solely to one
limited field of compensation and not
to the matter of qualification and ap-
pointment, and particularly since the
matter of post office patronage is basic-
ally one for the House of Representa-
tives. This is a problem for the House,
and if we start in the Senate to--
Mr. PROXMIRE. The House does not
confirm nominations of postmasters.
The Senate does. It is true that some
Senators have delegated a great deal of
that patronage to the House. But we in
the Senate have the basic responsibility.
Conversations with House colleagues
and the experience I have gained over a
number of years convince me that they,
too, recognize that this is a burden, and
that it is far more of a political liability
than a political asset to them.
I know of very few people who really
want this system and who think It Is
essential politically, or in any other way.
Almost everyone agrees that It is not
good government.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I thank the
Senator for withdrawing his amendment
at this time.
Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes
utes on the bill.
In answer to the distinguished Sen-
ator from Delaware IMr. WILLIAMS].
who stated that H.R. 7381 had no effect
on civilian military retirement, and that
it applied to the dual compensation bill
rather than the retirement bill, I ask
unanimous consent at this time to have
printed In the RECORD a letter from Mr.
Andrew E. Ruddock, Director of the
Bureau of Retirement and Insurance of
the Civil Service Commission, dated
July 14, 1964, explaining how the retire-
ment law works.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
13UREAU OF RETIREMENT AND INSURANCE,
Washington. D.C., July 14, 1964.
Hon. RALPH YARBOROUGH.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil Service,
Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice. U.S. Senate.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This Is In response to
your oral request for a review of the existing
provisions of the Civil Service Retirement
Act governing the creditability of military
service and for comment as to whether enact-
ment of H.R. 7381 in present form would al-
ter these provisions.
Under existing law, once an employee cov-
ered by the Civil Service Retirement Act
completes b years of civilian service, the act
authorizes credit for all of his past periods
of honorable active military service, subject
to the following exceptions:
1. Credit for military service is barred if
the employee receives military retired ,pay,
unless there Ured pay Is awarded-
(a) On account of service-connected dis-
ability which was incurred In combat with
an enemy of the United States or was caused
by an instrumentality of war in line of duty
during a period of war, or
b) Under chapter 67 of title 10, 'United
States Code (providing retired pay at age 60
after 20 or more years' non-Regular service
by members of Reserve components of the
Armed Forces). (5 U.S.C. 2253(b).)
Credit Is also barred for periods of mili-
tary service performed after December 1956
(other than periods covered by military leave
with pay from a civilian position) If the
employee or his survivor is, or upon proper
application would be, entitled to monthly
old-age or survivor benefits under the Social
Security Act based upon any wages or self-
emq)loyment income of the employee. This
credit bar operates from the commencing
date of annuity if the social security eli-
gibility exists at that time. If social security
eligibility arises after annuity has com-
menced, the annuity is recomputed to ex-
chide credit for the post-1956 military service
from the point of social security entitlement.
(5 U S.C. Supp. IV. 2253(J).)
These Retirement Act provisions relate to
service credit only and do not affect an Indi-
vidual's right to retired pay or other benefit
deriving from military service. Neither the
Retirement Act nor the retired pay statutes
contain any provision prohibiting the con-
current receipt of military retired pay and
civil service annuity if entitled to both.
For convenient reference, I am enclosing
several copies of our Informational leaflet
BUT 46-226b which explains, in question and
answer form, the existing rules on the credit-
1ng of military service under the Retirement
Act.
H.R. 7381, as passed by the House and
reported by the Senate Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service, proposes no change
in the present method (above outlined) of
crediting military service for annuity pur-
poses under the Civil Service Retirement
Act.
Sincerely yours,
ANDREW E. RtmDoc c,
Director.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. For further
clarification, Mr. Ruddock's letter ex-
plains the provisions of the present law
on retirement. It states that title 5.
United States Code Annotated, section
2253(b), provides retired pay only in the
event of service-connected disability
which was Incurred in combat with an
enemy of the United States or was caused
by an instrumentality of war in line of
duty during a period of war, or in the case
of one who is eligible for military retire-
ment benefits upon the completion of 20
or more years of non-Regular service at
the age of 60.
I emphasize that this Is a provision of
the existing law, and that H.R. 7381
would not in any way change the retire-
ment provision of existing law. We are
dealing solely with employment and
compensation under dual compensation.
In our discussion of July 10, the
13enator from Montana [Mr. METCALF]
simimarized his reasons for opposing
certain provisions of this bill. He pro-
pounded 11 Interrogatories which are
printed on page 15644 of the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD for July 9, 1964.
Mr. President. I hold In my hand the
answers to those 11 interrogatories, and
since the distinguished Senator from
Montana [Mr. METCALF] who pro-
pounded them Is not present in the
Chamber at this time, I ask unanimous
consent to have these answers printed
in the RECORD.
July 20
There being no objection, the inter-
rogatories were ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
First. H.R. 7381 is not antilabor and anti-
veteran. Veterans' preference is modified by
counting for purposes of reduction in ?orce
only those periods of service during a na-
tional emergency, armed conflict, or war.
Peacetime service will no longer be counted
in computing preference over nonveterans
or veterans not entitled to preference. Any
veteran having less than 20 years' service,
who therefore does not receive the military
retirement unless he is retired on disability,
will continue to enjoy all veterans prefer-
ence. No veteran present y employed by the
Government will lose any preference.
Second. There is no evidence that H.R.
7381 will cost any money. In fact, there will
be modest savings caused by the reduction in
retirement pay for retired Regular officers
who obtain civilian positions.
Third. The "buddy system," as it is pop-
ularly known, is effectively proscribed by
section 204 of the bill. A 6-month waiting
period will be necessary before any retired
military person can be employed anywhere in
the Department of Defense unless unusual
conditions exist and requirements specified
In the bill are met in each case.
Fourth, H.R. 7381 does not pervert or dis-
tort congressional policy in regard to retired
military personnel. H.R. 7381 embodies new
policy reflecting the needs of the Govern-
ment In the atomic age for securing the serv-
lees of highly skilled personnel.
Fifth. There Is no evidence demonstrating
this bill is economically unsound. Positions
in the Federal service need to be filled with
the best people we can find. It does not cost
a cent more to hire a retired military person
to fill a civilian position. In the event he Is
a retired Regular officer heretofore barred
from the Federal service, slight savings will
be Incurred. ;
Sixth. Veterans' preference Is modified
only for purposes of reduction in force and
the accumulation of annual leave. These
modifications apply only to persons retired
from the military with at least 20 years' serv-
ice who receive retirement benefits.
Seventh. The 1962 employment figures
show that approximately 3 percent of our
civilian employees are retired military peo-
ple. Under present law, the only retired
military man who cannot be employed by the
Government is a Regular officer retired for
length of service. Since 85 percent o'' the
military are enlisted personnel and about
one-half of the commissioned officers are Re-
serve, and because some officers retired on
disability, the number presently barred from
Federal employment who would become eli-
gible for employment Is not more than it few
hundred a year.
Eighth. Relief provisions for warrant offi-
cers and Reserve officers are designed to cor-
rect an Inequity caused by incorrect admin-
istrative interpretation of the present law.
These employees were paid for services per-
formed. It would be unconscionable to re-
quire them to reimburse the Government.
Ninth. In pursuance of White House ef-
forts for economy in Government, H.R. 7381
modernizes employment laws so that the
Government can obtain the best qualified
personnel available.
Tenth. There are five different retirement
systems operated by the Government: Civil
service, Foreign Service, railroad retirement,
social security, and military retirement. Dif-
ferent rules apply In different cases. A. re-
tired career civilian employee may enter the
military service, receive the full pay cf his
military rank and his full annuity. There
are many examples of this exact situation.
Eleventh. It Is difficult to see how modern-
ized dual compensation laws to allow people
to go to work will result in unemployment.
On the contrary, it will create opportunities
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 1964
Approved 2005/05/18 S AO?~ 03R000500010004-0 15767
for employment which does not presently
exist.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
I hope that other Senators will find these
answers responsive to the questions
raised during the recess for the Repub-
lican Convention. The staff had had
time to diligently work on this problem.
The answers were prepared by the aid
of the staff, and they have boiled them
down to less than two letter-size pages.
I commend the staff for the fine work
they have done. They have had some
time and have done their work well.
With these clarifications and the ex-
planation that was made when the bill
was taken up July 9, and which appears
in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD from pages
15638 through 15644, I feel that it would
be merely repetitious for me to explain
the bill further at this time.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, will the Senator from Texas
yield?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I yield.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I thank
the Senator from Texas for putting Mr.
Ruddock's letter in the RECORD. Many
points were raised in the discussion on
July 9 at which time the bill was before
us, and while I recognize that the com-
mittee's questions are answered in the
letter, for clarification I should like to
ask the Senator if I am correct in my
understanding that the bill as it is now
before the Senate does not in any way
affect or change existing law as regards
retirement benefits?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. The Senator is
correct. We have had this matter before
the Bureau of Retirement Insurance
since our discussion here this afternoon,
and they assure me that it would not in
any way affect or change the retirement
benefits.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. One
other question in connection with exist-
ing law on retirement, I should like to
raise this question because I believe it is
one which should be given consideration
either on this bill or in connection with
the next retirement bill. I am refer-
ring particularly to the Ruddock letter
as it outlined a situation in paragraph
1(b), which reads as follows:
Under chapter 67 of title 10, United States
Code (providing retired pay at age 60 after
20 or more years' nonregular service by mem-
bers of reserve components of the Armed
Forces).
In this situation does this individual
get credit for the same 20 years' military
service in computing both his military
retirement and his civil service retire-
ment assuming he works 5 years mini-
mum under civil service? Am I cor-
rect that in retiring he can pick up, No.
1, his military retirement benefits for
his 20 years or more in military service?
That would be No. 1 retirement. Sec-
ond, as a result of his 5 years of civilian
service under the civil service could he
retire and draw compensation for this
5 years' civilian service plus the 20 years
of military service?
In other words, would he get credit
for 25 years under civil service retire-
ment even though he had only worked 5
years. This is what I had in mind when
I referred to this as giving a man double
credit for his military service.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. That is correct.
The distinguished Senator from Dela-
ware has correctly interpreted the law.
That is the existing law. That is not af-
fected by the bill. Ours is a compen-
sation law, not a retirement law.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I think
the question of dual retirement benefits
for military service should be pointed out.
How would that work if a man in the
same category were elected to Congress
and were to serve 5 years in Congress?
Would he be eligible for the dual retire-
ment in the same manner?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. As I understand
it, the congressional retirement is dif-
ferent from the service retirement.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Will the
Senator from Texas, the Senator in
charge of the bill, obtain the answer and
have it placed in the RECORD?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. We shall obtain
the answer and have it printed in the
RECORD. That proposal applies to a very
limited group.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. It may
be a limited group, but it would be an
unusual benefit if it were to apply to
Members of Congress. Assuming that
the $30,000 a year salary is in effect 5
years from now, it would mean an addi-
tional $15,000 a year in extra retirement
benefits for a man with 20 years' military
service as described in the letter from
Mr. Ruddock. At a time when we are
debating whether we can afford to pay
$1,200 to those who had military service
in World War I. It certainly looks
strange now to give another group an
additional $15,000 a year. I would agree
that the individual involved should have
the right to select the higher of the two,
but not to receive both retirements.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I know of no
Senator who would qualify for this.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. But it
would be possible if a man were working
in any department of the executive
branch for him to pick up this dual credit
for military service in computing his re-
tirement?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Yes. That is
the existing law. But that is a limited
group. That concerns those in the Re-
serve. A Regular Army officer could not
do that, under the existing law, or under
dual compensation.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I realize
that it is a very limited group. But that
does not mean it is right. Does the
Senator not feel that the committee,
when it brings out a bill that deals with
retirement, should take into considera-
tion whether the formula does consti-
tute an unwarranted pension benefit in
regard to a particular group?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Undoubtedly
the question of whether they have fa-
vored positions will be studied. The
present law deals only with the compen-
sation of a limited group of retired offi-
cers who are retired on length of serv-
ice and not disability.
We have worked on this problem for 9
years. The work started before I came
to the Senate. It took that long to make
this much progress. I promise speedier
progress on this question.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. May we
have the assurance of the Senator that
it will be studied?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Yes. Our com-
mittee will comply with the request of
the distinguished Senator from Dela-
ware. We shall instruct the staff to in-
clude that in the subsequent study when
the retirement laws are amended:
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, I think we should get that as-
surance. Since the bill before us does
not deal with the retirement benefits, I
shall not press the point at this time.
However, I think these are questions
which should have been given a little
more careful consideration by the com-
mittee before it reported the bill.
The Senator from Montana [Mr'. MET-
CALF], who had raised some of these
questions, is unable to be present. He
has a prepared statement in which he
points out his reasons for being dis-
turbed over some of the provisions in the
bill and why he felt the bill should have
been given a little more careful consid-
eration before being reported by the
committee.
Mr. President, upon his request I ask
unanimous consent that the statement
prepared by the Senator from Montana
[Mr. METCALF] on H.R. 7381 be printed
at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY LEE METCALF
As I indicated in our debate on this bill
recently, I am disturbed by some of Its pro-
visions and omissions. I am prepared to
suggest that it be sent back to the Commit-
tee on Post Office and Civil Service with
instructions that it be restricted to two
points. The balance of the proposals should
be resubmitted next year after appropriate,
and I would hope, more detailed and critical
study. The committee should report back
a bill which would cancel all obligations of
officers found to have been illegally overpaid
down to the date of the Comptroller General's
ruling of July 9, 1962, and permit the em-
ployment of Federal civilian personnel in
more than one position up to the length of
the Federal workweek, plus a ceiling on total
pay.
I assume that these provisions of the bill
are relatively noncontroversial. Certainly the
ban on two civilian positions hampers sev-
eral agencies and if guarded by an hours-per-
week limit, as in this bill, plus a ceiling on
compensation, which is not in this bill, it
should be acceptable. As regards the: former
officers who have illegally received dual com-
pensation, we should avoid working a hard-
ship on innocent citizens even though the
total involved is estimated to be $16 million,
most of that sum having been paid out by
the Defense Department. In reporting this
bill back, I would hope that the committee
would include in its report a statement of the
total amount involved, by Federal agency,
and include the name, military rank, and
civilian position of every individual involved
who has been illegally paid more than $500.
I think the Congress has a right to know
which agencies were delinquent in enforc-
ing the law and the extent of their delin-
quency. I do not think that innocent per-
sons should be penalized for agency delin-
quency, but since the agency which is
apparently the chief offender is the one de-
partment which should be best informed on
laws affecting military personnel I see no
reason why all the facts should not be made
available.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 20
In reporting this bill the Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service asserted that
it had four basic goals In mind.
First, it Intended to codify and simplify
Federal law on dual compensation. a com-
mendable aim, a job long overdue, but not
one to be achieved at the expense of more
important principles. A part of this first
purpose, actually a second purpose was to
afford what it terms "relief" for the two
groups of officers found to be overpaid by
some $16 million. I am agreeable specifically
to the second part of this first aim, and gen-
erally to the first part.
The second purpose as stated in the com-
mittee's report was to remove the present
ban on dual compensation for retired regu-
lar officers of the U.S. Armed Forces. The
committee reports that under present law
such an officer is prohibited from accepting
Federal employment because of the inaxi-
mum salary limitation established under the
Dual Office Act of 1894. Perhajis I do not
grasp the complexities of these matters as
quickly as I should, but are we being advised
that the Dual Office Act of 1894 absolutely
prohibits civilian employment of a retired
Regular officer? That such an officer cannot
give up his military pension, temporarily or
permanently, and qualify for any job he
wants and can get? If the ban is absolute,
then I do not believe this to be just or
right.
The third purpose stated by the committee
report is to modernize dual compensation to
remove the $2.000 per annum ceiling on the
amount of compensation any person may
receive from the Federal Government for
more than one civilian job. I do not think
this is a controversial purpose or provision,
except, as I have indicated-I think there
should be a ceiling on the amount of com-
pensation any Individual holding more than
one position can receive as long as we have
millions of unemployed. This bill provides
for no ceiling In salary-only In hours. This
is unjust and unfair.
To modernize a law we do not need virtu-
ally to erase it from the books, and I urge
that this section be modified to place a ceil-
ing on such dual compensation. The ceiling
should not be higher than 1!4 times the Fed-
eral minimum wage. Indeed the provision
could be so written as to make it self-
adjusting over the years, automatic moderni-
zation.
The fourth stated purpose of this lull is to
"establish ? ? ? a more equitable employ-
ment system" by allowing regular officers, re-
tired for length of service, or voluntarily. I
presume, to take full-time civilian jobs with
the Federal Goverment and still draw part of
their military retirement pay. The parts of
the bill pertaining to the achievement of
this purpose are those which have excited the
most firm and articulate opnoslion.
The urgency of this bill, as I understand
the matter, Is primarily that of giving relief
to the officers who were overpaid some $18
million. I understand this urgency and am
sympathetic to giving them relief. Frankly,
I do not consider the other sections as being
urgent at all, but since the one modernizing
restrictions on dual compensation for civilian
jobs is apparently not highly controversial I
see no reason why we should not deal with
it this session.
I am firmly opposed. however, to the other
revisions proposed in this bill until there
has been a great deal more fact gathering and
an adequate set of hearings and a more com-
prehensive report is available for study.
My first interest In this bill as it came
from the committee was aroused by the al-
leged urgency of the measure, because of the
pending necessity for securing reimburse-
ment of the overpayments-but no figures
were forthcoming on the amount of overpay-
ments. The committee report on page 10
flatly stated that the committee was unable
to obtain any specific poet information on
the amount of the overpayments. Subse-
quenly, in the recent debate, the figure of
slightly less than $16 million was offered by
the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr.
YARBOROUGH,
This is certainly a bare-bones figure. We
are offered no explanation as to what depart-
nients made such overpayments and to whom,
nor are we even offered an explanation as
to why the Comptroller should order re-
payment and so advise the agencies and
2 years later the committee is compelled
to advise this body that the cost figure was
not available. This reticence is peculiar,
at least, and I would like the committee In
its reconsideration of this bill not only to
e'l.-it additional Information but also to in-
dicate to the Senate why this information
was so difficult to come by.
Before we make any cltariges in the law
o,i dual compensation, beyond that minor
chr,nge rcrerred to earlier, I think the ap-
propriate committees should conduct hear-
ings on the whole Federal retirement system.
I Fee no more reason for being concerned
a=slut dual compensation and the alleged
discrimination against regular military of-
ficers than I do about the glaring differences
in the various Federal retirement and social
F?rurity programs.
On a simple bookkeeping basis, what Jus-
tification Is there for requiring a citizen to
pay social security taxes; requiring a Federal
civilian employee to pay 8.5 percent of his
salary Into a retirement fund; and levying
no tax on the military? I think this Is ob-
v.ous and unjustifiable discrimination and
should be brought to an end. It is my un-
d~rstandirg that the civil service retirement
fund is inadequate for the requirements
which will be made on it in future years.
Whv. How Inadequate? To what extent do
the claims of retired military people on the
civil service funds, deriving from their spe-
cial privileges In counting military time to-
ward retirement, constitute a drain on the
civil service fund? How big is this drain?
What valid arguments are there against
establishment of it military retirement fund
equivalent to the civil service retirement
fund so that retired military men shifting
to the civilian payroll can get credit for
their military service-but so that the re-
tirement fund can be the beneficiary of
the sums accumulated in the military fund
for the Individual involved?
It has been alleged that the military re-
tirement obligations will mount rapidly in
the years ahead and will soon reach $1 bil-
lion a year. To what extent could this rise
be offset by adjusting the relationships
between it military pension fund and a civil-
ian pension fund? Will the provisions in
this bill, pending here today, allowing $2,000
plus half of the remaining pension benefit
for regular military officers, encourage early
retirement and step up the cost of military
rc tiremen t?
It seems to be that we cannot separate the
laws on dual compensation and retirement,
despite the honest effort made to do so here
in our recent discussion of this measure.
If pensioned retirement poses questions for
civilian civil service employees, then it Is
quite unrealistic to say that this bill does
not affect the retirement laws. There is
no doubt that this bill does affect civil
service employees: It does affect their retire-
ment fund: It affects the total cost of Fed-
eral retirement programs-and it should be
restudied with this in mind.
I firmly believe that some of the incon-
sistencies in Federal law as regards the right
to retire with compensation can be elim-
inated or reduced. What set of circum-
stances in real life calls for a cut in the
social security payments when wage income
rises above $1,200, and knocks out social
security payments entirely at about $1,9007
Yet a retired enlisted man or Reserve officer
can draw his retirement benefits regardless
of his wage earnings.
I am not prepared to say at the moment in
which direction the changeshould be made.
But I do not believe there Is any justice in
telling a hard rock miner in Montana that If
he earns a few dollars In his old age his
social security will be reduced or eliminate)
entirely, while his son, retired from the mili-
tary, can draw his full retirement benefits
regardless of his other earnings. Surely we
can achieve more equity in the law than
this.
The original justifl ation for Imposing a
penalty on social security recipents xas a
make-work concept. We were going to pro-
vide some old-age aid, but require thi.t the
aged yield jobs to young people.
As nearly as I can gather, the original
justification for an Inflexible and very gen-
erous retirement policy for the military was
to offset low wages and _facilitate maintain-
ing a youthful military force. Possibly these
are also the justification for not withhold-
ing retirement taxes from military sa_aries.
I submit that this is poor logic and poor ad-
ministration on withholding taxes-and
places a burden on the civil service retire-
ment fund. I submit that a generous retire-
ment program is a poor substitute for ade-
quate military pay. And I would like to see
a study made of the connection between a
generous retirement program and re.:ruit-
ment of military personziel. It is facts I
would like to hear, not rationalizations.
I doubt very much that the marked differ-
ences between military and civilian retire-
ment rights can be justified in the clear
light of a committee hearing. Some differ-
ences, very well, but not the present sharp
contrast. One requires contributory pay-
ments; the other does not. One is very gen-
erous In terms of the length of service
required, the other is not. One Is, with minor
exceptions, irrevocable; the other is a fragile
thing-the civilian retirement-a fragile
thing which can be reduced or eliminated on
small provocation.
I submit we need a study of all of these
things before we undertake to enact legis-
lation this comprehensive.
I think the dual compensation laws
should be modernized. I think they should
be equitable. I think they should cover
the waterfront. In general, I think dual
compensation should be eliminated--that
this should be the guiding principle of those
drafting the new legislation. If we cannot
make the dual compensation laws, as revised,
yield immediate equity because of standing
commitments to classes of the military al-
ready In retirement, then I submit thc.t the
laws should be so written as to achieve
equity among all military retirees after the
date of enactment.
I do not believe that the presen'; bill
achieves equity. I do not believe that its
accomplishments outweigh its shortcom-
ings. I don't think It is the best bill by any
means that can be drawn on this subject,
and I urge that another attempt be made.
I have studied many hearings on many
bills, and I submit to you In all charity that
these hearings leave more questions un-
asked and unanswered than any other :get of
hearings I cart recall.
I trust no member will take these rgrnarks
personally. They are not intendet as
criticism of any person car committee. The
burden of our work Is heavy. Time is al-
ways at a premium-but I must insist that
I do not believe that this measure should
pass this year. I believe that It should be
recommitted with instructions.
Special privilege if we must have it must
serve a vital public function. It should not
be suffered as a result of hurried com-
promise.
Our responsibilities are broad-we have
time and the will to write better law--it is
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 22
former Texas railroad commissioner and a
State senator. His home was at 505 South
Chilton.
Survivors include his wife, Mrs. Ora May-
field; two sons, John S. Mayfield, of Syracuse,
N.Y., and Earle B. Mayfield, Jr., of Dallas; two
brothers, John P. Mayfield, of Corsicana, and
Dr. Jack Mayfield, of Houston; and a sister,
Mrs, Irwin Hill, of Houston.
Pallbearers were T. C. Harvey, Jr., Ocie
Grimes, George Jones, James W. Aston,
James D. Berry, Judge Joe Estes, Brady Gen-
try, Joe Swann, Fred Hall, and Pete White.
Honorary pallbearers were James S. Gresh-
am, C. N. Avery, Ben Sutton, James True-
love, Henry Carter, Wilton Daniel, and Gus
Pinkerton, Sr. Members of the Marvin Meth-
odist Church Board of Stewards and Friendly
Bible Class also were honorary pallbearers.
[From the Tyler (Tex.) Courier Times, June
25, 1964]
SENATOR EARLE B. MAYFIELD
The death of Senator Earle B. Mayfield
Tuesday ended a life that had contributed
much to Tyler, Tex., and the Nation.
The career of Senator Mayfield was a bril-
liant and unusual one. A native of Overton,
he engaged in business here for a few years
after his graduation from Southwestern Uni-
versity in Georgetown in 1900.
Then he moved to central Texas and in
1906 was elected as the youngest man ever to
become a State senator to that time, though
he had not resided in the district long
enough to cast a ballot himself.
After 6 noteworthy years in the State sen-
ate, during which time he produced an im-
pressive array of farsighted legislation that
is still in effect today, he became the young-
est man ever elected to the Texas Railroad
Commission in 1912.
He was a highly effective railroad commis-
sioner in those days when the commission
had more business concerning railroads than
oil.
After 10 years on the railroad commission,
he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1922, be-
coming the only Texan ever to serve in both
the Texas Senate and the U.S. Senate. His
impact on the national legislative body was
noteworthy in that he succeeded in passing
more legislation through the upper Chamber
than any Member had ever done during a
4-year period.
Senator Mayfield's work in the State sen-
ate included chairmanship of the Senate
committee that succeeded in establishing
the State Department of Agriculture. He
authored bills establishing agricultural ex-
periment stations. He was joint author of
the Mayfield-Jenkins bill outlawing bucket
shops in Texas. He worked for judicial re-
form, a cash basis for State operations, a
better educational system, and more funds
for State hospitals. A series of railroad bills
also bore his stamp.
In the U.S. Senate he passed a measure
giving railroads the right to extend their
lines into undeveloped sections of Texas
without having to get permission of the
Interstate Commerce Commission-a notable
decentralization of Federal power in one field.
He introduced a large number of bills on
agricultural and transportation matters.
In 1924 he headed the Texas delegation to
the Democratic National Convention in New
York. He was also a delegate to the Demo-
cratic National Conventions of 1928 in Hous-
ton and 1932 in Chicago.
Senator Mayfield returned to Tyler in 1931.
He practiced law and served as president of
the Mayfield Grocery Co.
An outstanding orator, he believed fer-
vently in the U.S. constitutional plan of sep-
aration of powers as "the greatest ever de-
vised by the genius of man."
Senator Mayfield kept himself informed of
current events at all times. He was a de-
voted reader of newspapers and never hest-
tated to offer his comments upon current
events and to offer constructive criticism or
commendation.
He was a cheerful and friendly person, be-
loved by the many thousands of citizens with
whom he regularly came in contact.
In his last large-scale public appearance,
he was invited to speak to the Texas State
Senate in Austin last year. His address was
an eloquent plea for responsibility in govern-
ment and freedom in individual life under
the Constitution.
Senator Mayfield will truly be missed in
Tyler and all over Texas. He had won, and
bore nob!, the title of elder statesman.
DUAL EMPLOYMENT AND DTA>
COMPENSATION
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, on
July 9, during the debate on H.R. 7381,
the dual employment and dual compen-
sation bill, I introduced into the CoN-
GRESSIONAL RECORD, starting on page
15642, a statement by the American Fed-
eration of Government Employees in
opposition to that legislation.
Last week, while I was in my State of
Montana, inspecting flood damaged
areas, I received from the Reserve Offi-
cers and Air Force Association a letter
which purports to answer the allegations
made in the statement by the American
Federation of Government Employees.
In the interest of -fairness to all par-
ties concerned, and so that more light
may be brought to bear on a subject
which needs enlightenment, I ask unan-
imous consent that this letter be printed
at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Hon. LEE METCALF,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR METCALF: We were most sur-
prised by your insertion in the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD for July 9, 1964, of the letter
from a local leader of the American Federa-
tion of Government Employees in connection
with H.R. 7381; the dual employment and
dual compensation bill.
We say this, first, because the National
Federal of Government Employees is offi-
cially supporting H.R. 7381 as reported by
the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Com-
mittee, and has been active in its develop.
ment since its introduction last year.
Secondly, we are convinced that you are
anxious to see fair play done on this issue.
Surely, none of us affected would desire de-
liberately to distort the admittedly. compli-
cated question of dual employemnt and dual
compensation. The arguments cited by the
local AFGE representatives are distortions
which, upon a little reflection and study,
have been found wanting. These are the
several main points:
Point 1. That dual employment and dual
compensation is peculiar to the civil service.
The facts are that it is the limitations on
dual employment compensation that are
peculiar only to the civil service. A retired
military man can go anywhere else on the
economy, get a job without restriction or
without limitation of pay. Conversely, any
man with private means, with earned retire-
ment or retainer pay from any company can
be hired by the Government without restric-
tion or limitation on his pay. Only men
who have served their country in the military
service and, in most cases, must leave the
service with retirement pay far less than
necessary to support their growing families
are (or should be, they say) restricted from
civil service employment or limited in their
compensation.
In this same connection there is again
brought up the tattered argument that if a
civil servant retires and then decides to re-
turn to active service with the civil service,
he cannot draw his retired pay. The military
man is in exactly the same situation. A re-
tired officer or enlisted man recalled to active
duty immediately loses his retired pay and
is paid at the normal rate for the grade in
which he is recalled.
Point 2. That the hiring of military re-
tirees will vastly increase the costs of Gov-
ernment and be a burden on the taxpayer.
The AFGE chapter states that "the 'dual
compers' now occupy lifetime civil service
jobs at double .expense to the Government."
This is patently untrue. It is further stated
that the "proposed dual compensation legis-
lation would increase Federal * * ? costs
by $500 million per year." This is utter
nonsense.
In the first place, it'.is obvious that there
are a certain total number of civil service
jobs, each one at an established rate of pay,
that must be filled to do the Government's
job. This is the total civil service payroll
cost. Even if all military retirees were com-
pletely prohibited from accepting civil serv-
ice jobs the cost would not be reduced one
iota. Full salaries must be paid to someone
filling the job. Yet, in the meantime, the
military retiree, whether he has no em-
ployment or accepts a position in the civilian
economy, still draws his retirement pay.
Therefore, it is easy to see that whether
only one or 100,000 military retirees are em-
ployed in the civil service the costs to the
Government in terms of total civil service
payroll costs and total military retirement
costs remain precisely the same.
As a matter of fact, a method by which
the Government could save money is con-
tained in H.R. 7381. That would be by hir-
ing as many retired regular officers (if they
could get them to come to work at reduced
pay) as possible. Since each one hired
would have his retired pay reduced several
thousand dollars, a considerable savings
would accrue to Government each year.
Point 3. That military retirement is a sys-
tem of featherbedding. In this the local
director infers that the "early or premature
retirement" of military personnel is a de-
liberate attempt on their part to featherbed
and enjoy two careers in the Government.
This early or-premature retirement is forced
on the great proportion of retirees because
of military exigencies. Particularly among
officers, very few would choose to retire at
20 years but would prefer a complete and
full military career. This is not possible be-
cause of the composition of the military
forces during and subsequent to World War
II and the necessity to provide for a flow of
promotion and for youthful leadership. This
requirement is too well known to require
further elaboration.
As far as enlisted men are concerned, most
of them are encouraged to retire early after
20 years of service for somewhat the same
reason as the officers. However, there is an-
other reason in their case-that is the low
level of pay rates for enlisted men does not
enable them properly to support and edu-
cate their families.
Therefore, virtually all, particularly the
Reserve officer and enlisted man accepting
involuntary early retirement, must seek oth-
er employment. Even if their retirement pay
were such that they could enjoy a life of
leisure the rest of their years this monu-
mental waste of talent would be a criminal
blow to the national economy.
Also, the letter carries the inference that
military retirees flock to the civil service.
Again, this is not true. Industry, educa-
tion, even the professions are, in most cases,
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE -29
EXCESSIVE FOREIGN OIL IMPORTS
SHOULD BE CUT BACK NOW
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
the situation of excessive oil imports,
damaging to our national economy, con-
tributing to unemployment and creating
a very real problem for a major segment
of the oil industry, is becoming increas-
ingly urgent.
The serious and deteriorating condi-
tion of our domestic oil industry is evi-
denced by steady declines in industry
employment, wells drilled, and crude oil
prices over the past 7 years. In fact,
over these years employment in the oil
and gas producing industry has declined
by more than 50,000-15 percent of the
total industry work force in 1957. Sim-
ilarly, since 1956, the total number of all
wells drilled per year has decreased by
14,500-a 25-percent decrease over this
period. Crude oil prices have also de-
clined steadily for the last 6 years and
In 1963 were down 20 cents a barrel or
7 percent from the 1957 level.
The Department of the Interior an-
nouncement of June 25 that oil imports
into the United States for the next 6
months are to be increased more than
70,000 barrels daily over the previous
level, adds to the already critical over-
supply situation that our domestic in-
dustry faces.
In my own State, the Texas Railroad
Commission has recently ordered that
Texas oil producers operate under the
lowest percentage factor for allowable
production in 18 months.
This is the fourth straight month that
this percentage factor has been reduced.
Mr. President, an Associated Press ar-
ticle from the Houston Post of Friday,
July 17, 1964, entitled "August Percent-
age 18-Month Low. 26.5," is clearly
symptomatic of the oil industry's di-
lemma. I ask unanimous consent to
have the article printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the REc-
ORD, as follows:
(From the Houston Post, July 17, 19841
AucusT FEacENTACE 18-Mox,H Low, 26.5
AUSTIN -The State Railroad Commission
ordered Thursday that Texas oil producers
must operate next month under the lowest
percentage factor-26.5 in 18 months.
The action marked the fourth consecutive
month the commission has reduced the per-
centage factor.
The commiEsion adopted the order after
hearing 6 of 13 purchasing company spokes-
men say their August purchases will call for
it reduction in the monthly quota.
Application of the 26.5 percent of potential
formula results in an August production
ceiling of 2.794,312 barrels daily.
July production was limited to 2.788.885
barrels daily under a 27 percent order. Au-
gust 1963. production was ordered held to
2.868,850 barrels daily under a 28.5 percent
order.
The previous low percentage factor was
26 In January 1963, the first month the per-
centage system was used.
Two of the top three purchases. Indiana
and Mobil. dropped their nominations one
percentage point from last month. Both
complained of high surplus crude stocks,
Indiana's totaling 3.7 million barrels.
Only four purchasers predicted purchasing
decreases from July, while five predicted they
will increase buying.
Purchasers' nominations, by percent, in
barrels per day: 29-Bun. 107,027; Texaco,
140,000; 28-Humble, 412,440; 27--Atlantic,
78.165: Gulf. 206.110; Sinclair, 100.000; and
Standard of Texas, 35,800; 26-Mobil, 230,-
900; Shell. 165,700; Indiana, 238,000; Cities
rrervice, 81,000; Phillips, 124,736; and Conti-
nental, 28.500.
District allowablcs, in barrels per day, and
decrease from July: 1-60.291. down 113; 2-
118,522, down 1,691; 3-363.191. down 3,323;
4- 213.270. down 2,335; 5-31,101, down 329;
6 (outside east Texas)-130.515, down 1.529;
6 (east Texas)-104.924, down 1,518; 7-B--
130,604, down 954; 7--C--121.028, down 1,366;
8-1.145.035 down. 13,937; 9-249,190, down
085; 10--130,253, down 522.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
because of this urgent problem, I have
written a letter to Hon. Stewart Udall,
Secretary of the Interior, urging consid-
eration for proposals to limit oil import
quotas for the next 3 months so as to
balance import volumes with the sub-
stantially lower demand for petroleum
products in the summer season.
I ask unanimous consent to have this
letter pi inted in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Hon. STEWART L. IIDAI.L.
Sccretarri, Department of the Interior,
Washington,_D.C.
DEAR Mn. SECRETARY: I hope you will be
able to take favorable action on a proposal
which has been submitted to your office to
limit oil imports for the next 3 months to
40 perceia of the total allocation for the up-
coming 6-month period. This emergency
action would permit importing companies to
import the remaining 60 percent of their
allocation during the last 3 months of the
year. balancing imports with the substan-
tially lower demand for petroleum products
in the summer season.
With concurrent favorable action on a
measure to cut the Department of Defense
procurerr.ent of foreign jet fuel and gasoline
by 35,000 barrels dally, oil imports could be
reduced by 200.000 barrels daily for the next
3 months. Such action would be compati-
ble with the U.S. Bureau of Mines' forecast
of a crude oil supply of approximately
200.000 barrels daily in excess of the pre-
dicted demand In districts I-IV for the
month of July.
If executed, these proposals could afford
temporary relief to the critical oversupply
situation that the domestic Industry has
faced for the last 7 years. This ever-
worsening economic crisis has been reflected
in serious declines In drilling activity, em-
ployment, and prices.
In fact, since March. domestic production
has been cut by 300,000 barrels daily. I be-
lieve that It is only fair and just that for-
eign imports share the burden of these con-
ditions with our home producers.
I strongly urge these reasonable and equi-
table recommendations be accepted. If I
can supply additional information, I hope
you will call on me.
Sincerely yours.
RALPH W. YARBOROUGH.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
the plain facts as to the conditions now
existing in the domestic oil industry re-
quire that something be done. It is only
fair and just that foreign oil importers
share the burden of these unfavorable
and still-deteriorating conditions with
our own industry's producers and em-
ployees.
I have always believed that our na-
tional security and welfare require the
equitable consideration of the domestic
oil industry in the determination of oil
import levels. I now urge this emer-
gency action by Secretary Udall to in-
sure that this principle be carried out.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. YARBOROU GH. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that I may be
granted an additional 15 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Senator
be granted 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
TRIBUTE TO EARLE B. MAYFIELD,
FORMER U.S. SENATOR
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
Earle B. Mayfield, of Tyler, Tex., who
died there last June 23 at the age of 83,
was one of the 26 men who have served in
this body from Texas since that State
entered the Union in 1845.
Senator Mayfield served here for 6
years, and achieved wide renown as an
orator, and as a specialist in transporta-
tion law. His total service of more than
it score of years in high public office
brought him many achievements, much
acclaim, and increasing recognition and
honor as the passage of time permitted a
cooler appraisal of his permanent ac-
complishment, unscorched by the tem-
porary hot winds of political controversy.
He was always a man of honor; always
the soul of courtesy. He spoke, dressed,
and looked like a U.S. Senator.
In his life after retirement from the
body, the good name of the Senate was
upon his acts and deeds. As a successful
lawyer, rancher, and businessman, he
lived the best ethics and ideals of the
Senate until the end of his days.
Senator Mayfield's family and my
family have been friends for generations.
At a rally given in my honor by citizens
of Tyler last April 30, he was there with
his beloved wife and spoke generously of
and for me. We miss him. We mourn
him.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that two articles from the June 25,
1964, edition of the Tyler Courier-Times
entitled "Earle Mayfield Services Today,"
and "Senator Earle B. Mayfield" be
printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the articles
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Tyler (Tex.) Courier-Times,
June 25. 19641
EARLE MAYFiEL.D SERVICES TODAY
Funeral services for Earle Bradford May-
field, 83, former U.S. Senator from Texas who
died at his Tyler home Tuesday, were held
at 2:30 p.m. today at Marvin Methodist
Church.
Dr. Harry V. Rankin and Dr. Walter Kerr
officiated. Burial was in the family plot at
Oakwood Cemetery, with Masonic graveside
services conducted by St. John's Masonic
Lodge 53 of Tyler. Burks-Walker-T`lppit Fu-
neral Home directed arrangements.
Mr. Mayfield served as U.S. Senator from
Texas from 1922 until 1929. He also was a
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
1964' ?'- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
seeking their talents. The ones who seek
and take civil service positions are gen-
erally those whose specialties are of pe-
culiar value to the Government, or who, hav-
ing served the public in one capacity, have
a sincere and continued interest and de-
sire to serve their Nation in a public posi-
tion.
Related to this is the next argument postu-
lated:
Point 4. The military retiree will domi-
nate the civil service if H.R. 7381 is passed.
It continues again to argue that the early
retirement of military personnel will ag-
gravate this situation.
The facts are, as brought out in testi-
mony before the House committee, that less
than 2 percent of civil service employees
today are retired military personnel. H.R.
7381 will bring into the competitive area-
and under pay restrictions that will discour-
age almost all from seeking Government em-
ployment--pnly an additional 10 percent of
retirees. Ten percent of 2 percent is 0.2 per-
cent, a not very significant number.
Let us all jointly contemplate one thing
in this connection. What if, as they appear
to urge, the military were prohibited from
retiring until age 60 or 65 (and there are
many, many military people who would ea-
gerly accept this)? Surely this would re-
quire an enlarged military force, as young
men would have to be brought in at the same
rate in order to maintain vitality in the
fighting forces. The only place the older
military personnel could be used would be
to fill the positions, in uniforms, now occu-
pied by the some million civilians in the
Defense Establishment. There could be no
other way, as the American public could
not be expected to support the real "feather-
bedding" that would otherwise be involved-
to the tune of a million jobs. Thus, over a
few years, virtually all civilian positions
would have to be eliminated and there would
be but a handful of civilian employees in
the entire Defense Establishment.
Point 5. That H.R. 7381 is being passed
to favor the military. We think the real
reasons have been obscured for the enact-
ment of H.R. 7381, other than to clarify the
current hodgepodge of laws and decisions in
connection with dual employment/dual com-
pensation. The purpose is to afford the Gov-
ernment the opportunity to compete with
industry for the most capable, competent
employees? whether among veterans, from
colleges, from other civilian pursuits, or
from military service of long standing.
It would be easy to continue to refute the
many other insidious innuendoes contained
in the letter, such as the totally unrelated
issue of Reservists serving in Congress, the
merits of the military noncontributory re-
tirement system (legally described as "earned
pay withheld") versus the civil service "con-
tributory" system, and the astounding infer-
ence that the military is "antiveteran." But
why attempt to broaden what appears to
exist in some minds as a schism between the
military mean and the civil servant.
We don't think it exists. We don't think
you think it exists. We all want to serve
our Government as civil employees, as mili-
tary personnel, as citizens and as taxpayers.
On this particular issue, we ask a fair evalua-
tion of the honest questions involved and a
fair settlement as a result. H.R. 7381, as
reported by the Senate Post Office and Civil
Service Committee, is one step in that direc-
tion.
Sincerely,
A. A. BRACKETT,
Colonel, USAF (Retired), Reserve Officers
Association.
JACKSON V. RAMBEAU,
Colonel, USAF (Retired), Air Force Ash
ciation.
COUNTY PROBLEMS
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, dur-
ing the past 10 years we have experi-
enced a phenomenal increase in the role
of local government. With our attention
so frequently directed to the actions of
the Federal Government, we frequently
neglect the increasing importance of
local government services.
Today, county governments are spend-
ing nearly $10 billion each year and are
employing 1 million people to serve
America's increasing population and
their growing needs.
The growth of local government has
largely resulted from a boom in citizen
interest in civic affairs. This local ini-
tiative, coupled with increased intergov-
ernmental cooperation, has created a
new era, which can best be described as
an era of constructive cooperation.
While much has already been done to
improve our Nation's communities, we
still need to tangle with many unsolved
problems and unmet needs.
A recent editorial published in the
Suburban Record, of Montgomery
County, Md., highlighted "Seven
Scourges" which affect nearly every
American community. These problems,
which were delineated by Bernard Hil-
lenbrand, executive director of the Na-
tional Association of Counties, must be
solved. The solutions require local
initiative and intergovernmental coop-
eration.
Postponement of the attack on these
problems will place an indeblible mark
on America's landscape; it will result in
a soiled heritage for our children.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have this editorial printed in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
COUNTY PROBLEMS
In a speech delivered last week before the
42d Annual Convention of the Izaak Walton
League of America, held at Davenport, Iowa,
Bernard F. Hillenbrand, executive director
of the National Association of Counties, cited
seven scourges which are a plague on almost
every community in the Nation.
He listed them as:
1. Automobile graveyards that line the
highways.
2. Open, exposed garbage disposal dumps.
3. Dilapidated signs and billboards.
4. Pollution of our water and air resources.
5. Unwarranted spot and leapfrog residen-
tial development.
6. Homes built on the flood plains.
7. The lack of local planning.
Mr. Hillenbrand said: "It is not necessary
for me to enumerate the ill effects of the
seven scourges. Their depressive impact on
property values, esthetic sensibilities, and
health considerations are readily apparent.
"Despite the deleterious effect of the seven
scourges, they can be controlled and even-
tually eliminated through an active program
of public participation in the development
of local plans to improve a community and
a similar degree of enthusiastic support in
the implementation of these plans.
"This goal can be achieved through an
enlightened, informed, and interested public.
1 We need active and effective citizen plan-
ning committees which will join forces with
their local governments in a constructive
16031
manner to help guide the development and
destiny of every community in the Nation."
Mr. Hillenbrand cited remarkable accom-
plishments of county governments during
the 1950's when it was recognized that a
large vacuum existed between municipal and
Federal programs of park and outdoor recre-
ation development. Among the accomplish-
ments cited:
An increase from 5,000 to 42,000 the num-
ber of volunteer leaders in county recreation
programs.
A tripling of the number of county parks
from 933 to 2,610.
A doubling of county park acreage to a
total of 430,707 acres.
A1960 total of 20,263 full-time employees
who worked -on-various aspects of county
park and recreation programs.
A doubling of county park and recreation
expenditures from $67 million to over $122
million in only 5 years.
It would seem that Montgomery County is
keeping pace with both the Nation's prob-
lems and its accomplishments.
FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF CAPE
COD CANAL
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. Presi-
dent, this summer marks the 50th anni-
versary of the Cape Cod Canal. Having
once lived in a house overlooking the
canal, I am personally acquainted with
the vicinity, and have been across and
through the canal many times. During
World Wars I and II, our defense traffic
passed through it, safely inshore from
the submarine menace. Today, it is a
great boon to our Nation's coastwise
commerce, and is well known to yachts-
men and the operators of fishing boats.
Fishermen angling for Cape Cod's fa-
mous striped bass often line its banks.
Construction of the canal, which is the
widest artificial waterway in the world,
was begun under private sponsorship in
1909, and was completed in 1914. Owned
since 1928 by the Federal Government,
the canal is operated toll free, as the
northernmost section of the Atlantic In-
tracoastal Waterway. In the olden days,
we thrilled to the passage of the New
York steamship, for which the canal was
cleared as she passed through it full
speed. A convenience to businessmen,
this line was a wartime casualty; but
the canal still serves coastwise traffic,
decreasing the route between Boston and
New York by over 70 miles.
The canal is also famous as the ;gate-
way to Cape Cod, a region of early his-
torical significance, and now attractive
to tourists from all over the country and
from many parts of the world. The
anniversary, committee estimates that
more than 2.5 million people will visit
the canal this summer, many of them
during the 2-week celebration period at
the end of July and the beginning of
August. - Several hundred local residents
have planned an exciting program of
entertainment for people of all ages.
It will include a variety of contests for
schoolchildren, fireworks, dancing, a
tour of old Cape Cod homes, and an art
show by the Bourne-Wareham Art As-
sociation. There will also be a parade,
in which representatives of all branches
of the U.S. Armed Forces will partici-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE -+ sly 22
pate; and there will be an exhibition by
the Thunderbirds, the U.S. Air Force
precision flying team.
in effect, all local residents have
joined to extend genuine Cape Cod hos-
pitality to the thousands of people who
will visit the canal this summer. These
active citizens are offering not only an
interesting program of entertainment,
but also an informative presentation
which will make the many visitors aware
of the importance of Cape Cod's past
history and present contributions. We
congratulate the anniversary committee
and the hundreds of volunteers who have
given their time and have expended
their efforts in order to make the 50th
anniversary celebration of the Cape Cod
Canal a successful one.
"THE ECONOMICS OF HIGHER
EDUCATION"
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, the ex-
plosion within the ranks of college-age
youth Is putting tremendous and urgent
pressure upon our institutions of higher
education to accommodate the influx of
students seeking a college degree. At
the same time, the increasing demands
of our modern society for those whose
academic background has prepared them
for the growing complexities of tech-
nology, business, and government, alike
put a strain on the financial resources
of students, who, as a result, all too often
are squeezed out of the formal learning
process.
Members of the Senate are familiar
with my bill to help relieve the individ-
ual student's financial situation. S. 2490,
with Its provisions for scholarships, -ex-
panded loan opportunities, loan insur-
ance., and a work-study program, will
shortly be reported to the full Labor and
Public Welfare Committee by Senator
MoasE's Education Subcommittee, I be-
lieve, The able chairman of the subcom-
mittee, the Senator from Oregon, has
recently assured me, by letter, that he
intends to hold an executive session of
his subcommittee on this bill as soon as
possible. In the meantime, the two vol-
um_es of testimony on the bill are avail-
able for those who wish to secure full
information.
The other problem, that of classroom
pressures, was recently discussed in rela-
tion to the State of Indiana by one of
the Nation's leading radio stations,
WOWVO, of Fort Wayne. In an edito-
rial, the station's general manager, Carl
W. Vandagrift, considered "The Eco-
nomics of Higher Education," in broad-
casts on June 29 and June 30.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the editorial be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Tile ECONOMICS or HIGHha EDUCATION
(By Carl W. Vandagrift. general manager,
WOWO, Fort Wayne, Ind.)
The economics of higher education are be-
ginning to dictate that educational oppor-
tunity can no longer be measured In terms
of brainpower. There was a time when a
bright youngster could reasonably expect to
attend the college of his choice. However.
with the tidal wave of high school graduates
flooding college campuses throughout the
country, institutions of higher learning have
had to restrict admissions to the brightest
students and those who because of scholar-
ships or family financial backing could
afford the expense of a 4-year college edu-
cation.
The problem of relieving the high cost of
education to otherwise qualified students
has been a major concern of educators in
Indiana. They discussed this problem last
week during a meeting of the Colleges and
Universities Study Committee of the Indiana
General, Assembly. The presidents and rep-
resentatives from three of Indiana's State-
supported colleges and universities spelled
out their plan for the creation or 4-year. de-
gree-granting institutions to be located In
Indianapolis, Lake County. South Rend. and
Fort Wayne. They explained that, because
the major cost of education today is for
board and room, a college education achieved
a!tliin commuting distance would enable
thousands of otherwise qualified, but finan-
cially unable, students to gain a college
education.
It was also pointed out that some 62 per-
cent of the students attending the present 2-
year extension centers in Indiana come from
families earning less than $7;000 a year.
These families would be hard pressed finan-
cially in affording 4 years of campus living
for their children. Another problem facing
the 2-year extension centers is overcrowding.
Already. regional campus applications are up
60 percent for this fall over last fall. This
la one of the reasons behind creations of the
joint Indiana-Purdue regional campus in
Fort Wayne.
It seems to us that the 4-year regional
campus offers a real opportunity to provide
a college education for Indiana's young men
and women. By bringing a post-high-school
education within commuting distance of the
majority of the people, the measure of edu-
cations) opportunity In Indiana can again
be related to brains, rather than dollars.
We hope the Indiana General Assembly
will give serious thought to this proposal.
STRIP MINING PRACITCES: A
"RIDICULOUS PARADOX"
Mr. HARTEE. Mr. President, the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. GausNINGl, as
chairman of a subcommittee of the Com-
mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
has been holding hearings on S. 1013.
The hearings are continuing next week.
This bill provides for a study by the
Secretary of the Interior concerning
strip and surface mining operations, a
study to be completed in not more than 2
years, with a report to the Congress.
Recently, two Indiana newspapers,
both members of the Scripps-Howard
chain, published editorials commenting
on the bill. They pointed out that while
we spend increasing sums to preserve
recreation and scenic areas, strip-min-
ing practices make new barrens and
despoil whole countrysides. The edi-
torial was entitled. In a phrase used by
Senator YouNG, a "ridiculous paradox."
Although these Indiana newspapers
did not mention the fact. I was one of
two cosponsors who originally joined
Senator Lausclfs in presenting this bill
to Congress. I believe It deserves the
support of the Senate, and I intend to
make a statement of support, for the
hearing record.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the editorial, which appeared
in the Evansville, Ind., Press on June 26,
and in the Indianapolis Times on June
27, be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
RIDICULOUS PARADOX
Senator STEPHEN M. YOUNG, of Ohio, Is
backing a bill sponsored by his fellow Ohio-
an, Senator FL Nx J. LAVSCHE, to sop the
destructive practice of strip raining opera-
tions. The Lausche bill would merel.7 direct
the Interior Department to make a atudy-
but the Senator hopes this will help
dramatize the frightfulness of this scenic
destruction,
"While State governments permit strip
miners to ravish the land." Senator Yomw
said, "it is at the some time suggested that
Federal funds be used to rehabilitate it.
This is a ridiculous paradox."
The "ridiculous paradox" goes even further.
While States and the Federal Government
spend Increasing sums to preserve recrea-
tion and scenic areas and to create parks,
the strippers despoil whole countrysides.
NATIVE ALASKANS SUPPORT-
POVERTY PROGRAM
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, last
month the representatives of Alaska's
43,000 Eskimo, Indian, and Aleut people
gathered for a significant and produc-
tive conference In Fairbanks. The gath-
ering was notable for the unity demon-
strated by the native groups. It showed
that native leaders are aware of their
people's needs and are develo;,ing the
organization and the methods through
which they may press for their objec-
tives. As I said in a telegram to the
conference, native participation in Alas-
ka's bright future will in large measure
be dependent upon the unity which their
leaders achieve, the responsibl:lty they
display, the inspiration they furnish.
The conference spent considerable
time discussing the proposed Economic
Opportunity Act, and passed a resolu-
tion supporting the legislation. Villages
and organizations were urged to ac-
quaint themselves with the proposed pro-
gram and the ways In which natives
might find it beneficial. This wasgood
advice, and I hope the native groups will
follow through. There are several pro-
visions In the bill, such as coirmunity-
improvement programs, adult education
programs, liberalized small-business
loans, work-experience and training pro-
grams, and investment grants :'or.? rural
families, which could be of substantial
benefit to native Alaskans and their
communities. But in almost every case,
the individuals and the communities
would have to formulate their needs and
take the initiative in making reiuests.
Otherwise, the program would be of lit-
tle benefit. Therefore, I commend the
conference for watching the legislation
and for alerting the natives Its to its
possibilities. I plan to do my part in
informing our people as to which pro-
visions of the Economic Opportunity
Act, when it is passed, they might find
most helpful.
I ask unanimous consent that the re-
port from the conference be printed in
the RECORD.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
1964
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
1.5637
persuade our allies to adopt similar
controls. There was a time when ad-
ministration leaders shared this view.
When the Trade Expansion Act was be-
fore the Congress in 1962, they claimed
that one of its principal aims was to
wage economic war against the Commu-
nists. One of the three purposes specifi-
cally stated in the bill is "to prevent
Communist economic penetration," The
examples of congressional attempts to
choke communism economically are
many, but it appears that the adminis-
tration wishes to ignore these desires.
As we observe another Captive Nations
Week, we must think carefully on these
things and decide whether this policy
of increased trade with the Communist
bloc is really the answer we are seeking
when we think of the paths of freedom
open to our friends and relatives in na-
tions held captive by communism.
Let us go forth this year united in a
reaffirmed hope, with a replenished
spirit, and with a, recommitment to the
proposition that this Nation is politically,
legally, and morally bound to exert its
constant efforts and resources to the re-
establishment of freedom and independ-
ence in those areas held captive by Soviet
communism.
CHANGE IN IMMIGRATION LAW
NEEDED TO FACILITATE ENTRY
OF SKILLED AND PROFESSIONAL
P) OPLE
M:-. HART. Mr. President, one of the
ma v reasons for the broadly based sup-
por for immigration reform, is the
growing recognition that new legislation
is needed to facilitate and encourage the
entry of selected skilled and professional
persons who can help meet urgent man-
power needs and contribute directly to
the development of our society.
A case in point is the continuing need
for highly skilled health research spe-
cialists. Several days ago the President's
Commission on Heart Disease, Cancer,
and Stroke, issued a significant resolu-
tion. It recommended in part, "that the
immigration laws should be so revised as
to facilitate the immigration and nat-
uralization of scientists and physicians
who can make special contributions to
the intellectual resources of the Nation."
S. 1932, now pending in the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration and
Naturalization, would accomplish the
recommendation of the President's Com-
mission. It is the bill I introduced nearly
a year ago, on behalf of myself and 26
other Senators, to carry out the legisla-
tive recommendations of Presidents
Kennedy and Johnson.
In an article for the New York Times
of July 5, 1964, Dr. Howard A. Rusk
comments on the Commission's resolu-
tion, and makes these sensible observa-
tions : -
Medical science should have no interna-
tional boundaries. Highly skilled research
workers should have the opportunity of con-
ducting their studies in the best available
environment. Our present immigration poli-
cies by denying many this opportunity hinder
No. 136-5
the possibilities of research advances that search workers were forced to return to
might be of great value not only to our own their own countries, where they lacked the
Nation but also to the entire world. facilities and equipment to continue their
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that Dr. Rusk's article be made a
part of my remarks at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
CHANGE IN IMMIGRATION-PRESIDENT URGES
EASING OF STRICTURES ON LETTING SKILLED
SCIENTISTS STAY IN UNITED STATES
(By Howard A. Rusk, M.D.)
After hearing preliminary reports by a sub-
committee on. manpower, the President's
important research efforts.
ONE PROJECT HALTED
One distinguished professor of biocli.emis-
try told the President's Commission that
his first assistant, who is engaged in a most
promising highly sophisticated research
project, will be forced to leave the country
within the next few months.
Since he cannot be replaced by an Ameri-
can, the research project will come to a halt.
The scientist will either return home
where he has no facilities, equipment, or
funds and will waste his time, or will emi-
grate to another country. Many such per-
sons who are forced to lea
th
it
U
ve
n
e
ed
Commission on Heart Disease, Cancer, and
States go to Canada,
Stroke took its first Official action last Tires- ? This same story has been repeated many
day. times since.
'It issued a resolution urging a change in Under the new legislative
ratio, of proposals, such
immigration laws facilitate immi
g
highly skilled health research specialists.
Each year several thousand research scien-
tists from abroad come to the United States
on visitors' exchange visas. Such persons can
stay in the United States only 5 years.
Should they wish to immigrate to the
United States and take up permanent resi-
dence, they must leave the country and not
reenter for 2 years.
The action of the President's Commission
was taken the day before hearings were to
begin in the House Judiciary Committee to
amend the immigration laws.
One of the proposed changes would permit
increased numbers of highly skilled persons
to immigrate into the United States.
The committee is head by Representative
MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN, Democrat, of Ohio.
A KENNEDY MEASURE
The bill being considered is Ian adminis-
tration proposal introduced by Representa-
tive EMANUEL CELLER, Democrat, of Brooklyn,
at President Kennedy's request a year ago. It
was reintroduced in January at the request
of President Johnson,
The bill would establish an immigration
board that would make continuous studies of
such conditions within and without the
United States that might have any bearing
on our Nation's immigration policies.
After consultation with the appropriate
Government agencies, the board could rec-
ommend changes in admission policies to the
Attorney General.
The bill specifically mentions consulta-
tions with the Secretary of Labor, State, and
Defense, but for some strange reason does
not include the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare.
Inclusion of the latter is particularly im-
portant if the objectives recommended by
the President's Commission on Heart Disease,
Cancer, and Stroke are to be realized.
THE CURRENT POLICY
Under current policies and procedures,
foreigners in the United States on visitors'
exchange visas may petition to be granted
permanent visas.
The Department of Justice then asks the
appropriate Government agency for its rec.'
ommendations.
From 1957 to 1963, 985 such requests were
acted upon by the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. Of these, 234 were
persons holding positions in research and
teaching in colleges and universities.
Six hundred and eighty-five were physi-
cians, most of whom were engaged in re-
search or teaching.
Under the current policies and criteria,
only 207 of these 985 applications could be
approved.
This meant that many highly skilled re-
persons could be admitted to the United
States on permanent visas.
It is because of this that the President's
Commission unanimously adopted and for-
warded to the President its resolution, point.
ing out that "scientific research is of uni-
versal and international benefit."
THE RESOLUTION
The resolution continues:
"Contemporary research requires facilities
and equipment of great cost as well as orga-
nization of great complexity.
"Such facilities and research environments
are often more readily available in the United
States than in other countries.
"Gifted scientists who are foreign nationals
but who have received extensive training in
the United States are normally compelled
to return to their own countries to
the considerable detriment of their careers,
the loss of their potential scientific contri-
butions, and to the permanent injury of the
research on which they are engaged."
In view of this, the Commission recom-
mended that foreign scientists and physicians
of demonstrated accomplishment or : ecog-
nized potential should be given indefinite
extension of their visas.
It also recommended "that the imnsigra-
tion laws should be so revised as to facilitate
the immigration and naturalization of sci-
entists and physicians who can make special
contributions to the intellectual resources
of the Nation."
A MORE MODERN VIEW
The bill would also regard epilepsy, mental
illness and mental retardation in a more
modern light.
At present, it is impossible for a person
with a history of any of these conditions to
be admitted to the United States. This con-
notes an official Government attitude that
such conditions are hopeless, which simply
is not true in terms of modern medical
knowledge.
The United Epilepsy. Association, for ex-
ample, reports that 50 percent of the esti-
mated total of 1,854,000 persons in the United
States with epilepsy are so amenable to mod-
ern medical treatment that all manifestations
.of their problem can be completely elim-
inated.
Medical science should have no interna-
tional boundaries.
Highly skilled research workers should
have the opportunity of conducting their
studies in the best available environment.
Our present immigration policies, by deny-
ing many this opportunity, binder the possi-
bilities of research advances that might be
of great value not only to our own Nation
but also to the entire world.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66B00403
CAPTIVE NATIONS WEEK-A FREE-
DOM OFFENSIVE IS NEEDED NOW
Mr. HART. Mr. President, President
Johnson has proclaimed the week of July
12, 1964. as Captive Nations Week. It Is
a good time to refresh our minds of the
havoc wrought by international com-
munism, and to renew our energies on
behalf of the millions of citizens in the
captive nations of Eastern Europe.
Years have passed but their hope for
freedom and national independence re-
mains alive, as indeed It must: for It Is a
natural yearning of all mankind.
America's responsibility in this situa-
tion is clear. As the chief guardian of
t with strong family ties to the
lib
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA
to Poland gave similar experiences.
which I shall never forget.
Let us not, Mr. President. permit this
spirit to languish in a wasteland of in-
activity by the United States. Hope-
fully, we have the good sense to exert
the responsible leadership we claim is
ours. and work with the captive peoples
to make their hope for freedom an
ever-increasing reality. Captive Nations
We el;, reminds us of our task.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, is
there further morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
further morning business? if not, morn-
ing business Is closed.
r y,
-
people of Eastern Europe. we must mount DUAL EMPLOYMENT AND DUAL
captive peoples and encourage their faith ' Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President. I
that the future holds out the substance ask unanimous consent that the unfln-
of freedom and national independence. fished business be laid before the Senate
in my book, Mr. President, this offen- and be made the pending business.
sive goes beyond an annual celebration The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
of Captive Nations Week. It goes be-
yond the passing of freedom resolutions Senate the unfinished business.
and the giving of stirring speeches. It The Senate resumed the consideration
must also o
include de. a prudent excuse of di- of the bill (H.R. 7381) to simplify, mod-plo inthemercy, trail-, Interests and
of f a peacefully evolution -- ernize and consolidate the laws relating
of freedom and national independence endence to the employment of civilians In more
within e he n than one position and the laws concern-
bloc. the captive nations of the Soviet tog the civilian employment of retired
b members of the uniformed services, and
New opportunities are opening up daily .
in this area. Eastern Europe is no for Mr. other purMANSposeposes Mr. President, I
longer a monolithic structure under the suggest the absence MANSFIELD.
a quorum.
exclusive tutelage of the Soviet Union The the absence OFFICER. The
eoples are beginning to stir
ll
tive
Th
ll th
p
e ro
.
e cap
clerk will ca
in a courageous and valiant way. They The legislative clerk proceeded to call the elimination of this section. Mr. John
are thinking once again in terms of their the roll. W. Macy, Jr,, Chairman of the U3. Civil
individual national destinies. They are Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask Service Commission, strongly endorsed
expressin freedom a and a desire for a measure of unanimous consent that the order for the the committee's action. The only other
employ-
y a way of comfort. ford quorum call be rescinded. amendments are in regard to the employ-
more a better
the open society and . And the PRESIDING OFFICER. Without meat of retired military persons In the
the Communist leaders are e coming objection, it is so ordered. legislative branch of the Government.
terms with their people by preaching Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am These amendments are designed to con-
es tipnai political and ace omi offering mod- chairman of the committee to which the tinue our present employment policy in
Th political and economic concessions.
onne neigh- bill was referred: but the bill was han- the House and Senate.
The Polish way is rubbing off is neigh- dled by the subcommittee of which the Mr. President, I urge the Se:iate to
boring countries. Nationalism is reeler- Senator from Texas [Mr. YARsosouGH) favorably consider and pass this bill.
ing satellitism in Eastern Europe, fin- is chairman. That subcommittee held Our national defense, our continued re-
ing new doors for the West. the hearings, and the Senator from search in science, our exploration of
it is the wise judgment of the present Texas Is very familiar with the subject, outer space, and all our other rovern-
administration, just as it was the Judg- Pr that reason, I have asked him to mental activities require the ta:.ecxts of
howe of Pr-she b s Kennedy and do handle the bill on the floor of the Senate. the most skilled people we can find. H.R.
tower, that the best thing op can do for Mr. Y~OROUGH Mr. President, 7381 will assist us In our efforts tD attain
a the peoples
liberation of war r no no a 'Europe-short short person n this bill is the product of approximately these goals. desires-is to encourage them to main- 9 years' car-fol study by various agencies Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President. I ask
unanimous consent that the ca~mnitt--
tain their national Identities and to de- of Government, the Civil Service Com- unanimous nmous n agr- to t e oe err:, and
velar their economic independence from mission, and the committees on Post Of- that the bill, as amended, be considered be en
the Soviet Union, flee and Civil Service of the House and as original text, for the purpose of
Certainly, Mr. President, there are Senate. It is & major reform in the laws amendment.
risks involved in this course of action- affecting the employment of all retired The PRESIDING OFFICER Is there
I would be the first to admit it. And, to military persons. Heretofore, some 50 objection? Without objection, it is there
be sure, the devices by which the Cocn- statutes and more than 200 decisions by oobjbj and the committee Without amt dms so
munist hierarchy continues to rule are the Comptroller General have regulated ordado aed; a a d the bloc.
still intact. As a system of exerting personnel actions in regard to these pco-reed
law power, communism is very efficient, in- pie Th of prthoposed statutes om etely re- FrrsideWILLIAMS of Delaware. fort a
deed--even if its economic sstem has some of which are nearly a century old. question?
many defects, But changes are afoot; It is of vital importance to the U.S. Gov- Mr. YARBOROUGH. I yield
the potential for bending these changes eminent that this bill be favorably con- Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Do I
to the chsc challenges the creativity paten- and sidered by the Senate. correctly understand that under- the bill tial ingenuity of the free world. In 1894. Congress declared that the a retired officer or anyone retired from
which
The Attorney General's recent trip to general policy of the Government regard- the military service, who had 20 or 30
Poland reminds us of the undying spirit log the employment of retired military years' military service, could cont'nue to
of the Polish people and their fellowmen persons would be that no retired officer draw retirement pay if he obtained a job
behind the Iron Curtain. My own visit receiving an annuity amounting to $2,500 under civil service, at, let us say, $15,000
(WI
Uri
a year could beryenipToyed. At that time,
$2,500 was a lot of money. Tor a:, a
retired master sergeant receives about
that much money. The law is cearly
antiquated. It is also riddled with excep-
tions, both statutory and administrative.
Today, only regular commissioned offi-
cers and warrant officers who have re-
tired for length of service rather than
any kind of disability are excluded from
employment. Enlisted men are com-
pletely exempted from the statutes Re-
serve officers may work for the Govern- -
ment and receive both a civilian salary
and their military retirement. While
another civilian at the next desi: per-
forming the same duties and having the
same qualifications Is limited to $10,000
total compensation merely becarse- he
was retired from the service for a non-
combat physical disability. The laws
presently existing are highly discrimina-
tory and deprive the Government of the
services of highly trained persons who
could render valuable service in this
atomic age. It is vital that this legisla-
tive be enacted.
H.R. 7381 was the subject of hearings
before the Senate Post 'Office and Civil
Service Committee on December I':, '1963.
After careful consideration the bill was
amended and reported to the Senate
March 4, 1964.
The committee's amendments e.rc de-
signed to improve the House bill by e.iml-
nating section 205, which would, in es-
sence, prohibit the employment of retired
military personnel. Almost all witnesses
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 196.4
A-proved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 15639
a year? Is it correct that under this bill
a person could draw retired pay of $10,-
000 to $12,000 and receive a salary of
$15,000 under civil service; that is, would
he be able to draw both the salary and
retirement pay at the same time?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I refer the Sen-
ator to page 10 of the bill. If the per-
son was a regular officer who retired on
length of service, he would get the first
$2,000 plus half of the remainder of
his retired pay. At the present time,
without the proposed law, any retired
enlisted man, regardless of the reason for
his retirement, or any retired Reserve
officer, regardless of the reason for his
retirement, or any retired Regular officer
who :retired as a result of combat disabil-
ity, can draw full retirement pay plus full
pay under civil service. The bill applies
to Regular officers who retired because
of length of service. It does not affect
retired enlisted personnel or retired Re-
serye officers. The Reserve officers ex-
ceed the number of Regular officers. Nor
does it affect any Regular officer who re-
.tired because of a combat-connected dis-
ability.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Am I to
understand from the Senator's answer
that a retired officer who would be eli-
gible for $10,000 a year retirement pay,
let us say, and who got a job under civil
service at a salary of $15,000, would not
be able to draw both the retirement pay
and the salary under the bill?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Not all of it. He
would be able to draw just $2,000 of his
retired pay plus half the remainder. He
would get that part of his retired pay plus
the full amount of the civilian pay.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Under
this bill, if he worked 5 years under civil
service and then retired how would his
retirement benefits be computed?
Mir. YARBOROUGH. He would get
the choice of the two. With certain
statutory exceptions, that is the present
system.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I was
advised by an official in the Retirement
Division this morning that, as he read
the bill, he thought a retired person could
get the benefit of both. He would not
have to make a choice but could draw
both. What I want to find out is, is that
correct?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. The retired per-
son would have a choice of the two. He
would not get both. Certain retired mili-
tary personnel can get both under pres-
ent law. The majority may have one or
the other, but not both.
M:r. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I under-
stand that. I 'am talking about the per-
iod during which he would be working for
the Government in a civilian capacity.
Would he be able to create retirement
benefits in the civilian service?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. He could build
that up while serving. Suppose he had
served in the Regular Army for 20 years
and then retired. Then he worked under
civil service another 20 years and retired.
He could build up retirement while work-
ing in civil service. But at the time
he finally retired, he would have to make
a choice.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Then
he could take the highest of the two, not
both?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. He could have
his option and take the highest but not
both.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Where
is the section in the bill that so provides?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. The committee
did not amend the retirement law. That
is not in the bill. We left the law as
it was. What I have stated is the law.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Then I
think the Senator is wrong in his inter-
pretation of the law, because I was told
this morning by one of the officials in
the Retirement Division that as the bill
was written and amended a retired per-'
son could draw both civilian and mili-
tary benefits. I could be in error, but
I think we should have a clear answer
to that ,question. I was advised that
some in the Department interpret this
to mean what the retired person could
get both benefits,
I am told that under the bill he would
receive credit for his civilian service and
in addition again get credit for the mili-
tary service, which would give him dual
benefits. This could be in error, but it
should be made clear, because the official
I talked to said. that as he read the bill
that was the way he would interpret it.
We should get a written memorandum
which would clear this question up with
a ruling by the Commission. There
should be such a ruling before the Senate
acts.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. The Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service worked
on this matter for a long time with the
Civil Service Commission, and other
agencies of the Government. I am not
infallible with respect to these matters,
but our staff assures me that ours is the
correct interpretation. We took this
matter up in our executive hearings on
the bill. The testimony was not made
available, but the entire subject was
fully discussed in executive session. it
was discussed in more than one execu-
tive committee session.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I recog-
nize the work that has been done on the
bill, and I have tremendous respect for
both the Senator from Texas and the
staff of the committee. I am confident,
therefore, that someone can point out
where in the law such a provision exists.
Perhaps someone can point out the
specific section of the bill that makes
such a provision or the section of the
law that exists now that provides what
the Senator has said.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. This point was
checked specifically with Mr. Andrew E.
Ruddock, Director of the Bureau of Re-
tirement in the Civil Service Commis-
sion. Our staff was given specific
answers on this point.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Such
assurances would have to be based on
some language in the law or in the bill.
What I would like to have the Senator
do is quote us the exact language.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. The bill does
not amend the present law.
The bill does not affect the present law
at all. It leaves the law as it is. The
Civil Service Commission assured us that
a person could not draw both his mili-
tary retirement and his civil service re-
tirement benefits unless he is authorized
under present law to do so.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I do not
question the Senator's sincerity. The
gentleman I talked with told me that as
the bill is drawn a retiree could draw
both benefits. All I am asking is to have
quoted for the benefit of the RECORD the
section of the law or the section of the
bill which would prohibit such a thing
happening. I afn sure the Senator would
expect to have his statement based on
written law and not on the figment of
someone's imagination. The informa-
tion I received differs from what the
Senator from Texas has said. I recog-
nize that in conversations we can get a
wrong understanding of a statement.
There must be some provision in law
which covers this point. I.have such tre-
mendous respect for both the Senator
and for the staff of the committee that
I am sure that they can- give the sec-
tion of the law that refers to this point:
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Our informa-
tion was confirmed by Mr. Ruddw1, the
mis n. He has been wit a Co m -
s on for many years. He is an outstand-
ing authority on this subject.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I rec-
ognize Mr. Ruddock as an outstanding
authority, too. It so happens that he
is the same man with whom I talked
this morning. Either I or the staff mis-
understood what Mr. Ruddock said.
Since there is this misunderstanding I
believe we should wait until we can get
a written memorandum from Mr. Rud-
dock as to exactly what the bill would
do.
I do not say that I am infallible, but
my understanding of the information
that I received from Mr. Ruddock is that
as the bill is now drawn and as it would
mesh in with existing law a retiree could
draw both civilian and military retire-
ments benefits. A person who retired
could claim benefits under civil service
for the same military service upon which
he was already receiving retirement pay-
ment benefits. A person who retired
compensation.
If that is true I am sure the Senator
would agree that that is unjustified.
I would be willing to support the bill
with the understanding that a retiree
could accept the highest of the two re-
tirement benefits. He might earn some
civilian credit, of course, but we would
not want him to have, duplicate credit
or double credit for military service.
If the staff claims that Mr. Ruddock
or someone in the Commission has point-
ed out a different interpretation I am
sure that it would be easy for them to
cite the section which prohibits such a
procedure. All I am asking is that there
be no misunderstanding. We should
have quoted for us the section of the law
or the section in the bill which would
prohibit such a thing taking place.
The staff member is sitting beside the
Senator. I suggest that he merely cite
the law upon which his claim is based.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I agree with
the Senator when he objects to dual re-
tirement benefits.
. Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Where
does the Senator find such a prohibition
in the law or in the bill?
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0;
15640 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I am asking a
staff member to get In touch with Mr.
Ruddock. We did not know that this
question would arise, or we would have
had Mr. Ruddock here.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Did Mr.
Ruddock testify when the hearings were
held?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. ' Yes; hearings
were held, but Mr. Ruddock did not
testify. He was consulted after the
hearings.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The
Senator from Texas may be right, but I
want to have it checked. I suggest that
we not act on the bill until we get a writ-
ten memorandum from Mr. Ruddock as
to how the law would work. This point
should be spelled out. I am perfectly
willing to accept Mr. Ruddock's written
interpretation. I doubt that -we would
want to leave the impression that he has
told the staff of the committee one thing
and me another. It is a point of mis-
understanding, I am sure.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I might suggest
that we lay the bill aside, except for
this matter. For several years some
warrant officers were not considered sub-
ject to the law of 1894. Since 1962, the
law has been applied to them. Many re-
tired warrant officers and some retired
Reserve officers who had been working
the Government In a civilian capacity
have had claims filed against them for
for many thousands of dollars on the
basis of the Comptroller General's Inter-
pretation of the law. There are many
hardship cases, as a result. Many retired
warrant officers and Reserve officers are
caught between the upper and nether
millstones. These people badly need re-
lief.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I rec-
ognize the problem, and I am willing to
try to straighten it out. However. we
should wait until we have a memoran.
dum on this point and not take up the
bill until we have it. The answer should
be available today if the staff ever had
the answer.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. If we had
known that this issue would be raised,
we would have had an official statement
from the Civil Service Commission. I
agree with the Senator that this point
should be clarified. We are trying to get
the officials to come to the Senate at
this time.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I am
somewhat confused by this last state-
ment of the Senator. Earlier he said
that the committee had considered this
question and that the question was an-
swered satisfactorily. Now I understand
him to say that the question had not
been raised.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Yes; the point
was checked, and we got the answer. We
did not know that the answer we received
was different from the answer that the
Senator from Delaware had received.
The matter was checked out after our
hearings. We did not think there was
any dispute about it. This specific point
was checked with Mr. Ruddock. We
thought it was entirely clear. No effort
was made to pull up something In a hur-
ry and dash It through.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Oh. I
know that.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. We thought
that that matter had been resolved;
otherwise we would have had Mr. Rud-
dock appear and would have written
records before us.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I do
not suggest that the committee is trying
to putanything over. Do not misunder-
stand me. I am perfectly willing to- wait
until Mr. Ruddock has been contacted
and we can receive a memorandum on
the subject. I had hoped that this ques-
tion would be clarified here today. If it
has been, where is it? If it has not. It
should be clarified before the bill is
passed. I am willing to withhold any
further questions until the Senator can
obtain such a memorandum from Mr.
Ruddock.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I
think it will be found that this is what
happened in this particular case. Dur-
ing the war. Congress passed a law pro-
viding credit for anyone who entered
the civil service after he left the military
service. He was given the right to count
his military service toward his retire-
ment. But it will be found that persons
who have received dual compensation
must make a choice as to their retire-
ment compensation. In other words,
if they choose military retirement, they
will receive military retirement pay.
But if they choose civilian retirement.
they will not receive any military re-
tirement pay. It must be one or the
other. That is the law. Congress has
made some exceptions. The bill before
the Senate does not change that situa-
tion at all.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. As I
have said, if that Is a correct interpre-
tation, we could proceed, but I wish to
make certain that that is the correct
answer because based on the information
I have received, there is some question
as to whether that is true. The gentle-
man with whom I spoke though that a
person Could Collect under both retire-
ment systems and get credit for this
same military service under both. If, as
claimed, the bill only provides terms by
which one can elect to choose whichever
retirement pay is higher, I would ap-
prove of that privilege; I would go along
with that.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator will
find nothing whatsoever in the bill in
regard to that. In other words, the laws
now on the statute books are the laws
that prevail in this particular instance.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I
should prefer that we wait until we have
received a written memorandum.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, while
that Information Is being obtained, will
either the Senator from South Carolina
or the Senator from Texas yield to me
for some questions?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I should be glad to
Yield. However. the Senator from
Texas held the hearings and has handled
the bill, and I do not wish to intrude
upon his handling of the bill.
Mr. METCALF. According to the re-
port, the bill merely simplifies the laws
and regulations concerning, dual com-
pensation by placing them in one man-
ageable statute. Yet 50 separate stat-
utes and 200 decisions of the Comptroller
July 9
General are involved. When we turn so
the back of the report, we note the
changes in existing law that are made
by the bill. These begin on page 24 and
continue to the end of the report on
page 47.
This is a far-reaching bill. Not only
would it change the laws that are cited
on numerous pages of the report, but it
would also change longstanding proce-
dure, Including the Dual Office Act of
1894, the Dual Compensation Act of
1916, and the Economy Act of 1932.
The Senator from Delaware has stated
that the bill would also have an effect
on the Retirement Act. We do not know
what other acts might be affected. The
bill certainly would affect the Veterans'
Preference Act.
Based on a memorandum, I wist, to
address a question to the Senator from
Texas or- the Senator from South CExo-
lina. I have before me a memoranc.urn
which states that the bill Is complete:y
inconsistent with other Federal retire-
ment systems. If a combat veteran of
World War II, having 19 years of serv-
ice, entered the civil service, he would
pay 6!/2 percent of his salary into the
civil service retirement fund, but he
could not collect dual compensation un-
der the bill.
A citizen reservist could Complete 20
years of military reserve duty, but he
must wait until he was 60 years of age,
In order to collectdual compensation.
Finally, social security retirees are
limited to the poverty level of $1,200 a
year. Civil service retirees, who re-
turned to the Government would lose
their entire pension, and this includes
veterans having less than 20 years of
service.
I have studied the bill, and I am ar-
able to ascertain whether that charge
Is correct. I should like to have the
Senator from Texas answer that quee-
tion.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. So far as re-
tired enlisted men are concerned, the
bill makes no change in existing law. ::t
does not Increase their rights or decrea:.e
them In regard to compensation.
Mr. METCALF. Should there not be
a change, If we are doing what we say
we are doing, namely, simplifying dual
compensation?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. We have worried
on this problem for 9 years and have
finally achieved a bill that all depe.rt-
ments of the Government approve. We
do not claim that the bill is perfect.
Concerning the matters about which
the Senator from Montana asked, ::f
there are any Injustices, we have not
created them in the bill. The bill seeks
to eliminate some of the injustices.
If a Reserve officer retires, he is
treated the same as an enlisted man, if
he retires based on length of service, 20
or 30 years. If a Regular officer retires
after 20 or 30 years, he is treated in a
radically different manner. There were
disadvantages as compared with a Re-
serve officer.
So many different organizations were
interested in the measure. both- for end
against It, that the committee effected
a compromise. The bill relates to dual
compensation and dual office holding-.
The bill does not rewrite the retireme=nt
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
15642 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July, 9
his retirement; therefore, retirement is
affected, or at least both the chairman of
the subcommittee and the officials In the
retirement division think so. The Sena-
tor from South Carolina is alone in his
opinion that we can deal with a bill like
this and not affect retirement benefits.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I agree with the
Senator that that is true. But this" bill
deals only with retired military people
being table to work for the Government.
We ate putting the Regular officers in
the same category as Reserve and
enlisted.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, will
the Senator from South Carolina yield
to me?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield.
Mr. METCALF. Again, it has been
pointed out that no matter whether the
objective here is to deal with only that
of dual compensation, we are amending a
broad spectrum of laws and we are af-
fecting, directly or indirectly, the retire-
ment system and the veterans' prefer-
ence system. We are also affecting the
retirement of enlisted men, Reserve offi-
c:'rs, citizens reserve officers, Regular of-
, -ers, whether we intended to do so or
t -)t. We are indirectly affecting those
retirement programs. These are prob-
lcros which we must think - about and
A isider in the enactment of this pro-
,sed legislation.
As I have already pointed out, more
.an 50 specific statutes are applied to
a broad group of civil service employees,
and a broad group of retirement officers
are specifically mentioned and amended
by this proposed legislation. This is a
complicated and complex piece of legis-
lation. Each one of those statutes, di-
rectly or indirectly, affects the retire-
ment of those involved in the agencies
mentioned.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. These are mat-
ters which have been considered. This
situation was thoughly discussed. Now
the distinguished Senator from Montana
[Mr. METCALF] and the distinguished
Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS]
are attempting to place an impossible
burden upon us, by asking us to prove
to them that this does not affect some-
thing else. They say pull it out, show
us the statutes which will be affected,
and prove to us that this -amendment does
not affect some other statute. It would
take in the whole realm of retirement
statutes to do that.
I ask the Senators from Montana and
Delaware to point out some of the stat-
utes which it does affect, other than dual
compensation. We have retirement laws
on the books already. The Senator from
South Carolina has pointed out the ef-
fect of them. We have not affected them
at all in this proposed legislation. We
did not repeal any of those retirement
laws; we did not amend any of them.
Examine the bill we- have set out. The
Senate rules requires a statement of
changes in existing law. This begins
on page 24 of the report. We have not
changed the retirement laws. We have
not repealed the retirement laws. This
is a limited law, applying to retired reg-
ular officers. It is limited in scope. It
Is a matter which has been in controver-
sy for a number of years. The need for
this change has become more acute as
Regular officers are retiring- who have
been working in the space sciences, and
their services are needed now in space
exploration, and many other fields of
.science and engineering.
Mr. METCALF. The Space. Act ex-
empts retired Army officers from the pro-
visions of these laws at the present time.
Is that correct?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. They call work
for NASA but they do not draw their
retirement pay.
Mr. METCALF. But they would be
included under the bill?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Yes. They are
included; and NASA is given special au-
thority for certain positions in their
agency.
Mr. METCALF. I have some addi-
tional questions that I would like to get
in the RECORD, no matter what disposi-
tion is made of the measure.
I know, because of the hearings and
the long study and knowledgeability
that the Senator from Texas [Mr.
YARBOROUGH] and the Senator from
South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON] have of
the whole program, that they can be
placed in the RECORD as a part of this
debate.
The Senator mentions in the hearing
that there are approximately 475 Re-
serve officers-this is on page 38-who
have been affected by this decision of
the Comptroller General. And 225 have
a combined retired pay and civilian in-
come in excess of $10,000.
How much. is the bill going to cost the
Government?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. The money in-
volved is $15,971,000.
Mr. METCALF. Approximately $16
million?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. That is correct.
It would be approximately $16 million.
But it is not a cost. It is the money the
Government paid these people for serv-
ices rendered, and now the Government
is requiring them to pay it back.
Mr. METCALF. It states on page 39
that at the present time the military de-
partments have identified 1,188 tempo-
rary warrant officers who are subject to
the Comptroller General's decision. Of
that number, 872 are currently employed
by the Federal Government. Their em-
ployment would- have to be terminated
as a result of the decision unless relief
is granted. A review of these cases iden-
tified indicates that some of these tem-
porary warrant officers have been em-
ployed since 1956 and 1957, with over-
payments totaling as much as $56,000.
Where are these people employed?
What agency of the Government has
employed almost 1,200 people in viola-
tion of a law that dates back to the last
century?
Mr. YARBOROUGH, No one thought
there was any violation of the law until
the ruling of the Comptroller General.
No one knowingly hired them in viola-
tion of the law. It Is not a statute. It
is an interpretation by the Comptroller
General which says that the warrant
officers come under the same prohibition
as regular officers. It was an interpre-
tation of a statute, many years after
enactment, that it was a violation. No
one knowingly was hired In violation.
No one- knew that it was a violation
until the Comptroller General rendered
his decision.
It would be better to clarify the law
then to leave it in this state. I per-
sonally think, whether or not the law
passes, that these officers -ought to be
relieved of the interpretation placed
upon them by the Comptroller General.
The people are employed in various de-
partments. They are employed pri-
marily In the-Department of Defense.
Mr. MANSFIELD.- Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, in
view of the fact that there are many
questions still to be asked on this matter,
I would like, with the consent of all con-
cerned, to propose a unanimous-consent
agreement.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that 2 hours be allocated for the
further consideration of this bill, includ-
ing amendments-I hour to each side,
and with the time to be equally divided
between and controlled by the dis-
tinguished Senator from Texas [Mr.
YARBOROUGH] and the distinguished
Senator from Delaware [Mr. WII-
LIAivis]-and that the bill Ibe called. up
after the Senate reconvenes on July 20.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, re-
serving the right to object although I
shall not object; -I shall agree-I wish
to say that I have some additional ques-
tions. I should like to have them placed
in the RECORD.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. If the . distin-
guished Senator from Montana would
give us the benefit of these questions, we
would work these up with the Civil Serv-
ice Commission and the other branches
of the Government. We would have the
different branches of the Government
get the data together and get it ready
for us.
Mr. METCALF. I was going to sug-
gest that I have the statement printed in
the RECORD, and be permitted to file the
questions for the RECORD, so that they
will appear there. Then the colloquy on
these questions will be developed in the
full debate.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
change the unanimous-consent request,
to provide that the time be divided be-
tween the minority leader and the ma-
jority leader. We shall, of course, farm
it out to those who have charge of the
bill.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
we have no objection to the request of
the distinguished majority leader. - -
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if
the distinguished Senator from Delaware
wants to raise any additional questions,
the answers could be forthcoming.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, I' ask
unanimous consent that a statement by
the American Federation of Government
Employees be printed at this point in the
RECORD, as a part of my remarks.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed In the
RECORD, as follows:
- -
Over the past 3 years, we have consistently
opposed dual compensation as a costly, dis-
criminatory and unethical fringe benefit or
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 1961
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE 15641
laws. The Senator from Delaware
raised the question about retirement
benefits. The bill does not affect or
change the retirement laws. Congress
has written laws relating to payment for
work done. The bill relates to the lim-
ited field of dual employment and dual
compensation.
The retirement field is one which re-
quires some work. We are approaching
the close of the 2d session of the 88th
Congress and are trying to make prog-
ress here today in one limited field, the
field of dual employment.
We think the committee has reported
a good bill relating to this limited field.
If the field were to be broadened to enter
the field of retirement, there would be
delay.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I might answer the
question a little further. The commit-
tee is at present studying all the differ-
ent systems of retirement. We shall
have to do something with respect to the
safeguarding of the retirement funds.
We realize that unless something is done
in that field, sooner or later there will
not be funds from which to pay the peo-
ple when they call for their annuities.
The Senate might be interested to
know that almost 50 percent of the ap-
proximately 2 million civil service work-
ers are ex-service personnel. They en-
tered the Federal service and received
credit for all the years of their military
service, without having brought any
funds over whatsoever.
Mr. METCALF. That is a fine thing,
so far as I am concerned.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The committee is
studying that situation and also the in-
equities in the various systems that have
been established for retirement. We are
trying to find ways to bring the many
systems into one system. At this par-
ticular point, the bill before the Senate
touches only one phase, and that Is the
phase of dual compensation. It does not
relate to retirement. It does not go into
that field. It leaves the law as it was in
the past in that field, but the bill that
we hope to bring in later will do some-
thing In the field that the Senator is
bringing to our attention at the present
time.
Mr. METCALF. The Senator from
South Carolina has said a good many
things with which I agree and concur.
I know of the hard work that he and his
committee have done, and are continu-
ing to do, to protect and make more
powerful our retirement system. How-
ever, here is a bill which amends 50
separate statutes. It applies to people
from Boxing Commissioner of the Dis-
trict of Columbia to meteorological Inves-
tigations in the Arctic region. It has ap-
plication to thousands and thousands of
different jobs. Here is a bill which
amends or changes or repeals several
basic traditional compensation statutes.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The only thing this
bill does is to deal with dual compensa-
tion and dual office holding alone, and
only that.
Mr. METCALF. Dual compensation
for only officers and Reserve officers.
This is not an enlisted man's bill. I con-
cede and grant the need for constant re-
vision and clarification of such statutes
as we have on the books. I feel that we
should not go back to the Dual Office Act
of 1894, or to the Economy Act of 1932,
and say that we must adhere to them
because they were passed a long time ago
and have tradition. We have changing
times and changing conditions today.
This Is a bill which is directed only at
retirement Reserve officers who are
changing jobs. This Is not an enlisted
man's bill.
Mr. JOHNSTON. For the informa-
tion of the Senate, let me say that at the
present time, the Regular officers retired
for length of service are the only people
deprived of the opportunity to enter Fed-
eral service. We are putting them in the
same category with the others at this
time. That is what this bill does.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I have
examined the hearings, and I find that
several people testified. Did the Senator
have any representatives of any of the
agencies of the Government testify as to
the merits of the bill?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I beg the Sena-
tor's pardon. I did not hear his ques-
tion. Was there an interrogatory di-
rected to me?
Mr. METCALF. The Senator from
Delaware directed an interrogatory.
Both the, Senator from Delaware and I
have some concern about the bill, and we
wish to understand the procedures.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I have
examined the hearings, and I notice that
a whole series of witnesses appeared be-
fore the committee who would be bene-
fited by this bill; and they testified In
favor if it. I do not see listed here the
representatives of many of the agencies
of the Government.. Did they testify?
Did the Senator have anyone from the
retirement system of the Civil Service
Commission or from any of the other
agencies testify before the committee?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. If the Senator
from Delaware will kindly withhold his
question for a moment, the Senator from
Iowa [Mr. Mn.i.aal wishes to offer an
amendment. I should like to say to him
that, yes, we shall take his amendment
to conference-
The Senator from Iowa must catch a
plane in a few moments, and I wonder
whether the Senator would mind if he
offered his amendment at this time.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I have
no objection.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I send to
the desk an amendment, and ask that
it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated, for the infor-
mation of the Senate.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK.. The Senator
from Iowa proposes to amend the bill, on
pate--
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment. be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered,
The amendment submitted by Mr.
MILLER is as follows:
On page 12, after line 25. insert the fol-
lowing new section:
"Sec. 206. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law, no retired member of any regu-
lar component of the uniformed services
who holds any civilian office the compensa-
tion for which is determined in accordance
with the Classification Act of 1949, as amend-
ed. shall receive salary for the performance
of the duties of such civilian office at a rate
which combined with the rate of retired
or retirement pay received by him is in ex-
Qess of the maximum rate authorized by
such Classification Act of 1949, as amended;
and no retired member of any of the uni-
formed services who holds any civilian of-
flee the compensation for which is not de-
termined In accordance with the Classifi-
cation Act of 1949, as amended, shall re-
ceive salary for the performance of the duties
of such civilian office at a rate which com-
bined with the rate of retired or retire-
ment pay received by him is In excess of the
rate of salary received by the head of the
department or agency by which he is em-
ployed."
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, the pur-
pose of the amendment is to avoid a pos-
sible Inequity which some of us believe
we have detected. The Senator from
Texas [Mr. YARBosoucH) has very gra-
ciously consented to take the amendment
to conference, where the conference
committee will have an opportunity to
check the amendment with the appro-
priate Civil Service officials. I under-
stand that under those circumstances,
the amendment is acceptable.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Yes, I agree to
take the amendment of the Senator
from Iowa to conference. As the Ser..-
ator from Iowa has said, both Houses
can check it.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I move
the adoption of my amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. If the Senator
from Delaware will kindly let me have
his question again, I shall try to answer
it promptly.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. My
question was that in looking over tl,..e
hearings I noticed that representatives
of the organizations affected did testify
in favor of the bill. but I do not see that
many representatives of the agencies of
the Government testified. Did repre-
sentatives of the Civil Service Commis-
sion's Retirement Division or the De-
fense Department testify?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. John Ma-
cy, Jr., Chairman of the U.S. Civil Serv-
ice Commission testified. He was a?.-
companied by Mr. Robert Hampton,
Commissioner; Mr. Harold Leich, Chief,
Program Planning Division. Bureau of
Programs and Standards; and also by
Frank M. Witham, program planner of
the same Bureau.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Yes, I
have read Mr. John Macy's testimony.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. That is on
page 23 of the hearings.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. D'.d
anyone testify in connection with the
retirement provision?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. No, he did not
testify on the retirement provision, be-
cause this bill has nothing to do with
civil service retirement.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Let me repeat: The
reason we did not have anything on re-
tirement in this bill is that it deals with
dual compensation, not with retirement.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The
Senator has been chairman of the coni-
mittee long enough to know that one
cannot deal with the compensation of a
civil service employee without affecting
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 1964
'Approved FebNftigSJW~L/'&C,UKUDP%MR1,FR000500010004-0 15643
subsidy extended, solely to professional (20- We also feel that the proposal to raise service type job or duties (even in Depart-
year) military retirees.-at the expense of the the dual compensation ceiling to $20,000 per ment of Defense) than the career civilians
already overburdened American taxpayer, year is ridiculous. You might as well raise who in many cases spend 10 to 15 years in
career civil service employees and military it to $50,000 per year, then all retired mili- the same specialized area? The skill argu-
veterans in Government. tary could enjoy this new form of Federal ment for dual compensation is weak, un-
We feel that dual compensation should be featherbedding at taxpayer expense. In fact, sound, and laden with legislative obfusca-
abolished or at least drastically reduced, it we wonder If dual compensation limitations tion.
only in the interests of economic solvency. should not be extended also to the defense + . r * :
It is ridiculous for the Federal Government industry. In many cases, military officers In fact, and until the constitutionality of
to be paying some people two incomes and retire in the Pentagon one day and are work- the reservists in Congress is decided by the
giving them two careers, through early or ing the next day for the XYZ defense con- Supreme Court, a cloud of illegality hangs
premature retirement, while millions of un- tractor at $20,000 per year and up. They col- over much of the military legislation and
employed Americans today do not have one lect their full pension and the new salary expensive fringe benefits (including the $1.2
job or even one Federal income. Taxpayer (which ironically still comes from Federal billion military pay raise) now being ram-
funds should be applied to more pressing funds via chargeoffs to defense contracts) rodded into law. One taxpayer suit could
needs or other more critical areas. and in effect are still on the Federal payroll cause the dual compensation laws to be
We seriously question the "level of com- but not subject to dual compensation limits- voided (via the Supreme Court) even if en-
petence" of the Civil Service Commission tions. E acted, due to the conflict of interest within
and' others in submitting proposals so heavily We feel that many labor, employee, citizen, Congress Itself. These are serious and some-
laden with loopholes as to "militarize" the and veteran organizations have literally fall- what stunning charges. However, they must
American civil service system. Dual com- en asleep at the switch as to the cost and be promptly faced if we are to present our-
pensation legislation as proposed by the CSC impact of proposed dual compensation leg- selves as an example of good government and
makes railroad featherbedding (37,000 fire- islation. To achieve a clearer perspective informed democracy to the rest of the world,
men on diesel engines) look like an efficiency as to the illogical nature of dual compensa- Other reasons why we oppose existing dual
engineers' utopia. The Pentagon already ad- tion, imagine the Federal Government as a compensation legislation are:
mits that 24,278 military retirees (20 years) long railroad train. We find professional 1. Veterans preference: It will dilute or
or dual compere now occupy lifetime civil military officers and enlisted men getting downgrade veterans preference by establish-
service jobs at double expense to the tax- off this train via retirement in 20 years- ing a new form of "superveterans" prefer-
payer. We feel that this figure was mislead- and then getting back on this same train in ence through job and pay advantages ex-
ing and misrepresented in recent Congres- such agencies as the Department of Defense, tended exclusively to 20-year military re-
sional testimony as it only relates to the De- NASA, CIA, FAA, State, Commerce, Interior, tirees (via dual compensation) at the ex-
Labor, Immigration Service, the Civil Serv-
partment of Defense. If a Government-wide ice Commission, and even in Congress or the service e of other veterans now in career civil
figure were available (and it should be be- ice Commission,
branch itself-and collecting jobs. For example, a veteran with
fore this legislation receives any more con- Judicial g their as much as 19 years' military service (who is
sideration) it is possible that there are as full pensions and a new fresh start salary not eligible for dual compensation) might
many as 75,000 military retirees (20 years) at one time. Nobody else is allowed to do be getting paid $8,000 per year in his civil
now receiving dual compensation from the this; and this is what we mean by Federal service job-while sitting at th'e same desk
Federal Government. This is particularly featherbedding. and doing the same job a "sueran" (20-
significant as the railroad firemen feather- We have no objection to military personnel year rebirce) will get his $8 $8,,000000 pay plus
bedding issue only invloves 37,000 jobs. retiring in 20 years even at 40 years of age. possibly as much as $4,000 retirement pay at
By 1970, we estimate that if existing dual But, we'feel strongly that dual compensa- the same time. This will cost the Govern-
By should not be allowed until they are ment a total of $12,000 for an $8,000 job-
compensation limitations are relaxed that at at least 60 years of age. This age criteria least 250,000 military retirees (20 years) will is already applicable to most Reservist re- and violates the long standing labor prin-
be occupying lifetime Federal civil service ciple of equal pay for equal work.
jobs and collecting dual compensation. No tirements with the exception of enlisted 2. An aged civil service: It will tend to
other Americans are allowed to do this, and personnel el who for some mystic reason are "age" the American civil service system by
this includes railroad firemen, social secu- not subject to dual compensation restric- loading it down with so-called fresh start
rity retirees, civil service retirees (including lions. The 60 year., of age criteria also ap- 40 to 50-year-old military retirees. This will
most if not all of American plies to most civil service retirees whether destroy job opportunities for thousands of
veterans) and m, we American they are military veterans or not. We fail to jobless and unemployed Americans; reduce
Industry ) or bIn fact,
of one business. sine American corporation do not see any argument for the present "double employment opportunities for young people
or standard" in Federal Government retirement coming out of school; and also reduce em-
ness today that extends dual compensation policies. The present situation is costly,
to its employees such as proposed in the pro- unfair, and needs prompt congressional cor- ployment opportunity for young veterans
posed legislation. If they did this, plus the rection. (less than 20 years' service) coming out of the
noncontributory retirement system granted Civil service employees (veterans includ- military service or having completed the
military personnel (while civil service pays ed) now pay 61 draft. In one action, the Federal Govern-
military
percent) they would no doubt soon go the retireent fund, nand tarer not salaries ment will be paying taxpayer money to ag-
bankruPt. We estimate that in the next 8 dual compensation. If they are rehired in a juvenile the unemployment situation; the
le delinquency problem; destroy the
years or less that proposed dual compensa- Federal job they forfeit their entire pen- integrity of the career civil service system
t ion legislation would increase Federal man- sion-even if they have paid retirement for and at the same time lower military reenlist-
power payroll cost by $500 million per 30 years at 8 /2 percent. However, in con- ment rates.
year. And this is not including the cost of tract, professional military retirees (20 3. Dual compensation overpayments: This
the pending military pay raise, In fact, dual years) who pay nothing into the retirement legislation will legalize or cover up the il-
compensation is in effect a hidden or second- fund are allowed to retire-take a lifetime legal overpayment of millions of dollars of
ary pay raise for professional military re- civil service job and collect their full pen- taxpayers' money already paid out in viola-
tirees (20 years). It will be the death knell sion for in some cases as long as 30 more tion of existing dual compensation laws to
of a career and merit-oriented American civil years. There is little wonder In this type military retirees. One reported case involv-
service system. If proposed legislation is of spending why the national debt is at an lug an officer is estimated to involve $30,000
adopted by the Congress, it will lay the all time record high. in overpayment. There are apparently thou-
foundation for the most expensive bureauc-
Arguments put forth by vested military sands of cases brought out by General Ac-
racy in American history. interests that dual compensation is a neces- counting Office Investigation. Collection of
We agree that existing dual compensation sary expense to acquire rare and haid-to-get overpayment is apparently being held up in
laws are unfair and need changing. But the occupational skills lost when military per- the hope that this legislation will make it all
change that is needed is to tighten or restrict sonnel retire are not valid. If the retiring legal. Worse still is the loophole that if
this privilege, rather than open up the flood- officer or enlisted man was so skilled and dual compensation laws are approved that
gate for a potential spoils system in civil needed then why did the service allow him they will not apply to the present job in-
service jobs. Rather than a 6-month wait- to retire prematurely in the first place? In cumbents who collect 20-year military pen-
ing period for retired military being rehired fact, existing dual compensation loopholes sions. This means that thousands of re-
in Federal civil service jobs, we feel that the are creating or compounding the reenlist- tirees will continue to ride the Federal gravy
waiting period should be 3 years in order to ment problem in all services as the Federal train for the rest of their lives-regardless
discourage collusion and the buddy system Government is financing or encouraging en- of what new laws are on the books. The
which now exists in the hiring of many re- listed men to retire prematurely through ex- laws will not apply to them. This is a ridic-
tired officers in high salary civil service jobs. fisting dual compensation incentives which ulous situation, that suggests unconstitu-
We feel that 8 years is an appropriate period may be given to a 38-year-old airmen or tionality.
as it coincides with existing limitations soldier who has 20 years' service. Most of In summary, we feel that the existing laws
on retired officers selling procurement con- the dual compers in the Government today on the books and legislation proposed in this
tracts to the Pentagon. We feel that a life- are enlisted men and it is easy to see why session of Congress are inadequate, too com-
time civil service job often involves as much they leave the service. plicated, unfair and ineffective solutions to
money as an average defense subcontractor We also question how can a military man the dual compensation problem. Our rec-
procurement contract, acquire more skill and experience in a civil ommendations are:
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R0005000100104-0 '
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 9
(a) Dual compensation as a Federal retire-
ment policy should be abolished or drasti-
cally curtailed.
(b) Failing this, then dual compensation
should be limited only to military retirees of
60 years of age and this criteria should be
applied to all military retirees-Regular and
Reserve officers and enlisted men. This
would eliminate the present Inequities with-
in the services themselves.
(c) To discourage the present tendency
toward a "spoils system" in retirees getting
Federal jobs (particularly In Department of
Defense) a 3-year waiting period should be
enforced to prevent military retirees being
collusively rehired back into the Govern-
ment at double expense to the taxpayer.
Only in rare skill cases should waivers be
granted or exceptions made.
These viewpoints have not been tastily
arrived at. They represent a position devel-
oped by the lodge membership. Its officers.
two presidents and our executive council
over the past several years.
Respectfully,
JOSEPH W. WESTHORN,
President.
AFGE Lodge No. 1092.
ARLINGTON, VA.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, In
summary, as I read the hearings and my
mail in opposition to this proposed legis-
lation, here are the specific charges that
are made:
First. It is antilabor and antiveteran-
those with less than 20 years' service.
Second. It will cost the American tax-
payer hundreds of millions of dollars in
increased Federal manpower costs.
Third. It will expand the civil service
job spoils system now existing in many
Federal agencies where 20-year mili-
tary retirees are collusively hired by their
own buddies.
Fourth. Perverts and distorts the
original intent of Congress in granting
dual compensation as a very limited and
restrictive privilege to retired Reserve
officers over 60 years of age.
Fifth. It is economically unsound. It
is not practiced in any American Indus-
try or corporation that we know of. It
is unethical and unfair in the sells(, that
it is a new form of "economic feather-
bedding" on the American taxpayer.
Sixth. It will destroy ordinary vet-
erans preference in Federal jobs by es-
tablishing a new category of "super vet-
erans preference" for 20-year military
retirees at the expense of other veterans
in civil service jobs.
Seventh. Nobody knows-and this in-
cludes the Civil Service Commission, the
Defense Department, and the General
Accounting Office-as to how many re-
tired military now occupy civil service
jobs throughout the entire Federal Gov-
ernrnent and are receiving double pay or
dual compensation. One estimate is that
there are 26,000 military retirees-20
year-now receiving dual compensation
in the Defense Department. We esti-
mate in the next year or so, there will
be 75,000 or more dual compers in Fed-
eral jobs if this legislation Is enacted.
Eighth. This legislation will merely
legalize or cover up overpayments to
20-year retirees running into the mil-
lions of dollars. Worse still it will leg-
alize those already hired to continue to
be overpaid. One overpayment case to
a 20-year military retiree amounts to
$36,000.
Ninth. H.R. 7381 makes the railroad
featherbedding issue look like an econ-
omy drive. It most surely contradicts
present White House efforts toward
frugality and economy in Government.
Tenth. It is completely Inconsistent
with other Federal retirement policies.
A combat veteran of World War II with
19 Years' service who enters civil service
pays 61s percent of his salary Into the
civil service retirement fund, yet he can-
not collect dual compensation. A citizen-
reservist can complete 20 years of miii-
tarv reserve duty yet he must waft until
he is 60 years of age to collect dual com-
pensation. Finally, social security re-
tirees are limited to the poverty level of
$1,200. Civil service retirees who return
to Government lose their entire pension
and this includes veterans-with less
than 20 years' service.
Eleventh. It will increase unemploy-
ment. There will be less opportunity for
young people in Government because
dual compensation will load down the
American civil service system with over-
age, second career. 20-year military re-
tirees. Through dual compensation, the
Government will actually be paying to
increase unemployment, juvenile delin-
quency, and welfare/relief problems. In
fact, many career civil service em-
ployees-veterans, too-have already
been forced out of their jobs, or into
early or premature retirement, or onto
unemployment roles by the influx of 20-
year military retirees-dual compensa-
tion motivated-taking over Federal jobs
in all agencies via the "buddy system."
Merit promotion or experience have
little to do with it. The civil service sys-
tem itself needs a major overhaul to
eliminate the growing collusion, favorit-
ism. and recruitment riggings in agen-
cies now dominated by active duty or
retired military officials in key or top
management positions.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I ap-
preciate the cooperation of the Sena-
tors in carrying this measure over.
Meanwhile, we can get answers to the
questions that have been raised.
There are many features of the bill
which are meritorious, but questions
have raised which need to be answered
before the bill is passed. If we carry
it over at this time we can work out the
answers.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
if the distinguished Senator from Dela-
ware will furnish us those questions be-
fore the Senate reconvenes on July 20,
we shall have the various agencies of the
Government seek to obtain the answers.
Many of the questions are technical.
They come before the Civil Service
Commission. We shall have written an-
swers prepared in advance. The ques-
tions have been worked on by the com-
mittee for months. The answers were
not in writing, but we shall have them
in writing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the unanimous-consent re-
quest?
The Chair hours none, and it is so
ordered.
The unanimous-consent agreement, as
subsequently reduced to writing, is as
follows:
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Ordered, That on Monday. July 20, 1064,
the Senate proceed to the further consid-
eration of H.R. 7381, the Dual Compensation
Act, and that debate thereon and on all
amendments. If any, proposed thereto, shall
be limited to 2 hours, to be equally d..vided
and controlled, respectively, by Mr. MANS-
FIELD and Mr. DERKSEN.
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT 'CO 9
A.M. TOMORROW, SENATE THEN
TO ADJOURN UNDER AUTHORITY
OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLU-
TION 321, AS AMENDED
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
send to the desk a proposed order, and
ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
proposed order will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. The proposed
order reads as follows:
Ordered, That when the Senate con:ludes
its business today it adjourn to mee-; at 9
o'clock a.m. on tomorrow (Friday); and that
Immediately after convening on tha-: day,
the Presiding Officer shall, without the trans-
action of any business or debate, declare
the Senate adjourned, under authority of
H. Con. Res. 321, as amended, until 12 o'clock
noon on Monday, July_ 20, 1964.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, for
the information of the Senate, I wish
to announce that there will be no further
business today or tomorrow. At the
conclusion of the brief session tomorrow,
the Senate will stand in recess until noon
on Monday, July 20.
The order of business which I am about
to state is subject to change; but; it is
anticipated that on July 20, the Senate
will turn to the consideration of Calen-
dar No. 910, the bill (H.R.. 8864) to
carry out the obligationr of the United
States under the International Coffee
Agreement, 1962, signed at New York
on September 28, 1962, and for ocher
purposes.
That bill would be followed by Calen-
dar No. 970, the bill (S. 2272) to insure
the availability of certain critical mate-
rials during a war or national emergency
by providing for a reserve of such mate-
rials, and for other purposes, wl-.ich is
the so-called stockpile disposal bill; and
Calendar No. 911, the bill (S. 3:32) to
prohibit trading in Irish potato futures
on commodity exchanges.
It is our understanding that the anti-
poverty bill, which was to be reported on
Tuesday by the Committee on Labor and
Public Welfare under an agreement of
sorts which has been reached, will not
be reported to the Senate until July 21,
and will be taken up sometime shortly
thereafter.
After we return on the 20th, we would
like to have the Senate consider the bill
H.R. 11380), the foreign aid bill.
Other measures which will be ready
or which should be ready for early con-
sideration are, first, the bill which would
extend the Hill-Burton Act, and which,
I understand, will be reported during the
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : 6lA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
man. While he does not speak long, he
always speaks to the point. A man
would have to be rather ill informed, or
perhaps even stupid, not to understand
what the Senator from Michigan means.
It is my view that the sugar agree-
ments which we have made in the past
have, in the main, served the consumer's
interest.
Mr. McNAMARA. I agree.
Mr. HUMPHREY. We did achieve
price stability. Then came the situa-
tion when the Cuban sugar went into
Soviet orbit, so to speak. It is a fact
that the SovietyUnion has been receiving
sugar in payment for arms it has sent
to Cuba. As a result, the normal eco-
nomic laws have not applied, because the
market has been somewhat manipulated.
I hope we can restore the balance we
had for many years in connection with
Mr. McNAMARA. I agree with the
Senator. I join in the hope he has ex-
pressed. However, I wish to point out
to him that it was long after the Cuban
incident that the tremendous rise in the
price of sugar occurred, so far as the
consumer was concerned; it was many
years after the reduction in the quotas
and the cutting off of quotas to the
Cuban sugar-producing areas. I do not
believe we shall find that situation to be
the total answer. Many other manipu-
lations must be considered.
Mr. HUMPHREY. The National Food
Commission, which the President asked
for, and which Congress has set up, will,
I am sure, give thorough consideration
to many such commodities. It will con-
cern itself with the retail price of beef,
for example. It will look into the retail
price situation at a time when the whole-
sale prices are going down. We hope to
have some very interesting revelations
made as a result of these studies.
Mr. McNAMARA. I do not wish to go
too far afield, by considering either beef
or bread; but in the Detroit area, there
has been some difficulty in connection
with bread. Those concerned have come
to me and have protested the importation
of bread from Canada. I looked into
the matter in Detroit, and found that
the largest importers of bread are the
bakeries, the very people who have been
complaining to me about the importa-
tions of bread. The big bakeries have
been importing bread, while at the same
time complaining to me about it.
Some very peculiar things are going
on; and I believe they must be corrected.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the Seui-
DUAL EMPLOYMENT AND DUAL
COMPENSATION
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of Calendar No. 904, H.R.
7381, so that it may be made the unfin-
ished business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be stated by title, for the infor-
mation of the Senate.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (H.R.
7381) to simplify, modernize, and con-
solidate the laws relating to the employ-
ment of civilians in more than one
position and the laws concerning the
civilian employment of retired members
of the uniformed services, and for other
purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Minnesota.
The motion was- agreed to; and the
Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which had been reported from the Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service
with amendments on page 12, after line
5, to strike out:
SEc. 205. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law, a retired member of any of the
uniformed services shall not be appointed to
any civilian office in the competitive civil
service unless (1) the United States Civil
Service Commission shall have given prior
public notice of the fact that a vacancy
exists in such office and of the fact that an
assembled examination (includng written
tests, oral interviews, and security investi-
gation), where practicable, or a combination
of an assembled or nonassembled examina-
tion, where practicable, open to all persons,
is to be given at a specific time and place,
but not before the thirtieth day after the
date such notice is first given, and (2) such
office is filled only from among those qualified
persons who successfully complete such ex-
amination. This section shall not affect the
authority of the Administrator of the Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration
contained in section 201 (e) of this title.
At the beginning of line 22, to change
the section number from "206" to "205";
on page 13, after line 17, to strike out:
(c) The President of the Senate with re-
spect to the United States Senate, the Speak-
er of the House of Representatives with re-
spect to the United States House of Repre-
sentatives, and the Architect-of the Capitol
with respect to the Office of the Architect of
the Capitol each is authorized to provide for
a means by which exceptions may be made
to the restrictions in. subsection (a) of this
section whenever he determines that such
exceptions are warranted on the ground that
personal services otherwise cannot be readily
obtained.
And, in lieu thereof, to insert:
(c) Unless otherwise authorized by law, no
money appropriated by any Act shall be
available for payment to any person of salary
from more than one civilian office if the
aggregate amount of the basic compensation
from such offices exceeds the sum of $2,000
per annum, and if (1) one of such salaries
is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate
or the Clerk of the House of Representatives
or (2) one of such offices is under the Office
of the Architect of the Capitol.
On page 15, after line 2, to insert:
(5) compensation received by any person
holding an office or position the compensa-
tion for which is disbursed by the Secretary
of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of
der the Architect of the Capitol;
At the beginning of line 8, to strike out
"(5) " and insert "(6) "; at the beginning
of line 11, to strike out "(6)" and insert
"(7) "; on page 17, after line 10, to in-
sert:
(f) This title shall not be applicable to
persons employed under the joint resolution
approved July 6, 1961 (75 Stat. 199; Public
Law 87-82), or under section 208 of the First
Supplemental Civil Functions Appropriation
Act, 1941 (54 Stat. 1056; Public Law 812, 76th
Congress).
And on page 34, after line 10, to insert:
(c) Nothing contained in this Act shall
be construed to repeal or modify the provf-
sions of the last paragraph under the head-
ing "Administrative Provisions" in the ap-
propriations for the Senate contained in the
Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1957
(70 Stat. 360; 2 U.S.C. 66a).
QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE OFFICE
OF SENATOR
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, once in
a long time something which comes, along
in a publication is as refreshing as a
bright spring morning.
A short time ago, the editor and pub-
lisher of the Burlington Record wrote an
article entitled "Yep, Quite A Change".
In the article he discusses some of the
foibles and .some of the absurd things
that are going on in America today.
The article is so reminiscent of the
very best of William Allen White, that
I ask unanimous consent that it be
printed in the RECORD at this point in my
remarks.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be. printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
YEP, QUITE A CHANGE
Something is happening in the political
picture of America today on which l: am a
'little vague or else ,the thrill of it all has so
far managed to escape me. Apparently, the
newest lark or thing to be in with is to run
for the Senate in a State in which one does
not reside. According to the California pri-
mary, it's the only sure way to win an elec-
tion. And it does make sense, doesn't it?
After all, if nothing (good or bad) is really
known about such a candidate, why should
a voter post a negative ballot?
It's been rumored that one has to main-
tain residence in a State for a required
amount of time in order to vote, but--won-
der of wonders-not to run for the Senate.
Now, I ask, if we are going to attempt
inner-State campaigns for our own repre-
sentatives, let's abandon the traditional 50-
State concept and consolidate into one mam-
moth glob * * * the United States of Amer-
ica? And why not? When one considers
the unbelievable percentage of governmental
workers in the Nation today, it just might
be feasible to consider such a setup when one
also realizes that that same employment
could be sliced almost in half under a single
U.S. deal. Actually, if we still kept our cur-
rent local and State governments and com-
bined them into one * * * who needs the
present Federal Government?
Think of the panic such a situation. could
cause throughout our United States. Un-
employment would be at an even greater all-
time high and the ensuing years might even
make the WPA days seem mild as we en-
vision breadlines stretching into the miles.
But why daydream? This all doesn't
really seem practical since the Washington
heads would never let such a movement get
off the ground. However, the whole thing
could have another application with regard to
our roving candidates.
If, for instance, a young Senator tried a
radical, way out-move in his own State and
realized too late, that in the next election
he wouldn't even make it out of the starting
gate; he could pack his little bag and present
himself and his views in a State where his
beliefs might appear more practical.
Now, we have established another
trend * * * vote for Joe Schmoo, the un-
beatable Senator from Colorado, Kansas,
Utah, California, and New York. Take your
pick, he'll be equally happy to represent one
State as the other * * * just so he gets
elected somewhere. But here our young
gentleman could possibly find himself in
deep water. Suppose he appeals to more
than one State at the same time? Well, the
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 8
answer to that to merely adjusting one's
campaign strategy so the pulse of the peo-
ple, Is tapped so well that he will never please
but one of the States at any given time.
In conclusion (and this thing must be
concluded sometime else it mushrooms out
of control), when Colorado politicians ask
themselves what office they should attempt
to snare, a chubby, short. crewcut, dark,
cigar-smoking and victory-fresh man might
say-
"Colorado? Bah. Forget home ties and
native pride ? ? ? look for greener pastures
before you announce candidacy. But stay
out of California-that's mine now."
THE WAR ON POVERTY
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I have
received a very Interesting letter from
Mrs. Don Wright, of Olney Springs. Colo.
She addressed her letter to the human-
interest editor of the New York Tines:
and in the letter she discussed many as-
pects of poverty and the absurdity of
our programs and attempts to solve such
problems in this country.
I ask unanimous consent that her let-
ter be printed at this point in the RecoRD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
OLNEY SPRINGS. COLO.,
June 16, 19G4.
NEW YoRx TIMES,
New York, X.Y.
(Attention: Human Interest Editor).
DEAR SIR: Hail. Please don't lay this aside
until you have read It. I'm determined to
see what I can find out about the principles
of this Nation and would appreciate if you
would help me.
I want to know how a citizen informs the
uninterested taxpayer of information vital
to each and every taxpayer and vital to our
Nation. You will hear them say, "What do I
care about the beef industry? I couldn't
help the stockman because I know nothing
of his situation."
There Is nothing more American than a
T-bone steak, a hamburger, or a hot dog.
Without the beef industry these American
foods will not exist. While the livestock
producer is In the minority according to his
voting potential, he Is the backbone of the
Nation when It comes to producing Its food.
If you break him you will break the Nation.
I want to know how to let the public know
the seriousness of a current problem, what
they can do to help; and also why a minority
voice is ceasing to be heard In this land
where there is supposed to be opportunity
for all with each person supposing to have
a voice In the Government. The beef quota.
which is the quantity of pounds of beef
which may be Imported Into the States, is so
high that it is going to break the cowman
and force him to become dependent upon
the Government: the Government being you,
the taxpayer. His dependency will not only
increase your taxes, It will lead to a very
socialized way of government- The cattle-
man has always been very independent, and
would like to remain that way If this admin-
istration will do something to stop the beef
import.
I am a housewife, not an average house-
wife, however, for I'm married to a young
man who would like to make a successful
career out of farming and ranching. Do you
have any Idea of the impossibility of this de-
sire? Both of us have been reared in the
country. We love the land and the stock and
are willing to work to get on our own, but
how can we when this administration seems
insistent that the agriculture people become
just another puppet on their strings?
We are employed by a rancher-farmer.
draw a small monthly wage, get a share of
the crop, a house to live In. pasture for 10
head of cows. By living very modestly we
have tried to increase our livestock herd
yearly. On paper It would seem that you
could live on the salary and crop profits,
leaving the livestock as a means for secur-
ing capital necessary to become independent.
A rancher's life Is not such an open and
shut case. A dry year last year took all of
the livestock profit to live on and acquire
enough feed to maintain the livestock herd.
This administration's grain programs are
proxiucing an abundance of grain which leads
to an excess of beef. As If this wasn't enough,
they refuse to limit the imported beef; hence
our market prices are going lower and lower.
Under normal circumstances when there be-
came an oversupply of beef there would be a
drop In prices, but then when the demand
rore again the gain would replace the cow-
man's loss over the low-market years. With
the import this cannot happen, the cow-
man's loss will be final.
Another very vital factor which the wage
earner could stop by placing a no vote on
farm subsidy programs is the "government
farmer." This is the man who obtains all
the land that he possible can, puts it Into the
grain programs, and lets the taxpayers pay for
his land that he has purchased. People
like this do not cut down the grain supply
as the bill was inteded to do. The tax-
payer merely pays him for doing nothing' to
abate the supply. This man also has In-
creased the price of land. its taxes, and Its
ur.avallab!lty. All of these facts contribute
to the fact that someone like us cannot pos-
sible acquire enough capital to start our
owns enterprise as it Will take a fortune.
This Is supposed to be the land of oppor-
tunity, home of the free, yet at the very
much publicized family-invited news con-
ference that President Jchnson had on the
Wnlte Rouse lawn, there was not one ques-
tion regarding the beef Import situation.
Whv? I'm under the assumption that these
conferences are to Inform the Nation about
the status of the Nation, Its Government, and
affairs. How can the citizens become in-
formed if the facts are not presented to
them?
Johnson's "war on poverty" headlines
everything, I fear his concern Is not for
the poor, It Is for how many votes he can
secure-for how can he eradicate pov-
erty When he Is creating more of It all the
time by Ignoring the cattlemen's import
protests?
How does this situation affect you and
every New Yorker on the street? You are
paying taxes for nothing. The feed-grain
program costs you $2.5 billion, the purpose
of which was to cut down the oversupply
of feed grains. After 3 years the corn crop of
1963 was the highest ever produced. (En-
closed please find some very good literature
which will support my statements).
Yes. I am a Republican, prejudiced, but
r'rn also concerned over our three daughters.
If things progress as they are now the taxes
that they will Inherit from our stupidity,
from our thriftless generation will be as-
tounding. Can't something be done to stop
this waste of money?
If every wage earner's taxes were not with-
held from his weekly paycheck, he would
probably have trouble paying his taxes in
April. However, if his taxes had to be paid
as one lump sum he would soon realize how
high they are and perhaps would take the
trouble to vote down these atrocious bills
or at least take the time to study about how
the tax dollar is being wasted and misused.
A little study would soon show him that
every cowman that 1s put out of business
becomes competition for him as the cowman
must become a wage earner too.
My father has been a Colorado rancher all
of his life so I feel as if I'm fairly well versed
on the subject. I just want to know why
the minority, the independent enterprises,
are being forced to succumb to governmental
control In a land which boasts of free enter-
prise? How can a concerned American citi-
zen belonging to this minority make his
argument heard and listened to by the ma-
jority?
After all, it is the fear of poverty which
Induces every man to work and Improve
his standard of living. Let us not take away
our free enterprises; for a socialistic nation
only exists on governmental desires, while a
free nation will thrive to become "one na-
tion, under God, with liberty and justice
for all."
Yours truly,
THE SUDETEN GERMANS
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, for
many years, I have been interested in
Sudeten German Day, held on Wt.itsun-
tide, and what it means to people living
all over the world. I have from Dr.
Walter Becher, secretary general of the
Sudeten German organization, a letter
expressing to me his thanks for my
Interest in this subject.
Because I believe Americans should
never forget what is happening in Ger-
many, and what has happened since
World War II, I ask unanimous consent
that the letter be printed at this point
in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
SUDETENDEtr SCI-IFa RAT E. V.,
M?itnchen, den, June 26, 1164.
lion. GORDON ALLOTT,
U.S. Senator,
Senate Office Building,
Wrshirg!o-l, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR ALLOTT: On the occeeion of
July 4, the American National Independence
Day, I would like to express to you the best
congratulations on behalf of the Sudeten
German people.
The fate of the whole world depends on
whether the great American ideals of the
past will prevail also in the future. The
hopes of all freedom-loving people and also
of my people rest on your great country and
above all on the statesmen in the Cor.gress
of the United States. We pray that your
work may succeed and feel, today more than
ever, closely attached to your great people
and its great traditions and ideals.
On your national day, I send you the best
wishes for your country, for you arid your
human and political work.
With kindest personal regards.
Yours very sincerely,
DR. WALTER BECHEI:,
Secretary General.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, if no
other Senator wishes to address the
Senate, I suggest the absence of a
Quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
1964. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 2941
and the science club. He took and passed
his college board examinations during his
junior year with high marks in math and
science, his favorite subjects. He had been
accepted by both colleges to which he ap-
plied for admission, and was trying to come
to a decision as to which college offered
courses best suited to his future plans and
ambitions.
He was a member of St. Andrews Episcopal
Church where he was christened when he
was 2 years old and confirmed when he was
13. He was an active member of the Pacific
Chapter, Order of Demolay, and had just
been elected master counselor. He had to
leave before his installation which was to
have taken place In February. He belonged
to the YMCA where he was taking judo les-
sons and progressing very well. He was also
about to complete his driver-training course,
and his dad was teaching him to drive the
car.
Our U.S. press has exploded this normal,
everyday boy into a monster, a hoodlum, a
delinquent and has made him the object of
vile and cruel letters. His protest to the
President of the United States against re-
moval of the Amercan flag from the front
of the U.S. schools was truly sincere in its
intent, but it catapulted him in to a hostile
world of misinformed adults who have
pointed fingers at him and called him an
assassin, who have plastered his name across
the Nation as a showoff, and posed him for
pictures which any person would be ready
to condemn at first sight. There have also
been veiled threats such as a shooting inci-
dent aimed at a Jenkins residence (no rela-
tion) in Cambridge, Ohio, linked to his pend-
ing arrival there.
What will happen to our boy from now on?
As his parents we are frightened for his
safety from fanatics, for possible loss of his
faith in love and human understanding, and
for his chances in the United States to com-
plete his education. He has been taught to
respect the law and to believe in justice. He
broke no laws, but he has been condemned.
This incident has already cost him dearly,
and his dad and I are praying that he may
never become convinced that he was the
cause of all the trouble and deaths, U.S.
citizens, soldiers, and Panamanians alike, for
he and the other students, again both the
U.S. citizen and the Panamanian students,
were cruelly used as an excuse to unleash
trouble already brewed. It was crouched and
waiting.
Surely intelligent, thinking, and informed
persons cannot honestly believe that the
burden of the strife here should rest on the
shoulders of a 17-year-old student who, very
briefly, backed a cause In which he firmly
believed-that of keeping before his school
the U.S. flag which was symbolic of-his happy
childhood and his future life as a citizen of
the United States of America-to a lad of 17
the most wonderful country in the world.
BENEFITS TO VETERANS OF
WORLD WAR I
(Mr. ST GERMAIN (at the request of
Mr. MATSUNAGA) was granted permission
to extend his remarks .at this point in
the RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. ST GERMAIN. Mr. Speaker, I
respectfully request permission to revise
and extend my remarks and to include
a resolution passed by the General As-
sembly of the State of Rhode Island
memorializing Congress, requesting fa-
vorable consideration to legislation pro-
viding benefits to the aged, ill, and
disabled veterans of World War I in the
form of pension or any other means
which provide relief so vitally needed.
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
(Jr. Res. 1043, memorializing Congress re-
questing favorable consideration to legis-
tion providing benefits to the aged, ill, and
disabled veterans of World War I in the
form of pensions or any other means which
provide relief so vitally needed)
Whereas many hundreds of thousands of
our Nation's finest citizens served the cause
of democracy during the period of World
War I; and
Whereas a large number of these veterans
have now reached the age and circumstances
in which they are no longer self-supporting,
as well as suffering illnesses and infirmities
aggravated by this honorable service to their
country; and
Whereas through no fault of their own,
they have largely become a class of forgotten
men, many of whom are close to the grave:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the members of the House
of Representatives of the State of Rhode
Island recognize the predicament of these
veterans of World War I and petition the
Congress of the United States to give favor-
able consideration to H.R. 2332 (World War
I Pension Act) providing benefits to the
aged, ill, and disabled veterans of World War
I in the form of pensions or any other
means which will provide relief so vitally
needed; and be it further
Resolved, That the recording clerk of this
house of representatives is hereby author-
ized and directed to transmit duly certified
copies of this resolution to the President of
the United States, to the Director of the
U.S. Veterans' Administration, to the Di-
rector of the U.S. Bureau of the Budget, to
the chairman of the House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs and to the Senators and
Representatives from Rhode Island in the
Congress of the United States.
SALVATOHE R. CAsoso,
Recording Cle
H.R. 7381: DUAL COMPENS
ACT
(Mr. FASCELL (at the request of Mr.
MATSUNAGA) was granted permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Speaker, the bill
before us today is a long-awaited and
much-needed measure. The chairman
and members of the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service are to be com-
mended for their long and diligent ef-
forts and for bringing to the House this
comprehensive and workable approach
to the extremely complicated and di-
verse dual compensation and dual em-
ployment laws now in effect.
Last July I introduced a bill to exempt
certain officers of the Armed Forces from
dual office and compensation restric-
tions. This bill would exempt Reserve
officers of the Army and Air Force who
have served on active duty in a tempo-
rary grade equal to or higher than their
Reserve grades and are retired for dis-
ability in such. temporary grades from
the dual compensation restrictions of
section 212 Of the act of June 30, 1932,
as amende4. It would also exempt any
non-Regular officer member of the
Armed Force who is retired in a tem-
porary warrant officer status from the
dual-office restriction of section 2 of the
act of July 31, 1894, as amended.
I am pleased to say that in their wide
survey of the inequities involved under
our present laws, the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service included the pro-
visions of my bill in H.R. 7381.
In the committee's report, numerous.
cases were cited whereby a Federal
agency was unable to obtain qualified
persons, because of the limitations placed
on the salaries of retired military per-
sonnel by the dual compensation-dual
employment laws. The bill before us
today will eliminate this unfortunate
and binding restriction and allow the
Federal Government to employ the
skilled and knowledgeable manpower it
needs.
. In addition, it will certainly clarify
the existing statutes on dual compensa-
tion-dual employment and bring under
one statute the Government's policy on
this subject. This will undoubtedly elim-
inate the hardships caused individuals
as a result of inadvertent or good faith
misunderstandings of the application of
the law.
A case in point is a private bill. I intro-
duced in the last session to relieve a per-
son of liability for repayment to the
Federal Government a rather large sum
of money paid him for his services to a
Federal agency. This gentleman was a
retired chief warrant officer serving as
a temporary W-2 when he was granted
retirement. . short time later he ap-
plied to the Federal agency, at the same
time inquiring through the U.S. Navy
Finance Center as to his status under the
Dual Compensation-Dual Employments
Acts. He was told that he was generally
precluded from taking a Government
position; however, the determination
was the responsibility of the employing
agency.
clearly stated and a short time later he
was notified that his application was
accepted. Approximately 3 years later
it was discovered that this person's em-
ployment was precluded by the Dual
Employment Act and he was notified
that he must repay the 3 years' salary he
had received for his services.
In reporting on this bill, the agency
stated :
From these facts it is apparent that it was
due to an error on the part of this agency
that Mr. B was hired. It further appears
that while Mr. B had some misgivings about
the propriety of his appointment, these were
dispelled by this agency's willingness to em-
ploy him knowing of his retired status.
It would seem a most inequitable result
that the Government should profit from the
services of Mr. B.
And still hold him liable for the com-
pensation paid him for those services.
I am pleased to state that H.R. 7381
will eliminate these inequities and hard-
ships and will, most likely, prevent. them
from ever happening in the first place.
It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker,
that I add my voice in support of H.R. I
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of
absence was granted to:
Mr. RIEHLMAN (at the request; of Mr.
ARENDS), for the remainder of this week,
on account of a death in his family.
Mr. HARVEY of Indiana (at the request
of Mr. HALLECK), on account of illness.
No. 28--S
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE February 18
Mr. Hosxsa (at the request of Mr.
ARENDS), for the week of February 17. on
account of official business with the Joint
committee on Atomic Energy.
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to
address the House, following the legisla-
tive program and any special orders
heretofore entered, was granted to:
Mr. FLIGHAN, for 15 minutes, today;
and to revise and extend his remarks.
Mr. LIBONATI. for 1 hour, today.
Mr. HALPERN (at the request of Mr.
GOODLING), for 5 minutes, today; to re-
vise and extend his remarks and include
extraneous matter.
Mr. WICKERSHAM (at the request of Mr.
MATSUNAGA). for 5 minutes, on February
19; to revise and extend his remarks and
include extraneous matter.
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
By unanimous consent, permission to
extend remarks in the Appendix of the
RECORD, or to revise and extend remarks,
was granted to:
Mr. BOLLING and to include an article.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida to have his re-
marks made during the consideration of
the bill H.R. 7381, appear In the body
of the RECORD before the rule on H.R.
7381.
Mr. TOLLE7SON and to include extrane-
ous material, notwithstanding the cost
is estimated by the Public Printer to be
$405.
Mr. BYRNE of Pennsylvania to extend
his remarks in the Appendix of the REc-
ORD and that said remarks appear in the
permanent RECORD at the appropriate
place on the day that eulogies were paid
to the late Congressman William J.
Green. Jr.
Mr. MILLER of California In five in-
stances and in each to Include extrane-
ous matter.
Mr. RHODES of Pennsylvania In three
instances and to Include extraneous
matter.
Mr. ZABLOCKI in two instances and to
include extraneous matter.
(The following Members (at the re-
quest of Mr. GoODLING) and to Include
extraneous matter:)
Mr. FINDLEY.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE In five instances.
Mr. RUMSTZLD.
Mr. WESTLAND.
Mrs. DWYER In three instances.
Mrs. REID of Illinois.
Mr. UiT.
Mr. MCCULLOCH.
Mr. WHARTON in four instances.
Mr. MORSE In two Instances.
Mr. CONTE.
Mr. MCCLORY.
Mr. FORD.
Mr. TAFT in two instances.
Mr. SHRIVER.
Mr. BEERMANN in two instances.
Mr. BOB WILSON in five instances.
(The following Members (at the re-
quest of Mr. MATSUNAGA) and to include
extraneous matter:)
Mr. HOLLAND In six Instances.
Mr. RoDINO.
Mr. MACDONALD.
Mr. RosrNTHAL in two Instances.
Mr. CAREY in five instances.
Mr. FLOOD in two Instances.
Mr. DINGELL.
Mr. FASCELL.
Mr. VANIK in two instances.
Mr. O'NEILL In three instances.
Mr. COHELAN In five instances.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN in three instances.
Mr. FRASER.
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
Mr. BURLESON. from the Committee
on House Administration, reported that
that committee had examined and found
truly enrolled a bill of the House of the
following title, which was thereupon
signed by the Speaker:
H.R. 7356. An act to amend title 10, United
States Code, relating to the nomination and
selection of candidates for appointment to
the Military, Naval, and Air Force Academies.
SENATE ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED
The SPEAKER announced his signa-
ture to enrolled bills of the Senate of the
following titles:
S. 2(84. An act to relieve the Veterans'
Administration from paying interest on the
amount of capital funds transferred In fiscal
year 1962 from the direct loan revolving fund
to the loan guaranty revolving fund; and
S. 2317. An act to amend the provisions
of section 15 of the Shipping Act. 1916, to
provide for the exemption of certain term-
inal learea from penalties.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; according-
ly (at 3 o'clock and 18 minutes p.m.)
the House adjourned until tomorrow,
Wednesday. February 19, 1964, at 12
o'clock noon.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS,
ETC.
Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive
communications were taken from the
Speaker's table and referred as follows:
1713. A letter from the Comptroller Gen-
eral of the United States, transmitting a
supplemental report on ineffective program
planning and uneconomical utilization of
personnel assigned to the Air Force Reserve
recovery program; to the Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations.
1714. A letter from the Comptroller Gen-
erat of the United States, transmitting a re-
port on the audit of Federal Prison Indus-
tries, Inc., for the fiscal year ended June 30,
1963. pursuant to the Government Corpora-
No, 231); to the Committee on Governmen
Operations and ordered to be printed.
1715. A letter from the Assistant Secretary
of the Interior, transmitting a report on the
Chelan Division. Chief Joseph Dam project,
Washington, pursuant to section 9(a) of the
Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat.
1187) (H. Doc. No. 232); to the Committee
on Interior and Insular Affalre and ordered
to be printed witch Illustrations-
1716. A letter from the Deputy Secretary
of Defense, transmitting a report setting
forth the financial condition of working
capital funds at June 30, 1963, and the re-
sults of their operation for the fiscal year
then ended, pursuant to section 405(c) of
the National Security Act of 1947, sa
amended (10 U.S.C. 2208); to the Committee
on Armed Services.
1717. A letter from the Comptroller (le:i-
eral of the United States, transmitting a
report on improper payments to military per-
sonnet for travel of dependents of members
of the Department of the Army, pursuant
to 31 U.S.C. 53 and 31 U.S.C. 67; to the C'orn-
mittee on Government Operations.
1718. A letter from the Comptroller Gen-
eral of the JUnited States. transmitting it re-
port on the uneconomical replacement of
vehicles by the U.S. 5th Air Force, 1^uchu Air
Station, Japan. pursuant to the Budget w .3d
Accounting Act 1921, (31 U.S.C. 53), and the
Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 (31
II-S.C. 67) ; to the Committee on Government
Operations.
1719. A letter from the Comptroller Gen-
eral of the United States. transmitting a re-
port on deficiencies in the administration of
Government quarters. messing facilities, and
military leave at Dow Air Force Base, Maine,
pursuant to the Budget and Accounting Act,
1921 (31 U.S C. 53), and the Accounting and
Auditing Act of 1950 (31 U S.C. 67); to the
Committee on Government Operations.
1720. A letter from the Archivist of the
United States, transmitting a report on rec-
ords proposed for disposal In accordance with
the provisions of the act approved July 7,
1943 (57 Stat. 380), as amended by the act
approved July 6, 1945 (59 Stat. 434), and the
act approved June 30, 1949 (63 Stat. 377);
to the Committee on House Administration.
1721. A letter from the Secretary of the
Interior, transmitting a report of the Office
of Coal Research relating to coal research
activities undertaken during calendar year
1963, pursuant to Public Law 86-599; to the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
1722. A letter from the Acting Director,
U.S. Information Agency, transmitting a
draft of proposed legislation, entitled, "A bill
for the relief of Philip N. Shepherdson"; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
1723. A letter from the Assistant Secretary
of the Interior, transmitting a draft of pro-
posed legislation, entitled, "A bill to repeal
the provisions of law codified in 5 U.S.C. 39,
and for other purposes"; to the Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUB-
LIC BILLS AND RESOLUTION'S
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of
committees were delivered to the Clerk
for printing and reference to the proper
calendar, as follows:
Mr. HARRIS: Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce. H.R. 9903. A bill to
amend the Interstate Commerce Act ar,d the
Federal Avlation Act of 1958 so as to
strengthen and improve the national 'rs.ns-
portatlon system, and to implement more
fully the national transportation policy, and
for other purpos-s; without amendir.ent
(Rapt. No. 1144). Referred to the Coinrnit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union.
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 4 of rule XIS, public
bills and resolutions were introduced and
severally referred as follows:
By Mr. BARING:
MR. 10005, A bill to amend section 27 of
the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920,
as amended, in order to promote the de-
velopment of phosphate on the public do-
main; to the Committee on Interior and In-
sular Affairs.
By Mr. HAGEN of California:
H_R. I0008. A bill to strengthen the agri-
cultural economy; to help to achieve a fuller
and more effective use of food abundances;
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
196.4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 2887
calved by an agency or attorney on account
of services rendered in connection with this
claim, and the same shall be unlawful, any
contract to the contrary notwithstanding.
Any person violating the provisions of this
Act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor
and upon conviction thereof shall be fined
in any sum not exceeding 01,000.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to recon-
sider was laid on the table.
ELMER ROYAL FAY, SR.
The Clerk called the bill (S. 573) for
the relief of Elmer Royal Fay, Sr.
There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the
Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and
directed to pay, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated to
Elmer Royal Pay, Senior, captain, United
States Army, retired, of Hillcrest Heights,
Maryland, the sum of $228-88, in full satls-
faction of all his claims against the United
States for compensation for retired pay which
was withheld from him by the United States
during the period from July 1, 1947, through
August 11, 1947, while the said Elmer Royal
Fay, Senior, was an employee of the Bureau
of Yards and Docks, Department of the Navy,
at Washington, District of Columbia: Pro-
vided, That no part of the amount appro-
priated in this Act in excess of 10 per centum
thereof shall be paid or delivered to or re-
ceived by any agent or attorney on account
of services rendered in connection with this
claim, and the same shall be unlawful, any
contract to the contrary notwithstanding.
Any person violating the provisions of this
Act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor
and upon conviction thereof shall be fined In
any sum not exceeding $1,000.
The bill was ordered to be read a third
time, was read the third time, and
passed, and a motion to reconsider was
laid on the table.
GEORGIE LOU RADER
The Clerk called the bill (S. 1206) for
the relief of Georgie Lou Rader.
There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That, not-
withstanding the provisions of the Act en-
titled "An Act providing for the barring of
claims against the United States", approved
October 9, 1940 (54 Stat. 1081), the Secre-
tary of the Treasury is authorized and di-
rected to pay, out of any money In the Treas-
ury not otherwise appropriated, to Georgia
Lou Rader, of Knoxville, Tennessee, the stun
of $1,440, representing the amount of the six
months' death gratuity payable to her upon
the death of her son, Second Lieutenant
Kenneth R. Rader, who died on March 27,
1945, while serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States, the said Georgia Lou
Rader having relied upon erroneous informa-
tion from United States Army personnel that
she might file application for such gratuity
at any time: Provided. That no part of the
amount appropriated in this Act In excess of
10 per centum thereof shall be paid or de-
livered to or received by any agent or attor-
ney on account of services rendered in con-
nection with this claim, and the same shall
be unlawful, any contract to the contrary
notwithstanding. Any person violating the
provisions of this Act shall be deemed guilty
of a misdemeanor and upon conviction
thereof shall be fined In any sum not exceed-
Ing 01,000.
The bill was ordered to be read a third
time, was read the third time, and
passed, and a motion to reconsider was
laid on the table.
ARCHIE L. DICKSON, JR.
The Clerk called the bill (S. 1445) for
the relief of Archie L. Dickson, Jr.
There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Represcnatives of the United States of
America in Congress Assembled, That (a)
the Secretary of the Air Force is authorized
and directed to determine the amount and
effective date of the retirement pay to which
Archie L. Dickson, Junior, would have been
entitled if (1) the Office of the Surgeon Gen-
eral of the Army in reviewing his case in
1945 and 1948 had found that the said Archie
L. Dickson, Junior, was, at the time he was
relieved from active duty in 1948. perma-
nently incapacitated for active service and
that his Incapacity for active service was the
result of an incident of service as a com-
missioned officer in the United States Air
Force incurred in line of duty not due to
his own misconduct and such a finding had
been approved by the President or his dele-
gate, and (2) the Department of the Air
Force thereupon had certified Archie L.
Dickson. Junior, in the grade of first lieu-
tenant to the Veterans' Administration for
the receipt of retired pay under the Act of
April 3, 1939 (53 Stat. 557: 10 U.S.C. 2687).
(b) Upon such determination, the Secre-
tary of the Treasury is authorized and di-
rected to pay, out of any money In the Treas-
ury not otherwise appropriated, to the said
Archie L. Dickson, Junior, after deducting
any disability compensation he has received
from the Veterans' Administration, retired
pay in such amount upon the conditions
which would have been applicable if such
certification had been made pursuant to the
Act of April 3, 1939 (53 Stat. 557; 10 U.S.C.
3687).
(e) From the date of enactment of this
Act It shall be held and considered that
Archie L. Dickson, Junior, has been retired
for physical disability and the Secretary of
the Air Force Is directed to pay him retired
pay accordingly.
With the following committee amend-
ment:
Page 1, line 3: After the word "That" in-
sert "in accordance with the findings of fact
of the United States Court of Claims in the
case of Archie L. Dickson, Jr. v. The United
States, Congressional No. 4-60. decided No-
vember 7, 1962,".
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The bill was ordered to be read a third
time, was read the third time, and
passed, and a motion to reconsider was
laid on the table.
MARY G. EASTLAKE
The Clerk called the bill (S. 1518) for
the relief of Mary U. Eastlake.
There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the
service of Mary G. Eastlake, Nurse Director
(retired). Public Health Service, performed
while in the employ of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Department of the Interior, before
July 1, 1955, shall be deemed to be active
service in the Public Health Service for the
purpose of computing her retired pay from
the Service as of the date of her retirement
(December 1, 1962): Provided, That the ir-
crease In retired pay authorized by this At
shall not exceed the amount which would
be payable as a Civil Service retirement ar.-
nulty based on such service.
The bill was ordered to be read a third
time, was read the third time, and
passed, and a motion to reconsider was
laid on the table.
ALESSANDRO A. R. CACACE
The Clerk called the bill (S. 1488) fcr
the relief of Alessandro A. R. Cacace.
There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That, for t1 e
purposes of sections 101(a)(27)(A) and
205 of the Immigration andNationality Act,
Alessandro A. R. Cacace shall be held and
considered to be the minor natural-born
alien child of Mr. Hilton D. Hall, a United
States citizen.
The bill was ordered to be read a third
time, was read the third time, and
passed, and a motion to reconsider was
laid on the table.
PAUL JAMES BRANAN
The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 5306)
for the relief of Paul James Branan.
There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That, for
the purposes of sections 101(a) (27) (A) and
205 of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
the minor child, Paul James Branan, shall
be held and considered to be the natural-
born alien child of Staff Sergeant and Mrs.
Thomas D, Branan, citizens of the United
States: Provided, That the natural parents
of the said Paul James Branan shall not, by
virtue of such parentage, be accorded ar.y
right, privilege, or status under the Immigra-
tion and Nationality Act.
With the following committee amend-
ment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"That, in the administration of the Immi-
gration and Nationality Act, Paul James
Branan may be classified as an eligible or-
phan within the meaning of section 101(b)
(1) (F) of the Act, upon approval of a peti-
tion filed In his behalf by Mr. and Mrs.
Thomas D. Branan, citizens of the United
States, pursuant to section 205(b) of the
Act, subject to all the conditions in that
section relating to eligible orphans.".
The committee amendment-was agreed
to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to r?.-
consider was laid on the table.
ESTERINA RICUPERO
The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 3264)
for the relief of Esterina Ricupero.
There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:
Be It enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
 Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE February 18
America in Congress assembled, That not-
withstanding the provision of section 212(a)
of the immigration and Naturalization Act,
Esterina Ricupero may be issued a visa and
admitted to the United States for permanent
residence if she is found to be otherwise ad-
missible under the provisions of that Act:
Provided, That this exemption shall apply
only to a ground for exclusion of which the
Department of State or the Department of
Justice had knowledge prior to the enactment
of this Act: Provided further, That a suitable
and proper bond or undertaking, approved by
the Attorney General, be deposited as pre-
scribed by section 213 of the said Act.
With the following committee amend-
ment:
On page 1, line 3, strike out "section 212
(a)" and substitute in lieu thereof "section
212(a) (1) ".
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to re-
consider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER.. This concludes the
call of the Private Calendar.
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. KUNKEL. Mr. Speaker, I make
the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
is not present.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move a
call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names :
[Roll No. 341
Adair
Dowdy
Mailliard
Ashbrook
Edmondson
Martin, Mass.
Ashmore
Finnegan
Meader
Bass
Flynt
Miller, N.Y.
Battin
Forrester
Montoya
Bennett, Mich.
Goodell
Moss
Berry
Gray
O'Brien, Ill.
Blatnik
Green, Oreg.
O'Konski
Bolton,
Griffin
PlIcher
Frances P.
Gubser
Powell
Broomfield
Halleck
Price
Brown, Calif.
Hanna
Rains
Brown, Ohio
Harvey, Ind.
Rhodes, Ariz.
Bruce
Hawkins
Riehlman
Buckley
Hoffman
Roberts, Tex.
Burkhalter
Holifield
Roosevelt
Burleson
Hosmer
Rostenkowski
Burton
Hull
Roybal
Casey
Hutchinson
St. Onge
Cederberg
Jones, Ala.
Short
Geller
Kastenmeter
Smith, Calif.
Chamberlain
Kee
Thomson, Wis.
Collier
Kelly
Tuck
Colmer
Kluczynski
Tupper
Corman
Latta
Udall
Cramer
Leggett
Wickersham
Davis, Tenn.
Lesinski
Widnall
Dawson
Lindsay
Wilson, Bob
Diggs
Lloyd
Younger
Dorn
Macdonald
The SPEAKER. On this rollcall, 340
Members have answered to their names,
a quorum.
By unanimous consent, further pro-
ceedings under the call were dispensed
with.
READING OF WASHINGTON'S FARE-
WELL ADDRESS ON FEBRUARY 21
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to a special
order agreed to on February 17, 1964, the
Chair designates the gentleman from
Hawaii [Mr. MATSUNAGA] to read Wash-
ington's Farewell Address immediately
following the reading of the Journal on
February 21, 1964.
SUSPENDING REQUIREMENTS OF
SECTION 315, COMMUNICATIONS
ACT OF 1934, DURING CAMPAIGN
OF 1964
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's desk the joint resolution
(H.J. Res. 247) to suspend for the 1964
campaign the equal opportunity require-
ments of section 315 of the Communica-
tions Act of 1934. for legally qualified
candidates for the offices of President
and Vice President, disagree to the Sen-
ate amendments and request a confer-
ence with the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the joint
resolution.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, what is the meaning
of the resolution?
Mr. HARRIS. This resolution was
passed by the. House some time ago sus-
pending the requirements of section 315
of the Communications Act of 1934 for
this presidential year. The Senate
passed the resolution making some
changes and we are asking to go to con-
ference on the differences between the
House and the Senate.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservz#-
tion of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ar-
kansas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The Chair appoints
the following conferees: Messrs. HARRIS,
ROGERS of Texas,' Moss, ROSTENKOWSKI,
KORNEGAY, HULL, 13ENNETT of Michigan,
YOUNGER, CUNNINGHAM, BROYHILL Of
North Carolina.
ACTION AGAINST CASTRO'S
SUPPLIES
(Mr. ROGERS of Florida asked and
was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. ROGERS of Florida.' Mr. Speak-
er, it is a good sign for those who believe
in getting rid of Castro in this hemis-
phere that the Department of State has
just advised that any aid given to the
United Kingdom, France, Yugoslavia,
Spain, and Morocco will be terminated
under the provisions of the Fascell-Rog-
ers amendment, section 620(a) (3) of the
Foreign Assistance Act.
This legislation provides that with cer-
tain exceptions no funds available under
the act shall be used to furnish assist-
ance to any country that has not taken
appropriate steps by February 14 to pre-
vent its ships and aircraft from carrying
any equipment, materials, or commodi-
ties to and from Cuba.
That the intent of Congress in respect
to these countries that they should re-
ceive no aid is a first step in showing that
we do mean business about isolating and
getting rid of Castro. A second step
should be to close our ports to ships of
any nation which allows any of its ships
to trade with Cuba. Thirdly, we need
increased activity by the Organization of
American States, with, full U.S. backing,
to take the necessary steps to isolate
Cuba to eliminate communism's Castro.
I want to commend Assistant Secretary
of State Thomas Mann, for firming up
this Government's position against ifs-
DUAL COMPENSATI&I ACT V
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, by direc-
tion of the Committee on Rules, I call up
the resolution, House Resolution 624, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows:
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
7381) to simplify, modernize, and consolidate
the laws relating to the employment of civ-
ilians in more than one position and the laws
concerning the civilian employment of re-
tired members of the uniformed services, and
for other purposes. After general debate,
which shall be confined to the bill and shall
continue not to exceed one hour, to be
equally divided and controlled by the chair-
man and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
the bill shall be read for amendment under
the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to
consider the substitute amendment recom-
mended by the Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service now in the ball and such sub-
stitute for the purpose of amendment shall
be considered under the five-minute rule as
an original bill. At the conclusion of such
consideration the Committee shall rise and
report the bill to the House with such amend-
ments as may have'been adopted, and any
Member may demand a separate vote in the
House on any of the amendments adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill
or committee substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on
the bill and amendments thereto. to final pas-
sage without intervening motion except one
motion to recommit with or without in-
structions.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Texas [Mr. YOUNG] is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I yield
30 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. ST. GEORGE] and pend-
ing that I yield myself such time as
I shall require.
(Mr. YOUNG asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, House Res-
olution 624 provides for consideration of
H.R. 7381, a bill to simplify, modernize,
and consolidate the laws relating to the
employment of civilians in more than
one position and the laws concerning the
civilian employment of retired members
of the uniformed services, and for other
purposes. The resolution provides an
open rule with 1 hour of general debate,
making it in order to consider the sub-
stitute amendment now in the bill as
an original bill.
The general purposes of H.R. 7381 are
to aid the Federal Government in obtain-
ing the best qualified people available for
hard-to-fill civilian positions; to provide
reasonably uniform and fair treatment
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500010004-0