"the first sentence of section 4 (d) (3) of this Act, or until the sixth anniversary of the receipt of a commission in accordance with his obligation under the second sentence of section 4 (d) (3) of this Act"; and

(2) inserting at the end thereof the following: "Upon the successful completion by any person of the required course of instruction under any program listed in clause (A) of the first sentence of this paragraph, such person shall be tendered a commission in the appropriate Reserve component of the Armed Forces if he is otherwise qualified for such appointment. If, at the time of such appointment, the armed force in which such person is commissioned does not require his service on active duty in fulfillment of the obligation undertaken by him in compliance with clause (B) of the first sentence of this paragraph, such person shall be ordered to active duty for training with such armed force in the grade in which he was commissioned for a period of six months. Upon completion of such period of active duty for training, such person shall be returned to inactive duty and shall be assigned to an appropriate reserve unit until the eighth anniversary of the receipt of a commission pursuant to the provisions of this section. So long as such person performs satisfactory service in such unit, as determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, he shall be deferred from training and service under the provisions of this Act. If such person fails to perform satisfactory service in such unit, and such failure is not excused under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, his commission may be revoked by the Secretary of the military department concerned."

(d) Section 6 (d) (2) of such Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: “Any person heretofore or hereafter enlisted in the Army Reserve, the Naval Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, the Air Force Reserve, or the Coast Guard Reserve who thereafter has been or may be commissioned therein upon graduation from an Officers' Candidate School of such Armed Force shall, if not ordered to active duty as a commissioned officer, be deferred from training and service under the provisions of this Act so long as he performs satisfactory service as a commissioned officer in an appropriate unit of the Ready Reserve, as determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the department concerned. If such person fails to perform satisfactory service in such unit, and such failure is not excused under such regulations, his commission may be revoked by such Secretary."

Approved August 9, 1955.

PUBLIC LAW 490-84TH CONGRESS

CHAPTER 209-2D SESSION

H. R. 8107

AN ACT To amend the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952, as amended

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 262 of the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952 (Public Law 476, Eighty-second Congress) is hereby amended by deleting subsection (d) thereof.

SEC. 2. The Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952, as amended, is amended by inserting immediately after section 263 thereof the following new section:

"SEC. 264. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person called or ordered to perform a period of active duty for training in excess of thirty days under authority of subsections 233 (d) or 262 (c) of this Act, shall during such period, be deemed to have been called or ordered into active naval or military service by the Federal Government for extended naval or military service in excess of thirty days for the purpose of determining eligibility for any benefit prescribed under Public Law 108, Eighty-first Congress (63 Stat. 201)."

SEC. 3. This Act shall be effective from August 9, 1955: Provided, That no additional basic pay shall be paid to any member by reason of the enactment of this Act for any period prior to the first day of the calendar month in which this Act is approved.

Approved April 23, 1956.

о

4 JUN 14

[No. 83]

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON H. R. 5731, H. R. 9970, H. R. 8552, MISCELLANEOUS REAL ESTATE PROJECTS, NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE AT POINT BARROW, ALASKA

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, D. C., Tuesday, May 22, 1956.

The committee met at 10 a. m., the Honorable Carl Vinson (chairman of the committee) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the committee come to order.

The first bill I want to call up is H. R. 5731, to permit members of the armed services and their dependents to occupy inadequate quarters on a rental basis without loss of basic allowance for quarters.

Now, that is the bill which was submitted as a departmental bill. I gave it to Mr. Bennett on behalf of the committee to present it to the subcommittee. They have made some recommendations for

amendments.

Now, what worries me about this bill is that it is entirely contradictory to our policy of building quarters for the personnel. It gives a sanction for a 3-year period to substandard quarters. Now, if it is sound for 3 years, why wouldn't it be sound for 2 or 3 more years. Why should we embark upon a substandard housing program while on the other hand we are trying to build 100,000 units right now.

Mr. BENNETT. My answer to that, Mr. Chairman, is that if you don't pass this bill more people will be living in substandard quarters at the end of 3 years than they will if you pass the bill. In other words, the effect of this bill is to reduce the population in substandard quarters. In fact, it brings it to an end. While if you don't pass the bill, the present situation will continue to obtain, except insofar as diminished by the building of more quarters. But the building of more quarters is going to have the same effect regardless of whether you pass this bill or not.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, why wouldn't we accelerate the construction of the Capehart if we didn't give sanction to substandard houses? They would then devote their entire time in trying to get proper quarters.

Now, like it is, there is a 3-year leeway. During that 3 years they will not be so concerned about Capehart houses. They are going to say "while we have quarters, we will drift along in an even manner, building Capehart houses," but if they didn't have any extension of this, they would say, "We have to get these people out of the substandard houses.”

Mr. BENNETT. Well, the proof of the situation is what they are doing now. In other words, there isn't anything in just continuing which is going to solve the problems which this bill seeks to solve. We are just going to continue the present problem.

(7581)

71066-56-No. 83

The CHAIRMAN. You see, here is what happens. He goes into substandard quarters now. And all of the quarters allowance is taken away from him. And he doesn't have any money to put in his pocket for living in a substandard house.

Now, this comes along and it says, "You occupy the substandard quarters, and we will put a low rental value on that. While you are entitled on the average of about $90, the substandard quarters will only be rented for around $30. So there is $60 you can put in your pocket."

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman

Mr. GAVIN. Then, on top of that, Mr. Chairman-Mr. Chair

man

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. GAVIN. We are merely authorizing a situation that we are trying to get rid of.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. GAVIN. In other words, they came in here the other day with pictures of substandard houses, which all of us agree were certainly bad. We want to correct the situation and we are passing legislation to authorize such. Any criticism that comes back will be directed at us for authorizing or permitting them to live in substandard houses. Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Just one at a time.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman-

The CHAIRMAN. One at a time, now.

Let's discuss this bill now.

Now, of course you all understand this bill has been amended for 3 years. This policy will run for 3 years. Now, what has been running through my mind: Why should we extend it for such a long period of time?

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bates.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, my inquiry has to do with the need for legislation, or whether or not administrative action can be taken to accomplish the same purpose. I know back some 16 years ago and particularly around the Washington area, and I believe at Quanticothere were certain houses there which were utilized by the military personnel that were considered to be inadequate and under those circumstances at that time they did not lose their rental allowance.

Now, was there a law in effect at that time, or what is the situation? Mr. KELLEHER. There is a law, Mr. Bates, of July 2, 1945, which authorizes occupancy of quarters which are not public quarters on a rental basis, and as a matter of fact, some 43,000 houses today are occupied under that law. I don't know the situation beyond 1945.

Mr. BATES. I am talking about 1940-41. Now, at that time, they were not losing their rental allowances when a certificate was made by the commanding authority, the military authority, that they were inadequate.

Mr. KELLEHER. I am not familiar with the law, prior to that time. Mr. BATES. I am not familiar with the circumstances under which they did it, whether they assumed the legal powers or whether they have authority or whether today they need authority.

Mr. KELLEHER. I think I can answer your question in this way, by saying that today administrative action could not take care of the

situation.

Mr. BATES. Why is that so?

If it was possible in 1940, what is that

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. DEVEREUX. I remember at Pearl Harbor there was some sort of housing that was assigned. However, they did not lose their allowance. They rented them. Now, what type of housing that was, I do not know, but I think it applied simply to a certain amount of Navy housing.

After that time, why the Navy started to call that housing public quarters and would take allowances away from them.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I did live in Government quonset huts. I didn't lose my rental allowance, at San Bruno, Calif., when the ship was in there. It cost me $30 a month.

Now, what was the authority for that type of arrangement?

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bennett.

Mr. BENNETT. Perhaps I can explain it by saying basically, there are two kinds of buildings furnished to the military to live in. One of them is public quarters for which the rental allowance is entirely forfeited. The otheris rental property

The CHAIRMAN. Let there be order, now.

Mr. BENNETT. Which is also owned by the Government for which the allowance for quarters is not forfeited.

Now, bear in mind, there are two basic types of living quarters. One is public quarters, on which you lost the allowance, rental allowance, and the other one is rental property which is owned by the Government, and the only difference basically between those two types of quarters as far as the general military personnel is the law under which they were constructed by the Government.

Now, in both public quarters and in rental quarters, there are fine quarters and there are substandard quarters, in both of those groups. This thing came to my attention in Green Cove Springs, Fla., where right next door to a quonset hut which was public quarters, for which there was an entire forfeiture of allowance for quarters, there was very good Government constructed quarters, available for personnel at a lesser rent than was paid by the man living exactly next door because the one being exactly next door was living in quarters which were built under a law which declared that particular housing to be public quarters.

So you have not only the question of improving quarters for personnel but you have also the question of eliminating a very frustrating situation among military personnel when they realize that for years, year in and year out, people live exactly next door to other military personnel, and have inferior quarters to people that are living next door to them, and yet, pay a very much higher rate, and the only reason is because the particular housing was built under a different act of Congress.

Now, that may not seem important to us sitting here, but it is very, very important to enlisted personnel, particularly, and some officer personnel who say in their own mind

The CHAIRMAN. Now

Mr. BENNETT. I will conclude with just one more sentence: "Why continue in that military service which can't eliminate that frustration, which can't cut that redtape." That is all I want to say.