Page images

Then will that run counter, or will that limitation keep these officers from being ultimately brought into the Regular service?

Mr. SLATINSHEK. It would

The CHAIRMAN. Now, should that limitation be removed?

Mr. SLATINSHEK. No, sir. The committee hadn't gone into that aspect of the problem. However, it is based on the assumption

The CHAIRMAN. Because you see it would be in the interest of economy for them to be in the Regular service.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Because then all he would get is retirement pay. Mr. RIVERS. Wait a minute, right there, Mr. Chairman. Is there any provision of law which requires any ratio of Reserve as against Regulars?

Mr. SLATINSHEK. No, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. How can you conjecture on it?

The CHAIRMAN. You see, Mr. Rivers, there are a certain number of Regular officers permitted by statute.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. That is correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, this bill has a provision that ultimately under certain conditions they can be accepted in the Regular service. Mr. RIVERS. No. Wait a minute. Don't get it wrong, Mr. Chairman. This bill does not keep anybody on active duty.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, it doesn't.

Mr. RIVERS. It just lets him know where he stands.

The CHAIRMAN. If a man served 14 years, he can make an application to be put in the Regulars.

Mr. RIVERS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. And they could accept him in the Regular service. Mr. RIVERS. They do it every day.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, it would be in the interest of economy if all of them were in the Regulars.

Mr. RIVERS. It probably would be.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. That is right, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Therefore if you have a limitation as to the number of Regular officers, it might act as a roadblock to the members getting in the Regulars.

So the thought was running through my mind-I don't want to get into any conflict with that law, when this law becomes effective. Mr. SLATINSHEK. There is no conflict, sir.


Mr. SLATINSHEK. Presumably most of these people would have augmented prior to that point in time, prior to that point in their service. However, at this particular point in their service, the 14-year stage, the service and the individual take an inventory, so to speak, and they say "Now, if you want to continue, if we have space for you we will give you a 6-year contract. In event we have a space for you in the Regular service and you desire to augment, we may augment you."

But ordinarily at this point there are relatively few spaces left. The CHAIRMAN. The only thing is that probably on the floor of the House there is going to be required an amount of explanation, as to what happens after the man has entered a contract.

Mr. RIVERS. We can take care of that.


The CHAIRMAN. And the only question there in my mind is that it is the equivalent of a reenlistment bonus paid at the end of his servica instead of the beginning of his service.

Am I sound on that?

Mr. SLATINSHEK. That is right.

There is one further consideration, Mr. Chairman. This man has been denied, in effect, retirement by being released prior to 20 years of service, and consequently the services are paying him off at something less than what the present value of an annuity would be if he were permitted to continue on to Regular retirement.

Mr. DURHAM. Is there any danger of a hump being created by this type of legislation?

Mr. SLATINSHEK. No, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. They can turn him loose at any period.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no hump involved in this. It is just simply this. He says "Here I am, I have a ROTC commission, I am called to active duty and I served 2 years.

"Then I get ready to go back to Georgia."

They say, "We want to keep you in."

I say,
"All right; let's sit down and make a contract."
They say, "I will give you a contract for 6 years."

I say, "All right," because I got a contract and I know how much I will get.

At the end of 6 years they will say, "We want to make another contract."

Suppose at the end of the first 6 years I say, "I am through, I am not going to make any contract." Then I will say, "Under the provisions of this bill I am entitled to 2 months' pay for each year I served."


They say "That is correct

Mr. RIVERS. Wait, now. Let me say this. That is one of the considerations for the contract.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all right.

Then I am arguing that that is the equivalent to a reenlistment bonus.

Mr. RIVERS. That is right.

(Mr. Slatinshek nods.)

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the reenlistment bonus for privates runs around $1,000, doesn't it?

Mr. SLATINSHEK. It all depends on what stage of the game the enlistment is.

The CHAIRMAN. Anyway, that principle is involved.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we are warranted in carrying the bill to the floor. It is an administration bill and it met the standards of the budget and all those things. The Reserve associations are for the bill.

I think it was wise to make it extend to warrant officers. We will thrash this bill out.

Mr. ARENDS. May I ask a question of the subchairman?

Mr. RIVERS. Yes.

Mr. ARENDS. I would like to ask Mr. Rivers: Under a repeat of, say, Korea, what would happen in the way of a contract with these fellows

[ocr errors]

when they called them back? Would they just use their judgment as to the length of the contract, or what?

Mr. RIVERS. I think in an emergency they would all be in the same boat.

Mr. ARENDS. I mean it wouldn't automatically enter into the 6-year contract?

Mr. SMART. The contract provision of the bill would be suspended during a war or an emergency.

Mr. RIVERS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Most of these contracts are going to be for a certain period of time, of 6 years, because that gives them a planning time for the officer personnel.

Mr. RIVERS. Since I won't have another opportunity to set the rec ord straight: During the discussion of this bill we got into the discussion of the history of the Reserves and how certain branches of the service had more active Reserves than the other.

I wouldn't mention those. But in some discussion the record shows that somebody said that I favored another branch of the service over the Air Force. That is not true. I think the Air Force has as good a Reserve as any other branch, and right now I want to get the record straight on that.

(Chorus of "Mr. Chairman.")

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gubser.

Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, say at the end of this first 6-year contract he decides not to continue, is he given credit then for 8 years or 6? The CHAIRMAN. He is given credit

Mr. SMART. For 6, on the bonus.

The CHAIRMAN. For 6 years.

Mr. GUBSER. Twelve months' pay.

The CHAIRMAN. The 6-he doesn't get the 2 years.

Mr. GUBSER. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Members of the committee, there is a quorum present. If there are no further questions

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kilday.

(Chorus of "Vote.")

Mr. KILDAY. I think you will find a system very similar to this was in effect in the Air Force at the beginning of World War II, except that it was $500 a year for each year that a Reserve pilot had served on extended active duty.

I think you will find a precedent in the Air Force Reserve Act, that was in existence at the beginning of World War II, that was repealed


The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kowalski.

Mr. KOWALSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to focus our attention on the Reserve officers who are now on active duty but are older officers-50 or 55-who may have 17 or 18 years of service. I think it was tragic about a year and a half ago when they were r.i.f.'d and senior colonels had to go down to be sergeants.

I have nothing against sergeants, and I was a soldier myself. I was a corporal. But I think it is a tragic thing when a family is completely disrupted, as really hundreds of them were in the last situation.


Are we going to have the same thing under this bill?

Mr. KOWALSKI. Will men be broken down?


Mr. KOWALSKI. So they have to put in their 20 years?

The CHAIRMAN. No. This corrects that very thing. I know case after case

Mr. KOWALSKI. Yes, sir

The CHAIRMAN. Men who were majors and lieutenant colonels that went back to sergeants.

Mr. KOWALSKI. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now he will make a contract and he will make the contract at the beginning of his military career. Then if the Government keeps him on, if it wants to keep him on

Mr. KOWALSKI. Mr. Chairman, I am worried about the man who is now 55 and has 18 years' service. Will he go out tomorrow and become a sergeant for the 2 more years?


Mr. RIVERS. You are talking about the man now?


Mr. RIVERS. On active duty now?

Mr. KOWALSKI. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. If they give him an indefinite status 1 day after 14 years' service, between 14 and 18-because under the law when he gets to 18 he is home free anyway. Did you know that? When he hits 18

Mr. KOWALSKI. I know. I thought it was 172.

Mr. RIVERS. If they fail to give him a contract 1 day after that, we give a constructive contract and they have to pay him just as though he had a contract.

Mr. KOWALSKI. The paying is one thing, but it doesn't take care of the thing of dropping a colonel down to a sergeant. This disrupts all the noncommissioned officers. They are mad at the situation.

Mr. RIVERS. He doesn't have to do that.

Mr. KOWALSKI. Is this going to happen again?

Mr. RIVERS. He can get paid for this, until he gets to 20, under a computed contract.

Mr. KOWALSKI. I understand that. But I am worried about the morale of the Army, where men are being reduced from colonels to sergeant ranks.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, if you don't hit a man's pocketbook, you don't disturb his morale.

Mr. KOWALSKI. Sir, I know that is not so. I know men have been terribly disturbed by it and the Army is disturbed by it.

The CHAIRMAN. There is a quorum and without objection we act favorably upon the bill.

Mr. Rivers will take such parliamentary steps necessary to present the bill to the House.

In that connection, Mr. Durham and Mr. Rivers will appear before the Rules Committee tomorrow to obtain rules on bills pending there for consideration now.

Now, I want Mr. Rivers and his staff to get this report written up just as early as possible. I hope to be able to get this bill considered



by the House and clean up all of our work, including this public-works bill, before the Easter recess.

Now, members of the committee, an invitation has been extended by the Department of Defense to our seven new members-isn't it seven in our committee? How many new members?

Mr. SMART. Seven.

The CHAIRMAN. Seven new members.

The Department of Defense would like for you to make a trip to Europe during the Easter recess.

After consultation with the Department of Defense, the proper ones about this matter, I think it is highly in the interest of the committee work that you seven new members try to arrange your affairs so you can go to Europe during the Easter recess.

I am writing a letter to each one of you pointing out how important it is for you to become conversant with the general situation in Europe. I hope you will come back and then file, as usual, a report.

(Whereupon, the committee proceeded to further consideration of H.R. 4414, the military-construction bill).


« PreviousContinue »