suddenly called and alerted without much notice, and even just after he gets located. It is very disconcerting to young people, and I think those who are making these transfers ought to give some consideration to the many problems involved, as far as the man himself is concerned and his family.

This is pointed out by the chairman, that they should be given a 3-year period of duty, so that they do have some knowledge they are going to be definitely located in one particular place for a certain length of time, and not suddenly be pulled up after they are there for 6 months or a year, and whipped into some other direction just at the whim of some officer who may feel he is the man for that particular assignment.

Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Rivers.

Mr. RIVERS. I agree with the chairman, Mr. Secretary. There are a lot of things that the services can do without putting it in the paper that the Congress has failed to do.

Somebody brought out about an article in Reader's Digest some time ago about what Congress failed to do, and they did not once mention what the services could do by an Executive order, a reappraisal of conditions. I think one of the fine things you have done is that unit rotation about which you spoke.

The chairman and I, or the former chairman and I, were in Italy last September, and we viewed that fine 6th Infantry Regiment. There is no finer regiment in any branch of the service anywhere. They asked us at length about unit rotation and what a fine thing it would be for morale, knowing they could travel with their buddies and go with them for a period of time.

We found in the Air Force a boy who had just gotten over there and he had a close relationship with a Member of Congress who was a high-ranking Member of Congress. Of course, he did nothing about it, but this boy just got to this particular location and out of a clear sky they moved him. He was a ground officer. He was not a hot jet pilot. But they moved him bag and baggage as soon as he got acclimated to the new setup, and he had to go and make new friends.

In addition to expense in traveling it does something to a boy in getting himself accustomed to new surroundings.

I think this one of the factors right here that will help you and help us a lot more than hospitalization and a lot more than housing. We want those things by law and not by Executive Order or by somebody's influence on an Appropriations Committee. Then when we get the whole thing in one package you will have a good selling point along with having the retirement at a certain designated period and taking care of the families at the end of 20 or 25 years.

I think you should be just as active and just as vitally interested in the hospitalization and the housing as this, because a man will fight a darned sight better if he knows that his family is going to be taken care of. Take a change of station. God knows, we hope we can avoid a war, but he will go to this new station with a much finer attitude if he knows his little child will have her tonsils out if she needs to have them taken out, and his wife will be taken care of when she is sick, and all of the manifold things that are worrying a man.

55066-55-No. 6 -4

With your fine record, General, as a young man, which I know about, I am sure you will agree with me.

Secretary MILTON. Indeed I do.

Mr. RIVERS. You have to have an overall package to sell to him and then get together and work on this problem. It is a problem and we have to help him.

Mr. KILDAY. Is there anything further of the Secretary?

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Bates.

Mr. BATES. This dislocation allowance is something entirely new. Secretary MILTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. I think the need for it or something like it is selfevident. I think most men on a tour of duty might save a couple of dollars his last year of the tour of duty and use all of that, plus a little bit more, when he moves into his new place, but it is a little bit of a change from what we have been doing in the past.

What is the travel allowance per mile? Is that still 8 cents, or what is it now?

Secretary MILTON. It is 6 cents.

Mr. BLANDFORD. May I interrupt to say that that is subject, however, to certain limitations with respect to the age of children, and a maximum amount that can be paid. There are many factors that must be considered in it which tend to cut down the overall mileage. I believe children under 3 get no mileage at all, if I am not mistaken, and yet if you are traveling they have to eat and sleep just like everyone else.

Mr. BATES. But the officer still gets 8 cents a mile?
Secretary MILTON. No; 6 cents.

Mr. BATES. Has it always been 6, or was it 8?

Secretary MILTON. No; it was five at one time. It is more recently six. I do not know when it was changed.

Colonel BRINKMAN. This particular dislocation allowance is intended for those expenses immediately prior to departure and immediately upon arrival at a new station. It does not cover the items

Mr. BATES. I understand. But it is a certain amount of money given at a specific time for a certain purpose. The thing that ran through my mind was, instead of getting a new program, why would it not be better to increase the emoluments under the present system? Mr. BLANDFORD. I think I can answer that question.

Mr. BATES. If I can ask this, what is the difference? Is the dislocation allowance paid prior to or after travel?

Secretary MILTON. It is paid after.

Mr. BATES. It is paid after?

Secretary MILTON. Yes.

Mr. BATES. So it is the same thing as you have for your mileage today? It is paid after the travel has been completed.

Secretary MILTON. After it is performed. Yes.

Mr. BATES. So you get down to the cold fact after travel has been performed a certain amount of money is paid.

Secretary MILTON. Yes.

Mr. BATES. So you have the same situation as you have under your mileage today.

Secretary MILTON. Yes.

Mr. BATES. Did you give any thought to increasing mileage instead of starting out with a new program like this? In other words, instead of giving 6 cents, give them 8 or 10 cents? In other words, this is a new program.

Mr. BLANDFORD. This is only applicable, Mr. Bates, to a permanent change of station. If you get into mileage you are going to get into temporary duty stations and things like that. If you make the mileage too high you will get into a situation where people make a profit on a move. This involves a move-not distance.

Mr. BATES. Families do not get paid for a temporary change of

station.

Mr. BLANDFORD. No; but individuals do.

Mr. BATES. We understand that, but this is permanent change of station and you have it for a permanent change of station the other

way.

Mr. BLANDFORD. The point is that the mileage is presumed to take care of expenses for moving insofar as the actual items of expenditure are concerned for the particular move-for food, and housing, en route. What this is supposed to cover are the extraordinary and incidental expenses which are incurred whenever a family makes a permanent change of station.

Mr. KILDAY. Of course, very frequently the distance of the change involved has no relationship to the expense.

Mr. BLANDFORD. That is the point.

Mr. KILDAY. Whether it is 2,000 miles or 200 miles. I think we can get that developed better when we get into the details on it.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I want to get a little more information, if I could, on this reenlistment bonus. As I understand it, the Navy has had a decrease from the figures given to us yesterday since the reenlistment bonus was put into effect. I think the bill originally was estimated to cost us $75 million and if we could get an increase of 5 percent in reenlistments we would have the break-even point. Your figures go to when, Mr. Secretary? You say reenlistments have increased.

Secretary MILTON. Yes, sir. May I call on Colonel Brinkman, who has the figures here. These were to be covered by General Bolte and General Young later.

Mr. KILDAY. If General Bolte has them, why do we not wait until we have him testify?

Mr. BATES. I will withdraw that then.

On page 6, the $9 which is to be changed to $12-is that the per diem allowance?

Secretary MILTON. It is $9 currently. Yes. Per diem allowance. Mr. BATES. Is the civilian rate today $12? What is the civilian rate today?

Mr. BLANDFORD. $9.

Mr. BATES. It has usually been the other way around, unfortunately. When the military had $7 the civilians had $9.

Secretary MILTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. Now the military are going to get $12 and the civilians will continue to get $9.

Mr. BLANDFORD. This is in anticipation of the pay increase bill now being considered by the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee, which includes per diem. As I recall the bill the President

vetoed, as a matter of fact, it did contain a per diem of $12 for civilian employees.

Mr. BATES. This is an attempt to equalize the disparity which has long existed and did exist through the years when civilians got $9 and the military got $7. This will bring it up to $12 for both if both pieces of legislation pass.

Secretary MILTON. That is right.

Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Gavin.

Mr. GAVIN. I merely want to observe that on my recent trip to Europe I was gratified at the splendid progress that has been made by the Army and the Air Force in their housing facilities. They have moved with alacrity and have made great progress and brought great satisfaction to the men who are in the service and serving there.

Why can we not move with the same alacrity here in this country and provide housing on these various bases where we have a lot of derelict tumbledown shacks they are occupying, and give them some decent housing facilities in this country that would satisfy them, just as it has been satisfying them in Germany and other countries? Mr. RIVERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GAVIN. I will be glad to.

Mr. RIVERS. Because they built those in Germany out of deutschemarks. The German Government built them.

Mr. GAVIN. Originally they did not have any deutschemarks until we started to put the money into these countries which gave them the deutschemarks and made it possible. So at any rate, we are paying the bill and eventually when we leave it will return to the German economy. So that's that.

What I am interested in is to see consideration given on our Army posts and airbases in this country in order to give them the proper housing facilities. When we develop an airbase we develop the airbase, but there is no thought in the planning as to the housing that is going to be necessary when that airbase is completed.

Mr. MILLER. Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GAVIN. So I merely want to observe I think it is time we gave this housing some consideration, which involves the morale of the serviceman, in order to keep him contended and satisfied.

Mr. MILLER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GAVIN. Yes, I will be glad to.

Mr. MILLER. Is that not our responsibility? If we give them the money they will build the houses.

Mr. GAVIN. That may be.

Mr. MILLER. Why have we not given them the money?

Mr. GAVIN. There are many housing plans that can be developed without any appropriations.

Mr. KILDAY. Are there any other questions of the Secretary?

(No response.)

Mr. KILDAY. If there are no other questions, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Secretary MILTON. Thank you.

Mr. KILDAY. We also have with us General Bolte, Vice Chief of Staff for the Army, who is appearing in lieu of General Ridgway.

General Bolte, if you will give us your statement we will permit you to continue with it without interruption.

STATEMENT OF GEN. C. L. BOLTE, VICE CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED STATES ARMY, APPEARING IN LIEU OF GEN. MATTHEW B. RIDGWAY, CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED STATES ARMY

General BOLTE. Thank you.

If I could, I have a brief prepared statement and then with your permission I would like to make some off-the-record comment. Mr. KILDAY. Go right ahead in your own way.

General BOLTE. Yes.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GENERAL MATTHEW B. RIDGWAY AS READ BY GENERAL BOLTE

CAREER INCENTIVE ACT

Mr. Chairman, members of the House Armed Services Committee: I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of H. R. 2607, a bill to amend certain provisions of the Career Compensation Act. It is fitting to emphasize at the outset that the recommended legislation before you today is entitled "Career Incentive Act." Military service as a career no longer seems to hold sufficient and adequate attraction for our Nation's eligible young men.

The personnel problem now confronting the Army, and all the military services, is twofold. One is to retain our experienced and highly qualified career personnel. The second is to attract and keep able young men and women imbued with a desire to make the service a lifetime career, in order to meet the losses of natural attrition and to provide the continuity of high standards essential in an organization whose mission is so vital to our national existence.

We are in competition with civilian industry to attract high quality young men and women.

Every disinterested commission and committee that has investigated the serviceman's pay or benefits has recommended greater assistance than he has eventually received. The choice of a service life has never been, and I trust never will be, determined by monetary rewards alone. At the same time, a decisive factor in any man's choice of career must be the ability to provide reasonably well for his family.

The American Army needs men of quality and integrity dedicated to the ideals of patriotism. Any man who chooses a profession involving the hazards and hardships that he knows he will frequently face in his lifetime of military service must be dedicated. But to demand that he likewise accept avoidable hardships and substandard living conditions for himself and his family is to make unnatural and unreasonable demands.

Many of our present members, both enlisted and commissioned, are finding it desirable to leave the Armed Forces and further their individual careers in civilian pursuits. This loss of career personnel is not a new problem in the Armed Forces. It has presented itself many times in the past, and may well again arise in the future-whenever the disparity between the tangible benefits of civilian and military careers becomes so great that men of ability cannot, in justice to themselves and their families, afford to don the uniform for their lifetime.