authority in the proposed Career Incentive Act of 1955, H. R. 2607. Specifically. the association recommends that section 2, paragraph (12) of H. R. 2607 be amended by adding the provisions of H. R. 3827 as follows: "Provided, That notwithstanding the provision of this or any other law, a member of the uniformed services residing in a house trailer or mobile dwelling who is entitled to transportation of baggage and household effects under this subsection (c) shall, if such baggage and household effects of the members are transported in such house trailer or mobile dwelling, be entitled, without regard to such weight allowances as may be otherwise prescribed by the Secretaries, to (a) transportation in kind of such house trailer or mobile dwelling and the baggage and household effects therein; (b) reimbursement therefor, if the house trailer or mobile dwelling and the baggage and household effects therein are transported at the member's expense; (c) if such house trailer or mobile dwelling is towed by the member's own vehicle, a monetary allowance at a rate not in excess of 20 cents per mile (based on distances established or to be established pursuant to existing law) in lieu of transportation in kind or reimbursement therefor, or any monetary allowance in lieu of transportation kind, to which he might be entitled for the movement or transportation of such baggage and household effects under this subsection. Nothing in this proviso shall affect the rights of such members to transportation in kind for dependents or to reimbursement therefor, or to a monetary allowance in lieu of such transportation in kind at a rate to be prescribed not in excess of the rate authorized in subsection (a) of this section." The proposed amendment would provide a number of advantages, as follows, and no disadvantages that we can foresee: 1. At present, the serviceman who moves his household effects in his mobile home is not granted his moving allowance as is the serviceman in fixed-tosite housing. The proposed amendment would correct this unnecessary inequity which is damaging to morale of service families. 2. The transportation of household effects in trailer coach mobile homes would result in a saving to the Government since such transportation would not be authorized unless it was equal or less in cost than other available means of transportation. 3. The conveniences to military families are many. Household effects would not have to be packed for transit. There would be no waiting for furniture, and so forth, to arrive at new duty station. The cost to the family would be less. 4. The present inequity discourages some military families from buying or moving mobile homes into critical housing shortage areas. The increased demand in these areas results in higher rents and additional appropriations to build Government housing that would otherwise be met by privately owned mobile homes. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we would like to point out that a large number of military personnel are adversely affected by the present legislation. More than 100,000 military families are now owners of trailer coach mobile homes. Each year more than 15,000 new mobile homes are bought by servicemen, who account for more than 20 percent of the entire production of the industry. The reason so many military families own and continue to buy mobile homes is because mobile homes better serves their needs. It is low-cost housing. A serviceman with a mobile home is not dependent on renting standard housing at exorbitant prices but can be sure of taking his family with him in their own homes, moving quickly and easily to anywhere in the country where he might next be stationed. He should be entitled to move his household effects in his mobile home when it can be done more conveniently to him and more economically to the Government. On behalf of the many thousands of military families owning trailer coach mobile homes, and the industry that serves them, the Trailer Coach Association strongly urges that the committee consider and pass the proposed amendment. Thank you for permitting us to be heard. The association will be pleased to compile and furnish any detailed information that the committee may need in its consideration of this important matter. STATEMENT OF W. BYRON SORRELL Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is W. Byron Sorrell, a member of the Washington, D. C., law firm of White, Sorrell & Williamson. We are counsel for the Mobile-home Dealers National Association which has its headquarters at 39 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Ill. The association consists of more than 500 dealers of mobile homes located in 43 States. Our association is very much concerned with the inequity in the existing law which prevents a serviceman from receiving an allowance for moving his mobilehome on change of station. This inequity is emphasized by the fact that the serviceman's household effects, if not part of his mobile home would be crated, shipped, stored, and so forth, at Government expense. Adoption of H. R. 3827 would correct this inequity by providing three alternative choices for the Government where baggage and household effects of servicemen are transported in a mobile home. These alternatives are: 1. The Government would transport the mobile home or 2. The Government would reimburse the serviceman if the latter engaged someone else to transport the mobile home, or 3. The Government would allow up to 20 cents per mile where the serviceman tows the mobile home to a new station. As the matter stands now, under joint travel regulations of the Department of Defense, household goods are shipped at Government expense on permanent change of station. Shipment includes transportation, packing, crating, drayage (at point of shipment and at destination) temporary storage, unerating and unpacking. The weight allowance is determined by grade with generals and admirals being allowed 24,000 pounds down to 4,500 pounds for the first 4 grades of enlisted men except that only 3,000 pounds is allowed the fourth grade (with less than 7 years of service). The authority for these regulations is 37 United States Code Annotated 253 (c) which provides in part as follows: "* ** members of the uniformed services when ordered to make a change of permanent station shall be entitled * * * to transportation (including packing, crating, drayage, temporary storage, and unpacking), of baggage and household effects, or reimbursement therefor, to and from such locations and within such weight allowances as may be prescribed by the Secretaries, without regard to the comparative costs of the various modes of transportation." Section 8000 (2) (4) of the aforementioned joint travel regulations specifically excludes "trailers, with or without other property" from the definition of "household goods." It is emphasized that this exclusion was done administratively. In the past several years, the house trailer or trailercoach has become recognized more as mobile housing and less as an accessory to a motor vehicle. The Congress recently exempted the house trailer from the automobile excise tax and the Defense Housing Act in two separate provisions recognized the role of the trailer in the defense housing effort. The Senate Preparedness Subcommittee in July 1951 recognized the role of the house trailer by strongly recommending to the armed services that they effect a greater utilization of land both on and off base for trailer parks. In the past 2 years more than 40 percent of trailercoach production (seventy to eighty thousands units annually) has been sold to servicemen who occupy them either in an on-base trailer park or one nearby. Upon permanent change of station, if the serviceman removed his household goods from the trailer, that is, bedroom and living-room furniture, dishes and kitchen utensils, rugs, lamps, bookcases, and other miscellaneous household items to be found in the modern coach, the Government in accordance with the aforesaid travel regulations would crate and ship same to the new station at Government expense within the weight allowance prescribed for the particular grade. However, in practice, it is not feasible to remove these household effects and the serviceman concerned tows the trailer himself to his next station. This towing increases the cost of his travel because of the increased wear on the automobile and the reduced mileage per gallon. He may also utilize the services of a transfer company which charges from 20 to 24 cents per mile for towing depending upon the size and weight of the unit. It appears inequitable that the serviceman be excluded from the statutory benefits of 37 United States Code Annotated 253 (c) because his household effects are transported in a trailer instead of by the Government crating and transporting them by contract van, freight, or other means. It is felt that the present exclusion of the trailer "with or without other property" is arbitrary and fails to grasp the full significance and use of the trailer as housing and the furniture in the trailer as "household goods" of the service man. The present approach of the armed services to this problem is that the trailer belongs to the category of automobile, boat, and so forth, and not housing which is its present true and actual function. It is not contended that the Government should cover the cost of shipping the trailer itself to the new station. However, it is contended that there is a statutory obligation to ship the serviceman's household goods whether they are in a conventional, portable, or mobile (trailer) house. Under the present regulations, those servicemen who live in trailers and their number is constantly increasing, save the Government a considerable amount because they are not able to take advantage of the privilege of shipping any household effects. But it is believed that effecting such savings by inequities such as are outlined herein is neither the intention nor the desire of the Congress. Because of these administrative rulings, most of which are obsolete, since they give no consideration to the current widespread use of trailers as housing, servicemen who live in mobile homes actually are penalized for doing so, even though they purchased a trailer at their own expense in many instances only because the military services are unable to provide housing for them in accordance with their entitlement, The proposed bill would authorize a monetary allowance in lieu of reimbursement for actual transportation costs. The allowance would be determined by the armed services but would not exceed the cost of transporting the household effects of the weight allowance of the individual's rank or grade. I am informed that the two other associations representing segments of the mobile-home industry, Mobile Home Manufacturers Association and Trailer Coach Association, are endorsing favorable action upon H. R. 3827. We are pleased to join them in an industrywide recommendation of favorable action. Mr. KILDAY. This morning, we will hear from some of the enlisted men, noncommissioned officers of the various services, and I believe the first time in memory of the committee we will have some of the wives of noncommissioned officers of the services. We feel that we would like to hear from the people who are directly concerned as to the existing situation, and concerned with, and interested in, the proposal that we have before us. Now, in order to comply with the rules of the House, as to the taking of pictures, we will be in informal recess for just a few minutes. (Recess.) Mr. KILDAY. The subcommittee will be in session. I want to say for the benefit of those who are appearing as witnesses this morning, that you are now in a congressional hearing. This is a civilian hearing, it is in no wise military. The value of your testimony to us is that we want your personal views, and I want all of you to feel that you are at perfect liberty to give us your personal views on the matters which you will discuss here this morning. There are no limitations or regulations nor policies which would prevent you from giving your personal views. That is all that would be helpful to us. May I have your full name, please? Sergeant WOOLRIDGE. My name is First Sergeant Woolridge, William O., Infantry sergeant presently assigned to the Third Infantry Regiment here at Fort McNair, which consists of 4 officers, 160 enlisted men. I have 14 years of service and I entered the service from San Antonio, Tex. Mr. KILDAY. From where? [Laughter] You couldn't come from a better place. Mr. KILDAY. Are you married, Sergeant? Mr. KILDAY. Do you have any children? Sergeant WOOLRIDGE. I have four children, sir. Mr. KILDAY. Now Sergeant, you have a statement that you can make to us? Sergeant WOOLRIDGE. Well, sir, I am as an individual and as a representative of the Army, very much interested in this pay-raise proposal. The thing has received quite a lot of attention out my way, in my particular unit. It has been discussed and kicked around at great length since it has been running in the papers, and my feeling on the thing is that, coupled with the reenlistment bonus, that the big thing the bill is going to do for us in the Army is it is going to enable us to keep some of these young men that we are presently losing now, as soon as they can complete their 2 years of obligated service. I get the impression from talking to my people out at the company that some of these men are probably going to stay with me if this bill, on the pay raise, goes through. And that, coupled with the new reenlistment bonus is going to help us to retain, I think, some of the better type of individuals that we desire to have in the Army. Mr. KILDAY. What percentage of your company are inductees, Sergeant? Sergeant WOOLRIDGE. Approximately 70 percent, sir, at the present time. Mr. KILDAY. Then that 70 percent of your company are serving within their first 2 years of service? Sergeant WOOLRIDGE. That is correct, sir. Mr. KILDAY. They are serving under their obligated tour? Mr. KILDAY. Now, under the reenlistment bonus which was passed at the last session, Mr. Arends' bill, if they reenlist at the end of their 2-year obligated tour they will be entitled to reenlistment bonus. Sergeant WOOLRIDGE. Yes, sir. Mr. KILDAY. And under the provisions of this bill an increase in pay? Sergeant WOOLRIDGE. Yes, sir. Mr. KILDAY. Has the matter been discussed by them to your knowledge? Sergeant WOOLRIDGE. Sir, it has been discussed throughout my organization. As a matter of fact, there is hardly a day that goes by you don't hear the thing, someone in the company talking about it, as they are standing around in the dayroom or on details and so forth, you hear the thing mentioned just about daily, sir. Mr. KILDAY. Then you feel that the provisions of this bill coupled with the reenlistment bonus would constitute a real incentive for men to sign up after their obligated tour? Sergeant WOOLRIDGE. I do, sir. I think it is going to give us a considerable help along those lines. Mr. KILDAY. You stated you have 14 years of service. Of course, you are a career man. Sergeant WOOLRIDGE. Yes, sir. 55066-55-No. 6-27 Mr. KILDAY. It is your purpose to stay in for 30, I take it? Mr. KILDAY. And of course, you are acquainted with a good many other career men? Sergeant WOOLRIDGE. Yes, sir. Mr. KILDAY. What is your feeling as to your own situation under the proposal we have here? Sergeant WOOLRIDGE. Well, sir, it is going to mean a-in my particular case, it is going to mean an increase, in my base pay, of $28.66, which is going to be a lot of help to me and my family. It is going to enable us to have and do a few things that we don't have, or are unable to do at the present time. However, my prime interest in the thing as I say, I have the duties of a first sergeant of an infantry company, and as such, of course, I am responsible for the training, discipline of my people and my biggest interest in the thing is along the lines that I think it is going to induce some of these people to stay with me that I would like to keep, sir. Because we have some very good men who are serving obligated service, 2-year tours, and are leaving us just about the time we get them trained. It takes a good year to make a good infantryman out of a man. With the new weapons and so forth we have today: the training has gotten so that it has got to be just about a continuous thing. About the time we get a man set where that he could probably be more useful and we need him, why, we lose him because he is only serving a 2-year period. Mr. KILDAY. And those reenlistments would do something to the efficiency of your outfit. Sergeant WOOLRIDGE. I think they would help a great deal, sir. Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir, I would like to ask a few. Sergeant, have you attended any special schools? Sergeant WOOLRIDGE. No, sir; none other than some light infantry weapons school, of course, several years ago. Then of course, I have been to Administrative School, Infantry First Sergeant Administrative School. But no Army specialist schools, sir. Mr. BLANDFORD. In the 14 years that you have been in the service, can you remember how many times you have had a permanent change of station? Sergeant WOOLRIDGE. Sir, it is considerable. Of course, I could remember the ones since I have been married best of all. I have had five of those. [Laughter.] Mr. BLANDFORD. Would you say it has averaged 1 a year or 1 every year and a half? Sergeant WOOLRIDGE. Well, I think it is more or less about 2 years, probably; 30 months would just about cover it, I think, in my period of service I moved just about 30 months on the average. Mr. BLANDFORD. I have no further questions. Mr. KILDAY. Questions from the committee? (No response.) Mr. KILDAY. Thank you, Sergeant. We will now hear from an Army wife, Mrs. Lydia A. Bell. |