« PreviousContinue »
is the highly skilled man in the other groups above that. If they leave, a higher percentage of these will leave for advanced education in your colleges and universities.
Mr. FLYNN. I feel it would be the responsibility of this committee and Members of Congress to decide in their own minds, in passing upon this, whether it is more important to save the military the work involved in training 50,000 new personnel per year in the various services, or whether it would be more important to permit these approximately 45,000 boys a year to come out and receive an advanced education, considering what they might be able to contribute to their country after they had received that education.
In other words, should they be denied that advanced education merely because the armed services do not desire to train replacements when it is admitted that the source for replacements is available?
Mr. Jackson. Mr. Congressman, none of these boys are required to stay on.
Mr. FLYNN. I understand that.
Mr. JACKSON. So we are not precluding them from the option to go. What we are saying is—and we are still below the minimum—if we are to keep to the minimum requirements for national security in these areas, we need these boys and more boys to stay on. And we feel that anything that would increase, as we have tried to indicate with our figures, the likelihood of their leaving, would be not in the interests of national security.
Mr. Flynn. That is right, Mr. Secretary. I understand that no force is used. But I understand also that if the benefits of this act are not available, they will be less apt to separate and thereby take advantage of the educational opportunity. Mr. JACKSON. That is just why we are here.
Colonel Rush. But there is the equality of opportunity for the man out there, and I think he is in a better position once he is in the service. We are not denying him the education that is available to the rest of the manpower pool of the country.
Mr. HALEY. May I just say this: Mr. Secretary, the primary objective of the Department of Defense is the security and the defense of this Nation. And if this bill, you were convinced or the Department were convinced, would contribute anything to more securely defending this country, you certainly would not be in here opposing this bill ?
Mr. JACKSON. That is correct, sir.
Mrs. ROGERS. I am not a member of the subcommittee, as you know, Mr. Chairman; just ex officio. But I would like to tell all of the servicemen here how grateful I am to them for taking care of us all these years. There is not a day that I do not thank God for that. I have introduced a bill, Mr. Secretary, and perhaps I can talk to you about it later on.
Mr. GEORGE. I have one brief question. I understand the Senate wrote an amendment in respect to second enlistments, which I thought would meet some of your objections. What do you think of that amendment !
Mr. JACKSON. Well, we think particularly since that amendment was made, we have now the figures of the incidence of those who say they were leaving for education, which we think is quite markedly different from the other. We do not now think that the amendment would be very effective in accomplishing what we are concerned with.
Mr. HALEY. The gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. Dorn. Mr. Secretary, I am just curious to know what percentage of these men, of the 2-year enlistment period, go overseas. Do you have any breakdown on that, on the average! As to the Air Force, I would say most of them do, but I was just wondering about the Navy and the Army. I consider that a very broadening part of this service. I mean, it costs the taxpayers a lot of money and is in itself an education. I would just like to know.
Colonel Rush. I assumed, when you spoke of the 2-year people, you were limiting it to draftees.
Mr. DORN. Yes.
Colonel Rush. The Air Force has no draftees. We only enlist people for 4 years. A good proportion, 25 percent, approximately, will go overseas.
Mr. Dorn. What percentage of the 4-year-enlistment people? Colonel Rush. We have no draftees, so the 35 percent is of the 4-year
I will have to address that problem to the Army.
Colonel STREHLOW. I do not have that information. It will be submitted for the record.
(The information referred to follows:)
In the Army, 50 percent of enlisted personnel and 25 percent of the officers are stationed outside the continental limits of the United States.
Mr. Dorn. Just offhand it is a considerable percentage, though, is it not?
Mr. Jackson. If you will bear with us just one moment, we will have that for you.
Admiral CLAREY. We have no draftees. I would say 60 to 65 percent of our people are in the operating force, which makes them susceptible to deployment on ships anywhere in the world.
Mr. Wool. For the Department of Defense as a whole, approximately 40 percent of all active duty personnel are either based overseas, or are on board ships in the Navy.
Mr. Dorn. Now, how much does it cost, on the average, just roughly, to keep a young man in the Armed Forces for 1 year? Now we know about West Point and Annapolis. But just in the enlisted status, I would like to have some idea.
Mr. Wool. We have estimated that the initial cost of training, just the initial cost of training and processing a young man, during his first half year of service, is over $3,200. This is not the total cost of supporting him for an entire year, but just this initial entry cost. We can supply the latter figure.
(The information referred to follows:)
The personnel costs of maintaining an enlisted man for a year is estimated at $4,400. This includes the cost of his initial training and processing as well as his pay, allowances, subsistence, and related items.
Mr. DORN. Just to get started.
I just wanted that in the record, Mr. Chairman, because I think it is important to note that we are spending a lot of money to more or less help educate these boys as well as make good soldiers of them. And I am sure that, as you put it, going abroad is a very broadening thing. And then I might ask this, too: The school's 28-week period by no means ends his training. I mean, he is being continually educated from that day until he gets out.
I might say this, Mr. Secretary. I think you have made a splendid statement, and we are certainly delighted to have you, as far as I am personally concerned, and all of your fine, distinguished officers from all of the branches of the service. I think it is nice that they come here to help us out.
Mr. HALEY. I want to concur, Mr. Secretary, in that. You have made a fine presentation. And while at the moment it seems that in the Congress it is very popular to jump on the various Departments of Defense, the gentleman from Florida is certainly not in that category: I think that you are doing a splendid job. I think that it is a very bad situation in our Nation when the men charged with the defense and they are usually dedicated men-are called to heel, so to speak, and maybe not given the proper opportunity to present their side of a question.
I think that the defense of this country rests in the hands of dedicated men who want to do as they see it the best things for the United States of America. And I certainly do not go along with this proposition that everything is wrong in the Defense Department. I think that under trying and very rapidly changing conditions in the world today, you are doing a splendid job.
I want to thank you and your colleagues for appearing here before this committee this morning.
Mr. Jackson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. HALEY. Without objection, the tables which were attached to your statement and the other material you submitted will be placed in the record at this point.
(The tables and referenced material follow :)
TABLE I.-Percentage distribution of assigned enlisted personnel by occupational group, Department of Defense, Dec. 31, 1958,
total assigned Group
enlisted personnel Total.-
TABLE II.—Percentage of enlisted personnel initially trained in service schools
and average length of training courses, by major occupational group, 1956
TABLE III.—Percentage distribution of enlisted jobs by major occupational group,
end World War II, Korean conflict, 1958
Estimates for World War II based on authorized strengths in first half 1945. Estimates for Korean con flict based on authorized strengths as of varying dates between 1951 and 1953. The occupational groupings for these periods are designed to assur maximum comparability with current occupational groups, but are necessarily inexact due to major provisions in service occupational classifications during the intervening years.
: Erelude recruits, trainees, transients, and other nonspecialist categories, who have accounted for about 10 to 15 percent of total authorized enlisted positions in recent years.
COMPARISON BETWEEN KOREAN GI BILL AND S. 1138, “AN ACT TO
PROVIDE READJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE TO VETERANS WHO SERVE IN THE ARMED FORCES BETWEEN JANUARY 31, 1955, AND JULY 1, 1963" (AS PASSED BY SENATE JULY 21, 1959)
PUBLIC LAW 550, 82D CONGRESS
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Education and training up to 36 Education and training entitlement months on the basis of 142 days' entitle- and rates of allowances same as afment for each day's creditable service. forded Korean conflict veterans.
Requires 90 days' service for eligibil- Requires 6 months' service for eligiity.
bility. Education and training allowances up Liberalizes deadlines for career servto $160 per month for veteran with two icemen. or more dependents pursuing full-time Benefits retroactive to September 1, schooling. Lesser rates for other types 1959. of training.
Provides grants for all training below college level. Grants for first year college, and any succeeding year if veteran places in upper half of class for prior school year; loans for any succeeding year if veteran placed in lower half of class the previous school year, but grant paid retroactively if in upper half of class for current school year.