in view of the demonstrated reluctance of the services to provide full information in this regard.

When I made reference several months ago to what appears to be misuse of manpower, high-ranking officials, both military and civilian, pooh-poohed my claims. Subsequently, as I have pointed out earlier, the Department of Defense, at the insistence of the House Subcommittee on Military Appropriations, quietly submitted figures which refuted its earlier claims. The newspapers reported that the Defense Department had finally admitted that some 20,000 men are being used in such jobs as orderlies, laundry boys, mess attendants, and the like. As one with some experience in military matters, I frankly suspect that this total, admittedly incomplete, does not come anywhere near the true figure. I suggest that one of the tasks of this subcommittee should be to look behind the tables of organization to get the full story-the story which includes all men assigned to servant-type duties, whether they are officially assigned to such duties or not.

No doubt there are other areas and lines of inquiry which can be explored, such as the layers upon layers of very sizable headquarters which seem to flourish and grow in spite of troop cutbacks or other adversities. We could examine dual staffing, which was mentioned here, and the stratification of echelons within the various headquarters. We could find cases upon cases of misassignments and improper utilization of individuals.

All these explorations could prove most profitable. But, in my opinion, the most valuable immediate fields this subcommittee might study are

(1) the practice of using enlisted men in assignments which provide personal services of various kinds to officers and their families;

(2) possible substitution of civilian employees for enlisted men in clearly defined areas which Congress should establish; and

(3) possible transfer from the military services those functions which obviously contribute nothing to national defense. Today, at a time when we must continue the draft to meet our essential manpower requirements, we owe it to the American people to insure, so far as it lies within our power, that every man inducted or enlisted is effectively utilized on essential military functions and that any who are not either relieved and separated, or reassigned to duties where their military training can be used.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to make this state

ment.

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Kowalski. It is certainly a challenging statement and well presented. It shall be the duty of the committee to get true figures and also the full story.

You raised many points here that have been in the mind of most of us on the committee, as background material, and the answers which we must obtain in order to do the type of job that the full committee expects of us and which the Congress expects of us.

As I stated before, this committee is going to proceed carefully and cautiously and attempt to find answers that would be helpful in reducing-in getting better utilization of military manpower and the civilian manpower within the military services.

Are there any questions?

Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PRICE. Do you have any questions, Mr. Gavin?

Mr. GAVIN. No.

I might ask my very good friend and able colleague, from his many years of experience in the service--you said 33?

Mr. KOWALSKI. Yes, sir.

Mr. GAVIN. Then I presume you observed these conditions at various times and various places?

I refer you there to page 4:

In the examination of the first line of inquiry, it is significant that the Congress has traditionally opposed the use of an enlisted man as a servant in any case whatever. In the revision and codification of titles 10 and 32 of the United States Code enacted by Public Law 1028, 84th Congress, approved August 10, 1956, this longstanding prohibition was continued for the Army in section 3639 and for the Air Force in section 9639.

It is quite evident how you feel about this situation from this statement that you made here today, and while in the service and observing these conditions, at any time, I want to ask my colleague, Did you protest to your immediate superior that such conditions existed and they should be corrected?

Mr. KOWALSKI. Yes, sir; I have.

Mr. GAVIN. And what

Mr. KOWALSKI. And more particularly, I had the opportunity, as commandant of the Command and Management School, to study cases and to present it to the class, to discuss these cases-this is a discussion course where senior officers get together. For example, we had some 84 generals at that course. This was brought to their attention several times; yes, sir.

Mr. GAVIN. Have you ever-what were the results, after calling it to their attention and they realized that these conditions existed, and should be corrected?

Did they take any action to correct it?

Mr. KOWALSKI. We are talking specifically about the use of enlisted for senior officers?

Mr. GAVIN. Yes.

Mr. KOWALSKI. There is varied opinion on this. There are many who believe they should have servants. There are others who do not. Some think there should be a few, but not the numbers that we have

now.

So there is no positive position on this in the Army, except to say that they are not servants.

Mr. GAVIN. They are not what?

Mr. KOWALSKI. Except to say they are not servants.

Mr. GAVIN. Well, I just was trying to ascertain whether or not they respected your recommendations and suggestions?

Mr. KOWALSKI. I think there are some who did. I don't think all of them did. As I say, there is a variation of feeling about this thing. Mr. GAVIN. As to whether or not they should be used?

Mr. KOWALSKI. That is right; yes, sir.

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Wampler.

Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to say this about my colleague, Mr. Kowalski, that I respect him in every respect, militarily as well as in a civilian capacity. He has expressed many times

to me his view on this particular phase before making this statement today.

There are a few things that I think are most interesting, and that is that we spend a lot of money in processing our youngsters on AQT tests and also on aptitude tests, and then we go through and we give them a DOT classification and NJC Code-in trying to fit them in the proper category. That in itself would be wasted.

Now, there is one thing that I would like to ask and to see if you wish to put this into your program also, and that is, we are in the Reserve category now, where we are sending these fellows on training duty that are affiliated with Reserve units, and those individuals. as far as my past experiences are concerned, are being placed—I will speak to the Navy-aboard ships and they are given the jobs that are not challenging to the NJC's and the DOT's that they have.

And I would like, if it is possible at all, with this complete analysis that you have made, to be sure and include the reserves that we have coming into these programs and utilizing their aptitudes as well as saving money to the taxpayers.

Mr. KOWALSKI. You are suggesting that the committee do thisnot I?

Mr. WAMPLER. Yes.

Mr. KOWALSKI. Because I am certainly limited in staff.

Mr. WAMPLER. That is right.

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Kowalski, I would like to ask you this question. In the categories to which you refer, those that are being used as servants and so forth, and not in the regular, normal military operations like KP, officers' mess in the field, and so forth, but in oflicers mess not in the field, like in the Pentagon and so forth-are they excused entirely from all military training?

Mr. KOWALSKI. Most of them are; yes. I would say that perhaps a few perform only a part of the duties, daily duties, that way. But most of them are excused from all duties except the duty to perform for the general officer or the officers' club or the sales commissary. Mr. PRICE. Would you say it is possible for them to go a full enlistment without military training, after initial basic training?

Mr. KOWALSKI. Oh, yes, sir. For example, I am amazed-one service has a master sergeant as a yardman, enlisted as a yardman for a general officer. That is a master sergeant.

If you are interested now, Mr. Chairman, I think I could give you a table of a very limited spot check I have made in the Washington area.

Won't you take this?

Mr. PRICE. You might give us some examples from the table. The full table will be considered as part of the record.

(The table referred to is as follows:)

Pentagon

Army

Navy

Air Force

Marines

Mr. KOWALSKI. Please understand that this was a spot check of only a few installations, although I tried to get a cross section.

I have examined five categories-if you will look at the left columnfirst, is stewards, orderlies, cooks, houseboys, yardmen, for general and flag officers.

I specifically asked this kind of a question, the words I am using there "How many you have assigned or on duty not assigned, but actually performing the duty?"

Mr. COHELAN. Will the gentleman yield?

What do you mean by yardman? How do you describe the general duties?

Mr. KOWALSKI. There are various definitions of the word and this is, I suppose, to communicate. A yardman to me meant someone who worked around the yard cutting the grass and shrubbery. But many of them have been used to plant gardens for senior officers and this kind of thing.

Mr. COHELAN. Why don't you call them a gardener? [Laughter.] Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KOWALSKI. May I just

Mr. GAVIN. I just wondered-
Mr. KOWALSKI. Yes.

Mr. GAVIN (continuing). How-these conditions exist, it is quite evident from what you stated in your statement.

How would you go about checking each installation to actually ascertain just how many of these various categories exist, so we would get a really accurate figure of the number of men that are used in these various activities?

What is your suggestion? How would you approach it?

Mr. KOWALSKI. I have this feeling, that the power of this committee the fact that we are meeting today has a tremendous impact on the military services. And we can probably expect more accurate reporting now than we have in the past, on this particular problem. I believe we have to go to the military services and ask certain questions.

I believe the first thing the committee may want to do is determine in what areas to ask the questions.

I selected five. There may be others.

For example, I selected the area of servants to general officers: men working in officers' clubs; sales commissaries; motor pools; and post utilities.

My own impression is this, that the first three, down to sales commissaries, are improper functions and should be eliminated. The other two, I believe, we should examine very carefully and see if we can substitute civilians.

If you would just kindly look at the two comparing columns here, of Army and Air Force. Post utilities-and this is something we all know. That is the maintaining of our posts, that is the maintenance of our posts and bases.

Fort Belvoir, which is a large installation, uses 13 enlisted men. But the Air Force in Andrews Air Force Base uses 151 enlisted men. Either one is using too many or the other one is not using enough. This is the kind of a thing we can examine. I wonder why someone hasn't done it before, really.