Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

provide that for the first 2 years of active duty these ROTC officers would not get what we call readjustment pay..

For the third year, however, without having a new contract, they would begin getting readjustment pay under the bill. It is as simple as that. It is merely an administrative device to save the corps from the necessity of making new contracts.

Mr. RIVERS. Will it liquidate itself after a period of time?
Mr. BARTIMO. Yes; it will.

Mr. MINOR. Yes, sir; it only applies to people on board on the effective date of this act.

Mr. RIVERS. I see. That is all right. Without objection, we will accept that. What is the next one?

Mr. SLATINSHEK. There is one other. Mr. Bartimo and Mr. Minor have recast the language of section 3. They had done this prior to the time hearings had commenced on this bill.

Section 3 is, as you gentlemen discovered, very confusing. That is the section, Mr. Wampler, that you had questioned. Their rewrite simply puts it in language that is understandable, let's put it that way.

Mr. Rivers. If you can do that, we will accept that. [Laughter.]

I think it has confused all of us. As many as are in favor to report on this bill to the full committee will say “aye.”

(Chorus of "ayes.") Mr. RIVERS. Opposed. (No response.)

Mr. RIVERS. A quorum being present, the bill is favorably reported to the full committee now.

Mr. MORRIS. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, you mean the bill as amended.

Mr. RIVERS. The bill as amended. Now, Mr. Slatinshek. Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir. Mr. Rivers. Following the policy of the Armed Services Committee-off the record.

(Further statement off the record.)

Mr. WINSTEAD. Mr. Chairman, I guess the record shows it, but I believe that the Defense Department and members of the committee and the staff members and the Reserve organizations have unanimously approved what we have done almost totally in this bill. Am I right in that? Mr. BARTIMO. Yes. Colonel BOYER. Yes. Mr. WINSTEAD. You all have been certainly of great help.

Mr. RIVERS. I want to thank everybody for the fine cooperation. And also the patience of the committee and the faithful attendance and participation of the committee. You have certainly made my job very simple. I want to thank all of you.

Mr. WINSTEAD. May I say this in connection with the chairman of this subcommittee: I believe he has been more to my satisfaction than any subcommittee I ever served on, on a problem that has as many involvements. He certainly tried to explore every possibility.

for the Defense Department none of us meant to be antagonistic in hammering so heavily for so many figures and other figures. But I do think we have had wonderful cooperation from you, and the chairman has done an excellent job in giving each one of us a chance to ask any questions as we want to ask.

I will

say

Mr. MORRIS. For brevity sake, I just want to say “amen,” Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rivers. Tomorrow morning we will meet-where are we going to meet?

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Right here, sir, on H.R. 4144. That is the military construction bill, for Reserye facilities.

(Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned until 10 a.m. Friday, February 27, 1959.)

O

[No. 15)

FULL COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5132, TO AMEND TITLE

10, UNITED STATES CODE, WITH RESPECT TO ACTIVE DUTY AGREEMENTS FOR RESERVE OFFICERS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

Washington, D.C., Monday, March 9, 1959. The committee met at 10:40 a.m., Hon. Carl Vinson (chairman of the committee) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rivers, I will recognize you to call up H.R. 5132.

Mr. RIVERS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We must have a quorum, because we have to have a vote on this. Go ahead, Mr. Rivers.

Mr. Rivers. Mr. Chairman, Subcommittee No. 3 has held extensive hearings on H.R. 3369 and have written a clean bill, now known as 5132.

It is a Department of Defense proposal which has two main objectives:

1. To raise the critically low rate of retention of Reserve officers beyond their obligated tours of active duty; and

2. To provide for more equitable treatment of those Reserve officers who supplement the Regular Corps but who may not be continued on active service long enough to be entitled to retirement.

I don't know any proposal which caused the Members of the Congress any more questions than this.

The Department has pointed out that the officer strength within the Department of Defense is composed of approximately 40 percent Regular and 60 percent Reserve. Therefore, to insure an even flow of experienced officer personnel, throughout the lower grades of the officer structure; that is, from the 3-year to 14-year point in service, some method must be developed whereby junior officers of proven competence might be induced to remain on active duty for periods short of a full career but during the time that their services are critically required by the Armed Forces.

During hearings on this aspect of the problem witnesses for the Department of Defense emphasized the magnitude of the problem by citing the fact that junior officers turnover-input plus losses-approximates 90,000 annually. This figure, when contrasted to the total number of officers on active duty, which is presently less than 325,000, indicates the tremendous and constant effort necessary to insure the availability of trained and experienced officer personnel in the lower grades.

(781)

34066459_No. 15

1

It is astronomical what this costs the Department of Defense in the turnover of these 90,000 officers annually.

Approximately 40,000 young officers complete their obligated service each year. The Department of Defense has estimated it requires a minimum of 15,000 of these officers to remain on active duty beyond their obligated service to meet the needs of the Armed Forces. However, during the last year only 10,000 of this group of 40,000 indicated a desire to remain on active duty. The services accepted almost all of this group of 10,000, thus precluding any possibility of selectivity. It is, therefore, evident that a continuation of this downward spiral in the numbers, experience, and quality level of junior Reserve officers can only result in an unacceptable reduction in the overall combat effectiveness of our Armed Forces.

The second problem is one not unrelated to the first. That is, to provide more equitable treatment of those Reserve officers who supplement the Regular Corps but who may not, for one reason or another, be continued on active duty long enough to be entitled to retirement. Thus, because of the questionable "career” status of senior Reserve officers, the average junior Reserve officer, regardless of his desire to continue on active duty, has been forced by prudent judgment not to permit himself to remain on active duty beyond his obligated term of service.

The Congress has recognized some of the inequities besetting the Reserve officer on extended active duty and accordingly enacted Public Law 676 of the 84th Congress, which provides a lump-sum readjustment payment for members of the Reserve components who are involuntarily released from active duty. However, the readjustment payment provided by this law, amounting to one-half of 1 month's basic pay for each year of active duty, is admittedly inadequate and compares most unfavorably with the 2 months' basic pay paid to a Regular officer who is not permitted to continue on to retirement.

Now, after outlining the principal problem areas present in connection with the retention of Reserve officers on active duty, let us consider the Defense bill.

The bill, as submitted by the Department of Defense and I might say here that it embodies the proposal of the Cordiner Report. Mr. Cordiner saw this terrible situation and he went into it at length. I have it here and I brought it for the committee, if anybody cares to read it. It embodies that report. And you will remember Mr. Kilday wrote a very wonderful bill on the Cordiner Report. However, because this problem is separate and distinct, from that of Regular "career" personnel, it was decided to handle it separately.

It has as its central theme a general improvement in the status of Reserve officers on active duty by providing them with increased financial security in the event they elect to remain on extended active duty beyond their period of obligated service.

To accomplish this purpose the bill would

1. Require that in the future all Reserve officers on active duty after the first 2 years of commissioned service be provided a contract specifying a period of mutually agreeable extended active duty.

2. If the contract were completed by the Reserve officer and he had been released to inactive duty, provide him with a bonus of 2 months

now.

basic pay for each year served under that contract whether he was released involuntarily or not.

3. Provide that if á Reserve officer were released prior to the expiration of his contract period he would receive 1 month's pay and allowance for each year of the uncompleted contract in addition to the 2 months' basic pay for each year he had actually served under the contract. You can call that liquidated damages.

4. Provide that for those Reserve officers presently on active duty with active service in excess of 10 years that upon involuntary release of such officers severance pay would be payable amounting to onehalf month's basic pay for each of the first 10 years of active duty and 2 months' basic pay for each year of active duty in excess of 10 years. That is, they are the officers that we have problems with

And, finally, the bill would also require that upon completion of 14 years of active duty by a Reserve officer, the service concerned would take one of the following courses of action :

(a) Augument the officer into the Regular service;

(6) Provide the officer with a contract which will enable him to complete the additional service necessary to permit him to retire voluntarily with 20 years of service; or

(c) Release him to inactive duty with appropriate severance pay computed as previously indicated.

At the time of submission of the proposal, the Department of Defense indicated the following estimated costs of the proposal: Fiscal year 1959$137, 000 Fiscal year 1962

$8, 199, 000 Fiscal year 19603, 016, 000 Fiscal year 1963

11, 513, 000 Fiscal year 1961.

4, 822, 000 Although the bill as originally recommended by the Department of Defense appeared to be basically sound, it did possess several weaknesses which your committee resolved.

1. The bill failed to address itself to the possibility of a Reserve officer remaining on active duty beyond the 20-year period. Although the Department of Defense witnesses indicated that the bill was not to be construed as a prohibition against retaining a Reserve officer on active duty beyond the 20-year period, they agreed that language should be inserted to clearly indicate this possibility. The bill was changed accordingly.

2. The bill provides a grace period of 1 year for implementation. Of course, they have to have a year to set up the books.

The committee recognized the administrative difficulties involved in initiating a contract to allow Reserve officers to remain on active duty and, therefore, did not consider this unreasonable. However, since no provision--this is important-however, since no provision was made for those officers presently on active duty who will, on the date of enactment of the bill, have completed 14 years of active duty, the point in service at which the service department must resolve a reservist's future, the committee felt that these individuals should be protected from the possibility of a general r.i.f. action. Accordingly, the committee prepared an amendment to the bill which would provide all such individuals with a constructive contract of such duration to permit them to go on to retirement. It should be noted, however,

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »