over.

At least that is the way I interpreted what you said. Is that what you meant to leave with us, that the proposed personnel rates will not provide us stability of our services at the present rate of turnover?

Admiral RADFORD. You mean the part where I said, "Since our long-range programs call for the maintenance of approximately 2,850,000"?

Mr. HARDY. Down at the bottom of the page you said:

Therefore we must increase the ratio of career personnel to total personnel or we can't be stable at 2,850,000.

Admiral RADFORD. Well, what I meant by that was that we have to use more officers and men in the training establishments in order to take care of the turnover. If the turnover should increase above what it is now-in other words, if our reenlistment rates go downthen we would have to induct or train more new men. Therefore, more people would have to go into the training establishment.

Mr. HARDY. Well, I understand that you have to have a lot of people in the training establishment under your present rate of turnover?

Admiral RADFORD. We do.

Mr. HARDY. And I would interpret your comments there to indicate that you didn't feel that we would be stable at this present rate of turnover-I mean at that proposed personnel level-unless we improved our rate of turnover?

Admiral RADFORD. I think that is true. Because with an increased turnover in personnel, we have the choice of diluting our combat efficiency or increasing the training establishment.

Mr. HARDY. Of course

Admiral RADFORD. I was referring to a further deterioration in the reenlistment situation.

Mr. HARDY. Well, let us assume a continuation of the present reenlistment rates, and that isn't so bad.

Admiral RADFORD. NO.

Mr. HARDY. Well, certainly, if the present rate of reenlistment is continued, the effectiveness of our total Military Establishment is bound to be reduced by the reduction in personnel which is contemplated; isn't that correct?

Admiral RADFORD. Under present plans we anticipate a reenlistment rate better than we have at present. Right now we don't have sufficient statistical data to determine accurately the full effect of the law passed by the last Congress, which provides larger bonuses for reenlistment. We believe this measure will result in increased reenlistments. So actually our plans are based on a higher reenlistment rate than we have today.

Mr. HARDY. In other words, your present personnel levels, that are presently proposed, are based on an anticipation of a better reenlistment rate than you now have because of the bonus which was passed last year?

Admiral RADFORD. Yes; although as I said, the full effect of the increased bonus is not reflected in the figures.

Mr. HARDY. Well, have you had any effect of it, an appreciable effect of it at all?

Admiral RADFORD. The figures we have lag behind about 3 or 4 months. So I would say that they do not fully reflect the effect of that yet.

Mr. HARDY. In other words, what you are saying is that you can't tell yet what effect the reenlistment bonus proposition is going to have?

Admiral RADFORD. We can't tell at this time with any degree of

assurance.

Mr. HARDY. But do I understand, then, that your personnel levels which are proposed for the future in this so-called stabilized level are predicated on an improvement in the reenlistment rate because of the bonus bill?

Admiral RADFORD. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARDY. And then

Mr. RIVERS. Let me ask him

Mr. HARDY. Just a minute. Let me finish my thought.

If that doesn't materialize, then do I understand we won't have stability at the 2,850,000?

Admiral RADFORD. It would make us revise our plans to a certain extent, depending on what it turned out to be.

Mr. HARDY. Well, I gather from your statement here generally that you do not contemplate that this bill will put the military on a competitive basis with industry.

Admiral RADFORD. Well, I don't think it will entirely. It is designed to improve the present very low ratio of career personnel to total personnel.

Mr. HARDY. It would improve the ratio, and you, as I understood your statement further I believe there was something said about an increase in your reenlistment rate to about 50 percent; is that correct?

Admiral RADFORD. No; I didn't say that. I said we hope to attain a ratio of approximately 50 percent career personnel to total personnel. If we could get up to a reenlistment rate of over 30 percent, I think it would be quite satisfactory.

Mr. HARDY. Do you have any competition to mesaure-well, wait a minute. Strike that a minute. Do you anticipate that this bill would enable you to get to a reenlistment rate of 30 percent?

Admiral RADFORD. I think it would do at least that and maybe better.

Mr. HARDY. Do you have any computation of the effectiveness of our Military Establishment, assuming a 30 percent reenlistment rate or the reenlistment rate which you anticipate from this bill, as compared to his present effectiveness at its present personnel level?

Admiral RADFORD. No. It is something which would be most difficult to assess statistically. Certainly the more experienced men we have in the service the more effective we would be. If we could get up to approximately one-half hard-core regular personnel, consisting of men who after their first enlistment or induction, reenlist at least one more time, and preferably several times, then we would have a great improvement in our efficiency. I think that all the service chiefs will testify to that effect. The more stability we have and the more experience we have, the better training the new men will receive.

Mr. HARDY. I think we all realize that, and certainly that is an objective that I subscribe to, in trying to develop a greater stability in

the military. The thing I was trying to see through at the moment was what-under present conditions-how near will our Military Establishment approach its present fighting effectiveness when these reduced personnel levels are arrived at if we have such legislation. It is rather complicated. But what I am trying to say is thisAdmiral RADFORD. I really don't understand exactly what you have

in mind.

Mr. HARDY. The basis of this legislation at the moment, of major consideration, is to improve the percentage of career personnel in the military.

Admiral RADFORD. That is right.

Mr. HARDY. And thereby improve the effectiveness of the personnel that we have.

Admiral RADFORD. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARDY. All right. Now, we are proposing a rather sharply reduced level of personnel, down to, we say, a stabilized 2,850,000. Now, what I am trying to get at is this: What is your computation, if we pass this bill-will we achieve a fighting effectiveness with 2,850,000 which exceeds the effectiveness of our present forces? Admiral RADFORD. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARDY. All right. That is all I want.

Mr. KILDAY. Of course, on the ratio between the military and industry, if this bill or something comparable to it is passed, it certainly will not hurt your efforts.

Admiral RADFORD. No, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. And can be expected to help. But you couldn't guarantee today the percentage of people that it would either attract or hold.

Admiral RADFORD. No, sir. We are dealing with intangibles in that respect.

Mr. HARDY. Of course, that is true. But you have to have some objective in mind. In other words, if this is not going to attain-if this is not going to be enough to accomplish the objective of a, say, hard core that you are talking about, then you better go back and revise it. Admiral RADFORD. We hope it will, but if it doesn't I think we would be back up here next year with some other suggestion.

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Rivers.

Mr. RIVERS. You have to have a selling point.

Admiral RADFORD. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. And your selling point becomes effective at the end of his first enlistment, because your investment is in the initial enlistment or induction, and you have to sell the advantages of the service at the termination of his first enlistment or induction period.

Admiral RADFORD. That is right.

Mr. RIVERS. Now, I noticed down at Charleston the other day that in the Atlantic Mine Fleet-that bonus about which you have been referring came into very fine play. The Pacific had one enlistment, in the mine fleet, and the Atlantic had 32. The last day they picked up 7 or 8. Because that inducement

Admiral RADFORD. Not because they are living in Charleston?

Mr. RIVERS. That had a great deal to do with it, and the excellent representation in Congress. I will have to revise that and make it even stronger.

But here is the point I want to bring to you, Admiral: The Army is now about 1,100,000 plus, or somewhere between 1,100,000-you are coming down to 1,025,000 for the long pull, 10- to 50-year pull. There are technicians in the Army-and the Marine Corps is being reduced and also the Navy, to get to their allocated strength for the long pull, to get out of the feast or famine philosophy. Now, technicians are technicians, whether they be in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force or the Marine Corps. Because the gadgets which we have in the various services are interchangeable. The discipline and the overall expenditure on the man is a valuable asset.

Is there any program, to your knowledge, being devised by the Department of Defense, where some of these people who do not want to get out of the service and you will find them in that reduction in those various services-is there any program being formulated whereby these men will have an opportunity to enlist in that branch of the service which could use them, notably and namely the Air Force, which is going up to the 137

Admiral RADFORD. Well, Mr. Rivers, I probably am not the best witness to testify on that point. But it is not my understanding that any of the services are refusing to reenlist any technicians who want to reenlist.

Mr. RIVERS. They are going to have to refuse them when they start cutting down.

Admiral RADFORD. I don't think so. They can control that by their reenlistments. All the services are trying to retain their experienced

men.

Mr. RIVERS. And the reduction would not affect the men of theAdmiral RADFORD. Not the trained men.

Mr. RIVERS. I see. Well, I am glad to hear that.

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Bates

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman

Mr. BATES. Yes.

Admiral, this is the largest "peacetime" force you have ever had in the history of the country, is that correct?

Admiral RADFORD. It is the largest

Mr. BATES. That you are trying to sustain over a long period of time.

Admiral RADFORD. That we are trying to maintain-and if you call this peace

Mr. BATES. Well, it was in quotations.

Admiral RADFORD. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. We have to be careful with words around here.

Admiral RADFORD. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. Especially with witnesses down there. Not so much up here.

Admiral RADFORD. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. So you have the difference between the 2.85, which you want to stabilize at, and the million and a half which you can ordinarily attract on an enlistment basis into the Armed Forces. You have that spread in between the million and a half and the 2.85.

Now, those are people ordinarily who wouldn't go into the Armed Forces. And what you are trying to do here-and this is only another step, which I think perhaps was the answer to Mr. Hardy's question,

in trying to retain some of those people who ordinarily get out and also make it a little bit more attractive for the people who are currently in and going to make a career of it. That is about the situation? Admiral RADFORD. That is right, yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. So at the present time it is difficult to know exactly how many you will attract until you put the program into operation? Admiral RADFORD. That is right.

Mr. BATES. But you have an unusual situation. Because, for instance, in the Army we have twice as many, even under your plan here, as we had just prior to Korea.

Admiral RADFORD. That is right.

Mr. BATES. Twice as many. So it means you have got to put out attractions.

Admiral RADFORD. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. Which will permit those people to stay.

Admiral RADFORD. Yes, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. No other questions?

(No response.)

Mr. KILDAY. Thank you, Admiral. We appreciate your coming. Admiral RADFORD. Thank you.

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Charles Hook. Mr. Hook, members of the committee, is president of the Armco Steel Corp., and served as chairman of the Hook Commission. I am particularly glad to have you here today, Mr. Hook. I know of your continuing interest in military pay. I believe you and your commission did one of the really outstanding jobs for our Armed Forces in the study that you made in 1948 and the effort that you expended in 1949 in the enactment of the Career Compensation Act, and your continued interest in 1952 when we had the proposal. And now that you are here in connection with this-I mentioned Mr. Hoen is with us, who served as your staff man in connection with your work.

We will be glad to hear your statement, and we will let you deliver it without interruption and ask any questions after you have completed.

Mr. Hook. Thank you, sir.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES R. HOOK

Mr. Hook. I think I ought to preface my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, with this statement, because I don't believe I brought it out clearly enough.

I have gone over very carefully the proposed pay scale and several times have, with the assistance of Mr. McHugh, who was a member of our former commission, last year-just a year ago we made a study of considerable length, assisted by Mr. Hoen, who was director of the staff, and others. So it was easy to compare this with our original recommendations. However, I did spend a lot of time here in the past 2 weeks particularly, in studying this very carefully. Therefore, what I say to you is not based on a casual lookover of the charts and the proposals.

Mr. KILDAY. Thank you, Mr. Hook. Go right ahead, now, with your statement.