As you know, sometimes when programs are designed one does not take into account all the things one should, but we are correcting that particular thing right now.

Senator RUDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ROTC

Senator STEVENS. Did you deal with the ROTC question, too?
Dr. KORB. That is correct.

Senator STEVENS. Does the student still obligate himself to enlist if he takes an ROTC scholarship?

Dr. KORB. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that it depends on how long the individual uses that. The individual has a choice either of paying back the money or taking some sort of obligated service.

Senator STEVENS. Do we have any figures on how much is owed the Government on unfulfilled ROTC scholarships?

Dr. KORB. We can furnish those for the record. We do have those figures.

[The information follows:]

UNFULFILLED ROTC SCHOLARSHIPS

Any amounts owed the Government on unfulfilled scholarships would accrue after the enactment of Public Law 96-357. This law requires obligated ROTC scholarship students to fulfill their military commitment or repay the cost of their education to the Government. Since the law only went into effect this past fall, no debt has accrued.

Senator STEVENS. Generally, tell Senator Rudman and me what is the situation. Are they fulfilling the scholarships and enlisting or are they opting to pay? Is it an effective inducement to enlist?

Dr. KORB. My underestanding is that it is. Our ability to collect is generally better than most other agencies of the Federal Government who have money owed to them for various programs. The obligation, for example, in NROTC, starts in the third year. You don't incur an obligation unless you go into the third year very similar to the service academies.

Senator STEVENS. What do you do if you have 2 years and you don't pursue it in the third year, do you owe for the first 2 years? Dr. KORB. You do not.

Senator STEVENS. We will look forward to getting those figures. A question has been raised about the ability of the services to enforce the obligation as opposed to collecting the funds that are due, and what it is costing under the current circumstances. We look forward to getting that information.

SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES

Last year we authorized enlisted personnel to receive basic allowance for subsistance, that is, cash allowance for food, and per diem allowance for food simultaneously while on temporary duty. Officers were already entitled to that.

Now, the defense appropriations bill reimburses enlisted personnel only once for food. I am told that the Department still supports the double subsistence payment concept for equity between enlisted

personnel and officers, but that you have not made any formal request for 1983; is that right?

Dr. KORB. We have requested that the general provision be eliminated in fiscal 1983 so that we have the same treatment for both officers and enlisted.

Senator STEVENS. If you eliminate the authorization we gave you last year for equity, how do you have equity?

Dr. KORB. What we proposed, Senator, is that the restriction that the enlisted people cannot receive the BAS while in travel status be eliminated so they can receive both, as officers do.

Senator STEVENS. We have some additional questions. I will submit these to you on the BAS. I want to make sure we understand that. The reenlistment bonus, I understand, is paid 50 percent up front and 50 percent in equal increments over the length of the enlistment. Does that apply to aviation bonuses, too?

Dr. KORB. No, sir.

Senator STEVENS. What provision is going to be made if these people do leave the service during the period of time that they agreed to stay?

Dr. KORB. I don't think they will be allowed to leave voluntarily. It would be for a medical reason or some other reason.

Senator STEVENS. That is what I mean. Suppose they leave for other reasons? I know once they are reenlisted they are in, but suppose they get out for one reason or another?

Dr. KORB. We have no plans to ask for that money back because they would not get our unless it would be essentially for the good of the Government.

Senator STEVENS. What effect has the general policy on other bonuses, the reenlistment bonuses, had as far as outlays? Do you have any figures as to what has happened with the reenlistment bonus under the new policy, 50 percent now and 50 percent in equal installments?

Dr. KORB. The first year it would be reduced. You would eventually catch up because in subsequent years you would be paying part of the money for people who had reenlisted in fiscal year 1983. By the end of about the fourth year there would be very little impact on outlays.

Senator STEVENS. We have some questions here on the 1982 supplemental which we will submit to you and we would like your prompt response.

INCREASE IN HOUSEHOLD GOODS WEIGHT ALLOWANCE

I understand that there is $58.2 million requested for increased household goods weight allowance for military personnel. The current maximum is 13,500 pounds. That would increase to 16,000 pounds and the weight allowance would be increased up to 2,000 pounds. Why is that really necessary? What has brought about that increase?

Dr. KORB. You mean in terms of the weight allowance?

Senator STEVENS. Yes. This is a DOD initiative to increase the weight allowance?

Dr. KORB. Yes, that is correct. Speaking to people in the force, we find out, first of all, that on the mileage allowance they are still

paying a lot of money out of their own pockets when they move. The 13 cents to 16 cents is more in keeping with what private industry does.

In terms of household goods allowances, we find that people generally have more than that when they move. We feel that this is a good way to remove an irritant which-for a comparatively small amount of money-drives the person out of the service.

As you know, before this committee and several other committees acted a couple of years ago, military people were sometimes spending $1,000 and $2,000 out of their own pockets. This allowance increase we have proposed is primarily for junior officers and senior enlisted. The proposed maximum weight, for example, for O-10 and 0-9, in contrast is not changed at all by this policy.

Senator STEVENS. I just wonder sometimes if some of these things could not have been held up until the days when we don't have the increments of 15 percent pay increases, building additional submarines, additional carriers, additional aircraft, additional airlift, and additional sealift. Why do they all have to happen at the same time? I don't think anyone has prioritized this budget as far as this budget is concernced this year.

There is so much increase in every category that it is difficult for us who have to review it to comprehend.

Dr. KORB. I understand your concern, Mr. Chairman. If you take a look at this particular issue, we asked last year that it be raised to 16 cents per mile. That was not approved.

Senator STEVENS. That was because we had two independent analyses on operating automobiles that showed 10 cents is a fair reimbursement under the circumstances, that you also have your household goods paid for and you get allowances for change of duty station on top of that.

If you look at the total pay package that is involved in change of duty station for the military compared to other areas of our economy, it really isn't that bad. Right now, to insist on these increases when we are forced again to make force reductions in order to cut down the budget because of the budget process, I think that you unfairly approach the committee in terms of prioritizing the budget in your area.

Does not something like 70 percent of all military expenditures come through your area?

Dr. KORB. That is correct.

Senator STEVENS. Have you established a priority for this? You have asked us for the same things we turned down time and time before because we didn't have the money. If we didn't have the money before, how in the world do we have it this year?

Dr. KORB. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, our preference would be that if we could not afford to fund fully whatever the force structure level is, we would take the force structure cut rather than slight our people. In this particular area I think we are very much out of line with what comparative people are paid in private industry. In fact, the total household moving package compared to private industry for military people in the Department of Defense, I think, would show they come out not nearly as well.

This area really had not changed for a good 15 to 20 years before the Congress and the American people become concerned about the standard of living of military people.

What we are trying to do is simply catch up in an area we have long neglected. We would put our highest priority on readiness, and that means keeping qualified people. So if we were asked to prioritize, this would have very high priority.

Senator STEVENS. There is a $38.7 million increase involved on top of the $47.6 million for the military members' mileage. There is a request to increase the mileage allowance for dependents over the age of 12 from 7 cents to 10 cents. This is mileage. I assume they are riding in the same car.

In addition to that, for those under 12 the allowance would double from 3.5 cents to 7 cents per mile. You know, I have six kids and whenever we travel we travel in the same car. I don't understand, again, prioritizing these items in terms of these allowances, do they all have to come at the same time, Mr. Korb?

Dr. KORB. I think if you take a look, there are a lot of personnel inequities we would like to deal with that we have not. We feel, based on what we hear from people as to reasons why they leave the service and what we find when we go around speaking to people on the bases, that this is a very, very key one. We still find many of our military people have to pay out of their own pockets to move.

Remember that the mileage or per diem rate here deals with the fact that people have to stay in motels, for example, when they travel, and many times you have to pay additionally for extra members of your family. The per diem includes not just driving the car; many families have more than one car. Since they are moving, they have to get both cars there.

Senator STEVENS. Don't they get per diem, too, in addition to this? The members get per diem, don't they?

Dr. KORB. I would have to check.

[The information follows:]

MEMBER AND DEPENDENTS PCS ALLOWANCE

Military members receive a monetary allowance in lieu of transportation (MALT) of 13.0 cents per mile plus a per diem allowance of $50 per day. Dependents do not receive a per diem allowance. A mileage allowance of 3.5 cents per mile is provided for dependents aged 2 to 12 and 7.0 cents for dependents 12 years and over. The dependent mileage allowance provides for food, lodging and any additional travel expenses during a permanent change of station travel move.

MILITARY/CIVILIAN PER DIEM

Mr. CONTE. The members get per diem. The dependents have to rely on the mileage to make up for the cost of the move. The dependents do not get per diem.

Senator STEVENS. It might interest you to know that congressional employees don't get anything for their kids or anything else. When they move they move and they don't get mileage; they don't even get per diem for themselves. What do the civilians get when they move?

Dr. KORB. Our civilians, Mr. Chairman, get per diem for the member, and they get mileage for the dependents, too.

Senator STEVENS. On the same scale? Does this request deal with civilians as well as military?

Dr. KORB. No. This is just for military people.

Senator STEVENS. Give us a chart that shows the comparison between a military person moving for the Department of Defense and a civilian person moving for the the Department of Defense. My impression from the other committee which I chair is that again you have severe problems of attracting people to the civilian sector of the the Department of Defense and keeping them. They may come in but they are not staying in terms of midcareer decision. They don't have early retirement at 20 years; they have to stay for the full 30. They don't have a lot of the things involved here in the military which will exacerbate the problem of acquiring the civilian people we need in the Department of Defense.

I am not against the armed services and uniformed personnel, but I think you are getting an inequity built into this pay schedule that will bring us demands in the other committee for changes for civilians, particularly for the Department of Defense civilians. That will really tilt the civil service if we have to pay more money to the civilians in the Department of Defense than in the other departments because the uniformed personnel have circumstances that are different from the civilians in the other departments. [The information follows:]

1 Estimated costs of a "normal" transfer at $8,000 to $12,000 depending on employee's housing situation.

Sources: "Elements of Corporate Relocation Policies," The Conference Board, 1977. "Employee Relocation Policies Among Major US Corporations," Merrill Lynch Relocation Management, Inc. 1980.

CIVILIAN MOVING PACKAGE

Dr. KORB. Civilians right now have a more generous moving package than the military. For example, they get the cost of realtor's fees and closing costs paid, where military people cannot. They get the cost of house hunting trips, and the amount of time they could go ahead and stay at motels until very recently was more advantageous for civilians than military personnel.