legally passed over in their 23d or 24th year. Thus, the Marine Corps has a number of twice-passed-over colonels, while the Navy has only a few twice-passed-over captains. This is an extremely complicated matter. The best way that I know to summarize the situation is to say that the enactment of this legislation will involuntarily retire about 1,500 Navy captains and about 1,000 commanders over the next 15 years before they have completed their 30 years of service as a captain now guaranteed by law, or their 26 years as a commander now guaranteed by law. In the Marine Corps about 400 colonels will be retired before completing 30 years of service, and 600 lieutenant colonels before completing 26 years of service. If this is done, then the Navy and Marine Corps can expect a reasonable selection rate for officers being selected from the grade of lieutenant commander to commander and from major to lieutenant colonel, and from commander to captain, and from lieutenant colonel to colonel. I might just mention that if legislation is not enacted, I am advised that the next selection board from lieutenant commander to commander will necessitate a passover rate of 75 percent. In other words, 3 out of 4 lieutenant commanders will fail of selection in the next selection board if remedial action is not taken. The proposed legislation seeks to spread this attrition rate more equitably throughout the service rather than impose such severe attrition upon the Navy and Marine Corps "hump" officers. In the last session of Congres, and in the session prior to that, this subcommittee held partial hearings on this same subject. However, this is a new bill and a new Congress, and I think we will start from the beginning and fully develop all of the facts and the entire situation. Mr. Secretary Gates, we will be glad to have your statement. Secretary GATES. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to present to you a matter of critical importance to the leadership, morale, and readiness of the Navy and Marine Corps. Nothing is more important to the services than the quality of our officers. I will speak about general principles as we see them. Admiral Smith and General Weller will present the technical aspects of this serious personnel problem. The requirements of war and the timing of history have left us with one-third of all our Regular officers concentrated in a 4-year span of seniority. These officers are nearly contemporaries in age, grade, and experience. They joined and fought in World War II, and stayed to man the postwar Navy and Marine Corps when we badly needed experienced and competent young officers. They filled indispensable commands and positions during Korea. Our needs during these years of war and cold war have never permitted us to reduce their numbers appreciably by selection out. Now they are lieutenant commanders and commanders-or majors and lieutenant colonels, in the Marine Corps. They have moved together as a hump along the promotion ladder. Under present conditions 8,000 Regular Navy commanders and lieutenant commanders must be fitted into 2,000 captain's jobs. Three thousand Regular Marine lieutenant colonels and majors must be fitted into 580 colonel's billets. Unless we gain legislative relief, promotion will stagnate, and we must also force out some of our finest and most needed officers. The country cannot allow the promotion of naval and marine officers to stagnate. Since World War II, the average age in each grade of our Regular officers has steadily increased. Yet our need is for vigorous leaders able to withstand combat stress and the constant tension of cold war operations. A reasonable opportunity to assume broader responsibilities is the incentive and challenge that good officers need. The legislation we seek will not stop or reverse this trend toward slowdown. We can arrest it to some extent. There is another serious evil of promotion stagnation in the hump group. The younger officers behind them are held back, too. We can expect many of these outstanding junior officers to leave the service unless we take action now. These officers are our seed corn for the future. The alternative to complete promotion stagnation would be to force out three-quarters of the officers in the hump group. This would be most unwise. The Navy needs these officers, who combine combat experience in two wars with potential for the future. Even if we get legislative relief, we must still select out about half. To discard more than that would be unsound and unfair. There are many officers senior to the hump who have been promoted with no serious attrition. Among them are officers who would not have achieved high rank under comparable competition. The maintenance of quality among our officers and simple equity demand that they should share this burden in some measure. Many of them realize it is in the best interest of a stronger Navy that they do so. Certainly everyone recognizes that they have served their country faithfully and well. Admiral Burke, General Pate, and I have given this subject a great deal of attention and earnest study. I assure you that we have thought carefully about the effects on individuals as well as on the services. The legislation we ask for is supported by the Department of Defense. In our opinion, it is in the best interest of both the need of the services and of equity and fairness between individuals. Without legislation we have no adequate administrative solution. Today we build nuclear ships-supersonic aircraft, missiles with uncanny intelligence to equip the Navy and Marines for the responsibilities of seapower in the future. The officers we speak of today are the officers who must design, and control, and command these forces. We cannot risk second-class leadership. In the national interest, the service requires the best. I am convinced that the legislation we ask for is indispensable to that objective. Because of prior commitments, I will not be able to be present through all of the explanations of the bill. Assistant Secretary Jackson, who has lived very closely with this problem and its solution, will be present as my representative throughout your hearings. Mr. KILDAY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We appreciate your other commitments. And I agree with your statement that you will present the general principles of the bill and leave to Admiral Smith and General Weller the technical aspects. I will attempt to confine myself to the broad principles involved. And I hope the other members of the subcommittee will, likewise. We have spoken in the past, and I mentioned today in my statement, about a guaranteed tour for commanders and captains. And, of course, we have generally talked about 26 and 30 years of service as guaranteed tours. Just at this point in the record, I would want to have it appear that at the time those tours were created it was not in the aspect of guaranteeing to the individuals tours or stated tours but rather to reduce the forced attrition that had been experienced and was being experienced in 1947. That, of course, can be developed further as we go along. While you are with us, Mr. Secretary, I wanted to inquire as to this: Whether it was conceived originally as a guaranteed tour or not, it has resulted in a guaranteed tour to the individual, do you agree to that? Secretary GATES. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is a fair interpretation; yes, sir. There is a conflict between this interpretation and the requirement that the Secretary of the Navy designate the formula that is in the best interest of the service. So there is a requirement to do what is best for the service, and there is an implied, I think publicly implied, guaranteed tour under the original legislation. Mr. KILDAY. Of course, in the Officer Personnel Act of 1947, there were a number of provisions along this same line, that were designed to accomplish this same purpose. My recollection is that forced attrition on promotion from lieutenant commander to commander at that time was approximately 50 percent, and that the things that were done to reduce that attrition included the tour of 26 years and 30 years, and to increase the percentage distribution by grades at that time. But in any event, the individual regards this as a guarantee to him, and with a great deal of justification, that as commander he would be permitted to remain on active duty for 26 years and as a captain for a period of 30 years. The bill that you have here now contains no provision for compensation for the remainder of the 26- or the 30-year period, does it? Secretary GATES. That is correct, sir. Mr. KILDAY. In previous proposals here we have had from the Department, I believe, a recommendation for constructive credit for the remaining years not served or a fraction of them. Secretary GATES. Yes, that is right, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KILDAY. But that is not in the proposal the Department brings us now? Secretary GATES. That is right, sir. Mr. KILDAY. Of course, this committee, I believe, at the time that proposal was previously here, expressed a good deal of concern about establishing the policy of constructive credit for the purposes of retirement, something that, so far as I know, has never been done. We did grant constructive credit for original commission in the Regular service of the Army and Air Force, I believe, but we have never granted constructive service for purposes of retirement or determining retired pay after retirement. Secretary GATES. That is right, sir. Mr. KILDAY. I Would like to know what position the Department would take if the committee saw fit to grant some compensation for the unserved balance of the 26- or 30-year tour, rather than a provision similar to constructive service that would carry the increased pay throughout the remainder of the life of the individual retired, but some provision for a lump-sum payment calculated to be reasonable compensation for the remaining period of the term which is not served? We have a formula, for instance, on readjustment pay for Reserves, of a certain number of months' compensation for each year served, and if we could devise a formula for compensation of months or a month for each year of the guaranteed tour not served, would the Department object to that provision? Secretary GATES. The Department of the Navy would not object to that provision, Mr. Chairman, if this turned out to be a wise thing to do after the figures and the problem are correctly analyzed. Of course, it would be a factor that would have to be reviewed again by the Department of Defense. But I would feel that if this turned out to be a wise thing to do, that we ought to look at it closely and consider it together. Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Secretary, you are appearing for the Department of Defense this morning, or only for the Department of the Navy! Secretary GATES. Well, I imagine I am appearing for the Department of Defense technically. I guess you are correct, Mr. Chairman, because Mr. KILDAY. Then the position is that as far as the Navy is concerned, it would have no objection? Secretary GATES. No, sir. Mr. KILDAY. As far as the Department of Defense is concerned, it has not as yet considered or taken a position with reference to it? Secretary GATES. Yes; there was one proposal in the tentative draft of this legislation that included a provision of this nature that was opposed by the Department of Defense. Mr. KILDAY. Was opposed. Are there any questions by the members of the subcommittee? Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Hébert, you are recognized. Mr. HÉBERT. I don't have any questions, except I want to make an observation which while perhaps not pertinent to the bill is certainly pertinent to the organization of the Navy Department, and that is the heavy loss which it will soon suffer. I think, Mr. Secretary, this is the first time you have appeared before the Committee on the Armed Services since your resignation was announced. Secretary GATES. That is right, Mr. Hébert. Mr. HÉBERT. And I think I share the opinion of the members of this committee and take it upon myself to speak for them, that the Navy will suffer a terrific loss after you leave, because the Navy has been better for you having been its Secretary. I just pay you a compli ment. Secretary GATES. I am very grateful for those remarks, Mr. Hébert. I have enjoyed my association with the committee these years, and hope our friendships continue. Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with those remarks. I made a similar expression to the Secretary privately before the session got underway. The Secretary has been pretty close to us down in my territory, and I am going to miss him pretty badly. [Laughter.] Mr. HÉBERT. You have a budget man coming up now. Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Bates. Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, speaking for all the other members on my side. I would like to say that I, too, have had an intimate association with the Secretary. He was always forthright, and he was courageous in his stand, for which he should be tremendously admired. I know many of the decisions that he made were ones that he didn't especially enjoy, but nevertheless even those of us who perhaps on occasion may have looked at a problem a little differently, for different reasons, did admire the courage and the forthrightness with which he approached all these problems, and the assumption of his duties as the Secretary. I know on many occasions somebody asked "Well, who made the decision?" and the Secretary spoke up, without any evasion, so that everybody knew exactly where he stood. So it will be a sad loss for the country when he leaves us. On behalf of the people on my side of the aisle, we certainly trust that the future will be a bright and happy one. Secretary GATES. Thank you, Mr. Bates. Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I just have one observation on the bill. Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Bates. Mr BATES. Mr. Secretary, in your remarks you indicated the interest of the service. And, of course, inextricably interwoven in that concept is the concept of the individual. Secretary GATES. Certainly. Mr. BATES. And I think that the important thing we must look at in this bill is keeping faith with people, if we are going to talk about the interest of the service. So whether these particular guarantees are guaranteed technically and legally by law, or whether they are born of custom and tradition and implied by usage, I think it is difficult to separate either one of them. Because people entering the service want to know what is ahead of them. And if custom and traditions have brought forth certain results upon which people have expected to base a career, it seems to me that the future of the service demands that we keep faith with those people and with those concepts. I know it is difficult to work out many of these things, and particularly as we had the question of constructive credits up 2 or 3 years ago, where it was contemplated to give a fraction or the whole to people who were leaving, and the comparison of that with the people you were retaining who would get only the same emoluments even though they were selected to be retained and did in fact serve. So it is a difficult problem we have to work out. But I think basically and fundamentally it is the faith with the individual we must keep in mind. Secretary GATES. Well, I completely agree with you. The task of this legislation is to preserve the equities between groups of people and preserve good faith and try and level off the problem in the best interests of having the best kind of officer corps that you can envision. |