the young man enters this life, he embarks upon a period of training, unsurpassed in quality of instructors or in equipment. During this training period-money is no object, indeed the military is generous in terms of dollars for training. But, what of personal compensation? Is the military geenrous in this area? Are we paying the proper amounts, in the proper manner to induce these young recruits to consider the military as a career? Is there sufficient incentive for them to remain or do they merely regard this first enlistment as an obligation that must grudgingly be performed? We believe a survey would reveal the latter statement to be true. Gentlemen, we believe this situation is critical. So critical that it requires drastic action. The emphasis must be placed on the future. We must plan for tomorrow. Are we to waste time and money to train a man, so that at the end of his enlistment his parting words are "goodby?" Many of these men, of the type and caliber we wish retained in the military, could be induced to say if the proper incentives were provided. We should and must provide these incentives. Waste can best be exemplified, we think, by pointing out that the Government spends an approximate $99,000 to $201,000 to train a jet fighter pilot, using this as an example. When that man has been trained, he is then useful, but not until he has completed his training. If that pilot leaves the service that money is tossed down the drain. Not only does that money disappear, but in addition we must spend a like amount to train his replacement. Another example is the crew chief of a modern bomber. It takes anywhere up to 12 years of intensive training to qualify a man as an outstanding chief. To properly determine the cost of that man would be next to impossible. But I believe that even the least imaginative of us could grasp the magnitude of the problem. These same things hold true for men in the Army as well as the Navy. The point today is, can we keep these men. These men are vital to our military preparedness. By concrete action in the form of tangible benefits our servicemen must be shown that life in the military can be attractive. We, the American Legion, believe that in the bill you have before you, H. R. 9979, the instrument that will go far in retaining our better men in the service. We endorse this bill for it provides a system based on merit raises. If a man is capable, he is competent and he is professionally qualified, why not reward him with pay commensurate with his capabilities? A man should and must be paid on the basis of his individual worth. The Cordiner Committee, after extensive hearings, during which many witnesses of divergent views were heard, came out with its report suggesting this new system. It has been called radical. In our opinion, the only radical aspect of the report is that it does change the system for the military. The basic idea of pay based on output is certainly not new. Our civil servants are subject to this theory, paywise. Great segments of industry pay on the basis of value. No, the idea is not radical. All that is needed is proper thinking. Think in terms of the future and then act. Give that new man the incentive to make a career of the military. Don't allow the better boy's to shy from military life. Create an incentive through the opportunity to advance with proper compensation. 20066-58-No. 76--19 With respect to H. R. 9979, we should like to stress-three additional points. First, there has been talk about a 6 percent raise. We, of the American Legion, do not object to this raise, in fact we strongly urge its adoption. With present day costs, this increase is hardly sufficient. However, we urge that the 6 percent raise be added to the basic pay tables of H. R. 9979. In this way, the concept of payment on the basis of a man's worth is kept intact. Secondly, referring to section 201 (C), we would prefer that the amounts proferred by the Cordiner Committee covering officer grades O-5 through 0-10 be substituted. We think it debatable as to whether these amounts would induce a man to make a career as an officer. It is essential that we make the pay of those officer personnel in the upper brackets sufficiently enticing to those of our officers in the lower pay grades so as to induce them to aspire to the higher grades. Also, in this same section, section 201 (C), we would like to have it clarified or amended that part which implies that officers on duty for a period of 30 days or less are not eligible for these activeduty increments. They are on active duty, subject to all laws and regulations, and, as such, are entitled to all compensation benefits equal to their rank. Third, and most important, don't break faith with retired personnel. No matter what action might be taken, any and all increases in pay should automatically cover the retired. One of the greatest inducements to a prospective career man is retirement benefits. From his earliest indoctrination, he has been led to believe that his retired pay is actually deferred earnings. If those presently thinking in terms of making military service a career find the Government breaking faith, it will result in the swelling of our civilian ranks because of resignations from the services. I am sure that you gentlemen will see that the retired personnel are dealt with equitably. We know that the committee has heard quite a bit about the save pay provisions which we understand is being introduced in another bill. We support that provision. It should be put in the bill. That, gentlemen, is the official position of the American Legion. We strongly urge that you report favorably H. R. 9979 with the two modifications outlined herein. Namely, the change in section 201 (C) and the definite inclusion of retired personnel in their pay bill. In closing, I wish to thank you for this opportunity of testifying with respect to H. R. 9979, a bill that is a major step forward in creating incentives to our better qualified young men to make a career of the military. Thank you. Mr. KILDAY. Thank you. The committee is glad to get your views on it, and we will bear in mind the three specific items to which you addressed yourself in your remarks. Mr. GAVIN. I would like to call to the attention of the gentlementhis evidently was a statement to be made by our very good and able and distinguished friend Roscoe Turner. And I think we quite agree with the objectives that you brought to our attention and no doubt legislation will be worked out to reach those objectives and make the service more attractive so men can be compensated for the services rendered. However, I note you state the resolution adopted by it, Resolution No. 30, urges legislation to implement the Cordiner Committee report. Mr. DOYLE. Yes, sir. Mr. GAVIN. What concerns me a great deal are these statements that are made so flagrantly, such as in the Cordiner report; here is one here in the statement that he made before the House, before the committee: savings up to $5 billion annually. These potential savings have been calculated and they rise from a level of $313 million in the first year to $5 billion in the fifth year after the new system has been installed. Personally, I believe that the $5 billion saving can be achieved well before the fifth year if the program is vigorously carried out. I wondered how carefully you examined that report to ascertain just where this $5 billion annually was to be saved. I want to call to your attention this fact, from what information I have available, that this proposed incentive pay increase legislation, the first year will cost $485 million. The second year it is estimated $390 million. And the third year $385 million. The fourth year, $420 million, and the fifth year, $495 million, or from the figures that I have been able to obtain approximately $2,175 million. There is no question in my mind but that it may increase proficiency and efficiency and will compensate these men that are turning in and have turned in a magnificent performance over a long period of years. and there isn't any question about the justification of this legislation, but I don't like to see these reports come out and say we will save $5 billion when we have an idea or a calculation that it is going to cost about $2,175 million to enact and secure the kind of legislation we want for the men who are serving so magnificently in our service. It has a great appeal you know. But I think that possibly the committee should make a little investigation to see where you are going to save the $5 billion annually. You just picked this up here in a resolution, saying "Improve combat capability of services, savings and gains of billions of dollars annually. We may be able after this program is in effect to inject such proficiency and there may be some savings effected. But we also know we have estimated the first 5 years that it will cost us $2,175 million, and I, as a member of the committee am getting a little concerned about where Mr. Cordiner got the idea of saving $5 billion. I don't question the need for legislation to bring about pay increases for these men that are most deserving and must be enacted into a law to develop and give such efficiency and protection to the men because we don't want to be losing, just as you pointed out, these fliers. But let's not disillusion ourselves about these extravagant statements, that the reason we are enacting these pay increases is to save money because there is a little doubt in my mind. Mr. DOYLE. Sir, we accepted the Committee report because of the provisions which benefited the people of the service. I don't think I am technically qualified or no one else to determine down to the dollar what is going to be saved. We certainly believe in the American Legion that if you can retain a trained man, which maybe the Government has paid $100,000 to train, if you can retain him with a better pay increase rather than lose him, you do save that $100,000 of retraining another one, to take his place and over a period of time it could possibly be a larger saving if we can keep those trained personnel. or I agree with you that I couldn't say if it will be a billion dollars, Mr. GAVIN. We want to train these personnel. We have no disagreement on that. Mr. DOYLE. Yes, sir. Mr. GAVIN. But remember this, we have cut back our Army from 18 divisions and 997,000 men in June of 1957, so that on June 30, 1958, we are going to be down to 900,000 men. As far as I am concerned, I don't want any Koreas. I think we cut back enough. I like proficiency and efficiency but not to the extent that we may cause difficulties in the personnel, either. If we are going to skeletonize our Army and our Navy and our Air Force, get back where we were immediately after World War II, then we might be able to save some billions of dollars, but I just don't think that these billions are going to be saved. So I am just merely calling this matter to your attention. When these statements are made we ought to examine them and decide where are we going to save. We e may be able to save some on training routines and performances and all that sort of thing, but at the same time, we have to keep up our training programs to make our men efficient. We don't want to cut back our training programs to have inexperienced men. We want to build up and I think we have cut back sufficiently. Mr. DOYLE. We completely agree with you, and we are certainly opposed to any further reduction benefit. Mr. GAVIN. The American Legion has a mandate in the matter of combat infantry pay and there has been some consideration given to the possibility of including a section in this bill on that subject, and I would like to ask if you can to tell us the position of the American Legion on combat infantry frontline pay. Mr. DOYLE. We would not be opposed to such a proposal. Mr. MILLER. As long as my good friend, Mr. Gavin, has spoken his piece, as one who was active in the American Legion from its inception for quite a number of years, I would like to see the Legion come out and do something about making Congress stabilize the Armed Forces rather than to come in with recommendations to save some money. In the old days, in the Legion it was a very earthy thing in the first 5 or 6 years of the organization, the direction came from the bottom, not from the top, down. Frankly, still as a legionnaire, I feel you have not done a good job. You have a potential of 221⁄2 million members, and you only have 31⁄2 million. We can't be proud of that. Maybe that is part of the thing. I think you could listen to Comrade Gavin down here and weigh some of those things and take them back to the next convention and talk about keeping our combat efficiency in a place where it is going to mean something, and not get away from shibboleths of bigger bangs for a buck. They don't work out sometimes. Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Miller, in order to add just a little bit: I hope to appear before the Armed Services Committee again in the very near future calling attention to those specific things which you have just talked about, and we are certainly very much opposed to any further reduction in our Army or in our services and we certainly should have an effective Armed Forces and Reserve components. I hope to testify on that. Mr. BLANDFORD. In reading your statement you did not read the words: "The action needed may even hurt some that are now in the service." Did you purposely delete that? Mr. DOYLE. That was purposely deleted by me, sir, after the statement was prepared. You will find on the corrected statement it has been deleted. I have made several changes in the wording of the statement. Mr. BLANDFORD. In other words, you do not want people hurt. Mr. DOYLE. That is correct. Mr. WILSON. There is one statement I wanted to make on Representative Miller's point, and that is in some of these instances when these resolutions emanate from the local level of the American Legion, for instance, this particular resolution emanated from the department of Mississippi, we try to as great a degree as possible keep the original language in the convention committee, and that oftentimes is the reason why we get billions of dollars of savings in here because the committee likes to retain the language that originally came up from the post or department of the American Legion. It is on the basis of the resolution that we then write in the narrative for this statement. Mr. KILDAY. Thank you. Mr. GAVIN. I want to say that sometimes these reports are made and nobody questions them and sometimes they give some figures that are questionable in my mind, at least to make the report attractive as to what to do. We agree with all your objectives that you brought before us here today. I just wanted to bring that one thought to you that when these statements are made maybe a little closer observation of them and careful screening would ascertain where this $5 billion is going to be saved. Mr. DAVIS. We want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of your committee, for the opportunity to appear here this afternoon. Mr. KILDAY. Thank you for your statement. John P. Carlton. Mr. OLES. Mr. Chairman, Colonel Boyer, and Colonel Manchester are here with us. And I will give the reporter their full names. Mr. KILDAY. Have a seat. Colonel CARLTON. My statement is not too long, and I would like to read it, if I may. Mr. KILDAY. Go right ahead, Colonel. Colonel CARLTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we appreciate this opportunity to appear before you in connection with H. R. 9979, a bill to change the method of computing basic pay for members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes. The Reserve Officers Association, which was founded in 1922, is chartered by the United States Congress. Its membership embraces officers of all services, with the bulk being in the Reserves. ROA's objective, as you gentlemen know from your own long experience with our |