Mr. Chairman, I have some questions that I would like to ask the General to provide for the record. It is off the subject of DOPMA.

It pertains to some of the comments made recently in the Senate Armed Services Committee about the use of women in the military in traditional and nontraditional jobs. If the General would agree to supply that for the record I would appreciate it.

[The following questions were submitted to the witness to be answered for the record:]

WOMEN IN THE MILITARY

Mrs. HOLT. Does the military anticipate fewer women in nontraditional jobs? How will this impact the retention of women? Their careers and upward mobility?

General TICE. There has been considerable emphasis on placing a greater proportion of military women in nontraditional jobs. Presently there are 86,000 enlisted women in skills generally regarded by the military as female nontraditional. This represents 58 percent of all enlisted females and compares with 25 percent of all enlisted women in nontraditional skills in fiscal year 1971. Data from the services and OSD files show that women attrit from, and migrate out of, non-traditional jobs at a higher rate than from traditional jobs. There are many complex reasons for this, which are being examined. In the meantime, the Services are decreasing their emphasis on entering increasing numbers of women into nontraditional career fields. This does not mean any of the career fields now open to women will be closed. Ninety-five percent of all career fields are now open to women and no change to the proportion of fields that are open is anticipated. Since there is no change in assignment or utilization policy there should be no impact on the careers an upward mobility of career women. With the implementation of DOPMA and increasing efforts at integration and utilization of women, careers and upward mobility of military women should continue to improve.

Mrs. HOLT. Can this military meet recruiting goals without getting the number of quality women? How will this new policy affect the quality of the military?

General TICE. There is no "new policy" with regard to women in the military. The only change has been the programatic changes announced by the Army in February 1981. Assuming passage of the requested improvements in military compensation, it appears that through fiscal year 1982 the services will be able to meet their recruiting goals for both men and women. The quality of enlisted female recruits is no longer significantly higher than that of male recruits. The quality of enlistees is generally measured in terms of AFQT scores and high school completion. DoD-wide, the AFQT scores of the men and women we enlisted last year were approximately equal-in fiscal year 1980 the average test score for male enlistees was 46.9 percent and for female enlistees was 47.4 percent. In terms of high school completion, 86 percent of the fiscal year 1980 female recruits were high school diploma graduates as compared with 65 percent of the males. Therefore, any change in female accessions is not likely to result in significant changes in quality.

Mrs. HOLT. Since this policy change may quicken female attrition rates and create personnel shortages, will the DoD actively ask for the return of the draft?

General TICE. The Army's temporary stabilization of further increases in the number of female soldiers is not expected to have an adverse impact on the Army's female attrition rate. Attrition, the failure to complete the full enlistment contract, is a result of many complex leadership and personnel management considerations. Managers in OSD and the services are concentrating on ways to reduce attrition. Measures introduced thus far have met with some success. DoD-wide the attrition of the fiscal year 1973 cohort was 31.7 percent for males and 39.5 percent for females. Attrition for the fiscal year 1977 cohort, the last year of accession for which we have three full years of experience, was 30.8% for males and 37.4% for females. Further improvements are expected as measures to reduce attrition which were introduced in fiscal year 1977 and later take full effect.

We do not believe that the Army action will result in a return to the draft. That essential question should not involve one particular aspect of the recruiting program, but whether we are attracting and retaining the numbers and kinds of people needed for a strong readiness posture. During the upcoming fiscal year 1983-1987 program review we will be evaluating every available option to meet end strength objectives and the congressional quality limits in the most effective and cost efficient manner. As part of the preparation for that review, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed a joint OSD/Service review of women in the military. This is ex

pected to be completed and ready for release some time in the next few months. At this time, we do not foresee insurmountable problems in the military manpower arena that would require the Department of defense to actively seek to return to a peacetime draft.

Mrs. HOLT. Has the military placed a hold on the number of women in the military? What are the targets for the number of women? Why has the moratorium been imposed?

General TICE. There is no DoD-wide "hold" or moratorium on the number of women in the military. The Army has announced it would stabilize the number of enlisted Army women at 65,000 while it examined the ramifications of current and projected numbers of women on readiness and unit effectiveness. The Army's examination should be completed in late 1981. Neither the Army, nor any of the other services have stopped recruiting women. In fiscal year 1982, which begins in October 1981, the Army plans to recruit 16,500 enlisted women. The other Services are expected to recruit another 28,400 women during fiscal year 1982. DoD-wide there were 22,000 female officers and 151,400 enlisted women on active duty (about 8.4 percent of the total active force) in December 1980. The targets for the future number of women are normally established during the annual program review by OSD and the services, which will not be completed until this fall. We do not anticipate any drastic reductions in the previously programmed growth in the numbers of women on active duty in all the services.

Mr. NICHOLS. Is there any other discussion?

Mr. MITCHELL. Just a couple more questions, Mr. Chairman.

On constructive credit, General, the crediting of the number of years normally required to complete advanced education beyond the baccalaureate level would be clarified as the number of years of postsecondary education-in excess of 4 years-that are required by a majority of institutions that award degrees in the professional field concerned.

I thought that was the language for constructive credit. How does that change or differ from the present language?

General TICE. This is where an individual completes his graduate or undergraduate studies in less than what would normally be the normal time. For example, an individual might complete requirements in 21⁄2 year, earlier than normal under an accelerated program. We would want to grant him the normal 3 years of constructive credit.

In such instances it would eliminate the penalty for the person who completes his educational program in a shorter period of time than normally required, such as by taking a heavy course load or attending summer schools and night sessions.

We believe that the young person who works hard and completes his or her program sooner than his contemporaries should be given the same constructive credit.

By the same token an individual who takes longer to complete the same program would not be awarded an additional year over the normal credit. Service credited for completion of any educational program should be standardized at levels that reflect normal requirements regardless of the actual time to complete those studies. Mr. MITCHELL. That does clarify it.

You also propose that general and flag officers could be considered for early retirement after 32 years in grade instead of after 4 years as specified in DOPMA.

Why do we need that?

Colonel PANG. Sir, the intent of the DOPMA was to provide a mechanism for the Department to review general officers who have gone beyond 3 years of service in a particular grade when they can

voluntarily retire and at the end of 5 years when they would mandatorily retire.

During that interim period we wanted a mechanism whereby a general or flag officer could be involuntarily retired.

The provision that was written into the bill stipulated that a general or flag officer could be considered for involuntary retirement, "plucking," if you will, after he had completed 4 years in grade. However, there is also another mechanism in the law that stipulated that the individual could then not be involuntarily separated until the first day of the 10th month following the convening date of the board that selected him for involuntary retirement.

In effect you could not "pluck" an officer under that system until he completed 4 years and 9 months in grade.

What we are doing is merely changing that time backward 6 months so we can do what we had intended to do. That is, provide for release at about 4 years in grade.

Mr. MITCHELL. Under the proposal, the term of service for an officer appointed as Director of the Nurse Corps or Medical Service Corps in the Navy would be clarified.

Such an officer would serve for 4 years at the pleasure of the Secretary of the Navy; to clarify original intent.

How does that differ from what we are doing?

In other words, the Secretary could discontinue his role at any time he wanted to? He could be plucked, as you say?

Colonel PANG. Yes, sir. That was the intent of that.
Mr. MITCHELL. The present law does give him 4 years.

Colonel PANG. DOPMA does; yes, sir. However it was not our intent so we have proposed an amendment to give discretionary authority to the Secretary consistent with those for other officer communities.

Mr. MITCHELL. I would think that would be a rather substantive change.

The present law locks him in for 4 years and we are going to let the Secretray discontinue his role after 2 months; is that right?

General TICE. Colonel Waugh was the one who worked on that provision.

Colonel WAUGH. There was no abuse intended in this particular provision. As it was originally worded in DOPMA, if you had a Chief of Nurse Corps in the Navy there would be no mechanism at all, if for some reason or other, she wanted to move to another admiral or flag officer position in the Navy. She would have to serve 4 years.

"At the pleasure of the Secrtary" was added such that if the Secretary wanted to move the commodore admiral who was serving as the Chief of the Nurse Corps to another commodore admiral job, he could do so.

Mr. MITCHELL. Are other chiefs treated the same way? Do all chiefs serve at the pleasure of the Secretary?

Colonel WAUGH. Yes; essentially so.

Mr. MITCHELL. So this really brings this in compliance with the rest of the services?

Colonel WAUGH. Yes.

Mr. MITCHELL. We are not discriminating against the Nurse Corps?

Colonel WAUGH. I don't think so. If you were talking about the Air Force, the Nurse Corps Chief could be moved to a flag officer position in the Secretary of Defense's staff, if we had such a position.

It simply gives the law a little more flexibility in terms of the management of the flag officer resource.

Mr. MITCHELL. But the same thing happens in all other services with all other chiefs?

Colonel WAUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Skelton.

Mr. SKELTON. I have an inquiry. When will we have our first commodore admiral sworn in? I want to be there.

Colonel PANG. Sir, that probably will not occur for some time. The effective date of the bill is September 15 so it would have to be sometime after that.

Mr. SKELTON. We have the time to change the law to make it historically correct; is that not correct?

Colonel PANG. Yes, sir.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion.

Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Skelton.

Mr. SKELTON. I move that the subcommittee report favorably on the legislative proposal presented before us making numerous technical corrections to the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act.

Mr. NICHOLS. Are there objections?

Hearing no objections, the motion is approved.

RECONCILIATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. NICHOLS. The second issue I want to discuss today is reconciliation as it affects matters within our jurisdiction.

The conference agreement on the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1982 includes reconciliation instructions to 15 committees of the House totaling $35.1 billion. The instruction to the Committee on Armed Services provides:

The House Committee on Armed Services shall report changes in laws within the jurisdiction of that committee which provide spending authority as defined in section 401(cX2XC) of Public Law 93-344, sufficient to reduce budget authority by $966 million and outlays by $966 million in fiscal year 1982; to reduce budget authority by $899 million and outlays by $899 million in fiscal year 1983; and to reduce budget authority by $511 million and outlays by $511 million in fiscal year 1984.

I am informed that the Budget Committee arrived at the amounts using Congressional Budget Office estimates of the savings that could be achieved through a change from a semiannual cost-of-living adjustment for retired military personnel to an annual adjustment and from authorization of sale of excess materials from the strategic stockpile as proposed by the President. In millions of dollars:

Annual cost-of-living adjustment: fiscal year 1982, 394; fiscal year 1983, 327; fiscal year 1984, 285.

Stockpile sales: fiscal year 1982, 572; fiscal year 1983, 572; fiscal year 1984, 226.

Total: fiscal year 1982, 966; fiscal year 1983, 899; fiscal year 1984,

The reconciliation instructions set out the aggregate savings that the committee is to achieve. The committee is not obligated to report the President's specific legislative proposals as incorporated by the Budget Committee.

However, the specific language of the reconciliation instruction provides that the savings, in the case of our committee, come from changes in laws providing spending authority-as defined in section 401(c)(2)(C) of the Budget Act.

This effectively limits the areas in which the committee can act to programs providing pay and entitlements for active and retired military personnel, stockpile sales, and sale of oil from the naval petroleum reserves. Existing law provides for naval petroleum reserve production at the maximum economic rate. Accordingly, additional receipts do not appear to be feasible from this area.

It is important to emphasize that the proposed savings cannot come from one of our authorization bills, which do not provide budget authority. The savings must come from spending authority, which, within the jurisdiction of our committee, as indicated, is limited to personnel entitlements or stockpiles or petroleum reserve sales.

It is also important to remember that this is an instruction from the House to the committee to report to the Budget Committee proposed changes in law that will bring about the directed savings.

As you will recall, the committee last year reported legislation recommending that cost-of-living adjustments for retired military personnel be limited to a once-a-year increase contingent on a similar change being made for civil service retirees.

This provision was included in the reconciliation bill reported by the House Budget Committee last year; however, the provision-together with a similar provision for the civil service-was deleted by floor amendment.

The Senate, also, put a similar provision in the Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1981. We agreed to that provision in the conference on the Defense authorization bill.

Consequently, there exists today a standing provision in law requiring that military retired pay be adjusted on an annual versus a semiannual basis if at any time in the future the civil service system adopts a similar provision.

I believe that we can report a similar provision once again to achieve a portion of the savings demanded of us.

The remaining portion must come from authorization of additional sales from the strategic stockpile or reduction in the pay and entitlements of military personnel.

The committee's responsibility under reconciliation would be discharged by reporting legislation to the Budget Committee that achieves the required savings. The Budget Committee will manage the reconciliation bill on the floor. Members of the committee would not be obligated to support individual sections or the reconciliation bill as a whole.

Section 304 of the budget resolution provides that the committee shall submit its recommendations to the Budget Committee not later than Friday, June 12, 1981.

Chairman Price is scheduling the matter of reconciliation before the full committee on Wednesday, June 10, 1981, so that the com