صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

STATEMENTS OF MAJ. GEN. C. G. DODGE, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; MAJ. GEN. WINSTON P. WILSON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, DEPARTMENTS OF THE ARMY AND OF THE AIR FORCE; AND BRIG. GEN. WILLIAM T. FAIRBOURN, DIRECTOR, MARINE CORPS RESERVE

General DODGE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Assistant Chief of Staff for Reserve Components of the Department of the Army. The Department of the Army has been designated as the representative of the Department of Defense for this legislation. I represent the Department of the Army for that purpose. I have with me today Major General Wilson, Deputy Chief, National Guard Bureau, who will collaborate with me in presenting this statement. In addition, I have representatives of the other military departments for the purpose of answering any questions that you may have with particular reference to their services. They are General Fairbourn, the Director of Marine Corps Reserves; Commander Huie, Department of the Navy; and Lieutenant Colonel Fetterman, of the Air Force.

I have a brief prepared statement that I would like to present to the committee.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Saltonstall desires to propound a question at this stage.

Senator SALTONSTALL. I thought it might help to clarify it in my mind. Are all these gentlemen from the National Guard and the other forces in accord with the statement that you are making? Are you all united on this?

General DODGE. Yes, sir; we are.

Senator SALTON STALL. Thank you.

Chairman RUSSELL. Proceed, General.

General DODGE. The purpose of this bill is to provide for more effective participation in the Reserve components of the Armed Forces by: (1) allowing draft deferment for all reservists who after having acquired an obligation, continue to participate satisfactorily; (2) equalizing the total obligations of all nonprior service obligors enlisting between the ages of 17-26 years; (3) authorizing priority induction of reservists subject to induction who fail to participate satisfactorily; (4) extending the 45 days' active duty for training proviso to the Army and Air National Guard; (5) providing a more flexible enlistment program in the National Guard; (6) providing for flexibility with respect to the active duty for training obligations of Reserve Officers Training Corps graduates; and (7) providing for more flexibility in the law relating to the right of Federal employees to take 2 weeks' leave annually for the purpose of military training.

Mr. Chairman, I will cover those portions of this bill that are directly related to Army and Air Force reservists while the statutes relating only to members of the National Guard will be covered in a statement by General Wilson.

First, regarding section 1 of this bill, which amends section 6(c) (2) (B) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act.

Briefly, present law provides for the deferment of certain members of the Reserve components, including the National Guard, so long as they participate satisfactorily in Ready Reserve training. However, this deferment is restricted to individuals who enlist prior to attaining age 1812. Clause (1) of this section of the bill would provide deferment for those individuals who enlist in the National Guard after reaching 1812 years of age and will be discussed by General Wilson. comparable proposal for Army and Air Force reservists is contained in section 2 of the bill which I will cover very shortly.

A

Clause (2) of this section relates to the service of the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) graduate.

Present statutes (sec. 6(d) (1), Universal Military Training and Service Act) provide that ROTC graduates commissioned in a Reserve component, whose services are not required on active duty in fulfillment of their service obligation, shall be ordered to active duty for training for 6 months. The Department of Defense feels that it is uneconomical and unnecessary to require a 6-month active duty training period for all officers if it is possible to properly indoctrinate and train them in less time. Such being the case, it would be desirable to have flexibility in the prescribed length of the duty tours of these officers. This proposed legislation substitutes a variable period of 3 to 6 months' active duty for training at the discretion of the Secretary of the service concerned with the proviso that the initial period of active duty for training be of sufficient duration to qualify the officer for mobilization assignment.

It is estimated that this will result in a savings of approximately $3.1 million in the matter of pay and allowances for lieutenants during the fiscal year 1962.

This measure also provides a desirable degree of flexibility with respect to the Reserve obligation of these officers. I have reference here to the assignment of officers rather than to the length of the individual's obligation. The present law states that the officer, upon completion of 6 months active duty for training, shall be assigned to an appropriate unit of the active service or a Reserve component until the eighth anniversary of the receipt of his commission. This legislation proposes to retain the requirement of the 8-year service obligation but restates this requirement to clarify the status of a Reserve officer who transfers between the Army, Navy, and Air Force prior to completion of his obligation.

Next, section 2 of H.R. 5490 amends section 262 (b) (3) of the Armed Forces Reserve Act (AFRA) of 1952.

I am sure you realize that section 262 of the AFRA can very appropriately be considered the bread and butter statute for the Reserve components of the Armed Forces. This section (section 262 of the AFRA of 1952, as amended) prescribes an 8-year obligation for the individual under 181⁄2 years of age who enlists in the Reserve forces. At the same time, under the provisions of section 651, title 10, United States Code, individuals in the 1812-26 year age group may enlist in the Reserve forces and incur only a 6-year obligation. An active duty training period of 6 months is required of each age group. It is believed that in the interest of equity, all non-prior-service individuals in the age group 17-26, who enlist in the Reserve forces, should incur an equal period of obligation. Further, it is believed that this period

of obligated service should be for 8 years. This period of service would provide needed stability to the strength of our Reserve components and would compare favorably with the 6-year obligation incurred by the 2-year obligor. As you know, the large number of veteran reservists who have been providing strength and experience to our program will begin retiring in the near future, and, in addition, the individuals who incurred obligations upon passage of the Reserve Forces Act of 1955 will soon be completing their required period of service. It is for these reasons that the longer period of obligated service is desired. Section 2 of this bill provides the necessary language for changing section 262 of the AFRA to reflect an 8-year obligation for all non-prior-service individuals under 26 years of age, who in the future, enlist for 3 to 6 months active duty for training in the Reserve components.

Another subject that I would like to touch on briefly while discussing section 2 of this bill is that of priority induction.

The U.M.T. & S. (Universal Military Training and Service) Act authorizes the priority induction of those individuals incurring an 8year service obligation through enlistment or appointment in the Ready Reserve of any component of the Armed Forces between the ages of 17 and 1812 years who have failed to serve satisfactorily. Currently this applies only to the individual enlisting under section 262 of AFRA 1952, that is, the 17- to 1812-year group. Those individuals who become members of the Ready Reserve after attaining age 1812 are not subject to priority induction.

The amendment of section 262 of AFRA, as proposed by this legislation, would provide authority for the priority induction of any person who enlists under the provisions of this section, who is otherwise subject to induction, and who fails to serve satisfactorily as a member of the Ready Reserve of one of the Armed Forces.

Section 9 of this bill amends that provision of law which authorizes Federal employees 15 days of leave per year for the purpose of performing annual military training duty. As a general rule, Reserve component units, as well as individual reservists, perform their 2 weeks annual active duty for training during the summer months (May 15 through September 15). These units alternate training periods so that a unit going to summer camp during the latter half of the summer of one year (e.g., August) will normally go to camp during the first half of the summer the next year (e.g., June), if this leave is authorized on a fiscal year basis, and no leave the following fiscal year. The proposed change will make this leave privilege available on a calendar-year instead of a fiscal-year basis with an added proviso that if this leave is not used during the calendar year in which it accrues, it may be used by that individual during the first 6 months of the next calendar year. The bill does not alter the amount of leave authorized; however, it does permit greater flexibility in its use.

The administration supports this legislation with one small addition to the wording concerning the provision for leave. We would insert the words: "with the concurrence of the head of the employing agency" after the word "however" on line 1, page 8 of the bill, which would make that section read

however, with the concurrence of the head of the employing agency, all or any part of such leave which is not used by the officer or employee during the calendar year in which it accrues may be used by him during the first 6 months of the next calendar year.

This merely provides insurance against a military department's ordering an individual from another Government agency to active duty without the consent of the employing agency.

The provisions of this bill when being coordinate within the Department of Defense as a legislative proposal, were approved by the Reserve Forces Policy Board which, as you know, is established by law to advise the Secretary of Defense on policy matters pertaining to the Reserve forces.

The legislative proposal which is now before this committee as H.R. 5490 has been cleared with the new as well as the previous administration.

The remaining sections of the bill are applicable only to the Army and Air National Guard and a statement regarding these, to include budgetary implications, if applicable, will be made by General Wilson.

I shall be happy to answer any questions you may have on the portion of the bill that I have discussed, or perhaps you would prefer to wait until General Wilson has covered the remaining provisions. Chairman RUSSELL. I will first make a statement, and then I will have some questions.

When we consider the statutory gaps that this bill is intended to close, one might form the impression that the Reserve Forces Act of 1955 was not carefully considered.

For the record, the Chair desires to point out that most of these gaps have originated since the 6-month training program was opened to persons over the age of 1812.

When the 1955 act was considered, this committee inquired closely into the practicality of opening the 6-month training period, to persons over the age of 1812. We were strongly urged not to do so because of fears that such action would adversely affect enlistments for extended active duty.

To illustrate this, at one point in the 1955 hearings, the Department of Defense. witness stated, and I quote:

I implore this committee not to make the 6-month training program available to persons over the age of 182.

We agreed to that request and, consequently, the statutory framework does not provide for a 6-month training program for persons older than 1812.

Selective service regulations that provide a deferment for persons participating satisfactorily in the Reserve have made possible the operation of such a program, apparently without any disastrous effects on regular enlistments.

Now I get down to the instant bill.

It obviously is illogical to have a longer service obligation for persons who enlist in the 6-month training program before they are vulnerable for the draft than is required of persons who wait until after reaching the age of 1812.

My understanding of the procedures today, insofar as they affect the Army, is that the Army requires 2 years of Ready Reserve participation by persons who have served 2 years on active duty, 3 years of Ready Reserve participation by persons who join the 6-month training program before reaching the age of 1812, and 512 years of Ready Reserve participation by persons who join the 6-month training period, after reaching the age of 1812.

Now, why is this arrangement unsatisfactory, and why, instead of lengthening from 6 to 8 years the obligated service of those entering the 6-month training program after reaching the age of 1812, would it not be preferable to reduce from 8 to 6 years the obligation of those who enter the program before reaching the age of 1812?

Since we are going to coordinate them, why shouldn't we make the Reserve duty the same for those who go into the Reserve program for 6 months, before they are 182 with those who go in after 182 years old?

General DODGE. As for this bill as it is set, sir, we feel it is more equitable to increase the overall obligation to 8 years, which compares more equitably with the service of the inductee who spends 2 years on active duty 2 years in the Ready Reserve, and then 2 years in the Standby Reserve, a total of 6 years' obligation, a whole 2 years of which he must serve on active duty.

Chairman RUSSELL. Those who take the 6-month training program before they are 1812 and are required to serve 8 years in the Reserves, as a matter of fact, are put in the Standby Reserve after 32 years. Is that not correct?

General DODGE. That is right, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. You cannot take them out without the approval of selective service.

General DODGE. That is right, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Why shouldn't we just saw it off at 6 years? If we have a great emergency, Congress will be here, and we will pass a law making everybody liable. If we are going to make this service uniform, it seems to me we ought to establish it at 6 years rather than extending this category to 8 years. But that is a matter the committee will have to decide.

Does anyone have any questions before we hear General Wilson? Senator SALTONSTALL. Yes, I would like to ask this question, Mr. Chairman.

I recall, and maybe inaccurately, when we discussed this question in 1955. We had quite a discussion.

Chairman RUSSELL. Yes, we had quite a discussion.

Senator SALTONSTALL. And we had a long discussion of it, and, as I remember it, we put this provision in about 1812, because the National Guard at that time told us that if we did not make it under 1812 and permit them to go into the National Guard at that age, the National Guard would be depleted and would not be able to get recruits.

Now, where a person serves after 181/2, then he was subject to selective service. If he took his service, then he had these other provisions. But the man who went in below 1812 and did it in a National Guard unit and stayed at home, was able to do all his other business and carry on, then we felt he should have this additional length of Reserve service.

Now, that was my memory of why we made those two different things. We felt that the man who was drafted did his draft work and then he should have not so long a period as the man who could stay at home, go into the National Guard, get his 6 months' training, and then be subject to this long period in the Reserves.

« السابقةمتابعة »