صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Senator ERVIN. General, are you satisfied that in practical operation the provision of section 9 restricting his right to take his-of a Federal employee to take his military leave within the 6 months of the next calendar year, if it is not taken in a particular calendar year, will not result in his having to take his civil service leave for military purposes, as a fact of the matter?

General DODGE. I believe it would not, sir, but rather the reverse. The intent of this is to be sure that he does not have to take his regular leave for military purposes, but rather is able to use the military leave set up for the purpose.

General WILSON. Mr. Chairman, that is 15 days annual military leave in civil service, so it means if you take it in one-half of 1 fiscal year, that is all he gets during that calendar year, and this is based on a calendar year of 15 days only. We are not increasing the number of days. It is just as to when he can take it, because most of your training sites around the country are where you have many States going in to them, a lot of States would prefer to go in June or August, but somebody has got to go in July, so we have had many units in the guard that do get two periods of field training in 1 fiscal year, but only 15 days in a calendar year, and when they have to go to two field training in 1 fiscal year, this means that they either have to go without pay or go with their normal annual leave other than military.

Senator ERVIN. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Any further questions?

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask some questions.

Chairman RUSSELL. Yes, indeed.

Senator THURMOND. General, I was just wondering, if it became necessary to mobilize the ground forces if we would not have more men with training if we lopped off the last 2 years and brought in others, if we would not have a broader base there, and be more ready to meet the enemy, because you would have had a larger group available there who had had basic training.

I can see your point of holding on to them the other 2 years, we could do that also, that is one thing. But it just struck me as if you would have more men who had been trained.

General DODGE. As I see it, sir, you would have a broader but, possibly, a slightly thinner base in that you would be training people in the Reserve units for a shorter period of time.

Senator THURMOND. Another thing, too, I am a strong believer in military training. I would like to see every young man have military training in this country, I would favor it.

The education that a lot of these young men are getting in some of the colleges is very far to the left, and I think it is important to get as many of them in military training as possible in service to offset some of that left wing training they are getting in these colleges. I do not ask you to comment on that though. I just want to express myself on that.

General DODGE. Thank you, sir.

Senator THURMOND. I want to ask General Fairbourn a question. I believe you said that you retain them in the Active Reserve for 8 years?

General FAIRBOURN. This is correct.

Senator THURMOND. But the last 2 years they are really not active. General FAIRBOURN. The last 3 years we do not require any performance.

Senator THURMOND. You do not require any performance. I am just wondering how you would consider those if called on to furnish the number in the Active Reserve generally, you think in the Active Reserve they are actually ready to go, and if you are not requiring any performance isn't that going to be misleading?

General FAIRBOURN. We consider them to be trained, fully trained, after 5 years of satisfactory participation, which includes, of course, their 6 months active duty for training. For the remaining 3 years of their obligation they will retain their military skill to an adequate degree that they are mobilizable, and will be used and, of course, they are retained in the Ready Reserve.

Senator THURMOND. But how can you say they are ready if they have not had any training for 3 years?

General FAIRBOURN. Well, that is what we consider it, and I believe the other services do to varying degrees also.

General DODGE. Might I comment on that?

Senator THURMOND. Yes. I would be glad if you would comment. General DODGE. We do a comparable thing and, as an example, in our Ready Reserve pool, which I am sure you understand about, we have people with 3 years active duty who have 2 years left in the Ready Reserve, and we consider them trained from the day they leave their 3 years active duty until they revert from the Ready to the Standby Reserve. In other words, over this period of 2 years we feel that the people are adequately enough trained so that upon mobilization they could be used immediately and sent to a unit as a filler or a replacement.

Senator THURMOND. But if you did not retain those men for the last 2 years or the last 3 years, and brought in others for 6 months, then you would have still more available, would you not?

General DODGE. Yes, sir. Well, I was talking about actually a slightly different category of personnel.

As you know, there are several different categories in the pool, but addressing myself only to the retention of training by a man that we consider as a trained soldier.

Senator THURMOND. I think we all agree it should be the same. The only question is whether it should be 6 years or 8 years, possibly.

General WILSON. Mr. Chairman, may I add one thing? I think it was an indication in the Air Force, both the guard and the Reserve on these people who have an 8-year obligation, they are in the participating units for 8 years, sir, 6 months plus 712 years. In other words, we are hoping that by this legislation we will be able to enlist a man for his total Ready Reserve obligation.

Chairman RUSSELL. Well, he has no obligation if he passes 8 years. General WILSON. That is right, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. And if he were drafted and served 2 years on active duty, he would be 2 years in the Ready Reserve.

Any further questions of the General?

General WILSON. I have scanned through your statement, we have discussed most of it, and I will put it in the record.

General WILSON. There are one or two items that have not been discussed. If I might summarize, I would be glad to put the statement in the record.

Chairman RUSSELL. All right.

General WILSON. One of them is that we feel that the guard should be included in the 45-day authority for active duty. That has been discussed. We would like to have that provision.

There is another provision in here pertaining to the enlistments of the guard. At the present time we are able to enlist under the old National Defense Act for a 3-year original enlistment or a 1-year for reenlistment; 1 or 3 for reenlistment.

We would like a more flexible enlistment program so that we can enlist the people based on their obligations.

It saves a lot of paperwork, it saves a lot of change, and also the fact that we were able to extend enlistments for an indefinite period of time based on the individual's desires, sir. We feel that is an important one.

We have already discussed the leave portion of this bill, and we certainly support this, as I have said before, in that many of our units, based on the availability of training sites, are apt to go to field training two times in 1 fiscal year.

We feel that this should be written in such a way that it will exclude the people this year who are having to take annual leave or leave without pay to go to field training two times in this fiscal year, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
Chairman RUSSELL. Yes.

Senator SALTONSTALL. General Wilson, on page 4 of your statement you refer to section 9 and you say that this was added by the House Armed Services Committee and that its enactment is of great importance to the National Guard.

General WILSON. Yes, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. I questioned on that, but I had not seen that statement when I questioned.

I have received information that possibly this whole section should be stricken out rather than changed. Why is it of such great importance? I think I understand it.

General WILSON. Well, sir, it is of great importance in that if it is not changed back to a calendar year then those Federal employees who are in units who have to go to field training twice in the same fiscal year have to go on their annual leave or leave without pay.

Senator SALTONSTALL. What would be the effect of this if it were stricken out?

General WILSON. You mean if it were taken out and left as is?
Senator SALTONSTALL. Yes.

General WILSON. It would mean that these people, these Federal employees, who are in units would have to take annual leave or leave without pay to attend the second field training in 1 fiscal year, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. So that from the National Guard point of view it is an extremely helpful provision for keeping the people optimistic regarding their service because they can get their leave also? General WILSON. Yes, sir; that is correct.

You see, the Federal civil service regulations authorize 15 days' leave for military purposes. We feel that they should be able to take that during the time of year that their units are going to field training. General DODGE. This same applies to the Reserves, Senator Saltonstall.

General WILSON. Yes. That applies to the Reserves, also, sir.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that just about completes the pertinent changes in the bill, other than were discussed by General Dodge and the other discussion that has come out, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. I see.

(The prepared statement of General Wilson follows:)

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Maj. Gen. Winston P. Wilson, Deputy Chief of the National Guard Bureau, Departments of the Army and of the Air Force. The National Guard Bureau has been designated as the representative of the Department of Defense with respect to those portions of H.R. 5490 which affect the National Guard, Army and Air.

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

H.R. 5490 contains several features of great importance to the National Guard. Section 1 of the bill would provide the same statutory deferment, and under the same conditions, for the individual enlisting in the National Guard, Army or Air, between the ages of 182 and 26 as is now provided for the man enlisting 17 and 182. If the legislation is enacted, any individual thereafter enlisting in the National Guard between the ages of 17 and 26 will be deferred so long as he serves satisfactorily. Upon completing 8 years of satisfactory service during which time he has performed not less than 3 consecutive months' active duty for training, he will be exempt from induction except after a declaration of war or national emergency. In addition, the 18-26 group will be granted the same statutory deferment from induction as is now enjoyed by the 17-18-year-old group, and both groups will be considered for priority induction under identical circumstances.

Section 3 of the bill will, for the first time, provide authority to order those National Guard members who are granted a statutory deferment and fail to perform satisfactorily the training duty required of them, to perform, involuntarily, an additional period of active duty for training not in excess of 45 days. This active duty for training would be in the members' Federal Reserve status, but could be ordered only at the request of the Governor of the State concerned. At present, National Guard authorities have somewhat ineffective means of dealing with those who fail to perform the required training. State courts-martial or discharge and report of the individual to the Selective Service System for routine induction are the only means of disposing of those who enlist over 182. Priority induction is also a last resort with those who have enlisted under 181⁄2 and acquired a deferment. None of these seems so useful and fitted to the need as the 45-day provision which will result in the proper training of the individual, and his return to his unit and community. In addition, there is enough "sting" in this device to assure that it will seldom have to be employed. The fact that it cannot be invoked except after a request by the National Guard authorities retains the historic element of State control.

Section 4 of the bill is a technical amendment which will except those individuals who enlist in the National Guard between 17 and 26 from the classes which acquire a 6-year obligation upon enlistment or induction. These guardsmen, who perform 3 or more consecutive months of training will have an 8-year obligation.

Sections 5, 6, and 7 are related, and can best be discussed as a whole. The present provisions of Federal law governing enlistment in the National Guard have remained unchanged since the National Defense Act of 1916. Original enlistments are for 3 years, reenlistments for 1 or 3 years. The individual also enlists as a Reserve of the Army, or Reserve of the Air Force for like periods. Section 7 of the bill would amend section 302 of title 32 to permit enlistment of nonprior servicemen for 3 years or more, and prior servicemen to enlist for 1 year or more. This will provide a flexible enlistment program, and individuals will be enabled to enlist in the National Guard and as Reserves for their total remaining service obligations, of whatever duration. Individuals in one of the

highest five enlisted grades will be allowed, under regulations of the Secretaries, to enlist for an indefinite period on a career basis, paralleling that for “first three graders" of the active establishment in sections 3256 and 8256 of title 10. In addition, in lieu of the discharge and reenlistment, with the consequent paperwork now required in the National Guard, an individual may request extension of his current enlistment for any period not less than 6 months, which, if authorized, can be accomplished quickly and simply with a minimum of administrative work. The present provisions authorizing the involuntary extension of enlistments in case of a national emergency are continued.

Section 8 of the bill is a technical provision to the effect that current enlistments are not affected by the amendments.

Section 9 of the bill is an amendment which was added by the House Armed Services Committee. Its enactment is of great importance to the National Guard. As you know, prior to June 30, 1960, when the Reserve Officers Personnel Act amendments of 1960 were enacted, military leave was granted to Federal officers and employees on a calendar year basis. Section 7 of that act however amended the military leave laws to authorize the granting of that leave on a fiscal year basis. As your committee said in its report on H.R. 8186, 86th Congress, referring to section 7 of the act, "This change will not authorize any additional period of absence for training duty, but will permit a greater degree of training opportunity, since the Armed Forces administer their training duty programs on a fiscal-year basis."

While it is true that appropriations covering the cost of National Guard training duty are on a fiscal year basis, the annual field training of National Guard units is scheduled on a calendar year basis. While our units customarily perform their field training during the summer months, each unit does not necessarily perform its training during the same month each year. The 50th Armored Division of New Jersey and parts of six other divisions, as well as some nondivisional units and Air National Guard units which performed field training after July 1 last year will have completed all or part of their field training scheduled for 1961 prior to July 1 of this year. They will therefore have performed field training well in excess of 15 days in fiscal year 1961.

Section 9 of H.R. 5490 is intended to rectify this situation by again providing that military leave is to be allowed on a calendar year basis. It will provide some flexibility to accommodate those reservists, predominantly in the Navy, who perform their training as individuals rather than as members of units, by permitting unused military leave to be used during the first 6 months of the next calendar year.

Those Federal employees who are members of the National Guard or Reserve components who will have attended two periods of field training during fiscal 1961 and prior to enactment of this bill will not be benefited unless it is given retrospective application. Some members will have used their annual leave to cover all or part of their second military tour of duty, others will have had to participate in a leave-without-pay status. It is recommended that section 9 of the bill provide that leave so taken shall be charged to military leave, and that annual leave that may have been taken for the purpose be credited to the employee. Those who may have had to attend in a leave-without-pay status should be considered to have been in a military leave status, and entitled to pay.

The only increased costs which would result from the enactment of this legislation are those incident to the 45-day active duty for training of the National Guard members who will be ordered to that duty by reason of unsatisfactory participation. The maximum costs, as indicated in the letter to the Speaker transmitting the draft of this legislation, are as follows:

[blocks in formation]

The above amounts have not been included in any estimate for appropriations submitted through budget channels by the Department of Defense.

« السابقةمتابعة »