Mr. MINSHALL. It is still on the same program, and way behind schedule, and by the time they get it in the program it is going to be obsolete?

General FRIEDMAN. I would not agree with that statement.

Mr. MINSHALL. Those are my words.

Mr. FLOOD. Will you add me to that?

General FRIEDMAN. Sir, this reprograming has nothing to do with. maintaining schedules whatsoever.

Mr. FLOOD. That is all I have.

NEW AUTHORIZATION PROCEDURES

Mr. WHITTEN. I notice in your statement, and I am sorry I did. not get to this earlier, on page 34 you say, under "Procurement appropriations," the following:

This year for the first time, we must secure prior authorization for appropriation of funds for procurement of aircraft and missiles.

Later in that paragraph you say you are trying to work this out to have the least impact upon the functions and decisions of the Committee on Appropriations and our relationships with them. Then you make this statement:

It was finally concluded that legislation in the forms of broad "one-line" authorizations to appropriate funds, expressed in terms of new appropriations, coupled with submission of reprograming reports to the Armed Services Committees in the same manner as they are submitted to the Appropriations Committees, would be the best way to accomplish those objectives.

Now, what does that mean in everyday language, General? Does it mean this committee is limited under this procedure where we can act only on line authorizations, where every item will have an authorization, and you bring that to us?

Just what does that mean?

General FRIEDMAN. What that means is that we would operate, for all intents and purposes, with the Committees on Armed Services in the identical manner in which we have operated with the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. WHITTEN. That is very interesting.

I do not know that that particularly applies here. I read into that a whole lot more.

If you enter into an agreement with the Armed Services Committee that before you move you will get a line-by-line, or one-line authoriLation, it means in the absence of that any latitude of freedom you ay have had, or any freedom this committee might have in the way of redirecting the use of funds, would be prohibited if you enter into at agreement with the Armed Services Committee, if I interpret at right.

General FRIEDMAN. I see your point.

We say a single one-line authorization in terms of new obligating hority. In other words, let me express it this way-the authoriation act would say "for procurement of missiles for the Air Force, horizations requiring new appropriations in the amount of $2,811 allion." That would be the one line" authorization.

As we read the section of the 1959 Construction Authorization Act which deals with this, it says it is authorization for an appropri ation-not authorization for programs. That is the exact language in the 1959 Construction Authorization Act-authorization for purposes of appropriation.

Mr. WHITTEN. Carrying this a step further, what statement would you make as to where this change will affect the prior exercise of jurisdiction by this committee, or the prior rights of transfer, or realinement, or reemphasis that this committee has exercised with the Air Force?

What change will this make as compared with the past between what you could do under the former procedure and what this committee could do under the former procedure?

General FRIEDMAN. There would only be one change. It would limit the amount of appropriation which could be made for purchase of either aircraft or missiles.

Mr. WHITTEN. In this case it is missiles and aircraft, but this would put a stop to the reemphasis of the POLARIS missiles which was done under the leadership of the chairman of this committee. It might stop a course along that line.

General FRIEDMAN. I do not believe so.

Mr. WHITTEN. Is that not the real intent of it?

General FRIEDMAN. It would only do one thing. It would not permit this committee to, let us say, add $190 million to the line item for B-70 unless the $190 million was taken off of other aircraft procurement in order to remain within the amount of dollar authorization for aircraft.

Mr. MAHON. It would mean this with respect to the POLARIS Back in about calendar year 1959, we provided $600 million to accelerate the POLARIS program. We thought this was a good het. and we banked heavily on, the POLARIS, and fortunately it has paid off as a result of good leadership and sound management. Now, unless there was an authorization for an amount equal to the additional $600 million appropriation, we would have had no ability to have done that without reducing by an equal sum other items in the same

account.

That is the point vou are making.

Mr. WHITTEN. The point I am making, and knowing what competi tiveness exists around the hill here, I am raising the question of whether here is not another example, or effective method, whereby yo could not have done that.

I said missiles, and I do not know whether that would apply fo POLARIS. If this is carried far enough, it would mean that sing you had a line authorization of a particular thing, if you refused t appropriate money for one thing you could not put it into the othe because of the ceiling that had been established for the other, if I rea this right.

General FRIEDMAN. No, sir. We have suggested to the Committe on Armed Services that they not establish limitations for each lin item within the appropriation.

What we have requested of them was to make a simple one-lit authorization which merely says "for procurement of aircraft, author ization for appropriation not to exceed X amount of dollars," wit

no reference whatsoever as to types of aircraft to be procured within the total amount of authorization.

Mr. OSTERTAG. The same with missiles?

General FRIEDMAN. The same with missiles.

Mr. OSTERTAG. There are many kinds of missiles. The authorization then would not indicate the number of missiles, but merely the total dollar ceiling?

General FRIEDMAN. The program would only indicate missile numbers to the extent we provided a buy list just as we do this committee. The authorization bill would not contain missile numbers. Similarly, your committee makes an appropriation for the purchase of aircraft, "X number of dollars." The point of departure for the reprograming is the "buy program" we presented to you when you arrived at your determination of the total number of dollars.

Mr. MAHON. Thank you very much for your presentation.
We shall consider some of these matters further.

MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1961.

WITNESSES

LT. GEN. JAMES F. COLLINS, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR PER

SONNEL

LEONARD I. NICHOLS, OFFICE, CHIEF OF TRANSPORTATION

MAJ. GEN. CHARLES B. DUFF, DIRECTOR OF THE ARMY BUDGET,

OCA

COL. JAMES H. LYNCH, OFFICE, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR

PERSONNEL

COL. JAMES L. FERGuson, office, THE QUARTERMASTER GEN

ERAL

COL CHARLES B. MILLIKEN, OFFICE, THE CHIEF OF FINANCE

T. COL. CHARLES D. MAYNARD, OFFICE, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF

FOR PERSONNEL

MAJ. GEN. ROBERT S. MOON, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, COMPTROLLER

Mr. MAHON. The committee will come to order. We shall begin now the hearing on military personnel. One of th large categories of money of the budget is for military personnel. General Collins, it is a pleasure to have you before us again thi year. How many years have you been appearing before us? General COLLINS. This is the fourth year. Mr. MAHON. I see General Vittrup. in the spot you occupy. Tell us about it.

This indicates some chang

General COLLINS. There is a nomination before the Senate indica ing, if approved by the Senate, I go to replace General I. D. Whit in command of the U.S. Army Pacific upon his retirement about th 1st of April, and that General Vittrup will replace me as Deput Chief of Staff of Personnel with the rank of lieutenant general.

Mr. MAHON. You have been a very able and faithful officer in th position you now hold. It has been a pleasure for us to work i cooperation with you. We will be pleased to have General Vittry come along in your footsteps, and we hope he will do almost as w as you have done in this position.

General COLLINS. I appreciate the fine remarks. I appreciate all the efforts of the committee in behalf of the personnel in the Army. We have had difficulties and the committee has frequently helped us out. To a great extent we are doing a lot better job because of the way the Congress and this committee have treated us.

Mr. MAHON. Thank you very much.

Will you proceed?

GENERAL STATEMENT OF DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR PERSONNEL

General COLLINS. Mr Chairman and members of the committee, today I shall present for your consideration the budget estimate of the Department of the Army for the military personnel appropriation for fiscal year 1962. This appropriation provides for items falling within the principal categories of pay and allowances, clothing, subsistence, and permanent change of station travel. All details of these items are included in the budget justification sheets in your possession.

SCOPE

In justifying this fund request, I shall discuss first, the permanent change of station travel program; second, the fund requirements by budget activity for fiscal year 1962; and finally, several personnel matters which are of interest to this committee in its general understanding of the personnel situation of the Army.

PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION TRAVEL (PCS)

During this hearing I will give special emphasis to one budget program which requires major consideration. I refer to the travel program for permanent change of station. The interest in this program shown by the committee in the past and the efforts of the Army to meet the desires of the Congress to reduce travel, prompt this special attention.

An examination of PCS travel experience shows that the bulk of the Army travel program supports certain relatively fixed commitments which bear a direct relationship to the strength, deployment, and combat readiness of the Army. As seen on figure 1 these movements constitute 91 percent of the total number of military movements. These fixed commitments include PCS travel for processing, training, and assignment of new personnel as well as for separation of personnel whose terms of service are completed. Also in the fixed ategory is the movement of military members to and from oversea stations. Movements of the type just discussed are subject to little reduction so long as processing, training, and separation requirements are stable; oversea deployments are unchanged and foreign duty our lengths as fixed by the Department of Defense remain the same.