Mr. RILEY. How many new people have you taken into the Navy during this fiscal year that were not programed and budgeted for before the budget was made up? Admiral HIRSCH. The increase is 6,000. Mr. RILEY. New people? Admiral HIRSCH. New people. You bring in more people than that 6,000 to actually maintain an increased strength of 6,000 so possibly we brought in 8,000 or 10,000 people, in order to bring our strength level up to an increase of 6,000. Mr. RILEY. When you bring this new personnel into the Navy, you have to train them? Admiral HIRSCH. Yes, we do. Mr. RILEY. And then send them to their stations? Mr. RILEY. Which also has an impact on your change of permanent station, or assignment of station; is that correct? Admiral HIRSCH. It does. We bring them in, send them to boot camp. Many of them must then go to a special training school. We try to send them as close as we can, and then they have to be sent off to fleet duty, which is another change, so before anyone really gets to their first duty and can really do work for the Navy, productive work, they have made two or more moves. Mr. RILEY. Am I correct in my recollection that most of these schools are on the east coast, or the west coast? Admiral HIRSCH. There are schools on both coasts, and there is a very large technical training school for many of these new exotic equipments in Memphis, Tenn. We have people coming home from both the east and west coasts, and fleets on both coasts, so there is considerable travel just to do our normal business. Actually, it can be said of the number of moves, 72 percent of all the moves that we have to make are in effect beyond our control because they have to do with bringing new people into the Navy, sending them to the boot camp, technical training school, and to fleet duty and the other facet of it is sending home those that go out of the Navy after their enlistment has expired. Some 72 percent of the number of moves are in that category. Mr. RILEY. Seventy-two percent are automatic, or fixed? Mr. RILEY. You can only use your judgment in 28 percent of the moves? Admiral HIRSCH. Yes. Mr. RILEY. If there is any reduction it has to be made in the 28 percent? Admiral HIRSCH. That is where most all would have to be made. Mr. RILEY. Do you have an estimate as to how much money it would take to make you whole from now until the end of the fiscal year in that category? Admiral HIRSCH. If we are speaking of PCS travel, yes, I do. In PCS travel, the Bureau of Naval Personnel in fiscal year 1961 has an unfunded deficiency over and above that $3 million we have asked for in the supplemental, as far as dollars are concerned, of $13.3 million. Mr. RILEY. In other words, you are getting just about half in round numbers of what you need in the deficiency bill? You do not have any rights of transfer from other categories, or do you? Admiral HIRSCH. Not in this permanent change of station, travel. We do not have an ability to transfer except within the "Military personnel, Navy," appropriation. Mr. RILEY. That is a fixed appropriation? Admiral HIRSCH, Yes, sir, Mr. RILEY. No funds can be transferred into it? Admiral HIRSCH. Not without congressional authorization. Mr. RILEY. Without congressional consent, or agreement. Mr. SHEPPARD. I am referring to page 18, section 533, Public Law 86-601, and I quote: Not to exceed $677,854,000 of the funds made available in this act shall be available for travel expenses in conection with temporary duty and permanent change of station of civilian and military personnel of the Department of Defense. What ultimately came out of the Congress was 5 percent. That was applied in the gross concept. Had the Office of the Secretary of Defense taken a better view of the situation, you would not find yourselves in the position you are. Admiral HIRSCH. The actual cut was about 8 percent, and I think the Navy found itself in a very difficult position because the limitation was established before there was any thought of having this increased readiness posture, or before there was any thought of increasing the strength by 6,000 people. This has really been the serious bind we find ourselves in. Furthermore, I think through the years we have done a pretty good job of cutting down the number of moves and the cost of moves and increasing the length of stay of the people who are really permanent in the Navy at one location. We just did not have in the Navy very much that we could further cut down on unless we just did not do our job. Mr. WHITTEN. Of course the services and the Congress differed, else the Congress would not have written this instruction and limited the money. The best evidence of what you did would be to put in the record what changes in regulations and rules you have made as a result of reduced funds. The Congress found that you were doing too much travel in their opinion and they tried to bring about an improvement. I would like for the record to show at this point any change in regulation, or policy you may have made to carry it out, if any. Those were your instructions by the Congress, and to say you thought you were already doing a good job-that was decided in the bill. I want to see what you decided to do. Admiral HIRSCH. We did a great many things. As a matter of fact, we have almost stifled the moves of people more than is good for the Navy and the Nation. We will provide it for the record—~— : Mr. WHITTEN. That is a matter of opinion. Yours might be better than mine, or the Congress, but when you say "More than was good for the Navy," the Navy has its opinion, and Congress had its opinion, and the bill carries the money. I think it important the chairman permit them to show what they did do, if anything. Admiral HIRSCH. We will be happy to provide a listing of those actions we have taken to make further reductions and to enable us to live within the amount of money we have. (The information to be supplied follows:) MEASURES IN EFFECT TO REDUCE TRAVEL TO MINIMUM ESSENTIAL LEVEL 1. All shore-to-shore rotation within continental United States has been suspended except where movements are required in connection with fleet readiness, training, selective training and retention program, and for humanitarian reasons. 2. Officer tours in continental United States have been extended as feasible where career impairment is not involved. Included are tours in continental United States shore-based fleet staffs and units. Tours are not being shortened solely for reasons of promotion or nonselection. 3. Officer tours in afloat units conform to normal tour lengths as presently established. Split tours are being served in same geographic area to the maximum extent feasible. 4. Enlisted rotation has been suspended for the last 4 months of fiscal year 1961. Exceptions are made when the move is essential to fleet readiness, to fill unplanned losses, to meet training requirements, and to relieve personnel on completion of overseas tours. 5. Overseas tours as defined by DOD directives may be extended voluntarily by bachelors and personnel not accompanied by dependents, but they will not be shortened unless career impairment is involved. Overseas tours of personnel accompanied by dependents may not be extended except when clearly required to meet a particular need of the service. 6. In all cases where a sea/shore billet must be filled, an officer or enlisted man due for rotation whose present assignment is nearest the geographical location of the vacant billet will be utilized if his qualifications permit. Personal preference for duty location will be honored only when consistent with the needs of the service and the necessity to conserve travel funds. 7. Personnel ordered to active duty in connection with the recall program are assigned to duty stations nearest to their home of record consistent with the needs of the service. 8. Temporary duty for briefings, training, etc. (except language training for key billets), is not authorized unless the temporary duty is essential or the benefiting activity agrees to pay cost of the temporary duty. Essential temporary duty will be reduced to the minimum practicable. Each case will be evaluated on its merits, in consultation with the sponsor. 9. Resignations, voluntary retirements, transfers to fleet reserve and releases from active duty while on indefinite extension, are not authorized until a minimum tour of one year has been completed at current duty station, or if overseas. until normal tour is completed with the exception of bona fide hardship. 10. Interfleet transfers of enlisted personnel, normally permitted after four years in one fleet, have been discontinued, except for emergency reasons or where the two units involved have the same home port. 11. Enlisted graduates of temporary duty schools are assigned next duty on a basis of their dependents' location in order that minimum cost to Government will be realized. 12. Cross-country travel is authorized only in those cases where the moves are absolutely necessary. Sponsoring bureaus/offices are required to justify all requests in writing. 13. Fleet units are being employed for the transportation of unaccompanied personnel of noncritical rates. 14. When possible, personnel with less than 90 days obligated service are de tached prior to the deployment of a ship to an oversea area. 15. Earlier instructions with regard to the size of the families that will be sent overseas are still effective, i.e., no sponsor with more than four dependents will be sent overseas unless specifically authorized by the Assistant Chief for Personnel Control. 16. Commercial oversea transportation is not authorized to areas served by Government transportation. 17. The use of aircoach travel in continental United States has been encouraged when such transportation will meet the needs of the traveler. 18. Personnel who enlist under continuous service at a recruiting station will be ordered directly to ultimate duty rather than via a receiving station. 19. Personnel in first 4-year enlistments who must be ordered to shore duty after attending service school, will remain at such shore stations their entire enlistment rather than being rotated to sea. 20. Whenever possible aviation personnel are ordered to the same area for both replacement air group training and ultimate squadron assignment. 21. Except in the case of personnel required for certain key billets on flag officers' staffs, the Bureau of Naval Personnel is not honoring requests for assignment of officers or enlisted personnel by name. 22. The purchase and use of demountable and reusable household goods shipping containers is being emphasized. The utilization of these containers results in a reduction in packing and crating costs. 23. Personnel are being informed with regard to household requirements in oversea areas. This program has resulted in voluntary curtailment of household goods shipments to areas where Government housing or Government furniture is readily available. 24. Requests from senior officers for exceptions from these travel restrictions will be referred to the appropriate senior in the Bureau of Naval Personnel for resolution. Mr. SHEPPARD. I think it is evident when one reviews the entire situation having to do with the Army, Navy, and Air Force, what literally has taken place here, under the across-the-board reduction procedure that we followed, is that both the Army and Navy have been working on their travel expenditure account more diligently than the Air Force. Consequently, they got hurt a lot worse than the Air Force, and under the language that I have just read, the authority was thoroughly and justifiably vested in the Office of the Secretary to adjust that money on a more equal premise instead of leaving the Air Force in a special financial position and the Army and the Navy in a poor position, comparatively speaking. Mr. WHITTEN. Not knowing the facts, I could almost agree with your statement, having had experience with the three services, but I would think in defense of the Navy's position, and in its efforts to carry out the instructions of the Congress, it is proper for them to show for the record what efforts they have made to live within it. As to the allocation between the three services, that would be a separate matter. I think it appropriate what you tried to do, and how you tried to do it. Mr. SHEPPARD. I think your request is quite in keeping. I would like to call everybody's attention here to the fact the increased strength was known as early as July and a supplemental could have been presented in the last session of Congress if anybody wanted to increase the budget to that extent at that time. In other words, there was ample time to have alleviated this situation had anyone wanted to. I think that is thoroughly indicated. Admiral HIRSCH. The Navy was determined to live within this amount until it turned out it was just absolutely impossible to do what had to be done. Mr. SHEPPARD. I was advised about 3 weeks ago by your Personnel Bureau they were right up against the board and something had to be done, and somebody's neck was out legally. My recommendation to them was not to stick their necks out for the penitentiary, but to get somebody to get a supplemental. APPORTIONMENT PLAN Mr. FORD. On page 14 of your statement you make this statement: The apportionment plan for fiscal year 1961 totaled $14.6 billion. As of January 16 the Navy had requested the apportionment of $14.2 billion. All of this ount has been apportioned with minor exceptions. The remainder of the funds in the fiscal year 1961 apportionment plan will be requested during the last half of the year as they are required to implement approved programs. Looking at exhibit 1 I note that the direct obligations, exclusive of military construction for fiscal 1961, is to be $12,388,545,000. Can you reconcile the apportionment plan with the direct obligation picture? Admiral HIRSCH. Yes, sir; I can. In the apportionment plan we must include those dollars we need in the commitment category, those are the dollars that we have actually committed for specific programs and which must show up as commitments on the accounting records in addition to the amount of dollars We obligate. In order to do our business, we had to have papers in a commitment stage that approximately equal the difference in the two figures you quoted. Historically, the amount of dollars we get apportioned to us will always be more than the amount we plan to obligate in the year because at the end of the year we always have papers in the stage of contracting where they are registered as accounting commitment and the apportionment procedure requires we have funds to cover those. Mr. SHEPPARD. The difference will be taken care of in your unobligated balance at the end of the fiscal year 1961? Admiral HIRSCH. Yes, sir. Table 8 I think shows you our total funding plan for the end of the year, and the analysis of our committed and uncommitted funds on the far left-hand side. You will see the amount of dollars we have to have committed in order to do our business in some of the appropriations. OBLIGATIONS Mr. FORD. I would like to know, Admiral, as of the last reporting date, how much has been obligated for your major categories? What is the last reporting date you have? Admiral HIRSCH. The last reporting date I have, sir, for obligations, is the 31st of December, that is halfway through the year. I would be glad to give you those. Mr. FORD. Let's take the first one, military personnel. Admiral HIRSCH. For the category of military personnel, service account, we have obligated 49.5 percent of our dollars available. Mr. FORD. You are using that percentage figure against what figures in the various charts? Admiral HIRSCH. The amount we plan to obligate for all accounts for fiscal year 1961, is $12,579 million-this is a grand total, but will give you the military personnel service account-the obligations and the plan for the year, which is the $3,315 million and of that we have obligated $1,641 million or 49.5 percent, |