Admiral SMEDBERG. If I might, sir, I would like to change it to say I did not mean that action. I meant the difference between the amount of money, that I see no way of not spending if I am not permitted to freeze the moves that I have recommended. Mr. FORD. Do you raise the same qualification to the word "disastrous" for fiscal year 1962, then? Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, sir. If I might say to this committee, we requested for fiscal year 1962 a much larger sum, of course, than we were permitted to have in this travel appropriation. Mr. FORD. Wasn't that also true at the time you submitted your fiscal year 1961 figure? Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, but the disparity was not as great then. Mr. FORD. How much did the previous administration ask for a supplement in this area for fiscal year 1961? Admiral SMEDBERG. Might I ask the Comptroller of the Department to answer that, sir? Admiral HIRSCH. If we are speaking of the PCS in this particular appropriation, the Congress asked for a supplemental request in cash Mr. FORD. You had better be careful-the Congress didn't ask. Rephrase that. Admiral HIRSCH. I beg your pardon. The Department of the Navy asked for a supplemental request of $3 million. Mr. FORD. To make up the deficiency of $4,800,000, which the Congress cut last year from the fiscal year 1961 budget in this account? Admiral HIRSCH. The Department of Defense decision was that they would only ask for the dollars that could be directly associated with the additional augmented forces, the additional ships that went to sea and the additional people and aircraft that went on them. Mr. FORD. But the $3 million is to replace the cut of $4.8 million? Admiral HIRSCH. No, sir; it was not really that. It was specifically to take care of our increased readiness posture and to make sure we had money to move the 6,000 people associated with increased readiness, but not to give us any relief from the other cut. The request that It was not relief from the congressional cut. The very important thing to recognize here is the amount of money we need to do our job this year and this amount of money is $136 million in PSC. Mr. MAHON. What do you mean by this "Y"? Admiral HIRSCH. Fiscal year 1961, $136 million. we now have before the Deficiency Subcommittee will provide us with only $3 million of the cash that we need so that the balance of $13.3 million we simply have to obtain by taking away dollars that are in the "Military personnel, Navy," appropriation to pay for the salaries of people and other things. A table showing our PCS funding problems in fiscal year 1961 and fiscal year 1962 follows: Funds for permanent change of station (PCS) travel, military personnel, Navy, fiscal years 1961 and 1962 PCS funds requested in Navy budget to Secretary of Defense-- 139, 000, 000 Amount in the fiscal year 1962 budget--- Reduction__‒‒ 121, 000, 000 18, 000, 000 Feb. 14, 1961, revised estimate of PCS needs, fiscal year 1962- 144, 111, 000 Amount now in fiscal year 1962 budget.... Current (Feb. 24, 1961) estimated shortage of PCS funds in 121, 000, 000 23, 111, 000 1 Must be obtained by reprograming within the "Military personnel, Navy," appropriations. Mr. FORD. You cannot take salaries away from military people. Admiral HIRSCH. We will have to let people go out of the Navy or keep our total cost for people down enough so that we can absorb this $13 million. Mr. MAHON. You have a total appropriation for personnel of something in excess of $22 billion. You had that available to you throughout this fiscal year and while you are supposed to keep within the appropriation categories, you have had the opportunity to make transfers within the $212 billion so you have had more flexibility than your testimony would indicate, it seems to me. Admiral HIRSCH. There is no flexibility available in transferring dollars when there is no flexibility in the limitation. We can't go up above that limitation, we are now up against the stop. EFFECT OF THE LIMITATION Mr. FORD. In other words, the imposed limitation is what restricts you. Admiral HIRSCH. This is the point. Mr. FORD. That was limited to $119,600,000 in fiscal year 1961? Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, but more specifically the actual dollars was limited for me in my military personnel appropriation to $54,698,000. What I refer to as $54.7 million-that amount of money I may not exceed expenditure of to move people and there is my bind. Mr. FORD. Is that directly related to language which was included. in the appropriation bill for fiscal year 1961? Admiral SMEDBERG. That is correct, sir. That is on the 02 travel appropriation part of the PCS, $54.698 million is all I am allowed to spend to move my people. Mr. FORD. In other words, the Department of Defense, the Department of Navy, had no alternative under this language? Admiral SMEDBERG. No, sir. Under the language the Department of Defense could redistribute within the services. I was referring to the amount that I have been given for my appropriation. Mr. FORD. But the Department of Defense was bound by the language in the appropriation act. Admiral SMEDBERG. As I read the language, the Secretary of Defense may redistribute between services. Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Chairman, doesn't it come down to this? We are not talking about dollars. I am going to break down and cry here if this testimony goes on much longer. I am sorry I came in. You would think the Navy is practically torpedoed by this limitation. I can see a limitation going across the surface like a torpedo with the screw on it spinning-bang! There goes the Navy. The problem is there is a limitation. We have sat here for 15 years trying to give birth to this limitation. Now your position is that the Navy cannot live inside of the walls of this limitation. Isn't that it? Admiral SMEDBERG. No, sir. I have proposed a method by which we may do that, sir. I have said we can stop every move. We can stop sending anybody from sea to shore duty any more for the rest of this year. That will stop it. I can live within it. Mr. FLOOD. I know. You are saying you can do anything but your testimony here indicates that if the limitation imposed by this committee remains in 1962, you can live within it, but God help the U.S. Navy. Admiral SMEDBERG. No, sir. I am just trying to point out what the result would be, sir. Mr. FLOOD. Yes. That is what I say. You are trying to scare these poor fellows to death. Admiral SMEDBERG. That is not my intent. Mr. FLOOD. You have succeeded. Mr. MAHON. Proceed. Admiral HIRSCH. Mr. Chairman, I want you to understand the problem. We have come before the Deficiency Subcommittee and we have asked for an increase in limitation in the Navy of $20 million. If we get the increase in limitation that we have asked for we will have a fighting chance to use the dollars we have to get by with for the rest of the year. Mr. MAHON. In other words, within the framework of the total appropriation of more than $22 billion for personnel you can make adjustments? Admiral HIRSCH. Yes, sir. In addition to the urgent $20 million limitation requirement, we have requested the $3 million additional dollars in this particular military personnel appropriation to help move these people and get the job done. Mr. FORD. In other words, the request is before Mr. Thomas' subcommittee to remove the limitation that was imposed in the act last year? Admiral HIRSCH. Actually, it would raise the limitation, not remove it; and, in addition, it provides a total of $3.6 million for all appropriations to take care of moving the 6,000 people associated with these additional ships that are out at sea. That is the total package. It is necessary to raise the limitation $20 million so that we can better conduct our business. EFFORTS OF THE NAVY TO COMPLY Mr. MAHON. Is there any likelihood that the services more or less looked this limitation over and decided they did not like it and bowed their necks in the beginning of the fiscal year? Did they fail or refuse to do what they could have done earlier in the fiscal year to have met this situation without such disastrous consequences? Admiral SMEDBERG. For the Navy, no, sir. We write our orders about 4 months ahead of time, in some cases 6 months. When we learned of the limitation, it was the end of July and our orders were written up through October, November, December in many cases. We immediately started doing everything we could-these 24 steps which you have seen here are some of the things we did. I froze, way back in October all moves in continental United States, and, that is, I am the person who makes the exception. If the Surgeon General wants to move a doctor or an executive officer to command another hospital, I have to approve that move. It is that detailed. Mr. MAHON. We issued our report in April, I think, in which we provided for these reductions. Of course, this was not the final law but long before the beginning of the fiscal year the Navy and the other services had a warning that Congress was going to try to do something about these excesses and abuses in the area of travel, which most people feel exist, and which do exist to some extent. Now there is some argument as to the degree to which they exist but no argument as to whether or not they do exist insofar as I know. Admiral SMEDBERG. That is right, sir. The Navy did start earlier. My predecessor, Admiral Smith, started. He started the prohibition against transporting people with more than four dependents. We have stuck to that except where the man is an expert that we have got to have on that job. PERCENTAGE OF MOVES CONTROLLABLE BY NAVY Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question, please. Admiral, could you furnish this committee with the actual cost of the 72 percent of moves over which you have no control for the fiscal year 1961 budget? Admiral SMEDBERG. I can furnish my estimate; yes, sir. Mr. RILEY. The actual cost in dollars? Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, sir. Mr. RILEY. In lump sum dollars. Then we will know how much is involved. (The information requested follows:) The actual cost of 72 percent of the moves over which the Navy has no control for fiscal year 1961 is $69,686,000 of which the portion effected by the travel limitation is estimated to be $35,531,000. Mr. MAHON. It would be interesting to know who does have some control over these other moves because somebody has control. Admiral SMEDBERG. The Congress does, sir. When you tell me or the Secretary of the Navy to maintain the strength it is my responsi bility to bring in the recruits to maintain the strength. That is the kind of mandatory move that I mean. Mr. MAHON. In other words, it is almost imposible to alter that under the law. Admiral SMEDBERG. Unless we can increase our retention rate. That is what we are trying to do. Mr. LAIRD. I did not get the dollar figure. He cites the percentage of moves over which he has no control, but we should have the dollar figure. A lot of those people who are moving around are just recruits. Admiral SMEDBERG. I can give you the dollars. Mr. LAIRD. Percentages do not mean much, really. It would seem to me that you would not even be talking about 50 percent of your funds. Admiral SMEDBERG. I am actually talking, if I may use percent again, because that is what I have. I told you 72 percent of the moves were what I called fixed moves. That is only 59 percent of the total dollar cost. Those 72 percent moves, because a lot of them are recruits that do not have families and they do not have household goods, wives or children, most of them, and 41 percent of the cost is in the readiness area, which is the 28 percent moves over which I have a great deal of control. OFFICER STRENGTH Mr. MAHON. I would like to ask you a few questions in regard to officer strength. You can answer the question briefly and expand the answer for the record if necessary. An analysis of the Defense Department reports on "Military Personnel on Active Duty by Grade in Which Serving," dated June 1954 and November 1960, shows that, since 1954, the total strength of the Navy decreased by about 13 percent and its officer strength by about 12 percent. In spite of these decreases, however, your admirals have increased somewhat and your captains have increased 41 percent, your commanders 16 percent and your lieutenant-commanders 19 percent. The three lowest commissioned grades have substantially decreased in the same period. Can you tell us how this happened and whether the trend will continue indefinitely? What is the explanation of this situation? Admiral SMEDBERG. If I may answer the general part first sir, the officer ratio will continue to increase as far as we can determine because we have to have more officers in the programs because they require more educational background in these complicated systems. As you know, the Navy has the lowest officer ratio of the three services now. I am not counting the Marines because they have a much lower ratio than any of them, partly because we in the Navy service them with so many people like doctors, dentists, et cetera; but |