0‹,

NOMINATIONS AND H.R. 5490 AND H.R. 432 ,<. `i41.

,4r5/3

N V111961-3

GOVERNMENT

Storage

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE itp

lc LIBRARY

:4ETTF ERAE:

%/A,DEPARTME::;,,

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

NOMINATIONS

VICE ADMIRAL GEORGE W. ANDERSON, UNITED STATES

NAVY, TO BE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS IN THE

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY WITH RANK OF ADMIRAL

CHARLES S. BREWTON, OF ALABAMA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF CIVIL

AND DEFENSE MOBILIZATION

H.R. 5490

PROVIDING FOR MORE EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION IN

THE RESERVE COMPONENTS

H.R. 4324

RELATIVE TO REENLISTMENT BONUSES

JUNE 29, 1961

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

72385 WASHINGTON: 1961
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

RICHARD B.

HARRY FLOOD BYRD, Virginia

JOHN STENNIS, Mississippi

STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington

SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina

CLAIR ENGLE, California

E. L. BARTLETT, Alaska

HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

HARRY L. WINGATE, Jr., Chief Clerk

II

RUSSELL, Georgia, Chairman

LEVERETT SALTON STALL, Massachusetts

STYLES BRIDGES, New Hampshire

MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine

FRANCIS CASE, South Dakota

PRESCOTT BUSH, Connecticut

J. GLENN BEALL, Maryland
CONTENTS

NOMINATIONS

Statements of—

Anderson, Vice Adm. George W., nominee-designate for Chief of Page Naval Operations, Department of the Navy 

Brewton, Charles S., nominee-designate for Assistant Director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization 11 Hill, Hon. Lister, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama_ _ _ _ 8

Jones, Hon. Robert E., Jr., Congressman from the Eighth Con- gressional District of the State of Alabama 

Sparkman, 9

Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama_ 8

H.R. 5490

Carlton, Col. John T., executive director, Reserve Officers Association of the United States 

Dodge, 32 Maj. Gen. C. G., Assistant Chief of Staff for Reserve Com- ponents, Department of the Army 

Fairbourn, 16

Phinney, 

Brig. Gen. William T., Director, Marine Corps Reserve_ _ 31 Maj. Gen. Carl L., vice president, National Guard Associa- tion of the United States 

Wilson, 31 Maj. Gen. Winston P., Deputy Chief, National Guard Bureau, Departments of the Army and Air Force 29

H.R. 4324

Esch, Capt. Arthur G., Director, Policy Division, Bureau of Naval Personnel, Department of the Navy 34

NOMINATIONS AND BILLS

E

RD-BENCE J)

.1

LIBRARY =<4

DEPARTMENT

174TTAIsk,

NOMINATION OF VICE ADM. GEORGE W. ANDERSON

TO BE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS

THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1961

U.S. SENATE,

COMMII1EE ON ARMED SERVICES,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10: 30 a.m., in room 212,

Old Senate Office Building.

Present: Senators Russell (chairman), Stennis, Symington, Jackson, Ervin, Thurmond, Bartlett, Cannon, Byrd of West Virginia,

Saltonstall, Bridges, and Smith of Maine.

Also present: William H. Darden, T. Edward Braswell and Gordon

A. Nease of the professional staff Harry L. Wingate, Jr., chief clerk

and Herbert S. Atkinson, assistant chief clerk.

Chairman RUSSELL. The committee will come to order.

The first nomination for consideration this morning is that of Vice

Adm. George W. Anderson, to be Chief of Naval Operations for 2

years, with the rank of admiral.

(The nomination reference and report and the biographical sketch

of Admiral Anderson follow:)

NOMINATION REFERENCE AND REPORT

IN EXECUTIVE SESSION,

SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,

June 22, 1961.

Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on

Armed Services:

Vice Admiral George W. Anderson, United States Navy, to be Chief of Naval

Operations in the Department of the Navy for a term of two years with the rank

of admiral, under the provisions of title 10, United States Code, section 5081

VICE ADM. GEORGE W. ANDERSON, JR., U.S. NAVY

George Whelan Anderson, Jr., was born on December 15, 1906, in Brooklyn,

N.Y., son of George W. and Clara (Green) Anderson. He attended Brooklyn

Preparatory School, and entered the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md., from

his native State in 1923. Graduated and commissioned ensign on June 2, 1927,

he subsequently advanced in rank to that of rear admiral, to. date from August 1,

1954. He served in the rank of vice admiral from May 1, 1957, until January 18,

1958, and on September 14, 1959, he again assumed the rank of vice admiral.

Following graduation from the Naval Academy in 1927, he remained there

for the short course in aviation, before joining the U.S.S. Chaumont, for transportation to the U.S.S. Cincinnati, in which he served as a junior officer until

1930. He was then ordered to the Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Fla., for flight

training and, designated naval aviator in October of that year, was ordered to

the Atlantic Fleet for duty in the aviation units of the U.S.S. Concord and U.S.S.

Raleigh, successively.

1
2 NOMINATIONS

Between 1933 and 1935 he was assigned to the Flight Test Division of the

Naval Air Station, NOB, Norfolk, Va., after which he had duty afloat with

Fighting Squadron TWO, based on the U.S.S. Lexington,. He was detached from

that squadron with orders to the Newport News (Va.) Shipbuilding & Dry Dock

Co., where the U.S.S. Yorktown was building, and joined that aircraft carrier

on her commissioning on September 30, 1937. From the fall of 1939 until early

1940 he was attached to Patrol Squadron 44, Patrol Wing 4, based at Seattle,

Wash.

He was next assigned to the Plans Division, Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy

Department, Washington, D.C., and while there participated in the formulation

of the American aircraft program for World War II. This included association

with wartime agencies charged with production and allocation of an U.S. aircraft,

and planning the aircraft aspects of the expansion of naval aviation. For his

liaison work with the Army Air Force while in that assignment, he received a

letter of commendation from the War Department, with authorization to wear

the Army Commendation Ribbon.

In March 1943 he again reported to the Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry

Dock Co., this time to assist in fitting out the new U.S.S. Yorktown (CV-10),

and became navigator and tactical officer when she was commissioned on April

15, 1943. He was aboard that aircraft carrier during her early action in the

Pacific, and received a letter of commendation, with authority to wear the Cornmendation Ribbon, from the Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, for outstanding services from August 15 to November 1, 1943, while attached to the

U.S.S. Yorktown.

He is also entitled to the ribbon for, and a facsimile of, the presidential unit

citation awarded the U.S.S. Yorktown for "extraordinary heroism in action

against enemy Japanese forces in the air, at sea, and on shore in the Pacific war

area from August 31, 1943, to August 15, 1945 * * * Daring and dependable in

combat, the Yorktown with her gallant officers and men rendered loyal service

in achieving the ultimate defeat of the Japanese Empire."

He next had duty as plans officer on the staff of Commander Aircraft, U.S.

Pacific Fleet, and for "exceptionally meritorious conduct * * * as head of the

Plans Division of the staff of Commander Air Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, during the

period from November 1943 to March 1944 * * * "he was awarded the Legion

of Merit. The citation further states:

"In this capacity it was his grave responsibility to prepare plans for the activation and employment of Air Force, Pacific Fleet aircraft units and ships, and

to supervise the preparation of plans for the establishment and initial logistic

support of advanced airbase. The ultimate success of these plans may be attributed, in large measure, to the highly efficient manner in which he contributed

to the compiling and evaluating of the mass of details upon which these plans

were based, and to his sound judgment in estimating future requirements and

availability of Pacific Fleet aviation units * *

On March 28, 1944, he reported as Assistant to the Deputy Commander in

Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet and Pacific Ocean areas. He was awarded the Bronze

Star Medal for "meritorious achievement (in that capacity) * * during operations against enemy Japanese forces in the Pacific war area, from March 28,

1944, to April 16, 1945, * * * The citation further states: "Intelligently planning and estimating for the needs of naval aviation in the Pacific, [he] contributed materially to the improvement in organization, training, and logistical

support * *

In June 1945 he became aviation officer in the Strategic Plans Section on the

staff of the Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet, with headquarters at the Navy Department, Washington, D.C. As such, he also had duty as Deputy Navy Planner

on the Joint Planning Staff. Ordered to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Department, he was appointed a member of the Permanent Joint

Board of Defense (Canada-United States) in November 1946; was also one of

the Navy members of the Brazilian-United States Defense Commission and

served with the Joint War Plans Committee of the Joint Staff.

In July 1948 he returned to sea as commanding officer of the U.S.S. Mindoro,

and when detached from that antisubmarine carrier in August 1948, reported

for instruction at the National War College, Washington, D.C. Completing the

course there in July 1950, he joined the staff of the Commander 6th Fleet as

fleet operations officer. In December 1950 he transferred to the staff of the

Supreme Allied Commander In Europe ( SHAPE), and remained there until

July 1952 as the senior U.S. officer in Plans and Operations. He served as
NOMINATIONS 3

commanding officer of the U.S.S. Franklin D. Roosevelt for a year, and when

detached from command of that aircraft carrier in June 1953, reported for duty

in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Department.

In July 1953 he became Special Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

of Staff, Washington, D.C., continuing to serve in that capacity until July

1955. On August 3, that year, he assumed command of the Formosa Patrol

Force with additional duty as Commander, Fleet Air Wing 1 (his title was

changed late in 1955 to Commander U.S. Taiwan Patrol Force). He was

Chief of Staff, Joint Staff, Commander in Chief, Pacific, from July 1956 until

May 1957 when he reported in the rank of vice admiral as chief of staff and

aide to the Commander in Chief, Pacific. He was Commander Carrier Division

6 from July 1958 until September 14, 1959, when he became Commander 6th

Fleet and Commander Naval Striking and Support Forces, Southern Europe,

with the accompanying rank of vice admiral where he served until June 24, 1961.

In addition to the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal, the Commendation

Ribbon (Navy), the Commendation Ribbon (Army), and the Presidential Unit

Citation Ribbon with one star, Admiral Anderson has the American Defense

Service Medal; the American Campaign Medal; the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign

Medal with two stars; the World War II Victory Medal; and the National

Defense Service Medal. He has also been awarded the Order of the British

Empire, rank of honorary officer, from the Government of Great Britain.

Admiral Anderson's official address is Brooklyn, N.Y., but he makes his home

In Washington, D.C. He is married to the former May Lee Lamar Sample,

of Pensacola, Fla., and has two sons, Lt. George W. Anderson III, U.S. Navy

(class of 1957) and Thomas Patrick; a daughter, Mary Annette; and stepdaughter, Miss Carolyn Sample.

Chairman RUSSELL. Admiral Anderson has had a distinguished

career in the Navy. At the time of his selection as the next Chief

of Naval Operations he was serving as commander of the 6th Fleet,

an assignment that undoubtedly brought him in contact with members

of this committee, and enabled them to know him personally.

I happen to have known Admiral Anderson personally for a number

of years.

Admiral Anderson, will you be seated at the end of the table?

We are very happy to welcome you here. On behalf of the committee, I congratulate you on your selection for this very important

and responsible position. I am sure you know that you can depend

upon the cooperation of this committee in the discharge of your duties,

and that you have our very best wishes as you enter upon this new

assignment.

The Chair would be glad to recognize any member of the committee

who desires to make a comment or to address questions to Admiral

Anderson. Senator Saltonstall.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, I came in time to hear the

last of your remarks, and I have the same feeling.

I saw Admiral Anderson yesterday for a few moments and we had

a very pleasant talk together, and I told him just what you said.

We want to cooperate with him to make our Navy the best and the

strongest in the world, and keep it that way.

I congratulate you for undertaking the job. You come after

a very worthy predecessor and, as I told you yesterday, if you live up

to the job that Admiral Burke has done, I know we will have a fine

Navy.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Stennis. Senator Stennis, do you care

to ask any questions of the admiral?

Senator STENNis. Mr. Chairman, I certainly share your feeling of

congratulations to the admiral for being chosen for this most honorable and responsible position.
4 NOMINATIONS

I feel like the U.S. Navy, to a great degree the world's policeman,

and a mighty good one, represents the very best traditions of the

armed services, as well as of our great country, and I am sure the

President has chosen well.

Admiral, you have had other rough assignments. This will be

storm tossed, too, I am sure. I certainly wish you well.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Smith.

Senator SMITH. Well, Mr. Chairman, I concur with all that has

been said by the chairman, Senator Saltonstall, and Senator Stennis,

and I wish the admiral well.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Symington.

Senator SYMINGTON. Admiral, I would like to also join in the remarks made about you.

I would like to ask—I do not want this to be entirely a eulogy

instead of a hearing—I would like to ask a couple of questions.

You, as a member of the Joint Chiefs, will be interested in the

future of all services as well as the Navy's, will you not?

STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. GEORGE W. ANDERSON, NOMINEE TO

BE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS

Admiral ANDERSON. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. I might say that I asked that question of

Admiral Radford when he came up to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

in 1953, and his answer was the same as yours, and he certainly proved

it in the magnificent record he had as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

You have no preconceived ideas of how we should handle the new

and different nature of aggression, have you?

Admiral ANDERSON. No, Senator.

Senator SYMINGTON. I think you know what I am getting at as I

asked the question?

Admiral ANDERSON. Yes, sir. I think we have got to recognize as

a Nation that we are up against tough opposition who carry out a

masterful strategy. They create and exploit situations where all the

courses of action posed to us are characterized by unpleasantries and

disadvantages. It is a tough, tough job to cope with each one of these

situations, particularly so because the Communist group can always

retreat to the "status quo" without losing face.

Senator SYMINGTON. And you would feel that we should be more

than ever before in our history probably in a position to adjust our

own situation from the standpoint of security—I do not like to constantly use the word "defense" but I suppose that is the best word.

Admiral ANDERSON. I think we have got to be very alert, very

imaginative, very flexible, and very, very determined, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Well, I congratulate you on that reply.

Now, I have done a little homework about you, and although our

relationship has been pleasant since you got this job, I believe the

record here shows that you reverted to the permanent rank of rear

admiral in 1958. That was because you desired to broaden the scope

of your experience, is that not correct?
NOMINATIONS 5

Admiral ANDERSON. That is correct, sir. I was very fortunate to

have been promoted relatively young for the Navy to the rank of vice

admiral while I was Chief of Staff and aide to Admiral Stump, Commander in Chief, Pacific, and I felt it was very desirable for an officer to have operational experience in command of operating forces

afloat. I think it was the best move I ever made.

Senator SYMINGTON. And so you applied for reduction in rank in

order to get the additional experience, as that correct?

Admiral ANDERSON. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Thurmond.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, Admiral Anderson has a very

outstanding and fine record, and I think the President and the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Navy are to be commended upon

his selection.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Cannon.

Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly join in

the remarks that have been made here concerning Admiral Anderson.

I look forward to working with him and to seeing him perform an

outstanding job in this new position for our country. I congratulate

the admiral.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Byrd.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I associate myself

with the words that have been spoken by others in congratulating

Admiral Anderson.

I listened very carefully to his statement a little while ago, and I

am very pleased at his reaction to the questions propounded by the

distinguished Senator from Missouri, Senator Symington.

I was more than pleased to hear him say that we must be very, very

determined. A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of

silver. I do not know any words that could be more fitly spoken

than those words spoken by the admiral, and I certainly share in the

belief that we must be very, very determined.

Admiral Anderson, I wish you well in your work. As long as you

attempt to live up to this statement I will attempt to hold up your

hand.

Chairman RUSSELL. Any further comments or questions of Admiral

Anderson.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, I think if it would not embarrass the admiral, to show what the people whom he served abroad

felt about him. It would be very interesting to hear the little story

about when he went ashore after he came up in command of the 6th

Fleet.

Admiral ANDERSON. I mentioned to Senator Saltonstall yesterday

the very heart-warming experiences, one of them that I had had, in

the last few weeks in the Mediterranean.

One which I did not tell the Senator was when I visited the island

of Patmos in the eastern Aegean. I had my flag in a destroyer for

the visit, and I went ashore. The whole of this little island was down

72385-161---2
6 NOMINATIONS

at the port, the schoolchildren were all out, they had the streets

stre*n with flowers and lhurel leaves. The greeting vvis as warm as

any greeting I have ever seen. It was not to me as an individual,

but it did represent a greeting to the U.S. Navy and the United States

of America. It represented a great measure of respect and goodwill.

The one event that I did mention to the Senator was when I left

my flagship in Villefranche Harbor a few days ago. The French

boatmen and fishermen formed a cordon with their little boats through

which I passed in my barge going ashore. I think that that represents alsO a great reservoir of goodwill that the United States and

the U.S. Navy have in that part of the world.

Chairman RUSSELL. Anything further?

Senator BRIDGES. Admiral, do you believe in the present system of

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in its general operation?

Admiral ANDERSON. I have great faith in the Joint Chiefs of Staff

system, particularly so when you have men in the Joint Chiefs of

Staff so dedicated to serving the United States. Certainly the President and the Secretary of Defense can and should resolve such differences of opinion as may arise from time to time. I do not feel that

differences of opinion in this day and age are bad for the country.

No individual has the answer to all of our problems. If there are

differences of views among responsible men, they should be brought

up through channels to the highest authority for decision.

Senator BRIDGES. I agree with that.

On the question of the Joint Chiefs, you said if they are of the

highest integrity or standing—I believe that has been the history of

our country, has it not?

Admiral ANDERSON. It certainly has.

Senator BRIDGES. That such men have been appointed.

Admiral ANDERSON. I hope I can measure up to the great traditions

of my predecessors, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. If there is nothing further, we are glad to have

had you here, Admiral.

Admiral ANDERSON. Thank you, Senator.

(The nomination of Admiral Anderson was subsequently approved

by the committee in executive session and confirmed by the Senate

on June 29, 1961.)
NOMINATION OF CHARLES S. BREWTON, TO BE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE, OFFICE OF CIVIL AND

DEFENSE MOBILIZATION

Chairman RUSSELL. The next nomination is that of Hon. Charles

S. Brewton, of Alabama, to be Assistant Director of Civil and Defense Mobilization.

(The nomination reference and report together with a biographical

sketch of Mr. Brewton follow:)

NOMINATION REFERENCE AND REPORT

IN EXECUTIVE SESSION,

SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,

June 22, 1961.

Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on Armed

Services:

Charles S. Brewton, of Alabama, to be an Assistant Director of the Office of

Civil and Defense Mobilization, vice J. Roy Price, resigned.

BIOGRAPHY OF CHARLES S. BREWTON

Charles S. Brewton, of Alabama, nominated by President Kennedy on June 22

for the post of Assistant Director for Resources and Production in the Office of

Civil and Defense Mobilization, is presently general counsel of the Senate Small

Business Committee, Hon. John Sparkman, chairman.

A native and still resident of Alabama, Mr. Brewton, 47, was born in Larkinsville, attended Birmingham public schools and Birmingham Southern College

for prelegal training.

He received his bachelor of laws degree from the University of Alabama and

then practiced law in Scottsboro with Robert E. Jones, who is now Member of

Congress for the Eighth Alabama Congressional District.

He entered the Federal Government in 1940 as a special assistant to the Attorney General in Washington. In 1943 he became administrative assistant to

Senator Lister Hill, of Alabama, a post he held for 13 years.

Prior to assuming his present position, Mr. Brewton served for 3 years in

Cambridge, Mass., as associate director and consultant on law and legislation

to the Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health. The joint commission

is a national research organization engaged in mental health planning and

programing.

A lifelong, active Democrat, Mr. Brewton served as an assistant campaign

manager for Adlai Stevenson in Springfield in 1952, and in Washington in 1956.

He worked actively with the Kennedy-Johnson national headquarters and with

Senator Smathers' southeastern campaign staff in 1960.

He is married to the former Jewell Wann of Hollywood, Ala., and they have

two children. The Brewtons live at 1310 Admiral Drive, Alexandria, Va.

Chairman RUSSELL. Mr. Brewton is well known to all the members

of this committee. He has been on the Hill for a number of years,

first as the administrative assistant to Senator Lister Hill, and later,

as general counsel to the Select Committee on Small Business, of

which Senator John Sparkman, of Alabama, is chairman.

7
8 NOMINATIONS

The Chair has known Mr. Brewton favorably during his previous

employment and I am pleased that his talents have been recognized

by the executive branch by his selection for this important position.

I see the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Senator Lister

Hill, who was once a member of this committee after having presided

as chairman of the House Committee on Military Affairs. We regret

he left this committee, but he is present with us today. Senator Hill,

we will be glad to hear you at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. LISTER HILL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF ALABAMA

Senator HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

May I say, Mr. Chairman, I feel like I am coming home this morning. I had the honor and privilege of serving on this committee, and

under the distinguished chairmanship of Senator Russell, of Georgia,

and with my two good friends there, Senator Bridges and Senator

Saltonstall.

When I speak about coming home, my father always said the biscuits are bigger at home than anywhere else, so I am delighted to be

back here with you, Mr. Chairman.

I know you have a good many witnesses, and I have to get back to

my meeting of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

but I did want to say that I do not want to let this opportunity go by

without coming here to strongly endorse the appointment and confirmation of my longtime friend, Mr. Charlie Brewton.

I have known Charlie for some 20-odd years. I remember well

when he was down practicing law with our good friend and colleague

who honors us with his presence this morning, Bob Jones, Congressman Bob Jones, from Alabama.

Then, Charlie came up with the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, handling antitrust and antimonopoly cases, and from

there he came with me and was my secretary, and later, after we

passed the Reorganization Act, was my administrative assistant over

a period of some 13 or 14 years.

Then, you may recall that Congress set up the Joint Commission

on Mental Illness and Health to make a study of the problems of

mental illness, and Charlie went up to be the Deputy Director of that

Commission, and I must say I think, with Charlie's help and his fine

work, that Commission did an awfully fine job.

More recently he has been with Senator Sparkman's Small Business Committee as general counsel there.

I know Charlie, I know his character, I know his ability, I know

his capacity for getting things done, and I certainly know his devotion to his work and to his country. I want to strongly commend and

endorse this appointment, Mr. Chairman, and urge its favorable report to the U.S. Senate.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Sparkman.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SPARKMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I can add very little to what

my senior colleague has said.
NOMINATIONS 9

I have known Charlie Brewton for most of his life, and I know

of his work here in Washington. "

He had a very fine record with the Department of Justice in the Antitrust Section before going with Senator Hill. Then he was

away in Cambridge, Mass, for some 21/2 years. I needed somebody

on the Small Business staff to handle particular work and assignments and I approached Charlie nearly 6 months before he finished

his work in mental health, and hired him 6 months ahead of time, I

mean, to come with me 6 months later.

He has done a very fine job as general counsel to the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Chairman, one project that he has been the mainspring in working out, one in which you are greatly interested, has been that relating to the improvement of the poultry industry throughout the Nation, including the building of export markets. That certainly

mean a great deal to Georgia, to Alabama and the Nation as a whole.

You are familiar with his work in connection with that.

Another project with which he has been particularly identified has

been the development of a system of small business loans as provided

for under section 502 of the Small Business Investment Act, whereby

the Small Business Administration may extend help to smaller towns

and cities particularly, that are desirous of developing their industry and to private industry to aid development in such areas.

He has done an outstanding job, and I know that he will do an

outstanding job in the office to which he has been appointed. I

strongly recommend his confirmation.

Chairman RUSSELL. The committee is glad to welcome here today

Congressman Bob Jones, Representative from the State of Alabama,

and we will be glad to hear any comments you would care to make on

this confirmation.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. JONES, JR., A MEMBER OF THE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

I am, for the first time, looking at the biographical sketch of Charlie

Brewton, and I noticed that he omitted a very important statement,

the fact that he practiced law with me, [laughter] which may prejudice the committee, but I suppose the reason that he said only a part

of it, he did not go all the way to tell you, was that he is my first cousin [laughter]. We are going from bad to worse.

Mr. Chairman of course, I am glad to join with Senator Sparkman

and Senator Hill in urging his confirmation. Of course, Charlie

and I have been inseparable friends and law partners, and real first

cousins, and I know of his great capabilities and his earnest desire

to make a good public servant.

He has all the characteristics that would qualify him for this position, and for that reason I am happy to be here and to applaud the

fine things that have been said a.bout my kin.

Thank you.
10 NOMINATIONS

Chairman RUSSELL. We are glad to have heard you, and we will

eliminate any prejudice caused by nepotism in this nomination.

[Laughter.]

We will be glad to have any questions from members of the committee at this point.

Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, my association with Mr. Brewton has been chiefly in his capacity as general counsel of the Small

Business Committee, of which I am a member, and from that experience with him I am delighted to say that I believe that by reason of

his administrative skill and capacity and integrity and all around

ability, he is eminently well qualified for the position for which he

has been nominated.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Engle, a member of this committee,

had a conflicting engagement this morning, but he asked me to announce that he supports the nomination of Admiral Anderson and

Mr. Brewton.

He also asked me to say that he found Mr. Brewton to be extremely

helpful to the Select Committee on Small Business of which Senator

Engle was a member.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, I should say, as a member

of the Small Business Committee, I feel the same way as Senator

Bartlett and Senator Engle, and I am glad to see Mr. Brewton get

this promotion, if it is a promotion, or additional responsibility.

I say to the Congressman, while the Congressman said he forgot

several things, I do not see that Mr. Brewton emphasized the fact

that he also served in Massachusetts for a while. [Laughter.]

Chairman RUSSELL. That is one of the matters he should be very

proud of. I notice he was engaged in mental health planning while

he was in Massachusetts. [Laughter.]

Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman I hope you do not associate

that remark with the State of Massachusetts. [Laughter.]

Chairman RussELL. Senator Stennis.

Senator STENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I have observed the work at

first hand of this gentleman, Mr. Brewton, since I have been here,

and I certainly am glad to go on the record saying that he represents

the better traditions of the Hill and the important staff work of

the Hill.

I am very much impressed, too, with his fine family, whom we

are delighted to have here this morning.

If I may make a partly personal reference, a new Senator may

get a good deal of attention at home, but he does not get much when

he first comes here unless there is something special, such as being

a Republican from the South or something of that nature.

[Laughter.]

But when I came here as the newest Member of the Senate in a

class of one, it was my good fortune to have an office on the same

floor when Charlie Brewton was operating out of Senator Hill's

office, and he came over and in a very generous way offered his assistance and his services, counsel, and advice, which was very, very

valuable indeed. The impressive thing about it was his sincerity, his

very fine purpose. They have certainly followed him through the

years, and I am glad to see this appointment. He is capable of

carrying on in a much bigger way.
NOMINATIONS 11

Senator BRIDGES. Mr. Chairman, I have known Charlie Brewton

for many years, and my contacts with him have led me to have a

high respect for him. I think he can do a good job in this particular

assignment to which he has been appointed.

I would like to ask Mr. Brewton if he would just give us for

a minute his conception of the job of Assistant Director of Resources

and Production in the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization.

We hear so much controversy over civil defense and mobilization

today. Just how, in taking over, would you attend to that job; what

is your idea about it?

STATEMENT OF CHARLES S. BREWTON, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT

DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF CIVIL AND DEFENSE MOBILIZATION

Mr. BREWTON. Senator, I was preceded here by the Chief of Naval

Operations-nominate, who made an impressive statement concerning

the perilous situation in which this Nation finds itself today in the

context of the dangers that are in the world. Admiral Anderson

called for vigilance and determination with respect to our purely

military preparedness and mobilization capabilities.

I think that I might best explain the character of responsibilities

which I will be expected to help guide if I contrast the responsibilities

of my office to be, with your pleasure, with the strict military planning

and operations to which Admiral Anderson referred.

The operations of the Resources and Production Division of the

Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization, concern themselves with the

nonmilitary phases of preparedness and mobilization planning and

the capacity of the Nation to mobilize under varying degrees of

danger.

They concern themselves with human and material resources, with

stockpiling, with manpower, with plant capacity, both in being and

potential, with communications and transportation media, with food

and water resources, with fuel and energy resources, and other components in the broad context of nonmilitary preparedness and mobilization planning.

It is largely a policymaking office, not to any large degree an administering or operating office.

The policies are delegated, by and large, to existing Government

agencies for administration and operation.

I hope you consider that this responds sufficiently to your question.

Senator BRIDGES. Yes, I think it does.

Mr. BREWTON. Thank you.

Chairman RUSSELL. Any further questions?

Senator SYMINGTON. First, I would like to say the fact that Mr.

Brewton is a first cousin of my old and good friend Bob Jones is

conclusive with me, although I would have been for this nomination

despite that situation. [Laughter.]

Secondly, I would like to thank Charlie Brewton for all his courtesies extend to me during all the years I have been in the Senate. I

think this is an able and good appointment.

I would like to pursue the questioning of the Senator from New

Hampshire. Are you in charge of the stockpile in the job you are

going to take?
12 NOMINATIONS

Mr. BREWTON. I shall have responsibility for certain policies and

determinations with respect to the stockpile; yes, sir; subject, of

course, to the Director of the Office.

Senator SYMINGTON. Have you looked at the figures which show

that now we have a good many billion dollars more of metals, minerals,

and materials than any expert believes we need?

Mr. BREWTON. I have observed that there is a considerable stockpile,

the details of which I am not entirely familiar with yet.

Senator SYMINGTON. Do you see any reason why, as far as you have

gone so far, and I say this especially in that we have continued to buy

over recent years much of this material, even though the military and

all other people in the Government felt we already had too much, do

you see any reason why these figures and facts should continue to be

classified from the American people?

Mr. BREWTON. Senator, I have read quite a number of hearings and

reports since my nomination came to the Senate, in endeavoring to

familiarize myself as best I could in this brief period with the responsibilities of this office.

I see quite a number of figures and statistics on stockpiling and the

character of materials which are in the stockpile. I do not know

whether those facts and figures which I have seen in many places,

perchance, contain any classified material. I would not be prepared

at the moment to prejudge whether or not those figures or the character of materials or the quantities should be classified.

Senator SYMINGTON. Will you take a look at the map and discuss it

with Mr. Ellis, and then submit a written report of what your opinion

is to this committee?

Mr. BREWTON. I should be pleased to do so.

Senator SYMINGTON. For some reason the American people are not

told about the stockpiles of metals, minerals, materials and machine

tools, but they are always told about the stockpile of agricultural

products.

In my opinion, if we were in a general war, we would need much

of the agricultural stockpile which, nevertheless, is many billions of

dollars less in total value than the stockpile over which you will assume

authority. Nevertheless, we continue to look, for some reason, with

pride at the metals, minerals, materials and machine-tool stockpile,

and for some reason view with apprehension the agricultural stockpile, which, I think, we would need more in case we were in trouble

than possibly anything except medical supplies from the standpoint

of civil defense and civil defense mobilization.

So if you would let this committee know why it is that (a) we continue to classify these figures, and (b) we continue to buy quantities

of this merchandise despite the fact everybody agrees we already have

too much in items that I am thinking of, I would appreciate it.

Mr. BREWTON. I shall be pleased to give earnest attention to your

request, and will be responsive to it.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Brewton.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Chairman RUSSELL. Any further comments? Senator Smith.

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, Mr. Brewton has one

of the most outstanding records, and is one of the most outstanding

men who have ever served on Capitol Hill. He is a man of intel-
NOMINATIONS 13

ligence, integrity and dedication, and the executive branch makes great

gains in obtaining him. The legislative branch is losing a great man.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Thurmond.

Seliator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, I have known Charlie Brewton

since coming to the Senate, and he has impressed me as being a competent man of character, a man who is dedicated to duty, and it is my

opinion that he will fulfill well the trust that has been reposed in him.

Senator ERVIN. Mr. Chairman, even the derogatory information

revealed by Congressman Bob Jones has not detracted in the slightest

degree from my conviction that the nominee is exceedingly well-qualified for the post to which he has been appointed. [Laughter]

Senator JACKSON. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Jackson.

Senator JACKSON. I want to congratulate Charlie Brewton. Like

many of us at the table here I have known him since I have come to the

Senate. He is a conscientous and dedicated public servant, and I know

he will do a good job.

Chairman RUSSELL. If there is no further comments, Mr. Brewton,

we are glad to have had you. We will be looking forward to some

association with you in the future in the work of this committee and

that of your new responsibilties.

Mr. BREwrow. I am exceedingly grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, and

to each member of this committee for your courtesies.

(The nomination of Mr. Brewton was subsequently approved by the

committee in executive session and confirmed by the Senate on June

29, 1961.)

H.R. 5490

Chairman RUSSELL. Before the committee resolves itself into executive session, there are two bills upon which it is desirable to receive

testimony in open session. The first of these is H.R. 5490, which would

make several amendments to the laws relating to the 6-month training

program and Reserve participation.

(The bill referred to, H.R. 5490, follows:)

[H.R. 5490, 87th Cong., 1st seas.]

AN ACT To provide for more effective participation in the reserve components of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled, That section 6 of the Universal Military

Training and Service Act, as amended :(50 U.S.C. App. 456), is amended—

(1) by amending subsection (c) (2) (B) to read as follows:

"(B) Any person who after attaining the age of eighteen years and

six months but prior to attaining the age of twenty-six years and prior

to the issuance of orders for him to report for induction, enlists or

accepts appointment in an organized unit of the National Guard shall

be deferred from training and service under this title so long as he

continues to serve satisfactorily as a member of such organized unit.

No such person who has completed eight years of satisfactory service

as a member of an organized unit of the National Guard, and who during such service has performed active duty for training with an armed

force for not less than three consecutive months, shall be liable for

induction for training and service under this Act, except after a declaration of war or national emergency made by the Congress."; and

(2) by striking out the words "in such unit" in the seventh and eighth

sentences of subsection (d) (1) and amending the fifth and sixth sentences

of that subsection to read as follows: "If, at the time of, or subsequent to,

such appointment, the armed force in which such person is commissioned

72886-61--8
14 NOMINATIONS

does not require his service on active duty in fulfillment of the obligation

undertaken by him in compliance with clause (B) of the first sentence of

this paragraph, such person shall be ordered to active duty for training with

such armed force in the grade in which he was commissioned for a period

of active duty for training of not less than three months or more than six

months (not including duty performed under section 270(a) of title 10,

United States Code), as determined by the Secretary of the military department concerned to be necessary to qualify such person for a mobilization

assignment. Upon being commissioned and assigned to a reserve component, such person shall be required to serve therein, or in a reserve component of any other armed force in which he is later appointed, until the

eighth anniversary of the receipt of such commission pursuant to the provisions of this section".

SEC. 2. Section 262(b) (3) of the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952 (50

U.S.C. 1013(b) (3) ) is amended by striking out the words "eighteen years and

six months" and inserting the words "twenty-six years" in place thereof.

SEC. 3. Section 270 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding the

following new subsection at the end thereof:

"(c) Any person who becomes a member of the Army National Guard of the

United States or the Air National Guard of the United States after the enactment of this subsection and who fails in any year to perform satisfactorily the

training duty prescribed by or under law for members of the Army National

Guard or the Air National Guard, as the case may be, as determined by the

Secretary concerned, may, upon the request of the Governor of the State or

territory, Puerto Rico, or the Canal Zone, or the commanding general of the

District of Columbia National Guard, whichever is concerned, be ordered, without his consent, to perform additional active duty for training for not more

than forty-five days. A member ordered to active duty under this subsection

shall be ordered to duty as a Reserve of the Army or as a Reserve of the Air

Force, as the case may be."

SEC. 4. Section 651(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as

follows:

"(a) Each male person who, after August 9, 1955, becomes a member of an

armed force before his twenty-sixth birthday, other than a person enlisted under

section 1013 of title 50 or deferred under the next to the last sentence of section

456(d) (1) of title 50, appendix, shall serve in the armed forces for a total of

six years. However, such a person who, after the effective date of this amended

subsection, becomes deferred under section 456(c) (2) (A) or (B) of title 50,

appendix, shall serve in the armed forces for a total of eight years. Any person

covered by this subsection may be sooner discharged because of personal hardship under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense or, if he is a

member of the Coast Guard while it is not operating as a service in the Navy,

by the Secretary of the Treasury. Any part of such service that is not active

duty or is active duty for training shall be performed in a reserve component."

SEC. 5. Section 3261 of title 10, United States Code, Is amended—

(1) by striking out the designation "(b)" in subsection (a) and inserting

the designation "(c)" in place thereof; and

(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection "(c)" and inserting

the following new subsection (b) :

"(b) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army, a person who enlists or reenlists in the Army National Guard, or whose term of

enlistment or reenlistment in the Army National Guard is extended, shall be

concurrently enlisted or reenlisted, or his term of enlistment or reenlistment

shall be concurrently extended, as the case may be, as a Reserve of the Army

for service in the Army National Guard of the United States."

SEC. 6. Section 8261 of title 10, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by striking out the designation "(b)" in subsection (a) and inserting

the designation "(c)" in place thereof; and

(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection "(c)" and inserting

the following new subsection (b) :

"(b) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force,

a person who enlists or reenlists in the Air National Guard, or whose term of

enlistment or reenlistment in the Air National Guard is extended, shall be concurrently enlisted or reenlisted, or his term of enlistment or reenlistment shall be

concurrently extended, as the case may be, as a Reserve of the Air Force for

service in the Air National Guard of the United States."
NOMINATIONS 15

SEC. 7. Title 32, United States Code, is amended as follows:

(1) Section 302 is amended to read as follows:

1302. Enlistments, reenlistments, and extensions

"(a) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary concerned, original

enlistments in the National Guard may be accepted for—

"(1) any specified term, not less than three years, for persons who have

not served in an armed force; or

"(2) any specified term, not less than one year, for persons who have

served in any armed force.

"(b) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary concerned, reenlistment in the National Guard may be accepted for any specified period, or, if

the person last served in one of the highest five enlisted grades, for an unspecified period.

"(c) Enlistments or reenlistments in the National Guard may be extended—

"(1) under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary concerned, at

the request of the member, for any period not less than six months; or

"(2) by proclamation of the President, if Congress declares an emergency,

until six months after termination of that emergency."

(2) The analysis of chapter 3 is amended by striking out the following item:

"302. Enlistments."

and inserting the following item in place thereof:

"302. Enlistments, reenlistments, and extensions."

SEC. 8. The amendments made by sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 of this Act do not

affect any enlistment, reenlistment, or appointment entered into or made before

the effective date of this Act.

SEO. 9. Section 29(a) of the Act of August 10, 1956, chapter 1041, as amended

(5 U.S.C. 30r), is amended—

(1) by striking out the words "fiscal year" wherevery they appear therein and inserting the words "calendar year" in place thereof; and

(2) by inserting the following new sentence immediately after the first

sentence thereof: "However, 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 six months of the next calendar year."

Passed the House of Representatives May 9, 1961.

Attest: RALPH R. ROBERTS, Clerk.

Chairman RussELL. Section 9 of the bill proposes to revert to a

calendar year basis for computing the 15 days of annual leave with

pay to which Federal employees are entitled for the purpose of performing active duty for training.

Until 1960 this leave was credited on a calendar-year basis and the

change to a fiscal-year basis has created some problems that will be discussed this morning.

At this time, the Chair merely wishes to note that our committee

colleague, Senator Smith, has introduced a separate bill to accomplish

the same purpose, S. 1446.

The departmental witnesses on this bill are Maj. Gen. C. G. Dodge,

Assistant Army Chief of Staff for Reserve Components, and Maj.

Gen. IV. P. Wilson, Deputy Chief of the National Guard Bureau.

Very well, General Dodge, give us as briefly as possible the views of

the Department.
16 NOMINATIONS

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 SALTONSTALL. Thank you.

Chairman RUSSELL. Proceed, General.

General DODGE. The purpose of this bill is to provide for more 

i

effective participation n 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 

Chairman,

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.
NOMINATIONS 17

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 181/2. Clause (1) of this section of the bill would provide deferment for those individuals who enlist in the National Guard after

reaching 181/2 years of age and will be discussed by General Wilson.

A comparable proposal for Army and Air Force reservists is contained

in section 2 of the bill which I will cover very shortly.

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 181/2-26 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
18 NOMINATIONS

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 8-

year service obligation through enlistment or appointment in the

Ready Reserve of any component of the Armed Forces between the

ages of 17 and 181/2 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 18/12-year group. Those individuals who become members of the Ready Reserve after attaining age

181/2are 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.
NOMINATIONS 19

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 181/2.

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 181/2. 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 184j.

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

older than 181/2.

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 181/2.

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 181/2, and 5/12years of Ready

Reserve participation by persons who join the 6-month training

period, after reaching the age of 181/2.
20 NOMINATIONS

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 18/12, 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 181/2?

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 18/12with those who go in after 18/12

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 18/12and are required to serve 8 years in the Reserves,

as a matter of fact, are put in the Standby Reserve after 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 181/2, because the National Guard at that time told us that if we did not make it under

181/2 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 181/2 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.
NOMINATIONS 21

Now that seemed to me fair at the time, and now what you gentlemen want to do is what the chairman has brought up, to bring those

two things together.

Should we bring them together? Do the same conditions exist as

existed in 1955?

General DODGE. Since this applies primarily to the National Guard,

might I ask General Wilson to comment on it.?

General WILSON. Senator, you are exactly right. Back in 1955 the

personnel that we were looking forward to were the 17 to 181/2. Due

to the fact that selective service took the people 181/2 and above, and

about 2 years after that the selective service issued the bulletin as

the chairman has stated, allowing the 181/2 to be enlisted in the guard

program, with not a statutory deferment, but an administrative deferment as long as they so participated in the program.

Chairman RUSSELL. That is not only the guard; it includes the

Reserve.

General WiLsoN. Yes, sir. It includes both the guard and the

Reserve.

Chairman RUSSELL. Yes.

General WiLsoN. That is right, sir.

In going through this we felt that on an equitable basis, based on

a fellow who has been on active duty for 2 years, absent 2 years on

active duty, that we should make all personnel from the 17 to 26

age group have the same military obligation of 8 years.

We felt that the 181/2 should be given a statutory deferment as long

as they participated, so that they would all be equal, and this bill teas

to do that.

Now, this has been discussed with the Air Section 5, and Army Section 5, and, as General Dodge says, the RFPB, and they all concur in

this length of service, and we in the guard certainly support this bill

and we think it is a very necessary bill.

Chairman RUSSELL. I think it is evident that they should have the

same length of service obligation, these two categories. Any differences that might have existed in 1955 for a differential have passed,

but there is a question in my mind as to whether we ought to extend

one group or bring the other one down to 6 years.

I do not think it will result in any calamity if we limited the reserve

obligation to 6 years.

Any further questions?

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, can we get General Wilson's

comment on the statement you made? I would like to get his reaction.

General WILSON. It is my opinion, sir, that all age groups should be

the same.

Senator THURMOND. I agree with that. But should it be up or

down? The question is whether it should be 8 or 6 years.

General WILSON. Of course, the way we feel, the way I personally

feel, is that, having been in the guard some 30 years, and when I went

in we did not have an obligation but later on there was an obligation

up to age 35, I personally do not think that the time of 8 years bothers

anybody. That would be my opinion, sir.

Senator THURMOND. What is the advantage in having the 8 years?

Point that out to the committee.

72385-61--4
22 NOMINATIONS

General WILSON. Well, the advantage of having 8 years of obligation for the Ready Reserve which, if you take out the6months' training program, that gives them 71/2 of Ready Reserve service in our

units, it gives you continued less turnover, you might say, longer availability of personnel for use in case of emergency; and you have a lot

of money invested in these people; and if it is 6 years, if you cut it

_2 years, you still are rotating people.

Chairman RUSSELL. You do not get anything out of them in the

last 2 years now, do you, General?

General WILSON. In this program we have—yes sir. In this it

-would be a total of 7/12years of Ready Reserve availability.

Chairman RUSSELL. Yes. But as a practical matter you do not do

it now.

General WILSON. No sir; in the Army National Guard.

Chairman RUSSELL. 

No,

put him in the Standby Reserve after 51/2

years. He goes in automatically, does he not, at the present time?

General WILSON. Yes, sir; under the present regulations, unless he

voluntarily extends it.

Chairman RUSSELL. I would not deny any man the right to volunteer and stay in. I think those who have a good billet available and

are interested in the work will do it anyway.

General DODGE. Mr. Chairman, might I ask General Fairbourn to

nuke a comment as it applies to the Marine Corps?

Chairman RUSSELL. All right; General Fairbourn.

General FAIRBOURN. I am director of the Marine Corps Reserve,

Mr. Chairman.

Our situation in the Marine Corps Reserve is that our Ready Reserve strength will commence a decline, and one of the things that

will help us avoid this decline is the equalization of the obligation at

years rather than 6.

We consider that a man, of course, is fully trained after 5 years

.of satisfactory participation, and we keep him on our Ready Reserve

rolls until he completes his 8-year obligation. Therefore, we have the

value of his training and experience available to us if we need it.

Chairman RUSSELL. Do you keep all of yours now on the Ready

Reserve for 8years ?

General FAIRBOURN. For 8 years; yes, sir; those that are in have

an 8-year obligation.

Chairman RUSSELL. I know. But how about the participation, do

you require them to participate 8 years?

General FAIRBOURN. After they have participated satisfactorily for

byears they may go into a nontraming category.

Chairman RUSSELL. That is exactly what I am talking about.

General FAIRBOURN. But they are a Ready Reserve until their obligation is discharged.

Therefore we can keep a larger inventory of ready reservists with

an 8-year obligation at less dollar cost.

Chairman RUSSELL. I think you ought to keep these people participating in the Ready Reserve if you are going to call them Ready

Reserve.

General FAIRBOURN. We consider them fully trained after 5years of

satifactory service.

Chairman RUSSELL. Well then, you keep them for half a year then

after you consider them fully trained?
NOMINATIONS 23

General FAIRBOURN. Those that have a 6-year obligation; yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. How about those who have an 8-year obligation?

General FAIRBOURN. Those that have an 8-year obligation stay in

a Ready Reserve status.

Chairman RUSSELL. Do you require them to participate?

General FAIRBOURN. Not after 5 satisfactory years unless they so

desire.

Chairman RUSSELL. There is another question I want to ask about

the Marine Corps because sometimes the services differ. After he has

completed the 6 years, and you say he is still on Ready Reserve but he

is not required to participate, can you call him up without approval

of Selective Service?

General FAIRBOURN. Yes, sir; if he is still within his 6-year obligated period.

Chairman RUSSELL. I know, but within the 8 years.

General FAIRBOURN. Within the 8 years; yes, sir; we can.

Chairman RUSSELL. You can call him up without going into Selective Service?

General FAIRBOURN. Yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Well, that makes a substantial difference. I

did not know that.

Senator SALTONSTALL. A technical question, General: Turn to section 8 of the bill as you have drafted. it. You have:

however, 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 six months of the next calendar year.

Why do you confine it to the first 6 months? Why couldn't you

leave out those 6 months? Supposing a man serves in September and

does not use all of his leave, and then comes over into the next year.

You could say that he could only use it if he used it in the first 6

months of the following year, why couldn't he use it at any time during

the calendar year, but not carry it over for a second year?

General DODGE. I think, sir, that this 6 months, additional 6 months,

beyond the calendar year in which the leave accrues gives us enough

additional flexibility. We do not need more than that amount, and

we set it at 6 months.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Well, you do not need it, but how about the

poor fellow who may give up his job to go in, doesn't he sacrifice

something?

General DODGE. No, sir. What I meant when I said that we do

not. need it, I mean we do not need it for the man's benefit. Within

this 18-month period we have sufficient flexibility to adequately

handle the situation so that the man will not have to take it out of his

regular leave but rather can take it from the leave given to him for

this purpose.

Senator SALTONSTALL. So what would be the effect if we struck

out those words "the first 6 months?" Would that upset you?

General DODGE. No, sir. It would just give us, if I understand you

correctly, an additional 6 months during which this accrued leave

could be used.

Senator SALTONSTALL. That is right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ERVIN. Mr. Chairman?
24 NOMINATIONS

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Stennis is first. I will be glad to

recognize you next, Senator Ervin.

Senator STENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I think this ought to be brought

out for the record clearly. I am satisfied it does not apply except in

a prospective way. These changes here that you propose would apply only to these men who come in after this law is passed, is that

correct?

General DODGE. That is right, sir.

Senator STENNIS. Is that correct?

General DODGE. That is correct, sir.

Senator STENNIS. All the major parts of it, excluding this Federal leave would apply prospectively?

General DODGE. That is correct.

Senator STENNIS. All right. And you do not ask for a change iv

the amount of leave or anything?

General DODGE. No, sir.

Senator STENNIS. It is just a bookkeeping matter from fiscal to

calendar year and calendar year is what you want to operate under?

General DODGE. This is correct, sir, because our training periods

run on a calendar year.

Senator STENNIS. Yes.

One more question, please, General. Over here on page 4, I am

sure the answer is the same to that, too, but you talk about the obligations on page 4, which is where I made a memo, at least, anyway

you are talking about a longer period, and so forth that is prospective

in application only. Any reference here to the period of service applies only to those who come in after the law is passed; is that correct?

General DODGE. That is correct, sir.

Senator STENNIS. All right.

Now, what do you say to this observation; you are talking about

keeping the ready supply and having plenty of men, and it looks like

to me as if your program, if it is attractive to bring in new men, you

come nearer having a chance to have your solid forces there, bringing

in new ones all the time, than it would be to try to hold on to what

you have these last 2 years; what is your reaction to that thought?

General DODGE. It costs money, sir. It costs a considerable amount

to send one of these individuals to 6 months training, and for each

year that you can save him, you save that much money.

Chairman RUSSELL. But you have not got as broad a base of people

who have had training, have you, General?

Senator STENNIS. Yes.

Chairman RUSSELL. That concept seems to support the idea of

reducing the Reserve to 300,000, and the National Guard to 360,000.

That is the effect when you confine it to this narrow base of people

carrying the whole load.

Senator STENNIS. Your main investment, as I see it, is to bring these

men in and give them the training, the basic training, plus some,

rather than just keeping them on 2 additional years.

Chairman RUSSELL. We have been fighting here in the Congress

against the very philosophy you are advocating, and I intend to do

it again this year.

Are there any further questions before General Wilson makes a

statement? Senator Cannon.
NOMINATIONS 25

Senator CANNON. Mr. Chairman, if I may ask, you state on page 5

that those individuals who become members of the Ready Reserve,

after attaining age 181/2, are not subject to priority induction.

Now, what happens, suppose a man is not keeping his obligation

current as required, what can you do under the present law?

General DODGE. Well, under the present law, sir, if he is not in

the Guard, but is rather in the Reserve he can be sent to 45 days of

active duty for training to catch his training up. If he is in the

Guard, the same thing can be accomplished under very much more

complicated procedures in that the Guard must release the man to the

Reserve, the Reserve must then accept him and give him another try,

and then if he does not perform properly, he can go to 45 days, but

that particular group cannot be reported for priority induction under

the present law, sir.

Senator CANNON. And under age 181/2they are just simply reported

in for priority induction?

General DODGE. Yes sir. Under the law.

Senator CANNON. Now, Senator Stennis asked you if this act was

prospective in application, in other words, it applied only to people

who came in after the act was passed.

This provision here would apply to people who are in now, would

it not, if the act went into effect?

General DODGE. This provision would; yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. Which provision is that?

General DODGE. The one on the priority induction, and the 45 days

of active duty for training, equalizing those between the two groups

of people.

Senator STENNIS. I meant to ask you specifically about that. The

45 days, that is, I thought you said 25-45 days is in your statement?

General DODGE. Forty-five days.

Senator STENNIS. So that would be a yearly active duty obligation? .

General DODGE. The 45 days are a period of active duty for trainmg

to which the man can be called if he has not satisfactorily performed

his Reserve duty in order to bring him up knowledgewise to the level

of the other members of the unit.

Senator STENNIS. Excuse me, Senator Cannon. I did not mean

to intrude on your part. I had not covered that point.

Senator CANNON. That is all right.

Chairman RUSSELL. You are talking about calling them up for 45

days training; if he is under 181/2 you turn him over to Selective Service and draft him for 2 years, don't you, under existing law, if he does

not carry out his Reserve obligation?

General DODGE. That is right, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. I happen to have had a letter within the past

3 days from a man who was just within that position. He missed a

few drills and he was turned over to Selective Service, and was doing

boot training.

General DODGE. We try to do it by means of the other first, because

this returns the man to the unit in his own community, the unit we

would really like to have him in, his Reserve unit, and at—at the

same time, brings his level of training up to that of his associates.
26 NOMINATIONS

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 WnsoN. 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 v-culd 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.
NOMINATIONS 27

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 FArnsounN. 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 71/2 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 Wrisow. 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 WILsoisr. I have scanned through your statement, we have

discusseci most of it, and I will put it in the record.
28 NOMINATIONS

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.
NOMINATIONS 29

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 WthsoN. 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 18/12and 26 as is now provided for the man enlisting 17 and 18%. 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 18/12-26 group will be

granted the same statutory deferment from induction as is now enjoyed by

the 17-18/12-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 te

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 18/12. Priority induction is also a last resort with those who have enlisted

under 18/12and 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
30 NOMINATIONS

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 Hotuse 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 Ally 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:

Army Air Force

1st year $300, 000 $25,000

2d year 225.000 17,000

3d year 170,000 10,000

4th year 150,000 10,000

5th year 150,000 10,000

The above amounts have not been included in any estimate for appropriations

submitted through budget channels by the Department of Defense.
NOMINATIONS 31

We believe that the above costs are maximums, and that the 45-day provision

will seldom have to be invoked. Its mere presence on the statute books will

'do much to assure satisfactory participation.

There will, in addition, be substantial savings due to the changes in National

Guard terms of enlistment. Savings will result from elimination of the indirect

administrative cost of time spent in effecting discharges and reenlistments, and

more directly in the reduction of the number of discharge certificates and forms

now used in effecting reenlistment.

It has been a privilege to appear before this committee. If there are any

questions which the chairman or members of the committee wish to ask at

this time, I will be happy to give or provide the answers.

Chairman RUSSELL. General Fairbourn, has most of your statement

been covered?

General FAIRBOURN. Yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. "We will have it printed in the record in the

form in which it appears here.

(The prepared statement of General Fairbourn follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. WILLIAM T. FAIRBOURN, DIRECTOR, MARINE

CORPS RESERVE

Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I am Brigadier General Fairbourn, Director, Marine

Corps Reserve. It is a pleasure to appear before you this morning in support

of H.R. 5490. The Marine Corps has made very successful use of the 6-month

training program and considers it to be the best thing that could have happened

to our Reserve.

The Marine Corps, like the Army, has a Reserve procurement program for

individuals 18/12to 25, inclusive, which requires 6 months of active duty for

training and participation thereafter for the remainder of a 6-year military

obligation. We feel that all nonprior service personnel who enlist in a Reserve

component should incur the same obligation, namely 8 years as is presently

incurred by the 17-18/12-year-old group. We also feel that this 18/12-25-year-old

group should receive the same statutory deferment now enjoyed by their younger

contemporaries and be subject to the same priority induction vulnerability for

unsatisfactory participation. In summary, Mr. Chairman, the Marines think

this is a good bill and we recommend your favorable consideration. I will be

pleased to answer any questions you, or the members of the committee, may

have.

Chairman RUSSELL. If there are no further questions, the next witness is Maj. Gen. Carl L. Phinney, vice president of the National

Guard Association of the United States, who desires to testify with

respect to the bill.

General Phinney, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. CARL L. PHINNEY, VICE PRESIDENT,

NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

General PHINNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the

committee.

In the interests of time, rather than trespass upon the committee's

time, may I file this report as my testimony. A lot of it is repetitious

to what has been already said.

Chairman RUSSELL. Yes, sir; we will be glad for you to do that.

General PHINNEY. I do not feel like taking any more of the committee's time. I will be glad to try to answer any questions if you

have any.

Chairman RUSSELL. Does anybody have any questions of General

Phinney? We are always glad to have you before the committee

General.
32 NOMINATIONS

General PHINNEY. Thank you so much.

(The prepared statement of Maj. Gen. Carl L. Phinney follows:)

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity,

to appear in support of H.R. 5490, a bill to provide for more effective participation in the Reserve components of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

It is interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that this Department of Defense sponsored bill embraces the content of two legislative proposals introduced by the

Honorable L. Mendel Rivers of South Carolina in behalf of the National Guard

during the 86th Congress.

We favor the enactment of H.R. 5490. We believe that it will accomplish its

purposes to a great extent.

As far as the National Guard is concerned, the bill—

(1) Provides a much-needed and desirable flexible enlistment program for

the National Guard in a manner similar to the Army Reserve and Air Force

Reserve, thus doing away with the archaic and inefficient administrative system under which we have operated for so many years;

(2) Establishes equity of service, oblization, and deferment from Selective Service between and among those who enlist in the National Guard

without prior military service between the ages of 17 and 18% and those between the ages 18% and 26;

(3) Places the two foregoing age groups of young men on an equal basis

in respect to liability for priority induction;

(4) Extends the authority to order to active duty for a period of 45 days

members of the National Guard who fail to perform satisfactory training,

but only upon request of the State concerned; and

(5) Returns the authority to grant military leave to employees of the

Federal civil service to a calendar year basis, the system under which we

operated for so long and so successfully heretofore.

It is our understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the staff of this committee has

suggested certain technical amendments to the language of the bill for the

purpose of clarification. With these modifications we take no issue.

Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, we respectfully urge favorable and immediate

action by this committee and the Congress.

Thank you.

Chairman RUSSELL. The Reserve Officers Association, with which

all of us are familiar, and which has the support of so many of the

Reserve officers of the armed services, supports this bill, and they

have submitted a statement.

Colonel Carlton, do you desire to add to this statement?

STATEMENT OF COL. JOHN T. CARLTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

Colonel CARLTON. No, sir. I merely wish to be recorded as representing a mandate from our association to support this bill, and I

think that the committee fully understands our position on the bill.

Chairman RUSSELL. We will have this prepared statement, on behalf of the Reserve Officers Association, printed in the record at this

point.

(The prepared statement of Colonel Carlton follows:)

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we desire to thank you for the

opportunity to appear before your committee and present our views on this most

important piece of legislation.

In 1955, when the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1955 was under consideration

by Congress, we stated we thought instead of making the cutoff date at age

18% that this opportunity of fulfilling a military obligation should be extended

to age 26.

We are pleased that your committee has seen fit to hold hearings on this bill

and sincerely believe it will be helpful to our defense posture and will enable

the Reserve Forces to secure the numbers required to maintain their full

strength.
NOMINATIONS 33

The Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1955 is one of the most constructive pieces

of legislation Congress has enacted into law dealing with our Reserve Forces.

Prior to the enactment of this law we had a procurement source for Reserve

enlisted personnel.

By changing the age limitation it will enable our Reserve Forces to secure

a more efficient and better educated enlisted personnel.

We strongly recommend favorable action on this bill.

It has been a pleasure to present our views and we thank you for the courtesies

extended to us.

Chairman RUSSELL. Colonel Boyer, do you have anything to add?

Colonel BOYER. No, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Very well, that concludes the testimony on that

bill.

(Subsequently, in executive session, the committee voted to report

H.R. 5490, with an amendment, as covered by S. Rept. 498.)

H.R. 4324

Chairman RUSSELL. We have another bill upon which we wish to

have a very brief hearing. It is a departmental bill, H.R. 4324, which

is intended to eliminate the confusion and problems generated by

use of the term "90 days" at one place in the law authorizing reenlistment allowance and the use of the term "3 months" in another section

of these laws.

(The bill referred to follows:)

[H.R. 4324, 87th Cong., 1st sees.]

AN ACT To provide uniformity in certain conditions of entitlement to reenlistment bonuses

under the Career Compensation Act of 1949, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled, That sections 207(e) and 208 of the Career

Compensation Act of 1949, as amended (37 U.S.C. 238(e), 239), are each amended

by striking out the words "ninety days" wherever they appear therein and inserting the words "three months" in place thereof.

SEC. 2. Any individual who—

(1) reenlisted in the regular component of the uniformed service concerned after July 15, 1954;

(2) reenlisted within three months but more than ninety days after the

date of his discharge or release from active duty; and

(3) received no reenlistment bonus, or received an enlistment allowance,

or a reenlistment bonus computed under the provisions of section 207 of the

Career Compensation Act,

may be paid a reenlistment bonus under section 208 of such Act if he received

no bonus, or may be paid the difference between the amount of the enlistment

allowance or reenlistment bonus that he actually received and the amount that

he would have received if his reenlistment bonus had been computed under the

provisions of section 208 of such Act. To be eligible for payment under this

section, an individual must apply for the payment within one year after the

date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. Retroactive payments shall be made from appropriations applicable

at the date of reenlistment or from appropriations currently available for military pay and allowances.

Passed the House of Representatives May 15, 1961.

Attest: RALPH R. ROBERTS, Clerk.

Chairman RUSSELL.- The departmental witness is Capt. Arthur G.

Esch, Bureau of Naval Personnel.

Captain Esch, be seated and tell us as succinctly as you can what

this bill is all about. I think some of us are aware that it means a

difference of 3 days.
34 NOMINATIONS

STATEMENT OF CAPT. ARTHUR G. ESCH, DIRECTOR, POLICY DIVISION, BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE

NAVY

Captain Escx. Mr. Chairman, may I submit my short statement

for the record and proceed in a few words to summarize our position?

Chairman RUSSELL. We will be happy to have you do that.

Captain Esc:i. The committee is most aware of this case.

In 1954 when the Department of Defense came here seeking a new,

you might say, progressive reenlistment bonus scheme, we had not

done our homework too well.

As you perceive, we used in what become section 208 of this Career

Compensation Act the words "ninety days" as the time entitlement,

whereas section 207 enacted in 1949, had the time based upon 3 months.

This caused immediately thereafter, sir, a certain amount of difficulty when the Comptroller General—it was very apparent that there

was a difference when certain 31-day months fall in sequence—he enforced checkage, of course, and this caused us some difficulties.

We would like to clear this up in a prospective sense, of course, sir,

and the bill, as written, would look backward to the period of nearly

7 years to take care of those small numbers of individuals who, by this

difference of 1 or 2 days, lost the opportunity to reenlist with this

progressive reenlistment bonus plan under the provisions of 208.

That, I think, sir, is a fair statement of the case.

Chairman RUSSELL. I am glad to hear some witness concede Ciat

the Department once did not do its homework. I think it is very

evident in this case. [Laughter.]

(The prepared statement of Capt. Arthur G. Esch follows:)

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the opportunity to appear before

this committee in support of this bill is appreciated.

The purpose of the legislation under consideration is to make uniform certain

language in sections 207 and 208 of the Career Compensation Act of 1949 relating

to the period within which reenlistments must occur in order for a member to

be entitled to reenlistment bonuses. It is intended to eliminate the confusion

and problems generated by the differences in the terms "90 days" and "3

months."

From July 1, 1922, to July 15, 1954, inclusive, enlisted men of the military

services with continuous service, i.e., those who reenlisted within 3 months

after date of last discharge, have been entitled to either an enlistment allowance

based upon years served in enlistment from which last discharged or a reenlistment bonus based upon the number of years for which reenlisted. However,

in order to qualify for the increased reenlistment bonus authorized by section

208 of the Career Compensation Act an individual must have reenlisted (1) on

or after July 16, 1954, and (2) within 90 days after the date of his last

discharge.

Discharged enlisted men and even personnel of recruiting offices sometimes

fail to grasp the fact that even if the reenlistment is entered into within 3

months after last discharge, the elapsed time from date of last discharge to date

of reenlistment may be either 91 or 92 days, if one or more 31-day months are

included in the interim break in service. Immediately following enactment of

section 208 of the Career Compensation Act of 1949, an appreciable number of

overpayments of reenlistment bonus was made by disbursing officers which resulted in checkage of the difference between the reenlistment bonus to which

entitled under section 207 (by reason of reenlistment within 3 months) and the

amount erroneously credited under section 208 where the member did not reenlist within 00 days. Overpayments of reenlistment bonuses in these cases have

been minimized by the promulgation of specific regulations covering the matter;

however, due to the differences in language of entitlement in sections 207 and

208 of the Career Compensation Act of 1949, it is undoubtedly true that some
NOMINATIONS 35

members are being deprived of the higher reenlistment bonus by not reenlisting

within 90 days from date of last discharge.

This situation is particularly confusing since a reenlistment in the Navy

within 3 months from date of discharge is considered continuous service. In

the case of the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the period is 90 days. A

member reenlisting under continuous service is entitled to be reenlisted in the

rating held at discharge and is not entitled to an initial clothing allowance.

Therefore, it is necessary to determine in each case at the time of reenlistment

whether the reenlistment was within 3 months for purposes of reenlisting in the

rating held at discharge and entitlement to an initial cash clothing allowances

and whether the reenlistment was within 90 calendar days for the purpose of

entitlement to the increased reenlistment bonus. If both periods of entitlement

were the same, as proposed in this legislation, there would be much less chance

of misunderstanding. Because of simplicity of computation, it is considered

more desirable to use "3 months" for all purposes.

Section 208 was added to the Career Compensation Act of 1949 'to stimulate

reenlistment of members serving in the first enlistment or reenlistment in the

Regular service and to encourage members of Reserve components on active

duty to enlist in the Regular component." It is not believed that it was the

intent of the Congress to restrict the payment of the higher reenlistment bonus

to only those members whe reenlisted within 90 days after the last discharge

and to authorize a smaller payment in cases where the reenlistment was entered

into within 3 months after such discharge, but on either the 91st or 92d day

after such discharge. There being no authority to change the date of discharge

or reenlistment in such cases, the only remedy available to such members is an

application to a Board for Correction of Military Records.

The retroactive costs resulting from enactment of this legislation would be

nominal and could be absorbed within current appropriations. The only members involved would be those who reenlisted within 3 months from date of

discharge or release but more than 90 days from such date due to the fact the

intervening period included 1 or more 31-day months, and who, as a result of

their reenlistment occurring more 90 days after their last discharge, received

no reenlistment bonus, or were paid a reenlistment bonus under section 207

of the Career Compensation Act of 1949.

We recommend your favorable consideration of H.R. 4324, and its enactment

during the present session of Congress.

Chairman RUSSELL. Are there any questions of Captain Esch ? We

are very happy to have you here, Captain.

The committee will now go into executive session.

Captain Escn. Thank you, sir.

(Whereupon, at 11 :50 a.m., the committee proceeded in executive

session.)

(Subsequently, in executive session, the committee voted to report

H.R. 4324, without amendment, as covered by S. Rept. 499.)
,7 1E uN

RcFERENCE

LIBRARY =<A

DEPARTMENT

'74TIAN,