task and a heavy responsibility. We also fully understand that there must be constant changes in weapons and techniques but we should not overlook the fact that there is a continuing need for trained manpower and that this requirement must match changing techniques and therefore demands even greater emphasis. Some of the planners in the upper echelons of our Government, remote from the compelling examples of Greece, Korea, Formosa, and Lebanon, persist in their belief that the next war will not last more than 1 week. Consequently, they say, we will not have time to mobilize; so why spend money on the Reserve?

A football team whose members took the attitude that they must win the game in the first 2 minutes would win very few games.

We think that we should substitute bold resolution for this sort of fatalistic defeatism and resolve that with the determination and will power of our American people we will fight on to victory no matter how severe a blow is initially received. Such a determination could only be carried out if we had sufficient trained manpower ready and able to continue the fight until additional new manpower was trained.

ARMY APPROPRIATIONS

Our Army Reserve and National Guard forces are the only Army forces that have a builtin dispersion factor. Since they are distributed in communities all over the United States we are assured of a larger proportion of survival of our Army Reserve forces than would be the case in our Regular Army force, which is heavily concentrated in certain areas.

While we recognize the possibility of a nuclear war, we believe there is a greater possibility of a nuclear stalemate. If this be true, then conventional warfare would more logically occur. In a conventional war the availability of our Reserve components would spell the difference between victory and defeat. Korea gives witness to this fact.

I know you realize that the active Army is so extended in its worldwide commitments that it could not be effective in a major conventional action without its Reserve.

For the foregoing reasons we strongly oppose the 10-percent cut in the proposed budget for the coming fiscal year for Army Reserve and Army National Guard.

We recommend that an additional $40 million be appropriated (Reserve personnel, Army) in order to fully finance the fiscal year 1962 requirements, including continuation of 300,000 drill pay strength and adequate programs of 15 days active duty training for officers and enlisted individual reinforcements.

We further recommend an additional $18 million in the budget program for "Operation and Maintenance, Army." This is needed to improve the equipment position of the Reserve and permit employment of some 2,000 urgently needed unit civilian technicians. These civilian technicians are required to relieve the unit commanders from burdensome administrative detail. In many cases they are spending several additional days each month in order that their records will be up to date.

We suggest that unless the Defense Department agrees to spend these funds that mandatory language be written into the bill.

At our National Council meeting a resolution of the Army section was adopted, providing that our Reserve strength be increased from 300,000 to 400,000. This is really a realistic approach to the problem, inasmuch as this would result in a greater dispersion of our Reserves. It would also give us a greater number of trained people should our losses in the active force as well as losses in some of our Reserve forces be such that the country would be lacking in trained manpower. This extra 100,000 would supply a buffer against heavy attrition in the beginning phases of any war.

Furthermore, irrespective of whether or not the Defense Department desires to do so, it appears to us that a great many of our trained Army Reserve would, in case of a nuclear attack, be ordered to duty in their communities, in order to get our city, county, and State gov ernments functioning as soon as possible.

NAVY APPROPRIATIONS

In the past the Naval Reserve budget, while extremely austere, has not been the subject of a bald and open cut. This year, however, it too has had its Reserve personnel budget drastically cut.

The Secretary of Defense has authorized a Selected Naval Reserve strength of 135,000. This is a rockbottom figure that is necessary for D-day requirements.

The current fiscal year budget provides sufficient funds to maintain an average drill pay strength of 127,000. The proposed 1962 Naval Reserve personnel budget will cut the funds so that the average drill pay strength will be 124,330, with an end strength of 125,105.

The Navy's Selected Reserve is a D-day organization. Its members already have their mobilization orders in their hands. They are part of the force in being. The day following D-day they will add jetfighter squadrons, trained antisubmarine aircraft squadrons, 50 antisubmarine warfare ships of destroyer types to the fleet and also provide the trained personnel to bring fleet ships to their full war complement. The manning level at present is only 81 percent, which precludes sustained combat capability.

Additional funds are needed for those Naval Reservists who are in the category D classification. These are reservists who are in the Ready Reserve, who are willing to train four times a month without training pay, and for whom a limited number are permitted to receive 15 days' active duty training. Funds for the 15 days' active duty training for these reservists have been radically reduced. In the fiscal year 1960, funds provided for the training of 12,500 Naval Reserve officers. The proposed 1962 budget reduces this number to only 4,700. Maintenance of the Naval Reserve training program on the same status as provided in the current 1961 budget will require the proposed budget for the Naval Reserve of $84,600,000 to be increased to the current 1961 budget of $88 million.

Frankly, I think the funds should be provided to permit the Navy to build the authorized strength of 135,000.

I would also like to point out that under "Operations and maintenance," (O. & M.N.) in the current 1961 budget the amount of money for oil and gasoline for Naval Reserve aircraft was reduced $2 million. This was a $3-million reduction over the amount appropriated for the

fiscal year 1959. We recommend that the proposed budget for this item be increased by at least $1 million.

We suspect that this money was requested by the Navy but was arbitrarily removed from the Defense budget prior to its being presented to Congress.

This will mean a 20-percent reduction for flight training for Naval Air Reserve pilots and plane crews and will adversely affect our mobilization effectiveness.

AIR FORCE APPROPRIATIONS

These

Our analysis of the budget authorization under "Reserve personnel, Air Force" indicates that the request for fiscal year 1962 amounts to a reduction of about $2 million over last year's budget. This is in the face of increased responsibilities given to the Air Force Reserve with the formation of their new base support and recovery units. units do not replace the flying units that are being maintained in the force nor the so-called part I individual mobilization positions which are so essential to augment the Regular forces in the event of mobilization. Instead they are an added responsibility. The word "recovery” is the key to their responsibility. They add to the built-in dispersion we have discussed above, and they could well furnish the sole haven for our aircrews returning from initial sorties in all-out nuclear war. We understand that, although the Air Force has been given authority to go ahead with the activation of these all important units, this reduced budget will restrict the manning of these new units to not more than 25 percent of authorized strength. Even more unfortunate, this restrictive budget will enable the Air Force only to afford 24 paid drill periods for the members of these units even though it is as important for them to participate in 48 drills per year as it is for the members of any other Reserve unit. As far as we know, these will be the only Ready Reserve units in the Armed Forces that will be restricted in this manner. We are, in effect, asking the personnel to participate and train with these all-important units and yet putting them in an inferior status for drill pay purposes.

We believe that the addition of $4 to $6 million to the Air Reserve personnel budget will enable the Air Force to pay personnel in the recovery and support units for the full number of their drill periods. The amount is insignificant but the addition of this money is absolutely essential to enable the activation and adequate performance of these new units.

We are also most concerned about the allocation of that portion of the budget item "Operations maintenance, Air Force," which provides the cost of flying hours for Reserve aircrews. Our experience over the past several years indicates a trend to maintain or even decrease the amount requested each year. But under last year's budget our Reserve flying units were so restricted in their flying hours that they could not perform the optimum in training missions. Now this year, several of these units are having their C-119 aircraft replaced by the bigger and longer-range C-124's. The cost to operate this new plane for each flying hour is, understandably, about twice as much as to operate the C-119. Thus, if the money asked this year for flying operations for our Reserves remains the same as for last year, this will

amount to a reduction in what was, at best, a minimal flying training program.

In addition, it has just been announced that the new units to be assigned C-124's are to be given only 8 aircraft per unit versus the 12 authorized an active duty unit. This violates the established principle that Reserve units will be manned and equipped at the same strength as active duty units. It means that these units, operated at two-thirds of strength, will not, therefore, be totally ready units even though the aircrews may be trained to maximum degree. We suspect that this reduction in the number of aircraft assigned per squadron is a short-sighted attempt to save dollars.

It appears that it will require an increase of at least $2 million in operation and maintenance funds in order to provide for 12 plane C-124 squadrons as well as to continue the operation of the remaining C-119 squadrons so that the total number of full strength troop carrier squadrons can be maintained in the Air Force Reserve inventory.

Unless such an increase in funds for the Air Force Reserve is provided, there is grave danger of a serious setback, not only in their training status and their flying safety record, but in their capability for instantaneous reaction at full strength.

SUMMARY

In summing up, we would recommend an additional $58 million for the Army Reserve. That is $40 million for personnel and $18 million for O. & M.

For the Navy Reserve, we recommend an additional $4,400,000, which will include the money needed for oil and fuel for the training of Naval Air Reservists.

For the Air Force Reserve we recommend an additional $4 to $6 million under "Reserve Personnel, Air Force" and that an additional $2 million under "Operation and Maintenance, Air Force" be allocated to the troop carrier units of the Reserve Forces.

Mr. Chairman, I have with me here three officers on our staff here at national headquarters of this association. This is Colonel Boyer, whom you have known many years, formerly executive director. Admiral Jackson is on my left. He was with the Department of the Navy in charge of the Reserve program for 4 years up until last year when he retired and joined our staff. Next to him is Colonel Brackett, who had a similar but not precisely similar assignment in the Air Force. We are all here to answer any questions you may see fit to ask, and we place ourselves in your hands and at your tender mercies.

Mr. RILEY. The Reserve Officers Association then feels, as far as the Army is concerned, that instead of cutting the Reserve components to less than 300,000, it should be increased by another hundred thousand; is that right?

Colonel CARLTON. We adopted a resolution at our recent council meeting to that effect. However, we are not requesting money for the additional 100,000, merely pointing out what we think should be brought to your attention.

Mr. RILEY. And that the Navy should get adequate funds to pay for the oil and fuel so they can continue their flight training, and that the

Air Force get additional funds for operation and maintenance over that which was recommended, especially in regard to the troop carrier units in the Reserve force?

Colonel CARLTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. RILEY. I believe that more and more of the troop carrier units are being turned over to the Reserve and National Guard. Is that true?

Colonel BRACKETT. More of those units; is that your question? Mr. RILEY. I believe the troop carrier units are being allocated, some of them, to the Air Force Reserve and National Guard; is that true?

Colonel BRACKETT. Yes, sir; larger and longer range aircraft are coming out of the active-duty inventory. The Reserve units now have the two-engine flying boxcar, and they are being allocated the big C-124 Globemasters, which cost about twice as much to run. The Reserve unit commanders I have talked to are anxious to get these and are anxious to get the increased funds necessary to include the same number of flying hours for those new aircraft that they had in smaller aircraft to keep their crews trained and in order that the transition may be made properly.

Mr. RILEY. Your responsibilities as a result of these larger carrier planes are becoming greater and greater; is that not true?

Colonel BRACKETT. That is true.

Mr. RILEY. And more responsibility being placed on the Reserves as a result?

Colonel BRACKETT. I am sure of it, sir.

Mr. RILEY. Mr. Sikes.

Mr. SIKES. Colonel Carlton, I think you have given us a good statement.

Colonel CARLTON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. SIKES. It is very useful to this committee to have your organization break down into detail the weaknesses that exist in the Reserve programs generally, and present it all to us under one head, so that we have an opportunity to talk to the people who are in very close proximity to the entire question.

I would like to ask you if the amounts of funds you have suggested for additional appropriations have been coordinated with the various departments so that those are the same amounts those departments would recommend to us for the same item.

Colonel CARLTON. Let me say this generally and then ask each of my staff to respond specifically to that. We work very closely with various organizations, including the Department of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. As you know, each service has an Assistant Chief of Staff for Reserves as well as an officer on the Secretarial level. We work very closely with them. So we are not just drawing these things out of the air.

I think, generally speaking, they are pretty much what the Reserve directors and the military chiefs feel we should have. If Colonel Boyer could respond to this Army matter

Mr. SIKES. Please do.

Colonel BOYER. On the Army, Mr. Chairman, our recommendation with reference to additional funds is to keep the Army Reserve at the 300,000 drill pay strength, as provided in the budget this year.

67438-61-pt. 2-68