TRAVEL

Travel costs in the "Operation and maintenance, Army" account have been receiving, and will continue to receive, close examination at every echelon of the Army.

For example, in our Caribbean command, a listing of each trip required during the budget year is prepared prior to the start of the year. This listing of travelers and purpose of trip is examined quarterly by the Chief of Staff of that command to insure that all travel is of high priority and contributes to the command's mission. This procedure has been in effect for several years.

In developing our 1962 travel estimate, we recognized the desire of the Congress and reduced programs requested by field agencies about 15 percent. As a result, our fiscal year 1962 travel estimate approximates the fiscal year 1961 level and will cover the travel related to such increased activities as the field exercise program and the new single manager assignments.

(The following chart was referred to in the above statement:)

HIRE OF MOTOR VEHICLES

The effect of the limitation on hire of motor vehicles has been very restrictive. Many civilian bus service contracts for school buses, shuttle service on military installations, and transportation for oversea locally hired workers to and from their jobs have had to be canceled and replaced by military buses. This has necessitated the diversion of buses from primary missions and the continued use of old buses which are uneconomical to maintain. In the case of U.S. Army, Europe, it has been necessary to move buses from Germany to France; this has meant their withdrawal from availability for emergency evacuation use. Because of this situation, we have taken great care to insure that our fiscal year 1962 budget estimates for vehicle hire reflect accurate requirements as well as provide for hire only where it is the most economical and efficient means of accomplishing the mission.

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

The fiscal year 1961 Appropriation Act established an "Operation and Maintenance, Army" dollar limitation of $92,219,000 on departmental administration. This limitation effects Project 2510, Headquarters, Department of the Army; 2520. Offices of the Heads of Technical Staff (except The Surgeon General); and 2410. Office of The Surgeon General.

These specific activities were actually set forth in House Report 1561, which was the committee report on the 1961 appropriation. As a result of this limitation, civilian employment paid from these budget projects has been reduced from 11,371 on the rolls as of June 30, 1960, to 10,400-a reduction of 971. Expenses such as supplies, equipment, and temporary duty travel have also been reduced accordingly. In recognition of congressional desires we are also reducing military personnel assigned to departmental activities by approximately 300.

On the next table is shown a 6-year summary of the civilian and military personnel engaged in departmental administration compared to the total strength of the Army. Of particular note in this table is the fact that the total civilian strength (line 1a) on June 30, 1956, compared to June 30, 1961, represents a reduction of 11.7 percent while the departmental civilians (line 2a) over the same period have been reduced 23.5 percent; and the civilians subject to the limitation (line 3) have been reduced 24.6 percent.

These data show the results of the Department of the Army's continuing efforts to reduce departmental administration personnel and also attest to the effectiveness of manpower controls exercised by the Army and by the Office, Secretary of Defense, to deter any tendencies toward unnecessary staffing in this area. (The table referred to above follows:)

CHART X.-Comparison of departmental personnel to total manpower resources

(1956-62)

[In thousands]

1 Represents total paid from all appropriations. Excludes field personnel. Represents total assigned to departmental functions which are supported from all appropriations. Also excludes field personnel.

Includes both departmental and field personnel paid from O. & M. budget projects 2510 Headquarters Department of the Army; 2,520 offices of the heads of technical staff (except The Surgeon General); and 2,410 office of The Surgeon General.

Figures for 1956 through 1960 shown for comparability only since limitation was not effective until 1961.

DEUTSCHE MARKS

One final area deserves comment. As a change from last year, and in accordance with a recommended change in the language of section 519 of the general provisions, an amount of $13 million has been included in our fiscal year 1962 budget request as the estimated dollar equivalent of the deutsche mark support we anticipate receiving from the Berlin Magistrate.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my presentation. I appreciate the time and attention the committee has given me. The budget program directors are present and we are ready to answer any questions you may have.

The Army Surgeon General is here to answer any specific questions with regard to the medical program, or medical activity other than the medicare program for which a specific presentation has been scheduled.

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you very much, General Duff.

Your request before this committee is for $3,257 million?

General DUFF. That is correct, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. Which is an increase from $3,196 million for fiscal year 1961?

General DUFF. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. And $3,063 million for fiscal year 1960?
General DUFF. That is correct, sir.

ORIGINAL BUDGET REQUEST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Mr. ANDREWS. What was your original request to the Department of Defense for operation and maintenance of the Army for fiscal year 1962?

General DUFF. Sir, as I stated previously to this committee, in the guidelines which were referred to in the Defense Comptroller's statement filed with the committee, under which the services submitted their budget estimate to the Department of Defense, these were submitted at four levels. I would assume you would like the total, the highest level at which this was submitted, the D budget level. Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. FORD. Why do we not have them for A, B, C, and D?
Also E and any other?

General DUFF. Sir, the total as submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, for the O. & M. appropriation, was $3,922,070,000 at the D budget level.

Mr. ANDREWS. You came up with a request for $3,257 million? General DUFF. That is correct, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. Where was that original budget request cut?

General DUFF. Sir, there was a combination of adjustments that were made both in the review by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Bureau of the Budget.

As you know, sir, the review, as has been the case for the last few years for the Department of Defense, is a concurrent review, although the Director of the Budget does reserve the privilege after the Secretary of Defense has submitted his recommendation to the President, of making recommendations for further adjustments to the President. In general, sir, the major portion of this reduction was made in the review by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. ANDREWS. What major programs were cut out by the reduction of this budget from $3,900 million to $3,200 million? Can you tell me that?

General DUFF. Yes, sir.

This covered a very large range of activities, including a reduction in mapping and geodesy, Army-wide communications, intelligence activities, and so forth. The budget estimate as submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Defense was for a paid drill strength of 700,000 for the Reserve components, and the Department of Defense allowed 630,000. This reduction affects not only the "National Guard Personnel, Army," appropriation, the "Reserve Personnel, Army," appropriation, and the "O. & M., Army National Guard," appropriation, but also the "Operation and Maintenance, Army," appropriation; therefore a reduction was made for this purpose in the O. & M. Army appropriation.

As has been stated in the Military Personnel, Army, presentation, the D budget level provided for a 925,000-man Army. Therefore, in allowing an 870,000 strength, there was a reduction in the operation and maintenance estimate at the D level in order to provide for the lower strength.

Mr. ANDREWS. In other words, the Secretary of the Army, and the Army, requested 925,000 men?

General DUFF. At the D budget level; that is correct, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. And the 400,000 National Guardsmen and 300,000 Reserves?

General DUFF. Paid drill strength; yes, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. So those are three main items that were deleted by reducing the money at the Defense level?

General DUFF. Those are three of the main items; yes, sir.

In addition, we had a considerable amount contained at the D budget level for reducing the backlog of deferred maintenance of facilities, and funds for this purpose were considerably reduced also in the adjustments made.

Mr. MINSHALL. Would that not make up for the lion's share of the reduction?

General DUFF. The deferred maintenance of facilities?

Mr. MINSHALL. For the general cutback.

General DUFF. Mr. Minshall, the support of the increased Active Army strength in this appropriation at the D budget level that was disallowed because of holding the strength at 870,000 was $84 million. The net amount disallowed, or reduced from the D budget level is $665 million, and I have given some of the principal items.

Mr. ANDREWs. $665 million?

General DUFF. Yes, sir; $665 million is the correct net amount. Gross reductions totaled $695 million. However, in addition, there were certain adjustments made in which they added an amount of $30 million, making a net reduction of $665 million.

Mr. ANDREWS. As Mr. Minshall said, the three biggest items deleted by the reduced budget were in the manpower field?

General DUFF. It is related to the increased manpower recommended, the support of this increased manpower, and the reduction of the deferred maintenance backlog.

Mr. MINSHALL. Could you supply for the record the exact figure, or approximately, for the reduction in manpower, including O. & M.— the whole gamut?

General DUFF. Yes, sir; as far as the 925,000 strength is concerned, the amount of reduction that is related to holding the Army at 870,000 rather than 925,000 as recommended was $84 million.

Mr. MINSHALL. That was just for the personnel, I mean for the related functions. Is that included in the $84 million?

General DUFF. This is directly attributable to the increase in strength.

Mr. ANDREWS. This is all for O. & M., not pay and subsistence?
It all relates to O. & M.?

General DUFF. Yes.

Mr. ANDREWs. What is it for the National Guard?

General DUFF. The reduction, sir, for the maintenance of the Army National Guard, paid drill strength at the lower level, was $4.6 million, and this is in the "Operation and maintenance, Army National Guard," appropriation. This is not in the "Operation and maintenance," Army appropriation. In holding the Reserve components at the 630,000 strength there was a reduction of approximately $17 million for equipment, technicians and support for this lower strength. Specifically related to the reduction in the Reserve components strength, other than in the National Guard and Reserve appropriations, there was an additional $38 million reduction.

Mr. ANDREWS. That is a total of only $139 million, so that is just about one-sixth of the reduced figure.