« PreviousContinue »
CARL VINSON, Georgia, Chairman OVERTON BROOKS, Louisiana
LESLIE C. ARENDS, Illinois PAUL J. KILDAY, Texas
W. STERLING COLE, New York CARL T. DURHAM, North Carolina
LEON H. GAVIN, Pennsylvania L. MENDEL RIVERS, South Carolina WALTER NORBLAD, Oregon PHILIP J. PHILBIN, Massachusetts
JAMES E. VAN ZANDT, Pennsylvania F. EDWARD HÉBERT, Louisiana
JAMES T. PATTERSON, Connecticut ARTHUR WINSTEAD, Mississippi
PAUL CUNNINGHAM, Iowa MELVIN PRICE, Illinois
WILLIAM H. BATES, Massachusetts 0. C. FISHER, Texas
WILLIAM E. HESS, Ohio PORTER HARDY, JR., Virginia
JAMES P. S. DEVEREUX, Maryland WILLIAM J. GREEN, JR., Pennsylvania ALVIN E. O'KONSKI, Wisconsin CLYDE DOYLE, California
WILLIAM G. BRAY, Indiana GEORGE P. MILLER, California
ROBERT C. WILSON, California CHARLES E. BENNETT, Florida
FRANK C. OSMERS, JR., New Jersey RICHARD E. LANKFORD, Maryland KATHARINE ST. GEORGE, New York GEORGE HUDDLESTON, JR., Alabama B. CARROLL REECE, Tennessee JAMES A, BYRNE, Pennsylvania
CHARLES S. GUBSER, California TOBY MORRIS, Oklahoma A. PAUL KITCHIN, North Carolina
E. L. BARTLETT, Alaska
ROBERT W. SMART, Chief Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1
OVERTON BROOKS, Louisiana, Chairman PHILIP J. PHILBIN, Massachusetts
WALTER NORBLAD, Oregon ARTHUR WINSTEAD, Mississippi
JAMES E. VAN ZANDT, Pennsylvania MELVIN PRICE, Illinois
JAMES P. S. DEVEREUX, Maryland 0. C. FISHER, Texas
WILLIAM G. BRAY, Indiana JAMES A. BYRNE, Pennsylvania
FRANK C. OSMERS, JR., New Jersey TOBY MORRIS, Oklahoma
KATHARINE ST. GEORGE, New York CHARLES F. DOCANDER, Counsel
R.V.S.24 Ap 57
[No. 22] REVIEW OF THE RESERVE PROGRAM BY SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
104 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1, Washington, D.C., Monday, February 4, 1957. The subcommittee convened at 10 a. m., Hon. Overton Brooks, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding:
Mr. BROOKS. The subcommittee will please come to order. Now before we start, we will wait a moment or two while these people that want to take pictures can take the pictures they wish. And then I want to say that after the first witness finishes, we will have a little break of 3 minutes to permit the taking of pictures at that time. That is in response to a request from the press for pictures. Then we will proceed with the work of the subcommittee.
Now ladies and gentlemen of the subcommittee, I want to start the first hearing of the subcommittee this year by welcoming our new members. We have, for instance, our good friend, Congressman Byrne of Pennsylvania. He is not here yet but he will be here, I am sure. And we have Mr. Morris, of Oklahoma, who has in the years gone by been a Member of Congress, although I don't think he has been a member of the committee prior to this year. And then we have Mrs. St. George, of New York.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BROOKS. Mrs. St. George is the one lady member of the committee. We are very fortunate in having you assigned to our subcommittee, Mrs. St. George.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Thank you.
I want to make just a short statement before we start these hearings. There has been a great deal said in the press about it and I think that a statement from the chairman is in order.
Today we again begin hearings on the implementation of the Reserve Forces Act. This is the third hearing the subcommittee has held on this subject since the enactment of the law. At the outset I would like to say that in my opinion all of the Rerserve components have contributed heavily to the protection of the country in time of war and in time of peace.
Members of the Reserve components are loyal and able men and women and I for one will proceed during these hearings on that basis. These are dedicated citizens who are serving their country in an exemplary fashion. I do not think it necessary that the subcommittee be furnished any evidence which questions the loyalty of any member of the Reserve component, including the National Guard.
This subcommittee has watched over the Reserve program almost since its inception. We have seen the Reserves of all of the military
services grow from small and ineffective units with few officers and practically no enlisted personnel to the Reserve of today, with its capabilities of supplementing the active forces in time of national emergency or in time of war.
We have also seen the National Guard, following World War II, of only a small group of officers and no enlisted personnel, grow until today the National Guard has a strength of 405,000 persons..
This subcommittee has been instrumental in proposing and acting on the legislative acts designed to improve the efficiency of all of the Reserve components. In addition, we have attempted to create benefits for Reserve personnel and to place them insofar as practicable in the same status as members of the Regular forces.
Still I will not say that I am satisfied with the Reserves, for I think they should be built up in numbers and should be more efficiently trained. And that is to a large degree what we must learn from these hearings. The subcommittee must be advised of the efficiency of the Reserves today and what kind of protection the country can expect from its Reserves.
If we find that that protection is inadequate, then by one means or another we must devise a better system to provide greater numbers and more efficient training for a better Reserve system than we have at present.
The Department of the Army has recently announced a revision of its Army Reserve program. This has come upon us rather suddenly and the announcement was made without formal consultation with the committee as such.
There are three main points in the new program which the Army intends to put into effect on April 1, 1957.
No. 1 point is this: All enlistees in the National Guard will be required to undergo 6 months of active duty for training.
No. 2. The 6 months' training program authorized by the Reserve Forces Act will be extended to all volunteers in the National Guard or the United States Army Reserve from the ages of 17 to 35.
And point No. 3: the Ready Reserve obligation for the 6 months' training volunteer and the person with prior service will be decreased.
It is the duty of this subcommittee to weigh the testimony given to us here and then arrive at decisions based on information made available to us.
Finally, we must report our findings to the full committee for final action. Every member of the subcommittee, I am sure, favors a strong, efficient Reserve. I daresay that it is true of every witness who will appear before us. But honest differences of opinion exist on the problem on how best to attain this goal. We must work with patience and with understanding to attempt to resolve these differences, keeping always in mind the best interests of the Nation and its defense.
I would also add a word of caution. Much will be said here regarding the length of the training period for Reserves and the full military obligation,
but there is more to efficient and effective Reserve training than establishing a time limit of service for an enlisted period.
We must have adequate facilities, up-to-date training, and competent instructors. And even having that is not enough. We must have a realistic and effective training program.
All of these factors must be present or in the making before we can go forward in building the Reserve so necessary to our national security.
In addition, I must call to your attention that this is not an inquiry into the Army Reserve program alone. We are here to learn how the Reserves of all of the services are progressing if indeed progress is being made, so these conditions can be included in our report to the full committee.
Now that is the burden of the statement that I prepared. And in addition to that, I would like to tell the members of the subcommittee that with the help of our counsel we have prepared a brief outline of information which I think the committee should require.
Now, Mr. Ducander, do you have extra copies of the outline !
Mr. BROOKS. Can you give each member of the subcommittee a copy of the outline that has been prepared, as sort of a guide to what we want to develop ?
Now this outline is not restricted. It is not restrictive, but merely suggestive. And anybody, of course, who feels that some important part of the program has been overlooked in the outline is free, of course, to supplement it with his own questions.
Now, if there are no questions regarding the outline-
Mr. BROOKS. And as we go along if anyone wants to ask a question he can do so. I say again, it is just suggestive and it is not restrictive in any sense of the word. We are not trying to restrict the questions of any member of the committee. Mr. DUCANDER (reading):
BRIEF OUTLINE OF INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE An explanation of the implementation of the Reserve Forces Act from time of enactment to present, including but not limited to
(1) Planned number of personnel required when enacted, by categories and components.
(2) Number of personnel at present by categories and components.
(3) Type, duration and effectiveness of training under the Reserve Forces Act.
(4) Problems of recruitment and meeting force goals.
(7) Status of instructors and training programs and projected for the future. (6) Explanation of new Army program:
(1) Necessity for such a program.
(4) Requirements for the Army National Guard and the relationship to the Air National Guard.
(5) Extension and enlargement of the 6 months' program.