Page images

Mr. BROOKS. Do you care to tell me whether or not there are going to be any other exceptions in the Federal Reserve to 6 months' training outside of those for high school students?

Secretary JACKSON. In the Army Reserve ?
Mr. BROOKS. In the Federal Reserve.
Secretary JACKSON. In the Federal Army Reserve.

Mr. BROOKS. I mean Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps Reserves.

Secretary JACKSON. There are a few officer procurement programs that this might run across which are excepted, too, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. Why are they excepted and which are they?

Secretary JACKSON. Well, I believe the Navy will elaborate on that, but there is, for instance, in the Marines, the ROC program. There is in the Navy the NROTC and the other Services in which the deferment is on a different basis. We won't require a man who comes into the Marine ROC program in September to go into that active duty program in 4 months. That will not be interrupted.

Those officer procurement programs will be excepted, and those are the only ones to my knowledge in which it is contemplated that there will be any exception to 4 months except the boy in high school.

Mr. BROOKS. How does the program as set forth by you affect the WACS and the WAVES-those female establishments?

Secretary JACKSON. In the enlisted Reserve, I don't know that it has any different effect on them than on the males.

Mr. BROOKS. They still require the 6-months training?
Secretary JACKSON. In the Reserve program, it would affect them.
Mr. BROOKS. Upon their enlistment?
Secretary JACKSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BROOKS. Or immediately after their enlistment.

Secretary JACKSON. Within a short time, which has been prescribed as 4 months.

Mr. BROOKS. Four months.
Secretary Jackson. For phasing in.

Mr. BROOKS. Now that brings us to this problem. There has been no problem-I will put it this way. There has been no problem, has there, no fundamental objection regarding the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and Marine Corps Reserves, save the National Guard, save that portion shown by the National Guard, is that correct?

Secretary JACKSON. As to the program as presented today, that is correct, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. So it presents us with a problem as to the application of this program to the Guard. That is fundamentally the situation.

Secretary JACKSON. And it is my understanding, sir, that the National Guard--and I don't mean to misquote them-has no objection to the other features of our program as far as it affects the Army National Guard, except the length of time, to wit, 6 months.

Mr. BROOKS. Of course we have the Guard here.
Secretary JACKSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. The Guard will follow. But following up your statement, the Guard will accept an 11-weeks training period.

Secretary JACKSON. They have so advocated, 11 weeks, yes, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. And why did they indicate they would accept 11 weeks and why were they opposed to 6 months ?


[ocr errors]

Secretary JACKSON. Well, I would rather let the Guard answer that. Mr. BROOKS. All right.

Secretary JACKSON. But I would be glad to give my version of their reason if you wanted to, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. It is due to the schooling, isn't it? Secretary JACKSON. It would seem to me, sir, that it is due to the schooling. And since as I have indicated we will not permit it to interfere with any of the high school boys, who are the schooling of that age, it seems to be, as I have stated in my statement, that it comes down now to the bare question of the length of time-11 weeks or 6 months.

Mr. BROOKS. Any questions?
Mr. WINSTEAD. Mr. Jackson.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Winstead.

Mr. WINSTEAD. This 44,120, that I believe is as of the first of the year, that you have recruited for the 6 months training inthe Army alone?

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, Mr. Winstead.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Now how many of those have completed the 6 months training as of now?

Secretary JACKSON. I don't know. I will have to ask, if you want the answer, someone from the Army.

Mr. SMART. 10,000.
Secretary JACKSON. Excuse me?
Mr. SMART. 10,000.
Secretary JACKSON. Excuse me?
Mr. SMART. 10,000.

Mr. WINSTEAD. 10,000, who have already completed the 6 months training.

Secretary JACKSON. I understand.

Mr. WINSTEAD. I believe you have also decreased the tenure of service for those who enlist under 1812 to 6 months training and 442 years active participation in the armed services?

Secretary JACKSON. That is the Army plan, yes, sir.
Mr. WINSTEAD. When did that go into effect?

Secretary JACKSON. It hasn't gone in yet. It is proposed to put it into effect April 1, sir.

Mr. WINSTEAD. I believe that is all the questions I have.
Secretary JACKSON. Mr. Norblad.

Mr. NORBLAD. What did you mean by the ROC program? Even my Navy captain didn't know what you meant. You talked about the ROČ program.

Secretary JACKSON. The Marine Corps program, which is an officer procurement program, I am told it is properly called "Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class." That is the proper name.

Mr. NORBLAD. Has there been any thinking along the line of having the National Guardsman take 3 months each summer so it would not interfere with any possible schooling?

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, sir, that has been thought of very carefully and carefully weighed and rejected. The reasons for it will be given in detail by the representatives of the Army if you wish to inquire from them, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Price?
Mr. PRICE. I have no questions right now, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Van Zandt.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Secretary, on page 2 of your statement you say : This directive was based upon recommendations of the National Security Training Commission submitted to the Secretary of Defense as prescribed by law.

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Can you furnish us a copy of that recommendation?

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. VAN ZANDT. Can we analyze it here?

Secretary JACKSON. I don't have it with me. I had thought it was long since submitted to this committee. I am told we can certainly get copies, if you haven't, sir. It has been out for some time.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. I think while we have witnesses from the Secretary level before us, I think we ought to find out what the recommendations of the National Security Training Commission were.

Secretary JACKSON. I am surprised they haven't been submitted. We will ge them for you and we will give you our directive on them.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Well, is there a representative of the National Security Training Commission here this morning who can tell us what the directive contained?

Mr. DUCANDER. They are listed as a witness later on, Mr. Van Zandt.

Mr. Van ZANDT. Why can't we settle it right now? Because the orders to the Army and to the National Guard started here at this level.

I see Admiral McQuiston back there. Could he answer the question?

Admiral McQuiston. No, sir, I can't answer that.
Mr. VAN ZANDT. That is the purpose of the whole question.

Secretary JACKSON. As you will recall in the law, it provided that this investigation would be inade by the NSTC. It was made and was submitted. We will be very happy at any time to present it.


Secretary JACKSON. And our directive implementing it and discussing it.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Secretary, we look to the National Security Training Commission as a representative of the Congress. They have made a study and from that study they have made recommendations to you. Now I think we should have those recommendations here and have an opportunity to ask questions about it. To me that is the crux of the problem.

Secretary Jackson. I have no quarrel with that, sir. I had thought they had been submitted, long since, but I didn't know you hadn't received it.

Mr. BROOKS. Well, we will have a representative, too, from the National Security Training Commission.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Now, Mr. Secretary, you refer down here to the Army Chief of the National Guard Division. What is his name? Secretary JACKSON. His name is General Reckord. (Chorus of "McGowan.") Secretary JACKSON. The Chief of the Section 5 of the Army is Major General McGowan.

Mr. VAN ZANDr. McGowan!

[ocr errors]

Secretary JACKSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Now, did he indicate his support of this defense order dated August 2, directed to you, or did he do it through the Chief of the Militia Bureau or the National Guard Bureau?

Secretary Jackson. He indicated his approval of the feature that I have spoken about to the then Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Personnel directly.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. In other words, then, his recommendation did not carry the endorsement of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau ?

Secretary JACKSON. His recommendation as I understood it, represented the viewpoint. The Assistant Secretary is here now and he can tell you just the representation that was made on those visits, but

Mr. Van ZANDT. I would like to clear up that point.
Mr. PRICE. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. VAN ZANDT. Surely. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Price. I don't think Secretary Jackson was actually saying that General McGowan approved this directive.' What he is saying is that at some time or another he indicated his approval of this type of idea.

Secretary JACKSON. I want to get it clear, gentlemen, in fairness to all concerned, that I am only speaking about one phase of this program and that is the 6-month limited program for over 181/2.

Mr. Van ZANDT. That is what we are talking about.

Secretary JACKSON. And it is my clear understanding that General McGowan personally and in his official capacity was very anxious to have that program adopted and I believe the National Guard has no objection to it generally.

But I can say to you, sir, that he did make representations several times—and I am sure he would have no hesitancy in confirming it that that program be adopted before it was finally submitted by the Army.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Well, I took from your statement here that the National Guard Bureau had at some time or other approved the suggestion of 6 months' training, and that is what I wanted to clear up in my mind.

Mr. SMART. Over 181/2.
Mr. PRICE. I see Carter Burgess is here.
Mr. VAN ZANDT. Where is he?

Mr. Chairman, I see the former Secretary, Assistant Secretary for Manpower of the Department of Defense in the room.

Mr. Brooks. Mr. Carter Burgess, would you come forward, sir? We want you closer to the committee anyway. You come up and have a seat. There is an extra chair up here. We will appreciate it very much.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, General McGowan, who is the Chief of the Army side of the National Guard Bureau, came to see me on one or two occasions and suggested that we at Defense use the opportunity that he thought was available to us between the selective-service laws and the Reserve Forces Act of 1955 to see if their “Take 6" program in the National Guard-if we couldn't open the age limit beyond 1812 to take those men over that

[blocks in formation]

age into the “Take 6” program and get the advantage of probably getting an older man who hadn't been drafted yet in the program to try to build up the numbers in the 6-month program which the guard was pursuing. It is just that one phase of the item that I believe Mr. Jackson is referring to in his testimony here today. It is not the overall program. It is just the advantage of using those older men past 1812 as had been discussed by General McGowan with General Hershey and with us.

He asked Defense not to stand in the way of that additional manpower opportunity in the overall Reserve Forces program.

Mr. VAN ZANDI. Then, Mr. Burgess, it is safe for me to assume that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau never has taken an affirmative position on the directive that provides the 6-months training for National Guard men upon enlistment.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Under 1812?
Mr. Van ZANDT. Under 181/2.
Mr. BURGESS. No; I can't say there is a firm position.

Now I can say this, sir, Congressman Van Zandt, that no one has tried to give more cooperation on getting a voluntary approach to the 6-months program from the National Guard standpoint that has General Erickson, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. But to get a firm and formal position out of the National Guard Bureau on the overall program being submitted here, General McGowan did urge us to open that additional administrative opportunity to get the older men into the 6-months program for both the guard and the Reserve.

Secretary JACKSON. I want to make it crystal clear, Mr. Chairman, that we are talking about over 181/2 only, and there is no intimation that there was any such reference to the under-1872 program. I want to get that clear. That is all we are talking about here.

Mr: Van Zandt. Mr. Secretary, one more question. Do I understand now that the Department is taking the defense that they see no need at this time for universal military service!

Secretary Jackson. Yes, sir. Mr. VAN ZANDT. In other words, this time last year you were for it! Secretary JACKSON. No, sir. Mr. WINSTEAD. They were for it because they couldn't get it and Mr. BROOKS. My impression is they have always been for it. Mr. VAN ZANDT. Certainly. Secretary JACKSON. Our position last year when we presented the bill was that in the event we didn't meet our requirements for trained reservists voluntarily, we would, on a restricted basis, fill into the required mission with an involuntary input. But we didn't characterize

Mr. VAN ZANDT. You were for it with a reservation?

Secretary JACKSON. We didn't characterize that as universal military training.

År. WINSTEAD. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. VAN ZANDr. Surely.

Mr. WINSTEAD. If I understood the position when we had this bill up last year, it was the fact they would like it but figured since they couldn't get it the approach we were making was the best they could hope to attain at that time.

« PreviousContinue »