« PreviousContinue »
I will stop there to say those are the other appointments, Presidential and other appointments, honor school and that sort of thingand appointments under this section is an additional appointment and is not in place of an appointment otherwise authorized by law.
The following language is identical to the Air Force Academy.
Mr. BRAY. What is the purpose of this change? It is getting along pretty well the way it is, isn't it?
Mr. DUCANDER. I am taking no position, Mr. Bray, on whether you ought to grant the additional appointments or not. This language is only if you wish to grant them.
You would probably want them to be congressional appointments.
Mr. BROOKS. Here is what we did with the Air Force. We said if they are allowed additional appointments, then those appointments should be taken 85 percent from the alternates nominated by the Members of Congress and placed in the Academy from those lists so that the Members of Congress would lose nothing by it.
Mr. BRAY. What I am suggesting here, Mr. Chairman, is why couldn't we go ahead and give us enough to give us one every third year, and in the second year an extra appointment, and go ahead just like we do now?
Mr. BROOKS. The estimate is 80 to 90. There are 435 Members of Congress. There really isn't enough to justify trying to arrange an alternate year or a third year.
General CounTS. Mr. Chairman, that doesn't mean 80 or 90 a year either. That only means an overstrength for 80 or 90. That will last for 4 years. That is divided by four, if you are going to spread it out.
Mr. BROOKS. It isn't large enough to distribute it on a congressional basis.
Mr. WINSTEAD. What would the additional cost be? Certainly if we had additional cadets there would be additional cost.
General COUNTS. About $2,000 per cadet.
Mr. WINSTEAD. You won't have to add additional staff members, you won't have to add facilities, you have got everything you need to take care of what you now are requesting and you are just trying to keep a maximum strength of what you are capable of caring for at the present time?
General Counts. But, sir, when you say we have everything we need, that isn't true because we don't now. But I will say we won't be any worse than we are now.
Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman, what worries me though, is that here the Pentagon is wanting every year to drastically cut the Army and the Navy too, especially the Army,
and everything else. It seems to me like that is kind of taking a little reverse English. Our big problem is trying to take care of the risks in officers.
I would just like to see what the Pentagon is going to do, whether they are going to keep reducing it, before we start increasing it. I feel very strongly on that matter myself. I believe we should have a firm policy with the Department of Defense, and I am not blaming you people for it. But we are kind of making ourselves subject to almost ridicule to come in here and keep increasing this at the time that they are decreasing.
Our new war is going to be a pushbutton war. At least by some thinking we won't need soldiers. If we just get the right people and make the right pushbuttons, we won't want to increase the Academy greatly at the time we are stopping the use of soldiers.
Mr. WINSTEAD. If the gentleman will yield there, I say I don't necessarily subscribe to the
rapid reduction of the Army at the time of trying to make it, but what Mr. Bray has said is true nevertheless.
What you say is true.
Mr. Bray. I don't agree with it. I think they are making a great mistake. But as long as they are making that mistake—and the money we have appropriated they won't even use. They ignore the ceilings that Congress has put on and we go from rags to riches, day by day.
One day we want to increase our forces enormously, and the next day we must cut them down to nothing. I myself want to see some permanent, firm policy that would take care of American needs adopted by the Pentagon before I vote to increase this.
Mr. BROOKS. Did you want to answer that?
Colonel HAMBLEN. Yes, sir. Mr. Bray, sir, if I may: The plan for the Department of the Army has been, insofar as its regular personnel are concerned, that we attempt to get 50 percent of our regular personnel from service Academy graduates, and the other 50 percent from ROTC and other sources. So what we are trying to do, sir, is approach that number from the Military Academy.
We have in the past, you know, been sending 25 percent of our graduates to the Air Force, but starting next year we will get nearly all of them.
The idea then, sir, is we are attempting to get a sufficient number of graduates from the Military Academy that we may approach our desirable number so we get that 50 percent in our regular strength.
Mr. Bray. I am not questioning your people's interest in it. Here they want to increase, and they want to decrease, and insisting on it. They want to decrease the Army 10 percent this year.
I have reason to believe that next year it will be another substantial decrease. Then already you say many of your personnel of the Academy used to go to the Air Force and now the Air Force is booming and there is a need for increasing your Academy graduates and we haven't any firm policy with the Pentagon. So I am willing to wait for any change until we know what the Department of Defense is going to do.
Colonel HAMBLEN. The point I was trying to get across, sir, is we feel the need for our people, with the specialization and the training we give them at the Academy, is increasing. As long as the Army gets lower numbers, the hard core must be even that better qualified. So we are attempting to be sure that we can try to measure up to our requirements.
Mrs. Sr. GEORGE, Mr. Chairman, could I just say one thing to my colleague. I don't feel that this is an increase. I think all that they are trying to do is to be sure that the Academy will be at full strength. You are not going to save very much money on anything else if you don't allow them to take these extra 20 a year because that is all it is going to amount to at the present time.
Of course I would hope to see the Academy enlarged and I would hope to see the graduating class very much enlarged, but that is not going to help in this legislation at all.
All we are doing is making it possible as I see it, Mr. Chairman, to bring the Academy to full strength, which is certainly a desirable thing, I would say, under any conditions.
Isn't that correct, General?
Mr. Buns. General, the passage of this legislation, either the original bill submitted or the alternate proposed, would allow you to actually get more for your money now spent at the Academy. Would that be true!
General Counts. Very much so; yes, sir.
Mr. Burns. Can you give us any figures as of the present time of the numbers that you obtain from the different sources of your officer strength added in every year-so many from the Military Academy, so many from the ROTC, and so many from the others for comparison purposes?
General Counts. You mean into the Army?
Colonel HAMBLEN. Sir, we have been commissioning to the Regular Army from the Military Academy between 28 and 30 percent of the total number. The Army's objective is to have 1,600 promotion-type officers admitted to the Regular Army each year.
Our objective is to have half this number come from the service academy. We are getting less than that.
The others come approximately—all of the remainder except for approximately 5 percent—from our distinguished military graduates from our ROTC institutions. The remaining 5, or a small percent, come from direct appointments, approximately 200 a year, and from those few distinguished graduates from our officer candidate schools, sir. Mr. Burns. How many officers are you adding?
Colonel HAMBLEN. Annually, approximately 1,600 Regular officers, sir, onto our promotion list. This doesn't include veterinarians and medics and that type--promotion list officers, approximately 1,600 per
Mr. BURNS. That is Reserve or otherwise?
Colonel HAMBLEN. Sir, I do not have those figures. I could supply them for the record.
Mr. BURNs. But out of the 1,600 you are getting approximately 500 from the Academy?
Colonel HAMBLEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burns. General, on the alternate proposal that you have looked at, what would be your view on that? Is it agreeable to you
General Counts. There seem to be two things involved in this Isn't that true-two new items!
One, we have been working under the present law that at least twothirds must be taken from the alternates. This changes it so at least 85 percent must be taken from the alternates.
I don’t believe that would handicap us in the slightest. We have been well within that, I believe. In the past 5 years we have had 95 percent of them from the alternates so I would accept that readily. Then there was a second item that I noticed which is changed. Mr. DUCANDER. The second item I did not read and I haven’t explained it to the subcommittee. Mr. BROOKs. What is the second item? Mr. DUCANDER. The second item is—keeping in mind if this proposal is adopted—85 percent of the appointments to fill up the Academy would come from congressional alternates. n the Air Force Academy legislation, the subcommittee insisted on writing in a provision that there would be only one from each appointing authority—that is, only one from each Member of Congress. That would alleviate any possibility of 1 Member of Congress getting 3 alternates in and another Member of Congress not getting any in. Mr. BRooks. That was due to Mr. Van Zandt, who has been on this committee for years and never had a nominee to the Academy. Mr. DUCANDER. That's true. We had several other Members of Congress that had complained. § BRooks. The idea was to get a wide distribution. Mr. DUCANDER. Yes, sir. We could put in one more sentence if the subcommittee likes this language. General Counts. That isn't in here, Mr. Ducander? Mr. DUCANDER. No; it is not in here. General Counts. I was referring to another change in this one. Mr. BRooks. What is your other change, General? General Counts. There is a change to basing the strength at the end of the school year, rather than the average of the school year. I consider that a big improvement. Mr. DUCANDER. Yes. General Counts. I consider it a big improvement and that would alter the figures. It is a big improvement to this extent, that we would now finish our school year under this with our authorized strength at 2,500. We would know, then, that in a 4-year period we "so to graduate 2,500. r. Brooks. Let me ask you this, General: That sounds very fine, but you start out with your school year full, don't you? General Counts. We would start out overstrength in this case. Mr. BRooks. All right. It is like a bucket of water. When it is full, if you put any more in it, it is going to flow out. Where are you going to put these extras, these overstrength people? If your Academy is full, how are you going to put them in 2 General Counts. We have a new barracks building that should be completed by next year that will accommodate 318 cadets. That will put us in a position where we are better off than we are at the present time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BRooks. Then actually you would be able to increase the size of the Academy, isn't that true? General Counts. The entering size. . Mr. BRooks. It would be the size of the Adademy that would be increased by 80 or 90 people. General Counts. More than that now. Under this wording, it will be about, say, 200 maybe, allowing for attrition.
Mr. BRooks. Allowing for attrition it would be about 160? General Counts. In that vicinity. Mr. DUCANDER. At the end of the school year, you would have your authorized strength. General Counts. That is what we should have at the end of the school year then. Colonel HAMBLEN. Mr. Brooks, sir, one point that is well to bear in mind, is that when the new cadets come in, there is a whole class absent from the Military Academy, and the new cadets’ initial training is done by themselves. So by the time academics begin and all classes return, we have already had a very large attrition, a sizable attrition. So they never compete for spaces in our overall barracks procedure. Mr. Brooks. You have to provide for them. For instance, when they come down there on July 1, that is the first day they report, isn’t it? Colonel HAMBLEN. Yes, sir. Mr. BRooks. Then the incoming class, the freshman class, come down July 1. Then you give them certain training up until September when the academic season begins. You have a certain attrition there. Colonel HAMBLEN. Yes, sir, we have a sizable attrition. Mr. BRooks. They have got to have rooms and they have to have facilities. Colonel HAMBLEN. They are using the rooms that the other cadets would normally use when they return from academics. The other three classes are either on #j trips or on their summer leave. So you see the entire facilities of the Academy are available for this incoming class. Mr. BRooks. The men that are away on leave or on leave or on extended tours, those men have no assigend space at all? Colonel HAMBLEN. That is correct, sir. Mr. BRooks. In other words, they give up their rooms. Colonel HAMBLEN. Absolutely, sir. Mr. BRooks. You use those rooms? Colonel HAMBLEN. That is correct, sir. Mr. BRooks. Then you have got to hope you have a certain attrition there so that you have the space o when these older men come back. Colonel HAMBLEN. As the general mentioned, sir, we don't intend, with an overstrength of 160, to put them all in at one time, because each increment of an overstrength lasts for 4 years, so that would be divided by 4. Of course, you are absolutely correct. We would be very sure then, very conservative in our estimating the number we put in to be sure that that situation did not happen. But our position with reference to the cadet ratio to rooms is improving and we now have a barracks-conversion program on this very moment converting our west academic building to barracks space so that even with this bill our position will be emphatically better than it has been in the St. po BROOKs. Mr. Burns. Mr. BURNs. If I may, if the chairman will yield, I think in that particular period of time, July to September, you have one of your heaviest attrition periods, especially for resignations, don't you?