Mr. PAUL. This would certainly solve our major problem, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Do you have anything that you are preparing to send up for the Army and Marine Corps along this line for those branches of service, increasing their commissioned personnel?

Mr. PAUL. I do not believe so, Mr. Chairman, no.

Chairman RUSSELL. You are leaving that to the existing law or the sliding scale provisions to increase the officers if the number of enlisted personnel increases.

Mr. PAUL. We were advised by the office of the Secretary of Defense that the other services' permanent legislation under the act of 1954 is adequate for their purposes as it is for ourselves except for the lieutenant colonels and the colonels.

Chairman RUSSELL. Well, that is a problem we have to meet at ⠀ some time, and if it is discarded we might as well undertake to meet it in this bill, although I am not completely happy about this bill.

As I say, I realize some of the peculiar problems that the Air Force has, but the Army has problems, too, of a different nature, and the Navy has some that are directly related to the nature of the Air Force problem. Navy Air is a considerable portion of the officer personnel of the Navy at the present time. But we did not get anything done with the hump over the past several years. The Navy eliminated their hump. They had one somewhat larger than yours, but they managed to solve it.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask this question of Mr. Paul first?

The Air Force has a greater proportion of officers to enlisted men than do the other services because of the work that the Air Force has to do in flying missions and so on; am I right on that?

General McCONNELL. Yes, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Could you give us the proportion or percentage of officers to enlisted men in the Air Force as compared with the Army and the Navy?

Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir.

General MCCONNELL. Senator Saltonstall, 14.5 percent of the total strength of the Air Force are officers; 8.8 percent of the Army are officers; and 10.5 percent of the total strength of the Navy are officers. Senator SALTONSTALL. I am surprised that the percentage in the Air Force is not greater than it is, but those are facts?

General McCONNELL. Yes, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Paul, we put a great deal of faith in the ultimate working out of the so-called Bolte plan. In other words, things were held up to get that report out. I am disappointed. I realize it is a complicated matter, but is that permanently with drawn? Does that mean that the three services are going to come up with their own plans, and there is no overall situation any more.

Mr. PAUL. No, Senator. We have not submitted a proposal during this session of Congress because we had a lot of comments from committees of the Congress and their staffs to the effect that we were trying to do too much that it was too complicated and massive a piece of legislation.

On the strength of that advice we have withdrawn our proposal and we are now restudying it in the hope that we will be in a position to submit to the next Congress a much more simplified bill which will

Il cover the major points. Therefore, our submission this year, and believe submissions by the other services as well, are related to only ose most crucial problems which we have to solve.

Senator SALTONSTALL. In other words, this bill which you submit the minimum necessary for a long 5-year planning, it may be ered again for the overall services if they come up with an overall

Mr. PAUL. We would not have to seek additional authorization r field grade officers next year or for the foreseeable future, Senator. is will permanently cure that problem, we hope.

Senator SALTONSTALL. And you say this takes 5 years' planning and at is the minimum really necessary to do a job?

Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir.

General MCCONNELL. Over a 5-year period. Of course, you cognize, Senator Saltonstall, it will only be good for the first year less you have permanent legislation.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Say that again, please.

General McCONNELL. I said a minimum of 5 years is required. ut unless you have permanent legislation then at the end of the st year you only have 4 years left, and then the next one, 3 years ft, and so forth.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Now, Mr. Paul says on page 6 of his testiony, that the limitations do not, in this bill, authorize a larger umber of officers in any grade than actually needed under present rcumstances for mission accomplishment. How do you figure hat out? What is the basis of that statement? This would come own to what the chairman said.

Mr. PAUL. Actually, Senator Saltonstall, our approved requireents for officers, which are a very detailed list that is developed nd reveiwed every year, are somewhat larger in each of the three rades of colonel, lieutenant colonel and major than we are asking uthorization for.

For example, we have approved requirements for 6,418 colonels. his authorization would give us 6,326 under our current strength, nd similarly in the case of lieutenant colonels and majors.

However, we feel that with proper management of the force, we ould not want in any event to completely fill our approved requireents, because that would give us no flexibility in our assignments. o we feel it is good management to stay a little underneath our proram requirements, and that is the authorization we seek under this ill.

Senator SALTONSTALL. In other words, you believe this is under ather than over your needs?

Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir; I think we can establish that.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Now, on page 8, Mr. Paul, the last line of he page, you say, "I am convinced that it contains the minimum uthority necessary to achieve its goals."

Do you mean by that just what you have said, that it is an under, ather than an overstatement?

Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir. I think what I was trying to say there is that e believe this is a conservative request. We do not mean it is indequate in any sense, but we do believe it is conservative.

Senator SALTONSTALL. General McConnell, may I ask you just one uestion?

One page 5 of your statement you say, "This section includes tenporary authority to exceed permanent limitation by 1,000 lieutenant colonels. This authority may be needed under any of the following contingencies," and then you state those contingencies.

You really mean by that, that we are at war in Vietnam, and ther may be greater losses or increased activity or something of tha character, and that this enlarged authority would give you the nee to cover those requirements, if necessary; is that what you mean?

General MCCONNELL. Yes, Senator. It takes care of two requirements, one being an enlarged requirement, in which instance, as we have already done, we have asked officers to stay on past the time when they would normally be separated from the service.

The other one is the possibility, and I say it is a possibility, of calling in selected Reserve officers or maybe selected Reserve units. The third one is, and in my opinion, the most likely except for the first one, which we have already done, is a reduction of a considerable number of officers in a short period of time. If a reduction occurs i a short period of time, you will then have to penalize majors and lieutenant colonels who are getting close to their retirement age, and you would throw them out a couple of years before they are eligible for retirement.

Senator SALTONSTALL. In other words, it is an effort to eliminate a hump.

General MCCONNELL. Yes, sir. It is an effort to eliminate a hump. It is an effort to take care of those three contingencies which I just enumerated.

Mr. PAUL. Senator, may I just add one thing there. I would like to emphasize that the great majority of the numbers we are asking for, for temporary authority for promotion to major, do not fall i this contingency category. For example, 8,000 of the 9,500 we ask for are needed not on the basis of contingencies but in order to permit us to promote captains who now have been in the service for 2, 3, or more years than their contemporaries in the other services. So the 8,000 figure is not in any sense, a contingency request.

Senator SALTONSTALL. On page 2 of the bill, I think the chairman brought this up, you state the number to exceed the authorized strength in 6 different years, and you gradually come down. Is that from 9,500 to 1,585, is that figured out with relation to the permanency of this bill, I mean by the creation of new officers and the promotions and so on, and that is why you need so many more in the first year and gradually you will come down?

Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir. If I could just explain that briefly, our mai immediate problem is in the captain to major category. We are not seeking any change in the permanent authorization for numbers of majors from the bill of 1954. We believe that the permanent strength of majors is adequate.

However, due to the fact that we did not have Bolte legislation. between 1962 and 1967, these captains have been piling up, and they have not had the major slots to go into. We believe we could cure this within a period of 5 to 6 years so that 6 years from now we wil be able to comply with the present permanent ceiling on majors without any difficulty.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Well, fundamentally, Mr. Paul and Genera McConnell, we have got to pass a bill, otherwise you are out of hrk

cause you would go way, way down in numbers of officers, is that rrect?

General McCONNELL. That is right.

Senator SALTONSTALL. So that the actual terminology of the bill d the numbers that we increase really, of course, are for the Congress decide, but fundamentally if we are going to continue our efforts Vietnam and around the world, we have got to pass a bill of some rt this year, is that right?

General MCCONNELL. That is right, sir. And in all fairness to our ople. Otherwise we will have to reduce a considerable number of icers.

Senator SALTONSTALL. And this bill, you believe, is the best bill at you can work out for permanent-well, for the permanency at e present time, subject, of course, to an overall bill that Mr. Paul entioned which might come up in the future, is that correct? Mr. McCONNELL. That is my opinion, sir.

Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. In other words, the Air Force could not go wer than this on any permanent bill, and it might go higher.

General McCONNELL. I do not anticipate that. If you have more icers, then this bill provides more grades. If you have less officers, is bill will reduce the number of authorized grades. Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. You mean if you had less officers it would take re of a sliding scale. I thought you wanted these additional 1,000 d 1,500 lieutenant colonels and majors to take care of any reduction. ow is your sliding scale going to take care of-

General MCCONNELL. I am talking now, Mr. Chairman, about a rmanent officer setup.

Chairman RUSSELL. Who could do that? Nobody except Congress uld permanently reduce your percentage of officers, and Congress not about to do that. We have been giving you more than you lled for. You have 1,100 colonels and 5,000 lieutenant colonels--300 lieutenant colonels-above the number you were authorized der existing law. That is what this bill is all about, to try to keep u from losing those officers.

General McCONNELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can attempt to explain.

There are 1,500 of the 9,500 majors provided in section 2 of the bill, d 1,000 lieutenant colonels which we need on a temporary basis r the contingencies which I enumerated.

As I say, I think we should have those. The most likely continncy that we would be suddenly faced with is a reduction of a conlerable number of officers in 1 year, in which instance we would have reduce officers from colonels all the way down to second utenants.

Chairman RUSSELL. What conditions could arise that would cause great reduction in the number of officers? It could only come about cause you would lose a great number of personnel.

General MCCONNELL. That is right. If the Vietnamese war is over ght now I am sure we would lose officers and enlisted men, both. Chairman RUSSELL. Of course you would. But would not the her two branches of the services be faced with the identical fficulty?

69-614-66- -3

General MCCONNELL. Perhaps.

Chairman RUSSELL. They have no additional 6,000 this gives you and the 1,500.

General MCCONNELL. The 6,000, Mr. Chairman, are not related to the 1,500 at all.

Chairman RUSSELL. I understand that. I am well aware of that. I have been wrestling with this for a long time. Of course, it is a new gadget, 1,500. We have not had any of it before, but I am well aware of the problem of the hump.

General MCCONNELL. Yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. It would cost you 1,100 colonels and about 5,300 lieutenant colonels, and then it would bring about a demotion er a loss of one grade of about 13,000 officers in addition to that. General McCONNELL. Yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Of course, we are not about to do that now, and we realize that under the conditions and circumstances that would be disastrous to our entire defense system. I have no doubt that this committee although I have not talked to any member of it-will go ahead and will continue that, and probably put it on a permanent basis, but I do not understand your argument on the reduction, your needing this 1,500 for the reduction, because if the war ends, and they reduce your enlisted personnel, which is highly unlikely, the Army would be the branch of service which would lose in the number of enlisted personnel. You would not lose any more percentagewise of officers than any other branch of the service, would you?

General MCCONNELL. No, sir; we would not.

Chairman RUSSELL. You would not lose as many if we passed this bill on a permanent basis, would you? You would be better equipped than the other two branches combined?

General MCCONNELL. Well, I could not say that, sir. But it might be or it might not be. The reason and the only reason for this is that if you have a sudden influx of officers such as requiring officers to remain on active duty when they are supposed to be finished with their active duty, which we have already done, or in the event, which, in my opinion, is unlikely, that you should call up Reserve and the National Guard units or Reserve or National Guard officers as individuals. In the event that you had a sudden reduction, here is what would happen if you had a sudden reduction: You would reduce your officers in accordance with the percentages which are authorized by the Congress and which are in this bill. The colonels would be over 20 years of service, so then when you reduced the colonels, they would still be entitled to their retirement.

The lieutenant colonels would be mostly under 20 years of service. 18, 19 years of service, so you would reduce a number of lieutenan colonels in accordance with the required percentage who had put in 18 to 19 years of service and had only 1 year to go prior to being eligible for retirement at 20 years, so out they would go.

The majors would be 16, 17 years of service or a little below, so that they would be reduced percentagewise, and so you would throw those officers out who had only 3 or 4 years to go to be eligible for retirement benefits.

Now, the captains have only got about 10 years, so they can go on out, it does not hurt them as much. The lieutenants, of course, it does not hurt the young fellows. The only ones it hurts are the