The next witness scheduled to appear here is Col. Charles G. Stevenson, State judge advocate and judge advocate general of the National Guard.

STATEMENT OF COL. CHARLES G. STEVENSON, NEW YORK STATE JUDGE ADVOCATE AND JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, NEW YORK NATIONAL GUARD

Colonel STEVENSON. Thank you very much, Senator, for this opportunity of appearing before your committee.

Senator LONG. Will you please make your statement?

Colonel STEVENSON. There was one point in the previous testimony which we believe has not yet been emphasized sufficiently in our opinion.

In our opinion the primary purpose of this bill and all other legislation on this subject has been lost sight of up to this time. That purpose is to provide trained combat tactical Reserve units in the citizen army.

READY RESERVE IS A STATUS-NOT AN ORGANIZATION

The bill has created a vast misconception in many people's minds, which is that the Ready Reserve is an organization. It is not. It is a status which the individual reservist has. We should not talk about transfer to the Ready Reserve as though it were a unit, but to a Ready Reserve status.

Moreover, the bill is not aimed at compelling service in the organized units of the Reserve forces, particularly the National Guard. Ultimately, in our opinion, and so long as the present international situation continues, service in the active units of the Reserve forces, including the National Guard, must be compulsory, just as active Federal service has been made compulsory.

My chief, Maj. Gen. Karl F. Hausauer, chief of staff to the Governor and commanding general of the New York National Guard, was unable to be present this morning, but he has asked me to represent him in support of the National Guard Association's position and to present these additional views for your consideration.

Again, let me repeat, we have not asked for an opportunity to be heard because we are in disagreement with Generals Walsh and Reckord. This bill is the most important piece of legislation affecting the National Guard which has come up in the past 35 years. The National Guard is at a turning point in its history which is as crucial as the adoption of the National Defense Act of 1916.

This bill has ripped to shreds the provisions of the National Defense Act concerning the National Guard.

Senator LONG. It has not done it yet.

Colonel STEVENSON. The bill has.

Senator LONG. Perhaps it might but it has not done it yet.

General RECKORD. I think for the record you ought to make it say that if this bill is enacted into law it would do that.

Colonel STEVENSON. Yes, sir; I accept that amendment.

That act, not this bill, is the Magna Carta of the National Guard and we have operated and prospered under the National Defense Act for over 35 years.

There is nothing wrong with the National Guard system under the National Defense Act that a steady flow of manpower won't cure. This is General Hausauer's statement:

I am deeply appreciative of this invitation to express our thoughts in connection with the Armed Forces Reserve bill presently under study by your committee.

NEED FOR TRAINED TACTICAL UNITS OF CITIZEN ARMY

One of the main purposes of all Selective Service and Universal Military Training legislation, including the Selective Service Act of 1948, as amended by Public Law 51, Eighty-second Congress, approved June 19, 1951, is to build up the tactical units of the citizen army particularly those of the National Guard, so as to enable the Regular forces to be reduced progressively in size. This is essential if defense costs are to be reduced while the military burden is being carried on a stand-by basis for as long a period as the world situation may dictate.

If that is one of the missions of the Reserves, the latter must be strong enough to stand in the place of the active Regular forces in such proportion as may be determined to be safe. We must therefore henceforth look upon service in the tactical units of the citizen army, who perform a minimum of 48 drills and 15 days' field training annually, particularly the National Guard, in the same light and with the same importance as service in the units of the active Regular forces. The active units should be more ready for combat than the National Guard units but the guard units are just as much a part of our military strength in being and must be regarded and treated as such. This applies with equal force to these units of the Organized Reserve who similarly perform 48 drills and 15 days of field training annually.

Service in the combat tactical units of the Reserves should be legislated for with the same foresight and care as service in the active forces. The integrity, traditions, continuity, and cohesiveness of the tactical units of the Reserve forces must be guarded with the same zeal as those of the active forces. If these factors with their accompanying morale are destroyed, there will be no fighting units. It is a complete fallacy to say that the standing Army can be safely reduced because of the existence of a Reserve "pool" of only partially trained and partially organized manpower. To merely designate such a force as the "Ready Reserve" will not make it such unless action is taken to insure the maintenance of its strength, discipline, and state of training. To contend otherwise will delude the public.

In urging adoption of Public Law 51 in the spring of 1951, General Marshall said: "We must develop some system that will permit us to reduce the standing force without weakening our military posture. * * We plan to put into

*

the ranks of the National Guard basically trained men; that is, those who have had at least 4 months' military training * * * So the fundamental concept of our plan isn't just universal military training. Primarily it is to vitalize our military reserve system."

The difficulty is that none of the legislation enacted or pending, including the Armed Forces Reserve bill, will accomplish the desired end.

Service in the National Guard has been left on a voluntary basis. We must face the fact that the volunteer system will not supply enough men under present conditions to bring the National Guard up from its existing 50 percent strength to at least 80 percent strength which is where it should be, if any decrease in the size of the standing forces is to be made with safety.

The National Guard's mission is to produce combat tactical units to serve "in the first line of defense in the first weeks of an emergency" to quote General Marshall again. The National Guard has done that in both world wars and once more in the Korean emergency. Two of the eight National Guard infantry divisions inducted since 1950 are now in combat in Korea. Two others are part of General Eisenhower's forces in Europe. Two New York National Guard battalions have won combat commendations for their outstanding service in Korea. Many of our Air National Guard, antiaircraft, and other nondivisional units have been inducted and are serving with marked credit here and abroad. The two New York National Guard battalions were in Korea within 6 months: after mobilization but the divisions required longer preparation in order to obtain filler personnel, further training, and the supply of essential equipment. Senator LONG. And I may say here that that New York division was one of the most famous divisions in World War I.

Colonel STEVENSON. It was the famous Brooklyn Fighting Fourteenth Infantry Regiment, which had been organized for 105 years and one of its successors is the Nine Hundred and Fifty-fifth Field Artillery Battalion, now serving in Korea. [Reading:]

NATIONAL GUARD'S NEED FOR CONTINUOUS FLOW OF MEN

The reduction in time lag between mobilization and combat can only be accomplished by keeping the National Guard continuously up to strength or near it with a compulsory flow of basically trained men, rather than depend on volunteer raw recruits as at present. Our first-line reserves of the future must be built upon and around our National Guard divisions.

In normal times, there is a turn-over of approximately one-third of the enlisted personnel of the National Guard unit each year. It takes a continuous recruiting program on the part of each unit commander to overcome such losses. In fact, a disproportionate part of the time and energy of National Guard commanders must be devoted to recruiting. This inevitably cuts into the remaining time that these commanders have to devote to strictly military duties. The National Guard has no centralized recruiting service such as that of the Regular Establishment. Each unit has to recruit its own men from the community in which it is located. It is a year-round task.

Moreover, the volunteer system means perpetual sacrifice of valuable training time to the training of recruits. The training level of the National Guard can never rise above a certain median point under these conditions. If these basic handicaps are overcome, the efficiency of the National Guard would automatically be enhanced many times over.

Recruiting today is not conducted under normal conditions. Young men between 17 and 181⁄2 are practically the only recruiting sources left to the National Guard, and they are swayed by many considerations which induce them to prefer to join the Regular forces or wait for selective service to catch up with them, or take their chances of getting a deferment from selective service for educational, business, or other reasons, or maybe they'll just be surplus and won't be called at all.

The statement in this report by the Department of Defense that the authority in this bill can be used as moral suasion to induce persons to enlist in the National Guard is completely unrealistic. The person that wrote that just does not know what is going on in the minds of the young people in the country.

We put on a recruiting campaign in the last 4 months and we put everything we possibly could into it, and we aimed it at the 17- and 18-year-olds and it was just a complete disappointment. The sources for National Guard recruiting are drying up, and if the present trend continues, eventually there will be no National Guard.

Senator LONG. I can see that there would be a susbtantial difference in the ease in which you could fill out your units if a person could join the National Guard in lieu of 1 or 2 years of service in actual training under selective service.

I doubt that you would have the same persuasion, the same elements are involved, a person who had already served in Korea, for example, he was told he could accelerate his 6 years' obligation remaining by 3 years of service in the National Guard.

Colonel STEVENSON. You are absolutely right, Senator; there is absolutely no inducement whatever.

Senator LONG. If a young man is told he could serve in more than one way, he could give 1 or 2 years of his life in training under the Selective Service System or a similar period of time to training in the National Guard, the incentive to join the National Guard would be much greater than it would be to merely accelerate the time of his Reserve obligation.

Colonel STEVENSON. Yes, sir; much greater. I still have my doubts, sir, as to whether we would get our full 80-percent strength authorized under that system. We, of course, would get more than we are getting now, but I do not think that we will go to the strength where we will have the first-line Ready Reserve that we should have and want to have.

If the Congress will act to overcome these two basic handicaps that the guard labors under, that is, excessive turnover and continual recruiting effort, the efficiency of the guard will be enhanced many times over, and we can, in fact, develop a really "Ready Reserve" force in the true sense of that term.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEGISLATION

Whether or not UMT goes into effect, we urge that legislation be enacted as set forth in the resolution adopted by the Seventy-third General Conference of the National Guard Association of the United States last October to provide for

1. Compulsory induction into the National Guard of the several States, Territories, and the District of Columbia of persons who have completed their active Federal service or training—

subject to such restrictions as the Congress may impose due to the fact that we do not have the UMT now

and who still must complete a required period of service in the Reserve components.

2. Such induction into the National Guard of the several States to be accomplished through the Selective Service System acting upon periodic personnel requisitions by the governors in much the same manner that the Selective Service System now fills requisitions from the Armed Forces of the United States, provided that no such person shall be so inducted without the consent of the governor concerned. This will insure that the State will have the say on the selection and induction of men into its National Guard.

3. Persons so inducted and all others serving in the National Guard to be relieved from their obligation to serve in a Reserve component upon completion of such total period of active Federal training or service and National Guard service as may be fixed by Congress.

The above program should apply equally to units of the Organized Reserve who perform 48 drills and 15 days of field training annually the same as the National Guard.

Persons not selected as above for induction into the National Guard, or for transfer into comparable units of the Organized Reserve should be transferred by the Federal authorities to other appropriate Reserve units and groups to complete their required term of service in the Reserve components.

RESERVE PROGRAM MUST HAVE MEANS OF ENFORCEMENT

Finally, I am sure both the Organized Reserve and the National Guard agree that we must be given the means of enforcing performance of their Reserve obligations by either UMT trainees, if we have such a program, or by selective service inductees. There must be some teeth in the law to insure their regular attendance at armory drills and field training. Otherwise, we face the inexcusable situation that existed under the Selective Service Act of 1948. Under that law the so-called 6-year reservists were obligated to join the National Guard or a comparable unit of the Organized Reserve and perform drills and annual field training.

In practice, after completing their 1 year of active duty, they were transferred to the Organized Reserve, but few of them attended drills or field training. The Reserve was powerless to punish them for a. w. o. 1. from drill. The bulk of them represented nothing but names in the files. Consequently, very few chose to voluntarily enlist in the National Guard. This will happen again unless existing law and pending legislation are amended to prevent it.

Colonel Stevenson, State judge advocate, is available to go into further detail with regard to these proposals, if you so desire. Thank you for this opportunity to express our views on this question.

Now, I have prepared these statements to supplement the general statement of General Hausauer. All I would like to explain at this time is this chart which offers a possible solution as to how we think this problem should be solved.

Senator LONG. In order that we might expedite this hearing and at the same time have this material available we will insert this supplemental statement in its entirety at this place in the record and I now suggests you testify from the basis of what thoughts you have on your proposal.

(The material submitted by Colonel Stevenson is as follows:) OPENING STATEMENT OF COL. CHARLES G. STEVENSON, NEW YORK STATE Judge ADVOCATE AND JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, NEW YORK NATIONAL GUARD

I am Col. Charles G. Stevenson, New York State judge advocate and judge advocate general, New York National Guard. It would be an act of supererogation on my part to try to embellish the arguments made by Generals Walsh and Reckord. We agree 100 percent with their views.

There is one point, however, which they did not have time to mention and which we believe has not yet been emphasized in these hearings. That point is that in our opinion the primary purpose of this bill and all other legislation on this subject has been lost sight of up to this time. That purpose is to provide trained combat tactical reserve units in the citizen army.

The bill has created a vast misconception in many peoples' minds, which is that the Ready Reserve is an organization. It is not. It is a status which the individual reservist has. We should not talk about transfer to the Ready Reserve as though it were a unit, but to a Ready Reserve status.

THE BILL SHOULD REQUIRE COMPULSORY SERVICE IN READY RESERVE Moreover, the bill is not aimed at compelling service in the organized units of the Reserve forces, particularly the National Guard. Ultimately, in our opinion, and so long as the present international situation continues, service in the active units of the Reserve forces, including the National Guard, must be compulsory, just as active Federal service has been made compulsory.

My chief, Maj. Gen. Karl F. Hausauer, chief of staff to the Governor and commanding general of the New York National Guard, was unable to be present this morning, but he has asked me to represent him in support of the National Guard Association's position and to present these additional views for your consideration.

Again, let me repeat, we have not asked for an opportunity to be heard because we are in disagreement with Generals Walsh and Reckord. This bill is the most important piece of legislation affecting the National Guard which has come up in the past 35 years. The National Guard is at a turning point in its history which is as crucial as the adoption of the National Defense Act of 1916.

This bill has ripped to shreds the provisions of the National Defense Act concerning the National Guard. That act, not this bill, is the Magna Carta of the National Guard and we have operated and prospered under the National Defense Act for over 35 years.

There is nothing wrong with the National Guard system under the National Defense Act that a steady flow of manpower won't cure.

This is General Hausauer's statement:

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. KARL F. HAUSAUER, CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE GOVERNOR AND COMMANDING GENERAL, NEW YORK NATIONAL GUARD

I am deeply appreciative of this invitation to express our thoughts in connection with the Armed Forces Reserve bill presently under study by your committee.

STRONG CITIZEN ARMY CAN REDUCE STANDING FORCES

One of the main purposes of all selective service and universal military training legislation, including the Selective Service Act of 1948, as amended by Public Law 51, Eighty-second Congress, approved June 19, 1951, is to build up the tactical units of the citizen army particularly those of the National Guard,