Mr. STAHR. I might add-I am sorry to interrupt again Mr. Chairman but I might add-that it is mentioned in the bill as a subject to be considered in the proposed reserve components promotion bill, and it is our view that that is the proper place to consider it. Senator LONG. Well, I am glad to have this information because that may be one of the provisions of this bill reported by the committee, and I would certainly want to have all the views on that at that time. It might be well that the Department of the Army should also send us a statement or letter, stating their views in this matter. Well, I have no further questions, General Parks, and I believe that closes these hearings. This subcommittee will have to meet in executive session several times before we are able to agree upon legislation. I want to thank all witnesses who have testified here for their assistance in working on this legislation. I wish to insert in the record the following: Letter and statement from Harold C. Stuart, president, Air Force Association; letter addressed to Senator Edwin C. Johnson of Colorado from Brig. Gen. Irving O. Schaefer, the adjutant general, State of Colorado; some additional letters which the subcommittee has been requested to incorporate in the record, and a brief history of United States military policy on Reserve forces, 1775-1951 prepared by Eilene Galloway, national defense analyst, Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress. Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, AIR FORCE ASSOCIATION, Washington 5, D. C., June 3, 1952. Chairman, Senate Armed Forces Subcommittee, Senate Office Building, Washington 25, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR LONG: I was very pleased to meet you last week during the hearings on the Armed Forces Reserve Act. I regret that a business trip out of the city prevented my testifying before your committee. Attached is my statement presented on behalf of the Air Force Association, which I represent as its president. I would appreciate very much your subcommittee's giving appropriate consideration to my statement, and assure you that the Air Force Association is vitally interested in our Reserve forces and any legislation pertaining thereto. Our association stands ready and willing to assist in any way possible in the passing of appropriate Reserve legislation. Sincerely yours. HAROLD C. STUART, President. STATEMENT BY HAROLD C. STUART, PRESIDENT OF THE AIR FORCE ASSOCIATION, ON THE ARMED FORCES RESERVE ACT OF 1952 Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the Air Force Association, which I am representing, appreciates this opportunity to present its comments on the Armed Forces Reserve Act, which you have been considering during the past several days. The Air Force Association has long been concerned over the Reserve programs of the Armed Forces, particularly as relating to the Air Force. Our national headquarters here in Washington, serving as a clearinghouse for the complaints of thousands of Air Force reservists, has answered a multitude of questions of the who, when, why, and how-long variety during recent years, particularly since the outbreak of the war in Korea. The feeling is almost unanimous that the recall program has sadly lacked in a well-planned, clearly defined, orderly, and equitable procedure. The malassignment and misuse of technically trained reservists has been damaging. I will not take up your valuable time in citing specific cases, of which there are many, and of which you have heard often. I call this to your attention for this reason we in the Air Force Association sincerely believe that much of the confusion and disorder which haunted our recall program would have been eliminated had there been in existence adequate legislation relating to the Armed Forces Reserves. All of us are aware of the importance of the Reserves to our over-all defense force-how the majority of our force in time of war is comprised of reservists-and yet, we do not have in being the necessary basic legislation on which to build the foundation of the Reserve program. The Armed Forces Reserve Act, in our opinion, can become this foundation. We have not applied business principles to our Reserve program. By this I mean that, if you or I organize a business in civilian life, we first decide the purpose and scope of the business and then record this in the papers of incorporation. These papers are the foundation of the business, and dictate the activities of the business. We are lacking the papers of incorporation for the Reserve forces-a need which my association strongly urges you gentlemen to fill as soon as possible. Today's headlines dramatize the need for favorable and speedy action on the Reserve legislation which you are presently considering. We are facing frightening crises at this moment, and are engaged in the building of a defense force capable of successfully meeting these crises, we hope and pray. It has already been nearly 15 months since the House of Representatives began hearings on the act which you are considering. The war in Korea, which is hardly more than a tiny speck when compared to what World War III could be, has almost deleted our entire Reserve forces. I don't need to tell you the importance of building another strong, well-equipped, well-trained Reserve without delay. The enemy is not waiting for us to catch up with him. The act which you are considering is the foundation needed to rebuild our Reserves, and contains provisions which, in our opinion, will standardize the basic principles of Reserve programs of the several services. In considering the Armed Forces Reserve Act, the Air Force Association urges each of you to enact legislation which will give the Nation a Reserve program equal to the needs of both today and the future. Let such a program be founded, we suggest, not on outmoded blueprints for national security and the state militia formula of the past, or on the continued and organized pressure for Reserve benefits, but on long-range security objectives and first and last on military necessity. Let it be sufficiently farsighted and flexible to meet the requirements of the technological progress that lies ahead. Let it consider the needs of the aircraft industry as well as the Air Force, and encompass the scientist as well as the pilot. And let it be attuned to cold as well as hot wars, to partial as well as all-out mobilization. All this, we believe, can be done and must be done in the interest of national security. STATE OF COLORADO ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, Hon. EDWIN C. JOHNSON, COLORADO NATIONAL GUARD, United States Senate, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSON: I am sending a letter similar to this to Senator Millikin. I am requesting your assistance in a matter which I believe is for the good of the National Guard. Hearings are now being held by the Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1951, H. R. 5426. This Armed Forces Reserve Act, H. R. 5426, passed the House last October 1951. This act was written by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The National Guard Association was never called initially on the writing of this bill. Along in October of 1951 the Department of the Army agreed to some better than 90 amendments that were added to this bill that came from the National Guard Association; in fact, this came about last August when a special session of the State adjutants general was called in Washington. The Department of the Army asked for the assistance and the backing of the National Guard Association in getting this through the House. We gave this support, although we believed at the time that considerable study should be given to the bill. This bill is one that you probably have heard some discussion on, which calls for a Ready Reserve, a Standby, and a Retired Reserve. Furthermore, this bill is predicated on an establishment of universal military training and service. Inasmuch as on March 4 the House took unfavorable action in regards to universal military training and service, we see no reason at this time why the Armed Forces Reserve Act should even be considered; in fact, we in the National Guard are of the opinion that this bill contains features that will eventually be very harmful to the National Guard. If the Office of the Secretary of Defense could write some sort of a bill for universal military training and service whereby National Guard units would profit, I would be in favor of universal military training. To date, however, every bill that has been written by the Office of the Secretary of Defense seems to give the Secretary of Defense's office an 8- or 9-year mortgage on young men's lives and yet I see no possibility that these young men can become members of National Guard or Organized Reserve units. I am definitely of the opinion that what the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force needs is a build-up of units in the National Guard that, when called to active duty, will be trained in the teamwork of that unit. We are having a most difficult time today throughout the United States recruiting men for the National Guard. We are handicapped at every turn of the road by regulations which prevent us from recruiting personnel. I am very much of the opinion that if we had a National Guard at 100 percent strength today that our national security would be much more effective than attempting to give some thousands of young men 6 months of basic training as called for in universal military training. At least in the guard we have units and these units are composed definitely of teams that must perform as teams, and certainly this is far more valuable than the loose training that I would anticipate under universal military training. Inasmuch as the House took unfavorable action this past March on universal military training, I am of the opinion that the Universal Military Training Act of 1951 is illegal and should be repealed. We of the National Guard are much more favorable to the 1948 Selective Service Act, which would be far more helpful to our National Guard recruiting. We are opposed to the present Armed Forces Reserve Act, H. R. 5426, for the following reasons: (a) It is predicated on the establishment of a system of universal military training and service and with the unfavorable action taken by the House on March 4, the bill as written becomes very unreal. (b) This bill does nothing for the Reserves generally and particularly enlisted personnel and nothing for the Army or Air National Guard. (c) This bill would establish a Reserve system composed primarily of veterans who have already been in jeopardy and would be again if another Korean or comparable emergency arose. We feel that the National Guard should not be a party to any such proposal. (d) We feel definitely that this bill provides an entering wedge for the federalization of the National Guard. (e) Under the terms of this bill the present National Guard Bureau would be stripped of all its functions and these functions would be transferred to other staff sections of the Departments of the Army and Air Force. We feel that the National Guard Bureau is a special staff of the Department of the Army which takes care of our National Guard problems and nothing should be done to interfere with this Bureau. (f) This bill in no way will aid the National Guard in recruiting personnel. (g) In this bill, the establishment of a Ready and a Standby Reserve are utterly unrealistic and notably unrealistic for the Standby Reserve. I do not know the chairman of the subcommittee of the Senate Armed Forces who is now conducting hearings on this bill. I believe Senator Russell, however, is chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee. We of the National Guard feel that this bill should be tabled in committee. We feel that the bill at this time should be given unfavorable consideration by the subcommittee and not be allowed to go to the floor of the Senate. I am requesting your assistance in this matter and if your thinking on this bill coincides with mine, I would be most appreciative of your efforts if you can assist us in having this bill killed in committee. Sincerely, IRVING O. SCHAEFER, Brigadier General AGC-NGUS, The Adjutant General. [Telegram] WILLIAM S. BENTON, United States Senate: HARTFORD, CONN., May 28, 1952. Hearings on Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1951 (H. R. 5426) now in progress before Senate Armed Services subcommittee. The State Military Department and members of the Connecticut National Guard consider this bill defective and strongly urge that it be reported unfavorably for the following reasons: (1) It is predicated on establishment of a system of UMT and S and with unfavorable action by the House on March 4, the bill as written becomes a nonreality; (2) it does nothing for the Reserves generally and particularly enlisted personnel and nothing for the NGUS and ANGUS; (3) it would establish a Reserve system composed primarily of veterans who have already been in jeopardy and would be again if another Korean or comparable emergency arose. NG cannot be a party to any such proposal. (4) It definitely provides the entering wedge for federalization of the National Guard. (5) Under terms of bill NG Bureau could be stripped of all of its functions which would be transferred to other staff sections performing comparable functions. (6) Makes no provision for procurement of enlisted personnel for NGUS and ANGUS. (7) Establishment of Ready and Standby Reserves as provided utterly unrealistic and notably the latter. (8) In effect substitutes the Naval Reserve Act of 1938 for the National Defense Act. Your assistance is respectfully solicited as this bill may seriously affect some 8,000 Connecticut guardsmen, the bulk of which are now in active Federal service. FREDERICK G. REINCKE, Major General, Adjutant General of Connecticut. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Camp Murray, Fort Lewis, Wash., June 3, 1952. Hon. HARRY P. CAIN, DEAR SENATOR CAIN: I have been informed by Maj. Gen. Ellard A. Walsh, president of the National Guard Association, that hearings on the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1951, H. R. 5426, opened before subcommittees of Senate Armed Services Committee on May 26, 1952. This bill is defective for the following reasons: 1. It is predicated on establishment of a system of UMT&S and with unfavorable action by the House on March 4, the bill as written becomes a nonreality. 2. It does nothing for the Reserves generally and particularly enlisted personnel, and nothing for the National Guard of the United States and Air National Guard of the United States. 3. It would establish a Reserve system composed primarily of veterans who have already been in jeopardy and would be again if another Korean or comparable emergency arose. The National Guard cannot be a party to any such proposal. 4. It definitely provides the entering wedge for federalization of the National Guard. 5. Under terms of the bill the National Guard Bureau could be stripped of all of its functions, which would be transferred to other staff sections performing comparable functions. 6. The bill makes no provision for procurement of enlisted personnel for National Guard of the United States and Air National Guard of the United States. 7. The establishment of Ready and Standby Reserve as provided is uttterly unrealistic and notably the latter. 8. In effect, the bill substitutes the Naval Reserve Act of 1938 for the National Defense Act. It is hoped this bill will not be reported favorably by the committee in order to afford time to further study the matter in connection with amendments to Public Law 51, Reserve officers personnel bill and equalization of benefits for Reserve personnel bill. It is requested that every effort be made to prevent favorable consideration of H. R. 5426, as it is very definitely against the best interests of the National Guard. Sincerely yours, LILBURN H. STEVENS, Hon. EVERETT M. DIRKSEN, STATE OF ILLINOIS, MILITARY AND NAVAL DEPARTMENT, Springfield, May 28, 1952. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR DIRKSEN: Hearings on the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1951, H. R. 5426 as you know are now in progress before a subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. We feel that the bill, in its present form, does very little for the Reserve components generally and practically nothing for the National Guard of the United States, both Army and Air. This is particularly true in its relation to enlisted personnel. The bill in our opinion, arrived at after long and serious study and analysis, is defective for the following reasons: 1. It is predicated on establishment of a system of Universal Military Training and Service and, with unfavorable action by the House of Representatives on March 4, the bill as written becomes a nonreality. 2. It would establish a Reserve system composed primarily of veterans, who have already been in jeopardy and would be again if another Korean or comparable emergency arose. The National Guard cannot be a party to any such proposal. 3. It definitely provides the entering wedge for federalization of the National Guard. Federalization of the National Guard of the United States has been attempted many times in the past, the most recent effort being the "Gray board," and each attempt has been consistently repudiated. I enclose a paper I prepared on the "Gray board" recommendation to Federalize the National Guard, which paper was unanimously adopted by the National Guard Association of the United States and the Adjutants General Association of the United States, as well as the Conference of Governors. I also enclose copy of resolution adopted by the executive committee, Conference of Governors of the United States, which condemns federalization of the National Guard as being "un-American, unconstitutional, and contrary to the basic philosophy of our American form of government." 4. Under terms of the bill, the National Guard Bureau could be stripped of all of its functions, which would be transferred to other staff sections performing comparable functions. In our opinion, nothing except complete federalization of the National Guard could be more injurious to the future of the National Guard. 5. The bill makes no provision for procurement of enlisted personnel for the National Guard of the United States and the Air National Guard of the United States. 6. The establishment of Ready and Standby Reserve, as provided by the bill, is utterly unrealistic and notably the latter. 7. In effect, the bill substitutes the Naval Reserve Act of 1938 for the National Defense Act. In view of the above, it is my honest belief that the bill, in its present form, does not accomplish the desired objective. Time is not of the essence in regard to its early passage. I am of the opinion that "to make haste slowly" would be far more prudent and would enable all concerned to prepare a bill which would truly provide for the future of the Reserve components, so vital to the security of our Nation. It is my strong conviction that this bill (H. R. 5426) should be killed in committee at this time. This will permit further study by all concerned to the end that areas of disagreement may be reconciled before consideration is again undertaken by the Congress, probably in the next session. I solicit and urge your support in the recommendation to kill the bill in committee. With warmest personal regards, I am Faithfully yours, LEO M. BOYLE, Major General, the Adjutant General. COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE "GRAY BOARD REPORT" AND A PROTEST AGAINST THE COMPLETE FEDERALIZATION OF THE NATIONAL GUARD OF THE SEVERAL STATES AS RECOMMENDED THEREIN A study of the report to the Secretary of Defense by the Committee on Civilian Components, more commonly referred to as the "Gray Board," reflects the many months of conscientious endeavor, analysis, and study by its members. |