TRANSFER OF VETERANS FROM READY TO STANDBY RESERVE

The American Legion respectfully requests that H. R. 5426 be strengthened by adding an amendment which will change the requirements for present reservists to transfer from the Ready Reserve to the Standby Reserve. We submit that it is not in the best interests of the individuals concerned or of the Reserve components themselves for veterans of wartime service to be continued for a total of 8 years in a category which makes them liable for recall to active duty prior to the calling of those who have rendered no military training or service. The American Legion submits that any man who has served on active duty with the Armed Forces for 24 months since June 25, 1950, should, at his option, be placed in the Standby Reserve, rather than in the Ready Reserve. We ask that H. R. 5426 be amended accordingly.

Under Public Law 51 of the Eighty-second Congress, section 3 (g) (3), page 4, approved June 19, 1951, every man who shall have served 24 months in active service is still liable for 6 years in the Ready Reserve. At present only about one out of every six registrants of the proper age is being called for duty under selective service, and the ones so called, after serving the required 24 months in the Armed Forces, must remain in the Ready Reserve for a sufficient length of time to complete 8 years of duty, while the other five who have been exempted render no service whatever and are liable for no duty in any Reserve unit.

The American Legion still believes that a Reserve bill is needed to set up an orderly Reserve system, fair and just as to requirements for service, but believes that H. R. 5426 should be so rewritten as to do justice to those veterans who have performed their 24 months of service by placing them in the Standby Reserve and establishing the Ready Reserve from those who have seen no service so that these 24-month veterans will again be liable for active duty only after those who have seen no service shall have been called. There is nothing in the bill as now drawn to prevent a repetition of the unfortunate situation that obtained in 1950 and 1951, insofar as the members of the Reserve are concerned. In the event of another emergency in the next 6 years, what is to prevent a Korean veteran from being once again called to duty while hundreds of thousands of eligible young men who escaped the draft go scot free without having done a single day's training or service in the military forces? The American Legion advocates that young men who have not served any time in the Armed Forces should be called first so that veterans of any war or campaign should be the last ones called to active duty.

CONGRESSIONAL DETERMINATION OF EMERGENCY AND CALLING OF RESERVES

We submit that the bill should contain a provision to the effect that members of the civilian components of the Armed Forces shall be called to active duty only in time of war or national emergency so declared by the Congress as distinguished from a period of national emergency so proclaimed by the President without the approval of the Congress. In time of crisis the Congress has shown that it can act with all necessary efficiency and speed. Where these units are called out upon an emergency so declared by the Congress it would tend to solidify the Nation behind the policy established by the direct

representatives of the people when dissension would be more apt to be caused were this policy adopted based upon the judgment of one

man.

RESERVE OBLIGATION FOR MEN DEFERRED

It further seems to the American Legion that all eligible male citizens who have not rendered service in the Armed Forces by the time of attaining the age of 26 years should be liable for 8 years of duty in the Ready Reserve. At present such citizens have no liability for training or service after having reached their twenty-sixth birthday. Many male citizens between the ages of 18 and 26 are deferred under selective service because they are engaged in agricultural or industrial pursuits considered more valuable to the Nation than service in the Armed Forces, and once having attained 26 years of age, and being no longer liable for military duty of any kind, many of these same citizens cease to pursue such an agricultural or industrial occupation. The situations above referred to point up and emphasize the imperative need for a program of universal military training, which would be just in its requirements for training and service. However, while we wait for the Congress to accept the necessity for a program of UMT, we respectfully urge this committee to give sympathetic consideration to the plight of the veterans, each of whom has already carried the load for himself and five nonveterans, but is still liable to have to carry it for six more years.

Mr. Chairman, we thank you for your consideration.

Senator LONG. Thank you for your statement, Mr. Ridley. You have pointed up the inequities and injustices of the present situation. Unfortunately, as you state here, the Reserve bill was predicated upon the assumption that universal military training would become law. The proposal was that after serving for 2 years in the Armed Forces, every young man should be liable for six more years as a member of the Reserve. It was based on the theory that everyone was going to be liable for military service. As it stands today, it means that only those who served are liable to be called-the members of the Reserve. As you point out, five young men out of six have been deferrred for one reason or the other, either to complete their education or to work in industrial or agricultural pursuits. In the event that we are not able to obtain universal military training, do you have any ideas on the proper procedure under those circumstances to acquire an adequate Reserve?

Mr. RIDLEY. In order, Mr. Chairman, to avoid holding only the veterans liable for service in the Reserve?

Senator LONG. Yes.

Mr. RIDLEY. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me it could be-this is stating this as a matter of general policy and not trying to write out, spell out, the necessary amendment-as a matter of policy, by imposing a liability for service in the Ready Reserve, both on every man who reaches the age of 18, between 18 and 26, and on an additional 8 years' liability, whether the liability is imposed or not on those over 26, who shall not continue to pursue an occupation more important than that of serving

Senator LONG. We have exempted, or at least deferred, those who wanted to pursue their education in college.

Is it your judgment that we should, perhaps, now go back and pick up those who have been deferred to complete their collegiate educa+ tion in the event that UMT does not become law?

Mr. RIDLEY Mr. Chairman, do you mean by that, removing the college exemption or do you mean by imposing the 8-year liability if they shall have completed the college course?

Senator LONG. Well, of course, even prior to the 8-year liability would come the liability to receive training.

Mr. RIDLEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Senator LONG. Is it your feeling that we should require those young men who have been deferred in order that they may have a college education, to go in now and receive training in the event UMT does: not pass?

Mr. RIDLEY. You mean immediately and not allow that exemption? Senator LONG. I mean after they have completed that training; if a young man is deferred, goes through college, it might be reasonable to ask him at that date when he has completed his college education then to undertake military training. I just wondered what your judgment would be on that subject.

Mr. RIDLEY. Mr. Chairman, we are for any principle that imposes universality of service, that is right.

MEN DEFERRED SUBJECT TO DRAFT UNTIL 35

Senator HUNT. Senator Long, may I interpolate there? I think your very last statement that you make, you are in error with reference to your assumptions. The present law requires anyone who has been deferred to remain subject to the draft until he is 35, not 26, and so, I think, Senator, that the proposition you have in mind is taken care of in that particular bill.

Mr. RIDLEY. Under selective service?

Senator HUNT. Yes.

Senator LONG. Nevertheless, the man who has been deferred, in the event of another sudden emergency, has the right to insist that he be trained before he be asked to serve. I have had many of those call upon me, and I am sure that Senator Hunt and other members of the committee have had people call upon them to demand that they have the right to be trained before sending them into combat.

Of course, while they are being trained there is no alternative excepting to send the boys who have already fought one or two wars out to fight another one.

Mr. RIDLEY. Mr. Chairman, I realize that fully, and it seems to me that some provision should be made to require them to be trained so that they would be ready, so as to impose a universality of service once that emergency arises.

SHOULD LACK OF COMBAT SERVICE DETERMINE RESERVE LIABILITY?

Senator LONG. Might I ask you your views on this subject: Of course, a man who has served for 2 years in the Armed Forces, while others were being exempted and deferred, is entitled to ask for some consideration in the future; but if we are forced to choose those who have already served, do you think it would be fair that we attempt to choose as between those who have actually been in combat and those who have never actually been in a combat theater, for example?

Mr. RIDLEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is practical, because if a man is in the service between those dates, he goes where he is ordered, and that is not-his being in combat duty or being in noncombat duty is not voluntary. He is in the service between those dates, and he is ready and willing-whether he is able or not depends on whether he is ordered there or not, when he actually serves.

Senator LONG. Well, we are pursuing a policy of that sort today, however, Mr. Ridley, and I may point this out to you: We are trying to rotate men back from Korea after they have been there a year, and send men over there who have not had to actually face the enemy on the field of battle to take their place.

I would just be curious to know your views on this subject, where you had one man who had had a year or two actually in combat with hostile forces, and another man who had worn the uniform but had never risked his life in combat with the enemy, if, perhaps, we should attempt to make those who had never actually been in combat bear the initial brunt, first, for the next time instead of those who had to bear the brunt of combat on each previous occasion?

Mr. RIDLEY. With reference to the Reserves?
Senator LONG. Yes.

Mr. RIDLEY. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that that is certainly more equitable. If that can be done in the law to impose the Ready Reserve burden for the 6 years on those as far as calling is concerned, prior to imposing it on those who shall have actively served in combat, certainly.

Senator LONG. Here is the difficulty we have had to face: As much as we would like to have universality of service-this committee has favored that we do not have a UMT bill, and it does not look like this Congress is going to pass one, and therefore, we are faced with the necessity of doing what we can with what we have available insofar as the Reserves are concerned.

Mr. RIDLEY. I fully realize that, Mr. Chairman.

Senator LONG. And we are going to impose a prior obligation on some Reserves to serve before others serve, and the only way to try to reduce the inequity, it would seem to me, is to try to look at what already has been required of those who have served.

Mr. RIDLEY. I agree with you.

Senator LONG. Senator Hunt?

Senator HUNT. I want to compliment you on your statement. I think that you have made some very valuable contributions, especially with reference to establishing a priority of being called back into service.

I think we must give that some very careful study, for this bill is more or less rendered not applicable in view of the fact that we do not have UMT, and it was written with that thought in mind.

I think that we must not call back into the service immediately, let us say, a man who has put in a couple of years in Korea, and let go scot-free one of those boys jumping into the upper stories of a women's or girls' dormitory, and those are the inequities that, I think, this committee can work out by a series of priority of recall, and put it into the bill.

Mr. RIDLEY. Mr. Hunt, I think what you have just pointed out, the wisdom of the Senate not rushing through H. R. 5426 until action should have been taken one way or the other on UMT, because it

would have been an unfortunate situation had we passed the bill just in its form without having UMT-I think probably it can be worked out better.

CONTINUATION OF DRAFT AFTER KOREAN CRISIS

Senator LONG. May I ask, so far as I know, the American Legion has taken no stand in this matter-however, I would be curious to know your views on this subject. If we are going to try to impose something of an equality of sacrifice, the only way that we can continue to acquire the Reserves, to have them available under the present law, is to continue our draft. Now, do you believe that we should continue our draft beyond the Korean emergency, if necessary, in order to have a trained Reserve available in the event UMT does not pass?

Mr. RIDLEY. Mr. Chairman, that is going to depend on the authorized strength of the Armed Forces, and it is going to depend on how readily the components of the Armed Forces, including the Regulars and the Reserve, are able to fill up their ranks without selective service.

It seems to me that, of necessity, our Armed Forces for a good many years must be kept up to authorized strength.

It seems to me also that the Reserves, including the National Guard, must be kept up to reasonably near their authorized strength; and, unfortunately, it seems, my best information from the Reserves-the National Guard-is that they are having difficulty in procuring enlistees. I do not refer to the officer personnel; and if that pertains after the expiration of selective service, why, I see no other alternative except to extend selective service even in peacetime.

Senator LONG. Yes.

Senator HUNT. May I ask, do you think it would be good procedure for us to put into this particular bill authorization for, may I say, a million or a million and a half additional men, so that by administration we can constantly keep bringing these boys in who have been deferred for college, and give them training?

Mr. RIDLEY. It seems to me that would be a wise provision. Senator HUNT. Just the same as though it were UMT, but we will do it under the draft.

Mr. RIDLEY. We would support such a move.

Senator LONG. Any further request for information, Senator Hunt? Is there anything you might like to add?

Mr. RIDLEY. May I say just one more thing, in response to your question, Senator Hunt, and your question also in the way it was put in regard to selective service: Now, when the extension of selective service, that question will arise, when that comes up we will find the same organizations opposing such a move as opposed selective service in 1940, and now on the hearings before UMT bought it, bought selective service, in preference to UMT, and praised selective service to the skies in opposing UMT when they had opposed UMT in 1940; and you will find the same organizations opposing it on the same grounds when its extension is discussed.

Senator LONG. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Ridley. The American Legion, in my judgment, has done this Nation a great service in pressing for an adequate preparedness program; and al