Secretary STEVENS. Thank you, sir. Mr. RIVERS. I want to ask you something about your position on where the last say comes in the setting of the size of the Army. Is it vested in the executive branch or in the Congress, in your opinion? Secretary STEVENS. Well, I would say that the programs that are recommended to you gentlemen are certainly Mr. RIVERS. Who sets the size of the Army, the President or the Congress? Secretary STEVENS. I think under the Constitution the Congress does. Mr. RIVERS. Now I want to cite to you section 1-article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, which says this, among other things, and in substance this is very vital: Article 1, section 8, clause 12: The Congress shall have the power to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than 2 years. Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy. Clause 14: To make rules for the Government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Now let me read you something, why that thing exists. The power to raise and maintain Armed Forces and I am reading from the Constitution. It is quite a treatise. A lot of people do not believe this. I am not talking about you, because I think you do. The clauses of the Constitution, which give Congress authority "to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a Navy" and so forth, were not inserted for the purpose of endowing the National Government with power to do these things, but rather to designate the department of Government which should exercise such powers. Moreover, they permit Congress to take measures essential to the national defense in time of peace as well as during a period of actual conflict. That these provisions grew out of the conviction that the Executive should be deprived of the "sole power of raising and regulating fleets and armies" which Blackstone attributed to the King under the British Constitution, as emphasized by Story in his commentaries. He wrote: Our notions, indeed, of the dangers of standing armies, in time of peace, are derived in a great measure from the principles and examples of our English ancestors. In England, the King possessed the power of raising armies in the time of peace according to his own good pleasure. And this prerogative was justly esteemed dangerous to the public liberties. Upon the Revolution of 1688-— and that is the Congress Parliament wisely insisted upon a bill of rights which should furnish an adequate security for the future. But how was this done? Not by prohibiting standing armies altogether in time of peace; but (as has been already seen) by prohibiting them without the consent of Parliament which is the same as Congress. This is the very proposition contained in the Constitution; for Congress can alone raise armies; and may put them down, whenever they choose. Now to start with, I say the Bureau of the Budget is unconstitutional, as far as it relates to the Congress-wait now. That is right. Don't laugh. I got a good speech on that, too. The CHAIRMAN. You are making it clear this morning. Mr. RIVERS. Wait a second. Mr. Secretary, for the Bureau of the Budget to prohibit the Congress from setting-that is where you get your authority and that is where you got your directive. That is where you got it. That is where you spoke of higher authority a while ago. To prohibit Congress from setting the size of the Army is unconstitutional. And it was set forth in that thing because it stemmed from the time the kings raised armies and put them down as they chose, under their whims; and this Congress has the authority and the constitutional directive to, for 2 years, authorize and appropriate for an Army or for the defense of the country. It is hypocritical by those who would be contemptuous of it and certainly unconstitutional and not in keeping with the constitutional prerogative and mandates upon both the President and the Congress. The only thing the President can do when he is not satisfied with the size of the Army is come to the Congress in his state of the Union message and tell the Congress, and if the Congress is crazy enough to accept a bill of goods from you or anybody else and put an Army of 10 million, their sole responsibility is to the people of the country. And I do not subscribe to the theory that the President of the United States or Mr. Secretary Wilson or anybody has the authority to override the dictates of the Congress. In view of that constitutional mandate, which is clear, I say to you again that the Bureau of the Budget is unconstitutional when it deprives the Congress from carrying out its constitutional mandate. I just wonder if you believe that the last word is down town or up here on the Hill? Secretary STEVENS. Right up here on the Hill, Mr. Rivers. Secretary STEVENS. Yes, sir. Mr. RIVERS. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, you can always count on being a good, wise witness. Up on the Hill it is highly important for you to say that "up on the Hill." When he is down in the Department, he has other factors that he has to take into consideration. [Laughter.] Mr. Hébert ? Mr. HÉBERT. No questions. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Patterson? Mr. PATTERSON. There is only one question I want to refer back to and that was the question propounded by Mr. Johnson. That was when he asked the Secretary if our Army is the best equipped army in the world today and your statement was to the effect, or you state "Our Army is better equipped than any other army in the world today.' Now, Mr. Secretary, I have been reading in the press where we have not been able to get any information from behind the Iron Curtain or from behind the Bamboo Curtain to substantiate your statement. Now I wonder if we are getting information into the Department of Defense that has not been made known to this committee in order to help us legislate in problems like this one we are considering this morning. For instance, do we know all the new weapons and all the new achievements accomplished by the Russians? Do we know the new weapons they have as far as their ground troops go? Do we know their best airplanes? Are we sure of that? The question as I understood it from Mr. Johnson-and I gave my opinion in the answer, to the effect that we are the best equipped army. But I cannot state that as a positive fact, for some of the very reasons that you have just raised, sir. Because we would like to know a lot more about some of the things that you are talking about. Mr. PATTERSON. Therefore, there is doubt in your mind whether or not Secretary STEVENS. I mean I cannot state it to be a positive fact. I do not think anybody could, because I do not think anybody completely knows. It is our best judgment based on the information that is available and we should say at the same time that the information available is limited and not all-encompassing. Mr. PATTERSON. It is just an assumption on your part? Mr. PATTERSON. That we are the best equipped army in the world today? Secretary STEVENS. That is right, sir. Mr. PATTERSON. And you feel the same way about that, General? General RIDGWAY. I do, sir. I do not know, I do not pretend to know from any intelligence available to me, whether or not the Russian Army has some of the most modern weapons with which our field forces are presently equipped in rather small numbers. Mr. PATTERSON. That is all, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Winstead? Mr. WINSTEAD. No questions. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cunningham? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PRICE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, pursuing the line of questioning that Representative Kilday a moment ago undertook, when he asked whether you recommended this program for the Army to the higher echelon and you stated that you accepted it and endorsed it, can you tell this committee whether you endorsed it without reservations? Secretary STEVENS. I would like to answer that question. It is similar to one asked me before. I would like to answer that in executive session. Mr. PRICE. Just so we get an answer to it later on. Secretary STEVENS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Anything further, Mr. Price? Mr. PRICE. Yes. This, of course, would be a rockbottom budget for the Army; would it not? Secretary STEVENS. Yes, sir. Mr. PRICE. Does it take into consideration any increase in expenditures that would be caused by a pay increase? Secretary STEVENS. Yes, sir; I would say it did. We have estimated the amount of the pay increase that would be authorized by the ConWe would expect to make good on that. Mr. PRICE. You have heard this intriguing figure about the $1,750 million saving on the military budget during the next fiscal year? Secretary STEVENS. I have heard that figure, sir. I do not subscribe to it as a saving. I think what is intended there is that it may be a slippage, you might call it, of the amount of funds that would actually be spent or obligated out of this new requested budget. Mr. PRICE. How much of this slippage would you estimate you can foresee the Army might be able to contribute during this fiscal year? Secretary STEVENS. I do not see any of it at the present time. It may eventually. Mr. PRICE. Now, have you made any cuts or any reductions in appropriations for research and development? Secretary STEVENS. We have held our research and development budget at approximately the same level as last year. Isn't that correct, General? General RIDGWAY. I could not be accurate in my answer to that, sir. Secretary STEVENS. I will check it, but there is no change of any significance. It is substantially the same figure. Mr. PRICE. All right. Could you tell me what authority you seek in your new reserve legislation that you indicate the Defense Establishment will soon send to Congress that you do not now have? Secretary STEVENS. Well, I would say it would be a means of enforcing participation in the Reserve program, of a better and more far-reaching nature than now exists. Mr. PRICE. That is the key to the situation? Secretary STEVENS. Yes, sir. Mr. PRICE. Is there anything about the nature of that that you could indicate to us, or how you think you could enforce the Reserve program? Secretary STEVENS. Well, I think, for instance, under the 6 months' training program, that if after the 6 months of basic training the individual did not take an active part in the Reserve, then you would call him to active duty for the balance of his 2-year commitment. Mr. PRICE. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cunningham? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No questions. The CHAIRMAN. General Devereux ? Mr. DEVEREUX. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve any questions for executive session. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. DEVEREUX. But I would like to be sure I will have an opportunity to ask them. The CHAIRMAN. Well, the only assurance I can give you is get out here on the front row. [Laughter.] Mr. Fisher? Mr. FISHER. No. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Doyle? Mr. DOYLE. Yes. Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you a few questions along a little bit different line. The last statement you make at the bottom of ment says: page 2 of your state The Army strongly endorses legislation which will enhance military career incentives. For your information I will say that on Friday the Secretary of the Navy in testifying before us said that the main reason that the Navy was having difficulty in keeping enlisted personnel was on account of poor pay, poor and insufficient housing, and inadequate delinquent or dependents' care. [Laughter.] Mr. DOYLE. I think perhaps that word "delinquent" was well used there, because manifestly the services are delinquent in providing adequate care. But I ask you now, Mr. Secretary, do you find the same reasons, as relates to the Army, in finding the difficulty in having men enlist and reenlist in the Army? Secretary STEVENS. Yes, sir; I think the reasons are very similar. Mr. DOYLE. What are you doing to correct them, the one subject of inadequate dependent care? What is the Army doing specifically? Secretary STEVENS. Well, I think one of the aspects of that is the medical care for dependents. That has been the subject of proposed legislation, has it not, General? General RIDGWAY. Yes, sir. Mr. DOYLE. What about the ceiling that has been put on the number of doctors you can have per thousand men? Is that ceiling too low or is it adequate? Secretary STEVENS. I would say that that is a thing that is, as a matter of fact, right now under review. I would say it is a little bit low at the present time. Mr. DOYLE. Well, review. Let's see. Who is reviewing it? Secretary STEVENS. That will be reviewed by the Department of Defense for all three services. Mr. DOYLE. And what has been your recommendation about the ceiling that is low? Have you recommended that it be raised? Secretary STEVENS. Yes, sir; I have recommended that it be raised. Mr. DOYLE. How high? How high have you recommended that it be raised? Secretary STEVENS. I think-as I recall it-I recommended about 10 percent increase for the future? General RIDGWAY. I do not know. Secretary STEVENS. Approximately a 10-percent increase in the number of doctors per Mr. DOYLE. I think the ceiling is 3.6? (Asides of "3.26".) Secretary STEVENS. It is a little less than that, I recall. Mr. DOYLE. What about the Rusk committee? Secretary STEVENS. The Rusk committee? Mr. DOYLE. Yes. Are you familiar with their jurisdiction in the matter? Secretary STEVENS. No, sir; I do not think I am well posted on that, but I will get posted on it if you want to ask me some questions. Mr. DOYLE. In other words, Mr. Secretary, you recommended a 10percent increase in the number of doctors that are needed and you did that because of your absolute need insofar as the Army was concerned; is that correct? Secretary STEVENS. That was my feeling; yes, sir. |