The thing that disturbs me is this Executive order. After this bill becomes a law, we have that taken care of, but the Executive order is floating around in the air. I do not know that it is necessary that we have the whole Executive order written in, but certainly if some reference is not made to indicate that it is a part of the organic law, there is nothing that is firm and binding in a great part of this legislation.

And it does not become law after the bill is passed; it is still agreement, subject to change.

The basic part of what is intended is subject to change without Congressional action, and I am somewhat disturbed about that.

Now, I think I have interpreted correctly your mind on the matter of the Marine Corps, but coming now to the Navy Air Force, I asked General Spaatz some questions along this line, and he referred to the agreements as to the roles and missions in the Executive order. And I am going to ask you a few questions about the Navy Air Force.

Have you any objections to a reference being made in this bill to the Executive order, to make it a part of the organic law, so that any substantial changes, at least, in that Executive order can only be made by act of Congress?

Admiral NIMITZ. I do not have the slightest objection.

Mr. McCORMACK. Would that not have a tendency to assure permanence of the agreement which is incorporated in the Executive order, and which each witness for the various services in appearing before the committee here and before the Senate Committee has stressed as in his mind the compelling reasons for his advocating the passage of this unification bill?

Admiral NIMITZ. I think it would have a stabilizing effect. I believe, however, that in the last analysis what we are seeking to accomplish will depend largely on the good will of people.

I believe that we are going to have the good will of people.

Mr. McCORMACK. That applies in any walk of human activity. And that we must submit to such dependence is one of the curses of mankind.

Admiral NIMITZ. If we do not have the good will of people we will have difficulty making anything work.

Mr. McCORMACK. In modern warfare, is it safe to say, without disregarding the powerful contributions made by all other services, that the nations who control the seas will, unless they lose control, win the wars?

Admiral NIMITZ. I believe that control of the sea is essential to any nation that hopes to preserve its existence. It must have the ability to control the sea when it goes to war.

Mr. McCORMACK. And in modern war, at least, if not all wars, the nation or nations that control the sea and maintain control of it, ultimately win the war, no matter how many defeats might be encountered along the way.

Admiral NIMITZ. I think history will show that.

Mr. McCORMACK. Well, a great man, Franklin D. Roosevelt, once made that observation to me when things looked very dark during the last war; that Hitler could win all battles, but he could not win the battle of the Atlantic.

But coming back to the Naval Air Force, which is a very important part of the Navy, although you position is rather clear to me, I should

like to have it emphasized for the record: If the members of this committee, or a majority of them, feel that the connection of the Navy with the Marine Corps should be insured by the safeguard of having in the legislation what is now a matter of agreement, while you are not recommending that, you would have no objection to it?

Admiral NIMITZ. I do not advocate it, but I do not object to it.

I may say this: I believe that the Navy should have unrestricted right to use any of the tools that it thinks it needs to carry out its functions and its responsibilities and I would have no objection to anybody that has a gift of language and ability to write those things out, including them in the legislation.

Mr. McCORMACK. Some reference has been made indirectly to the fact that you might have been dictated to in connection with your testimony before this or other committees.

Is there any justification for that?

Admiral NIMITZ. There is nothing in it whatever. Whatever I have said, I say of my own free will, without any duress or any pressure whatsoever.

Mr. McCORMACK. I simply ask that for the record. I might go further and make the observation that I could not conceive of your permitting any attempt of that kind to be made upon you.

I think that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Of necessity, because of the 5-minute rule, we will have to suspend.

I am sorry, Admiral, that these things happen in this way, and I am sorry we must take so much of your time.

Admiral NIMITZ. I am at your service, Mr. Chairman, whenever you want me up here.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will now adjourn.

(Whereupon at 11 o'clock a. m., the hearing was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.)

NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947

TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1947

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN
THE EXECUTIVE DEFARTMENTS,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10:15 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, in room 1501 of the New House Office Building, Hon. Clare E. Hoffman (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

We will now take up the unification bill. Those members who have other committee meetings want to be excused at this time.

I would like to say that that statement quoting your chairman as to the fact that if the Army and the Navy did not quit shoving around and would not get any bill, was not an accurate statement as to what the chairman said. He said something to the effect that if they did not quit their shoving and pushing around they might get further sooner.

Mr. DELANEY. Can we quote you on that?

The CHAIRMAN. It is not for me to say that. business.

It is none of my

Sorry to bother you again, Mr. Secretary, but some members of the committee wanted some additional information.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES FORRESTAL, SECRETARY OF THE

NAVY-Resumed

Secretary FORRESTAL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hardy, you had some questions?
Mr. HARDY. Yes.

Mr. Secretary, I have been trying to dig up some opposition to this bill in order that we might try to improve it some way. It has been virtually impossible to get anyone to express any opposition to it. About the only opposition we have had up to this time has come from the Marine Corps. I know that there is opposition within the Navy. I wonder why we cannot get that opposition for the benefit of the committee. As I expressed previously, in our collective ignorance maybe we could improve the bill.

I wonder if you could shed a little light on that question and give us some of the opposition to the bill that resulted in this compromise that we now have.

Secretary FORRESTAL. I think that the opposition which you speak of within the Navy is based on apprehensions which flow largely out of the original conception of the legislation which started about 3 years

62559-47-24

ago. The conception which was advanced at that time was summed up in the use of the word "merger" to which I was strongly opposed. I did favor the integration of the services, or, as later evolved, unification.

I think I would be less than candid if I said that all of the fears had been completely dissipated. You are never going to get a document, in dealing with a question as broad as this, which will resolve every fear-just as you are not going to get anything that will work if it is against the judgment and the beliefs of the people who are the components of it.

I think that there are three definitions which relate to this subject. One is the word "merge." It was one of the cases where Mr. Webster expressed with considerable precision what was in our mind in the use of that word. The definition of the word is "to cause to be swallowed up; to immerse; to sink." Its legal connotation is to be absorbed, sunk, or extinguished by merging. The transitive verb means to sink, or to be swallowed up, or lost. That is, to lose identity by absorption or immersion in something else.

The word "unification" is defined as meaning the act, process, or result, or unifying; the state of being unified. "Integration" is defined as the act or the process of integrating, or the actual process of making whole or entire.

Those definitions express my reservations on the bill, and the reservations of a great many people in the Navy at the outset.

In my opinion, the legislation before you does not mean the merger or the extinction of the Navy. It is the beginning of integration, which is the collating and collecting of all agencies and intruments which go into national security. Integration also means seeing to it that the departments are working together to provide the best results, with each department having common knowledge of what each other department is doing.

Mr. HARDY. I recognize the distinction, Mr. Secretary, between unification and merger. One objection to the use of the word "merger" relates to the loss of identity by the various agencies. That is not the point that I am trying to get at now. I am trying to get on to some of the objections there are to the present bill.

A high-ranking Navy officer told me some time ago that if a poll were taken of all of the Navy officers, there would be at least 80 percent voting against the bill.

Secretary FORRESTAL. I do not believe that is true myself. You could only determine the accuracy of his opinion, or mine, by taking the poll.

Mr. HARDY. I made the suggestion to him that he should testify before this committee. He said, "If I did, I would be sent to the Antarctic."

Secretary FORRESTAL. Anyone who makes that statement as long as I am Secretary of the Navy does not know me, or is making it for an oblique purpose. There is no basis for that statement.

Mr. HARDY. I wonder if we might find within the Naval Regulations the reasons we are not able to get any opposition to this bill. Secretary FORRESTAL. I would say this: Many times I have specifically said by letters and by word of mouth to everyone in the service, that I will oppose and try to prevent naval officers from soliciting Members of Congress and from trying by indirection to

secure the enactment of legislation. I think that other officers of other Government departments would be well advised to follow the same practice. I think the proper place for the expression of opinion is here, before the committees of Congress, and naval officers are quite free to come down and express their opinion, and they can do it without prejudice and no fear whatever of any future punishment. Mr. HARDY. Under articles 94 and 95 is it possible for them to testify before this committee?

Secretary FORRESTAL. I do not have that before me.

Mr. HARDY. Suppose I read it into the record?

I

Mr. DELANEY. I think the statement made by the Secretary of the Navy holds good for all men who preceded him in his office. know of no time while I was a member of the Naval Affairs Committce, of which Mr. Moss was a member, that I heard any complaints from anybody that the Secretary of the Navy, or anyone under him, would do such a thing as suggested by the naval officer referred to.

Mr. HARDY. The question I am raising is whether or not articles 94 and 95 of the Naval Regulations, as I have them here, are correct, and if so, whether they are still in effect?

The CHAIRMAN. Would you read those for the record?

Mr. HARDY. If they are incorrect or canceled, I would appreciate that information.

Article 94. All petitions, remonstrances, memorials, and communications from any officer or officers of the Navy or Marine Corps, whether on active or retired list, addressed to Congress, or to either House thereof, or to any committee of Congress, on any subject of legislation relating to the Navy or Marine Corps, pending, proposed, or suggested, shall be forewarned through the Navy Department, and not otherwise, except by authority of the Department.

Secretary FORRESTAL. There is nothing in that that prevents them from expressing their opinion.

Mr. HARDY. Except that it must clear through the Navy Department first.

Secretary FORRESTAL. Any man that your chairman calls before the committee is completely free to give his honest expression of his views on any subject.

Mr. HARDY. That is a correct statement of article 94; is it?
Secretary FORRESTAL. My statement is correct.

Mr. HARDY. I mean, as you recall, what I have just read is correct?
Secretary FORRESTAL. I am sure you are reading what is there.
The CHAIRMAN. Let the witness identify it.

Mr. HARDY. Let me read article 95.

No bureau, office, or division chief, or subordinate in the Navy Department, and no officer of the Navy or Marine Corps shail apply to either House of Congress or to any committee of either House of Congress, or to any Member of Congress, for legislation, or for appropriations, or for congressional action of any kind, except with the consent and knowledge of the Secretary of the Navy, nor shall any such person respond to any request for information from either House of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, or any Member of Congress, except through, or as authorized by the Department; except as provided in sections 102, 103, 104, and 859 of the Revised Statutes.

Secretary FORRESTAL. I am sure that is correct. I would be very glad to identify that. But you will have to read that in connection with the context of my communications on this subject which have clearly and specifically removed any inhibition, restraint, penalty, or