Secretary PATTERSON. That is right. You have opportunity here for individual opinion, in those groups or committees, but you have what the committee system lacks today, somebody responsible for prompt decisions, and that is not existent today. If we Mr. RICH. That is the point I am trying to bring out now. have that, we are evidently not likely to do a lot of things that are most vital to the welfare of this country, and the Army and the Navy and the Marine Corps and the Air Force and all of the branches of the Government ought to realize more fully that to have a good fighting force, we have to have a good financial and sound structure. They should watch the expense of every dollar, not be wasteful and extravagant. Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir. We have today a single enterprise, ' because each one of these agencies has only a part to play in a single enterprise in national defense, whether it is on land, on sea, or in the air. It is a single enterprise, and yet, there is no head for that enterprise today. There are two heads. Mr. RICH. Now, in the purchasing, certainly under the set-up it seems to me that the unified purchasing of all materials for the Government should lead to a great saving to the American taxpayer, and you might have suggestions such as were made the other day by General MacArthur. He said there is no reason why we could not have uniform uniforms. Now, I suppose that you would have a lot of people object to that. Secretary PATTERSON. I think that you would. Mr. RICH. At the lunch hour, I thought of that, and I spoke to a couple of fellows over at the table, and they were Army men. They said that it is all right as long as you do not make them blue. I suppose the Navy men would say it is all right as long as you do not make them khaki. Secretary PATTERSON. The question of a common uniform is quite debatable. I would not say it is essential. I do not think that the provision of different colors in the uniforms adds materially to the national expense. Mr. RICH. I do not think so either. Secretary PATTERSON. You might lose values if you adopted it, too. Mr. RICH. General MacArthur may be wrong in some suggestions on that, and I do not know how much truth there is that he would want that, but he has been a great general. Would it not be wise if we could have him come over here and give us his experiences as to what ought to be done in legislation in order that we might get the right kind of a bill to consolidate the Army and the Navy? Secretary PATTERSON. I do not know where you could get any better views. Mr. RICH. It might be that the chairman could take that into consideration. Secretary PATTERSON. I have been trying to get him to come back to the United States for a long time, but he is very busy where he is. Mr. RICH. I imagine that he has all he can do over there. Now, there is one other question, Mr. Secretary. Then, I will terminate my questioning. Is there anything in this legislation that is going to freeze men in their jobs because of seniority rather than ability to perform the functions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the Secretary of National Defense, so that we get the very best men to do the very best job in our national defense? The CHAIRMAN. Just a minute. Will you read that? (Thereupon, the pending question was read by the reporter.) Secretary PATTERSON. There is nothing in this bill to freeze men in their jobs because of their seniority. The existing one is a system. of promotion by seniority. We have introduced a bill, and we have sponsored it to change that, in the present session of Congress, to a system of promotion by merit, below the rank of general. It already prevails in the ranks of general. We hope that Congress will give us the relief we need on that. Mr. RICH. What is there in the bill that would do that? Secretary PATTERSON. The bill does not go into details on that at all. Mr. RICH. Do you not think that we ought to specify in some way that only ability should be given the greatest consideration for men for promotion. Of all branches of the service, to the highest officers? Secretary PATTERSON. I do not think that that ought to be handled in this bill. I think the bill that is now before the Committee on Armed Services of the House, if passed, will give the War Department the relief it needs in the way of promotions of officers on the basis of merit. Mr. RICH. Now, suppose we pass the bill that is in the Committee of Armed Services, and we passed a bill last week for the purchase of supplies and consolidation of that branch of the service. Now, if we pass those two bills, do you not believe that that will interfere with the passage of this legislation and be a detriment until we get this legislation passed? Secretary PATTERSON. No, sir; I think that they are separate and distinct. Mr. RICH. You think that they are? Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. RICH. Then, the statements that have been made by some of the men, that they are going to fight this bill, as to them, why should anyone want to fight this bill as it is now if it is going to mean what you said it will mean, more efficient and better service and more economy? Secretary PATTERSON. Well, you do not get any bill that you get unanimity of view on, Mr. Rich. I guess every bill has its opponents. I think this is a most meritorious bill. There is difference of opinion, I will admit that. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rich, a member of the committee calls my attention to the fact that your time has expired. Mr. RICH. All right. I yield to the chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Judd. Mr. JUDD. Mr. Secretary, I want to ask about several odds and ends because most of the major problems have been brought up and discussed. On page 3 of the bill, lines 8, 9, 10, and 11, it reads, "Under the direction of the President he shall establish policies and programs for the National Defense Establishment," and so forth. There is no question but what he has the duty and the power and the authority to establish policies, but there is no mandate that be shall establish them in accordance with the provisions of this act. I think that is the question the gentleman from Indiana was after. Would you object to our putting in at the end just before the semicolon the words "in accordance with the provisions of this act"? When we say he shall establish policies and programs, we assume he will do it in accordance with the provisions of this act. But would there be any objection to our making it specific and saying "He shall establish policies and programs for the National Defense Establishment, and for the departments and agencies therein in accordance with the provisions of the act?" Secretary PATTERSON. I can think of no objection to the addition of that language. Mr. JUDD. On line 25, page 12, and lines 1 and 2 on page 13 it reads: subject to the authority and direction of the President and the Secretary of National Defense, it shall be the duty of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The question has been raised repeatedly whether the word "duty" includes authority. Would there be objection to stating if, "It shall be the duty of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and they shall have the authority to," 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and so forth. Secretary PATTERSON. No objection I can think of. Mr. JUDD. At the bottom of page 14 on the question of the Munitions Board, would there be objection to saying: it shall be the duty of the Board and it shall have the authority under the direction of the Secretary of National Defense to coordinate, plan, recommend, prepare and so forth? Secretary PATTERSON. I think that is implied in the language. Mr. JUDD. No objection to spelling it out and saying they have both the duty and the authority to do the things we want? Secretary PATTERSON. I see no objection. Mr. JUDD. You said this morning in your testimony that the necessity for unity of command was the lesson of this World War. Actually was it not the lesson we should have learned from World War I? Did we not have disastrous defeat until we came under one command under General Foch? Secretary PATTERSON. Yes; you mean on the international level, the need of unity of command on western fronts, with the British, French, and United States forces fighting on that front. Mr. JUDD. Yes. Secretary PATTERSON. Yes. That lesson was there. Mr. JUDD. In World War II, our own forces, Army, Navy and Air Forces, were almost as extensive and complicated as the whole international set up was in World War I. We failed to write the lesson of World War I into law and failed to get on a permanent basis the unity which under the spur of necessity in war we had developed. In this war, we have learned the lesson a second time in a most expensive way. This legislation is an attempt to formalize and make official the lesson of unity of command we developed or we learned during the war? Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir. The point was sharpened a great deal in World War II, of course, because of the increased speed of everything, the need of closely-timed and integrated operations by forces on sea, land, and air. The necessity of that was far more urgent in this war than in World War I. There is no doubt of that. Mr. JUDD. We do not want to have to learn it a third time. Secretary PATTERSON. I hope not. Mr. JUDD. It is often said that the pride we have in a particular branch of the service which gives them greatly increased morale and better spirits, would be destroyed under unification. You do not think that would follow? Secretary PATTERSON. I think that is utter nonsense. I served in the infantry in World War I. I do not know of any service I would be prouder to serve in than in the infantry. I do not think any infantry soldier for a minute would have his prestige or morale damaged by the fact that the name of the Department was changed to the Department of the Army. What does he care about that, or that there is a Secretary of National Defense on top? Mr. JUDD. I served in the field artillery, and we were just as proud of ourselves as part of the Army as we would have been if we had been a separate branch of the service. Secretary PATTERSON. It does not damage his morale a bit. Mr. JUDD. You believe we could get that same type of pride and efficiency and morale under one over-all service as we do in independent services. Secretary PATTERSON. Certainly. Mr. JUDD. Do you think that the allegedly superior morale as a result of having separate uniforms and so forth is sufficiently great to justify the possible added expense and more complicated arrangements necessary to provide different uniforms? Secretary PATTERSON. If the uniform provisions are on the same relative basis for the different services, that is, that you have two uniforms, the same as another branch, I think you have done all you might do along that line. I do not think there ought to be different standards. If one would have a very expensive uniform and the other one were restricted to a very cheap uniform that might be a little damaging; but as long as you have the same standards, you could go along with the existing provisions on uniforms and I think the cost involved would be insignificant. Mr. JUDD. It is often said, that if we put, for example, these various Assistant Secretaries together under the Munitions Board, there will be a terrific fight, that the various claimant agencies will be in conflict within the Munitions Board for first priority on the available supplies. Is it not a fact that at the present time within the Army and within the Navy, as well as between them the same conflicts occur for such supplies as there are? Secretary PATTERSON. Yes. Mr. JUDD. And would it not, after all, be better to have conflicts within an over-all service than conflicts between independent services? Secretary PATTERSON. A good deal of that seems to go on, Mr. Judd. Mr. JUDD. My point is there will be the conflicts, under any arrangement, and this will not accentuate it. It should, in fact, give a better chance for a reasonable degree of mutual satisfaction as compared to when there are separate forces without any coordination. Secretary PATTERSON. I think you have well said it. I might say about the uniform, it depends upon where you serve. I was down in the South Pacific in 1943. Admiral Halsey was in command of the theater. They all wore the same uniform-Air, Army, Marines, and Navy. You could not tell around his headquarters what service a man came from. They all wore the same cotton khaki uniform. Admiral Halsey was a very popular commander of the troops of that area, and they were all proud to serve under him. He made no distinction as to the service the man came from. That is an instance where they all were wearing the same uniform. That was largely due to climate. I can imagine other areas where the uniforms would be different and perhaps properly so. Mr. JUDD. Mr. Secretary, on page 13, it provides for formulating policies for joint training of the military forces. Do you care to expand on what you have in mind when you speak of joint training of the military forces? Do you mean the troops or the officers or both? Secretary PATTERSON. They mean both; they mean officers and the troops on maneuvers, training plans, everything embodied in the term training. Mr. JUDD. It seems to me a valid objection might be raised if an Annapolis man who has only Navy training is put in charge of an area where there are also non-Naval Air Forces and Army ground troops, the latter might dislike to be put fully under his command, thinking he does not know much about air and army work. Is there any thought, for instance, of taking all the graduates of West Point and Annapolis and giving them 1 year of additional training in over-all national defense, so that whenever they are put in charge of an area, they have learned to think in terms of all the services, the Army and Navy and the Air? Secretary PATTERSON. That has interesting possibilities. Mr. JUDD. After they finish Annapolis or West Point, they could have perhaps 1 year in a National Defense Academy where they would study the whole strategic picture and the problem of unified command and thereby avoid a lot of this friction, Mr. Jenkins was talking about this morning. Secretary PATTERSON. I think personally a good deal could be said for the view that in Annapolis and West Point there would be value in giving the men from each institution 1 year at the other institution. Mr. JUDD. That is my point. Secretary PATTERSON. The people in charge of the curricula I know would be opposed to that, because they think they have all they can do in 4 years to cover the ground they think they have to cover. Therefore, I have no set opinions on that, but I could see the value in having it done. Mr. JUDD. If I were in the Army and we were going to be put under a naval commander, I would feel better if he had one year of training along our lines, so to speak. Secretary PATTERSON. It is very important to have officers in each service understand the problems in the other services. Mr. JUDD. And the capacities of each and the particular contributions they have to make. Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir. |