Secretary FORRESTAL. That is quite right. Senator BYRD. If you are unable to point out this provision, would you mind having some one in your Department make up a memorandum for me showing where this authority is written in the law? Secretary FORRESTAL. I would be very glad to. Senator BYRD. Now, there is one other question: You say, Mr. Secretary, that there is no economy in the bill. Secretary FORRESTAL. I said I could not identify it now. Senator BYRD. If you cannot identify it, it certainly is not there. If you do not claim it, it certainly is not there. I say this from experience in dealing with departments for a long time. If they do not claim economy, the economy is not there. Secretary FORRESTAL. I claimed it for wartime, Senator. Senator BYRD. Well, that is somewhat indefinite. Because the President has the right, in wartime, to completely reorganize the Army and the Navy. Secretary FORRESTAL. But you have to have your machinery laid down. I cite you again the case of machine tools. Senator BYRD. The only reason, as I understand it, that you think there is economy in wartime and not in peacetime is because you make larger purchases and make them quicker. And there ought to be, by the same token, some economies in peacetime. Secretary FORRESTAL. Let me cite the matter of inventory. One of the difficulties in war, one of the difficulties in purchasing which we go through, is lack of knowledge as to how much we need to purchase. Now, in order to get at that, whether it is the merchandising business of Sears, Roebuck or Montgomery Ward, or the War and Navy Department, there has to be some usage factor which men can look to; they can not simply pluck it out of the sky. Now, time will not permit the method by which you arrive at that result to be worked out in time of war, because the hot breath of disaster will already be at the back of your neck. Senator BYRD. But there is no economy that you can see in peacetime. Secretary FORRESTAL. I did not say that, Senator. I said I would be speculating. I am able to name you some economies, but they would simply be my opinion. Senator BYRD. Is this not true-I saw it published in some military source that for the period immediately after the merger, there will be a substantial increase in costs? Secretary FORRESTAL. Well, obviously there could be. I do not say there would be, but there could be some increase in the staff of the Secretary's office. Senator BYRD. Do you anticipate that there will be any increase by reason of this? Secretary FORRESTAL. No, sir. Senator BYRD. But you can not specify at this time? Secretary FORRESTAL. Well, as I say, I do not like to guess. Senator BYRD. I think that is an important question to clear up, because the people of the country feel that one of the arguments in favor of this merger is economy. Economy may be subordinated to other matters. But after all, we are spending now 33 cents out of the dollar on our military budget. And our credit situation is one that is ex tremely serious. We are a nation that is in debt to the extent of $260,000,000,000. And this is certainly a matter which we ought to consider, is it not? Secretary FORRESTAL. I agree with you completely. Senator BYRD. And my constituents have communicated to me their belief that this bill was to be passed on the theory that vast economies are going to be made. Many think that you are going to have joint procurement of supplies, the same hospitals, the same airfields, and so forth, and millions and millions of dollars will be saved. Secretary, FORRESTAL. I do not want to be on record, Senator, as saying that I do not think there will be some economies. I simply said that I did not want to speculate upon their extent. There will be some. In wartime, I think they will be very substantial. Senator BYRD. You said you do not look for any great economies in peacetime. I do not know what "great economies" means, but my observation has been that when a department of the Government does not make a claim for economy, then economy is never achieved. Secretary FORRESTAL. Well, Senator, I would rather show you, rather than make the claim. Senator BYRD. I think it would be well to go into this matter with the War and Navy Departments, to see if we can get what economies we can, independently of this merger. Secretary FORRESTAL. I wrote you a letter on that, Senator, you will recollect. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hill? Senator HILL. I do not desire to detain the committee, but I have one or two questions to ask. Mr. Secretary, we were speaking about the matter of these Secretaries in the Cabinet. We spoke of the National Security Council, which is composed of these Secretaries. In addition thereto, the bill also provides for a War Council, does it not? Secretary FORRESTAL. Yes, sir. Senator HILL. That War Council is composed of these different Secretaries, of National Defense, Army, Navy, and Air Force, together with the Chiefs of Staff of the Navy, Army, and Air Corps. Is that not true? Secretary FORRESTAL. Yes, sir. Senator HILL. And you have that War Council in addition to your National Security Council. Now, the question has been raised, and very properly so, about the Marine Corps and naval aviation. As I read section 106 (a), on page 6 of the bill, both the Marine Corps and the naval aviation are, by act of Congress, by law, absolutely made a part, an integral part, of the Department of the Navy; and could not be taken out without an act of the Congress, a legislative act abolishing them, or by Congress withholding their appropriations so they could not function. Is that not true? Secretary FORRESTAL. To answer your question a little bit indirectly, if they would be abolished, they could be abolished by a President just as well as by a Secretary of National Defense. And I think you run the same human risks in either case. Senator HILL. As to the writing of this law, do you not agree that your language is just about as strong as you can make it? You make them integral parts of your Navy Department; is that not true? Secretary FORRESTAL. That is correct. Senator HILL. That is all, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, before we close, I want to say that we are glad to have the Secretary of War here also. During the course of the hearings, there will be many ideas advanced. I have one idea, which is not something that just occurred to me at this point, but something which has been with me throughout all the war years, possibly because of the need back home in the civilian economy of the country. I refer to the shortage of doctors in every community in the Nation, all during the war. I think that Congress has got to seriously think about what is going to happen in case we get into that position again. Also, even though we remain at peace, we must economize in the use of our professional men, in the medical profession especially. We were lucky in the last war, in the war just completed. We did not have a big flu epidemic as we did in World War I. And maybe we will not be so lucky next time. There has been a tremendous shortage of doctors in both branches of the service all during the war. The Federal Government even paid for their training, and still we were short. We are presently short on good medical men, all over the country. It has been suggested many times that there are too many doctors, say, in a division of the Army, too many doctors assigned to one navy yard or battleship. Maybe they did not have enough to do. Another point is that in the next war we may have to fight a different kind of war. We have heard about one bomb obliterating a whole community. We might be under the necessity of having to mobilize our doctors, civilian doctors, to take care of a catastrophe in some community. I think those are things we have to think about now. If a large community of two to four million people were suddenly pounced upon, would it be a matter for the Army and Navy, or would it be a matter for the medical men? Secretary FORRESTAL. I think the whole question of civilian defense, and of planning for it against the possibility of any future war, is a subject of paramount importance. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am very greatly concerned about it, and I know the Army and Navy are, right at the moment. Because you are having great difficulty in keeping competent medical men in the service. There are such ideas as increased compensation for medical men. And they are not far away, either. They are forthcoming, before this Congress. Secretary FORRESTAL. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have all three of the services, the Air Corps, the Army, and the Navy, study the question and be prepared to submit to this committee, during this hearing, the question of whether or not we should have a combined medical service for all three organizations, so that doctors could be assigned from that service to each of the three, as the need arises, and then be brought back when the need lessens, and be assigned elsewhere. Secretary FORRESTAL. Of course, we would probably disagree with you, Senator, on that concept, because we have a strong feeling that particularly aboard ship the doctor's functions are those of command. And again, you go to the inherent difference between the naval organ ization and that of the Army. The division is fundamentally the basis of the organization of the Army. In the Navy, the basis is a ship. It may be a "spit-kit" of 90 feet, or a battleship. The CHAIRMAN. I am glad to know of the ideas you hold on that, but nevertheless something has to be done. Secretary FORRESTAL. There is room in this field for a lot of further study. The CHAIRMAN. So therefore, I would like to have the suggestionsof the Services as to what you are going to do about it. Now, we had hoped, of course, to have a single procurement service, maybe to buy everything for all three branches. That is what Congress and the people generally were thinking about. Maybe they would have a khaki blanket with blue stripes in it, and both of you would use it, or something like that. So I think that this medical question is directly in front of us. Something has to be done now. If we create a separate system we cannot expect it to function efficiently right away, but it may take 10 years to work it out. However, I do think we have to get started. So I hope that when we get around to the different branches of the Army and Navy that are going to testify here, they will be in a position to tell this committee what they have in mind and how they are going to handle this problem. The Senate is now in session, and I feel that we should continuethese hearings as rapidly as possible, without too much delay, but there is some interference with the committee work in the Senate here tomorrow. Therefore, on Thursday morning, we will be glad to have Secretary of War Patterson here with us, and he has indicated that that will be fine for him. I wonder if I may ask: Would it be better all around if we would make it 10 o'clock in the morning? Secretary PATTERSON. Ten is all right. The CHAIRMAN. All right. We will hold the hearing at 10 o'clock, then. After that, we will try to speed up the hearings, so that we can get at many other important bills. Secretary PATTERSON. Ten o'clock, Thursday morning? The CHAIRMAN. Ten o'clock, Thursday morning, this week. (Whereupon, at 11:30 a. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m., Thursday, March 20, 1947.) NATIONAL DEFENSE ESTABLISHMENT-UNIFICATION OF THE ARMED FORCES THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 1947 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10: 15 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, in the Main Caucus Room of the Senate Office Building, Senator Chan Gurney (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Gurney (chairman), Bridges, Morse, Baldwin, Russell, Byrd, Hill, and Maybank. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. I may say that we have had word from some of the Senators to the committee that they are ill, and they will probably be here for the Tuesday meeting. We are sorry that Senator Robertson, Senator Tydings, and Senator Saltonstall cannot be here. This is the second day of the hearings. The first day we were glad to have the Secretary of the Navy with us, and this morning we will welcome the Secretary of War. Before starting with the statement of the Secretary of War, I would like to put in the record the two letters received from the Secretary of the Navy in response to questions put at the Tuesday hearing. The first is a three-page letter in response to request made by Senator Byrd. This letter is in support of a statement made by the Secretary of the Navy to the committee, that consideration has been given to adequate safeguards for morale and autonomy of the Navy and its components. We have also received a letter in response to questions put by Senator Tydings, as to cabinet attendance during wartime : THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, Hon. CHAN GURNEY, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR GURNEY: This letter, like my earlier letter to you on the subject of attendance at Cabinet meetings, is written in response to requests made by members of your committee during Tuesday's hearings on S. 758. You will recall that Senator Byrd asked me to submit a memorandum that would point out the provisions of S. 758 which support my statement that the bill which your committee is now considering adequately safeguards "the morale and autonomy of the Navy and its components, including particularly the Fleet Marine Forces and naval aviation." The provisions on which I base this statement are to be found explicitly in sections 102 (a), 103, 106 (a), 107 (b), and 201 (a)—and are to be found implicitly throughout all the provisions that go to make up the bill in its entirety. Moreover, my statement is borne out by the many letters and other documents which President Truman, Secretary Patterson, I myself, and repre |