it would be very unfortunate if we cannot agree as to what the bill does and what the language of the bill specifically does, what it is designed to do.

Do you follow me on that?

Senator LODGE. I think you want to be as specific as possible.

Senator MCCARTHY. I think it is highly inexcusable if we do differ. I think we should not differ as to what the language of the bill provides.

Senator LODGE. Unless you are writing a tax bill or something that has got numbers in it, you cannot be entirely specific about something in the future which is going to happen according to the circumstances, according to the personalities of the people who are going to run it.

Senator MCCARTHY. That is the point. Under the indefinite language contained in the bill, some of the heads of bureaus may have tremendous power which they can obtain by reaching out slowly, and some of us are disturbed about what powers the super-Secretary may have, not a year from now, but 5 years from now, 15 years from now, or 20 years from now.

Frankly, I am much concerned about you and I having at least a meeting of the minds as to what the bill does do so that when we are on the floor of the Senate, we will not have any dispute as to what the language of the bill contains.

Senator SALTONSTALL. This might be the place, subject to the approval of the chairman, to say to Senator McCarthy that the committee has in mind the drafting of a policy that would make more clear and more definite the exact interpretation of this bill in the minds of the committee before it presents it to the floor of the Senate.

That thought was suggested by Senator Tydings and has appealed to, I think, all the committee members.

The CHAIRMAN. I think right at this point in the record, it would be well to have the preliminary draft of the suggestions that were made to the committee yesterday.

So, at this point in the record, those suggestions will be printed.

SUGGESTIONS PREPARED AT REQUEST OF ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

DECLARATION OF POLICY

SEC. 2. In enacting, this legislation, it is the intent of Congress to provide a comprehensive program for the future security of the United States; to provide for the establishment of integrated policies and procedures for the departments, agencies, and functions of the Government relating to the national security; to provide three military departments for the operation and administration of the land, naval, and air forces, with their assigned combat and service components; to provide for their authoritative coordination and unified direction under civilian control; to provide for the effective startegic direction of the armed forces and for their operation under unified control and for their integration into an efficient team of land, naval, and air forces.

1. Change section 106 (a) (lines 6 to 15, inclusive, page 6, S. 758) to read as follows:

"SEC. 106. (a) The term 'Department of the Navy' as used in this Act shall be construed to mean the Department of the Navy at the seat of the Government; the entire operating forces of the United States Navy (including naval aviation); the Headquarters, United States Marine Corps, and the entire operating forces of the United States Marine Corps as provided for in existing law; the Reserve components of such forces; all field activities of the Department of the Navy; and the United States Coast Guard when operating as part of the Navy pursuant to law."

2. Change first sentence of section 112 (lines 20 to 24, inclusive, p. 13, S. 758) to read as follows:

"SEC. 112. There shall be, under the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Joint Staff to consist of not to exceed 100 officers and to be composed of approximately equal numbers of officers of the three armed Services."

3. Change section 202 (b) (lines 18 to 24, inclusive, p. 20, and lines 1 and 2, p. 21, S. 758) to read as follows:

"(b) Any commissioned officers of the armed services may be appointed to the office of Director; and his appointment to, acceptance of, and service in, such office shall in no way affect any status, office, rank, or grade he may occupy or hold in the armed services, or any emolument, perquisite, right, privilege, or benefit incident to or arising out of any such status, office, rank, or grade."

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wilson?

Senator WILSON. No question.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Saltonstall?

Senator SALTONSTALL. No further questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hill?

Senator HILL. No further questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Lodge.

We are appreciative of the information you have given us.

The committee now will hear from Mr. John P. Bracken, president of the Reserve Officers of the Naval Services.

You may proceed in your own way, Mr. Bracken.

STATEMENT OF JOHN P. BRACKEN, PRESIDENT OF THE RESERVE OFFICERS OF THE NAVAL SERVICES, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. BRACKEN. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the committee, I am speaking to you as the representative of the Reserve Officers of the Naval Services-better known, perhaps, as RONS—an organization with a membership of over 36,000 Reserve officers of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. The Reserve officers, the greater part of whom have now resumed their places in civil life in their home community, are vitally interested in the proposed reorganization of the armed forces. Most of them left positions of standing in their chosen profession or occupation to serve in the naval services for periods ranging from two to six or more years. Their number provided 350,000 officers to the naval services in World War II. They were active in every function of that tremendous wartime organization. While in the service, they saw many things done in a way which shocked their civilian concepts of the businesslike way of doing things. They experienced, in fact participated in, what were apparently gross duplications of effort by the Army and the Navy-in procurement, in research, in services. They condemned this then, and condemn it still. On the other hand, they, as officers, faced many situations where civilian experience gave no answer to the problem, where they were forced to recognize that the businesslike way, the civilian way of approaching the problem, just wouldn't work.

No group in the country today has a better grasp, a more thorough understanding, a more intelligent approach to the underlying causes which impel a reorganization of our armed forces than the Reserve. Perhaps no group can more dispassionately weigh the pros and cons of reorganization than such a one. Yet to what extent has this vast reservoir of real experience been made available to this committee? How much of the testimony before this committee has come from the

10 percent who are still in the service rather than the 90 percent who have returned to civilian life, but who are still subject to recall in any emergency?

The membership of RONS has weighed the pros and cons of the bill now before this committee and by action of delegates to its national convention has overwhelmingly voiced its opposition to it.

I do not believe that the membership of this organization is opposed to comprehensive and intelligent unification legislation. They are opposed to this bill because it is not that; because on its face it will increase rather than decrease the cost of our Military Establishment; because its full implications are obscured by its intentional vagueness; because it reposes too great a power, places too much emphasis, upon the authority of one man; because it seeks to replace an organization which successfully won the war with something that can best be called a pig in a poke.

As taxpayers, we are keenly interested in reduction of expenditures for the Military Establishment. However, nowhere within the four corners of the bill now before your committee is there even the slightest indication that this so-called merger will result in any saving to us in tax money. Instead of two departmental heads with their staffs, we have a plan proposing three. In addition, we have superimposed upon the Military Establishment as then constituted a Secretary of National Defense with four special assistants at $12,000 each with a staff costing more thousands.

The CHAIRMAN. May I interrupt you right there, Mr. Bracken? We have three general staffs now, as you know. We do not have a Secretary of Air, but in all other ways the Air Corps is set up as a separate institution under Executive order.

Mr. BRACKEN. Yes, sir; I appreciate that.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. BRACKEN. Where are the savings which those who believe in a true unification desire? The bill which you are asked to enact does not in any word, phrase, or sentence direct the Executive to effect the savings which can and must be made. Will these savings be brought about by Executive order? What assurance does the Congress have that its wishes in the matter of unification will be carried out by the Executive or by this super-Chief of National Defense? None whatsoever unless its wishes and intentions become law and they are now law unless they are included succinctly and unmistakably in the four corners of the legislation as it passes the Congress.

We in RONS are against this particular merger bill because we believe that its full implications have not even yet become evident. We want to know why it must be couched in language so general that it can mean all things to all men. We want to know whether the present disagreement on its implementation, made so obvious for example by the testimony of the medical heads of the various services, does not make the surface unanimity of its support somewhat subject to question. Its vagueness obscures, possibly deliberately, many questions which we feel must be answered legislatively and not by Executive order. We want to know whether the Army will continue to maintain its fleet of transport and cargo vessels or whether there would not be greater savings by having them pass under naval administration; we want to know how this merger bill will affect the Coast Guard which 60266-47-pt. 3- -3

did such a magnificent job in the war as a component of the Navy; will it be merged too, will its Reserve be trained under Navy supervision or Treasury supervision. We want to know if the Marine Corps is to be relegated to the task of land only in areas where it is hope to establish naval bases and not on an island that is to be used exclusively as an air field. The glorious chapter written at Iwo Jima by the lads of the Marine Corps, many of whom were too young to be taken into the Army, would never have been written had this bill been law. Will the marines continue to be the specialists of the armed forces in amphibious invasion? We want to know what is going to happen to naval land-based aviation, to the blimps, the whole lighter-than-air program which proved its value in antisubmarine warfare? Is it a part of this vague plan eventually to include the Veterans' Administration as a part of this proposed military establishment? What about longrange naval air reconnaissance over ocean areas? Will the Army continue to supervise, survey and chart the navigable waters surrounding the country, the Great Lakes, and the rivers, while the Navy charts the seas; is not this too a duplication of services; is this too to be merged? And what about procurement; what about hospitals, hospital ships and medical services? What about administration of military justice?

Senator SALTONSTALL. Would you mind being interrupted for just

one moment?

Mr. BRACKEN. No, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. I am afraid I have got to leave. I would like to ask one question, Mr. Bracken. I say this without any disrespect.

What group in the Naval Reserve Officers considered this and gave you the authority to make this statement? Was it through the executive committee or a postal-card poll?

Mr. BRACKEN. There was a national convention of delegates from all chapters of RONS meeting in St. Louis about 3 weeks ago, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. At that convention, did you hear, for instance, Admiral Sherman and General Norstad, who drew up the plan; or who appeared before you to discuss it?

Mr. BRACKEN. At that convention, the resolutions committee reported out to the floor its approval of the merger bill.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Its approval.

Mr. BRACKEN. The bill was then debated on the floor of the convention, and the vote was overwhelmingly in opposition to the merger bill.

Throughout the life of RONS, which is a very young organization right now, sir, the merger question, of course, has been simmering and seething.

At one time, a poll was taken of the entire membership. That was when there were three separate plans provided for merger. At that time the membership, I believe, approved the plan which was the Navy plan at that time, but, of course, is not this plan.

Senator SALTONSTALL. The so-called Eberstadt plan.

Mr. BRACKEN. Yes.

From time to time the various chapters have listened to various speakers. For example, my old chapter in Philadelphia did have Admiral Sherman appear before it to discuss the merger plan.

Those chapters, represented by their delegates, are the ones that subsequently decided we would not support the merger bill.

Senator SALTONSTALL. You have used the word "merger" all through here, whereas the regular officers, for instance, and the Secretaries who came in here, like Mr. Patterson, Mr. Forrestal, and others, have distinctly said that in their opinion this was not a merger but a unification of forces. None of them was in favor of a merger, but they considered this a unification.

You have been using the word "merger" right through here. Do you believe this is a merger?

Mr. BRACKEN. I believe it is an attempt at unification, sir. I believe the implication of it has not yet become apparent. It may be a merger, definitely. I personally favor a unification, but I do not favor a unification such as appears under this bill, the type of unification, the type of unification that this bill proposes.

I think as the Secretary said when he appeared before the committee, there are a lot of words used in here. For example, "over-all authority" were words of art. They were not such words as should go into the bill.

In my comments here, if I may say so, I have used the words "unification" or "merger" interchangeably.

Senator SALTON STALL. I say this with no disrespect to you at all, because I have been to a great many conventions and meetings of various kinds. What you are doing as president of the Reserve Officers Association now is coming before us as their president to carry out the terms of a resolution adopted at a convention?

Mr. BRACKEN. Yes, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. And that resolution was adopted after a resolution to the contrary had been brought in by the resolutions committee?

Mr. BRACKEN. That is right; yes, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. So that it is fair to say, again with no disrespect to you, that it was brought out, so to speak, and the resolution was adopted in the way it was by an announced appeal on the floor rather than by a considered appeal in a committee.

Mr. BRACKEN. Well, the Senator is aware, having attended many conventions, as he undoubtedly has

Senator SALTONSTALL. Political and American Legion both.

Mr. BRACKEN. Quite frequently the resolutions committee meets at times when it is impossible for our members to attend. This committee met at a time when three of the key personnel of that committee were not present. When they asked for an opportunity to be heard in committee hearing, they decided the rules of the committee would not permit it and it would have to be brought to the floor as it was recommended.

I want in all sincerity to give you the whole picture as the Senator has asked for it. That is the picture. That is why the bill did come out to the floor in the form it did. The committee met, naturally, over a week end; and did not have the time to redeliberate and reconsider again. That is the background of why the resolution came out in that form.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you.
Mr. BRACKEN. Yes, sir.