Senator BYRD. That authority was given you to permit you to do a good job, which you accomplished.

Admiral HALSEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hill?
Senator HILL. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator McCarthy?

Senator MCCARTHY. I have just one question. The last time I saw you, Admiral, was on Bougainville, when you came up there to Com AirSols and made a few predictions, which all came true.

Admiral, as I listen to you, I gather you feel the two important spots, if you need unification, would be, one, unification in procurement and all down the line, your entire logistics and so forth, at least, more complete collaboration than we had during the last war in supply; am I right?

Admiral HALSEY. Yes, sir. That is within the articles that will come to all services. The logistics that are peculiar to one service should still be kept under the control of that service.

Senator MCCARTHY. You feel unification of command in forward areas is tremendously important, but that we had that during the past war, and that we can obtain it under the law as it presently is; am I right?

Admiral HALSEY. That is correct, sir.

Senator MCCARTHY. You spoke of the importance of the Navy controlling its own land-based aircraft. I assume you do not refer merely to pilot-controlled aircraft, but also to guided missles, robot planes, and rockets?

Admiral HALSEY. I have here a proposed amendment that was written by Vice Adm. Forrest Sherman to cover that very point. If I may be permitted, I will read it. I subscribe to it. I think a great many other officers in the Navy subscribe to it, although I do not know that for a fact.

It is my own action I am taking.

The Department of the Navy shall design, develop, test, and procure such aircraft, missles, and other weapons as the Secretary of the Navy may determine that it requires for the combat efficiency of the Naval Operating Forces; provide and train naval personnel for the operation of aircraft, missles, and other naval weapons; operate aircraft, missles, and other weapons from ships; and shall operate from shore bases for naval purposes, including naval reconnaissance, antisubmarine warfare, protection of shipping, transportation, utility, and training.

Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask this further question: If, during the past war, you did not have control over your land-based aircraft, do you think you could have conducted the successful operations which you did? Admiral HALSEY. I am sure that I could not have.

Senator MCCARTHY. Would you have even attempted to have made many of those operations if you did not have control of your landbased aircraft?

Admiral HALSEY. I do not know what I would have done, but I would have hated to try it; and I would have probably sworn a great deal.

Senator MCCARTHY. I have just one more question.

Admiral, at a time that this so-called agreement was made between the Army and Navy, since then, there has been considerable propa

ganda and publicity, as we know it, to lead the American people to think that there is complete unanimity of agreement between the Army and Navy topside, agreeing heartily that there is a wise measure.

Let me ask you this: Do you think that surface unanimity extends down through your Navy or Army?

Admiral HALSEY. I was talking to my son this morning, who has spent 4 years in the Navy as a lieutenant paymaster in Naval Aviation, principally, and he brought up that fact. He had talked to lot of youngsters in the Navy, and they did not understand the attitude of the higher-ups.

I will give you that for what it is worth.

Senator MCCARTHY. Can I go a step further and say if you were to contact men in all branches of the services, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, the men who did the actual fighting and the actual planning of the war, men such as yourself and the junior officers, that you would find almost unlimited opposition to what they think is some badly conceived legislation?

Admiral HALSEY. I could not give you an answer on that, sir; but I suggest you get them here and try and find out.

Senator MCCARTHY. Thank you. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lodge?

Senator LODGE. No questions.

Senator SALTONSTALL. May I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator SALTONSTALL. You answered Senator Byrd by saying, Admiral, that you believe these missions should be written into the act rather than making clear in the preamble the congressional interpretation of this act.

The argument that has been made to us here constantly about writing the missions into the act rather than in an Executive order is that it freezes our national security on the pattern of the past war; that we have always frozen our security in this country, and perhaps in other nations, on past wars, rather than looking forward to the future wars; and that the argument against writing these missions into the present act is to prevent that in the future.

You have no fear of that?

Admiral HALSEY. No, sir. If you find that it does not work this way, you can always pass another bill to write them out of the thing; but if you do not write it in, then, as I say, there is always a possibility that one service will swallow the other.

Senator SALTONSTALL. You trust Congress to act sufficiently speedily so that there would be no danger to national security? Admiral Halsey. Yes, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Robertson?

Senator ROBERTSON. I have no further questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, you have watched the workings of such boards as the War Production Board, the Material Supply Boards, different joint boards, the Munitions Board, and other agencies of government needed in the war effort, civilian agencies, so to speak, to see that the armed forces were supplied with materials, manpower, and everything.

So, do you believe there is any necessity of setting up those boards by legislative action? I am thinking, too, of the Research and Development Board, and making those Boards a permanent part of the Security Establishment.

Admiral HALSEY. May I ask a question before I answer that?
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Admiral HALSEY. Six months after the state of war ceases to exist, will these various agencies go out of existence?

The CHAIRMAN. I believe that is correct. I believe they are now working under Executive order.

Admiral HALSEY. Yes, sir; I should say it was necessary to write. them in.

The CHAIRMAN. How do you feel about the necessity for establishing an autonomous Air Force, because that also goes out of being as soon as these war powers are done away with?

Admiral HALSEY. It is really none of my business, but beyond a strategic Air Force for distance bombing I can see no excuse for an autonomous Air Force. I am not so sure that that is necessary. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?

Senator LODGE. Mr. Chairman, I have just one question that occurred to me from what my colleague said and the question you put.

Let me say, first of all, it is a pleasure to see Admiral Halsey again. I have seen him under many interesting circumstances.

You say, Admiral, that unification is necessary in the forward areas. I just wonder if it is conceivable in the war of the future that everything may be a forward area, and that in the war of the future one of the first things that would happen would be to knock out the capital, for instance, and knock out all your principal sources of supply and communication. That would mean we would have to regard really everything as a forward area. Is that not conceivable?

Admiral HALSEY. You can look forward maybe to see something like that happen.

Senator LODGE. Then, if you are going to deal with a chaos like that, you are going to have to have plans well ahead, are you not? Admiral HALSEY. Yes; I would say so.

Senator ROBERTSON. Do you feel the National Security Council would be the body to start preparing for wartime?

Admiral HALSEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Admiral, for accepting the committee's invitation.

We were glad to have you with us. Thank you very much.
Admiral HALSEY. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We now have with us the chairman of the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives, Congressman Andrews, of New York.

We will be glad to hear from you if you will sit over by Senator Hill. You may proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER G. ANDREWS, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, if I may, I should like to proceed with my statement in order, and I would be glad to answer such questions as I am able to.

In the first place, I might say that I have been interested in this subject for 4 or 5 or 6 years-at least since the inception of the idea from the time of the introduction of the original bill in the Senate, which I believe was 2 years ago-and with the various situations that have developed since that time.

I have with me today an analysis of the bill as it now stands. I have an analysis of what has happened in the past, starting with the bill on the items on which the Army and Navy agree; the items upon which the Army and Navy disagree; the President's views on the resulting bill; those items in the House bill which were not as represented by the joint letter-which were not previously discussed. I assume I have 15 or 20 minutes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Right.

Mr. ANDREWS. I feel greatly privileged to be here and I am glad I came here late in the hearing, because it has given me the benefit of 4 months' experience in the formation of the House Armed Services Committee, which consists of 33 Members and 3 Delegates.

I might add also that I concurred with the sentiments in the House among the leadership that the bill should go to the Expenditures Committee rather than the Armed Services Committee.

I felt at the time and I feel at this point that was the wise thing to do because it gave the Armed Services Committee the chance to get together and to function properly.

As you know, there was great opposition to the formation of the committee in the House with a large House Naval Affairs Committee and a comparatively large Military Committee.

The setting up of housekeeping in this connection was not an easy operation.

In one sense, I think it is too bad that you gentlemen on this committee have not had the legislative experience which you possibly could have had had you not had the merger bill before you; because it has been my experience that with each proposal that comes from the Navy or the War Department-that is, during the last few months, we on the Armed Services Committee of the House have gained a great deal of background which, as I say, leads directly to the proposed merger.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you say "merger" or do you mean"unification?"

Mr. ANDREWS. I said "merger" because that is the common slang expression tied to the proposition.

My own word for what I hope will take place is "integration"coordinated integration.

Senator MCCARTHY. Have you explored the possibilities of the word "diversification?"

Mr. ANDREWS. We will forget words for the moment.

I merely want to remind you of some of the things that have led me to the beliefs I hold.

In the first place, it started with the passage of the so-called procurement bill by our committee which had to do with the method of purchasing. We were able, after long hearings and many conferences, to persuade the Army and Navy to agree upon identical provisions for the method of procurement only.

You have that bill over here. I do not believe you have done much with it yet, but it was a long operation and it was our first experience in leading horses to the same trough.

I was amazed during the course of those hearings and the developments to find that Mr. Vinson, our good friend, the former chairman of the Naval Affairs Committee, was so impressed with the proposition that he introduced a bill for a separate coordinated purchasing agency for all the services-something I suppose a year ago he would have opposed.

We passed from a method of procurement and a proposed agency bill which rests in our committee pending the outcome of this bill, to a bill for Army and Navy nurses, which we provided for identically; since which time we have developed a medical services bill by unanimity of opinion between the services. It is about ready to report. We are now considering a doctors' bonus bill for both services. We have before us, and are in the midst of long deliberation the Army promotion bill and the Navy promotion bill, which we are attempting to treat similarly. It is significant to know that while the percentages in the promotion bill do not reveal figures, the current promotion bills provide for six Army four-star generals, six Air Force four-star generals, and eight Navy four-star admirals.

Without going into the details of that, the bill would provide for 142 two-star Army generals and 253 Navy two-star admirals, that difference being largely due to the fact the Navy has not been in peacetime utilizing the rank of commodore.

In addition to the promotion bill, we have various matters of conflict on retirement as between the Army and Navy. We are revising and have about completed the revision of Army court-martial procedure which is one of the most needed things in all the armed services and naval court martial, and we expect to be able to bring. both services in line on court martial-not exactly the same, but approaching unanimity of thought on those two subjects.

We formed as a subcommittee a committee called posts and stations. Under resolution of the House, disposals of all air stations, Navy posts, navy yards, all installations in the Army and Navy are referred to that subcommittee for approval.

I mention these things merely to give you some idea of the avenues of approach and thought we have had the benefit of, and I have had personally the benefit of, in coming to certain conclusions about the proposed bill before you here today.

My first reaction to the President's letter-proposal and the bill which is before us was that it was unsatisfactory. I did not figure it went far enough. I did not think it accomplished the purposes which I at that time had in mind.

I have changed my mind slightly, as I will reveal to you briefly. To start with and I will finish this way-I do believe in the passage of this bill. I believe that coordinated integration is absolutely necessary for the good of all the armed services and for the future good of this country.

It is essential to meet any future wartime needs both outside of the country, as Admiral Halsey was testifying, and within this country in the administration in wartime.