Are you willing to support inclusion in the bill of the basic functions of naval aviation as enunciated by you?

Admiral SHERMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator BYRD. Are you then willing to incorporate the basic functions of the Marine Corps?

Admiral SHERMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. By the same token, Admiral, if you start with the naval aviation and the Marine Corps, then necessarily you must put all of the wording, let us say, of the functions of all branches of the Armed Forces into it.

Admiral SHERMAN. That is correct, sir.

And I would like to come back to the point that if it is attempted to do that too extensively and too exactly, it could have a very undesirable effect for the future.

Senator BYRD. But you do not consider your definition of the basic functions of naval. aviation, or the Marine Corps to be too extensive. You regard that as a minimum, do you not?

Admiral SHERMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator BYRD. And I think there is a clear difference as to naval aviation, because the effort may be made for the Air Force to take over naval aviation. And I have said before and repeat now, that I do not intend to vote for any bill that will not protect naval aviation; likewise, that will not protect the Marine Corps.

I think General Eisenhower, as I recall it, said something about the fact that it was his thought that the Marine Corps should be part of the landing force, or part of the Army; I have forgotten his exact language. But I regard the Marine Corps as absolutely essential in case of war, as I regard naval aviation as being absolutely essential to the Navy.

And you, as a naval officer, I know, will agree with me on that.

I am not going to depend upon any Executive order to outline those basic functions. I agree that we cannot go into detail, necessarily, about the other functions of the Navy or the other functions of the Army. But I do think those two basic functions should be incorporated into this bill, and I wanted to get your opinion as to whether you saw any objection to that.

Admiral SHERMAN. I agree with General Eisenhower's statement when he was testifying: That there would be no objection to putting in the basic functions of the services.

Senator BYRD. But is it not true that General Eisenhower said something else, at some other time, in regard to the Marine Corps, as to changing the present functions of the Marine Corps. Is that not correct?

Admiral SHERMAN. Well, General Eisenhower's concept of the status and purpose of the Marine Corps was not the same as mine, during one period.

Senator BYRD. That was one thing I wanted to clear up. As far as I am concerned, I would like to see that in the bill.

Senator TYDINGS. Admiral, I do not want to revert to another subject, and maybe you would prefer to bring it up in the regular course: But looking at this proposed chart (See chart, facing p. 153) of the way that the unification will be carried out under the bill, when you get down to the Central Intelligence Agency, which certainly is one

60266-47-pt. 1-12

of the most important of all of the functions set forth in the bill, I notice that it reports directly to the President and does not seem to have any line running to the War Department, or the Navy Department, or to the Secretary for Air. And I was wondering if that rather excluded position, you might say, was a wholesome thing.

It seems, to me that that Central Intelligence Agency ought to have more direct contact with the Army and the Navy and the Air Force; and as I see it on the chart here, it is pretty well set aside and goes only to the President. What is the reason for that?

Admiral SHERMAN. Well, sir, this diagram shows the primary control of the Central Intelligence Agency through the National Security Council which, of course, is responsible to the President. But, of course, the Central Intelligence Agency, by its detailed directive, takes information in from the military services and also supplies them with information.

In other words, it is a staff agency and controlled through the National Security Council, which is supported by the military services, and, in turn, supports them.

Senator TYDINGS. It seems to me that of course they would diffuse such information as a matter of orderly procedure to the Army, Navy, and Air Force, as they collected the information and as they deemed it pertinent. But I would feel a little more secure about it if there were a line running from that agency to the War Department, the Navy Department, and the Air Force, rather than have it go up through the President and back again. Because the President is a rather busy man, and while he has control over it, one of its functions, it seems to me, ought to be to have a closer tie-in with the three services than the chart indicates.

Admiral SHERMAN. Well, sir, that is a defect in the diagram. Actually, the Security Council, placed directly over it, has members of the three departments, the Secretary of National Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, who collaborates very closely with Military and Naval Intelligence, and there are a good many other cross-relationships.

Senator TYDINGS. I realize that, but even so, I think intelligence is about as important a part of running a war as there is, as I know you will agree. And it is rather set off there by itself, and is only under the President; which is all right for general direction purposes, but I do not feel satisfied in having it over there without some lines running to the War Department, the Navy Department, and the Air Force, even though that might follow and they might do it anyhow. Admiral SHERMAN. Well, in a further development of this chart, we might show a line of collaboration and service, and so on, extending from the Central Intelligence Agency to the three departments, and to these others.

Senator TYDINGS. To the Joint Chiefs of Staff, anyway.

Admiral SHERMAN. They serve the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as a matter of fact. We have a Central Intelligence in the Policy Council of the Research and Development Board at the present time.

Senator TYDINGS. If you ever do another chart, will you do me the favor of connecting that up with those three Departments and with the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Because it looks like it is set up in that way to advise the President, more than to advise the services and the Joint

Chiefs of Staff; which, of course, is not the intention of it at all, in my opinion.

Admiral SHERMAN. We tried, in this particular chart, to show only the primary line of control, with the exception of the one dotted line from the President to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is there for constitutional reasons.

Senator TYDINGS. Well, I hope that my comments will cause us to find some way that we can make sure that someone will offer an amendment from the War Department or the Navy Department that the Intelligence Agency is to have direct tie-in with the Joint Chiefs and the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Otherwise, we may have another Pearl Harbor controversy, with the question arising, "Who got the information?" And the reply, "It was not transmitted."

That is one thing that should not happen again.

And as this is set up, it would lend the layman the opinion that it was more or less detached, rather than an integral part of the three services. Admiral SHERMAN. I can assure you, sir, that the Central Intelligence-Navy is now serving us very effectively.

Senator BYRD. I see, Admiral, that in the section relating to the Central Intelligence Agency on page 20, you provide that—

any commissioned officer of the United States Army, the United States Navy, or the United States Air Force may be appointed to the office of Director.

Is it the intent that he shall be a military man?

Admiral SHERMAN. That is not the intent of that language, sir, and I do not think this bill does require that. Section 202 (b) is permissive. Section 202 (a) provides that there be a director; 202 (b), although it is very lengthy, provides that a commissioned officer may be appointed to that office. And then there is considerable language which safeguards his position in the military service in that event. Senator BYRD. Do you construe from that that a civilian could be appointed?

Admiral SHERMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator BYRD. Would it not be better to make that clear? The way it is worded is certainly persuasive, if not definitely controlling.

I

Admiral SHERMAN. Since this is not the first time it has come up, think that the language of the bill would be improved if, in 202 (a), where it says, with reference to the director, "to be appointed by the President," there were added such a phrase as "from military or civilian life," or vice versa. I think that would clarify it.

Senator TYDINGS. Admiral, that is an awfully short bit of explanation, under the caption "Central Intelligence Agency," the way it is set up here, separately, to be appointed by the President, and superseding the services now run by the Army and the Navy, I respectfully submit to you and to General Norstad that it might be wise to put an amendment in there, in order to make certain that the thing is understood; that this Central Intelligence Agency shall service the three Departments and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and have some tie-in with the three Departments, rather than to leave it hanging up there on a limb all off to itself. I do not think that would change anything materially, but it would clarify it, and make it plain that we are setting up something for the purposes for which we conceive it to be set up.

Admiral SHERMAN. Well, sir, I would like to make a comment on the language as to the Central Intelligence Agency.

At one time in the drafting we considered completely covering the Central Intelligence Agency in the manner that it should be covered by law.

Senator TYDINGS. Admiral, my point in simply this: That under the wording as to the Central Intelligence Agency which begins on page 20 and ends at the top of page 22, it deals more or less with consolidation and not with the duties that devolve upon that office.

It seems to me there is a void in the bill there that ought to be eliminated.

Admiral SHERMAN. Well, we considered the matter of trying to cover the Central Intelligence Agency adequately, and we found that that matter, in itself, was going to be a matter of legislation of considerable scope and importance.

Senator TYDINGS. A separate bill?

Admiral SHERMAN. A separate bill. And after consultation with General Vandenberg, we felt it was better in this legislation only to show the relationship of the Central Intelligence Agency to the National Security Council, and then leave to separate legislation the task of a full and thorough development of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Senator TYDINGS. Well, now, for the record, is it safe for this committee to assume that during this session it is likely that a bill will come along dealing with the Central Intelligence Agency in the particulars that we have had under discussion?

Admiral SHERMAN. It is my understanding that that will take place. The CHAIRMAN. How about that, General Vandenberg?

General VANDENBERG (Lt. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Chief, Central Intelligence Agency). The enabling act is prepared, but we do not want to submit that until we have reason for it.

Senator SALTONSTALL. To carry out that point, look at subparagraph (c), sections (1) and (2). The bill does talk about functions there. It does take up certain functions that are now in existence and transfers them to this agency.

If you are going to take up any functions, let me ask you, to follow up your question, should you not take up all the functions, or leave out that subsection (c) in some way?

Senator TYDINGS. What happens under the bill, it seems to me, is that the consolidation itself takes place, but the services which are to be performed, and by whom they are to be performed, and for whom they are to be performed, are not very clearly set out. And I imagine it would be better in a separate bill. But I did not know the separate bill was coming, and in looking over the bill, it seemed to me to deal very shortly with a very important operation.

So your question and mine probably both would be answered in the new bill that is coming along.

Senator SALTONSTALL. The only point, to try to carry out what you said: It does mention some functions here, but does not mention all the functions.

Senator TYDINGS. And it deals with consolidation of functions. Senator SALTONSTALL. It takes over certain functions not now in existence, if you will read subparagraph (c) there.

Senator TYDINGS. That is what I mean.

Admiral SHERMAN. The intent of this language was merely to transfer the duties of the existing intelligence agency to the Se

curity Council, and, next, to move the functions of the intelligence group as it is now constituted, by a letter directive of the President, over to the authority.

I would suggest that it might be beneficial to take the existing letter directive under which the Central Illigence Agency is functioning now, and insert it in the record. Because that letter will clarify this whole matter.

The CHAIRMAN. At the time the committee hears General Vandenberg, I am sure the General will bring with him that letter and we will have that in at the start of those hearings.

Senator ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question. In connection with making this more definite and certain, I feel that this should be done in this bill:

I think the question of Naval Aviation should be set forth much more clearly and should be a congressional decision, making it a matter for the Congress to decide, or to determine in this bill, what are the functions of the various three arms, if you wish to call them that, of the service.

There is a very great difference of opinion among the Navy men and among the Air Force men, particularly, and among the Army also, as to the aviation points of this bill; as to how much aviation will actually go to Navy; and as to the status of the Marine Corps. But I think the Congress should set that up very clearly in this bill.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, we are under a very great handicap here.

Practically every witness that we have had before us and that, as far as I can see, we will have, is in favor of this bill.

The very fact that the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy, and the President have more or less agreed to this bill, agreed to sponsor this bill, really is a notification to every man in the armed services that that is the department of the various armed services, and there must be no statements or words issued against it; and I feel that the Navy has carried that out to the letter.

I am sorry that I cannot say the same for the Air Force.

I would like to read into the record at this time, from the Washington Post of Thursday, March 20, 1947, a statement by a columnist, headed "End of the Marines." [Reading:]

Interesting light on the future of the Marine Corps was given by Brig. Gen. Frank Armstrong in an off-the-record talk before a group of naval officers at a dinner tendered by Norfolk, Va., businessmen.

General Armstrong, who is part Indian, and who had a fine record in training B-29 crews, really let his hair down regarding the future role of the Army Air Forces and the Marines, as follows:

"You gentlemen had better understand that the Army Air Force is tired of being a subordinate outfit, and is no longer going to be a subordinate outfit. It was a predominant force during the war. It is going to be a predominant force during the peace, and you might as well make up your minds, whether you like it or not that we do not care whether you like it or not: The Army Air Force is going to run the show. You, the Navy, are not going to have anything but a couple of carriers which are ineffective anyway, and they will probably be sunk in the first battle.

"Now, as for the Marines, you know what the Marines are. They are a small, fouled-up army talking navy lingo. We are going to put those Marines in the Regular Army and make efficient soldiers out of them. The Navy is going to send up by only supplying the requirements of the Army, Air, and Ground Forces too. The Army is going to take over Norfolk. We are here