ization and that of the Army. The division is fundamentally the basisof 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 to-morrow. 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 sentatives of the three of us, have already laid before your committee-documents, for example, such as the joint letter which Secretary Patterson and I sent to the President under date of January 16, 1947, and which the President transmitted to Congress under date of January 18. The specific language which bears most directly on this matter is found in section 102 (a), and reads as follows: * * ** shall exercise direction, * * "The Secretary of National Defense authority, and control over such departments * Provided, That the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force, under the direction of the Secretary of National Defense, shall be administered as individual units by their respective Secretaries: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall prevent the Secretary of any such department from presenting to the President, after first so informing the Secretary of National Defense, any report or recommendation relating to his department which he may deem necesary." I think that the autonomy of the Navy is safeguarded in two ways by the language I have just quoted. In the first place, the Navy Department is to be administered as an individual unit by its own Secretary. In the second place, the Secretary of the Navy, with regard to any matter “which he may deem necessary," has the right of direct access to the President. Senator Byrd questioned whether the first of these two safeguards has any meaning, in view of the fact that the Navy Department, even though administered as an individual unit, is nevertheless "under the direction of the Secretary of National Defense." I believe that some light can be shed on this aspect of the matter by a consideration of the joint letter which Secretary Patterson and I sent to the President on January 16. The bill before you represents, as you know, the recasting in statutory form of the agreements contained in the letter of January 16. In that letter, Secretary Patterson and I emphasized that each Department "shall be under a Secretary and, under the over-all direction of the Secretary of National Defense, shall be administered as an individual unit." This is substantially the same language that now appears in section 102 (a)-though the language of 102 (a), as I have already mentioned, represents a recasting of this language in statutory form. Thus, the vital word "over-all," which Secretary Patterson and I used in our letter to describe the type of direction the Secretary of National Defense would be expected to exercise, does not appear in the statute, for the very good reason that it is not what the lawyers call "a word of art." In layman's language, however, “over-all direction" continues to be the most apt description of the concept contained in the bill before you. I will review briefly the other sections of the bill which I have mentioned as bearing explicitly on this matter. They are: Section 103-which, by prohibiting the Secretary of National Defense from establishing a military staff, goes a long way toward assuring the morale and autonomy of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Section 166 (a)-which, by defining the Navy as including "the entire operating forces of the United States Navy (including naval aviation) and the United States Marine Corps", meets many objections that were raised when earlier bills on the subject were under discussion. (In this connection, I should also like to point out that the proposed Executive order which Secretary Patterson and I attached to our letter of January 16 goes into considerable detail on the functions of naval aviation and the Marine Corps.) Section 107 (b)--which, by amending section 158 of the Revised Statutes to include the Department of the Air Force, sets forth what are the executive departments of the Government. The Air Force, along with the Army and Navy Departments, are stated to be Departments, and the statutory provisions for their administration as Departments are preserved. This bill, therefore, retains the legislative existence of the Departments, differing in this major respect from the Thomas bill, S. 888. S. 888, in section 108, abolishes the two existing Departments and provides that the functions, powers and duties of the various offices of those Departments shall be vested in, and imposed upon, the Secretary of Common Defense, who may in turn delegate those functions, powers, and duties to such officials as he sees fit. The Thomas bill, in other words, denies the existence of the Departments-an existence which is so carefully preserved in S. 758. Section 201 (a) which, by establishing a National Security Council numbering among its members the Secretaries of State, National Defense, Army, Navy, and Air, provides the proper forum in which the Secretary of the Navy can best make an effective contribution to what section 201 (a) describes as "the integration of foreign and military policies." As I said at the outset, these are the explicit provisions, and it is my opinion that they, as well as the bill in its entirety, fully support the testimony which I gave on Tuesday. I would like to add, in closing, that I have dealt in this letter with only one phase of the bill, a phase on which the Navy has, as you know, strong convictions. I have made no effort, in this letter, to deal with the manifold and important responsibilities which this bill assigns-and properly assigns to the Secretary of National Defense. I would not like for anything which I have said to be construed as a statement that this bill provides for a strong Navy Department and a weak Secretary of National Defense-for nothing could be further from the truth than that. The truth of the matter is that the bill is, as I pointed out in my testimony, a compromise, and out of this compromise has emerged what the President has described as a "thoroughly practical and workable plan." I think that this compromise" has adequately safeguarded naval morale and autonomy, while at the same time providing for that integration of national effort which is indispensable to the waging of successful war. Sincerely yours, JAMES FORRESTAL. THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, Hon. CHAN GURNEY, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: In the course of my recent testimony before your committee, Senator Tydings asked me to submit a brief written statement of my views on whether or not the Secretaries of War, Navy, and Air should attend meetings of the President's Cabinet. You will recall that in the process of answering questions on this subject I pointed out that the subject of who shall attend Cabinet meetings is a matter which is of primary concern to the President-since those who attend Cabinet meetings do so at the President's invitation, and for the purpose of serving as his personal advisers. It is my view, therefore, that the pending legislation is properly silent on the subject in question. Senator Tydings also requested that I state my views on attendance at Cabinet meetings in time of war. For the reasons set out above, I do not feel that this is a matter which should be spelled out in the statute-and it is my belief that this should be the case both in time of war and in time of peace. Moreover, it is my view that the National Security Council-provided for by section 201 of the pending legislation-is the proper forum for the top-level wartime coordination which is, as Senator Tydings so forcefully pointed out at the hearings, absolutely indispensable to the waging of successful war. The fact that the National Security Council has for its members the Secretaries of War, Navy, and Air, together with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of National Defense, and the Chairman of the National Security Resources Board, is, to my way of thinking, a major step forward. Sincerely yours, JAMES FORRESTAL. The CHAIRMAN. We are now glad to hear you, Mr. Secretary. STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. PATTERSON, SECRETARY OF WAR Secretary PATTERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a formal statement, and I will read it if the committee pleases, and of course be glad to answer questions. I give unqualified support to the bill to unify the armed forces, S. 758. I might say that I was present during the statement and testimony of Secretary Forrestal, and I concur in everything that he said, including of course the fine tribute that he paid to the foot soldiers. I served myself in the Infantry for 3 years, and I am appreciative of any praise given them. In discussing the provisions of the bill, I thought it might be of aid to have a chart showing the structure and the chart is here, and with the committees leave, I will refer to that from time to time. The CHAIRMAN. The chart in front of us, Mr. Secretary, is the same as in the last page of your prepared statement? Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir. It is the same as the chart at the end of the formal statement. The bill creates a National Defense Establishment, consisting of the Department of the Army, Department of the Navy and Department of the Air Forces. That is all on that chart except the top boxes under the President, and it is indicated by a bracket at the side of the page, with National Defense Establishment on it. The head of the National Defense Establishment is the Secretary of National Defense with the power and duty, first, to establish policies and programs for the National Defense Establishment and for the departments and agencies in it; second, to exercise direction, control, and authority over such departments and agencies; third, to supervise preparation of budget estimates by the departments and agencies, to determine the budget estimates of the National Defense Establishment for submission to the Bureau of the Budget and to supervise and control the budget program of the National Defense Establishment. Now, if we can have this other chart, these duties appear on this chart that I have prepared here. The proviso is made that the three departments shall be administered as individual units by their respective secretaries, under direction of the Secretary of National Defense; also that the secretary of any of the three departments may present any report or recommendation to the President. I might say that I agree with the statement by Secretary Forrestal that the direction referred to here, the direction of the Secretary of National Defense, is general direction, and not detailed direction. I think that that is clearly shown by the structure of the sentence which says, "shall be administered as individual units by the respective secretaries, under the direction of the Secretary of National Defense." I have read Secretary Forrestal's letter that you referred to a few minutes ago, and I agee with the contents of that letter. The name of the War Department is changed to the Department of the Army. The Department of the Navy is to retain the Marine Corps and naval aviation. The new Department of the Air Force is to be headed by a Secretary and is to embody the United States Air Force, commanded by a chief of staff. All personnel, property, and functions pertinent to the present Army Air Forces are to be tranferred to the United States Air Force. Within the National Defense Establishment four joint agencies are provided, all of them to be under direction of the Secretary of National Defense. They are the four agencies shown on the line just under, "Secretary of National Defense." First, there is to be a War Council, with the Secretary of National Defense as Chairman with power of decision, and with the Secretaries |