ADDENDUM TO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY REPORTING THE FLOOR DISCUSSION ON NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 IN THE SENATE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 134
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 13, 2006
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: July 9, 1947
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2006/12/15 : CIA-RDP90-00610R
Ir
ME COUNSEL I
FILE COPY
ADDENDUM TO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Reporting the Floor discus-ion on
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
in the Senate
7 July 1947 and 9 July 1947
ADDENDUM NO. 2 to VOLUME I
El' liCDF F' _4
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
80TH CONGRESS t HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES J REPORT
1st Session - f t No. 1051
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
JULY 24, 1947.?Ordered to be printed
Mr. HOFFMAN, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 758]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 758) to promote
the national security by providing for a National Security Organiza-
tion, which shall be administered by a Secretary of National Security,
and for a Department of the Army, a Department of the Navy, and
a Department of the Air Force within the National Security Organi-
zation, and for the coordination of the activities of the National
Security Organization with other departments and agencies of the
Government concerned with the national security, having met, after
full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recom-
mend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the House to the text of the bill and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House amend-
ment insert the following:
SHORT TITLE
That this Act may be cited as the "National Security Act of 1947".
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sec. 2. beclaration of policy.
TITLE I?COORDINATION FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
Sec. 101. National Security Council.
Sec. 102. Central Intelligence Agency.
Sec. 103. National Security Resources Board.
H. Rept. 1051, 80-1-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12 15 : CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
2
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
TITLE II-THE NATIONAL MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT
Sec. 201. National Military Establishment.
Sec. 202. Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 203. Military Assistants to the Secretary.
Sec. 204. Civilian personnel.
Sec. 205. Department of the Army.
Sec. 206. Department of the Navy.
Sec. 207. Department of the Air Force.
Sec. 208. United States Air Force.
Sec. 209. Effective date of transfers.
Sec. 210. War Council.
Sec. 211. Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Sec. 212. Joint staff.
Sec. 213. Munitions Board.
Sec. 214. Research and Development Board.
TITLE III-MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 301. Compensation of Secretaries.
Sec. 802. Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries.
Sec. 303. Advisory committees and personnel.
Sec. 304. Status of transferred civilian personnel.
Sec. 305. Saving provisions.
Sec. 806. Transfer of funds.
Sec. 307. Authorization for appropriations.
Sec. 308. Definitions.
Sec. 309. Separability.
Sec. 310. Effective date.
Sec. 311. Succession to the Presidency.
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 interg rated policies and pro-
cedures 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 Army, the Navy (including
naval aviation and the United States Marine Corps), and the Air Force,
with their assigned combat and service components; to provide for their
authoritative coordination and unified direction under civilian control
but not to merge them; to provide for the effective strategic 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.
TITLE I?COORDINATION FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
SEC. 101. (a) There is hereby established a council to be known as
the National Security Council (hereinafter in this section referred to as
the "Council").
The President of the United States shall preside over meetings of the
Council: Provided, That in his absence he may designate a member of
the Council to preside in his place.
The function of the Council shall be to advise the President with respect
to the integration of domestic, foreign, and miliary policies relating to
the national security so as to enable the military services and the other
departments and agencies of the Government to cooperate more effectively
in matters involving the national security.
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
?
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
3
The Council shall be composed of the President; the Secretary of State;
the Secretary of Defense, appointed under section 202; the Secretary of
the Army, referred to in section 205; the Secretary of the Navy; the
Secretary of the Air Force, appointed under section 207; the Chairman
of the National Security Resources Board, appointed under section 103;
and such of the following named officers as the President may designate
from time to time: The Secretaries of the executive departments, the
Chairman of the Munitions Board appointed under section 213, and
the Chairman of the Research and Development Board appointed under
section 214; but no such additional member shall be designated until
the advice and consent of the Senate has been given to his appointment
to the office the holding of which authorizes his designation as a member
of the Council.
(b) In addition to performing such other functions as the Pres-dent
may direct, for the purpose of more effectively coordinating the policies
and functions of the departments and agencies of the Government relating
to the national security, it shall, subject to the direction of the President, be
the duty of the 61ouncil?
(1) to assess and appraise the objectives, commitments, and risks
of the United States in relation to our actual and potential military
power, in the interest of national security, for the purpose of making
recommendations to the President in connection therewith; and
(2) to consider policies on matters of common interest to the
departments and agencies of the Government concerned with the na-
tional security, and to make recommendations to the President
in connection therewith.
(c) The Council shall have a staff to be headed by a civilian executive
secretary who shall be appointed by the President, and who shall receive
compensation at the rate of $10,000 a year. The executive secretary,
subject to the direction of the Council, is hereby authorized, subject to the
civil-service laws and the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, to
appoint and fix the compensation of such personnel as may be necessary
to perform such duties as may be prescribed by the Council in connection
with the performance of its functions.
(d) The Council shall, from time to time, make such recommendations,
and such other reports to the President as it deems appropriate or as the
President may require.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
SEC. 102. (a) There is hereby established under the National Security
Council a Central Intelligence Agency with a Director of Central Intelli-
gence, who shall be the head thereof. The Director shall be appointed by
the President, (ry and with the advice and consent of the Senate, from
among the com I' /I ? nr___,foc_mptng
tns Ins 'aa s in civilian Ate. The Director shall receive compensation at
the rate of $14,000-aYear.
(b) (1) If a commissioned officer of the armed services is appointed
as Director then?
(A) in the performance of his duties as Director, he shall be
subject to no supervision, control, restriction, or prohibition (mili-
tary or otherwise) other than would be operative with respect to him
if he were a civilian in no way connected with the Department of
the Army, the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Air
Force, or the armed services or any component thereof; and
A..roved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-006 BEM 1.841.8 -
Approved For Release 2006/12/15 : CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
4
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
(B) he shall not possess or exercise any supervision, control,
powers, or functions (other than such as he possesses, or is authorized
or directed to exercise, as Director) with, respect to the armed services
or any component thereof, the Department of the Army, the Depart-
ment of the Navy, or the Department of the Air Force, or any branch,
bureau, unit or division thereof, or with respect to any of the personnel
(military or civilian) of any of the foregoing.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1), the appointment to the
office of Director of a commissioned officer of the armed services, and
his 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. Any such com-
missioned officer shall, while serving in the office of Director, receive the
military pay and allowances (active or retired, as the case may be)
payable to a commissioned officer of his grade and length of service and
shall be paid, from any funds available to defray the expenses of the
Agency, annual compensation at a rate equal to the amount by which
$14,000 exceeds the amount of his annual military pay and allowances.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 6 of the Act of August
24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555), or the provisions of any 9ther law, the Director
of Central Intelligence may, in his discretion, terminate the employ-
ment of any officer or employee of the Agency whenever he shall deem
such termination necessary or advisable in the interests of the United
States, but such termination shall not affect the right of such officer or
employee to seek or accept employment in any other department or agency
of the Government if declared eligible for such employment by the United
States Civil Service Commission.
(d) For the purpose of coordinating the intelligence activities ol the
several Government departments and agencies in the interest of national
security, it shall be the duty of the Agency, under the direction of the
National Security Council?
(1) to advise the National Security Council in matters concern-
ing such intelligence activities of the Government departments and
agencies as relate to national security;
(2) to make recommendations to the National Security Council
for the coordination of such intelligence activities of the departments
and agencies of the Government as relate to the national security;
(3) to correlate and evaluate intelligence relating to the national
security; and provide for the appropriate dissemination of such
intelligence within the Government using where appropriate existing
agencies and facilities: Provided, That the Agency shall have no
police, subpena, law-enforcement powers, or internal-security func-
tions: Provided further. That the departments and other agencies
of the Government shall continue to collect, evaluate, correlate, and
disseminate departmental intelligence: And provided further, That
the Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible for protecting
intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure;
(4) to perform, for the benefit of the existing intelligence agencies,
such additional services of common concern as the National Security
Council determines can be more efficiently a,cco2nplishea centrally;
(5) to perform such other functions and duties related to intelli-
gence affecting the national security as the National Security
Council may from time to time direct.
A rmrnvPri Fnr Release 2006/12/15 : CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 5
(e) To the extent recommended by the National Security Council and
approved by the President, such intelligence of the departments and
agencies of the Government, except as hereinafter provided, relating to the
national security shall be open to the inspection of the Director of Central
Intelligence, and such intelligence as relates to the national security and
is possessed by such departments and other agencies of the Government,
except as hereinafter provided, shall be made available to the Director of
Central Intelligence .for correlation, evaluation, and dissemination:
Provided, however, That upon the written request of the Director of
Central Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
shall make available to the Director of Central Intelligence such informa-
tion for correlation, evaluation, and dissemination as may be essential to
the national security.
(f) Effective when the Director first appointed under subsection (a) has
taken office?
(1) the National Intelligence Authority (11 Fed. Reg. 1337,
1339, February 5, 1946) shall cease to exist; and
(2) the personnel, property, and records of the Central Intelligence
Group are transferred to the Central Intelligence Agency, and such
Group shall cease to exist. Any unexpended balances of appropria-
tions, allocations, or other funds available or authorized to be made
available for such Group shall be available and shall be authorized
to be made available in like manner for expenditure by the Agency.
NATIONAL SECURITY RESOURCES BOARD
SEC. 103. (a) There is hereby established a National Security
Resources Board (hereinafter in this section referred to as the "Board")
to be composed of the Chairman of the Board and such heads or repre-
sentatives of the various executive departments and independent agencies
as may from time to time be designated by the President to be members
of the Board. The Chairman of the Board shall be appointed from
civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, and shall receive compensation at the rate of $14,000 a year.
(b) The Chairman of the Board, subject to the direction of the Presi-
dent, is authorized, subject to the civil-service laws and the Classifica-
tion Act of 1923, as amended, to appoint and fix the compensation of
such personnel as may be necessary to assist the Board in carrying out
its functions.
(c) It shall be the function of the Board to advise the President con-
cerning the coordination of military, industrial, and civilian mobiliza-
tion, including?
(1) policies concerning industrial and civilian mobilization in
order to assure the most effective mobilization and maximum utiliza-
tion of the Nation's manpower in the event of war:
(2) programs for the effective use in time of war of the Nation's
natural and industrial resources for military and civilian needs, for
the maintenance and stabilization of the civilian economy in time of
war, and for the adjustment of such economy to war needs and
conditions:
(3) .policies ,for unifying, in time of war, the activities of Federal
agencies and departments engaged in or concerned with production,
procurement, distribution, or transportation of military or civilian
supplies, materials, and products;
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000Annn1-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
6
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
(4) the relationship between potential supplies of, and potential
requirements for, manpower, resources, and productive facilities in
time of war:
(5) policies for establishing adequate reserves of strategic and
critical material, and for the conservation of these reserves:
(6) the strategic relocation of industries, services, government,
and economic activities, the continuous operationl)f which is essential
to the Nation's security.
(d) In performing its functions, the Board shall utilize to the maxi-
mum extent the facilities and resources of the departments and agencies
of the Government
TITLE II?THE NATIONAL MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT
SEC. 201. (a) There is hereby established the National Military Estab-
lishment, and the Secretary of Defense shall be the head thereof.
(b) The National Miliatry Establishment shall consist of the Depart-
ment of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of
the Air Force, together with all other agencies created under title II of
this Act.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
SEC. 202. (a) There shall be a Secretary of Defense, who shall be ap-
pointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate: Provided, That a person wno has within ten years
been on active duty as a commissioned officer in a Regular component of
the armed services shall not be eligible for appointment as Secretary of
Defense. The Secretary of Defense shall be the principal assistant to
the President in all matters relating to the national security. Under the
direction of the President and subject to the provisions of this Act he shall
perform the .following duties:
(1) Establish general policies and programs for the National
Military Establishment and for all of the departments and agencies
therein:
(2) Exercise general direction, authority, and control over such
departments and agencies;
(3) Take appropriate steps to eliminate unnecessary duplication
or overlapping in the fields of procurement, supply, transportation,
storage, health, and research;
(4) Supervise and coordinate the preparation of the budget esti-
mates of the departments and agencies comprisl;ng the National
Military Establishment; formulate and detemine the budget esti-
mates for submittal to the Bureau of the Budget; and supervise the
budget programs of such departments and agencies under the ap-
plicable appropriation Act:
Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent the Secretary of
the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Air Force
from presenting to the President or to the Director of the Budget, after
first so informing the Secretary of Defense, any report or recommendation
relating to his department which he may deem necessary: And provided
further, That the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy,
and the Department of the Air Force shall be administered as individual
executive departments by their respective Secretaries and all powers and
rInrrwPri Fnr Release 2006/12/15 CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
7
duties relating to such departments not specifically conferred upon the
Secretary of Defense by this Act shall be retained by each of their respective
Secretaries.
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit annual written reports to
the President and the Congress covering expenditures, work, and accom-
plishments of the National Military Establishment, together with such
recommendations as he shall deem appropriate.
(c) The Secretary of Defense shall cause a seal of office to be made for
the National Military Establishment, of such design as the President
shall approve, and judicial notice shall be taken thereof.
MILITARY ASSISTANTS TO THE SECRETARY
SEC. 203. Officers of the armed services may be detailed to duty as
assistants and personal aides to the Secretary of Defense, but he shall not
establish a military stag.
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
SEC. 204. (a) The Secretary of Defense is authorized to appoint from
civilian life not to exceed three special assistants to advise and assist him
in the performance of his duties. Each such special assistant shall
receive compensation at the rate of $10,000 a year.
(b) The Secretary of Defense is authorized, subject to the civil-service
laws and the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, to appoint and fix
the compensation of such other civilian personnel as may be necessary
for the performance of the functions of the National Military Establish-
ment other than those of the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air
Force.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEC. 205. (a) The Department of War shall hereafter be designated
the Department of the Army, and the title of the Secretary of War shall be
changed to Secretary of the Army. Changes shall be made in the titles
of other officers and activities of thP. Department of the Army as the
Secretary of the Army may determine.
(b) All laws, orders, regulations, and other actions relating to the
Department of War or to any officer or activity whose title is changed under
this section shall, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions
of this Act, be deemed to relate to the Department of the Army within the
National Military Establishment or to such officer or activity designated
by his or its new title.
(c) The term "Department of the Army" as used in this Act shall be
construed to mean the Department of the Army at the seat of government
and all field headquarters, forces, reserve components, installations,
activities, and functions under the control or supervision of the Depart-
ment of the Army.
(d) The Secretary of the Army shall cause a seal of office to be made
for the Department of the Army, of such design as the President may
approve, and judicial notice shall be taken thereof.
(e) In general the United States Army, within the Department of the
Army, shall include land combat and service forces and such aviation and
water transport as may be organic therein. It shall be organized, trained,
and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained combat incident to
operations on land. It shall be responsible for the preparation of land
?
A. @roved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15 : CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
8
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
forces necessary for the effective prosecution of war except as otherwise
assigned and, in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for
the expansion of peacetime components of the Army io meet the needs of
war.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
SEC. 206. (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
government; the headquarters, United States Marine Corps; the entire
operating forces of the United States Navy, including naval aviation, and
of the United States Marine Corps, including thy Reserve components of
such forces ? all field activities, headquarters, forces, oases, installations,
activities, and functions under the control or supervision of the Depart-
ment of the Navy; and the United States Coast Guard when operating as a
part of the Navy pursuant to law.
(b) In general the United States Navy, within, the Department of the
Navy, shall include naval combat and services forces and such aviation as
may be organic therein. It shall be organized, trained, and equipped
primarily for prompt and sustained combat incident to operations at sea.
It shall be responsible .for the preparation of naval forces necessary for
the effective prosecution of war except as otherkise assigned, and, in
accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of
the peacetime components of the Navy to meet tht needs of war.
All naval aviation shall be integrated with the naval service as part
thereof within the Department of the Navy. Naval aviation shall consist of
combat and service and training forces, and shall include land-based
naval aviation, air transport essential for naval operations, all air weapons
and air techniques involved in the operations and activities of the United
States Navy, and th,e entire remainder of the aero9,auhcal organization of
the United States Navy, together with the? personnel necessary therefor.
The Navy shall be generally responsible for naval reconnaissance, anti-
submarine warfare, and protection of shipping.
The Navy shall develop aircraft, weapons, tactics, technique, organiza-
tion and equipment of naval combat and service eiemerts; matters of joint
concern as to these functions shall be coordinated between the Army, the
Air Force, and the' Navy.
(c) The United States Marine Corps, within the Department of the
Navy, shall include land combat and service forces and such aviation as
may be organic therein. The Marine Corps shall be organized, trained,
and equipped to provide fleet marine forces of combined arms, together
with supporting air components, for service with the fleet in the seizure or
defense of advanced naval bases and for the condue of slick land operations
as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign. It shall be
the duty of the Marine Corps to develop, in coordination with the Army
and the Air Force, those phases of amphibious operatl'ons which pertain
to the tactics, technique, and equipment employed by landing forces. In
addition, the Marine Corps shall provide detachments and organizations
for service on armed vessels of the Navy, shall provide security detach-
ments for the protection of naval property at naval stations and bases,
and shall perform such other duties as the President may direct: Provided,
That such additional duties shall not detract from or interfere with the
operations for which the Marine Corps is prinaril:y organized. The
Marine Corps shall be responsible, in accordance with integrated joint
mobilization plans, for the expansion of peacetime components of the
Marine Corps to meet the needs of war.
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
- ? .ve. or "elease 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 9
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
SEC. 207. (a) Within the National Military Establishment there 'is
hereby established an executive department to be known as the Department
of the Air Force, and a Secretary of the Air Force, who shall be the head
thereof. The Secretary of the Air Force shall be appointed from civilian
life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(b) Section 158 of the Revised Statutes is amended to include the
Department of the Air Force and the provisions of so much of title IV
of the Revised Statutes as now or hereafter amended as is not inconsistent
with this Act shall be applicable to the Department of the Air Force.
(c) The term "Department of the Air Force" as used in this Act shall
be construed to mean the Department of the Air Force at the seat of govern-
ment and all field headquarters, forces, reserve components, installations,
activities, and functions under the control or supervision of the Depart-
ment of the Air Force.
(d) There shall be in the Department of the Air Force an Under
Secretary of the Air Force and two Assistant Secretaries of the Air
Force, who shall be appointed from civilian life by the President by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(e) The several officers of the Department of the Air Force shall per-
form such functions as the Secretary of the Air Force may prescribe.
(f) So much of the functions of the Secretary of the Army and of the
Department of the Army, including those of any officer of such Depart-
ment, as are assigned to or under the control of the Commanding General,
Army Air Forces, or as are deemed by the Secretary of Defense to be
necessary or desirable for the operations of the Department of the Air
Force or the United States Air Force, shall be transferred to and vested
in the Secretary of the Air Force and the Department of the Air Force:
Provided, That the National Guard Purea:u shall, in addition to the
functions and duties performed by it for the Department of the Army, be
charged with similar functions and duties for the Department of the Air
Force, and shall be the channel of communication between the Depart-
ment of the Air Force and the several States on all matters pertaining to
the Air National Guard: And provided further, That, in order to permit
an orderly transfer, the Secretary of Defense may, during the transfer
period hereinafter prescribed, direct that the Department of the Army
shall continue for appropriate periods to exercise any of such functions,
insofar as they relate to the Department of the Air Force, or the United
States Air Force or their property and personnel. Such of the property,
personnel, and records of the Department of the Army used in the exercise
of functions transferred under this subsection as the Secretary of Defense
shall determine shall be transferred or assigned to the Department of the
Air Force.
(g) The Secretary of the Air Force shall cause a seal of office to be
made for the Department of the Air Force, of such device as the President
shall approve, and judicial notice shall be taken thereof.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
SEC. 208. (a) The United States Air Force is hereby established
under the Department of the Air Force. The Army Air Forces, the
Air Corps, United States Army, and the General Headquarters Air
Force (Air Force Combat Command), shall be transferred to the United
States Air Force.
H. Rept. 1051, 80-1------2
?
A. .roved For Release 208
A ID ?
Approved For Release 2006/12/15 CIA-RDP90-00610 1.8 SellAgge -
10 NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
? (b) There shall be a Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, who shall
be appointed by the President, by and with the advi-e and consent of the
Senate, for a term of four years from among the officers of general rank
who are assigned to or commissioned in the United States Air Force.
Under the direction of the Secretary of the Air Force, the Chief of Staff,
United States Air Force, shall exercise command over the United States
Air Force and shall be charged with the duty of carryng into execution all
lawful orders and directions which may be transmitted to him. The
Junctions of the Commanding General, General Headquarters Air Force
(Air Force Combat Command), and of the Chief of the Air Corps and of
the Commanding General, Army Air Forces, shall be transferred to the
Chief of Staff, United States Air Force. When such transfer becomes
effective, the offices of the Chief of the Air Corps, United States Army,
and Assistants to the Chief of the Air Corps, United States Army,
provided for by the Act of June 4, 1920, as amended (41 Stat. 768), and
Commanding General, General Headquarters Air Force, provided for by
section 5 of the Act of June 16, 1936 (49 Stat. 1525), shall cease to exist.
While holding office as Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, the in-
cumbent shall hold a grade and receive allowances equivalent to those
prescribed by law for the Chief of Staff, United States Army. The Chief
of Staff, United States Army, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the
Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, shall take mule among themselves
according to their relative dates of appointment as such, and shall each
take rank above all other officers on the active list of the Army, Navy, and
Air Force: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall have the effect of
changing the relative rank of the present Chief of Staff, United States
Army, and the present Chief of Naval Operation.
(c) All commissioned officers, warrant officers, and enlisted men,
commissioned, holding warrants, or enlisted, in the Air Corps, United
States Army, or the Army Air Forces, shall be transferred in branch to
the United States Air Force. All other commissioned officers, warrant
officers, and enlisted men, who are commissioned, hold warrants, or are
enlisted, in any component of the Army of the United States and who are
under the authority or command of the Commanding General, Army
Air Forces, shalt be continued under the authority or command of the
Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, and under the jurisdiction of
the Department of the Air Force. Personnel whose status is affected by
this subsection shall retain their existing commiss'ions, warrants, or
enlisted status in existing components of the armed forces unless otherwise
altered or terminated in accordance with existing law: and they shall not
be deemed to have been appointed to a new or different office or grade, or
to have vacated their permanent or temporary appointments in an existing
component of the armed forces, solely by virtue of any change in status
under this subsection. No such change in status shall alter or prejudice
the status of any individual so assigned, so as to deprive him of any
right, benefit, or privilege to which he may be entitled under existing law.
(d) Except as otherwise directed by the Secretary of the Air Force, all
property, records, installations, agencies, activities, projects, and civilian
personnel under the jurisdiction, control, authority, or command of the
Commanding General, Army Air Forces, shall be continued to the same
extent under the jurisdiction, control, authonity, or command, respectively,
of the Chief of Staff, Lnited States Air Force, in the Department of the
Air Force.
(e) For a period of two years from the date of enactment of this Act,
personnel (both military and civilian), property, records, installations,
-
S.
?
? I A -RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
pprove. or Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
11
agencies, activities, and projects may be transferred between the Depart-
ment of the Army and the Department of the Air Farce by direction of
the Secretary of Defense.
(f) In general the Lnited States Air Force shall include aviation forces
both combat and service not otherwise assigned. It shall be organized,
trained, and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained offensive and
defensive air operations. The Air Force shall be responsible for the prep-
aration of the air forces necessary for the effective prosecution of war
except as otherwise assigned and, in accordance with integrated joint
mobilization plans, for the expansion of the peacetime components of the
Air Force to meet the needs of war.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF TRANSFERS
SEC. 209. Each transfer, assignment, or change in status under
section 207 or section 208 shall take effect upon such date or dates as may
be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
WAR COUNCIL
SEC. 210. There shall be within the National Military Establishment
a War Council composed of the Secretary of Defense, as Chairman, who
shall have power of decision; the Secretary of the Army; the Secretary of
the Navy; the Secretary of the Air Force; the Chief of Staff, United
States Army; the Chief of Naval Operations; and the Chief of Staff,
United States Air Force. The War Council shall advise the Secretary
of Defense on matters of broad policy relating to the armed forces, and
shall consider and report on such other matters as the Secretary of Defense
may direct.
JO= CHIEFS OF STAFF
SEC. 211. (a) There is hereby established within the National Military
Establishment the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whth shall consist of the Chief
of Staff, United States Army; the Chief of Naval Operations; the Chief
of Staff, United States Air Force; and the Chief of Staff to the Commander
in Chief, if there be one.
(b) Subject to the authority and direction of the President and the
Secretary of Defense, it shall be the duty of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
(1) to prepare strategic plans and to provide for the strategic
direction of the military forces;
(2) to prepare joint logistic plans and to assign to the military
services logistic responsibilities in accordance with such plans;
(3) to establish unified commands in strategic areas when such
unified commands are in the interest of national security;
(4) to formulate policies for joint training of the military forces;
(5) to formulate policies for coordinating the education of mem-
bers of the military forces;
(6) to review major material and personnel requirements of the
military forces, in accordance with strategic and logistic plans; and
(7) to provide United States representation on the Military Staff
Committee of the United Nations in accordance with the provisions
of the Charter of the United Nations.
(c) The Joint Chiefs of Staff shall act as the principal military advisers
to the President and the Secretary of Defense and shall perform such other
A. .roved For Release 2006/1
A Ones I
4,- .?.. a a .
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000 See -
12 NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
duties as the President and the Secretary of Defense may direct 0 as may
be prescribed by law.
JOINT STAFF
SEC. 212. There shall be, under the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Joint
Staff to consist of not to exceed one hundred officers and to be compobed of
approximately equal numbers of officers from each of the three Omed
services. The Joint Staff, operating under a Director thereof appointed
by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall perform such duties as May be diheted
by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Director shall be an officer junior in
grade to all members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
MUNITIONS BOARD
SEC. 213. (a) There is hereby established in the National Military
Establishment a Munitions Board (hereinafter in this section referred to
as the "Board").
(b) The Board shall be composed of a Ch,airmart, who shall be the head
thereof, and an Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary from each of the
three military departments, to be designated in each case by the Secre-
taries of their respective departments. The Chairman shall be appointed
from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, and shall receive compensation at the rate of $14,000 a year.
(c) It shall be the duty of the Board under the direction of the Secretary
of Defense and in support of strategic and logistic plans prepared by the
Joint Chiefs of Staff?
(1) to coordinate the appropriate activities within the National
Military Establishment with regard to industrial matters, including
the procurement, production, and distribution plans of the depart-
ments and agencies comprising the Establishment;
(2) to plan for the military aspects of industrial mobilization;
(3) to recommend assignment of procurement responsibilities
among the several military services and to plan ,fer standardization
of specifications and for the greatest practicable allocation of pur-
chase authority of technical equipment and common use items on the
basis of single procurement;
(4) to prepare estimates of potential production, procurement,
and personnel for use in evaluation of the logistic feasibility of stra-
tegic operations;
(5) to determine relative priorities of the various segments of the
military procurement programs;
(6) to supervise such subordinate agencies as are or may be created
to consider the subjects falling within the scope of the Board's re-
sponsibilities;
(7) to make recommendations to regroup, combine, or dissolve
existing interservice agencies operating in the fields of procurement,
production, and distribution in such manner as to promote efficiency
and economy;
(8) to maintain liaison with other departments and agencies .for
the proper correlation of military requirements with the civilian
economy, particularly in regard to the procurement or disposition
of strategic and critical material and the maintenance of adequate
reserves of such material, and to make recommendations as to policies
in connection therewith;
?
- - - II 12/15 : CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
13
(9) to assemble and review material and personnel requirements
presented by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and those presented by the
production, procurement, and distribution agencies assigned to meet
military needs, and to make recommendations thereon to the Secre-
tary of Defense; and
(10) to perform such other duties as the Secretary of Defense may
direct.
(d) When the Chairman of the Board first appointed has taken office,
the Joint Army and Navy Munitions Board shall cease to exist and all
its records and personnel shall be transferred to the Munitions Board.
(e) The Secretary of Defense shall provide the Board with such per-
sonnel and _facilities as the Secretary may determine to be required by
the Board for the performance of its functions.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
SEC. 214. (a) There is hereby established in the National Military
Establishment a Research and Development Board (hereinafter in this
section referred to as the "Board"). The Board shall be composed of a
Chairman, who shall be the head thereof, and two representatives from
each of the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, to be desig-
nated by the Secretaries of their respective Departments. The Chair-
man shall be appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall receive compensation at
the rate of $14,000 a year. The purpose of the Board shall be to advise
the Secretary of Defense as to the status of scientific research relative
to the national security, and to assist him in assuring adequate provision
for research and development on scientific problems relating to the national
security.
(b) It shall be the duty of the Board, under the direction of the Secre-
tary of Defense?
(1) to prepare a complete and integrated program of research
and development for military purposes;
(2) to advise with regard to trends in scientific research relating
to national security and the measures necessary to assure continued
and increasing progress;
(3) to recommend measures of coordination of research and
development among the military departments, and allocation among
them of responsibilities for specific programs of joint interest;
(4) to formulate policy for the National Military Establishment
in connection with research and development matters involving
agencies outside the National Military Establishment;
(5) to consider the interaction of research and development and
strategy, and to advise the Joint Chiefs of Staff in connection there-
with; and
(6) to perform such other duties as the Secretary of Defense may
direct.
(c) When the Chairman of the Board first appointed has tak,n office,
the Joint Research and Dev.37?::)n2ent Board shall cease to exist and all
its records and personnel shall be transferred to the Research and Develop-
ment Board.
(d) The Secretary of Defense shall provide the Board with such
personnel and facilities as the Secretory may determine to be required by
the Board for the performance of its functions.
A. .roved For Release 2006/
11??11II. ??aaa ??? ???
?
Approved For Relese 2006/12/15 : CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
14
NATIONAL SECURITY ,ACT OF 1947
TI TLE II?MISCELLANEOUS
COMPENSATION OF SECRETARIES
SEC. 301. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall receive the compensation
prescribed by law for heads of executive departments.
(b) The Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the
Secretary of the Air Force shall each receive the compensation prescribed'
by law for heads of executive departments.
UNDER SECRETARIES AND ASSISTANT SECRETARIES
SEC. 302. The Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries of the
Army, the Navy, and the Air Force shall each receive compensation at
the rate of $10,000 a year and shall perform such duties as the Secrektries
of their respective departments may prescribe.
ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND PERSONNEL
SEC. 303. (a) The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the National
Security Resources Board, and the Director of Central Intelligence are
authorized to appoint such advisory committees and to employ, consistent
with other provisions of this Act, such part-time adviso7y personnel as
they may deem necessary in carrying out their respective functions and
the functions of agencies under their control. Persons holding other
offices or positions under the United States for which they receive coin-
p-ensation while serving as members of such committees shall receive no
additional compensation. for such service. Other members of such com-
mittees and other part-time advisory personnel so employed mew serve
without compensation or may receive compensation at a rate not to exceed
$35 for each day of service, as determined by the appointing authority.
(b) Service of an individual as a member of any such advisory com-
mittee, or in any other part-time capacity for a department or agency
hereunder, shall not be considered as service bringing such individual
within the provisions of section 109 or 113 of the Criminal Code (U. S.
C., 1940 edition, title 18, secs. 198 and 203), or sedion 19 (e) of the
Contract Settlement Act of 1944, unless the act of such individual, which
by such section is made unlawful when performed by an individual re-
ferred to in such section, is with respect to any particular matter which,
directly involves a department or agency which such person is advising or
in which such department or agency is d'rectly interested.
STATUS OF TRANSFERRED CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
SEC. 304. All transfers of civilian personnel under this Act shall be
without change in classification or compensation, but the head of any de-
phrtment or agency to which such a transfer is made is authorized to make
such changes in the titles and designations and prescribe such changes in
the duties of such personnel commensurate with their classification as he
may deem necessary and appropriate.
SAVING PROVISIONS
SEC. 305. (a) All laws, orders, regulations, and other actions appli-
cable with respect to any function, activity, personnel, property, records,
or other thing transferred under this Act, or wiLli respect to any officer,
?
rr PPIPARE4 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
?
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
15
department, or agency, from which such transfer is made, shall, except
to the extent rescinded, modified, superseded, terminated, or made inappli-
cable by or under authority of law, have the same effect as if such transfer
had not been made; but, after any such transfer, any such law, order,
regulation, or other action which vested functions in or otherwise related
to any officer, department, or agency from which such transfer was made
shall, insofar as applicable with respect to the function, activity, personnel,
property, records or other thing transferred and to the extent not inconsistent
with other provisions of this Act, be deemed to have vested such function in
or relate to the officer, department, or agency to which the transfer was
made.
(b) No suit, action, or other proceeding lawfully commenced by or
against the head of any department or agency or other officer of the United
States, in his official capacity or in relation to the discharge of his official
duties, shall abate by reason of the taking effect of any transfer or change
in title under the provisions of this Act; and, in the case of any such
- transfer, such suit, action, or other proceeding may be maintained by or
against the successor of such head or other officer under the transfer, but
only if the court shall allow the same to be maintained on motion or
supplemental petition filed within twelve months after such transfer
takes effect, showing a necessity for the survival of such suit, action, or
other proceeding to obtain settlement of the questions involved.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of the second paragraph of section
5 of title I of the First War Powers Act., 1941, the existing organization
of the War Department under the provisions of Executive Order Num-
bered 9082 of February 28, 1942, as modified by Executive Order
Numbered 9722 of May 13, 1946, and the existing organization of the
Department of the Navy under the provisions of Executive Order Num-
bered 9635 of September 29, 1945, including the assignment of functions
to organizational units within the War and Navy Departments, may,
to the extent determined by the Secretary of Defense, continue in force
for two years following the date of enactment of this Act except to the
extent modified by the provisions of this Act or under the authority of
law.
TRANSFER OF FUNDS
SEC. 306. All unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations,
nonappropriated funds, or other funds available or hereafter made avail-
able for use by or on behalf of the Army Air Forces or officers thereof,
shall be transferred to the Department of the Air Force for use in connection
with the exercise of its functions. Such other unexpended balances of
appropriations, allocations, nonappropriated funds, or other _funds
available or hereafter made available for use by the Department of War or
the Department of the Army in exercise of functions transferred to the
Department of the Air Force under this Act, as the Secretary of Defense
shall determine, shall be transferred to the Department of the Air Force
for use in connection with the exercise of its functions. Unexpended
balances transferred under this section may be used for the purposes for
,which the appropriations, allocations, or other funds were originally
made available, or for new expenditures occasioned by the enactment of
this Act. The transfers herein authorized may be made with or without
warrant action as may be appropriate from time to time from any appro-
priation covered by this section to any other such appropriation or to such
new accounts established on the books of the Treasury as may be deter-
mined to be necessary to carry into effect provisions of this Act.
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-006100200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15 CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
16 NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 307. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums
as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions and
purposes of this Act.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 308. (a) As used in this Act, the t(rm "function" includes
functions, powers, and duties.
(b) As used in this Act, the term "budget program" refers to recom-
mendations as to the apportionment, to the allocation and to the review of
allotments of appropriated funds.
SEPARABILITY
SEC. 309. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any
person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the
Act and of the application of such provision to other persons and circum-
stances shall not be affected thereby.
EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 310. (a) The first sentence of section 202 (a) and sections I, 2,
807, 308, 309, and 310 shall take effect immediately upon the enactment
of this Act.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (a), the provisions of this Act
shall take effect on whichever of the following days is the earlier: The day
after the day upon which the Secretary of Defei,se first appointed takes?
office, or the sixtieth day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SUCCESSION TO THE PRESIDENCY
SEC. 311. Paragraph (I) of subsection (d) 9f section 1 of the Act
entitled "An Act to provide for the performance of the duties of the office
of President in case of the removal, resignation, death, or inability
both of the President and Vice President", approved July 18, 1947, is
amended by striking out "Secretary of War" and inserting in lieu thereof
"Secretary of Defense'', and by striking out "Secretaiy of the Navy,".
And the House agree to the same.
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the House to the title of the bill and agree to the same.
CLARE E. HOFFMAN,
GEORGE H. BENDER,
HENRY J. LATHAM,
JAMES W. WADSWORTH,
CARTER MANASCO,
JOHN W. MCCORMACK,
ClIET HO LIFIELD,
Managers on the Part of the House
CHAN GURNEY,
LEVERETT SALTONSTALL,
WAYNE MORSE,
RAYMOND E. BALDWIN,
M. E. TYDINGS,
RICHARD B. RUSSELL,
HARRY F. BYRD,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
rwlmvPri For Release 2006/12/15 CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
S
- 5: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE
The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House
to the bill (S. 758) to promote the national security by providing for a
National Security Organization, which shall be administered by a
Secretary of National Security, and for a Department of the Army, a
Department of the Navy, and a Department of the Air Force within
the National Security Organization, and for the coordination of the
activities of the National Security Organization with other depart-
ments and agencies of the Government concerned with the national
security, submit the following statement in explanation of the effect
of the action agreed upon by the conferees and recommended in the
accompanying conference report:
The House amendment to the text of the bill strikes out all of the
Senate bill after the enacting clause. The committee of conference
recommend that the Senate recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the House and agree to the same with an amendment
which is a substitute for both the Senate bill and the House amend-
ment, and that the House agree to the same.
The bill as agreed to in conference is the same as the House amend-
ment, except for typographical, clerical, and clarifying changes, and
the following:
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
Both the Senate bill and the House amendment provided (sec.
101 (a)) that the National Security Council be composed of the
President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense (in the
Senate bill designated as "Secretary of National Security"), the
Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of
the Air Force, and the Chairman of the National Security Resources
Board. Under the Senate bill the Council was also to be composed
of such other members as the President may designate from time to
time. Under the bill as agreed to in conference (sec. 101 (a)) the
Council, in addition to the members specifically named above, is to
be composed of such of the following-named officers as the President
may designate from time to time: The Secretaries of the executive
departments, the Chairman of the Munitions Board, and the Chair-
man of the Research and Development Board. No such additional
member is to be designated until the advice and consent of the Senate
has been given to his appointment to the office the holding of which
authorizes his designation as a member of the Council. Thus, for
example, the Secretary of Commerce now in office could be designated
by the President as a member of the Council, but if in the future a
new Secretary of Commerce is appointed the new Secretary could not
serve as a member of the Council until the advice and consent of the
Senate has been given to his appointment to the office of Secretary
of Commerce.
A ? 'roved For Release Is
? ? a .
17
Approved For Release 2006/12/15:
18
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
The Senate bill (sec. 101 (c)) provided that the Secretary of Defense
be director of the staff of the Council. The 11 ouse amendment (sec.
101 (c)) provided that the Council have a staff headed by a civilian
executive secretary to receive compensation at the rate of $14,000 a
year. The bill as agreed to in conference (sec. 10] (c)) is the same
as the House amendment except the compensation of the executive
secretary is fixed at the rate of $10,000 a year.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
The Senate bill provided that the Director cf Central Intelligence
be appointed from the armed services or from civilian life. The House
amendment provided that the Director of Central Intelligence be
appointed from civilian life. The bill as agreed to in conference (sec.
102) provides that the Director shall be appointed from among the
commissioned officers of the armed services or from among individuals
in civilian life and adds a new subsection (b) which provides that if a
commissioned officer of the armed services is appointed as Director
then (1) in the performance of his duties as Direc-:pr, he is to be subject
to no supervision, control, restriction, or prohibition (military or
otherwise) other than would be operative with respect to him if he
were a civilian in no way connected with the Department of the Army,
the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Air Force, or the
armed services or any component thereof; and (2) he is not to possess
or exercise any supervision, control, powers, or functions (other than
such as he possesses, or is authorized or directed to exercise, as Direc-
tor) with respect to the armed services or any component thereof, the
Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, or the Depart-
ment of the Air Force, or any branch, bureau, unit or division thereof,
or with respect to any of the personnel (military or civilian) of any of
the foregoing. Except as noted in the preceding s3ntence the appoint-
ment to the office of Director of a commissioned officer of the armed
services and his acceptance of and service in such office is in no way to
affect any status, office, rank, or grade he may occupy or hold in the
armed services or any emolument, perquisite, rigln, privilege, or
benefit incident to or arising out of any such status, office, rank, or
grade. Also any such commissioned officer, while serving in the
office of Director, is to receive the military pay and allowance (active
or retired, as the case may be) payable to a commissioned officer of
his grade and length of service and is to be paid, from any funds avail-
able to defray the expenses of the Central Intelligence Agency, annual
compensation at a rate equal to the amount by which $14,000 exceeds
the amount of his annual military pay and allowances.
The House amendment (sec. 105 (d)) provided that to the extent
recommended by the National Security Council and approved by the
President, such intelligence operations of the departments of Govern-
ment as relate to the national security shall be open to the inspection
of the Director of Central Intelligence, and such intelligence as relates
to national security and is possessed by such departments and other
agencies of the Government shall be made availatle to the Director
of Central Intelligence for correlation, evaluation, and digsemination.
Section 102 (d) of the bill as agreed to in conference provides that to
the extent recommended by the National Security Council and ap-
proved by the President, such intelligence of the departments and
agencies of the Government, except as hereinafter provided. relating
A-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 19
to the national security shall be open to the inspection of the Director
of Central Intelligence, and such intelligence as relates to the national
security and is possessed by such departments and other agencies of
the Government, except as hereinafter provided, shall be made avail-
able to the Director of Central Intelligence for correlation, evaluation,
and dissemination; provided, however, that upon the written request
of the Director of Central Intelligence, the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation shall make available to the Director of Central
Intelligence such information for correlation, evaluation, and dissemi-
nation as may be essential to the national security.
PERSONNEL OF NATIONAL SECURITY RESOURCES BOARD
Both the Senate bill (Sec. 103 (b)) and the House amendment
(Sec. 106 (b)) authorized the chairman of the National Security
Resources Board to appoint and fix the compensation of such per-
sonnel as may be necessary to assist the Board in carrying out its
functions. The Senate bill provided that such authority be subject
to the civil-service laws and the Classification Act of 1923, as amended.
The House amendment provided that such authority be without
regard to the civil-service laws and the Classification Act of 1923,
as amended. The bill as agreed to in conference (Sec. 103 (b))
follows the language of the Senate bill.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Both the Senate bill (sec. 202 (a)) and House amendment (sec.
102 (a)) provided that the new Secretary be appointed from civilian
life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate. The House amendment contained a proviso (not contained
in the Senate bill) providing that a person who has held a commis-
sion in a Regular component of the armed services shall not be eligi-
ble for appointment as Secretary of Defense. The bill as agreed to
in conference (sec. 202 (a)) contains a provision that a person who
has within ten years been on active duty as a commissioned officer
in a Regular component of the armed services shall not be eligible
for appointment as Secretary of Defense.
The Senate bill (sec. 202 (a) (2)) imposed upon the Secretary of
Defense the duty to exercise general direction, authority, and control
over certain departments and agencies. The House amendment
(sec. 102 (a) (2)) added the word "general" before the word "author-
ity" and before the word "control". The words added by the House
amendment have been deleted in the bill as agreed to in conference
(sec. 202 (a) (2)) as surplusage.
The Senate bill (sec. 202 (a) (3)) imposed upon the Secretary of
Defense the duty to formulate and determine the budget estimates
for submittal to the Bureau of the Budget. The House amendment
contained no such provision. The bill as agreed to in conference
(sec. 202 (a) (4)) contains this provision from the Senate bill.
COMPOSITION AND DUTIES OF THE NAVY AND OF NAVAL AVIATION
The House amendment (sec. 203 (b)) contained language relating
specifically to the composition and duties of the United States Navy
and of Naval Aviation. The Senate bill (sec. 206 (b)) provided that
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
20
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
the provisions of this act shall not authorize the alteration or diminu-
tion of the existing relative status of Naval Aviation. The first and
last paragraphs of section 206 (b) of the bill as agreed to in conference
are the same as the first and last paragraphs of section 203 (b) of the
House amendment. The second, third, and fourth paragraphs of
section 203 (b) of the House amendment are omitted and the following
is inserted in lieu thereof:
All naval aviation shall be integrated with the naval service as part thereof
within the Department of the Navy. Naval aviation shall consist of combat and
service and training forces, and shall include land-based naval aviation, air trans-
port essential for naval operations, all air weapons and air techniques involved in
the operations and activities of the United States Navy, and the entire remainder
of the aeronautical organization of the United State: Na y, together with the
personnel necessary therefor.
The Navy shall be generally responsible for naval reconnaissance, antisub-
marine warfare, and protection of shipping.
COMPOSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MARINE CORPS
The House amendment (sec. 203) contained the following provision:
(c) The United States Marine Corps, within the :Department of the Navy,
shall include land combat and service forces and such aviation as may be organic
therein. The primary mission of the Marine Caps shaL be to provide fleet
marine forces of combined arms, together with supporting air components, for
service with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for
the conduct of such land operations as may be.essential to the prosecution of a
naval campaign. It shall be the duty of the Marine Corps to develop, in coordi-
nation with the Army and the Air Force, those phases of amphibious operations
which pertain to the tactics, technique, and equipment employed by landing
forces. In addition to its primary mission, the Marine Corps shall provide
detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the Navy, shall
provide security detachnients for the protection of naval property at naval sta-
tions and bases, and shall perform such other duties as the President may direct:
Provided, That such additional duties shall not detract from or interfere with the
performance of the primary mission hereinbefore set forth. The Marine Corps
shall be responsible, in accordance with integrated jo. nt mobilization plans, for
the expansion of peacetime components of the Marine Corps to meet the needs
of war.
The Senate bill (sec. 206 (b)) provided that the provisions of this
Act shall not authorize the alteration or diminution of the existing
relative status of the Marine Corps (including the Fleet Marine
Forces). The bill as agreed to in conference contfins the same lan-
guage (sec. 206 (c)) as that in the House amendment except that
(1) the words "The primary mission of the Marine Corps shall be"
at the beginning of the second sentence are changed to read "The
Marine Corps shall be organized, trained, ard equipped"; (2) the
words "to its primary mission" at the beginning of the fourth sentence
are omitted; and (3) the words "performance of the primary mission
hereinbefore set forth" in the proviso at the end of the fourth sentence
are omitted and in lieu thereof the words "operations for which the
Marine Corps is primarily organized" are inserted.
COMPENSATION OF SECRETARIES
The Senate bill (sec. 302 (b)) provided tha the Secretary of the
Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force
shall each receive the compensation prescribed for the Secretary of
Defense. The House amendment (sec. 301 (b)) provided that these
Approved For Release 2006/12/15 ? CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
?
?
A pproved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
21
three Secretaries shall each receive compensation at the rate of
$ L4,500 a year. The bill as agreed to in conference (sec. 301 (b))
provides that these three Secretaries shall each receive the compensa-
ton prescribed by law for heads of executive departments.
CLARE E. HOFFMAN,
GEORGE H. BENDER,
HENRY J. LATHAM,
JAMES W. WADSWORTH,
CARTER MANASCO,
JOHN W. MCCORMACK,
CHET HOLIFIELD,
Managers on the Part of the House.
A. 'roved For Release 2006
0
A - Ili ? a as ???
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Union Calendar No. 499
80TH CONGRESS t HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES J REPORT
1st Session J t No. 961
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
JULY 16, 1947.?Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HOFFMAN, by direction of the Committee on Expenditures in the
Executive Departments, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H. H. 42141
The Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, to
whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4214) to promote the national
security by providing for a Secretary of Defense; for a National
Military Establishment; for a Department of the Army, a Depart-
ment of the Navy, and a Department of the Air Force; and for the
coordination of the activities of the National Military Establishment
with other -departments and agencies of the Government concerned
with the national security (short title, "National Security Act of
1947"), having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
STATEMENT
The original bill was transmitted to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives oh February 26, 1947, by the President, by letter
informing the Speaker that the bill had been drawn by representatives
of his office and of the armed forces and had the approval of the Secre-
tary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The bill was introduced by the chairman of the committee, Hon. Clare
E. Hoffman, on February 28, 1947, and referred to your committee.
On April 2, 1947, your committee commenced hearings which were
finally concluded on July 1, 1947. During this period the committee
heard 25 witnesses (list attached) including the Secretary of War, the
Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of
Naval Operations, the Commanding General, Army Air Forces, and
the Commandant of the United States Marine Corps. In addition,
this group of witnesses included prominent, civilian and military
leaders representing a wide variety of viewpoints, organizations, and
other interests. Your committee has had the benefit of the advice
?
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
2
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
and counsel of the responsible individuals in Government concerned
with the national security as well as the benefit of the opinion and
suggestions of other interested groups. 'I he hearings necessarily
have been extended over a long period because of the importance of
this legislative proposal and the desire of your committee to give it
the most thorough study pcssible, weighing carefully every shade of
opinion upon each of its provisions. A subcommittee reviewed the
testimony and reported to the full committee, which, after some
changes, reported out H. R. 4214.
I. NEED FOR REVISION OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE ORGANIZATION.
The experiences of the war just concluded have proven conclusively
that we must maintain in time of peace an adequate organization of
the national defense readily adaptable to the needs of war on short
notice.
Your committee is of the opinion that the Nation should provide
for the effective integration of the many factors comprising the Na-
tion's war potential.
In this way your committee feels that a great contribution can be
made to the maintenance of peace and the removal of the causes of
war.
II. LESSONS OF THE WAR
While we emerged from World War II as a victorious nation the
prodigious national effort which we were required to make, necessi-
tating the sacrifice of American lives and wealth, cannot be repeated
if we hope to remain a leading force for world progress and stability.
Since we are a people governed by laws and not by men, the laws
we make for the employment of our military forces must not be so
restrictive and inflexible as to prevent the accomplishment of the very
purposes they are designed to achieve.
One of the purposes of the bill is to give statutory effect to certain
organizational features developed during the war and which have
proven to be desirable in the control of our armed services.
The advanc'e of science and the magnitude of modern war require
that we construct an ample framework for our military services within
which they may grow and develop under traditional civilian control
in accordance with the needs of the times.
Your. committee recognizes as well the totality of modern war and
the urgent need for close coordination between foreign policy and
military policy, between industry and science and the armed forces.
Your committee is aware of the major lesson of the Nation's great
wars, that the sources of strength to resist aggression consist funda-
mentally in the national morale, leadership, manpower, industrial
efficiency, and productive capacity which manifest themselves in
successful operations by the armed forces in the field, at sea, and in
the air.
Your committee also recognizes the purely military lesson of the
rent war that unity of command in the field is essential to success
in battle and that the organization, training, and military command
of the organized combat forces in time of peace must at all times be
directed toward the achievement of harmonious and effective joint
action by and among all forces in pursuance of their common and
paramount mission to defend the United States.
?
A. ?roved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
?
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
3
Your committee has been mindful of the personal element involved
in making changes in our military services. The high morale, the
esprit de corps, the long record of valorous and useful service of all
elements of the armed forces is fully recognized and appreciated.
The need for the preservation of the integrity of elements of the
Army, Navy (including naval aviation and the Marine Corps), and
Air Forces for future efficiency has received your committee's most
careful attention. VVith these conclusions as a basic blueprint for
its work, your committee has earnestly endeavored to produce a
legislative framework capable of meeting our modern defense
requirements.
The bill as repoi ted diffeis in certain respects from the original
H. R. 2319 and from S. 758. The changes made by the committee
are considered to be improvements over the original bill and S. 758.
III. PROVISIONS OF THE BILL AS REPORTED
1. Declaration of policy
The declaration of policy which appears in the bill is deemed neces-
sary by your committee in order that it be clearly shown that it is the
intent of Congress to carry out the conclusions reached by your
committee and that the traditional superiority of civilian Authority
over the military within the Government is not being altered.
2. Coordination for national security
The testimony received by your committee discloses an urgent need
for a continuous program of close coordination b3tween our domestic,
foreign, and military policies so that we may always be able to appiaise
our commitments as a Nation in the light of our resources and capa-
bilities. This, your committee feels, can be accomplished by the
provisions of the bill for the National Security Council supplemented
by a Central intellipnce Agency and the National Security Resources
Board.
(a) National Security Council.?This Council, comprised of the
President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretaries of Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the Chairman of the
National Resources Board, gives us for the first time in our history a
means of bringing together the responsible heads of Government
charged with recommending and carrying out our foreign policies
after making a careful appraisal of our domestic and military potentials.
(h) Central Intelligence Agency.?In order that the Council, in its
deliberations and advice to the President, may have available ade-
quate information, there is provided the Central Intelligence Agency,
a permanent organization under the Council, which will furnish such
information. At present this function is performed by the Central
Intelligence Group which was created by Presidential directive and is
temporary in character. The bill, as originally introduced, provided
that the Central Intelligence Agency would continue to perform the
duties now assigned by the President's directive to the Secretaries of
State, War, and Navy.
Your committee felt that it is better legislative practice to spell out
such duties in the interests of clarity and simplicity and has so pro-
vided in the bill.
?
A. @roved For Release 2006/12/15 ? CIA-RDP90-8 8. 8:111 Iii Iii -
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
4
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
Provision prohibiting the agency from having the power of subpena
and from exercising internal police powers, provisions not included in
the original Lill nor in S. 758, were added by your commitrme.
The Central Intelligence Agency, as provided for in the bill, will,
in the view of your committee, perform a long neglected and vitally
important function.
(c) The National Security Resources Board.--The National Security
Resources Board provided for in the bill will serve to advise the
President with respect to the coordination of civilian, industrial, and
milfAxy mobilization so that he may be placed, for the first time, in a
position to evaluate realistically our resources, capabilities, and risks
in relation to our domestic, foreign, and military policies.
The Board would also have the responsibility for planning in
peacetime for coordinated civilian-military mobilization in wartime-.
3. The National Military Establishment
The bill provides for a National Military Establishment consisting
of the Departments of Army, Navy, and Air, with a Joint Chiefs of
Staff, a War Council, Munitions Board, and a Research and Develop-
ment Board, all under a Secretary of Defense.
The term "National Military Establishment," is considered a more
accurate title than National Security Establishment as used in S. 758
(a) Secretary of Defensr.?The complexity and magnitude of the.
President's task in peace and War are such that your committee be-
lieves it is a generally accepted fact that he needs a full-time civilian
official to assist him in the performance of his onerous duties as
Qommander in Chief of the armed forces. The Secretary of Defense
fills this need. The military services may then be integrated on the
departmental level in Washington as they were so effectively integrated
in the field during the war, without reducing the ultimate responsibility
of the President or diminishing in any way our civilian control over
the armed forces. The specific powers given the Secretary of Defense
have been carefully delineated in the bill so that there can be no doubt
as to the kind and scope of the powers he will eveycise. With the
advice and assistance of the joint agencies in the National Military
Establishment the Secretary can establish general policies and pro-
grams, including the supervision of the military budget, and exercise.
such control and direction as will give us economical and efficient
integration of our military arms.
(b) Departments of' the Army, Navy, and Ain?Separate sections of
the bill provide for Departments of Army, Navy, and Air within the
National Military Establishment. Except for a 'change in name, the
Department of the Army is the present Department of War, save for
the air elements transferred to the Air Force. The Department of the
Navy remains as at present, and language has been inserted which will
adequately assure the integrity and continued efiectiveness of the.
Marine Corps and naval aviation concerning which some fears have
been expressed.. The creation of the Department of the Air Force
recognizes the war-demonstrated importance of this element of mili-
tary power and places it on a parity with the land and sea elements of
our military forces. This arrangement insures the permanence ?of'
planning and management at the seat of government of the team of
land, sea, and air forces which gave us victory in the theaters of war.
The elimination of wasteful duplication and overlapping which
esult from useless competition will be accomplished by the integration
Aooroved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
- Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
5
of the three departments in the National Military Establishment
under the Secretary of Defense.
(c) TA,ar Council.?The War Council, composed of the Secretary of
Defense as Chairman, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air
Force, together with the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of
Naval Operations, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, provides
in advisory body for the Secretary of Defense on all matters of broad
policy affecting the armed forces which will make a notable?contri-
bution to interservice harmony and cooperation.
(d) The Joint Chiefs of Staff.?This provision of the bill continues
on a permanent basis the most effective interservice coordinating
i.gency developed during the war. It has been further improved by
providing, in the form of a National Military Establishment, a means
by which differences which have heretofore caused delay may the
more readily be resolved. The status of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
tts the source of strategic plans and direction and as the principal
military advisers to the President is preserved and their effectiveness
increased by provision for a Joint Staff, limited specifically, as the
bill provides, to 100 officers and to be composed of approximately
equal numbers of officers from each of the three armed forces.
(e) Munitions Roard.?The. new Munitions Board will assume the
luties now performed by the Army-Navy Munitions Board, but will
have a permanent rather than a temporary character and a wider
1;cope of activity.
Through the studies and recommendations of the Munitions Board
- he Secretary of Defense will be enabled to assign procurement and
-,echnical service responsibilities and through the resulting cross-
-)rocurement, cross-servicing and joint use of facilities eliminate
1-tip1ications, of effort where practicable and make important savings
n the personnel, money, and facilities now required for similar
.ictivities.
(f) Research and Development Eoard.?The provision for the Re-
13earch and Development Board continues the existing Joint Research
Ind Development Board on a permanent basis. Your committee
feels that this Board, in supervising the research and development
programs of the armed forces will conserve to a marked degree our
Limited resources in the way of trained scientific personnel and take
Lull advantage for the benefit of all the services of the latest develop-
ments resulting from modern scientific research.
IV. SUMM-kRY
Your committee believes that the _provisions of the bill hereby
reported to the House of Representatives accurately reflect a com-
posite of the best suggestions for a comprehensive National Military
Establishment. .
It is the belief of the committee that the bill as reported contains
safeguards and other important provisions not found in the original
bill or in S. 758 as passed by the Senate.
It is the belief of the committee that the bill if enacted into law
will help insure the coordination of our domestic, foreign, and military
policies upon an informed basis; that it will facilitate the integration
of all our military services and their unified strategic direction and
.comm and.; that it wilt assist in taking full advantage of our resources
?
A. .roved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP98-ses 8:118 11/41.1 -
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
6
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
of personnel, materials, scientific research, and development; that it
will preserve the integrity and more fully exploit the capabilities of all
components of ground, sea, and air forces; that all of this can and
should be accomplished under traditional American civilian direction
and control.
The total nature of modern war and the rapidity with which it
could strike; the need for a balanced, adequate armed forces structure
and integrated, strategic plans for its employment; the inseparability
of the several aspects of our national policy; the requirements for men
and materials to be balanced against our resources; and the lack of
economy and efficiency in our present system, unite to. demand the
prompt passage of this proposed bill for unification.
(The list of witnesses referred to follows:')
Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson
Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal
Capt. W. G. Lalor, United States Navy
Vice Adm. Forrest Sherman
1\44 Gen. Lauris Norstad
Gen. A. A. Vandegrift
Gen. Dwight Eisenhower
Gen. Carl Spaatz
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz
Col. Melvin J. Maas
John P. Bracken
Brig. Gen. Merritt A. Edson
Rear Adm. Ellis M. Zacharias
Dr. Vannevar Bush
Vice Adm. Arthur W. Radford
Capt. R. R. Waller
Harry V. Hayde]i (American Legion)
John Dwight Sullivan (American
Legion)
Rear Adm. Rail:3]-1 A. Ofstie
Admiral J. H. Towers
Capt. Walter Karig
Hon. W. Sterling Cole
Vice Adm. G. F. Bogan
Rear Adm. J. J. Clark
Capt. John G. Crommelin
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
OF CLARE E. HOFFMAN, CHAIRMAN
The writer of this report throughout the hearings, during the
sessions of the subcommittee and of the committee, reserved the right
to, at all times, express his views of the proposed legislation.
Early in the hearings it became apparent that a majority of the
committee was determined to report out a bill.
When H. R. 2319, written by the military, forwarded to the Speaker
of the House by the President, came over to the committee, the
chairman as a matter of course introduced the bill.
The writer of this report is convinced that until a few days before
the committee ordered the hearings closed, all officials in the Navy,
many of them high ranking officers, who bore the brunt of the Nation's
battle on the sea and in many instances in the air, were prevented by
Executive gag from freely expressing their objections to the bill.
In the opinion of the writer the proposed legislation does not conform
to the procedure for the national defense as outlined in the Constitu-
tion.
The proposed legislation, instead of leaving to the Congress the duty
and the responsibility of providing for the national defense, of making
appropriations to the Army to be expended within 2 years, of provid-
ing, as directed by the Constitution, for a Navy, places that duty and
that responsibility upon a National Military Establishment?a new
and an additional organization superimposed upon the Army, the
Navy, the Air Forces, and the Congress.
A careful reading of the bill, of the hearings, and a realization of the
implications justify the conclusion that the possibilities of a dictator-
ship by the military are in this legislation.
There is nothing in the testimony to justify the argument that it will
in the near future bring about economy in our Military Establishment.
The argument that it will promote efficiency is met by the historic
fact that in our blundering, so-called inefficient, wasteful way, our
fighting men have on all occasions overcome the forces of the central-
ized militarism of those they have met in battle.
The thought that the National Military Establishment and the
departments or agencies ,established by this bill should be clothed
with power to plan our foreign policy, thus usurping the functions of
the President and the Congress, and under the plea of coordination,
regiment our production and our resources, is abhorrent. Yet under
this bill that is the proposal.
It is no answer to say that these new agencies are granted only the
power to plan, no power to execute; that to Congress they must
come for funds to implement their plans. -
It is a matter of common knowledge that all too often the Congress
and the Nation are whipped into line, compelled to support plans
and policies promulgated either by the State Department or the
administration and of which the Congress has no knowledge until
advised that we, as a Nation, were committed to such a policy.
7
roved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000400014_
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
8
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
Why then does the writer file the committee report and not oppose
the bill?
Because and only because legislation seems inevitable and H. R.
3979 introduced by him, modified in some respects by the subcommit-
tee and the committee, and finally molded into H. R. 4214, is the best
bill that was obtainable.
Forced to take a bitter dose of a medicine of doubtful value the
patient seeks to make it less distasteful, less harmful by every con-
ceivable device and provision.
On the evening of the day the bill was ordered reported out by the
committee the proposed report which follows was prepared by the
writer. Subsequently a report was ordered written by a subcommit-
tee, on which served James W. Wadsworth, John McCormack, and
the writer.
There was a difference of opinion as to what should be included in
the committee report. The writer yielded in that respect to his
colleagues on the subcommittee.
To make the record clear and to point out what the writer con-
siders serious dangers inherent in the proposed legislation, the pro-
cedure by, and the testimony on, which the result was reached, this
additional report is filed. On the floor of the House during the
debate, the views therein referred to will be given more complete
expression.
Much of the report written on July 15 has been included in the
authorized report.
Because the authorized report does not, in the opinion of the
writer tell the whole story, the original proposed report is fled. It
is not a part of the committee report. It represents the views of the
chairman. It is as follows:
PROPOSED COMMITTEE REPORT ON H. R. 4214
The Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments to
which was referred the bill (H.-R. 2319) "To promote the national
security by providing for a National Defense Establishment, which
shall be administered by a Secretary of National Defense, and for a
Department of the Army, a Department of the Navy, and a Depart-
ment of the Air Forces within the National Defense Establishment
and for the coordination of the activities of the National Defense
Establishment with other departments and agencies of the Govern-
ment concerned with the national security," having considered the
subject, report favorably a bill, H. R. 4214 and recommend that it
do pass.
The original bill was transiritted to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives on February 26, 1947, by the President, by letter
informing the Speaker that the bill had been drawn by representatives
of his office and of the armed forces and had the approval of the
Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. The bill was introduced by the chairman of the committee, Clare
E. Hoffman, on February 28, 1947, and referred to your committee.
On April 2, 1947, your committee commenced hearings which were
finally, on order of the committee, the vote being 22 to 3, concluded
on July 1, 1947. The closing of the hearings prevented the appear-
ance of additional witnesses. A partial list of witnesses who were
deprived of the opportunity of being heard is attached to these views,
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
?
?
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 9
marked "Exhibit A." During this period the committee heard 25
witnesses (list attached). The committee was handicapped by restric-
tions, articles 94 and 95 of Navy Regulations. Such restrictions pre-
vented a thorough investigation of many of the important provisions
of the measure.
Among other things, article 94 provides that?
all petitions, remonstrances, memorials, and communications from any officer or
officers of the Navy or Marine Corps, whether on active or retired list" * * *
addressed to Congress, or to either House thereof, or to any committee of Con-
gress, on any subject of legislation relating to the Navy or Marine Corps, pending,
proposed, or suggested, shall be forwarded through the Navy Department, and
not otherwise, except by authority of the Department.
Among other things article 95 provides that?
no bureau, office, or division chief, or subordinate in the Navy Department, and
no officer of the Navy or Marine Corps * * * respond to any request for
information from either House of Congress, or any committee of either House
of Congress, or any Member of Congress, except through, or as authorized by,
the Department; except as provided in section g 102, 103, 104, and 859 of the
Revised Statutes.
Unfortunately these restrictions on the free expression of opinion by
naval and marine officars were not lifted by the Secretary of the Navy
until June 23, 1947, shortly before conclusion of the hearings Vl hen a
general message was issued to the Navy by Secretary Forrestal which
for the first time lifted the restriction.
it is as follows:
From: SecNav.
To: ALNAV No. 139.
Released by: James Forrestal.
Date: June 23, 1947.
I have recently become aware that a feeling of restraint may exist among
certain naval personnel in regard to their latitude of expression before com-
mittees of Congress on the proposed National Security Act of 1947. This feeling,
which is counter to the statutes and to the orderly processes of free expression,
may have been engendered by misinterpretation of articles 94 and 95, U. S.
navy regulations, which in practical effect do not limit a naval officer's freedom
of expression but require that in addressing Congress, communications are to be
channeled through the Secretary of the Navy.
Without in any way weakening my endorsement of the January 16, 1947,
agreement between the War and Navy Departments which was promulgated
by ALNAV 21, I wish to make clear that every person in the naval service is at
liberty to voice his professional and personal opinion when testifying before a
committee of Congress on the proposed National Security Act of 1947. To this
end, and only with regard to the proposed National Security Act of 1947, those
provisiorth of articles 94 and 95, U. S. Navy regulations, which prescribe that
communications between officers of the naval service and committees and Mem-
bers of Congress be channeled through or authorized by me, have been waived.
Testimony of high ranking naval officers such as Admiral John
H. Towers, president of the General Board of the Navy; Vice Adm.
Arthur W. Radford, commander of Naval Air Forces in the Atlantic;
and Brig. Gen. M. A. Edson. United States Marine Corps, disclosed
that there is a very significant degree of intelligent opposition to
certain provisions of the bill from within the naval service.
A subcommittee reviewed the testimony and reported to the full
committee, which after some changes reported out H. R. 4214.
I. NEED FOR REVISION OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE ORGANIZATION
In the opinion of the committee the experience of the war just con-
cluded has proven conclusively that we must maintain in time of
A ? ? roved For Release 2006/12 ? -: ImsII.. ? - ??? mem. ???
Approved For Release 2006/12/15 : CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
1.0 NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
peace an adequate organization of the national defense readily adapt-
able to the needs of war on short notice.
Your committee is of the opinion that the Nation should provide
for the effective integration of the many factors comprising the
Nation's war potential.
II. LESSONS OF THE WAR
We emerged from World War II as a victorious nation. One of the
purposes of the bill is to give statutory effect to certain organizational
features developed during the war and which have proven to be de-
sirable in the control of our armed services.
It must be noted that there was not unanimity of opinion among the
witnesses as to the urgency of passing this legislation. Both civilian
and service witnesses advised against a too-hurried consideration of
the bill.
Your committee is aware of the major lesson of the Nation's great
wars, that the sources of strength to resist aggression consist funda-
mentally in the national morale, leadership.. manpower, industrial
efficiency, and productive capacity which manii'.est themselves in
successful operations by the armed forces in the field, at sea, and in
the air.
Your committee also recognizes the purely military lesson of the
recent war that unity of command in the field is essential to success
in battle and that the organization, training, and military command
of the, organized combat forces in time of peace must at all times
be directed toward the achievement of harmonious and effective
joint action by and among all forces in pursuance of their common
and paramount mission to defend the United States.
The advance of science and the magnitude of modern war require
that we construct a.Li ample framework for our military services
within which they may grow and develop under traditional civilian
control in accordance with the needs of the times. Your committee
recognized as well the totality of modern war and the urgent need
for close coordination between foreign polic3 and military policy,
between industry and science and the armed forces.
It is fully recognized that no security organization can be perfect,
but it can be.so constructed that through an evolutionary process it
can be adjusted with a minimum of delay to meet the ever-changing
needs of an atomic age.
Your committee has been mindful of the personal element involved
in making changes in our military services. The high morale, the
esprit de corps, the long record of valorous and useful service of all
elements of the armed forces is fully recognized and appreciated.
The need for the preservation of the integrity of elements of the Army,
Navy, Marine Corps, naval aviation, and Air Forces for future effi-
ciency has received your committee's careful attention. With these
conclusions as a basic blueprint for its work, your committee has
earnestly endeavored to produce a legislative framework capable of
meeting our modern defense requirements.
The bill as reported differs in certain respects from the original
H. R. 2319 and from S. 758. Such changes as have been made by
your committee are considered to be necessary if our constitutional
form of government is to continue. The Changes made by the com-
mittee are considered to be improvements over the original bill and
_Anorov_ecl For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
11
S. 758 and have been effected in order to restrict the original bill's
grant of excessive power to the military, to protect against the possible
development of the Central Intelligence Agency into a Gestapo-type
organization, and to provide specific protection for the Marine Corps
and naval aviation.
III. PROVISIONS OF THE BILL AS REPORTED
1. Declaration of policy
The declaration of policy which appears in the bill is deemed neces-
sary, by your committee in order that it be clearly shown that it is
the intent of Congress to carry out the conclusions reached by your
committee and that the traditional superiority of civilian authority
over the military within the Government is not being altered.
2. Coordination for national security
The testimony received by your committee discloses an urgent
need for a continuous program of close coordination between our do-
mestic, foreign, and military policies so that we may always be able
to appraise our commitments as a nation in the light of our resources
and capahlities. This, your committee feels, can be accomplished
by the.provisions of the bill for ,the National Security Council supple-
mented by a Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security
Resources Board.
(a) National Security Council.?This Council; comprised of the
President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secre-
taries of Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the Chairman of the Na-
tional Security Resources Board, gives us for the first time in our his-
tory a means of bringing together the responsible heads of Govern-
ment charged with recommending and carrying out our foreign poli-
cies after making a careful appraisal of our domestic and military
potentials. The majority of the members of the Council were repre-
sentatives of the Military Establishment.
(b) Central Intelligence Ageney.?In order that the Council, in its
deliberations and advice to the President, may 'have available ade-
quate information, there is provided the Cent al Intelligence Agency, a
permanent organization under the Council, which will furnish such
information. At present this function is performed by the Central
Intelligence Group which was created by Presidential directive and
is temporary in character. The bill, as originally introduced, pro-
vided that the Central Intelligence Agency would continue to per-
form the duties now assigned by the President's directive to the Sec-
retaries of State, War, and Navy.
Your committee felt that it is better legislative practice to spell out
such duties in the interests of clarity and simplicity and has so provided
in the bill.
Provision prohibiting the agency from having the power of subpena
and from exercising internal police powers, provisions not included in
the original bill nor in S. 758, were added by your committee.
(c) The National Security Resources Board.?The National Security
Resources Board provided for in the bill will serve to advise the Presi-
dent with respect to the coordination of civilian, industrial, and
military mobilization so that he may be placed, for the first time,
in a position to evaluate realistically our resources, capabilities, an
risks in relation to our domestic, foreign, and military policies.
Aooroved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
12
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
The Board would also have the responsibility for planning in peace-
time for coordinated civilian-military mobilization in wartime.
3. The National Military Establishment
The bill provides for a National Military Establishment consisting
Of the Departments of Army, Navy, and Air, with a Joint Chiefs of
Staff, a War Council, a Munitions Board, and a Research and Develop-
ment Board, all under a Secretary of Defense. The term "National
Military Establishment" is considered a more accurate title than
National Security Establishment, as used in S. 758.
(a) Secretary of Defense.?The complexity and magnitude of the
President's task in peace and war are such that your committee be-
lieves it is a generally accepted fact that he needs a full-time civilian
official to assist him in the performance of his onerous duties as
Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The Secretary of Defense
fills this need. The military services may then be integrated on the
departmental level in Washington as they were so effectively inte-
grated in the field during the war, without reducing the ultimate
responsibility of the President.
With the advice and assistance of the joint agencies in the National
Military Establishment the Secretary can establish general policies
and programs, including the supervision of the military budget, and
exercise such control and direction as should result in efficient direction
of our military forces. The provisions of this bill do not terminate
the activities of the many (more than 171) interservice joint com-
mittees that have been doing an efficient job eliminating duplication
and waste within the armed services.
(b) Departments of the Army, Navy, and Ar.?Separate sections
of the bill provide for Departments of Army, Navy, and Air within
the National Military Establishment. Except for a change in name,
the Department of the Army is the present Department of War,
save for the air elements transferred to the Air Force. The Depart-
ment of the Navy remains as at present, and language has been
added which will adequately assure the integrity and continued
effectiveness of the Marine Corps and naval aviation.
MARINE CORPS
Examination of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 1,178 papers convinced
the committee that a specific statement of Marine Corps functions
was imperative if the Marine Corps was to be protected from being
eliminated as an effective combat element, which, according to the
testimony of Fleet Admiral Nimitz, was the intention of the Army.
The hearings had not progressed far before it became evident that,
not only in the Marine Corps but throughout the country, there was a
fear that an effort had been and was being made not only to reduce the
size and limit the functions of the Marine Corps, but a possibility
that it might be reduced to the status of a police force.
The existence of any justifiable basis for such a fear'was denied by
some witnesses who held the highest ranks. That there was justifiable
ground for this apprehension is apparent if one reads the memo-
randum by the Chief of Staff, United States Army (General Eisen-
hower), under date of May 16, 1946, and the reply of Admiral Nimitz
(hearings, National Security Act of 1947, p. 640).
A. @roved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
?
?
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
13
In the memorandum forwarded by General Eisenhower, then
Chief of Staff, United States Army, among other things we find this:
The conduct of land warfare is a responsibility of the Army. Operationally,
the Navy does not belong on the land; it belongs on the sea. It should have
only technical and administrative functions on land in connection with its head-
quarters. bases, or other naval installations. The emergency development of
the marine forces during this war should not be viewed as assigning to the Navy
a normal function of land warfare, fundamentally the primary role of the Army.
There is a real need for one service to be charged with the responsibility for ini-
tially bridging the gap between the sailor on the ship and the soldier on land.
This seems to me properly a function of the Marine Corps. I believe the Joint
Chiefs of Staff should give serious consideration to such a concept. The need
of a force within the fleet to provide small readily available ar d lightly armed
units to protect United States interests ashore in foreign countries is recognized.
These functions, together with that cf interior guard of naval ships and naval
shore establishments, comprise the fundamental role of the Marine Corps. When
naval forces are involved in operations requiring land forces cf combined arms,
the task becomes a joint land-sea, and usually air force mission. Once marine
units attain such a size as to require the combining of arms to accomplish their
missions, they are assuming and duplicating the functions cf the Army and we
have in effect two land armies. I therefore recommend that the above concept
be accepted as stating the role of the Marine Corps and that marine units not
exceed the regiment in size, and that the size of the Marine Corps be made con-
sistent with the foregoing principles.
To that view, Admiral Nimitz, under date of March 30, 1946,
replied:
The basic and major issues considered in J. S. C. 1478/10 and J. C. S. 1478/11
comprise a proposal on the part of the Army (a) to eliminate the Marine Corps as
an effective combat element, reducing it to the status of a naval police unit with
possibly certain ancillary service functions in respect to amphibious operations,
and (b) to abolish an essential component of raval aviation which operates from
coastal and island shore bases. To these ends these papers propose to discard
agreements on these matters which have been arrived at between the Army and
the Navy from time to time over a period of mere than 20 years, ard which have
resulted in a responsibility for functions proven highly effective in World War II.
In matters so vital both to the Marine Corps and to naval aviation, I consider
it appropriate and desirable that the Joint Chiefs of Staff should have the benefit
of the views of General Vandegrift, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and
of Vice Admiral Radford, the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air. Their
comments are attached as enclosures A and B, respectively.
*
I agree with the Chief of Staff, United States Army, that further exchange of
papers on the subject of the missions of the land, naval, and air forces will serve
no useful purpose. It is further apparent that the question is part of the larger
one of the merger of the War and Navy Departments, which proposal was, at
the Army's insistence, referred to the President and which is now before the
Congress. Thus, the matter now under consideration has already reached levels
higher than the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
General Spaatz, commanding general, Army Air Forces, wrote:
I recommend therefore that the size of the Marine Corps be limited to small,
readily available and lightly armed units, no larger than a regiment, to protect
United States interests ashore in foreign countries and to provide interior guard
of naval ships and naval shore establishments.
General Eisenhower, Chief of Staff, United States Army, also wrote:
The following is proposed for consideration: * * *
(1) That the Marine Corps is maintained solely as an adjunct of the fleet and
participates only in minor shore combat operations in which the Navy alone is
interested.
(2) That it be recognized that the land aspect of major amphibious operations
in the future will be undertaken by the Army and consequently the marine forces
will not be appreciably expanded in time of war.
(3) That it be agreed that the Navy will not develop a land Army or a so-called
amphibious army; marine units to be limited in size to the equivalent of the
A. 'roved For Release 2006/12/15 ? A-:???1-88. 8:11. 0110400I -
Approved For Release 2006/12/15 : CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
14
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
regiment, and the total size of the Marine Corps therefore limited to some 50,000
or 60,000 men.
Report by Army members of Joint Staff planners (proposal):
* * * * * * *
Provide landing parties with the fleet to protect United States interests ashore
in foreign countries in operations short of war, and in t ane of war to conduct raids
and small-scale amphibious demonstrations.
* * * * * * *
Perform necessary functions aboard ship, at naval installations, and in the ship-
to-shore phase of amphibious operations.
Neither the original bill nor S. 758 contains positive protection for
the Marines. H. R. 4214 seeks to give the needed protection.
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR
The creation of the Department of the Air Fo7ce recognizes the
war-demonstrated importance of this aspect of military power and
places it on a parity with the land and sea components of our military
forces. This arrangement insures the permanence of military plan-
ning and management of government. The Army, however, is not
deprived of certain types of aviation necessarily organic to the Army
for the accomplishment of its functions.
H. R. 4214 is a further improvement over the original bill and 8. 758
in that your committee considered it advisable to retain the congres-
sional prerogative of stating for what reasons the armed forces are
created and supported. Thus, the basic functions of the Army,
Navy (including naval aviation), Marine Corps, End Air Force set
forth in broad and basic terms that will not restrict, military progress,
but which are so clearly defined as to prevent the occurence of another
unfortunate interservice dispute such as that which raged over the
status of naval aviation and the Marine Corps, and which proved so
detrimental to interservice for approximately 2 years. .General
Eisenhower and Admiral Nimitz have stated they have no objections
to prescribing basic functions.
(c) War Council.? The War Council, composed of the Secretary of
Defense as Chairman, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air
Force, together with the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Naval
Operations, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, provides an ad-
visory body for the Secretary of Defense on matters of broad policy
affecting the armed forces which should make a notable contribution
to interservice harmony and cooperation. Some members of the com-
mittee questioned the desirability of giving the military Chiefs of
Staff coequal membership on the Council with their respective superior
civilian secretaries.
(d) The Joint Chiefs of Staff This provision of the bill continues on
a permanent basis the most effective interservice coordinating agency
developed during the war. It has been further improved by providing,
in the form of a Natio:nal Military Establishment, a means by _which
differences which have heretofore caused delay may more readily be
resolved. The status of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the source of
strategic plans and direction and as the principal military advisers to
the President is preserved and their effectiveness increased by pro-
vision for a Joint Staff. The Joint Staff must in the future' be care-
fully observed to prevent its possible development into a national
general staff.
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
?
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 15
(e) Munitions Board.?The new Munitions Board will assume the
duties now performed by the Army-Navy Munitions Board, but will
have a permanent rather than a temporary character and a wider
scope of activity.
Through the studies and recommendations of the Munitions Board
the Secretary of Defense will be enabled to assign procurement and
technical service responsibilities and thlough the resulting cross-
procurement, cross-servicing, and joint use of facilities eliminate
duplications of effort where practicable and make important savings
in the personnel, money, and facilities now required for similar ac-
tivities.
Congress in the future must be vigilant to prevent undue military
domination of the national economy by means of interlocking mem-
berships between the Munitions Board and the National Security
Resources Board.
(f) Research and Development Board.?The provision for the Re-
search and Development Board continues the existing Joint Research
and Development Board on a permanent basis. Your committee
feels that this Board, in supervising the research and development
programs of the armed forces, will conserve to a marked degree our
limited resources in the way of trained scientific personnel and take
full advantage for the benefit of all the services of the latest develop-
ments resulting from modern scientific research.
IV. SUMMARY
The writer believes that the provisions of the bill hereby reported
to the House of Representatives accurately reflect a comr ?site of the
best suggestions for a comprehensive National Military Establishment.
It is the belief of the chairman that the bill as reported contains
safeguards and other important provisions not found in the original
bill or in S. 758 as passed by the Senate.
It is the belief of the Chairman that the bill if enacted into law
will help insure the coordination of our domestic, foreign, and military
policies upon an informed basis; that it will facilitate the integration
of all our military services and their unified strategic direction and
command; that it will assist in taking full advantage of our resources
of personnel, materials, scientific research, and development; that
it will preserve the integrity and more fully exploit the capabilities
of all components of ground, sea, and air forces; but that all of this
can and should be accomplished under traditional American civilian
direction and control."
Respectfully suhmitted. ?
CLARE E. HOFFMAN
A. 'roved For Release 2006/12 15 : CIA-RDP90-00610R000200041.1 -
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
EXHIBIT A
NAVAL AND MARINE CORPS WITNESSES WHO DESIRED TO 'TESTIFY ON H. R. 2319,
BUT WHO COULD NOT BE CALLED BECAUSE OF THE CLOSING OF HEARINGS
Mr. Artemas Gates, New York Trust
Co., 10 Rockefeller Plaza, New York,
N.Y.
Maj. Gen. William J. Donovan, 2 Wall
Street, New York, N. Y.
Maj. Gen. Graves B. Erskine, on Tem-
porary Duty at Marine Headquarters,
Washington, D. C.
Maj. Gen. Clifton B. Cates, command-
ing general, Marine Base, Quantico,
Va.
Capt. G. G. H. Hall, Aeronautical
Board, 1701 "L" Building, Washing-
ton, D. C.
Rear Adm. Clifford A. Swanson, Sur-
geon General of the Navy, Federal
Board of Hospitalization, 1724 F
Street, Washington, I). C.
Rear Adm. L. C. Stevens, Assistant
Chief for Research Development and
Engineering, Bureau of Aeronautics,
2085 Navy Department Building,
Washington, D. C.
Rear Adm. M. L. King, Deputy Chief,
Procurement Policy, Material Divi-
sion, Office of Assistant Secretary.
Brig. Gen. G. C. Thomas, Plans and
Policies, United States Marine Corps,
Navy Department. Washington, D. C.
16
Rear Adm. 0. S. Colclough, Judge
Advocate General of the Navy,
Navy Departm ent,Washington, D. C.
Fleet Admiral William F. Halsey, Navy
Department, Washington, D. C.
Capt. J. P W. Vest, Norfolk Naval
Shipyard, U. S. S. Franklin D. Roose-
velt, Portsmouth, Va.
Mr. Ralph Bard, Eversharp, Inc.,
Chicago,
Vice Adm. Donald B. Duncan, Deputy
Chief Naval Operations for Air,
Navy Department, Washington, D. C.
Brig. Gen. William A. Worton, United
States Marine Corps.
Capt. Austin K. Doyle.
Rear Adm. Earnest W. ',itch.
Rear Adm. William 0. Tomlinson.
Rear Adm. Richard Whitehead.
Maj. Gen. Field Narris, United States
Marine Corps.
Colonel Jercme, United States Marine
Corps.
Capt. Aurelius B. Vosseller.
Capt. George W. Anderson.
Capt. Herbert Riely.
Capt. Robert Goldthwaite.
Commander Charles Lanman.
A. 'roved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
?
?
?
Approved For Release 2006/12/15 : CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
80TH CONGRESS SENATE
}
1st Session ,
Calendar No. 246
REPORT2 39
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
JUNE 5 (legislative day, APRIL 21), 1947.?Ordered to be printed
Mr. GURNEY, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 758]
The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill
(S. 758), to promote the national security by providing for a National
Defense Establishment, which shall be administered by a Secretary
of National Defense, and for a Department of the Army, a Depart-
ment of the Navy, and a Department of the Air Force within the
National Defense Establishment, and for the coordination of the
activities of the National Defense Establishment with other depart-
ments and agencies of the Government concerned with the national
security, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with
amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The proposed bill (S. 758) was forwarded to the President pro
tempore of the Senate on February 26, 1947, by the President, who
stated in his forwarding letter that it (S. 758) had been drafted by
representatives of the armed services, and had the approval of the
Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. The bill was referred to your committee on March 3, 1947.
On March 18, 1947, your committee started hearings which lasted
for nearly 10 weeks and afforded a full opportunity to be heard to the
representatives of all Government departments and agencies and to
all private individuals.
On May 20, 1947, your committee commenced executive sessions
to review the testimony received in extensive hearings on the bill,
and to consider proposed amendments. During the course of the
executive sessions, the bill (S. 758) was so amended, without ma-
terially changing its basic provisions, as to make it a clear and precise
expression of the will of Congress in regard to unification of the armed
services.
On June 4, 1947, S. 758 (revised) was approved in your committee
(by a vote of 12 yeas to 0 noes) and ordered reported to the Senate.
It should be noted that certain of the committee members, while
A roved For Rel
Approved For Release 2006/12/15 : CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040 I
2 NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
voting to report the bill, reserved for themselves the right to offer
amendments on the floor of the Senate.
I. BASIC OBJECTIVES OF THE GOVERNMENT?To MAINTAIN PEACE,
REMOVE THE CAUSES OF WAR AND PROTECT NATIONAL SECURITY
In preparing the legislation now offered to unify the military depart-
ments of the Government, to link them more closely to other agencies
of the executive branch, and to strengthen our security measures by
the creation of new instruments of policy, this committee has been
guided by the basic objectives of our Government (1) to maintain the
peace and (2) to remove the causes of war. In support of those ob-
jectives it is essential that there be established a structure fully capable
of safeguarding our national security promptly and effectively.
One of the characteristics of the present era is the need to maintain
adequate security measures at all times, rather than only when
hostilities threaten or have broken out. To meet the future with
confidence, we must make certain that our foreign and military
policies are mutually supporting; that a central intelligence agency
collects and analyzes that mass of information without which the
Government cannot either maintain peace or wage war successfully;
that scientific research and development are coordinated, not only
within the military services, but between them and other Govern-
ment agencies, as well as industrial and educational activities; that
intelligent planning guarantees coordination of our military program
with the Nation's resources in manpower, materials, and facilities;
and that all of these objectives are accomplished with the greatest
possible economy compatible with the general effectiveness of our
national security.
II. FACTORS NECESSITATING REORGANIZATION OF THE NATIONAL
SECURITY STRUCTURE
World War II crowned the American effort with overwhelming
success. At the same time, the projection of this vast effort into
almost every field of civil and governmental endeavor disclosed certain
fundamental weaknesses in our security structure which should be
remedied while their details are fresh in mind. For instance, our slow
and costly mobilization, our limited intelligence of the designs and
capacities of our enemies, our incomplete integration of political
purpose and military objective, and finally, our prodigal use of
resources, all demonstrate convincingly that our national existence
would be imperiled were we to ignore the costly lessons of war and
fail to reorganize our national security structure so as to prevent the
recurrence of these defects.
In looking to the future, it is apparent, from the potentialities
implicit in scientific developments, that the world is entering an era
in which war, if it comes, will be fought at speeds and accompanied
by devastations that stagger the imagination. Consequently, in order
at once to guard our safety and support our efforts to promote and
maintain the peace of the world, it is essential that this country move
without delay to provide itself with the best organization for security
which can be devised.
In studying and amending the bill (S. 758) forwarded to the Con-
gress by the President, critical attention has been focused on two
?
-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
?
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
3
principal problems: (1) The structure best calculated to assure
optimum efficiency of military operations and the closest integiation of
the national security organization with the other departments and
agencies of the Government concerned with the national security, and
(2) the maximum economy in money, material, and manpower compat-
ible with military efficiency. The last is essential at this time, because
it appears certain that military expenditures in the foreseeable future
will necessarily be greater than in our former peacetime experience,
whatever the form of military organization.
In determining the most suitable organization for national security,
no effort has been spared to uncover past mistakes and shortcomings,
. and to create a structure deemed most likely to prevent their recur-
rence. The natural confidence in organizations which have well
served our needs in the past results in an understandable reluctance to
alter their form; but our close scrutiny has failed to disclose valid
reasons for postponing further certain steps so clearly indicated in the
public interest.
III. UNIFICATION AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS
The subject of unification of the armed services is not a new one.
After each of the World Wars military and nonmilitary personnel
alike have appreciated the urgent need for bringing to the military
departments in peacetime a large measure of the unity and common-
ness of purpose which characterize the operations of the armed forces
in time of war. This need has increased as wars have become total
and global in character.
Since 1921 there have been no less than 60 bills introduced in the
Congress pertaining to unification of the military services. Many
studies have been conducted on the subject. The most important
recent ones were those by special committees, one appointed by the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and one by the Secretary of the Navy. Both
of these studies emphasized the need of a single unifying organization
to assure complete teamwork between the military arms for efficiency
in operation and economy in the use of our resources, and of establish-
ing air power formally in a coequal status with land and sea
power. Both of these studies were examined by committees of the
Seventy-ninth Congress.
The Army and Navy both agreed in principle to the need for a
"single unifying organization" but placed different interpretations
on what the scope, composition, and functions of such an organization
should be.
The differing views of the War and Navy Departments on unifica-
tion were presented before committees of the Seventy-ninth Congress
in the form of the War Department Plan for the Organization of the
Armed Forces of the United States, and the Navy Plan for National
Security, respectively. During the hearings which followed, all
phases of each plan were exhaustively examined. Civilian leaders,
as well as Army and Navy experts, were given the widest latitude in
stating. their views on the unification problem. Little was accom-
plished in the early stages, however, toward increasing the area of
agreement between the military departments.
On June 15, 1946, the President's proposal for unification was re-
ceived by Congress in the form of letters to the President Pro Tempore
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. By then, considerable
A. 'roved For Release 2006/12/15 ? -.SA. I- Is. es.
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
4 NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 9: 7
headway had been made toward the accomplishment of a comprehen-
sive plan. The Secretaries of War and the Navy had developed by
the above date, through study and conference, certain basic principles
upon which unification of the services could be based.
The points upon which the military departments were in agreement
at the date of the President's message were primarily concerned with
the joint boards and agencies designed. to provide coordination among
the military departments, and between these departments and the
other departments and agencies of the Government concerned with
the security problem. These points of agreement involved a Council
of National Defense, a National Security Resources Board, the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, a Central Intelligence Agency, a Procurement and
Supply Agency, and a Research Agency.
The remaining points upon which full agreement had not been
reached involved the status of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the
powers of the Secretary of National Defense, the status of naval avia-
tion, and the status of the Marine Corps.
The President's letters recommended the early enactment of legis-
lation. Regarding the points on which full agreement had not been
reached, the President recommended the establishment of a single
Military Department under a Secretary of National Defense; three
coordinate services?the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the more
restricted interpretations of the status of naval aviation; and the
more liberal interpretation of the status of the Marine Corps.
The Seventy-ninth Congress adjourned without taking final action
on these recommendations.
IV. THE JANUARY 16, 1947, AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WAR AND
NAVY DEPARTMENTS
The efforts of the War and Navy Departments to reach an agree-
ment on all points of the unification program and to do so within the
scope and spirit of the President's letters of June 15, 1946, continued
after the adjournment of the 79th Congress.
By November, 1946, by dint of persistent study and evaluation,
the departments had resolved the over-all unification issue into three
separate though complementary problems, of which the actual Govern-
ment organization for national security was one. The others were the
delineation of the functions of the armed services, and the organization
for unified command in the field.
The first agreement reached was on unified command overseas.
That problem was completed on December 12 1946, and, with the
approval of the President, a Joint Chiefs of Staff directive was issued
on that date, the substance of which was made public.
Meanwhile work was continued on the other problems. Agree-
ment was reached shortly afterward both as to the functions of the
services and as to an over-all organization for nation al security which
would provide greater unity between the military departments, and
at the same time integrate them more closely with other Federal
security agencies, thus meeting the requirements of the basic concepts
of both departments.
This agreement which the President approved on January 16, 1947,
reads as follows:
Anoroved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
?
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 5
? JANUARY 16, 1947.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: On May 31, 1946, we jointly submitted to you a letter
which gave our respective views on the major elements involved in establishing
a greater measure of unification of our armed forces.
In your letter of June 15, 1946, you expressed gratification at the progress made
in narrowing the zone of disagreement which had previously existed between the
services and stated your position with reference to the essential points on which
disagreement still existed.
In our opinion the necessity for agreement between the military services is now
even greater than at the time of our earlier letter. We and our representatives
have been meeting in an effort to secure further resolution, within the scope of
the spirit of the statement of your position, of the views of the two departments.
We are pleased to report success in this undertaking.
We agree to support legislation in which the following points are incorporated:
(a) There shall be a Council of National Defense, a National Security Resources
Board, and a Central Intelligence Agency .(which already exists) as agreed by the
Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy in their letter to the President
of May 31, 1946.
(b) The armed forces shall be organized under a Secretary of National Defense
so as to place the Army, the .Navy (to include the Marine Corps and Naval
Aviation), and the Air Forces, each with a military chief, under the Departments
of the-Army, the Navy, and the Air Force respectively. Each shall be under a,
Secretary and, under the over-all direction of the Secretary of National Defense,
shall be administered as an individual unit. The Secretary of any of the three
departments may, at any time, present to the President, after first informing the
Secretary of National Defense, any report or recommendation relating to his
department which he may deem necessary or desirable.
(c) A War Council shall be created consisting of the Secretary of National
Defense as Chairman and with power of decision, the Secretary of the Army, the
Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the military heads of
the three services. The War Council will concern itself with matters of broad
policy relating to the armed forces.
(d) There shall be a Joint Chiefs of Staff consisting of the military heads of the
three services, and also the Chief of Staff to the President if that office exists.
Subject to the authority and direction of the Secretary of National Defense, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff will provide for the strategic direction of the military forces
of the United States, will formulate strategic plans, assign logistic responsibili-
ties to the services in support thereof, integrate the military requirements and, as
directed, advise in the integration of the military budget.
(e) There shall be a full-time joint staff to consist initially of not over 100 officers
to be provided in approximately equal numbers by the three services. The Joint
Staff, operating under a Director thereof, shall carry out policies and directives
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
(f) The Secretary of National Defense shall head the armed forces establish-
ment, shall be vested with authority, under the President, to establish common
policies and common programs for the integrated operation of the three depart-
ments and shall exercise control over and direct their common efforts to discharge
their responsibility for national security.
We are agreed that the proper method of setting forth the functions (so-called
roles and missions) of the armed forces is by the issuance of an Executive order
concurrently with your approval of the appropriate legislation. We attach for
your consideration a mutually agreed draft of such an order.
Respectfully yours,
ROBERT P. PATTERSON,
Secretary of War.
JAMES FORRESTAL,
Secretary of the Navy.
EXECUTIVE ORDER?FUNCTIONS OF THE ARMED FORCES
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the
United States, and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief
of the Armed Forces of the United States, I hereby prescribe the following assign-
ment of primary functions and responsibilities to the three armed services.
SECTION I.?The common missions of the armed forces of the United States
are-
1. To support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign or domestic.
As @roved For Release 2006/ i-'111??11-110
Approved For Release 2006/12/15 : CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
6 NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
2. To maintain, by timely and effective military action, the security of the
United States, its possessions and areas vital to its interest.
3. To uphold and advance the national policies and interests of the United
States.
4. To safeguard the internal security of the United States as directed by higher
authority.
5. To conduct integrated operations on the land, on the sea, and in the air
necessary for these purposes.
In order to facilitate the accomplishment of the foregoing missions the armed
forces shall formulate integrated plans and make coordinated, preparations. Each
service shall observe the general principles and fulfill the specific functions out-
lined below, and shall make use of the personnel, equipment and facilities of the
other services in all cases where economy and effectiveness will thereby be
increased.
SEC. II. Functions of the United States Army:
General: The United States Army includes land combat and service forces
and such aviation and water transport as may be organic therein. It is organized,
trained, and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained combat incident to
operations on land. The Army is responsible for the preparation of land forces
necessary for the effective prosecution of war, and, in accordance with integrated
joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of peacetime components of the Army
to meet the needs of war.
The specific functions of the United States Army are-
1. To organize, train, and equip land forces for?
(a) Operations on land, including joint operations.
? (b) The seizure or defense of land areas, including air-borne and joint
amphibious operations.
(c) The occupation of land areas.
2. To develop weapons, tactics, technique, organization and equipment of
Army combat and service elements, coordinating with the Navy and the Air
Force in all aspects of joint concern, including those which pertain to amphibious
and air-borne operations.
3. To provide, as directed by proper authority, such missions and detachments
for service in foreign countries as may be required to support the national policies
and interests of the United States.
4. To assist the Navy and Air Forces in the accomplishment of their missions,
including the provision of common services and supplies as determined by proper
authority.
SEC. III. Functions of the United States Navy:
General: The United States Navy includes naval combat and service forces,
naval aviation, and the United States Marine Corps. It is organized, trained
and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained combat at sea. The Navy is
responsible for the preparation of naval forces necessary for the effective prosecu-
tion of war, and in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the
needs of war.
The specific functions of the United States Navy are--
1. To organize, train and equip naval forces for?
(a) Operations at sea, including joint operations.
(b) The control of vital sea areas, the protection of vital sea lanes, and the
suppression of enemy sea commerce.
(c) The support of occupation forces as required.
(d) The seizure of minor enemy shore positions capable of reduction by
such landing forces as may be comprised within the fleet organization.
(e) Naval reconnaissance, antisubmarine warfare, and protection of
shipping. The air aspects of those functions shall be coordinated with the
Air Force, including the development and procurement of aircraft, and air
installations located on shore, and use shall be made of Air Force personnel,
equipment, and facilities in all cases where economy and effectiveness will
thereby be increased. Subject to the alpove provision, the Navy will not be
restricted as to types of aircraft maintained and operated for these purposes.
(f) The air transport necessary for eSsential internal administration and
for air transport over routes of sole interest to naval forces where the require-
ments cannot be met by normal air transport facilities.
2. To develop weapons, tactics, technique, organiza don and equipment of
naval combat and service elements, coordinating with the Army and the Air
Force in all aspects of joint concern, including those which pertain to amphibious
operations.
A nrIrmiprl Fnr Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 200,6/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
7
3. To provide, as directed by proper authority, such missions and detachments
for service in foreign countries as may be required to support the national policies
and interests of the United States.
4. To maintain the United States Marine Corps whose specific functions are?
(a) To provide Marine Forces together with supporting air components,
for service with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases
and for the conduct of limited land operations in connection therewith.
(b) To develop, in coordination with the Army and the Air Force those
phases of amphibious operations which pertain to the tactics, technique, and
equipment employed by landing forces.
(c) To provide detachments and organizations for service on armed
vessels of the Navy.
(d) To provide security detachments for protection of naval property at
naval stations and bases.
(e) To provide, as directed by proper authority, such missions and detach-
ments for service in foreign countries as may be required to support the
national policies and interests of the United States.
5. To assist the Army and the Air Force in the accomplishment of their missions,
including the provision of common services and supplies as determined by proper
authority.
SEc. IV. Functions of the United States Air Force:
General: The United States Air Force includes all military aviation forces, both
combat and service, not otherwise specifically assigned. It is organized, trained,
and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained air offensive and defensive
operations. The Air Force is responsible for the preparation of the air forces
necessary for the effective prosecution of war except as otherwise assigned and, in
accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of the
peacetime components of the Air Force to meet the needs of war.
The specific functions of the United States Air Force are-
1. To organize, train, and equip air forces for?
(a) Air operations including joint operations.
(b) Gaining and maintaining general air supremacy.
(c) Establishing local air superiority where and as required.
(d) The strategic air force of the United States and strategic air recon-
naissance.
(e) Air lift and support for air-borne operations.
(f) Air support to land forces and naval forces, including support of
occupation forces.
(g) Air transport for the armed forces, except as provided by the Navy
in accordance with paragraph 1 (f) of section III.
2. To develop weapons, tactics, technique, organization, and equipment of Air
Force combat and service elements, coordinating with the Army and Navy on
all aspects of joint concern, including those which pertain to amphibious and
air-borne operations.
3. To provide, as directed by proper authority, such missions and detachments
for service in foreign countries as may be required to support the national policies
and interests of the United States.
With the above agreement as a basis, on January 20, 1947, repre-
sentatives of the President and of the War and Navy Departments
started drafting legislation to effectuate its provisions. Their task
was to produce a bill which would be both mutually satisfactory and
adjusted to the requirements of other interested Federal agencies.
The product of this effort is the bill (S. 758) which the President
forwarded to the President pro tempore of the Senate on February 26,
1947, with the statement that: "It is my belief that this suggested
legislation accomplishes the desired unification of the services and I
heartily recommend its enactment by the Congress."
S. 758 as received was essentially an equitable and workable com-
promise of views initially divergent. It provided parity for the Air
Force. It provided for three independently administered military
departments, and for the unification of these departments within a
N ational Security Establishment by a Secretary, assisted by such
agencies as a War Council, a Munitions Board, and a Research and
?
A. 'roved For Release 2006/12/1 ? -: is-ss. 5rsum
Approved For Release 2006/12 15 : CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
8
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
Development Board, all subject to the general direction, authority,
and control vested in a Secretary of, National Security. It provided
for the establishment of unified commands in the field, and vested
strategic control of the armed forc s in a Joint Chiefs of Staff. It
safeguarded the status of naval a vi tion and the Marine Corps.
During the course of the hearings, the several provisions of the
bill were painstakingly examined y your committee. The civil
and military heads of the Army N vy, and Army Air Forces were
called, and each declared himself wholeheartedly in support of the bill
as referred to this committee. Civilian leaders, who qualified as
experts in business and government organization, as well as military
and naval officers, both active and retired, were also called. Both
civil and military witnesses were given the widest latitude of expres-
sion in order that the committee might explore all ideas in this field.
During the course of the hearings, it developed that many witnesses
had apprehensions with respect to the future of naval aviation and of
the Marine Corps. These apprehenSions caused your committee to
incorporate additional safeguards for these components. These safe-
guards have the concurrence of the War and Navy Departments
and the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
During the executive sessions vVhich followed; each proposed
amendment was carefully compared with the provisions of S. 758.
In addition, records of previous hearings and studies were reviewed
in order further to enlarge the background of your committee charged
with preparing the bill in its final forin.
S. 758 (amended) contains the same basic provisions as the original
bill. Many of the sections have been extensively revised, however,
in order to clarify their intent, and to delineate their provisions in
more specific terms so as to leave no doubt in regard to the will of
Congress on this vital subject. Certain sections have been rewritten
in their entirety, and some new sections have been added.
In its final form, it will provide a system of national security best
suited to our present-day needs, which will?
(1) Provide the organizational structure best designed to bring
about close coordination between the military forces and departments
and other branches of Government;
(2) Insure proper and timely planning for the conservation of
strategic resources of the N ation and the mobilization of manpower
and industry in the event of an emergency;
(3) Provide a national-security organization under a Secretary of
National Security which will insure the unified direction of the armed
services under civilian control;
(4) Fill the war-demonstrated need for integrated strategic plans
and a unified military program and budget, based upon sound and
complete intelligence;
(5) Effect the economies which can be realized by coordinating the
supply and service functions of the arrned forces;
(6) Provide the most effective and systematic allocation of our
limited resources for scientific research and development;
(7) Provide the most effective organization for training of joint
forces and joint operations of land, naval, and air forces;
(8) Permit the establishment of unified field commands in coordi-
nation with strategic planning;
(9) Permit the establishment of equitable over-all personnel policies;
and
Approved For Release 2006/12/15 ? Cl
-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
or ? e ease 2006/12/15 : CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 9
(10) Provide for the establishinent of air power on a parity with
land and sea power.
After long and serious deliberation, your committee decided against
Amending the bill to include the basic functions (roles and missions)
of the several services. Your committee came to this conclusion
because it felt that such amendments would seriously impair the re-
quired flexibility of our military forces, and because such action
would violate the principle of separation of executive and legislative
Authority traditional in American government.
It is the firm conviction of your committee that S. 758 (amended)
in its final form, represents a sound and workable means for moderniz-
ing our national security organization into a cohesive and balanced
whole, and its enactment is strongly recommended, as is evidenced
by the final vote of approval, 12 to 0, of your Armed Services
Committee.
V. PROVISIONS OF THE BILL (S. 758 AMENDED)
I. DECLARATION OF POLICY
The declaration of policy, which precedes title I of the bill, was
inserted by the committee in order to outline in clear and accurate
language the intent of the Congress in regard to the National Security
Act of 1947. The act has been designed to provide a comprehensive
program for the future security of the United States. It does this by
provisions involving three levels of the Government. On the highest
level, under the immediate supervision of the President, it provides for
the establishment of integrated policies and procedures for the
departments, agencies and functions of the Government relating to
the National Security. On a lower level, it provides for three inde-
pendently administered military departments, and provides further
for their authoritative coordination and unified direction, but not
merger, under civilian control. Finally, on the military level, it
provides for the effective strategic direction of the armed forces, for
their operation under unified control, and for their integration into an
efficient team of land, naval and air forces.
2. COORDINATION FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
The studies made by your committee, and all testimony received by
it, shows the need for closer and continuous coordination on a high
level within the Government of our domestic, foreign, and military
policies, for An appropriate intelligence organization to serve both
military and civilian agencies of security, and for vastly improved
planning for the control and utilization of our natural and industrial
resources in time of emergency.
(a) National Security Council
To meet the first of the above requirements, the bill establishes a
National Security Council composed of the President, the Secretary
of State, the Secretary of National Security, the Secretaries of the
Army, Navy, and Air Force, the Chairman of the National Security
Resources Board, and such other members as the President may
designate from time to time.
?
A ? oroved For Rel- - Is
Approved For Release 2006/12/15 : CIA-RDP90-00.
10
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
Essentially, the Council is an adlisory body to the President with
respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies,
so as to enable the military services and the other departments and
agencies of the Government to cooperate more effectively in matters
involving the national security.
The bill specifies that the President shall preside over meetings of
the Council, and that, in his absence, he may designate any member
of the Council to preside in his place.
(b) Central Intelligence Agency
The Central Intelligence Agency provided for by section 102 exists
now as the Central Intelligence Group. The bill establishes the agency
under the National Security Council and assigns to that Council the
supervisory authority and responsibility now exercised by the National
Intelligence Authority created by Executive order of the President
and composed of the Secretaries of State, War, and Navy.
The Agency will continue to perform the duties now assigned by
letter directive of the President (11 Fed. Reg. 1337, 1339, February 5,
1946) to the Central Intelligence Group until such time as permanent
legislation pertaining to its activities is provided by the Congress.
In view of the fact that certain officers of the armed services have
had wide experience in handling the type of intelligence with which
this agency will be largely concerned, the provision of the bill to permit
the Director of Central Intelligence to be appointed from the armed
services as well as from civil life is most desirable. During the
Agency's formative years, it is essential that its Director be technically
the most experienced and capable obtainable, regardless of whether he
is appointed from civilian or military life.
(c) National Security Resources Board
As a parallel organization to the National Security Council, but
independent of it, the bill provides for a National Security Resources
Board. The function of the Resources Board is to advise the Presi-
dent concerning the coordination of Military, industrial, and civilian
mobilization, and thus provide him and the National Security Council
with a sound and realistic basis upon which to evaluate the objectives,
commitments and risks they must consider in connection with our
domestic, military, and foreign policies. This function can best be
performed if at least one official is a member of both agencies.
In addition to being a source of information regarding the poten-
tiality of the national economy in terms of natural and productive
resources, this board in time of peace would maintain plans for
directing and reconciling the military and civilian mobilization of the
Nation. In time of war it could be made the effectuating agent for
putting these plans into operation generally, and for determining the
needs of the civil and military elements of the Nation and allocating
material and facilities among them.
3. THE NATIONAL SECURITY ORGANIZATION
The bill creates a National Security Organization, consisting of the
Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the
Department of the Air Force, together With certain agencies to assist
in the coordination of the activities of these Departments.
?
'90-00610R000200040001-1
S
?
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 11
(a) Secretary of National Security
The Secretary of National Security is the head of the National
Security Organization.
Experience in peace and war has clearly shown that there is need
for an official under the President with powers to exercise general
direction and control over the National Security Organization and
to resolve differences between the military departMents which cannot
be settled by agreement on lower levels.
The creation of such an official in no way reduces the responsibility
and authority of the President who, by the Constitution, remains
both the Commander in Chief, and also the source of all executive
power in the Government. The complexities of government under
present and future conditions make it essential, however, that the
President be assisted by a civilian official who can devote his full time
to the matters concerned. Such an official must have authority, under
the President, if he is to accomplish his intended purpose.
Both the bill and the agreement which was the origin of the bill
vest such authority and power in the Secretary of National Security.
They also make clear that these powers shall be exercised to establish
policies and programs for the departments, and to direct their efforts.
These powers do not extend within the departments themselves in
matters of administrative procedures peculiar to and affecting only
an individual department, nor do they include the delineation of
functions (roles and missions) for the armed forces.
Regarding administrative procedures, the Secretary of National
Security has the authority to establish common policies for the
National Security Organization which would affect the procedures
within the individual departments. In regard to the functions of
the armed forces, the President, in his capacity as Commander in
Chief, will himself continue to delineate them and prescribe any
subsequent changes.
In exercising his authority and power of decision over the military
departments, it is expected that the Secretary of National Security *ill
make maximum use of such joint agencies as the War Council, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Munitions Board, and the Research and
Development Board, which were created in order to give balance and
scope to his efforts at unifying the National Security Organization.
Section 202 (a) provides in part "all powers and duties not specif-
ically conferred upon the Secretary of National Security by this act
are retained by each of the respective Secretaries." Under this provi-
sion, the Secretaries of the military departments will continue to
perform presently assigned duties as well as those assigned under the
bill, except for such part of those duties as are assigned to the Secretary
of National Security, and subject to the further qualification that the
-President would in no way be restricted as to the areas in which he
may exercise his own executive authority with respect to the three
departments.
In section 202 (a) (3) regarding the provisions for coordinating the
military budget, the bill is more specific. The Secretary of National
Security is charged with coordinating and supervising the preparation
of budget estimates by the military departments, and with formulat-
ing and determining the combined budget estimates for submittal to
the Bureau of the Budget, and with supervising the budget program.
A ? ? roved For Release 2006/1 i-:1)"?8-88? Bross salAsse -
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
12
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
The bill further provides in section 308 that the military budget
will arrive before the Congress in such form as to show the original
estimates of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force with
all changes made thereto by the Secretary of National Security and
the President. These provisions clearly place with the Congress,
where it belongs, the final responsibility for maintaining the strength
and balance of our military forces. By receiving the military budget
as a coordinated whole, complete with the recommendations of the
Secretary of National Security and the President, Congress will have
all in one piece for the first time in its history the comprehensive
information most essential for the discharge of this vital responsibility.
(b) Military and civilian Assistants to the Secretary c.f National Security
The purpose of section 203 of the bill is to provide the Secretary of
National Security with military aides and administrative assistants
for functioning of his office, but to prevent the creation of a military
staff which could compete with the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Joint
Staff established elsewhere in the bill.
Likewise, the purpose of section 204 is to provide the Secretary of
National Security with adequate civilian assistants of a high order
for a small executive office with which to supervise the National
Security Organization. It is essential that the Secretaries of the
military departments have quick and ready access to the Secretary of
National Security and act as his principal advisers within their respec-
tive areas of responsibility.
In the interest of economy and in maintaining intimate contact
with the military departments, it is expected that the Secretary of
National Security will use to their full capacity such agencies as
the War Council, the Joints Chiefs of Staff, the Munitions Board,
and the Research and Development Board, and will decentralize to
a maximum the duties performed under his discretion.
(c). The Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force
The administrative and operational composition of each of the
above departments is outlined in separate sections of the bill. Specific
safeguards for naval aviation and the Marine Corps are provided
which have received the approval of the War and Navy Departments.
Under the provisions of the bill, each department will be admin-
istered as an individual unit by its respective Secretary, under the
general direction and control of the Secretary of National Security.
In the interest of preserving balance among the military departments,
the Secretary of each department is given the right of presenting to
the President, or to the Director of the Budget, any report or recom-
mendation relating to his department which he may deem necessary,
after first informing the Secretary of National Security.
Creation of a Department of the Air Force places this third element
of military power on a parity with the land and naval elements and
provides essential balance to our military team.
Your committee recognizes that air power has truly come of age
and has abundantly established itself in the tes- of conflict. The war
just passed has fully demonstrated its importance. An independent
Air Force must be allowed to develop the facilities it needs for any
air war of the future if the full strength and balance of our military
team is to be achieved.
Approved For Release 2006/12/15 ? CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
13
An extensive Air National Guard program has been developed under
the supervision of the National Guard Bureau. The authority over
National Guard units wherever they exist, and regardless of type, is
focused in a single head in the respective State or territorial govern-
ments. The committee considers it essential that this program
continue to progress, and that there be a single channel of communi-
cations to the several States on all National Guard matters.
Section 207 (f) provides, therefore, that the National Guard Bureau
shall continue to perform the same functions and duties for the
Department of the Air Force as it does for the Department of the
Army and that it shall continue the present relationship to the States
on Air National Guard matters.
Weeks of investigation, which included not only the receipt of
testimony on unification but the study of the records and lessons of
the late war as well, has brought home to this committee certain
basic facts in regard to modern war.
Victory in war today and in the future will be achieved only through ,
the application of maximum pressure by land, naval, and air forces.
Each of these forces, by the exertion of its unique pressure in the
accomplishment of 4s mission, contributes directly or indirectly to
the other two in the accomplishment of theirs, and all contribute
toward the accomplishment of the over-all objective. Inferiority in
any element of three-environment warfare greatly enhances the prob-
lem of the other two.
It is the considered view of your committee that the essential
balance and coordination for waging successful three-environment
total war can best be achieved through a National Security Organi-
zation, the basis of which is three separate military departments as
outlined in this bill.
Three departments do not mean triplication of supporting services
and facilities. Joint supervisory agencies, such as the Munitions
Board, are provided by this bill to insure joint use of the supporting
services and facilities wherever added economy and efficiency will
result. Sizable economies unquestionably will eventually result from
the organization established by this bill.
(d) War Council
The War Council as established in the bill is the principal advisory
body to the Secretary of National Security, and is important as a
means for bringing into common action the civilian and military
direction of the services.
(e) Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff
The bill contemplates the continuance of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
with duties substantially as at present, and permits functioning in
accordance with procedures developed by war experience. The bill
preserves their existing status as the principal professional military
advisers to the President and gives them a similar status with respect
to the Secretary of National Security.
A new feature of the bill is the power of decision over the Joint
Chiefs of Staff which, at the discretion of the President, may be
delegated, within certain fields, to the Secretary of National Security.
It is expected that this power will be exercised largely in regard to
administrative matters and the broader aspects of strategy in which
political matters become involved.
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15 : CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
14 NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1997
The Joint Staff is not new. Many of its tune Lions are now per-
formed by a loose structure of committees?some full-time, some
part-time. There are somewhat under 100 officers now doing full-
time duty of the type contemplated, and several times this number
on part-time status. The full-time joint staff established by statute
should strengthen the Joint Chiefs of Staff organization. The
purpose of the Joint Staff is not the complete elimination of com-
mittees. The duties of certain committees will be taken over by the
Joint Staff, but some of the more important committees will, it is
considered, continue to function with the thoroughness and speed of
their operational and administrative staff work greatly improved.
The Joint Staff as proposed in this bill has in itself no command
authority. The provision for a Director arises from a recognized
need for a full-time executive to coordinate staff work under the Joint
Chiefs who cannot themselves oversee the Joint Staff continuously.
Its purpose is to perform such duties as may be directed by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
(f) Munitions Board
As created in this bill, the Munitions Board assumes the functions
now performed by the Army and Navy Munitions Board, with the
scope of those functions materially expanded. Essentially, the Mu-
nitions Board is a staff agency of the Secretary of National Security
for centralizing policy and for coordinating control over the military
services in regard to the military aspects of industrial mobilization,
procurement planning, procurement allocations and priorities, and
allied matters. Power of decision normally rests with the Secretary
of National Security. In time of peace and in time of war he would
delegate to the Chairman of the Board such powers of decision, coordi-
nation and control as he considered necessary.
The Munitions Board to a large extent fulfil] .s the same role in the
procurement phase of logistics as the Joint Chiefs of Staff does in the
field of strategy and operations, and in the military phase of logistics.
Through the collaboration of these two joint agencies, with the
Munitions Board essentially supporting the plans of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, a higher degree of economy in logistics and efficiency in
military performance can be obtained than by any other means.
In the field of procurement it is upon decisions flowing from these
two agencies that methods of joint purchasing and procurement will
be expanded to the maximum extent compatible with military effi-
ciency. Large savings will be the final result.
As regards such supporting services as transportation, hospitaliza-
tion, maintenance, and others, the common policies and decisions of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Munitions Board will effect economy
through the maximum joint use of those facilities which can be ac-
complished without loss of military effectiveness. Duplication and
waste in procurement and other supporting services will thereby be
prevented, economy increased, and essential combat balance in the
composition, equipment, and efficiency of the military services be
retained.
(g) Research and Development Board
Section 214 continues the existing Joint Research and Develop-
ment Board, formerly called the Office of Scientific Research and De-
velopment, with one major difference. The Secretaries of War and
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
?
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
15
Navy gave powers of decision to the present chairman, realizing that
such powers were necessary. These powers of decision will, under
the provisions of the bill, pass to the Secretary of National Security.
(h) Temporary retention of current military organization
During the period of the war, the President found it necessary to
make certain changes in the organizational structures of the armed
forces in order to adapt them to modern requirements. Most of
these changes were accomplished under the provisions of the First
War Powers Act which is temporary wartime legislation. Upon its
termination, the War and Navy Departments and their component
parts, insofar as they are currently organized under authority of that
act, will of necessity revert to the form provided under prewar per-
manent law, causing them to go back to organizational structures
now generally considered to be obsolete.
As an illustration, prior to World War II the Army consisted of
individual branches such as the Infantry, Field Artillery, Cavalry,
etc., each with its own head and administrative headquarters. Al-
though this system was at one time proper, under modern conditions
it was found to be not only wasteful in men and resources, but obsolete
and inflexible in the light of World War II requirements. An organi-
zation was adopted in 1942 which eliminated the multiplicity of more
or less separate compartments, and brought them together in group-
ings or forces according to the functional tasks which had to be per-
formed. An example of such a grouping is the Army Ground Forces.
A reversion to the prewar organization would resurrect this discarded
system and would result in the restoration of activities and agencies
long since proved obsolete.
Your committee firmly believes that it is not the intent of "Congress
to permit such a retrogressive step, and it has therefore included in
section 306 (c) of S. 758 a provision that the Secretary of National
Security be permitted to continue the present organization structures,
components, and the arrangements thereof, as now exist under the
Executive orders referred to, until the postwar organizations can be
decided and finally acted upon. It has limited the period in which
this action must be taken to 2 years from the date of enactment of
the act of which it is a part.
VI. SUMMARY
The committee believes that the bill embodies the best thoughts of
the able leaders, civilian and military, who have concerned themselves
with this problem from the time that studies of unification were first
seriously undertaken in 1921, through the well-learned and convincing
lessons of World War II.
The basic premise upon which S. 758 (amended) has been constructed
is that in unifying the military services the pro visions for their man-
agement and direction be such that the traditional and fundamental
principle of civilian control be not impaired.
The terms of S. 758 (amended) achieve this purpose. The head of
the unified IN ational Security Organization and of each department
within that organization is a civilian. Furthermore, the structure
provided by the bill facilitates Presidential control of the armed
forces, and enables the Congress to examine and consider as a whole,
rather than as unrelated pieces, the requirements and development of
A..roved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R11. on, -
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
16
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
the armed forces, a method obviously permitting sounder?because
better informed--judgment.
The committee sees no danger of militarism in this unity of execu-
tive authority over the National Security Organization. Such fears
are groundless. The safeguard against militarism in this country is
not to be found in the costly confusion and inefficiency of uncoordi-
nated executive agencies with confused lines of authority. It abides
rather in the solid conviction of our people, and the basic democratic
principle, that the leaders of the armed forces are subordinate to their
civilian heads, and through them to the President, the Congress, and
the people. Concentration of authority over the armed forces in a
single civilian under the President, as provided for in this bill, will no
more foster militarism than concentration of that authority in the
President has fostered militarism throughout our national history.
On the contrary, by permitting direct access to and control of a unified
military organization it strengthens the hands of the Chief Executive
and the Congress in dealing with the armed services.
S. 758 as amended, provides a Secretary of National Security who is
responsible, under the direction of the President, for establishing
general policies and programs; exercising general direction' authority
and control; and supervising the armed forces budget. In doing this,
it also provides the Congress with a single individual to whom the
Congress can turn for an Integrated view concerning national security
matters, and from whom the Congress can require an exposition of
armed forces problems in the light of the over-all capabilities and
limitations of and requirements for armed forces. Your committee
believes that it is most important that the Congress provide an
individual with authority and respOnsibility who can be charged with
and held accountable for the maintenance of the most effective
security structure and the accomplishment of the maximum practi-
cable economies.
If prompt action is not taken to enact this bill during the present
Congress we shall, 2 years after the conclusion of World War II, find
ourselves the only major power in the world that has not modernized
its Military Establishment in the light of the lessons of that war.
Our purpose has been to meet the need for a comprehensive and
continuous program for our future safety and for the peace and security
of the world.
Your committee, therefore, strongly recommends that prompt action
be taken to enact S. 758 amended into law; and thus provide the unity
of military concept, the unity of purpose and effort without which at
the present time we may jeopardize our security.
0
A @roved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
?
?
?
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
[PUBLIC LAW 253--80TH CONGRESS]
[CHAPTER 343-1sT SEssioN]
[S. 758]
AN ACT
To promote the national security by providing for a Secretary of Defense; for a
National Military Establishment; for a Department of the Army, a Department
of the Navy, and a Department of tPe Air Force; and for the coordination of the
activities of the National Military Establishment with other departments and
agencies of the Government concerned with the national security.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
That this Act may be cited as the "National Security Act of 1947".
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sec. 2. Declaration of policy.
TITLE I--COORDINATION FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
Sec. 101. National Security Council.
Sec. 102. Central Intelligence Agency.
Sec. 103. National Security Resources Board.
TITLE II-THE NATIONAL MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT
Sec. 201. National Military Establishment.
Sec. 2J2. Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 203. Military Assistants to the Secretary.
Sec. 204. Civilian personnel.
Sec. 205. Department of the Army.
Sec. 206. Department of the Navy.
Sec. 207. Department of the Air Force.
Sec. 208. United States Air Force.
Sec. 209. Effective date of transfers.
Sec. 210. War Council.
Sec. 211. Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Sec. 212. Joint staff.
Sec. 213. Munitions Board.
Ser. 214. Research and Development Board.
TITLE III-MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 301. Compensation of Secretaries.
Sec. 302. Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries.
Sec. 303. Advisory committees and personnel.
Sec. 304. Status of transferred civilian personnel.
Sec. 305. Saving provisions.
Sec. 306. Transfer of funds.
Sec. 307. Authorization for appropriations.
Sec. 308. Definitions.
Sec. 309. Separability.
Sec. 310. Effective date.
Sec. 311. Succession to the Presidency.
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
A. .roved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
[Pus. Lew 2531
procedures for the departments, agencies, and functions of the Govern-
ment relating to the national security; to provide three military depart-
ments for the operation and administration of the Army, the Navy
(including naval aviation and the United States Marine Corps), and
the Air Force, with their assigned combat and service components;
to provide for their authoritative coordination and unified direction
under civilian control but not to merge them; to provide for the effective
strategic 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.
TITLE I?COORDINATION FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
SEC. 101. ( a) There is hereby established a council to be known
as. the National Security Council (hereinafter in this section referred
to as the "Council").
The President of the United State's shall preside over meetings of the
Council: Provided, That in his alaerice he may designate a member
of the Council to preside in his place.
The function of the Council shall be to advise the President with
respect to the integration of dome4ic, foreign, and military policies
relating to the national security so as to enable the military services and
the other departments and agencieS of the Government to cooperate
more effectively in matters involving the national security.
The Council shall be composed of the President; the Secretary of
State; the Secretary of Defense, appointed under section 202 ; the
Secretary of the Army, referred to in section 205; the Secretary of
the Navy; the Secretary of the Air Force, appointed under section
207; the Chairman of the National . Security Resources Board,
appointed under section 103; and such of the following named officers
as the President may designate from time to time: The Secretaries
of the executive departments, the Chairman of the Munitions Board
appointed under section 213, and the Chairman of the Research and
Development Board appointed under section 214; but no such addi-
tional member shall be designated until the advice and consent of
the Senate has been given to his appointment to the office the holding
of which authorizes his designation as a member of the Council.
(b) In addition to performing such other functions as the President
may direct, for the purpose of more effectively coordinating the poli-
cies and functions of the departments and agencies of the Government
relating to the national security, it shall, subject to the direction of
the President, be the duty of the Council?
(1) to assess and appraise the objectives, commitments, and
risks of the United States in relation to our actual and potential
military power, in the interest of national security, for the purpose
of making recommendations to the President in connection
therewith; and
(2) to consider policies on matters of common interest to the
departments and agencies of the Government concerned with the
national security, and to make recommendations to the President
in connection therewith.
A ? roved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
?
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
3 [PUB. LAW 2531
'(C) The Council shall have a staff to be headed by a civilian
executive secretary who shall be appointed by the President, and
who shall receive compensation at the rate of $10,000 a year. The
executive secretary, subject to the direction of the Council, is hereby
authorized, subject to the civil-service laws and the Classification
Act of 1923, as amended, to appoint and fix the compensation of such
personnel as may be necessary to perform such duties as may be
prescribed by the Council in connection with the performance of its
functions.
(d) The Council shall, from time to time, make such recommenda-
tions, and such other reports to the President as it deems appropriate
or as the President may require.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Sm. 102. (a) There is hereby established under the National Security
Council a Central Intelligence Agency with a Director of Central
Intelligence, who shall be the head thereof. The Director shall be
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, from among the commissioned officers of the armed services or
from among individuals in civilian life. The Director shall receive
compensation at the rate of $14,000 a year.
(b) (1) If a commissioned officer of the armed services is appointed
as Director then?
(A) in the performance of his duties as Director, he shall be
subject to no supervision, control, restriction, or prohibition (mili-
tary or otherwise) other than would be operative with respect to
him if he were a civilian in no way connected with the Department
of the Army, the Department of the Navy, the Department of the
Air Force, or the armed services or any component thereof; and
(B) he shall not possess or exercise any supervision, control,
powers, or functions (other than such as he possesses, or is author-
ized or directed to exercise, as Director) with respect to the armed
services or any component thereof, the Department of the Army,
the Department of the Navy, or the Department of the Air Force,
or any branch, bureau, unit or division thereof, or with respect to
any of the personnel (military or civilian) of any of the foregoing.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1), the appointment to the
office of Director of a commissioned officer of the armed services, and
his 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 serv-
ices, or any emolument, perquisite, right, privilege, or benefit incident
to or arising out of any such status, office, rank, or grade. Any such
commissioned officer shall, while serving in the office of Director,
receive the military pay and allowances (active or retired, as the case
may be) payable to a commissioned officer of his grade and length of
-service and shall be paid, from any funds available to defray the
expenses of the Agency, annual compensation at a rate equal to the
amount by which $14,000 exceeds the amount of his annual mili ary
pay and allowances.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 6 of the Act of
,Aucrust 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555), or the provisions of any other law,
the Directorof Central Intelligence may, in his discretion, terminate
the employment of any officer or employee of the Agency whenever
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
(PUB. LAW 253.]
he shall deem such termination necessary or advisable in the interests
of the United States, but such termination shall not affect the right
of such officer or e:mployee to seek or accept employment in any
other department or agency of the Government if declared eligible
for such employment by the United States Civil Service Commission.
(d) For the purpose of coordinating the intelligence activities of
the several Government departments and agencies in the interest of
national security, it shall be the ' duty of the Agency, under the
direction of the National Security Council?
(1) to advise the National ;Security Council in matters con-
cerning such intelligence activities of the Government depart-
ments and agencies as relate to national security;
(2) to make recommendations to the National Security Council
for the coordination of such intelligence activities of the depart-
ments and agencies of the Government as relate to the national
security;
(3) to correlate and evaluate intelligence relating to the
national security, and provide ;for the appropriate dissemination
of such intelligence within the Government using where appro-
?
priate existing agencies and fa ili ties : Prcvided, That the Agency
shall have no police, subpena, ; aw-enforcement powers, or inter-
nal-security functions: Provided further, That the departments
and other agencies of the Government shall continue to collect,
evaluate, correlate, and disseininate departmental intelligence:
And provided further, That the Director of Central Intelligence
? shall be responsible for protecting intelligence sources and meth-
ods from unauthorized disclosure;
(4) to perform, for the benefit of the existing intelligence
agencies, such additional services of common concern as the
National Security Council determines can be more efficiently
accomplished centrally; ,
(5) to perform such other functions and duties related to
intelligence affecting the national security as the National Security
Council may from time to time direct.
(e) To the extent recommended ,by the National Security Council
and approved by the President, such intelligence of the departments
and agencies of the Government, except as hereinafter provided,
relating to the national security shall be open to the inspection of the
Direator of Central Intelligence, and such intelligence as relates to
the national security and is possessed by such departments and other
agencies of the Government, except as hereinafter provided, shall be
made available to the Director of Central Intelligelice for correlation,
evaluation, and dissemination: Provided, however, That upon the
written request of the Director of 'Central Intelligence, the Director
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall make available to the
Director of Central Intelligence such information for correlation,
evaluation, and dissemination as may be essential to the national
security. ,
(f) Effective when the Director first appointed under subsection
(a) has taken office-- ,
(1) the National Intelligence Authority (11 Fed. Reg. 1337,
1339, February 5, 1946) shall cease to exist; and
A. @roved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
?
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
5 [Pus. Lew 253.
(2) the personnel, property, and records of the Central Intelli-
gence Group are transferred to the Central Intelligence Agency,
and such Group shall cease to exist. Any unexpended balances
of appropriations, allocations, or other funds available or
authorized to be made available for such Group shall be avail-
able and shall be authorized to be made available in like manner
for expenditure by the Agency.
NATIONAL SECURITY RESOURCES BOARD
SEC, 103. (a) There is hereby established a National Security
Resources Board (hereinafter in this section referred to as the
"Board") to be composed of the Chairman of the Board and such
heads or representatives of the various executive departments and
independent agencies as may from time to time be designated by the
President to be members of the Board. The Chairman of the Board
shall be appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, and shall receive compensation at the
rate of $14,000 a year.
(b) The Chairman of the Board, subject to the direction of the
President, is authorized, subject to the civil-service laws and the
Classification Act of 1923, as amended, to appoint and fix the com-
pensation of such personnel as may be necessary to assist the Board
in carrying out its functions.
(c) It shall be the function of the Board to advise the President
concerning the coordination of military, industrial, and civilian
mobilization, including?
(1) policies concerning industrial and civilian mobilization
in order to assure the most effective mobilization and maximum
utilization of the Nation's manpower in the event of war;
(2) programs for the effective use in time of war of the
Nation's natural and industrial resources for military and civilian
needs, for the maintenance and stabilization of the civilian econ-
omy in time of war, and for the adjustment of such economy
to war needs and conditions;
(3) policies for unifying, in time of war, the activities of Fed-
eral agencies and departments engaged in or concerned with
production, procurement, distribution, or transportation of mili-
tary or civilian supplies, materials, and products;
(4) the relationship between potential supplies of, and poten-
tial requirements for, manpower, resources, and productive facili-
ties in time of war;
(5) policies for establishing adequate reserves of strategic
and critical material, and for the conservation of these reserves' ?
(6) the strategic relocation of industries, services, government,
and economic activities, the continuous operation of which is
essential to the Nation's security.
(d) In performing its functions, the Board shall utilize to the
maximum extent the facilities and resources of the departments and
agencies of the Government.
Approved For Release 2006/12/15 ? CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
[Pus. Lew 253I 6
TITLE II?THE NATIONAL MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT
SEC. 201. (a) There is hereby established. the National Military
Establishment, and the Secretary of Defense shall be the head
thereof.
(b) The National Military Establishment shall consist of the
Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the
Department of the Air Force, together with all other agencies created
under title IT of this Act.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
SEC. 202. (a) There shall be a Secretary of Defense, who shall
be appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with 1 he
advice and consent of the Senate:Provided, That a person who has
within ten years been on active day as a commissioned officer in a
Regular component of the armed services shall not be eligible for
appointment as Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense
shall be the principal assistant to the President in all matters relat-
ing to the national security. Ihnler the direction of the President
and subject to the provisions of this Act he shall perform the
following duties:
(1) Establish general policies and programs for the National
Military Establishment and for all of the departments and
agencies therein;
(2) Exercise general direction., authority, and control over such
departments and agencies;
(3) Take appropriate steps to eliminate unnecessary duplica-
tion or overlapping in the fields of procurement, supply,
transportation, storage, health; and research;
(4) Supervise and coordinate the preparation of the budget
estimates of the departments and agencies comprising the National
Military Establishment; forniulate and determine the budget
estimates for submittal to the Bureau of the Budget; and super-
vise the budget j)rograms of such departments and agencies under
the applicable appropriation Act:
Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent the Secretary
of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Air
Force from presenting to the President or to the Director of the
Budget, after first so informing the Secretary of Defense, any report
or recommendation relating to his department which he may deem
necessary: And provided further, That the Department of the Army,.
the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force
shall be administered as individual executive departments by their
respective Secretaries and all powers and duties relating to such
departments not specifically conferred upon the Secretary of Defense
by this Act shall be retained by each of their respective Secretaries.
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit annual written reports
to the President aria the Congress covering elzpenditures, work, and
accomplishments of the National Military Establ ishment, together
with such recommendations as he shall deem appropriate.
Aooroved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
?
?
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
7 [Pus. Lew 253.1
(c) The Secretary of Defense shall cause a seal of office to be made
for the National Military Establishment, of such design as the Presi-
dent shall approve, and judicial notice shall be taken thereof.
MILITARY ASSISTANTS TO THE SECRETARY
SEC. 203. Officers of the armed services may be detailed to duty
as assistants and personal aides to the Secretary of Defense, but he
shall not establish a military staff.
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
SEC. 204. (a) The Secretary of Defense is authorized to appoint
from civilian life not to exceed three special assistants to advise and
assist him in the performance of his duties. Each such special assist-
ant shall receive compensation at the rate of $10,000 a year.
(o) The Secretary of Defense is authorized, subject to the civil-
service laws and the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, to appoint
and fix the compensation of such other civilian personnel as may be
necessary for the performance of the functions of the National Mili-
tary Establishment other than those of the Departments of the Army,
Navy, and Air Force.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEC. 205. (a) The Department of War shall hereafter be designated
the Department of the Army, and the title of the Secretary of War
shall be changed to Secretary of the Army. Changes shall be made
in the titles of other officers and activities of the Department of the
Army as the Secretary of the Army may determine.
(b) All laws, orders, regulations, and other actions relating to the
Department of War or to any officer or activity whose title is changed
under this section shall, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act, be deemed to relate to the Department of the
Army within the National Military Establishment or to such officer or
activity designated by his or its new title.
(c) The term "Department of the Army" as used in this Act shall be
construed to mean the Department of the Army at the seat of govern-
ment and all field headquarters, forces, reserve components, installa-
tions, activities, and functions under the control or supervision of the
Department of the Army.
(d) The Secretary of the Army shall cause a seal of office to be made
for the Department of the Army, of such design as the President may
approve, and judicial notice shall be taken thereof.
(e) In general the United States Army, within the Department of
the Army, shall include land combat and service forces and such avia-
tion and water transport as may be organic therein. It shall be
organized, trained, and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained
combat incident to operatiois on land. It shall be responsible for the
preparation of land forces necessary for the effective prosecution of
war except as otherwise assigned and, in accordance with integrated
joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of peacetime components
of the Army to meet the needs of war.
A @roved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
WW1. LAW 253,1 81
'DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
SEc. 206. (a) The term "Depart ent of the Navy" as used in this
Act shall be construed to mean the Department of the Navy at the seat
of government; the headquarters, United States Marine Corps; the
entire operating forces of the United States Navy, including naval
aviation, and of the United States Marine Corps, including the
reserve components of such forces all field activities, headquarters,
i
forces, bases, installations, activitie , and functions under the control
or supervision of the Department o the Navy; and. the United States
Coast Guard when operating as a part of the Navy pi irsuant to law.
(b) In general the United States Navy, within the Department of
the Navy, shall include naval conibat and services forces and such
aviation as may be organic therein. It shall be organized, trained,
and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained combat incident to
operations at sea. It shall be responsible for the preparation of naval
forces necessary for the effective prosecution of war except as other-
wise assigned, and, in accordance With integrated joint mobilization
plans, for the expansion of the peaCetime components of the Navy to
meet the needs of war. I
All naval aviation shall be integrated with the naval service as
part thereof within the Department of the Navy. Naval aviation shall
consist of combat and service and training forces, and shall include
land-based naval aviation, air transport essential for naval operations,
all air weapons and air techniques involved in the operations and
activ 'lies of the United States Navy, and the entire remainder of the
aeronautical organization of the United States Navy, together with the
personnel necessary therefor. I
The Navy shall be generally responsible for naval reconnaissance,
antisubmarine warfare, and protectibn of shipping.
The Navy shall avelcp ait-c-zal',-? Fv.-cap()ns, tactics, technique, organ-
ization and equipment of naval combat and service elements; matters
of joint concern as to these functions shall be coordinated between
the Army, the Air Force, and the NaYy.
(c) The United States Marine Corps, wit un the Department of
the Navy, shall include land combat and service forces and such
aviation as may be organic therein. The Marine Corps shall be
organized, trained, and equipped to provide fleet marine forces of
combined arms, together with sum)orting air components, for service
with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and
for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the
prosecution of a naval campaign. iIt shall be the duty of the Marine
Corps to develop, in coordination ivith the Almy and the Air Force,
those phases of amphibious operations which pertain to the trctics,
technique, and equipment employed by landing forces. In addition,
the Marine Corps shall provide detachments and organizations for
service on armed vessels of the Navy, shall provide security detach-
ments for the protection of naval p-i?operty at naval stations and bases,
and shall perform such other duties as the President may direct:
Provided, That such additional duties shall not detract from or inter-
fere with the operations for whiCh the Marine Corps is primarily
organized. The Marine Corps shall be responsible, in accordance
with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of peace-
time components of the Marine Corps to meet the needs of war.
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
9 [Pus. LAW 2511
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
? SEC. 207. (a) Within the National Military Establishment there is
hereby established an executive department to be known as the Depart-
ment of the Air Force, and a Secretary of the Air Force, who shall be
the head thereof. The Secretary of the Air Force shall be appointed
from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate.
(b) Section 158 of the Revised Statutes is amended to include the
Department of the Air Force and the provisions of so much of title IV
of the Revised Stat utes as now or hereafter amended as is not incon-
sistent with this Act shall be applicable to the Department of the
Air Force.
(c) The term "Department of the Air Force" as used in this Act
shall be construed to niean the Department of the Air Force at the
seat of government and all field headquarters, forces, reserve com-
ponents, installations, activities, and functions under the control or
supervision of the Department of the Air Force.
(d) There shall be in the Department of the Air Force an Under
Secretary of the Air Force and two Assistant Secretaries of the Air
Force, who shall be appointed from civilian life by the President by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(e) The several officers of the Department of the Air Force shall
perform such functions as the Secretary of the Air Force may
prescribe.
(f) So much of the functions of the Secretary of the Army and
of the Department of the Army, including those of any officer of
such Department, as are assigned to or under the control of the
Commanding General, Army Air Forces, or as are deemed by the
Secretary of Defense to be necessary or desirable for the operations
of the Department of the Air Force or the United States Air Force,
shall be transferred to and vested in the Secretary of the Air Force
and the Department of the Air Force: Provided, That the National
Guard Bureau shall, in addition to the functions and duties per-
formed by it for the Department of the Army, be charged with similar
functions and duties for the Department of the Air Force, and shall
be the channel of communication between the Department of the Air
Force and the several States on all matters pertaining to the Air
National Guard: And provided turfh,er, That, in order to permit an
orderly transfer, the Secretary of Defense may, during the transfer
period hereinafter prescribed, direct that the Department of the Army
shall continue for appropriate periods to exercise any of such func-
tions, insofar as they relate to the Department of the Air Force, or
the United States Air Force or their property and personnel. Such
of the property, personnel, and records of the Department of the Army
used in the exercise of functions transferred under this subsection as
the Secretary of Defense shall determine shall be transferred or
assigned to the Department of the Air Force.
(g) The Secretary of the Air Force shall cause a seal of office to
be made for the Department of the Air Force, of such device as the
President shall approve, and judicial notice shall be taken thereof.
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
[PUB. LAW 253.t
10
tTNITED STATES AIR FORCE
I
SEc. 208. (a) The United States Air Force is hereby established
under the Department of the Air Force. The Army Air Forces, the
Air Corps, United States Army, Find the General Headquarters Air
Force (Air Force Combat Command), shall be transferred to the
United States Air Force. 1
(b) There shall be a Chief of Staff, United States Air Force., who
shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, for a term of four years from among the officers
of general rank who are assigned to or commissioned in the United
States Air Force. Under the direction of the Secretary of the Air
Force, the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, shall exercise
command over the United States Air Force and shall be charged with
the duty of carrying into execution all lawful orders and directions
which may be transmitted to him. The functions of the Commanding
General, General Headquarters Air Force (A.ir Force Combat Com-
mand) and of the Chief of the Air Corps a.ad of the Commanding
General, Army Air Forces, shall be transferred to the Chief of Stall,
United States Air Force. When sUch transfer becomes effective, the
offices of the Chief of the Air Corp, United States Army, and Assist-
ants to the Chief of the Air Corps, ,United States Army, provided for
by the Act of June 4, 1920, as amended (41 Sat. 768), and Command-
ing General, General Headquarters .Air Force, provided for by section
5 of the Act of June 16, 1936 (49 Stat. 1525), shall cease to exist.
While holding office as Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, the
incumbent shall hold a grade and receive allowances equivalent to
those prescribed by law for the Chief of Staff, United States Army.
The Chief of Staff, United Statesrmy, the Chief of Naval Opera-
tions, and the Chief of Staff, Unite States Air Force, shall take rank
among themselves according to their relative dates of appointment
as such, and shall each take rank above all other officers On the active
list of the Army, Navy, and Air Force: Provided, That nothing in
this Act shall have the effect of changing the relative rank of the
present Chief of Staff, United States Army, and the present Chief of
Naval Operations.
(c) All commissioned officers, W,arrant officers, and enlisted men,
commissioned, holding warrants, or enlisted, in the Air Corps, United
States Army, or the Army Air Forces, shall be transferred in branch
to the United States Air Force. All other commissioned officers, war-
rant officers, and enlisted men, who 'are commissioned, hold warrants,
or are enlisted, in any component of the Army of the United States
and who are under the authority or command of the Commanding
General, Army Air Forces, shall be continued under the authority or
command of the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, and under
the jurisdiction of the Department of the Air Force. Personnel whose
status is affected by this subsection shall retain their existing commis-
sions, warrants, or enlisted status in existing components of the armed
forces unless otherwise altered or terminated in accordance with exist-
ing law; and they shall not be deemed to have been appointed to a new
or different office or grade, or to have vacated their permanent or
temporary appointments in an existing component. of the armed
forces, solely by virtue of any change in status under this subsection.
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
11 [Pus. LAW 2531
No such change in status shall alter or prejudice the status of any
individual so assigned, so as to deprive him of any right, benefit, or
privilege to which he may be entitled under existing law.
(d) Except as otherwise directed by the Secretary of the Air Force,
all property, records, installations, agencies, activities, projects, and
civilian personnel under the jurisdiction, control, authority, or com-
mand of the Commanding General, Army Air Forces, shall be con-
firmed to the same extent under the jurisdiction, control, authority, or
command, respectively, of the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force,
in the Department of the Air Force.
(e) For a period of two years from the date of enactment of this
Act, personnel (both military and civilian), property, records,
installations, agencies, activities and projects may be transferred
between the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air
Force by direction of the Secretary of Defense.
( f ) In general the United States Air Force shall include aviation
forces both combat and service not otherwise assigned. It shall be
organized, trained., and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained
offensive and defensive air operations. The Air Force shall be
responsible for the preparation of the air forces necessary for the
effective prosecution of war except as otherwise assigned and, in
accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion
of the peacetime components of the Air Force to meet the needs of
war.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF TRANSFERS
SEC. 209. Each transfer, assignment, or change in status under sec-
tion 207 or section 208 shall take effect upon such date or dates as may
be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
WAR COUNCIL
SEC. 210. There shall be within the National Military Establish-
ment a War Council composed of the Secretary of Defense, as Chair-
man, who shall have power of decision; the Secretary of the Army; the
Secretary of the Navy; the Secretary of the Air Force; the Chief of
Staff, United States Army; the Chief of Naval Operations; and the
Chief of Staff, United States Air Force. The War Council shall advise
the Secretary of Defense on matters of broad policy relating to the
armed forces, and shall consider and report on such other matters
as the Secretary of Defense may direct.
JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
SEC. 211. (a) There is hereby established within the National Mili-
tary Establishment the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which shall consist of the
Chief of Staff, United States Army; the Chief of Naval Operations;
the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force; and the Chief of Staff to
the Commander in Chief, if there be one.
(b) Subject to the authority and direction of the President and the
Secretary of Defense, it shall be the duty of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
(1) to prepare strategic plans and to provide for the strategic
direction of the military forces;
(2) to prepare joint logistic plans and to assign to the military
services logistic responsibilities in accordance with such plans;
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
(PUB LAW 253.)
12
(3) to establish unified comm nds in strategic areas when such
unified commands are in the int rest of national security;
(4) to formulate policies fo joint training of the military
forces;
(5) to formulate policies for coordinating the education of
members of the military forces;
(6) to review major materia and personnel requirements of
the military forces, in accordance with strategic and logistic plans;
and
(7) to provide United State S representation on the Military
Staff Committee of the United Nations in accordance with the
provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
(c) The Joint Chiefs of Staff shall act as the principal military
advisers to the President and the Se9retary of Defense and shall per-
form such other duties as the President and the Secretary of Defense
may direct or as may be prescribed by law.
JOINT S'I'AFF
SEC. 212. There shall be, under the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Joint
Staff to consist of not to exceed one hundred officers and to be composed
of approximately equal numbers of officers from each of the three armed
services. The Joint Staff. operating under a Director thereof
appointed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall perform such duties as
may be directed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Director shall be
an officer junior in grade to all members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
MUNITIONS BOARD
SEC. 213. (a) There is hereby established in the National Military
Establishment a Munitions Board (hereinafter in thi.s section referred
to as the "Board").
(b) The Board shall be composed 'of a Chairman, who shall be the
head thereof, and an Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary from
each of the three military departments, to be designated in each case by
the Secretaries of their respective departments. The Chairman shall
be appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, and shall receive compensation at the rate
of $14,000 a year.
(c) It shall be the duty of the Board under the direction of the
Secretary of Defense and in support of strategic and logistic plans
prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
( 1 ) to coordinate the appropriate activities within the National
Military Establishment with regard to industrial matters, includ-
ing the procurement, production, and distribution plans of the
departments and agencies comprising the Establishment;
(2) to plan for the military aspects of industrial mobilization;
(3) to recommend assignment of procurement responsibilities
among the several military services and to plan for standardiza-
tion of specifications and for the greatest practicable allocation
of purchase authority of technical equipment and common use
items on the basis of single procurement;
A ? roved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
?
?
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
13,
(PUB. Lew 253.1;
(4) to prepare estimates of potential production, procurement,
and personnel for use in evaluation of the logistic feasibility of
strategic operations;
(5) to determine relative priorities of the various segments
of the military procurement programs;
(6) to supervise such subordinate agencies as are or may be
created to consider the subjects falling within the scope of the
Board's responsibilities;
(7) to make recommendations to regroup, combine, or dissolve
existing interservice agencies operating in the fields of procure-
ment, production, and distribution in such manner as to promote
efficiency and economy;
(8) to maintain liaison with other departments and agencies
for the proper correlation of military requirements with the
civilian economy, particularly in regard to the procurement or
disposition of strategic and critical material and the maintenance
of adequate reserves of such material, and to make recommenda-
tions as to policies in connection therewith;
(9) to assemble and review material and personnel require-
ments presented by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and those presented
by the production, procurement, and distribution agencies
assigned to meet military needs, and to make recommendations
thereon to the Secretary of Defense; and
(10) to perform such other duties as the Secretary of Defense
may direct.
(d) When the Chairman of the Board first appointed has taken
office, the Joint Army and Navy Munitions Board shall cease to
exist and all its records and personnel shall be transferred to the
Munitions Board.
(e) The Secretary of Defense shall provide the Board with such
personnel and facilities as the Secretary may determine to be required
by the Board for the performance of its functions.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
SEC. 214. (a) There is hereby established in the National Military
Establishment a Research and Development Board (hereinafter in
this section referred to as the "Board"). The Board shall be com-
posed of a Chairman, who shall be the head thereof, and two repre-
sentatives from each of the Departments of the Army, Navy, and
Air Force, to be designated by the Secretaries of their respective
Departments. The Chairman shall be appointed from civilian life
by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
and shall receive compensation at the rate of $14,000 a year. The
purpose of the Board shall be to advise the Secretary of Defense
as to the status of scientific research relative to the national security,
and to assist him in assuring adequate provision for research and
development on scientific problems relating to the national security.
(b) It shall be the duty of the Board, under the direction of the
Secretary of Defense?
(1) to prepare a complete and integrated program of research
and development for military purposes;
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020004(m1-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
ipop. LAW 3533
14
(2) to advise with regard tO trends in scientific research relat-
ing to national security and the measures necessary to assure con-
tinued and increasing progresS;
(3) to recommend measurds of coordination of research and
development among the military departments, and allocation
among them of responsibilities for specific programs of joint
interest;
(4) to formulate policy for the National Military Establish-
ment in connection with research and development matters in-
volving agencies outside the National Military Establishment;
(5) to consider the interaction of research and development
and strategy, and to advise the Joint Chiefs of Staff in connec-
tion therewith; and
(6) to perform such other duties as the Secretary of Defense
may direct.
(c) When the Chairman of the Board first appointed has taken
office, the Joint Research and Development Board shall cease to exist
and all its records and personnel shall be transferred to the Research
and Development Board.
(d) The Secretary of Defense shall provide the Board with such
personnel and facilities as the Secretary may determine to be required
by the Board for the performance of its functions.
TITLE III?MIS C ELLA NE OIT S
COMPENSATION OP SECRETARIES
SEC. 301. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall receive the compensa-
tion prescribed by law for heads of executive departments.
(b) The Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and
the Secretary of the Air Force shall each receive the compensation
prescribed by law for heads of executive departments.
UNDER SECRETARIES AND ASSISTANT SECRETARIES
SEC. 302. The Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries of the
Army, the Navy, and the Air Forge shall each receive compensation
at the rate of $10,000 a year and ishall perform such duties as the
Secretaries of iheir respective departments may prescribe.
ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND PERSONNEL
SEC. 303. (a) The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the
National Security Resources Board, and the Director of Central
Intelligence are authorized to appoint such advisory committees and
to employ, consistent with other provisions of this Act, such part-
time advisory personnel as they may deem necessary in carrying out
their respective functions and the functions cf agencies under their
control, Persons holding other offiees or positions under the United
States for which they receive compensation while serving as members
of such committees shall receive no additional compensation for such
service, Other members of such committees and Other part-time
advisory personnel so employed may serve without compensation or
may receive compensation at a rate not to exceed $35 for each day of
service, as determined by the appointing authority.
Aporoved For Release 2006/12/15 ? CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
?
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
15
[Pus. LAW 253.1
(b) Service of an individual as a member of any such advisory
committee, or in any other part-time capacity for a department or
agency hereunder, shall not be considered as service bringing such
individual within the provisions of section 109 or 113 of the Criminal.
Code (U. S. C., 1940 edition, title 18, secs. 198 and 203), or section
19 (e) of the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, unless the act of such
individual, which by such section is made unlawful when performed
by an individual referred to in such section, is with respect to any
particular matter which directly involves a department or agency
which such person is advising or in which such department or agency
is directly interested.
STATUS OF TRANSFERRED CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
SEC. 304. All transfers of civilian personnel under this Act shall be
without change in classification or compensation, but the head of any
department or agency to which such a transfer is made is authorized
to make such changes in the titles and designations and prescribe such
changes in the duties of such personnel commensurate with their classi-
fication as he may deem necessary and appropriate.
SAVING PROVISIONS
SEC. 305. (a) All laws, orders, regulations, and other actions appli-
cable with respect to any function, activity, personnel, property,
records, or other thing transferred under this Act, or with respect to
any officer, department, or agency, from which such transfer is made,
shall, except to the extent rescinded, modified, superseded, terminated,
or made inapplicable by or under authority of law, have the same effect
as if such transfer had not been made; but, after any such transfer,
any such law, order, regulation, or other action which vested functions
in or otherwise related to any officer, department, or agency from
which such transfer was made shall, insofar as applicable with respect
to the function, activity, personnel, property, records or other thing
transferred and to the extent not inconsistent with other provisions of
this Act, be deemed to have vested such function in or relate to the
officer, department, or agency to which the transfer was made.
(b) No suit, action, or other proceeding lawfully commanced by or
against the head of any department or agency or other officer of the
United States, in his official capacity or in relation to the discharge
of his official duties, shall abate by reason of the taking effect of any
transfer or change in title under the provisions of this Act; and, in
the case of any such transfer, such suit, action, or other proceeding
may be maintained by or against the successor of such head or other
officer under the transfer, but only if the court shall allow the same
to be maintained on motion or supplemental petition filed within
twelve months after such transfer takes effect, showing a necessity for
the survival of such suit, action, or other proceeding to obtain settle-
ment of the questions involved.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of the second paragraph of
section 5 of title I of the First War Powers Act, 1941, the existing
organization of the War Department under the provisions of Executive
Order Numbered 9082 of February 28, 1942, as modified by Executive
Order Numbered 9722 of May 13, 1946, and the existing organization
? of the Department of the Navy under the provisions of Executive
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15 : CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
I
[Pm Lew 2511 16
Order Numbered 9635 of September 29, 1945, including the assignment
of functions to organizational units within the War and Navy Depart-
ments, may, to the extent determi ed by the Secretary of Defense;
continue in force for two years foll wing the date of enactment of this
Act except to the extent modified by the provisions of this Act or under
the authority of law.
TRANSFER OF FUNDS
SEo. 306. All unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations,
nonappropriated funds, or other funds available or hereafter made
available for use by or on behalf of the Army Air Forces or officers
thereof, shall be transferred to the Departmentof the Air Force for
use in connection with the exerciise of its functions. Such other
unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, n onappropriated
funds, or other funds available or ;hereafter 'made available for use
by the Department of War or the Department of the Army in exercise
of functions transferred to the Department cf the Air Force under
this Act, as the Secretary of Defense shall determine, shall be trans-
ferred to the Department of the Air Force for use in connection with
the exercise of its functions. Unexpended balances transferred under
this section may be used for the purposes for which the appropriations,
allocations, or other funds were originally made available, or for new
expenditures occasioned by the enactment of this Act. The transfers
herein authorized may be made with or without warrant action as may
he appropriate from time to time from any appropriation covered by
this section to any other such apprbpriation or to such new accounts
established on the books of the Treasury as may be determined to be
necessary to carry into effect provisions of this Act.
A 171'1 IORIZ ATI ON FOR APPROPRIATION S
SEd. 307. There are hereby autliorized to be appropriated such
sums as may be necessary and apprOpriate to carry out the provisions
and purposes of this Act.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 308. (a) As used in this Act, the term "function" includes
functions, powers, and ditties.
(b) As used in this Act, the term "budget program" refers to recom-
mendations as to the apportionment, to the allocation and to the review
of allotments of appropriated fund.
SEPARABILITY
Sac. 309. If any provision of this Act or the; application thereof to
any person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the
remainder of the Act and of the application of such provision to other
persons and circumstances shall not,be affected thereby.
EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 310. (a) The first sentence of section 202 (a) and sections 1,
2, 307, 308, 309, and 810 shall take effect immediately upon the enact-
ment of this Act.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (a), the provisions of this Act
shall take effect on whichever of the following days is the earlier:
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
17
[Pus. LAW 2531
The day after the day upon which the Secretary of Defense first
appointed takes office, or the sixtieth day after the date of the enact-
ment of this Act.
SUCCESSION TO TUE PRESIDENCY
SEC. 311. Paragraph (1) of subsection (d) of section 1 of the Act
entitled "An Act to provide for the performance of the duties of the
office of President in case of the removal, resignation, death, or in-
ability both of the President and Vice President", approved July 18,
1947, is amended by striking out "Secretary of War' and inserting in
lieu thereof "Secretary of Defense", and by striking out "Secretary of
the Navy,".
Approved July 26, 1947.
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-,RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
Approved For Release 2006/12/15 ? CIA-RDP
Apprpi For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE -
duties prescribed by the Classification Act of
1023, as amended.
Sac. 5. The committee or its duly consti-
tuted subcommittee is authorized, with the
approval f the Committee on Rules and Ad-
ministration, to request the use of the serv-
ices, information, facilities, and personnel of
the departments and agencies in the execu-
tive branch of the Government in the per-
formance of its duties under this resolution.
SEC. 6. The expenses of the committee
Under this resolution, which shall not exceed
$25,000, shall be paid out of the contingent
rd of the Senate upon vouchers signed by
the chairman.
REREFERENCE OF NOMINATION OF BUR-
TON' N, BEHLING to BE A MEMBER OF
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
As in executive sessidn,
Mr. WHITE submitted the following
resolution (S. Ex. Res. 52) ,?which was or-
dered to lie over 1 day unaer the rule: .
Rcsozverz, That the CommitA on Public
Works be, and it is hereby, discharged from
tl-.J1 further consideration of the naknination
01 Burton N. Behling, of the Distridk of Co-
lumbia, to be a member of the Federal\Power
Commission for the term expiring Juil 22,
1952, and that it be referred to the Co it-
tee on interstate and Foreign Commerce.
MAJ. RICHARD R. WRIGHT
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, last,
Wednesday, in ? Philadelphia, Maj.
Richard R. Wright passed from this life
at the age of 94. His distinguished career
was one of the greatest examples of what
can be accomplished under our American
way of life.
Major Wright was born as a slave in
the State of Georgia. For 50 years he
was active in the field of?tclucation in
his native State. He was graduated from
Atlanta University in 1876 and took post-
graduate work at the University of Chi-
cago, Harvard University, and the Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania.
He first taught in the elementary and
secondary schools, and in 1880 was ap-
pointed principal of the Ware 'High
School, the first Negro school of its kind
in the State.
Later he was made president of Geor-
gia State College, a post which he held
for 30 years. ?
In 1921 he decided to go into business,
and organized in Philadelphia the Citi-
zens 4Sz Southern Bank Sz Trust Co., now
the largest Negro bank in eastern United
States.
He always championed the cause of
his people. He fostered National Free-
dom Dry, and his last visit to the Na-
tion's Capital was to advocate recogni-
tion of that day. He was active in the
church and fraternal organizations. He
interested in military work and at-
tained .t,he rank of major.
By the force of his personality, his .
work; courage, and knowledge Major;
Wright achieved outstanding things for -
himself and his people.
The Philadelphia Inquirer, which sel-
dom refers to individuals in its editorials,
1-3,11d appropriate tribute to him edi-
torially, and I ask unanimous consent to
have this editorial printed in the RECORD
at this point as a part of my remarks,.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
MAT. RICHARD R. WRIGHT
Maj. Richard:R. Wright, who died in this
City on Wednesday, achieved distinction in
many' fields in a long lifetime that stretched
back to pre-Civil War days in GeOrgia, where
be was born in slavery. ?
From those beginnings he ,rose to become
one of the foremost NegroeTencators in the
country. He was principaVol the first Negro
high school in Georgia anOor 30 years presi-
dent of Georgia State College.
Widening his activities, he turned to bank-
ing comparatively late in life and was
founder and president of the Citizens &
Southern Bank & Trust Co. of this city, the
largest Negro-owned and operated bank in
the North.
Meanwhile, he. served his country in the
armed forces during the Spanish-American
War, and was named by President McKinley
a special paymaster with the rank of major.
He was known not only in Philadelphia but
throughout the United States as a civic
leader untiringly devoted to causes he be-
lieved would help the ordinary citizen, and as
a sincere champion of his people.
Fostering National Freedom Day and ob-
taining the issuance of a postage stamp
honoring Booker T. Washington were only
minor aspects of his unflagging zeal in the
interests of his fellow Negroes.
Major Wright was not only a highly suc-
cessful and capable Negro educator and
banker; he was a loyal, conscientious public
ervant, a distinguished. American, and a
ne gentleman. ,
AT OF THE FUTURE OF AMERICA??
DRESS BY SENATOR WATKINS
WATKINS asked and obtained leave
printed in the RECORD a radio ad-
dress e titled "What of the Future of
America?' delivered by him on July 5., 1947,
which appears in the Appendix.]
INDEPENDENCE DAY IN THE ATOMIC
AGE?ADDRTS BY SENATOR WILEY
[Mr. WILEY asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the RECORD an address en-
titled "Independence Day in the Atomic
Age," delivered by h'irri over Wisconsin radio
stations on July 4, i 47, which appears in
the. Appendix.] ,
AMERICAN RELATION WITH RUSSIA.--,-
SERMON BY DR. WALTEIR ROWE COURT
ENAY ?
[Mr. STEWART asked and\obtained leave
to have printed in the RECORD an article en-
titled "Clergyman wants United States To
Get Tough With Russia," containing ex-
cerpts from a sermon by Dr. Walter Rowe
Courtenay, pastor of the First Presbyterian
Church of Nashville, Tenn., which appears
in the Appendix.]
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE? \
COMPILATIONS OF FACTS
[Mr. MURRAY asked and obtained leave
to have printed in the REcoRD two brief com-
pilations cif facts bearing on th-e-'1eed.-15)
national health insurance, which appel,r4n
the Appendix.]
THE FEDERAL COURTS?EDITORIAL FROM
THE NEW YORK TIMES
[Mr. O'CONOR asked and obtained leave
to have printed in the RECORD an editorial
entitled "For the Federal Courts," published
in the New York Times, of July 6, 194,
which appears in the Appendix.]
POSTAL RATE ON BOOKS?ARTICLE BY
MARQUIS CHILDS-
[Mr. O'CONOR asked and obtained leave ti
have printed in the RECORD an article en
Mt.titled "Postal Rate on Books," written barquis Childs and published in the Wash
[m
to hay
- 8457
ington Post of July 7, 1947, which appears in
the Appendix.]
A GOOD FORMULA?AN EDITORIAL
[Mr. BUSHFIELD . asked and obtained
leave to have printed in the RECORD an edi-
torial entitled "A Good Formula," published
in the July 1, 1947, issue of the Newark Star-
Ledger, which appears in the Appendix.]
THE PRESENT LIQUOR SITUATION?
ARTICLE BY MRS. D. LEIGH COLVIN
[Mr. LANGER asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the RECORD an article enti-
tled "The Present Liquor Situation," by Mrs.
D. Leigh Colvin, president of the National
Woman's Christian Temperance Union, which
appears -in -the Appendix.]
lsuROPE'S TESTING TIME?ARTICLE BY
BARNET NOVER
[Mr. O'MAHONEY asked and obtained
leave to have printed in the RECORD an arti-
cle entitled "Europe's Testing Time," by Bar-
net Nover, published in the Washington Post
of July 5, 1947, which appears in the Ap-
pendix.]
MEETINGS OF COMMETTEP DURING
SENATE SESSION
Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President, on
behalf of the Subcommittee on Immigra-
tion of the Committee on the Judiciary, I
ask unanimous consent that it may meet
this afternoon during the session of the
Senate.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-
out objection, permission is granted.
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the sub-
committee of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy be authorized to sit this
afternoon.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-
out ?objection, the order is made.
ENTRY OF DISPLACED PERSONS AS
IMMIGRANTS?MESSAGE FROM THE
PRESIDENT (H. DOC. No. 382)
The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid be-
fore the Senate a message from the Pres-
ident of the United States, which was
read and referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
. (For President's message, see today's
proceedings of the House. of Representa-
tives on p. 8496.)
CATHLEEN DOYLE HARRIS
The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid be-
fpre the Senate the amendment of the
House of Representatives to the bill
. 395) authorizing the issuance of a
p tent in fee to Richard Jay Doyle, which
s to amend the title, so as to read: '
"An act authorizing the issuance of a
\.,,pateht in fee to Cathleen Doyle Harris,
r--..4,sOle devise of Richard Jay Doyle, de-
ceased."
-nave
that the Senate concur in the amend-
ent of the House.
The motion was agreed to.
UNIFICATION OF THE ARMED SERVICES
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under
the order of the Senate of Wednesday,
July 2, the Chair lays before the Senate
the 758) to promote the national
security by providing for a national de-
fense establishment, and so forth.
-The Senate proceeded to consider the
bill (S. 758) to promote the national se-
ed For Release 2006/12
15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200 01-1.
8458 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
curity by providing for a National De-
fense Establishment, which shall be ad-
ministered by a Secretary of National De-
fense, and for a Department of the Army,
a Department of the Navy, and a De-
partment t f the Air Force within the
National Defense Establishment, and for
the coordination of the activities of the
National Defense Establishment with
other departments and agencies of the
Government concerned with the national
security, which had been reported from
the Committee on Armed Services with
an amendment to strike out all after the
enacting clause an'd insert:
SHORT TITLE
That this act may be cited as the "National
Security Act of 1947."
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sec. 2. Declaration of policy.
TITLE I-COORDINATION FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
Sec. 101. National Security Council.
Sec. 102. Central Intelligence Agency.
Sec. 103. National Security Resources Board.
TITLE II-THE NATIONAL SECURItY ORGANIZATION
Sec. 201. Establishment of the National
. Security Organization. ?
Sec. 202. Secretary of National Security.
Sec. 203. Military Assistants to the Secretary.
Sec. 204. Civilian personnel.
Sec. 205. Department of the Army.
Sec. 206. Department of the Navy.
Sec. 207. Department of the Air Force.
Sec. 208. United States Air Force.
Sec. 209. Effective date of transfers.
Sec. 210. War Council.
Sec. 211. Joint Chiefs of Staff
Sec. 212. Joint staff.
Sec. 213. Munitions Board.
Sec. 214. Research and Development Board.
TITLE HI-MISCELLANEOUS
Sec, 301. Succession to the Presidency.
Sec. 302. Compensation of Secretaries.
Sec. 303. Under Secretaries ? and Assistant
Secretaries.
Sec. 304. Advisory committees and per-
sonnel. -
Sec. 305. Status of transferred civilian per-
sonnel.
Sec. 306. Saving provisions.
Sec. 307. Transfer of funds.
Sec. 303. Budget estimates.
Sec. 309. Authorization for iiPproprlations.
Sec. 310. Definition.
' Sec. 311. Separability.
DECLARATION OF POLICY
SEC. 2. In enacting this legislation, it is the
intent of Congress to provide a comprehen-
?s.ve program for the future security of the
United States; to provide for the establish-
ment of integrated policies and procedures
for the departments, agencies, and functions
of the Government relating to the national
security; to provide three military depart-
ments for the operation and administration
of the Army, the naval service, includios the
Navy and the Marine Corps, and the Air
Force, with their assigned combat and service..
Components; to provide for their authorita-
tive coordination and unified direction under
civilian control but not to merge them; to
provide for the effective strategic direction
of the armed forces and for their operation
under unified control and for their integra-
tion into an efficient team of land, naval, and
air forces.
TITLE I-COORDINATION FOR NATIONAL
SECURITY
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
SEC. 101. (a) There is hereby established
a council to be known as the National Se-
curity Council (hereinafter in this section
referred to as the "Council"). .
The President of the United states shall
preside over meetings of the Council: Pro-
sided, That in his absence he may designate
a member or the Council to preside in his
place.
The function of the Council shall be to
advise the President with respect to the
Integration of domestic, foreign, and mili-
tary policies so as to enable the military serv-
ices and the other departments and agencies
of the Government to cooperate more effec-
tively in matters involving the national
security.
The Council shall be composed of the
President; the Secretary of State; the Sec-,
retary of National Security, appointed under
section 202; the Secretary of the Army, re-
ferred to in section 205; the Secretary of the
Navy; the Secretary of the Air Force, ap-
pointed under section 207; the Chairman
of the National Security Resources Board,
appointed under section 103; and such other
members as the President may designate
from time to time.
(b) In addition to performing such other
functions as the President may direct, for
the purpose of more effectively coordinating
the polices of the departments and agencies
of the Government and their functions re-
lating to the national security, it shall, sub-
ject to the direction of the President, be
the duty of the Council-
(1) to assess and appraise the objectives,
commitments, and risks of the United States
in relation to our actual and potential mili-
tary power, in the interest of national se-
curity, for the purpose of. making recom-
mendations to .the President in connection
therewith; and
(2) to consider policies on matters of com-
mon interest to the Department of State, the
National Security Organization, and the Na-
tional Security Resources Board, and to
make recommendations to the President in
connection therewith..
t(c) The Secretary of National Security
shall be director of the staff of the Council
herein established and is hereby authorized,
subject to the civil-service laws and the
Classification Act of 1923, as amended, to
appoint and fix the compensation of such per-
sonnel as may be necessary to perform such
duties as may be prescribed by the Council in
connection with the performance of its func-
tions.
(d) The Council shall, from time to time,
make such recommendations and such other
reports to the President as it deems appro-
priate or as the President may require.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
SEC. 102. (a) There is hereby established
Under the National Security Council a Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency with a Director of
Central Intelligence, who shall be the head
thereof, to be appointed from the armed serv-
ices or from civilian life by the President, by
and with the advice and consent of the Sen-
ate. The Director shall receive compensation
at the rate of $12000 a year.
(b) Any commissioned officer 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. Any such com-
missioned officer on the active list shall, while
serving in the office of Director, receive the
military pay and allowances payable to a com-
missioned officer of his grade and length of
service and shall be paid, from any funds
available to defray the expenses of the Agency,
annual compensation at a rate equal to the
amount by which $12,000 exceeds the amount
of his annual military pay and allowances.
(c) Effective when the Director first ap-
pointed under subsection (a) has taken
office-
(1) the functions of the National Intelli-
gence Authority (11 Fed. Reg. 1337, 1339, Feb-
ruary 5, 1946) are transferred to the National
JULY 7
Security Council, and such Authority shall
cease to exist; and
(2) the functions of the Director of Cen-
tral Intelligence, and the functions, person-
nel, property, and record:, of the Central In-
telligence Group are tramierred to the Direc-
tor of Central Intelligence appointed under
this act and to the Central Intelligence
Agency, respectively, and such ?.Group shall
cease to exist. Any unexpended balances of
appropriations, allocations, or other funds
available or authorized to be made available
for such Group shall be available and shall be
authorized to be made available in like man-
ner for expenditure by the Agency;
NATIONAL SECURITY RESOURCES BOARD
SEC. 103. (a) There is hereby established a
National Security Resources Board (herein-
after in this section referred to as the
"Board") to be composed of the Chairman
of the Board and such heads or representa-
tives of the various executive 'departments
and independent agencies as may from time
to time be designated by the President to
be members of the Board. The Chairman of
the Board shall be appointed from civilian
life by the President, by and with the ad-
vice and consent of the Senate, and shall
receive compensation at the rate of $15,000
a year or at the rate of $50 a day but not
to exceed $15_090 in any one year.
(b) The Chairman of the Board, subject
to the direction of the President, is au-
thorized, subject to the civil-service laws and
'the Classification Act of 1923, as amended,
to appoint and fix the compensation of such
personnel as may be necessary to assist the
Board in carrying out its functions.
(c) It shall be the function of the Board
to advise the President concerning the co-
ordination of military, industrial, and ci-
vilian mobilization, including-
(1) policies concerning industrial and ci-
vilian mobilization in order to assure the
most effective mobilization and maximum
utilization of the Nation's manpower in the
event of war;
(2) programs for the effective use in time
of war of the Nation's' natural and industrial
resources for military and civilian needs, for
the maintenance and stabilization of the ci-
vilian economy in time of war, and for the
adjustment of such economy to war needs
and conditions; .
(3) policies for unifying, in time of war,
the activities of Federal agencies and de-
partments engaged in or concerned with
production, procurement, distribution, or
transportation of military or civilian sup-
plies, materials, and products;
(4) the relatinship between potential sup-
plies of and potential requirements for man-
power, resources, and productive facilities in
time of war;
(5) policies for establishing adequate re-
serves of strategic and critical material, and
for the conservation of these reserves;
(6) the strategic relocation of inddstries,
services, Government, and economic activi-
ties, the' continuous operation of which
essential to the Nation's security.
(d) The Board shall perform such other
functions, not inconsistent with law, con-
cerning the coordination of military, in-
dustrial, and civilian mobilization as the
President may direct.'
(e) In performing its functions, the Board
shall utilize to the maximum extent the fa-
cilities and resources of the departments and
agencies of the,Government.
" TITLE II-THE NATIONAL SECURITY
ORGANIZATION
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY
ORGANIZATION
SEC. 201. (a) There is hereby established
the National Security -Organization, and a
Secretary of National Security, who shall be
the head thereof.
?
?
Apnd For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
(b) The National Security Organization
shall consist of the Department of the Army,
the Department of the Navy, and the Depart-
ment of the Air. Force, together with all
other agencies created within the National
Security Organization.
SECRETARY OF NATIONAL SECURITY
Szc. 202. (a) The Secretary of National
Security shall be appointed from civilian life
Cy the President, by and with the advcce and
consent of the Senate. Under the direction
of the President he shall perform the follow-
ing duties:
(1) Establish general policies and pro-
grams for the National Security Organiza-
tion and for all of the departments and agen-
cies therein;
(2) Exercise general direction, authority,
and control over ' such departments and
agencies;
(3) Supervise and coordinate the prepara-
tion of budget estimates; formulate and
determine the budget estimates for submittal
to the Bureau of the Budget; and supervise
the budget program of the National Security
Organization under the applicable appropria-
tions acts:
Provided, That nothing herein contained
shall prevent the Secretary of any of the
three departments hereinbefore mentioned
from presenting to the President or to the
Director of the Budget, after first so inform-
ing the Secretary of National Security, any
report or recommendation relating to his de-
partment which he may deem necessary;
And. provided further. That the Department
-of the Army, the Department of the Navy,
-and the Department of the Air Force, shall
be administered as individual units by their
respective Secretaries and all powers and
duties not specifically conferred upon .the
Secretary of National Security by this act are
retained by each of the respective Secre-
taries.
(b) The Secretary of National Security
shad submit annual written reports to the.
President and the Congress covering expendi-
tures, work, and accomplishments of the.
National ' Security Organization, together
with such recommendations as he shall deem -
appropriate.
(c) The Secretary of National Security
shall cause a seal of office to be made. for
the National Security Organization, of such
design as the President shall, approve, and
judicial notice shall be taken thereof.
MILITARY ASSISTANTS TO THE SECRETARY
SEC'. 203. Officers of the armed services may
be detailed to duty as assistants and per-
sonal aides to the Secretary of National
Security, but he shall not establish a military
staff.
changed under this section shall, insofar as
they are not inconsistent with the pro-
visions of this act, be deemed to relate to
the Department of the Army within the Na-
tional Security Organization or to such
officer or activity designated by his or its
new title.
(c) The term 'Department of the Army"
'as used In this act shall be construed to
mean the Department of the Army at the
seat of government and all field head-
quarters, forces, reserve components, instal-
lations, activities, and functons under the
control or supervision of the Department of
the Army.
(d) The Secretary of the Army shall cause
a seal of office to be made for the Depart-
ment of the Army, of such design as the
President may approve, and judicial notice
shall -be taken thereof.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
' ?
SEC. 206. (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 government; the headquarters, United
States Marine Corps; the entire operating
forces of the United States Navy (includ-
- .ing naval aviatIon) and of the United States
Marine Corps, including the reserve com-
ponents of such forces; all field activities,
headquarters, forces, bases, installations,
activities, and functions under the control
or supervision of the Department of the
Navy; and the United States Coast Guard
when operating as a part of the Navy pur-
suant to law.
(b) The provisions of this act shall not
' authorize the alteration or diminution of the
existing relative status of the Marine Corps
(including the Fleet Marine Forces) or of
naval aviation.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
SEC. 207. (a) Within the National Security
Organization there is hereby established an
executive department to be known as the De-
, partment of the Air Force, and 'a Secretary
of the Air Force, who shall be the head
thereof. The Secretary of the Air Force
shall be appointed from civilian life by the
President, by and with the advice and con-
sent of the Senate.
(b) Section 158 of the Revised Statutes is
-amended to include the Department of the
Air Force and the provisions of so much of
-title IV of the Revised Statutes as now or
hereafter amended as is not inconsistent
with this act, shall be applicable to the De-
partment of the Air Force.
(c) The term' "Department of the Air
Force" as used in this act shall be construed
to mean the Department of the Air Force
'at the seat of government and all field head-
quarters, forces, reserve components, instal-
lations, activities, and functions under the
control or supervision of the Department of
the Air Force.
(d) There shall be in the Department of
the Air Force an Under Secretary of the Air
Force and two Assistant Secretaries of the
Air Force, who shall be appointed from civil-
ian life by the President by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate.
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
SEC. 204. (a) The Secretary of National
Security is authorized to appoint from
civalian life not to exceed three special as-
sistants to advise-and assist him in the per-
formance of his duties. Each such special
_ assistant shall receive compensation at the
rate of $10,000 a year.
(b) The Secretary of National Security is
authorized, subject to the civil-service -laws
and the Classification Act of 1923, as
amended, to appoint and fix the compen-
sation of such other civilian personnel as
may be necessary for the performance of
the the functions' of the National Security
Organization.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEC. 205. (a) The Department of War shall-
hereafter be known as the Department of
the Army, and the title of the Secretary of
Wz,r shall be changed to Secretary of the
Array. Changes shall be made in the titles
of other officers and activities of the De-
partment of the Army as the Secretary- of
the Army may determine.
(b) All laws, orders, regulations, and other
actions relating to the Department of -War
or to any officer or activity Whose title is
?.
(e) The several officers of the Department
. of the Air Force shall perform such func-
tions as the Secretary of the Air Force may
prescribe.
(f) So much of the functions of the Secre-
tary of the Army and of the Department of
'the Army, including those of any officer of
such Department, as are assigned to or un-
der the control of the commanding general,
Army Air Forces, or as are deemed by the
Secretary of National Security to be neces-
sary or desirable for the operations of the
Department of the Air Force or the United
".78tates Air Force, shall be transferred to and
, vested in the Secretary of the Air -Force and
the Department of the Air Force: Provided,
That the National Guard Bureau shall; in ad-
dition to the functions and duties performed
as,2006/12/16 :-CIA-RD;E.90,0064
8459
by it for the Department of the Army, be
charged with similar functions and duties
for the Department of the Air Force, and shall
be the channel of communication between
the Department of the Air Force and the
seVeral States on all matters pertaining to
the Air National Guard: And provided fur-
ther, That, in order to permit an orderly
transfer, the Secretary of National Security
may, during the transfer period hereinafter,
prescribed, direct that the Department of the
Army shall continue for appropriate periods
to exercise any of such functions, insofar
as they relate to the Department of the Air
Force, or the United States Air Force or
their property and personnel. Such of the
property, personnel, and records of the De-
partment of the Army used in the exercise of
functions transferred under this subsection
as the Secretary of National Security shall
determine shall be transferred or assigned to
the Department of the Air Force.
(g) The Secretary of the Air Force shall
cause a seal of OffiCe to be made for the
Department of the Air Force, of such device
as the President shall approve, and judicial
notice shall be taken thereof.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
SEC. 208. (a) The United States Air Force
is hereby established under the Department
of the Air Force. The Army Air Forces, the
Air Corps, United States Army, and the Gen-
eral Headquarters Air Force (Air Force Com-
bat Command) shall be transferred to the
United States Air Force.
(b) There shall be a Chief of Staff, United
States Air Force, who shall be appointed by
the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, for' a term of 4 years
from among the officers of general rank who
are assigned to or commissioned in the
United States Air Force. Under the direc-
tion of the Secretary of the Air Force, the
Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, shall'
exercise command over the United States
Air Force and shall be charged with the duty
of carrying into execution all lawful orders
and directions which may be transmitted to
him. The functions of the Commanding
General, General Headquarters Air Force (Air
Force Combat Command), and of.the Chief
of the Air Corps and of the Commanding
General, Army-Air Forces, shall be trans-
ferred to the Chief of Staff, United States
Air Force. When such transfer becomes ef-
fective, the offices of the Chief of the Air
Corps, United States Army, and Assistants
to the Chief of the Air Corps, United States
Army, provided for by the act of June 4, 1920,
as amended (41 Stat. 768), and Commanding
General, General Headquarters Air Force,
provided for by section 5 of the act of June
16, 1936 (49 Stat. 1525), shall cease to exist.
While holding office as Chief of Staff, United
States Air Force, the incumbent shall hold
a grade and receive allowances equivalent
to those prescribed by law for the Chief of
Staff, United States Army. The Chief of
Staff, United States Army, the Chief of Naval
Operations, and the Chief of Staff, United
States Air Force, shall take rank among
themselves according to their relative dates
of appointment as such, and shall each take
rank above all other officers on the active
list of. the Army, Navy, and Air Force: Pro-
vided, That nothing in this act shall have
the effect of changing the relative rank of
the present Chief of Staff, United States
Army, and the present Chief of Naval
Operations.
(c) All commissioned officers, warrant of-
ficers, and enlisted men, commissioned, hold-
ing warrants, or enlisted, in the Air Corps,
United States Army, or the Army Air Forces,
shall be transferred in branch to the United
States Air Force. All other commissioned
officers, warrant officers, and enlisted men,
who are commissioned, hold warrants, or are
enlisted, ih any component of the Army of
the United States and who are under the
authority. or Command of the Commanding
?
ved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020
8460 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE.
General, Army Air Forces, shall be continued
under the authority or command of the Chief
of Staff, United States Air Force, and under
the jurisdiction of the Department of the
Air Force. Personnel whose status is af-
fected by this subsection shall retain their
existing commissions, warrants, or enlisted
status in existing components of the armed
forces unless otherwise altered or terminated
in accordance with the existing law; and
they shall not be deemed to have been ap-
pointed to a new or different office or grade,
or to have vacated their permanent or tem-
porary appointments in an existing compo-
nent of the armed forces, solely by virtue
of any change in status under this subsec-
tion. No such change in status shall alter
or prejudice the status of any individual so
,assigned, so as to deprive him of any right,
benefit, or privilege to which he may be
entitled under existing law.
(d) Except as otherwise directed by the
Secretary of the Air Force, all property, rec-
ords, installations, agencies, activities', proj-
' ects, and civilian personnel under the juris-
diction, control, authority, in command of
the Commanding General, Army Air Forces,
shall be continued to the same extent under
the jurisdiction, control, authority, or com-
mand, respectively, of the Chief of Staff,
? United States Air Force, in the Department
of the Air Force.
(e) For a period of 2 years from the date
of enactment of this act, personnel (both
military and civilian), property, records, in-
stallations, agencies, activities, and projects
may be transferred between the Department
of the Army and the Department of the Air
, Force by direction of the Secretary of Na-
tional Security. '
EFFECTIVE DATE OF TRANSFERS
SEC. 209. Each transfer, assignment, or
change in status under section 207 or section
208 shall take effect upon such date or dates
as may be prescribed by the Secretary of
National Security.
WAR COUNCIL
SEC. 210. There shall be within the Na-
tional Security Organization a War Council
composed of the Secretary of National Secur-
ity, as Chairman, who shall have power of
decision; the Secretary of the Army; the'
Secretary of the Navy; the Secretary of the
Air Force; the .Chief of Staff, United States
Army; the Chief of Naval Operations; and
the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force.
The War Council shall advise the Secretary
of National Security on matters of broad
? policy relating to the armed forces, and shall
consider and report on such other matters as
the Secretary of National Security may
' direct.
JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
Sze. 211. (a) There is hereby established
Within the National Security Organization
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which shall con-
sist of the Chief of Staff, United States Army;
the Chief of Naval Operations; -the Chief of
Staff, United States Air Force; and the' Chief
of Staff to the Commander in Chief, if there
be one.
(b) Subject to the authority and direc-
tion of the President and the Secretary of
National Security, it shall be the duty of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff?
(1) to prepare strategic plans and to pro-
vide for the strategic direction of the mili-
tary forces; ,
(2) to prepare joint logistic plans and to
assign to the military services logistic re-
sponsibilities in accordance with such plans;
(3) to establish Unified commands in
strategic areas when such unified commands
are in the interest of national security;
(4) to formulate policies for joint training
of the military forces; ? ?
(5) to formulate policies for coordinating
the education of members Of the Military
forces;
, (6) to review major material and person-
nel requirements of the military forces, in
accordance with strategic and logistic plans;
and
(7) to provide United States representa-
tion on the Military Staff Committee of the
United Nations in acordance with the pro-
visions of the Charter of the United Nations.
(c) The Joint Chiefs of Staff shall act as
the principal military advisers to the Presi-
dent and the Secretary of National Security
and shall perform such other duties as the
President and the Secretary of National
Security may direct or as may be prescribed
by law.
JOINT STAFF
SEC. 212. 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 from
each of the three armed services. The Joint
Staff, operating under a Director thereof ap-
pointed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall
perform such duties as may be directed, by
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Director shall
be an officer junior in grade to all members of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
MUNITIONS BOARD
SEC. 213. (a) There is hereby established in
the National Security Organization a Muni-
tions Board (hereinafter in this section re-
ferred to as the "Board").
(h) The Board shall be composed of a
Chairman, who shall be the head thereof, and
an Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary
from each of the three military departments,
to be designated in each case by the secreta-
ries of their respective departments. The
Chairman shall be appointed from civilian
life 153T the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, and shall receive
compensation at the'-rate of $12,000 a year or
at the rate of $50 a day but not to exceed
$12,000 in any one year.
"In) It shall be the duty of the Board under
the direction of the Secretary of National Se-
curity and in support of strategic and logistic
plans prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
(1) To coordinate the appro`priate activi-
ties within the National Security Organiza-
? tion with regard to industrial matters, in-
cluding the procurement, production, and
distribution plans of the Organization.
(2) To plan for the military aspects of in-
dustrial mobilization.
? (3) To recommend assignment of procure-
ment responsibilities athong the several mil-
itary services and to plan for standardization
of specifications and, for the greatest practi-
cable allocation of purchase authority of
technical equipment And common-use items
on the basis of single procurement.
(4) To prepare estimates of potential pro-
duction, procurement, and personnel for use
in evaluation of the logistic feasibility of
strategic operations.
(5) To determine relative priorities of the
? various segments of the military procurement
programs.
? (6) To supervise such subordinate agen-
? cies as are or may be created to consider the
subjects falling within the scope of the
Board's responsibilitit
(7) To make recOm endations to regroup,
combine, or dissolve existing interservice
agencies operating in the fields of procure.:
ment, production, and distribution in such
manner as to promote efficiency and economy.
(8) to maintain liaison with other agencies
foethe proper correlation of military require-
ments with the civilian economy, particularly
in regard to the procurement or disposition of
strategic and critical material and the main-
tenance of adequate reserves of such mate-
rial, and to make recommendations as to
policies in connection therewith;
(9) to assemble and review materia and
personnel requirements presented by the/
Joint phiefs of Staff and those presented by
01-1
JULY 7
the production, procurement, and distribu-
tion agencies assigned to meet military needs,
and to make recommendations thereon to the
Secretary of National Security; and
(10) to perform such other duties as the
Secretary of National Security may direct.
(d) When the Chairman of the Board first
appointed has taken office, the Joint Army
and Navy Munitions Board shall cease to exist
and ail its functions, records, and personnel
shall be transferred to the Munitions Board.
(e) The Secretary of National Security
shall provide the Board with such personnel
and facilities as the Secretary may deter-
mine to be required by the Board for the
performance of its functions.
. . RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
SEC. 214. (a) There is hereby established
in the National Security Organization a Re-
search and Development Board (hereinafter
.in this section referred' to as the "Board").
The Board shall be composed of a Chairman,
who shall be the head thereof, and two rep-
resentatives from each of the Departments
of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; to be desig-
nated by the Secretaries of their respective
Departments. The Chairman shall be' ap-
pointed from civilian life by the President,
.by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, and shall receive compensation at
the rate of $12,000 a year or at the rate of
$50 a day but not to exceed $12,000 in any
one year. The purpoSe of the Board shall
be to advise the Secretary of National Secu-
rity as to the status of scientific research
relative to the national security, and to assist
him in assuring adequate provision for re-
search and development on scientific prob-
lems relating to the national security.
(b) It shall be the.duty of the Board, under
the direction of the Secretary of National
Security?
(1) to prepare a complete and integrated
program of research and development for
military purposes;
(2) to advise with regard to trends in
scientific research, relating to national secu-
rity and the measures necessary to assure
continued and increasing progress; .
. (3) to recommend measures of coordina-
tion of research and development among the
military departments, and allocation among
them of responsibilities for specific programs
of joint interest;
(4) to formulate policy for the National
Security Organization in connection with
research and development matters involving
agencies outside the National Security Or-
ganization.
(5) to consider the interaction of research
and development and strategy, and to advise
the Joint Chiefs of Staff in connection there-
with; and
(6) to perform such other duties as the
Secretary of National Security may direct.
(c) When the Chairman of the Board first
appointed has taken office, the Joint Re-
search and Development Board shall cease
to exist and all its records and personnel
shall be transferred to the Research and
Development Board.
(d) The Secretary of National 8ecurity
shall provide the Board with such personnel
and facilities as the Secretary may deter=
mine to be required by the Board for the
performance of its functions.
TITLE III?MISCELLANEOUS
SUCCESSION TO THE PRESIDENCY
SEC. 301. The first section of the act en-
titled "An act to provide for the perform-
ance of the duties of the Office of President
in case of the removal, death, resignation, or
Inability both of the President .and of the
Vice President," approved January 19, 1886
(24 Stat. 1), is amended (1) by striking out
"Secretary of War" and inserting in lieu
thereof "Secretary of National Security," and
(2) by striking out "or if there be none, Or in
Ao rOve Rele
2 6/1211 -kma
App d For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
case of his removal, death, resignation, or
Inability, then the Secretary of the Navy."
COMPENSATION OF SECRETARIES
SEC. 302. '(a) The Secretary of National
Security shall receive the compensation pre-
scribed by law for heads of executive depart-
ments.
(b) The Secretary of the Army, the Secre-
tary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the
Air Force shall each receive the compensa-
tion prescribed for the Secretary of Nation.al
Security.
UNDER SECEIETAR=S AND ASSISTANT SECRETARIES
SEC. 303. The Under Secretaries and Assist-
ant Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and
the Air Force shall each receive compensa-
tion at the rate of $12,000 a year and shall
perform such duties as the Secretaries of
their respective departments may prescribe.
ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND PERSONNEL
? SEC. 304. (a) The Secretary of National
Security, the Chairman of the National Se?
curity Resources Board, and the Director of
Central Intelligence are authorized to ap-
point such advisory committees and to em-
ploy consistent with other provisions of this
act, such, part-time advisory personnel as
they may deem necessary in carrying out
?
their respective functions and the functions
? of agencies under their control. Persons
holding other offices or positions under the
United States for which they receive com-
pensation while serving, as members of such
.
committees shall receive no additional com-
pensation for such service. Other members
of such committees .and other part-time ad-
visory personnel so employed may serve
without, compensation or may receive com-
pensation at a rate not to exceed $35 for.
each day of service, as determined' by the
appointing authority.
(b) Service of an individual as a member
Of any such advisory committee, or in any
other part-time capacity for a department
or agency hereunder, shall not be considered
as service bringing such Individual within the
provisions of section 109 or 113 of the Crimi-
.nal Code (U. S. C., 1940 ed., title 18, secs.
198 and 203), or section 19 (c) of the Con-
tract Settlement Act of 1944, unless the act
of such individual, which by such section
is made-unlawful when performed by an in-
dividual referred to in such section, is with
respect to any particular matter which di-
rectly involves a department or agency which ?
such person is advising or in which such
'department or agency is directly interested.
STATIB OF TRANSFERRED CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
SEC. 305. All transfers of civilian person?
nel under this act shall be without change
in classification or compensation, but the
head of any department or agency to which
such a transfer is made is authorized to
make such changes in the titles and (desig-
nations and prescribe such changes in the
duties of such personnel commensurate with
their classification as he may deem necessary
and appropriate.
SAVING PROVISIONS
SEC. 306. (a) All laws, orders, 'regulations,
and other actions applicable with respect to
any function, activity, personnel, property,
records, or other thing transferred under this
act, or with respect to any officer, department,
or agency, from which such transfer is made,
shall, except to the extent rescinded, modi-
fied, superseded, terminated, OT made in-
applicable by or under authority of law, have
the same effect as if such transfer had not
been made; but, after any such transfer, any
such law, order, regulation, or other action
Which vested functions in or otherwise re-
lated to any officer, department, or agency.
from which such transfer was made shall,"
insofar as applicable with respect to the
function, activity, personnel, property,
records or other thing transferred and to the
extent not inconsistent With other provisions
No. 128-72
?
of this act, be deemed to have vested such
function in or relate to the officer, depart-
ment, or agency to which the transfer was
made.
(b) No suit, action, or other proceeding
lawfully commenced by or against the head
of any department or agency or Other officer
of the United States, in his official capacity
, or in-relation to the discharge of his official
duties, shall abate by reason of the taking ef-
fect of any transfer or change in title under
the provisions of this act; and in the case of
'any such transfer, such suit, action, or other
proceeding may be maintained by or against
the successor of such head or other officer
under the transfer, but only if the court shall
allow the same to be maintained on motion
or supplemental petition filed within 12
months 'after such transfer takes effect,
showing a necessity for the survival of such
suit, action, or other proceeding to obtain
settlement of the questions invO1ved.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of the
second paragraph of section 5 of title I of the
First War Powers Act, 1941, the existing or-
ganization of the War Department under the
provisions of Executive Order No. 9082 of Feb-
ruary-28, 1942, as modified by Executive Order
No. 9722 of May 13, 1946, and the existing
organization of the Department of the Navy
under the provisions of Executive Order No.
9635 of September 29, 1945, including the as-
signment of functions to organizational units
within the War and Navy Departments, may,
to the extent determined by the Secretary of
National Security, continue in force for 2
years following the date of enactment of this
act except to the extent modified by the pro-
visions of this act or under the authority
of law.
TRANSFER OF FUNDS
SEC. 307. All unexpended balances of ap-
propriations, allocations, nonappropriated
funds, or other funds available or hereafter
made available for use by or on behalf of the
Army Air Forces or officers thereof, shall be
transferred to the Department of the Air
-Force for use in connection with the exercise
of its functions. Such other unexpended bal-
ances of appropriations, allocations, ,nonap-
propriated funds; or other funds available or
hereafter made available for use by the De-
partment of War or the Department of the
Army in exercise of functions transferred to
the Department of) the Air Force under this
act, as the Secretary of National Security
shall determine, shall be transferred to the
Department of the Air Force for use in con-
nection with the exercise of its functions.
Unexpended balances transferred under this
section may be used for the purposes for
which the appropriations, allocations, or
other funds were originally made available,
or for new expenditures occasioned by the
enactment of this act. The transfers herein
authorized may be made with or without war-
rant action as may be appropriate from time
to time from any appropriation covered by
this section to any other such appropriation
or to such new accounts established on the
books of the Treasury as may be determined
to be necessary to carry into effect the pro-
visions of this act.
BUDGET ESTIMATES -
Sec. 308. (a) So much of the annual budget
'transmitted to the Congress by the President
as contains the estimates of appropriations
for and expenditures by the National Se-
' curity Organization and the departments
therein, shall be -so arranged as clearly to
show?
(1) with respect to each item for which
the President recommends an appropriation
or expenditure, a statement of the nature
of. such item and of the amount recom-
mended by the President, the Secretary of
National Security, and the head_ of the de-
partment concerned, respectively; and
(2) with respect to any item for which the
President does not recommend an appropria-
8461-
tion or expenditure but for which a budget
estimate for inclusion in such budget was
submitted by the Secretary of National Se-
curity or by the head of a department there-
in, a statement of the nature of such item
and of the amount recommended by the Sec-
retary of National Security and the head of
the department, respectively.
(b) Each supplemental or deficiency esti-
mate for appropriations or expenditures .
transmitted to the Congress by the President
which contains any item recommending an
appropriation to or an expenditure by the
National Security Organization or any de-
partment therein shall be so arranged as
clearly to show with respect to any such item
a statement of the nature of the item and
of the amount recommended by the Presi-
dent, the Secretary of National Security, and
the head of the department, respectively.
AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS
_ SEC. 309. There are hereby authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary
and appropriate to carry out the provisions
and purposes of this act.
DEFINITION
SEC. 310. (a) As used in this act, the term
"function" includes functions, powers, and
duties. -
(b) As used in this act, the term "budget
program" refers to recommendations as to
the apportionment, to the allocation and to
the review of allotments of appropriated
funds.
SEPARABILITY
SEC. 311. If any provision of this act or the
application thereof to any person or circum-
stances is held invalid, the validity of the
remainder of the act and of the application
of such provision to other persons and cir-
cumstances shall not be affeeted thereby.
Mr. GURNEY obtained the floor.
Mr., WHITE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from South Dakota yield so that
I may suggest the absence of a quorum?
Mr. GURNEY. I yield.
? Mr. WHITE. I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
clerk will call the roll. -
The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the
following Senators answered to their
names:
Aiken
Baldwin
Ball
Barkley
Brewster
Bricker .
Brooks
Buck
Bushfleld
Butler
Byrd
Cain
Capehart
canner
Chavez
Connally
Cooper
Cordon
Donnell
Dworshak
Ecton
Ellender
Ferguson
Flanders
Fulbright
George
Gurney
Hatch
Hawkes O'Conor
Hayden O'Daniel
Hickenlooper O'Mahoney '
Hill , Overton
Hoey Pepper
Holland Reed
Jenner Revercomb
"( Johnson, Colo. Robertson, Va.
Johnston, S. C. Robertson, Wyo.
Hem Russell
Kilgore Saltonstall
Knowland Smith
Langer ''Sparkman
Lodge. Stewart
Lucas Taft
McCarran Taylor '
McCarthy ? Thomas, Okla.
McClellan ? Thye
McFarland = Tydings
McKellar Umstead ?
McMahon Vandenberg
Magnuson Watkins
Malone ' Wherry
Martin White
MillikinWiley
Moore Williams
Morse Wilson
Murray 'Young
Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the
Senator from New Hampshire [Mr.
BRIDGES] is necessarily absent.
The Senator from,, New York [Mr.
IvEs] is absent by leave of the Senate be- *
cause of .a death in his immediate family.
ecti-
0
ved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020
?
8462_ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--SENATE -
The Senator from New Hampshire
[Mr. TOBEY] is necessarily absent be-
cause of illness in his family.
Mr. LUCAS. I announce that the
Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EAST..
LAND ], the Senators from Rhode Island
Mr. GREEN and Mr. McGaAnil, the
Senator from South Carolina [Mr. MAY..
BANK] , and the Senator from Pennsyl-
vania [Mr. MYERS] are absent on public
business.
The Senator from California [Mr.
DowNsy] is absent by leave of the Sen-
ate.
The Senator from Utah [Mr. THOMAS]
is absent by leave of the Senate, having'
been appointed a delegate to the Inter-
national Labor Conference at Geneva,
Switzerland.
The Senator from New York [Mr.
'WAGNER] is absent because of illness.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore.
Eighty-four Senators having answered
to their names, a quorum is present:
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I am
glad to present to the Senate today the,
bill dealing with unification of the
, armed forces. It is labeled the National.
Security Act of 1947.
believe that we could have handled
this matter sooner. I believe that it is
urgent now that the Congress speedily
debate the question thoroughly and de-
cide on the entire language of the bill
and hurry it along into law.
\ The law is urgently needed because
of personnel problems in the Army and
Navy, including the Air Forces. It is
needed so that the Congress and the peo-
ple of the United States may with con-
fidence look forward to efficiency and
thrift in the expenditure of the funds ap-
propriated for our national security.
It is my firm belief that not only can
large savings be made in manpower, but
that huge money savings can also be ex-
pected, perhaps not immediately, but
during the course of the next year or
two. I wish Congress to look closely to
the fact that about one-third of our an-
nual budget is spent on the armed forces,
and that another third is spent to pay
for a past war.
? In the consideration of the bill before
the Senate, in order to be of as much
help as possible, the committee has had
prepared a chart which I suggest may be
helpful in clarifying to Senators the flow
of authority, responsibilities, and so
forth, proposed in the' bill.
Mr. President, I believe that this is one
of the most important tasks with which
the Congress is charged under the Con-
stitution; and it stems from its respon-
sibility to provide for the "common de-
fense."
Since 1944 a great deal of attention
and effort have been devoted by both the
armed services and the Congress to the
study of our requirements for the most
modern and efficient organization for
national defense. That study has finally
resulted in a bill for unification of our
military forces, which is supported by
our principal military and civilian lead-
ers who are concerned with national se-
curity.
Your Committee on Armed Services re-
ported this bill, S. 758, to the. Senate on
June 5, 1947, a little more than 1 month
ago. It is my purpose today to discuss
the background of this vital proposal and
to emphasize the compelling necessity for
Its prompt passage.
Mr. President, this bill is fashioned in
the light of hard, costly experience,
gained by major participation in two
great wars. It represents a determina-
tion upon the part of responsible civilian
and military leaders that our country
profit from the terrible lessons of World
War II while those lessons are still fresh
in our minds?and while the counsel of
those who experienced World War I and
who directed our efforts in World War II
is still available to us.
The unification bill is a sincere and
earnest attempt to put into effect by legis-
lation a security organization which is
adequate, effective, modern?and yet eco-
nomical.
Every facilityat the disposal of your
committee has been used to study thor-
oughly and exhaustively the whole ques-
tion of the reorganization of our national
security system.
I need cite only a few of the studies
? which have been made in the last 4 years
to illustrate how carefully the whole ques-
tion has been explored. For instance,
in 1944 there was the committee of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff which visited every
theater of war and sought the opinions
of our top military and naval com-
manders.
Mr. CONNALLY. Mi. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. GURNEY. I yield to the Senator
. from Texas.
Mr. CONNALLY. Let me ,say to the
Senator that I am delighted that he is
discussing the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In
years gone by the objections to unifica-
tion were largely based on the claim that
it would interfere with strategic opera-
tions. I understand that the bill pro-
vides, in effect, for a joint Army and Navy
comparably responsible to the Joint
Chiefs of Staff during wartime, so that
military and naval operations would be
so coordinated as to represent a unified
military force. Is that correct?
Mr. GURNEY. The Senator is en-
tirely correct. The committee, in con-
sidering this bill, has sought to keep
that which is good and to discard that
which is bad, and to take advantage of
the lessons learned in war when the Joint
Chiefs of Staff functioned.
This joint committee made a report to
the President, with which most of the
Senators are familiar. There were the
hearings by the Select Committee on
Postwar Policy of the House of Repre-
sentatives later in the same year, 1944.
Again, in the fall of 1945, the Senate
Military Affairs Committee' conducted
extensive hearings in which many expert
witnesses from the military services and
from civilian life were heard. The report
of Mr. Ferdinand Eberstadt to the Secre-
tary of the Navy was Carefully studied.
The Naval Affairs Committee of the Sen-
ate studied the problem in the spring of
1946. Finally, after many adjustments
by the services to harmonize divergence
of opinion the present bill, Senate bill
758, was recommended by the President
and introduced with the full ,support of
both the War and Navy Departments.
The Senate Armed Services Committee
01-1 .
JULY 7
has now concluded thorough examina-
tion of the bill, which is favorably re-
ported to the Senate in amended form.
Mr. President, no legislative proposal
within my memory has received the close
scrutiny and thoughtful consideration
which has been given to this bill. Your
committee has deliberated on this legis-
lation for more than 11 weeks, and I ?
assure the Senate that every paragraph,
every sentence, every phrase has been
very carefully weighed. The committee
Is proud to present the fruits of its efforts ?
to the Senate. We firmly believe that the
bill represents a sound and moderp.
foundation upon which will be erected I.
lasting structure of national security.
The committee heard testimony
against the bill as well as in favor of it.
During the hearings two facts became
obvious. One fact was that all the ci-
vilian officials and officers in uniform
-?who had broad responsibilities for the
coordinated use of the military services
for our national security were advocates .
of unification. The other fact was that
none of those who opposed unification
had duties outside their own branch or
specialty. Your committee is in the first
category. We have broad responsibil-
ities and we therefore advocate unifica-
tion.
The bill provides for the creation of a
national security organization consisting
of the Department of the Army, the De-
partment of the Navy, and the Depart-
ment of the Air Force, and four agencies,
each with equal representation from the
three departments. These agencies are
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the War Coun-
cil, the Munitions Board, and the Re-
search and Development Board. At the
head of this organization is the Secre-
tary of National Securffy.
The bill also provides for a National
Security Council, a Central Intelligence
Agency, , and a National Security
'4 sources Board, all of which report di-
rectly to the President, but which also
work closely with the agencies under the ?
Secretary of National Security.
- --I would not impose upon the time of
the Members of the Senate, Mr. Presi-
dent, to justify the inclusion of the Army,
the Navy or its components, or the Air
Forces, in the National Security Organ-
ization. Their records of past achieve-
ment are sufficient for that purpose. The
new position for air power which is pro-
posed is contained in the provisions for
a Department of the Air Force and for
a United States Air Force, organized and
'established on a parity with the Army
and the Navy,-
It may be truly said that during World
War II air power came of age and that
it .proved its terrific force in the test of
conflict. The Air Corps' prewar position
of inferiority as a subdivision of the Army
has been outgrown and outmoded. Dur-
ing the war, by the temporary expedient
of the First War Powers Act, the shackles
which bound the Air Corps were un-
locked, and it was made in effect a basic
arm whose contribution to victory in the
Army-Navy-Air Force team will never
'be forgotten. Remember, that was
through, the provisions of the First War
Pdwers'Act. If this bill shall not pass,
the Air Force will revert to its prewar
m?
d For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
position cif being only a part of the
Army.
The emancipation of the Air arm is
Obillby establishing it as a separate arm.
recognized and made, permanent in this
To do less than this would be foolhardy.
for as one defeated German general has
said, "Without air supremacy You can-
not win; with it you cannot lose."
If we give but momentary thought to
the future, it is perfectly clearthat if and
when another enemy strikes, it will be
through the element which has no geo-
graphic barrier?the air. To fail to rec-
ognize that fact in our defense prepara-
tions is to court disaster. Thus, in this
bill the air arm is given its logical posi-
tion of parity with the Army and Navy.
The early history of our country dis-
closes that prior to 1798 all our military
forces were under one civilian organiza-
tion, the War Office. At that time, how-
ever, it was logical to "compartmental-
ize" our armed forces, because land bat-
tles and sea battles were clearly separate
and distinct from one another. There-
fore, with the growth of our naval forces,
we established a 'separate Navy Depart-
ment and a Navy. But as we have moved
into an air, age and the period of total
war, it is no longer possible to keep our
military forces in tight, separated com-
partments, with no one short of an over-
burdened President to render decisions
in the absence of agreement.
We have just completed a triphibious
war, in which closely integrated land,
sea, and air teams were required to pro-
duce a victorious military force. Coordi-
nation and integration of our military
forces was achieved with the aid of tem-
porary laws and temporary organization.
War forced us to forge these bonds of
close cooperation. Now that the compul-
sion of war is gone, they are in immediate
danger of rusting away.
We would be unwise indeed, Mr. Presi-
dent, if we did not preserve for the fu-
ture every means at?our disposal to keep
together in times of peace the proven
components of our security team.
The experience of the last war has
clearly demonstrated that the most effec-
tive military organization for this coun-
try is one which provides for joint plan-
ning and joint logistical support of our
fighting arms. It was with that idea in
mind that the four joint agencies of the?
National Security organization to which
I have previously referred were wisely
included in the bill.
The War Council consists of the Secre-
tary of National Security as Chairman,'
the Secretary of the Army; Secretary"of
the Navy; Secretary of the Air Force; the.
Chief of Staff, United States Arm,; the
ief of Naval Operations; and the Chief
of Staff, United States Air Force. This
Council is the principal advisory body
to the Secretary of National Security.
Here the joint civilian and military direc- -
tion of the services is solidly established.
The provision for the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, consisting of the Chief of Staff,.
United States Army, the Chief of Naval
Operations, and the Chief of Staff,
United States Air Force, gives legislative
permanence to an organization which
was created by the compelling necessity
of war, arid. which in the absence of a
better organization was the unifying ele-
.
?
ment for the direction of the war. Its
great contribution to victory has been
attested to by all of our leading com-
manders in the Army, Navy, and Air
Force.
The provision for the Joint Chiefs of
Staff gives us a permanent organization
of the heads of our three arms, who,
working in harmony and unison, with
the assistance of their joint staff repre-
senting all components of the military
forces, will prepare strategic plans, and
Will provide for the unified strategic and
logistic direction of our military forces.
They will establish unified commands,
? and will provide for joint training, will
review the requirements of our military
forces from an over-all combined stand-
point, and will act jointly as the military
advisers of the President and Sacretary
of National Security. In this way we,
shall be assured for the first time in our
history that all parts of our military
strength are jointly represented in a
common purpose in time of peace as well
as war. Only in this way can the Presi-
dent as Commander in Chief satisfac-
? torily discharge his constitutional duty
to the country in an age of high-speed,
tnphibious war.
In the Joint Staff there is provided, to
assist the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a full-
time staff which will lend both flexibility
and body to the present loose structure of
committees by assuming certain of their
duties and by assisting the remaining
committees to function with increased
thoroughness and speed. This Joint
Staff has in itself no command authority;
it serves a Director, who in turn' func-
? ? tions' as an executive to the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, whose members cannot them-
selves oversee the Joint Staff continuous-
ly. The provision of this agency should
? remedy the principal defect which has
been noted in the present Joint Chiefs of
Staff organization.
The Munitions Board provided for un-
der the bill will give us a long-needed
permanent board, compokd of a chair-
man and the Under or Assistant Secre-
taries of each of the three departments,
who will coordinate industrial procure-
ment and production plans of the three
departments; recommend assignments of
procurement responsibility; plan for -
standardization; prepare estimates of
potential production, procurement, and
personnel; and determine priorities of
the various segments of the military pro-
curement program. The Munitions
Board will fill to a large extent the same
. role in the procurement phase of logistics
that the Joint Chiefs .of Staff fill in the
field of strategy and operations, and in
the military phase of logistics. Through
the collaboration of these two Joint agen-
cies, methods of joint purchasing and
procurement wilLbe expanded, and max-
imum joint use will be made of such serv-
ices as hospitalization and transporta-
tion. These are the measures which are
expected to effect the greatest economies,
not only in dollar savings, but more im-
portant, in time and in the return real-
ized upon the investment of American
manpower and resources.
If the experience of the war has
brought home one fact more forcibly to
the Members of Congress than any other,
it is the urgent .need to eliminate the
8463
duplication and overlapping between the
services which resulted in many disloca-
tions, inefficiency, and unwarranted ex-
pense in the prosecution of the war.
I, for one, Mr. President, am sure that
the services did not willfully do these
things. I believe that because they were
laboring within the confines of an out-
moded organization, they could not help
themselves. Attempts to solve these
problems with hastily improvised vol..,
untary joint committees only served to
point more clearly to the urgent need for ,
such a body as the Munitions Board.
The joint Army-Navy Munitions Board, .
as now constituted, operates under Presi-
dential authority, and is therefore tem-
porary in character. The duties as-
signed to the present Board, which under
this bill will pass to the Munitions Board
In an augmented form, are so desper-
ately important that common prudence
dictates that the authority and perman-
ence of-the Board be fixed by law.
Faced as we are with the stupendous
demands of modern war and with limited
?resources in manpower and materials,
we must provide for the greatest con- -
servation and the most frugal use of
those resources. This cannot be accom-
plished by competiton be-
tween the 'services. It can be accom-
pllshed only by careful regulation
through a single joint authority such as
the Munitions Board.
During World War II, and particularly
since the development of the atomic
bomb, there has been a growing public
consciousness of the rapid strides in re-
search and devlopment. No protection
!for our country is worthy of the name
unless it contemplates continued and
intensive research and development.
During the war we achieved notable
scientific advances which materially
contributed to ultimate victory, but there
is" no permanent organization for fur-
thering that activity in time of peace.
'The limited supply of scientifically
trained research personnel and the in-
evitable reduction which will occur in the
amount we have to spend for research
and development in time of peace, com-
bine to demand the establishment of the
Research and Development Board with-
in the National Security Organization.
This Hoard, consisting of representatives
from all the services will be able for the
first time in our history to prepare a.
complete and integrated continuous pro-
gram of research and development for
military purposes. It will replace the
temporary Joint Research and Develop-
ment Board which was set up by joint
agreement between the Secretaries of
War and Navy. It will effect the neces-
sary coordination between the depart-
ments on research and development.
Responsibilities for specific programs
of joint interest will be allocated between
the services and with other agencies of
Government, thus effecting economies
and fostering efficiency. .
I have briefly outlined the various seg-
ments of the National Security Organ-
ization which have been -lcarefully, de-
vised to work in the various fields of in-
terest which experience has dictated
-must be a part of any modern effective
'security system. ''
t,..r)ved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-006-10R00020
8464 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
There is one element which I have
purposely omitted until now, in order.
that I could more clearly illustrate its
position in relation to the other elements.
I refer, Mr. President, to the Secretary
of National Security.'
The whole purpose of the arrangement
of and assignment of duties to the vari-
ous parts of the National Security Or-
ganization is to insure that all our forces
and facilities are directed toward broad
common missions.
In the past we have witnessed the fal-
lacy of having two great executive de-
partments of Government so separated
and insulated from one another that
each tried in effect to become a self-
sufficient national security organization.
We have learned that this is the wrong
approach. We have learned that in
peacetime it is expensive, wasteful, and
inefficient. We learned at Pearl Harbor
that having two steering wheels on our
defense machine can send it careening,
into the ditch. ? ,
After December 7, 1941, we resorted to
temporary expedients to overcome the
difficulties inherent in a double system
of defense. But elements of a defense
organization cannot be brought together
'to function as a team without a direct-
ing leader?not any more than a football
team can have two quarterbacks, one
calling signals for the backfield and one
for the line. This lesson has been in-
delibly impressed upon the minds of the
students of the past war by the efficiency
of our unified field commands, as well as
by the problems which arose before
those commands were unified.
It is universally recognized that all our
forces are subject to the direction of the
President as constitutional Commander
in Chief. Each of the segments of the
National Security Organization provided
for in S. 758 could report directly to
him. He could point the way in which
they should direct their efforts. He
could do it, Mr. President, if he were a -
superman. But all of us know full well
that the overburdened Chief Executive
of our Government, even tilough he has
the clear-cut responsibility for the oper-
ational functioning of our armed forces,
cannot possibly discharge that respOnsi-
biiity with a mollern military organiza-
tion. He cannot discharge it by dealing
directly and separately with two?:much
less with three?executive depart-
ments?no, not even with the advice and
assistance of the joint agencies which
are provided in the bill. The depart-
ments which deal with the armed forces
and the armed forces themselves are too
large and too complicated, and the Presi?
dent himself is far too busy to devote
the full time necessary for the accom-
plishment of the task.
What the President needs is a means
of dealing only with .broad policies and
with problems which have been resolved
as far as possible before they are sub-
mitted to him. Above all, he needs a
means of dealing with only a minimum
of individuals.
It is therefore necessary, Mr. Presi-
dent, to provide a head for the National
Security Organization to whom the Pres-
ident may look for simplification of his
task. That individual is the Secretary
of National Security, through whom are
?
tied together all the departments and
agencies of the National Security Or-
ganization.
The Secretary, under the direction of
the President, will establish policies and
. programs for the National Security Or-
ganization and for its departments and
agencies. He will exercise general direc-
tion, authority, and control over them.
He will supervise and control as a co-
ordinated whole the budgeted expendi-
tures of the armed forces. He will thus
relieve the President of a mass of detail
and submit only for his consideration
basic problems of major importance.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Pres-
' ident?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LODGE
in the chair). Does the Senator from
South Dakota yield to the Senator from
Colorado?
Mr. GURNEY. I yield.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. The Sen-
ator is a member of the Committee on
Appropriations, and a very ablC mem-
ber. Does he understand that under the
proposed plan one budget will come down
for the armed forces, and that one hill
for the armed forces will probably be
introduced and considered in Congress
as one bill, or will we have two bills or
three bills in the future?
Mr. GURNEY. Under the pending bill
it is specifically provided that we will
have one bill for the whole National
Security Organization. The three de-
partments, the Army, the Navy, and the
Air Forces, will first submit to their own
secretaries their requests. Their secre-
taries will then individually present their
requests for the next year's funds to the
Secretary of National Security, and in_
that way Congress will have one bill,
not two, as now, or, not three, if we were
going along under the old budgetary sys-
tem, when and if we had a separate
Air Force.
Mr. 'JOHNSON of Colorado. I am very
glad to learn of that arrangement, be-
cause it is an important step forward.
Mr. GURNEY. In addition to having
only one bill, the budget will come to
Congress at the beginning of the year
with only what the President says is
necessary for these departments. But
there will be a showing, too, in parallel
columns, first, of the amount requested
by the Secretary of each of the three
groups; then, alongside, the request of
the Secretary of the Navy, for instance,
will appear what the Secretary of Na-
tional Security recommends. In the
third column will appear a showing of
what the budget approves. So Congress
will be fully informed of the request of
the service secretary, the administrator
Of the individual department, then the
recommendation of the National Secur-
ity Secretary, and finally, of the Presi-
dent himself.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. That
sounds like a very logical and sensible
approach to the problem of financing
the armed forces.
Mr. GURNEY. I think that in these
times of stress it is very necessary that
Congress be fully informed, so that. it
can go into the background of all re-
quests; and see what the department
heads responsible for the security of the
Nation recommend in the first place.
01-1
JULY 7
Then it will be the responsibility of Con-
gress to decide just what should be done
for each department.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. If I may
Interrupt further, the Committee on Ap-
propriations will have before it, perhaps,
the defense plans of each of the branches
of the armed forces. They will have their
plans of operation, not singly, not one by
one, but they will have them all at one
time.
Mr. GURNEY. That is correct. Of
course, that refers to logistic plans, not
strategic plans.
Mr. JOHNSON.of Colorado. Of course.
Mr. GURNEY. In a recent letter to
the committee the Honorable Henry L.
Stimson, our distinguished former Sec-
retary of War, went straight to the heart
of the matter with these words:-
What the bill does?
Said Mr. Stimson?
is to delegate to a recognized officer of the
Government a part of the authority (tiler the
military establishment which in the end,
always belongs to the President. If it were
possible today for any President to give his
full attention to military ?ii,ffairs, this step
would not be necessary.
For Congress to fail to take this neces-
sary step, in my opinion, would be tanta-
mount to restraining the Commander in
Chief from the most,efficient possible per-
formance of the responsibility which the
Constitution places upon him.
There are some who express a fear that
the creation of this office will lead to-
ward dictatorship. I urge those who
voice such views to be more objective in
their thinking. The Secretary of Na-
tional Security is being given no ? new
powers by this bill. He is a full-time
Presidential representative exercising
delegated Presidential power to assist the
President in carrying out his responsi-
bility to the Congress, the Nation, and
the armed forces. Not since our Nation
was young and relatively small has the
President been able to assist adequately
the Congress in obtaining an over-all
picture of our security needs. This bill
provides an officer short of the Presi-
dent who can accept in part the Presi-
dent's responsibility to keep the Congress
fully and continuously advised of the
needs of the' armed forces.
Some have feared that this Secretary
would be a meddler who would tamper
with our military departments. Even a
casual reading of the bill will disclose
that the administration of the depart-
ments will be left to their respective
secretaries and that the military threes
will be commanded by their respective
heads. The sort of order or direction
which would be exercised by the Secre-
tary is well illustrated, in my opinion, by
the 29-word directive which was issued
to General Eisenhower for the invasion
of Europe. That directive reads as
follows:
You will enter the continent of Europe and,
in conjunction with other Allied Nations,
undertake operations aimed at the heart of
Germany and the destruction of her armed
forces.
r
This pointed the direction in which
the effort was to be made and stated the
ultimate mission or goal. It did not say
how itlyas to be done or deal with details. ?
d For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
Nor is it intended under this bill, Mr.
President, that the Secretary be con-
cerned with details. His task is to keep
*our military forces heading toward a
common goal and to see that they work
In harmony and with efficiency. How.
each Oen-rent accomplishes its task will
be left to the secretaries of the depart-
? ments arid the military commanders,
with the advice and assistance of the
joint bodies upon which there is equal
representation for all.
During the hearings before your com-
mittee there was much discussion about
the possibility of the Secretary deter-
mining the specific roles and missions of
the various elements of the armed forces.
I think it might be well at this point, Mr. .
President, to clarify that subject for ?
those Senators who have not had time
to study the hearings.
Congress has been given the responsi-
bility under the Constitution to deter-....._
mine what kind of military forces the
Nation shall have and how large they
shall be. The mere creation by the Con-
gress of a Navy or an Army implies a
basic reason for its existence and sug-
gests its general mission. Provision for
an air force, for instance, implies that
? it will be_used in air combat; similarly,
the law providing for artillery assumes
that it is a ground force. The specific
combat tasks, however, that are to be
performed by any element of the armed '
forces have never been written into law,.
because the way in which our military
forces are used is the responsibility of the
Commander in chief.. As the Chief Ex-
? -ecutive and Commander in Chief, it is the
President's day-to-day responsibility, in ?
war and in peace, to give direction to the
military forces in the light of current
scientific developments and ? current in-
ternational balances.
For us tg.fix by law the specific combat
missions of our armed forces would
characterize us- as being Maginot-line
minded. Specific roles and missions
could be specifically assigned if we were
limited to a small battlefield instead of'
the whole world and if we knew in detail
what kind of war the next one would be,
but to set them in the concrete of per-,
manent law, under .the conditions of
modern total warfare, would prevent the
President from exercising the discretion-
ary authority which is wisely provided for
in the Constitution.
It is riot intended that the President
will delegate the authority to assign com-
bat roles and missions to the Secretary
of National Security. When the Secre-
tary of War and Secretary of the Navy
? presented their joint agreement on uni-
fication to the President, they suggested
that he issue an Executive order con-
temporaneously with the approval of this
bill, setting forth the current roles and
missions of the armed forces. This the
President agreed to do, and the draft of
the rder has been approved by both the
Army and the Navy. These combat roles
.and missf,ons, once established by the -
President, can be changed only by him.
The Secretary cannot do it.
The whole purpOse behind the sug-
gestion of writing combat roles and mis-
sions into the law rather than leaving
them to the President as we have tradi-
tionally done for 170,years was that fear,
had been expressed that one or more
components of the armed forces might
be discriminated against by a designing
secretary who sought to eliminate them.
What kind and how many military forces
we have, I repeat, is the responsibility of
the Members of Congress, which they
cannot delegate to anyone else, even if
they wanted to. It is inseparably linked
to the control of the purse by Congress.
It may well be that the advice of the
military experts on the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, which has equal representation
from Army, Navy, and Air Force, will be
sought in making a decision as to what
forces we shall have, but the final deter-
mination is still for the Congress and
for no one else. Therefore, Mr. Presi-
dent, I say that the fear of the elimina-
tion of some element of the armed forces
resolves itself into a fear of the Members
of Congress of its own power, and not
that of the Secretary, who must work
With what Congress provides. Neverthe-
less, to make doubly certain that the in-
tent of the bill was made crystal clear it
has been amended by your committee
to safeguard the Marine Corps and naval
aviation by specific language, as follows:
? SEC. 208 (b). The provisions of this act
shall not authorize the alteration or diminu-
tion of the existing relative status of the
Marine Corps (including the fleet marine
forces) or of naval aviation.
Representatives of the Navy Depart-
ment, including the Commandant of the
Marine Corps, agree that this language
makes it unmistakably clear, that the
interests of, the Marine Corps and naval
aviation are being protected.
z Now, I should like to turn to another
matter which has been given a great deal
of attention in considering this legisla-
tion?the matter of procurement and
services.
- Most of the examples of wasteful du-
plication which have been pointed out as
a deficiency in our conduct of the war
have to do with services and supplies.
Many situations existed where the Army
and Navy maintained duplicate facilities
not fully utilized by either. Wasteful
'competition and overbuying existed in
the procurement of common-type sup-
plies. The elimination of these faults of,
operation should therefore be a source
of great economy.
I may interpolate here that the evi-
dence leads me personally to believe that
about 67 percent of the Army and Navy
needs are common items, and that under
the committees so far established there
have been combined purchases in about
11 percent of them. Therefore, in that
respect there is an important goal to be
attained and quite a saving in prospect?
the difference between 11 percent and
67 percent,
It is essential, in my opinion, Mr. Pres-
ident, that we seek to economize by elim-
inating unnecessary expenditures of
manpower, strategic materials, and nor-
mal supplies. One solution which has
been considered is a centralized procure-
ment agency within the National Secur-
ity Organization. At first blush this
might seem to be a good solution. Care-
ful study of the subject, however?and I
assure you, Mr. President, that it re-
ceived very careful and thorough study-
8465
Indicates that the solution offered by this
bill is much to be preferred.
During the war our two executive de-
partments which performed most of the
services and purchased most of the sup-
plies commenced operation in these fields
as totally independent and self-sufficient
entities. Before the war was over, by
reason of sheer, necessity and in the ab-
sence of any laws to facilitate close col-
laboration, there had been created some
2,200 committees to try to bring about
some semblance of joint action. For the
most part they were unsuccessful. In
my judgment, a joint procurement agen-
cy or jointly operated services would
. have been almost as bad. We would then
and would now disrupt efficient organiza-
tions of the military forces to create a
new joint organization for the purpose.
What we needed then and what we need
now is a joint?staff?agency such as the
Munitions Board which can determine
after study by representatives of all the
arms, the agency best qualified to pro-
cure what item and to perform what
service. Once a decision is made upon a
given subject we put a stop to duplica-
tion, overlapping waste, and the 'unnec-
essary expense which accompany them.
At the same time we will not thereby in-
terfere with the integrity of any service
or disrupt or scramble it with another.
We call this cross-procurement and
cross-servicing. It is a sound method
of operation, which has the support of
all the services. It will save money and
men. Under this method the using serv-
ice, retains the responsibility for procur-
ing specialized items peculiar to that
service, while at the same time the door
remains open to single procurement of
Items common to several components of
the armed forces. This method also per-
mits standardization of specifications for
a multitude of common use items, in it-
self an important saving device. Such
standardization has the cumulative ef-
fect of making manufacture cheaper and
easier, and of simplifying packaging,
storing, and distribution.
It is thus clear that all the savings vis-
ualized by the advocates of centralized- '?
pracurement can be effected under the - ?
system of cross procurement provided
for in the bill, without distinting pres-
ently operating procuyement agencies
which are experienced and efficient in
their fields.
Critics of unification often demand to
know?with tongue in cheek, think?
how much in dollars and cents Will be
saved each year by unification. I con-
sider the question wanting in frankness
because, obviously, no one can spell out
in microscopic detail the amount of the
dollar savings that will result,
?_ But that there will be savings from
unification of the Armed Services?and
substantial ones?is crystal clear to any-
one making even a casual examination
of the legislation. Personally, I think
the savings will be astonishingly large
because, if for no other reason, our pres-
ent system is so horribly uneconomical,
The bald fact is that as our security
system is now constituted there is no one
- directly Concerned with the defense
establishment who has the authority to
effect the savings which the taxpayers,.
have a right to expect. -
g466 )
ved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
'-When Secretary Patterson testified be-
fore your committee, he said in part:
Every year I have been asked, when I go
clown to the Appropriations Committee of
the House, how this program fits* in with the
Navy Department's program. My answer is
always, "I don't know." They will say, "Does
General Eisenhower know?" I say, "No; he
does not know."
They say, "Hasn't he ever studied the Navy
budget?"
I say, "No; it is not his duty to, and it is
not my duty to."
And, of course, the same thing is true of
the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of
Naval Operations. We could not possibly
tell any committee of Congress how the two
programs fit.
Unfortunately, this little colloquy is as
truthful as it is ridiculous?I have heard
it many times myself. , Clearly. we will '
not have real economy in our defense
organization until we take the obvious
first step of giving someone the authority
to effect economies and the opportunity
to effect those economies with full. knowl-
edge of their impact upon our national
security. The bill takes that step by -
setting up a Secretary of National Secu-
rity.
' The bill before the Senate for con-
sideration, in addition to, the elements
included in the National Security Or-
ganization, provides for the creation of a
National Security Council. This Coun-
cil, reporting to the President and having
as permanent members, the Secretary
of St ' the Secretaryfof National Secur-
ity, .4ecretaries of the military de-
pares, and the Chairman of the Na-
tional Security Resources /Board, gives
us for the first time a permanent organi-
zation for the thorough integration of
our foreign and military policies. Rec-
ognizing that military policy is an ex-
tension of foreign . policy, it gives us a
means of developing our foreign policy
upon the basis of our military and eco-
monic strength: This function is now
performed by the State, War, and Navy
Coordinating Committee.
As an important adjunct to the Na-
tional_ Security . Council there is _pro- '
'rision for a 'central Intelligence Agency,
which fills a long recognized demand for
accurate -information upon -'which:irn
-portant_decisions, relating, to fp_r_e_ign.and
military policy, can be based.
--Th-e--1V6Ii61ii1?SeaiiiifY Resources
Board, headed by a chairman and com-
posed of the heads or representatives of
such departments and agencies as the
President may apoint, will in time of
peace advise the President concerning
the coordination of military, civilian and
industrial mobilization to provide him
with a sound basis on which to evaluate
the elements involved in our domestic,
military and foreign policies.
In time of war it would be made the
effectuating agent for putting mobiliza-
tion plans into operation generally, and
for determining the needs of the civil
and military elements of the nation and
allocating material and facilities among
them.
By means of the National Security
Resources Board, Mr. President, there
would be established adequate and
timely provision?provision now des,-
perately needed?for the protection and
planned employment of our national
resources; for We canot afford ever again
to dissipate those resources in the pur-
suit of extemporized plans, conceived in
haste and executed under the pressure
of emergency.
Mr. President, before I close, I want to
recognize and refute the charge that no
nation which unified its forces ever won
a war. Critics of unification have con-
tended that Germany, for example, had
a single military establishment. Let us
be clear on this point.
When General Eisenhower appeared
before our Senate Military Affairs Com-
mittee during the last Congress, he said:
The facts are that Germany never had a
single department, nor even unity of direc-
tion. One of the major contributing factors
to the Nazi defeat was the utter lack of
unified direction over the Luftwaffe and the
Wehrmacht, both in the Mediterranean and
in Europe.
What about defeated Japan? Japan
had two separate departments; one for'
the Army and another for the Navy, with
,no coordinated, unified command.
? What about defeated Italy? Italy had
three separate departments; one for the
Army, another for the Navy, and a third
for the Air Force, but no unity of com-
mand over the three.
And all three of those nations were
defeated.
The problems of America's defense are
peculiarly America's problems. We
should look to other nations and to the
experiences of their forces only for the
purposes of guidance?but as we look at.
the experiences of other nations, we can
certainly find nothing to recommend
separate and uncoordinated defense-,
forces.
Mr. President, many grave problems
face the Eightieth Congress? problems
calling for prompt and sound solutions.
None, in my opinion, transcends in im-
.portance and urgency the proposal be-
fore the Senate today to unify the armed
forces.
The profound significance and far-
reaching effect of the legislation may
well change the course of history.
I am sure the Senate understands that
there is involved here more than a prob-
lem of organizing armies and fleets and
- air forces. There is embraced in the
legislation the far greater task of laying
the foundation and planning the struc-
ture of total national effort in event of
total war?and it is .perhaps the most
challenging organizational problem that
any nation can face.
It is not being an alarmist to point out
that, with the development of supersonic
planes and guided missiles with atomic
warheads, the cushion of distance pro-
vided by the Atlantic, Arctic, and Pacific
Oceans will no longer provide a corre-
sponding cushion of time in which we
may react to attack and mobilize our
.forces. It is not being an alarmist to
point out that in the event of another
global war hostilities will be initiated
without prior warning, and by an attack
as complete and devastating as lies within
the capabilities of the nation which
launches it.
Clearly, Mr. President, the time to
plan?the time to prepare?is now. -
- And yet much of the planning of our
Military services has had to mark time?
.
001-1
JULY 7
has necessarily had to wait for long
months while these basic problems were
debated and studied and finally resolved.,
It is now within the power of the Con-
gress?it is now its responsibility?to give
those services improved procedure and
adequate agencies to help them with their
tremendous task. It is now within our
power to shun any display of Weakness
and vacillation which might encourage
aggressors or lessen the faith of free
peoples in our steadfastness of purpose.
It is now within our power to give the
President the help he so urgently needs,
and to replace the security organization
of 1798 with the organization of 1947.
It is now our responsibility to act, for I
say to the Senate, in all sincerity, to
? procrastinate is to invite disaster.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. GURNEY. I yield to the Senator
from West Virginia.
Mr. REVERCOMB. I ask the Senator
to yield for a question because I am very
much interested in the statements which
he made with respect to the lack of ef-
fectiveness of the German forces and the
Italian forces because there was no uni-
fication between the various departments
of the army and of the navy. What
was the situation with respect to the
British forces? Was there unification
betweeen the navy and the army such
as is advocated by the Senator?
Mr. GURNEY. Not entirely so. How-
ever, their basic law is much better than
ours; and the white paper recently issued
does unify their forces in a much better
way than during World War II.
Mr. REVERCOMB. But there was not
the unification which the Senator advo-
cates, between the British -Navy and the
British Army.
Mr. GURNEY. No; not entittely,dur-
ing the war.
Mr. REVERCOMB. I thank the Sen-
ator.
Mr. GURNEY. However, there was a
unification between their combined staff
and our combined staff. There was also
an over-all allied combined staff. But
we lose that combination and authority
of combined forces just as soon as the
war powers become inoperative, as soon
, as we reach the point where they can-
not mutually agree, as they had to do
during the war.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. JEN-
NER in the chair). The question is on
agreeing to the committee amendment.
Mr. LODGE obtained the floor.
ALL IATION OF DAMAGE FROM FLOOD
R OTHER CATASTROPHE
?
Mr. PIIEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator frem Massachusetts yield to me?
Mr. LODCI I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, Senate
F\
bill 1515, Calendar, No. 447, provides for
making surplus ploperty available to
States and local goveNiments to alleviate
'1
the suffering of , the vietits\1 was unani-
mously
flood and,--
other catastrophe. The
reported Iran the Committee on
Expenditures in the ExecutiDepart-
l
ments last Thursday, but unfo nately
.there was no opportunity to brin lkbe-
fore the Senate at that time.
I have discussed the bill with the lead-
ers of 'the Senate on both sides. I find
2
vey For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200?41-
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
no objection to it. It is essential, if it is
to be of value to the sufferers from the
recent flood and other catastrophes, that
it be passed without delay. So I ask
unanimous consent that the unfinished
business be temporarily laid aside, with
the understanding that we shall return
to it immediately following consideration
of the bill, and that Senate bill 1515 be
considered at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be statedthY title for the informa-
tion of the Senate'.s
Th ,e LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (S.
1515) to make surplus property avail-
able for the alleviation of damage caused
by flood or other catastrophe.
The PRESIDING 01010ICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the bill?
Mr.. REVERCOMB, Mr. President, I
do not rise to object to consideration
of the bill. I merely wish to ask a ques-
tion. I)oes the bill apply only to certain
properties? I may say that I have dis-
cussed the bill with the able Senator
from Vermont, and I am in favor of the
objective; but does it apply only to cer-
tain kinds of property which will be use-
ful in food relief and in the replacement.
of building and structures which have
been destroyed by floods?
Mr. AIKEN. That is true. It applies
only to the victims of catastrophe such
as flood, explosion, or any other catas-
trophe which brings about human dis-
tress.
Mr. :REVERCOMB. Does the surplus
property go tO State and municipal gov-
ernments rather than to individuals?
Mr. AIKEN That is correct. The
bill provides, first, that the President
must make a deeermination that a catas-
trophe has occukred. A good example
?
was the Texas City catastrophe. An-
other good example is the recent catas-
trophes from floods and other causes.
When the President 'makes a determina-
tion, then the War ssets Administra-
tion is authorized to turn over to the
Federal Works Adminiskration any prop-
erty which may be useful in allevi-
ating the suffering of thk, victims. The
Federal Works Administration will dis-
pose of such surplus prope ty to States
and local governments, wit or without
compensation. Then the States and
local governments will have the?, property
wholly in their hands, and Will make
such arrangements as can be mak to re-
habilitate the people within theiitates
or cities, under agreement, of curse,
with the Federal Works Administratkion.
Mr. REVERCOMB. As I understa4).d,
the property goes no further than the
State or r-inicipal government; in ?the'
words, ,ikJ State -or municipal govern-
ment cannot dispose of it to individuals.
Mr. AIKEN. Yes.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Can it convey
title and ownership?
Mr. AIKEN. The property must get
into the hands of the individual in some
way: but the committee did not feel that' -
the Federal agency should deal directly
with individuals.
r. REVERCOMB. I do not mean
that the individual may. not use the prop-'
erty; but is the sproperty eventually to
be a gift from the Federal Government
to the State government or to the city
government? After the property leaves
the municipal government does it go into
the hands of individuals as gifts to them?
I have in mind construction machinery,
such as bulldozers and concrete mixers.
To whom will such property belong?
Mr. AIKEN. That kind of machinery
will belong to the State or municipal
government. It is not contemplated that
surplus property of that kind shall ? be
given free of charge.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, a paf-
liamentary inquiry. \
,
' The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. GURNEY. As I understand, the
bill about which the Senator from Ver-
mont is speaking has not yet displaced
the unfinished business.
The PRESIDING OrTICER. It has
not as yet.
Mr. GURNEY. Reserving the right to
object, I ask the Senator from Vermont
If he is willing to defer the consideration_
of the bill if the debate on it takes longer
than 10 or 15 Minutes.
Mr. AIKEN. That is correct. I am
willing to desist if the debate seems to
take too long.
Mr. GURNEY. With that under-
standing, I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OVFICER. The
,Senator from South Dakota can call
for the regular order at any time.
?
Mr. AIKEN. Let me say in reply to '
the Senator from West Virginia that it
is not contemplated that equipment
which has permanent value shall be
given to the States or municipalities.
They would be able to purchase it from
the War Assets Administration if it were
necessary to rehabilitate their people in
a hurry. However, with respect to such
things as medicines, temporary bedding,
and other similar items of property, it
? is not believed that a charge should be
made for them. Such property could be
given in the nature of a grant.
? Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President,
Will the Senator yield? ?
Mr. AIKEN. I yield.
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. As a member
of the Committee on Expenditures in the
Executive Departments, of which the
Senator from Vermont is chairman,
have had something to do with the bill
? in addition to being one of its sponsors.
I feel that the bill meets a drastic
. emergency need. I heartily joint with
the chairmant of the committee in his
representation of its emergency nature.
I am satisfied that sufficient safeguards
have been thrown around the disposi-
tion of surplus property so that the prop-
erty will not and cannot do to the indi-
? vidual use of any persons aside from
municipalities or public bodies. Is that
he understanding of the Senator, too?
\ Mr. AIKEN. That is my understand-
trig.
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Equipment
-such as bulldozers and other earth-
moving equipment and heavy equipment
of a permanent nature can either be
? leased, with a return provision when the
emergency has ended, or it can be sold
for its reasonable value, if that procedure
Is deemed to be sound.
8467
I invite the attention of Members of
the Senate to one further point, and
that is that the bill is restricted, first,
to the declaration of a catastrophe or
emergency in a particular section or
location. Secondly, the property is to
be available for use only in an emer-
gency or catastrophe. I ask the Sen-
ator from Vermont if that is his under-
standing.
Mr. AIKEN. The explanation of the
Senator from Iowa is entirely correct.
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Permanent
property, such as earth-moving equip-
?ment, can and probably will be returned
to the agencies from which it was ob- ?
tained when the catastrophe has been
ended or the repair has been accom-
plished.
Mr. AIKEN: That is correct.
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. As the Sen-
ator from Vermont pointed out, ex-
pendable goods such as medicines, and
perhaps in some cases food, will be con-
sumed in the 'process. But I assure the
Senate that in my opinion ample safe-
guards have been established not only to
meet the emergency, but to protect and
safeguard property-,
Mr. AIKEN. The ? Senator is correct.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. 'President, reserv-
ing the right to object, I was called from
the floor for a moment ,and I did not
hear the Senator's request. Will he
repeat his request?
Mr. AIKEN. The request was to lay
'aside temporarily the unfinished busi-
ness so that the Senate may consider
the bill which was reported last Thurs-
day:- providing for the use of surplus.
property for victims of flood and other
catastrophe.
Mr. WHITE. Is the bill on the cal-
endar?
Mr. AIKEN. It is.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. AIKEN. I yield to the Senator
from Colorado.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I do not
wish to take up time to suggest the ab-
sence of a quorum, but some of my col-
leagues on this side are not present,
and I should like to ask the Senator if
the report from his committee is a
'unanimous report, or was there any
objection?
Mr. AIKEN. The report was unani-
mous. I believe there are eight or nine
Members present out of the 13.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. In that
case I shall not ask for, a quorum call.
I am heartily in favor of the measure,
but I thought that there might be some
objection on the part of Senators who
are not present.
,Mr. AIKEN. I discusse'd the matter
with several Members on the other side
of the aisle and found no objection.
The minority leader, however, is not
present, but I have confidence enough
in the humane spirit of the minority
leader to feel that he would not object
if he were present.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. The mi-
nority- leader, I understand, has no
jection 'to the consideration and passage
of the bill. -
Appaed For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020C4 01-1
8468 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
? The PRESIDING Or .v.I.CER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the billk
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill (S. 1515)
which had be-eu reported from the Corn-
rnittee on Expenchtures in the Executive
Departments, with\ an amendment to
strike out all after t e enacting clause
and insert: .
That, notwithstanding a 7 other provi-
sions of law, the War Assets Administration
shall, whenever the President shalkdetermine
it to be necessary or appropriate b'Seause of
flood or other catastrophe, transfer, *i,thout
reimbursement, to the Federal Works Agency
such articles of personal property, which have
been declared surplus under the provision
of the Surplus Property Act of 1944 (58 Stat.
'765), as amended, as in the judgment of the
Federal Works Administrator and the War
Assets Administrator can be presently uti-
.11zed in alleviating damage, hardship, and
suffering caused by such flood or other
catastrophe.
SEC. 2. The Federal Works Administrator is.
authorized to loan or transfer, with or with-
out monetary consideration and upon such
terms and conditions as he may prescribe, to
States and local governments situated in any
area struck by any such flood or catastrophe,
any property transferred to the Federal Works
_,,'Agency for such purposes pursuant to the
?provisions of this act. All receipts from such
transfer shall be covered into the Treasury
of the United States to the credit of miscel-
laneous receipts.
SEC. 3. In carrying out the provisions of
this act the Federal Works Administrator is
authorized to utilize, and act through, any
? other Federal agency or any State or local
government and he may utilize, without re-.
Imbursement therefor, such officers and em-
ployees of any such agency or State or local
, government as may be found necessary in
carrying out the purposes of this act. In
order to facilitate carrying out the purposes
?of this act, other Federal agencies shall coop-
erate with the Federal Works Agency and the
War Assets Administration to the fullest ex-
tent consistent with the objective of this act.
SEC. 4. To carry out the provisions of this
act, including administrative expenses in
connection therewith, any funds available to
the Federal Works Administrator or Agency
for use in connection with the transfer of
stsplus or other excess property, under Pub-
? lic Law q 697, Seventy-ninth Congress, are
hereby made available; and for such purpose
there is authorized to be appropriated such
additional sums as may he necessary therefor.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading, read the third time,
and passed.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Swanson, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the
House had disagreed to the amendments
of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 3647) to
extend certain powers of the President
under title III of the Second War Pow-
ers Act; agreed to the conference asked
by the Senate on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr.
MICHENER, Mr. SPRINGER, and Mr. CRA-
VENS were appointed managers on the
part of the House at the conference.
ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED
? The message also announced that the
Speaker had affixed his signature to the
following enrolled bills, and they were
signed by the President pro tempore:
H. R. 195. An net to authorize the Secre-
tary of Agriculture to sell certain lands in
Alaska to the city of Sitka, Alaska;
H. R. 325. An act to transfer Blair County,
Pa., from the middle judicial district of
.Pennsylvania to the western judicial dis-
trict of Pennsylvania;
H. R. 599. An act declaring Kenduskeag
Stream, Penobscot County, Maine, to be a
nonnavigable waterway;
H. It. 770. An act for the relief of Norman
Abbott;
H. R. 837. An act for the relief of the estate
. of Abraham Banta Bogert;
H. R. 959. An act to amend section 3179
(b) of the Internal Revenue Code;
H. R. 1513. An act for the relief of John C.
Garrett;
H. R. 1610. An act to amend the act of June
14, 1938, so as to authorize the Cairo Bridge
ommission to issue its refunding bonds for
th purpose of refunding the outstanding
bonti issued by the commission to pay the
cost o certain toll bridge at or near Cairo,
Ill.;
H. R. 185 An act for the relief of A. J.
Davis, Mrs. ene Griffin; Earle Griffin, and
Mary Musgrove;
H. R. 1866. An qt for the relief ,,Of Paul
Goodman;
Pl. R. 1893. An act tb authorize the 'sale of
the bed of E Street S , between Tbvelfth
and Thirteenth Streets, hi.,the Distrlet of
Columbia;
H. R. 1945. An act to amend ections 2601
?(e) (4), 3043 (b), and 3045 of the Internal
Revenue Code;
, H. R. 1946. An act to amend secti\o'n, 2801
(e) 04, the Internal Revenue Code; \
H. It. 2302. An act for the relief of the
New Jersey,. Indiana :.,?t Tl1I Railroad,;,
H. R. 2470. An act to authorize the estab-
lishment of a band in the Metropolitan
Police force;
H. R. 3072. An act to authorize the prepara-
tion of preliminary plans and estimates of
cost of for the erection of an addition or
extension to the House Office Buildings and
the remodeling of the fifth floor of the Old
House Office Building;
H. R. 3235. An act to amend the Code of
Laws of the District of Columbia, with re-
spect to abandonment of condemnation pro-
ceedings;
H. R. 3251. An act to amend the act of
July 24, 1941 (55 Stat. 603), as amended, so
as to authorize naval retiring boards to con-
sider the cases of certain officers, and for
other purposes;
H. R. 3515. An act ,to make it unlawful in
the District of Columbia to corruptly influ-
ence participants or officials in contests of
skill, speed, strength, or endurance, and to
- provide a penalty therefor; ?
H. R. 3311. An act making appropriations
for the Departments of State, Justice, and
Commerce, and the judiciary, for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1948, and for other pur-
poses; and
H. R. 3547. An act to authorize funds for
ceremonies in the District of Columbia.
? IN i.t.fitSTATE WA.i."1-t RIGHTS IN
COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM
? Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD a copy of Senate Joint Res-
olution 145, to authorize commencement
of action by the United States to deter-
? mine interstate water rights in the Colo-
rado River. The resolution is now pend-
ing before the Senate on a motion to ap-
peal from the decision of the Chair maide
by the Senator from Arizona [Mr. HAY-
DEN]. Copies have not been printed, and
. I thought it would be helpful to the Mem-
bers of the Senate if the joint resolution
were printed in the RECORD so that it
would be available when the matter is
JULY 7
under consideration tomorrow under a
special order.
There being no objection, the joint res-
olution (S. J. Res. 145) to authorize com-
mencement of an action by the United
States to determine interstate water
rights in the Colorado River was ordered
to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Whereas the development of projects* for
the use of water in the Lower Colorado River
Basin is being hampered by reason of long-
standing controversies among the States in
said basin as to the meaning and effect of
the Colorado River compact, the Boulder Can-
yon Project Act, the Boulder Canyon Adjust-
sment Act, the California Limitation Act
(Stats. Cal. 1929, ch. 16) , various contracts
executed by the Secretary of the Interior
with States, public agencies, and others in
the Lower Basin of the Colorado' River and
other documents and as to various engineer-
ing, economic, and other facts: Now, there-
fore, be it
? Resolved, etc., That, for the purpose of
avoiding a multiplicity of actions and expe-
diting the development of the Colorado River t
Basin, the Attorney General is hereby di-
rected to commence in the Supreme Court
of the United States of America, against the
States of Arizona, California, Nevada, New
Mexico, and Utah, and such other parties as
may be necessary or proper to a determine.-
tion, a suit or action in the nature of inter-
pleader, and therein require the parties to
assert and have determined their claims and
rights to the use of waters of the Colorado
River system available for use in the lower
Coloradn_RlYer_Basin..._
UNIFICATION OF THE ARMED SERVICES
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 758) to promote the na-
tional security by providing for a Na-
tional Defense Establishment, which
shall be administered by a Secretary of
National Defense, and for a Department
of the Army, a Department of the Navy,
.and a Department of the Air Force with-
in the National Defense Establishment,
and for the coordination" of the activi-
? ties of the National Defense Establish-
. ment with other department sand agen-
cies of the Government concerned with
the national security,
Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, let me
say at the outset that I am opposed to
? any bill which endangers the civilian
character of our Government. I am op-
posed to any bill which in any way weak-
ens or dilutes or impinges upon the au-
tonomy, the morale, and the esprit of
our existing services, the Army, Navy,
Marine Corps, Air Force, and the Coast
Guard. I am opposed to censorship or
muzzling or preventing any men from
.fully expressing themselves. Let me
place all those sentiments in the RECORD
at the beginning. I would not be in
. favor, of any of those things. I should
like to have that understood before I be-
gin.
If Members of the Senate are wonder-
ing how they shall-vote on the pending
unification bill, I ask them first of all to
--try to visualize in their mind's eye what
the war of the future will be like. Once
they have done this I have not much
doubt what their conclusion will be.
What will this dreadful war of the
future be like? I. quote from an expert,
'Lt. Gen. Lawton Collins.,
We 'could expect?.
?
?
Ap
d For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
He says?
that the war would start very suddenly and
come through the air and that the enemy
would try to eliminate the United States at
the outset, not making the same mistake as
last time of taking on somebody else first
and allowing us to prepare. The attack
would be primarily at the great cities and
would cause great destruction both to physi-
cal structures and the people. It might in-
volve atomic bombs, radioactive materials,
biological warfare, and crop-destroying
chemicals. The atomic bomb would prob-
ably be used against cities in,preference to
military targets. We would have chaos,
with communications disrupted, millions of
persons sick, wounded, and dying, civil dis-
order and sabotage. The initial bombing
attack would likely be followed by airborne
troops. There is also the possibility of long-
range submarines popping up offshore and
directing guided missiles to targets on this
continent.
There is the opinion of the responsible
professional. Can Senators imagine it?
Can they visualize this country with its
cities in smoking ruins, its railroads de-
stroyed, its major bridges blown up, all
communications such as telegraph, tele- \
phone, and mail obliterated? Can they
see the dead and the wounded and those
who have been artificially made sick by
radioactivity and by the germ& of bio-
logical warfare? Can they comprehend
it? It is hard for us Americans to do so,
because never in the lifetime of n single
American has our country ever been.
really stricken by a foreign foe. But we
might as well start thinking about it now,
because if there is another war, that is
, the way it is going to be.
Then what happens? While we are
groaning and suffering, before we have
even had time to bury the dead?the air-
borne attack will come and maybe we will
be hit by amphibious attacks from sub-
marines and new-type naval craft. They
would, of course, try to invade with actual
armed troops just when our demoraliza-
tion is at its worst, before we have had
time to put out the fires, to repair our
roads and railroads, while we are still
coping, with defeatism, demoralization,
and disorder.
This is no fantasy. This represents
the thinking of many serious and experi-
enced officers.
One military expert says our bomber
effectiveness could be wiped out over-
night. It could be done by simply loading
some shock troops into a half-dozen old
transport planes and flying them to each
of our six strategic air bases, where they
would kill off our few trained bomber
crews. It would be a year before we could
train new crews. Could we reasonably
expect to have another year?
lam not an expert; I am 'merely a
student who tries to keep track of what
experts think.
Students of the problem place great
emphasis on the enemy working through
a powerful fifth column', using sabotage
with trained enemy sympathizers oper-
ating within our country, taking full ad-
vantage of any subversive elements who
happened to be here.- Therefore, they
say, all key installations, Whether they,
be civilian public utility plants or military
air bases, would have to be guarded
against this particular type of attack.
No. 128---3
?
vedZioai
Mr. President, the conflict which these
experts describe would not be merely a
subject of civilian defense. It would not
be something which could be met with a
police force and a few civilian defense
volunteers. It would be war?and the
worst this country would ever have
known.
Probably every man, woman, and child
would have to rally to the common de-
fenses. There would be American troops
to mee:: enemy troops, but the entire Na-
tion would have to seek and destroy the
scattered air-dropped enemy soldiers,
discover and eliminate the spies and
saboteurs, fight the fire and pestilence,
aid the wounded and maimed, and take
part in every other conceivable kind of
disaster relief. Our armed forces would
comprise only a part of this effort, for
the holocaust would be so widespread
that nobody anywhere would be safe.
The possibility of panic and anarchy
as the enemy bombarded a shocked and
shattered people with persuasive propa-
ganda urging us to quit, and promising-
us what they would call a just peace
would also be a tremendous danger.
Above all remember this: Each part
of the United States would be isolated
from every other. These isolated areas,
or pockets, or islands?call them what
you will?wculd in all probability be
wholly unable to reinforce each other,
either with men or with ammunition, "
food or other supplies, because roads,
railroads, and airfields would be de-
stroyed. The initial force of an enemy
invasion would have to be met by troops
in the area at the time the blow fell,
but again I warn that our own troops
would not be in sufficient numbers to
repel attacks from 'every quarter; prob-
ably every citizen have to rise against
the foe.
Mr. Presideht, there is one picture of
what the beginning of future war might
be like. Can you see the confusion?
Can you picture to yourself what chance
we would have of ultimate victory if we
had to sit down among the smoking
ruins and then try to set up a military
command which could take charge of
the situation, restore order, 'repel and
destroy 'the invaders, and conduct the
counterattack which would lead to vic-
tory?
I repeat, Mr. President, because we
must say it over and over and over again
to ourselves that whole Sections of the
country will be cut off from the others.
One might sayi "Headquarters at Wash-
ington will simply send a telegram
naming General So and So or Admiral
Such and Such to be in command inNew
England or in California or in Washing-
ton or in the Tennessee Valley or wher-
ever the blow or blows might be falling."
But, Mr. President, will there be a head-
quarters at Washington? May it not
have been wiped out? Even if there
were a Washington with men in it, who
could write out orders, is it likely that the
orders would be sent or received?
I realize that there are students of the
art of war who picture a wholly different
type of attack. They argue that the
rockets alone will settle the issue, and
8469
will do so in a matter of days, and that
manpower is not so important aS$SOMe
of us think it is. In a brilliant and
provocative book entitled "There Will
Be No Time," William Liscum Borden
makes observations which certainly de-
serve attention, if not agreement. Bor-
den is impressed by these two facts: First,
that a single bomb destroyed three-fifths
of Hiroshima; and, second, that Ger-
man V-2 rockets reached a speed of 3,500
miles an hour. He cites the statement,
in General Marshall's 1945 report, that?
Goering stated after his capture that it
was a certainty the eastern American cities
would have been under rocket bombardment
had Germany remained undefeated for two
more years. The first attacks would have
started much sooner.
. Borden then declares:
According to Col. John A. O'Mara, of the
Air Service Technical Command, the 250-
mile extreme range of Hitler's V-2's could be
tripled 6 months after VE-day, and flights
of 12,000 miles are the foreseeable goal. The
United States Army, aided by German scien-
tists, imported fliom Peenemunde, has con-
ducted successful rocket soundings of the
ionosphere over New Mexico; the Navy claims
a rocket motor whose thrust exceeds that
of the original V-2 by one-third; and Britain
has engaged 30,000 square miles in southern
Australia as a huge proving ground. The
famous multibarreled katusha gun vouches
for a long-standing Soviet interest in rock-
ets; experimental robots have recently
strayed across the Swedish and , Norwegian
borders; and at least three U. S. S. R. agencies
are known to be active in ionosphere. re-
search. All signs indicate that the time lag
between Nazi long-range missiles and round-
the-world improvements will be short. Be-
fore World War, II, Belgian fighter pilots
found it difficult to attain top speed. with-
out overrunning the boundaries of their
small country. The great powers are con-
fronted with a similar, problem in testing
out rockets whose vast range will carry them
far beyond national frontiers. The United
States Joint Chiefs of Staff have already rec-
ommended surveys for h range on which mis-
siles may be fired at targets 2,000 miles away.
A related problem now vexing inventors is
how to prevent improved V.-2's from drift-
in g off into space because of the earth's
low gravitational pull at altitudes above 500
miles.
The accelerating pace of inventions under-
lines the importance of weapons as yet un-
known or undeveloped. Occupation of
Japan exposed research, upon a death ray
capable of killing rabbi* at a distance of
40 yards, while the Germans experimented
with a sound machine whose pressure waves
would' theoretically disable troops over a
considerable area. Developments in the field
of missiles include the Felix, a target-seek-
ing bomb responsive to heat; the Glomb,
a television-controlled bomb; and the Bat,
'Whose radar homing instinet caused it to
change course relentlessly in pursuit of zig-
zagging Japanese ships. Maj. Gen. Curtis
E. LeMay, the Army Air Forces research di-
rector, has actually predicted space vehi-
cles as a likely development of the next few
years. In this category might be included
satellite rockets which would revolve ,in an
orbit around the earth and when war came,
plunge down on the enemy. Planners at the
Army's Wright Field testing center foresee
artificial planets propelled into the. iono-
sphere, there to form bases for meteorlike
bombardments. Under serious study are
methods for diverting the ocean's currents
and for impregnating clouds with fission by-
products, so that subsequent raindrops would
?
ed For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020
8470 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
bristle with radioactivity. No possibility is
too ;,.l-jrfetched for investigation, not even
that of detonating atomic bombs in the
antarctic polar regions, which might cause
so much ice to melt as to raise the level
of the seas, which in turn would inundate
such coastal cities as New York. Most awe-
some and threatening of all is the theory
that ionospheric layers shielding the lower
atmosphere from the sun could be thinned
out, over an enemy country. The sun's pow-
erful radiations would then pour through
unfiltered and incinerate all life on the ex-
posed terrain. ? ?
In the field of 'poison gas, 1,500 chemicals
were tested at a secret University of Chi-
cago Toxicity Laboratory; and Germany
developed an almost odorless series known
as the Tabum gases, said to be far more
toxic than any previously discovered. Dead-
ly fungi, rickettsiae, and bacteria can now
be mass-produced for use against men, ani-
mals, and plants.
Mr. President, I have just been read-
ing quotations from the book There
Will Be No Time, by William L. Borden,
who writes of some of the things we can
contemplate in the war of the future.
I shall make four or five quotations from
his book, because it is a new one and I
think it is extremely interesting.
Borden then speaks of the relative
ease. of launching rockets in World War
II. He says on page 49 of his book:
Launching emplacements consisted of
metal tables only 12 feet square?
That occurred during World War II;
that is Something which was in existence
during that war?
small enough to be transported in trucks,
and German ground crews were capable of
setting up the complete firing apparatus in
one-half hour. The rocket-borne . atom
bombs would require exactly 5 minutes and
6 seconds to reach cities in Britain 200 miles
distant. -A radar altimeter or even a simple
aneroid pressure device would cause the war-
heads to detonate between 1,000 and 2,000
feet in the air, as at Hiroshima, so as to
maximize blast effect. German 17,2's were
not perfectly accurate; but, of those crossing
the English coast, a majority struck within
4 miles of their targets, near enough for
atomic effectiveness. Casualties from the
Hiroshima bomb were closer to 150,000 than
100,000. Taking the latter figure as a con-
servative estimate, a hundred V-2's could in
6 minutes account for 10,000,000 people, or
nearly one-quarter of Britain's total popu-
lation. Such an attack, far from being a
futuristic dream, may have been practical as
early as 1945 in terms of the weapons already
used successfully in combat. Allowing for
developments which must be regarded as a
certainty, this are of rocket vulnerability will
soon come to include every nation on earth,
notably the United States. .
On page 52, the author I am quoting
makes this statement:
The atom is potentially endowed with such
destructiveness that if a rocket-borne nu-
clear bomb were aimed at the White House
in Washington, and actually struck in
Bethesda, Md.., the Capital City might still
fall within the scope of devastation. In time
the principal demand on a rocket carrier may
be to land the explosive within a territorial
area the size of Delaware?especially if the
warhead be designed more to scatter radio-
active material than to maximize blast!'
Will we have a. long warning Of the
approach of danger? He tells us:
Assuming that the present armistice en-
dures until long-range missiles overshadow
the heavy bomber, the sole overt warning
the United States may have of an enemy.
attack is a fright of unidentified rockets on
her radar screens. In this initial blow each
American community of 5,000 people or more
could theoretically call forth a separate
rocket. Germany manufactured 650 V-2's
per month at a unit cost of some $35,000.
Prof. J. Robert Oppenheimer, former in charge
of the Los Alamos, N. Mex., laboratory, has
estimated that without any change in. exist-
ing techniques mass production will reduce
the expenditure on one atomic bomb to
around $1,000,000. Since there are only about
,100 United States communities with a pop-
ulation in excess of 5,000, the money cost of
directing a rocket-borne atomic bomb at
each in a single mass assault might not ex-
ceed $5,000,000,000, hardly a prohibitive sum
in wartime. It is conceivable, though un-
likely, that a sneak attack would give no
clue to the enemy's identity. Thus a revived
Japan might strike at America, riot by firing
rockets eastward from her home islands, but
by firing them westward across Asia, Europe,.
and the Atlantic Ocean. The inference would
then be that our enemy lay in Europe. Hos-
tile rockets may well be powered with atomic
energy, but there is little need to explore that
possibility, real as it is. The enemy will hit
with at least the suddenness of a V-2, whose
average ground speed of 2,400 miles an hour
has long been an accomplished fact.
Assuming that we have been attacked,
what happens next? Borden provides
this answer:
If our counterattack were built around
rockets guided by human pilots, men would
have to be alerted and assigned targets at a
briefing. They would lose time adjusting
headsets, parachutes, shock absorbers, and
the Martian equipment requisite to protect
bodies from the terrible heat created by at-
mospheric friction on a rocket's outer skin,
as well as ionospheric extremes of warmth
and cold. The men would have to be trans-
ported out to dispersal areas and strapped in
their ships. They would take off and acceler-
ate slowly for fear of physical injury, and
when they curved from vertical to horizontal
flight the surge of centripetal force would
require deceleration?giving the enemy longer
to gear his defenses. By the time our rockets
were ready for bombs away, several hours
might have elapsed, long enough for the op-
ponent to secure an important and perhaps
decisive advantage.
On the other hand, robot-controlled rock-
ets could be on the launching ramps, aimed,
and ready to fire as soon as unfriendly mis-
siles appear to our radar sentinels. In the
event that the identity of a potential enemy
were uncertain, a separate set of ramps could
be held in readiness especially for each pow-
erful foreign state. If one attempted a
rocket Pearl Harbor, countermeasures would
? go into effect before the aggressor's missiles
exploded over North America and hampered
our ability to retaliate.
Listen to this:
We cannot relax in the thought that an-
other aggressor will resemble Hitler, and that
hence we shall recognize him in time to
take defensive action. The first victim may
not be a small neighboring land or a hap-
less .colony. Any incident reminiscent of
Manchuria, Ethiopia, or Czechoslovakia would
immediately serve notice that the whole
world was being attacked, the United States
Included. Instead, the aggressor might by-
pass his small neighbors, postpone his colo-
nial ambitions, and fire rockets directly at
the United States, which has been under-.
estimated in two wars and which now stands
forth, clearly as the main challenge to any
World conqueror. The little countries could
be dealt with more easily and much more
safely after the United States was out of
the way. There seems to be little likelihood
of an unfolding, step-by-step pattern ofy
01-1
JULY 7
aggression, beginning with persecution of
minorities, passing through ideological at-
tacks, and culminating with the seizure of
one small nation after another.
So much depends on surprise that the
aggressor-to-be may be expected to use diplo-
macy not to alert his victim but rather to
lull him into a cozy sense of security. The
time for a future Hitler to ready his rockets
and atomic bombs is not after the presenta-
tion of an ultimatum but after an inter-
national conference in which he has made
every reasonable concession. The time to
attack is not after the- aggressor's diplomats
have walked out of the United Nations but
after the speeches in which they have praised
It and declared that nations must cooperate
or perish. Here is the way diplomacy, one
of the important weapons of war in peace,
could be used to reap the full advantage of
surprise.
It may be objected that this technique is
too cold-blooded and treacherous even for
a regimented population to tolerate. It is
said again and again that the majority of
people everywhere desire peace. Doubtless
the statement is true, and hence the people
might be expected to revolt against a dic-
tator who followed up a peaceful diplomacy
with an unprovoked aggression. The fact is
that in any country where power is con-
centrated in the executive, a dictator can
justify treachery merely by whispering to
his people, as did Hitler.
Of course, there will be new forms of
sabotage and new forms of Trojan horse
tactics. This is how this, author de-
scribes them:
Perhaps an American rocket site in North
Dakota will be so deep undergrbund and so
cunningly protected by countermagnetic
fields, heat neutralizers, and decoys as to
baffle an aerial attack. In that event sabo-
teurs might drive a large moving van con-
cealing an atomic bomb into the fortress'
vicinity and thus pave the pay for its elim-
ination.
Another famous weapon of war in peace?
propaganda?may likewise be tailored to help
the offense achieve total surprise. The pur-
pose will be to relax tension in nations being,
fattened for the kill. Where there is little
tension, appropriations for national defense
are cut to the bone. Scientists resign from
research for the government and return
to private universities. Therefore, hostile
\propaganda might lose its old virulence and
take on a conciliatory tone. Political parties
which acted as the aggressor's sounding
board could be ordered to speak in softer
tones than before and to form a united front
with moderate groups. Thereupon the vie-
tim's fears would tend to dissolve. In addi-
tion, much propaganda capital could be
made of mankind's yearning for world peace.
A reincarnated Goebbels would speak of out-
lawing war and of one world or none, echoing
the very phrases most expressive of peaceful
hopes. Far from advocating rebellion and
barricades, the new propaganda might even
be used to reenforce democracy. From the
aggressor's point of view; democracy is the
form of government most likely to be caught
off guard in a surprise attack. Hence, it
might profit him to bolster a government
which in the past has usually waited for an
armed attack before taking war seriously.
Should the democracies awaken to the danger
of surprise and therefore ready their defenses
for instant use, the aggressor might foment
criticism of such defenses as a barrier to
international good will.
He concludes that victory depends on
"our readiness to fight on a moment's
notice, -in terms of preexisting stock-
piles. We fight with what we have got.
Our armed forces should be designed to
,4Re ea? 151124
Apt" For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
fight independently, regardless of condi-
tions on the home front."
It will be seen that his view of future
warfare differs markedly from that held
by many of the professionals whom I
Quoted at the beginning of my speech.
But he, too, radical thinker that he iSti%
draws the same moral from his conteni-
plation of these horrors. He says that
if headquarters A in Arizona were
knocked out, headquarters B in Alaska
would take over direction of the war, and
if it in turn. were destroyed, headquar-
ters C in Puerto Rico would assume
command. In other words, he visualizes
a command and a plan already in ex?
istence, because he is sure of what I am
sure of, and of what other experts are so
sure of, that every part of our country?
will be cut off from every other. So, in
the last quotation which I shall make
from his book; I read this brief para-
graph:
On the political front our national policy
should give precedence over all internal prob-
lems to defense. There is only one funda-
mental issue: Whether or not the Nation will
survive. Except as they affect our ability to
remain strong, strikes, price control, business
.regulation, penstons, and other domestic
questions are of the most trivial consequence.
We need an arrangement with Canada for
joint defense of the Canadian Arctic. Fortu-
nately, both countries have a stake in close
mititary cooperation, since any rocket threat
to either would loop over the top of the world.
American secret intelligence should be under
Army-Navy control and not in any way con-
nected with our State Department?an or-
ganization which has sufficient worries of its
own without trespassing into the military
sphere. It is not too soon to consider the
problem of national disaster precautions and
perhaps building codes which would require
earthquake-resistant materials to be used in
.new urban structures. The need for a whole
war's supply of weapons on hand in advance
of any fighting, for a unified Department of
'Defense, for ocean bases, and for sufficient
*trained professional soldiCrs has already been
stressed. Not to be overlooked is the neces-
sity of legislation authorizing the armed
forces to act instantly in case of attack, re-
gardless of whether Congress is in session,
how little diplomatic tension exists, and what
time of the day or night the attack comes.
Indeed, we could not improvise a plan.
We could not take our time as we did in
the last war to decide that General X
should command one theater and Ad-
miral Y should command another. We
could not, after the blow has fallen, in-
dulge in the luxury of that careful, de-
liberate, advance planning which we
have come to associate as being so vital,
to military success. The plan and the
commanders would have to be ready in
anticipation of the attack. There would
have to be commanders set up to provide
. for every kind of disaster with staffs and
N,,plans which would enable them to con-
duct operations on land, sea, and air. If
the unified command is not in operation
before the blow strikes, we shall never
survive. The first battle may well be the
last.
As General Eisenhower told the Comp-
ton commission:
The decision in a future conflict will be
determined by our ability to act and react in,
luls first tO days, rather than in the twelfth,
eighteenth, or. twenty-fourth month, e.s in
pazt wars.
One must be ready when the whistle
blows. If he is not ready, the whistle, so
far as he is concerned, will be the last
trump.
Can it be wondered that the Compton
commission, which has just finished its
survey of what the war of the future will
be like, comes to this conclusion? I quote
one paragraph:
Because the striking force and the other
elements, necessary to support it would en-
tail use of air, sea, and ground strength and
because all other phases of future war would
similarly involve the most coordinated use of
our military and civilian energies, we con-
sider it a matter of extreme urgency that
there be immediate unification of the armed
forces. There can be no realistic planning or
preparation without unity. The reluctance
of Congress and some branches of the Mili-
tary Establishment to move wholeheartedly
toward unification has been a powerful de- ?
terrent toward acceptance by the public of
the idea that unity of purpose in our national
life is the foundation stone of our security.
I have heard some high-ranking offi-
cers say that, of course, unified command
is absolutely essential in what the strate-
gists of the last war called the forward
areas, but that it was not necessary in
the continental United States. In the
war of the future every area is a "for-
ward area." As the Compton commis-
sion declares:
The addition of the atomic bomb to the in-
calculable horrors of modern war has
nated the concept of zones of safety in, any
future attack on .this country.
What happens to the engines of mod-
ern war in a case of that kind? How
long can the Navy, for instance, continue
,if all heavy industry is knocked out, if all
refueling facilities are destroyed, if pipe
lines, tank cars, and all those things are
gone? How can the Army or the Air
.Force hold out since they are dependent
on heavy industry? It has been hearten-
- ing for me to note in recent conversation
with friends in the Navy their keen ap-
preciation of the importance of the so-
called zone of the interior and of the
vital need for a unified command here in
the United States, if we are ever to sus-
tain our military power away from our.
shores.
So there, Mr. President, is my first rea-
son for favoring unification. Without
unification we are doomed by the nature
of future war, the first effect of which
will be to disunite us tactically. I say
with all the vigor and all the sincerity of
which I am capable, without unification
- we cannot even begin to fight.
What are some other reasons? Let
me assume that we have staved off the
first attack?that we have pulled our-,
selves together and have begun counter-
attack and counterbattery. Supposing
that we are lucky enough once more to be
fighting an overseas war along more or
less conventional lines. We know from
experience, Mr. President, that we can-
not win such a war without a unified
command. ,
I hasten to add that I would be vigor-
ously opposed to any so-called merger
bill in which one branch of the service
gobbles up another. I want to preserve
all the glorious traditions and esprit de
corps and effective autonomy of the Air
1
8471
Force, the Army, the Coast Guard, the
Marine Corps, and the Navy. Let me say,
too, that I am opposed to anything which
in any way threatens the/civilian char-
acter of our Government. In my judg-
ment, the bill before us contains none of
these dangers.
Perhaps I can point out, without being
considered too personal, that, emotion-
ally, I feel allied to all the services. Close
relations of mine spent their lives in the
Regular Navy; my father was in the Navy
in the Spanish War, and my brother and ?,
my son were in the Navy during World
War II. I have relatives and many close
friends in the Marine Corps and the Air
Force, and, of course, I myself have been
in the Army Reserve during all my adult
life. I received my first military train-
ing at a camp operated by personnel of
the United States Marine Corps. As a 's
newspaperman, I made a special study of
naval matters and became a director of.
the Navy League of the United States.
To this was added the experience of writ-
-ing on naval matters for the New York
Herald Tribune and other publications,
as well as membership in the United \
States Naval Institute, the Naval His-
'torical Foundation, and the Board of
Visitors to the Naval Academy at
Annapolis.
When I first came to this body, in 1937,
I tried to continue my study of national
defense questions. I was a member of
the Committee on Military Affairs and
was the ranking Republican member of
the subcommittee on naval appropria-
tions. Throughout this whole period I
was regularly performing short tours of
active duty in the Army, where I learned
many things which were of immense -
value to me when I actually went to war,
and which experience also taught me
many things about human nature in its
relation to military problems.
It so happens that I was first commis-
sioned in the horse Cavalry and later was
transferred to the Armored Force, which
was the World War II descendant of the
Tank Corps of World War I. I remember
how long it took for the horse to die out
in the Army. I think there is a bill on
the calendar now, by which the Re-
mount Service is transferred to the De-
partment of Agriculture; which, I sup-
pose, marks the formal end"of the horse
in the Army. It took a long time. I re-
member in particular certain Horse Cav-
alry maneuvers in Texas in which we
marched all day alongside of the road
while trains and automobiles whizzed by.
Every day an old, emaciated-looking
tramp used to start out with us in the
morning. Regularly in the evening he
would pass us. I wondered why it took
the Army so long to consider the Horse
Cavalry in its proper perspective when it
seemed that everyone outside the Army
was perfectly clear about it. Later I
realized that it was because there were
certain persons who had made a life
study of the horse and his place in war-
fare and were naturally convinced that
there was nothing which could take his
place. I do not say for a minute that
these men clung to the horse for selfish
reasons or because they thought that if
the horse disappeared their chance for
distinction, prestige, and promotion
ved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020
8472 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
would vanish, although some uncharita-
ble persons made that statement. I am
perfectly willing to believe, and I do,
that these Cavalry officers were honestly
convinced that it was vitally necessary
to maintain large units of horse Cavalry.
Horse Cavalry was what they knew and
they had advanced too far in life to learn
something else.
I do not doubt that in the Navy there
are also officers who cling to weapons and
methods that become outmoded and, for
all I know, there are some in the Air
Force, even though it is such a new type
of warfare. We may develop a guided
missile or rocket which does not require
anyone to be in it, and there may be
found heavy-bombardment advocates
who will be holding back and not favor-
ing the use of the guided missile because
they cling to the old traditions. I think
we all realize that there are also men of
that type in business and the professions
and it is something with which one must
cope--gently if possible, but certainly
effectively.
The human tendency for men to di-
vide themselves off into groups is very
strong. In the Army there is consider-
able so-called "branch consciousness"?
much too much, to my way of thinking.
Of course, I am not talking about the
question of unit pride?that conviction
held by the members of an air corps
squadron or a destroyer or an artillery
battery that their outfit or ship is the
best in the Army or Navy. That is some-
thing entirely different. That is whole-
some and good?something which every
commander strives, with justification, to
inspire in his men. That is something
which applies to young men in combat.
But I never could. see why it was neces-
sary for a coast artilleryman to think
he was better than a quartermaster, or
for an infantryman to think he was bet-
ter than a tank man. It is just like say-
ing that apples-are better than steak.
The two are not comparable. I feel the
same way about the old Army and Navy
rivalry. I always get a little suspicious
when I hear someone say that "the in-
fantry is the queen of battle and the land
battle decides the war", or that "sea-
power determines the victory", or that
"airpower is everything in modern war."
It is all right for college boys to cheer
themselves hoarse about Annapolis and
West Point or Harvard and Yale, but
when manhood is reached that sort of
rivalry and separatism seems utterly out
of place. I have lived long enough to
realize that it is a very real factor in
human nature and is not confined to col-
lege boys?grown and otherwise mature
men are quite sincere about it. It ex-
ists not only in the armed services. I
have seen this old school-tie spirit as it
might be called, among members of the
legislature and Members of Congress. In
politics George Washington called it the
spirit of the party. It is something which
can never entirely be eliminated. The
danger is not that this separatism will be
abolished; the danger always is that it
will go too far and create so much divi-
sion that effective action is impossible.
We hear it said: "The old methods
served us well, therefore why change?"
Or: "It is better to do nothing at all than
to make a mistake." Whatever validity
these philosophies may have had in the
past, they are definitely and indeed dan-
gerously out of line today. We must be
bold nowadays and we must be pre-
pared to accept new ideas. One often
saves more life by experimenting than by
being conservative.
My overseas wartime military service
began in Libya in 1942 where the Ger-
mans had superiority in the air and
on the ground and in the Mediterranean.
When we heard a plane in those days, the
chances were that it was a Ger-
man plane. I shall never forget the at-
mosphere of the battlefield at that
time?it was so different from anything
I ever ran into later. Senators may re-
member that the British had lost con-
trol of the Mediterranean and that the
Germans could come across practically
at will. The British had to send their
Shipping all the way around Africa with
enormous delay and expense. It was an
object lesson to me in the vital import-
ance of maintaining seapower and sea
communications and 'showed the un-
speakable things which happen to
a ground Army-when it is not supported
by an adequate Air Force. That is just
-one little object lesson which I learned
through my own little humble experi-
ence, which is very similar to that of
millions of individuals.
In" Sicily later on, as an observer, I
saw General Patton's march along the
northern coast road. On the left of .this
' road was a steep precipice below which
was the ocean. At the right the moun-
tains rose steeply. When General Pat-
ton wanted to make any kind of a flank.
attack he either had to use mules in the
steep Sicilian mountains to go around
the right flank or to use naval vessels if
he wanted to go around the left. Sena-
tors may remember that he had several
flank attacks which were carried out by
the Navy, and that he had the most har-
monious and efficient working relations
with the Navy. The result of it all was
that the campaign was over in 38 days,
which I believe is remarkably quick. If
any one factor were to be singled out to
explain such a success it was the com-
pletely enthusiastic, hard hitting and
unreserved teamwork between land, sea
and air, teamwork that went ahead with-
out quibbling or pettifogging or suspicion
of motives.
Once again, as an observer, I was in
New Guinea and the Solomon Islands.
While I did not witness any actual com-
bat in those areas, I saw enough of those
who were engaged in the operations to
. realize that the whole war out there was
a type of leapfrogging in which the Navy
and the Army sought to make possible
the acquisition of landing fields for the
Air. Force, whereupon they leapfrogged
each other and went forward again, by-
passing some islands and landing on
others. I do not know whether ttiere is
such a word, but I would say this , was
a completely triphibious type of war.
Admiral Halsey, one of the great leaders
of all time, in my opinion, for whom I
have a limitless, admiration and a deep
affection, and who accomplished such
? miracles in the Pacific, actually had one
unit under his orders which was com-
manded by a general in the Army, with
JULY 7
a captain in the Navy as chief of staff,
and a colonel in the Marine Corps in
charge of operations. That is how far it
went. Everyone liked it, and everyone up
and down the line was in favor of it.
My next experience was in Italy where
I served in an outfit which was on the
west flank and went up the Italian shin-
bone. There, as everywhere else during
the war, I often bumped into naval per-
sonnel because the Navy was supporting
the detachment -at the Anzio beach-
head?it will be remembered what a
rugged time that was?and doing so
under tremendously difficult conditions.
There was nowhere one could go where
the enemy was not looking right down
one's throat all the time. The whole
harbor was under enemy observation and
artillery fire.' I witnessed the enormous
air bombardment at Cassino and like
- every other experience in the war it
showed the absolute necessity for team-
play between the different combat ele-
ments.
Finally I was one of the many who took
part in an amphibious operation?that
is an- experience in which millions and
millions of Americans have shared?
which was the landing in southern
France, and saw with my own eyes both
the plans and the elements of land, sea,
and air which participated in it. It was
impossible to see the planes coming
overhead and to have the Navy pick us
up and put us on the beach at the right
time and the right place, without giv-
ing us a proud feeling that we were all
part of a team and that the essential
thing was the fact that we were all mak-
ing our contribution to victory together
for our country.
One cannot go through such experi-
ences as that?and they were typical
average experiences which I know mil-
lions and millions of men in this war un-
derwent?without coming to some pretty
strong general conclusions about the way
In which our national defense set-up
should be established. I am not going
into technicalities because I am not
equipped to do so. In fact, if there were
any real differences of opinion between
the officers of our Army and Navy who
were charged with studying this matter,
I might not be speaking today. The
fact, however, that they have agreed on
a proposal to unify the services and have
done so only after great soul searching
and great difficulty, makes me feel very-
strongly that any man is bold indeed to
be the instrumdnt which breaches that
agreement. I mean, of course, one who
breaches that agreement because of any
military considerations. Those who fear
that it will set up a power in the Govern-
ment which will threaten the civilian
character of our Government are in a
different category. I do not happen to
share that worry because I cannot see
that it creates ? any 'more power than
exists already in the President. In my
opinion, former Secretary of War Stim-
son made the complete answer to the
'charge of so-called military dictatorship
when he said:
The Secretary of National Defense will be'
a powerful officer. That is .entirely proper.
He cannot successfully exercise his functions
without adequate and flexible power. But it
should be observed that he is given no Rowers
For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020004
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
which do not already belong to the President
as Commander In Chief. What this bill does
is to delegate to a recognized officer of the
Government a part of the authority over the
M;litary Establishment which in the end al-
ways belongs to the President. Under this
bill the President as Chief Executive retains
his powers unchanged; he is provided with a
suitable officer for the proper exercise of
these powers; that officer remains under his
entire control. This appears to me to be a
wholly proper and natural step, entirely in
keeping with our best administrative ?prac-
tices.
In other words, to charge that the Sec-
retary of National Defense will be a mili-
tary dictator, or a czar, or what have you,
is simply to level the same charge against
the President, since his powers are given
as Commander in Chief under the Con-
stitution. If these charges are justified,
then we have been living under a military
dictatorship during the lifetime of our
Republic.
Prof. Barton Leach, of Harvard Law
School, who held several important posts
in the Army during World War II, has
this to say:
It is a basic reality that a leader of a
military establishment must have authority
if he is to be effective. You cannot run
armies by negotiations. Authority and dis-
cipline are the military counterparts of ne-
gotiation and discussion .in civilian affairs.
The Constitution of the United States recog-
nizes this reality by placing in the hands
of the President both civilian authority over
the executive departments which control the
armed forces and Military authority over
the forces themselves. In Washington's time
the burders of the office of President were
such as to make it possible for the President
to be, in reality, the civilian and military
leader of the very limited ettrmed forces we
had at that time. The principle that au-
thority is needed? has not changed. De-
mands upon the man, who, under the
Constitution, holds the joint position of ci-
vilian and militar.y leadership, have seriously
changed. In order to make the President's
unified control a reality this bill proposes
to give to him a single civilian official who,
in pursuance of the President's power and
u:ad.er the President's direction, provides the
single authority over the armed services
which the Constitution envisaged. Far from
being a departure from the wisdom of the
fathers, this bill is an implementation of
that wisdom and an adaptation of the prin-
ciple of singleness of control to the realities
of our present-day institutions.
I do not favor unification, however,
. merely because the armed forces have
agreed upon this bill, although I think.,
this is a persuasive consideration. My
Prime reason for favoring unification is
that I think it is utterly vital to have
the chain of command clearly set up
?
and clearly e.s?blished. During the
course of these remarks 1 have, first, ex-.
amined this proposition from the stand-
point of the war in the future. Then I
examined it from the standpoint of the
war in the past World War II, through
which we have lust come.
No matter how we look at it we are
brought. to .the conclusion that there
must be unity.
My feeling as to who should occupy
the places in that chain of command is
as nothing compared with my belief in
the importance of having such a chain,
It would be all right with me, as one
Whose militaNy experience was . in the
ground ,Army, to have all the top posi-
tions filled by the Navy or the Air Force
so long as the chain of command and
the unified team play is a guaranteed
fact. It cannot be improvised quickly,
and if there is another war, I repeat
for the tenth time, we cannot expect to
have 2 years in which to argue these
things out. This is something which
much be ready when the whistle blows.
My second principal reason for favor-
ing unification is that it will result in a
definite well-thought-out procedure for
the allocation of our available supply of
military manpower. Saving money is,
of course, of vital importance. But to
save manpower is even more crucial be-
cause we have a definite shortage of
manpower in this country for all of the
things that we need to do. If we take
the age,group of young men physically
fit for military service and then deduct
the ones who must remain in essential
nonmilitary activities, we have not a
great deal left. It is too important a
matter to leave the allocation of this
manpower to last-minute horse trading
between the Army and the Navy and the
Air Force, as was the case during the
war. There must be a definite system
of allocation. This is one of the results
which. will flow from having the machin-
ery to take care of the problems which
all the services have in common.
Third on my list is the economy which
will come from the elimination of dupli-
cate facilities. The distinguished chair-
man of the Armed Services Committee,
the Senator from South Dakota [Mr.
GURNEY] has gone into that question in
detail, and I shall not repeat what he
said or try to duplicate it. We may
differ as to how much money it will
save; but it will certainly produce some
very real economies.
Fourth, I notice that in this bill the
National Security Resources Board is
given as one of its functions the duty of
advising the President on policies to
establish adequate reserves of strategic
and critical materials and for the con-
servation of such reserves. The adop-
tion of an intelligent policy with respect
to our diminishing raw materials of all
kinds is of vital importance and can
mean the difference between defeat and
victory in case of war.
I have heard a good deal said about the
cooperation which has been achieved so
far by using the present system. I was
not at a sufficiently high level during
the war to speak from personal knowl-
edge of the way the high command func-
tioned; but from what I have read and
conversations I have had, I am perfectly
prepared to believe that much good work
has been done. I do, however, suggest
that such integration as has taken place
has been due to the pressure of events
during the war; and I would not be sur-
prised to learn that some of it was due
to the fear of legislative action here in
Congress, which would naturally tend to
force officers who are not in favor of uni-
fication to take some sort of action in
order to avert what they might consider
was a greater evil.
Mr. President, these are my reasons
for favoring unification. Of course, with
respect to every legislative proposal, as
we all know who are here in the Senate,
8473
there are always arguments on both
sides. There is only one argument
which has been made against the bill
which I think would? have merit if it
could be sustained. That argument sug-
gests that unification will tend to destroy
the autonomy and the esprit de corps
of the different branches of the service.
I tell you very frankly, Mr. President,
that any legislation which I thought
would destroy the esprit de corps, the
morale, the traditions and the fighting
efficiency of the Navy or the Marine
Corps or the Army or the Air Force
would incur my strongest opposition. I
not only do fail to find anything in the
bill which would enable that to be done,
but I simply cannot conceive of any re-
sponsible officer in any of our services
desiring to do such a thing. We want to
preserve all the strength that we can.
The traditions and the morale of a crack
outfit like our Marine Corps, for ex-
ample, are a tremendous national asset;
and I have never met an officer in any
other branch of the service who
thought was intelligent and who has
been successful, who did not agree. ?
I do not think-that we here in Con-
gress can legislate very far into the fu-
ture, although it is our job to make the
best estimate of the future that we can
make. That is what makes our job so
difficult. In this case, what I want to see
above all is the seed planted and given
a chance to grow. I have faith in the
teachings of experience, in the impact on
this plan of the personalities of the men
who will administer it, and I believe they
are sure to be able men of great char-.
acter and ability. I have faith in the
fact that circumstances will mold this
scheme in a realistic way.
All I have tried to.say today is that in
union there is strength. This is as true
in the field of the armed services as it
is in the held of public affairs. Modern
science has made union more desper-
ately necessary than ever. We must
unify or we will perish.
The PRESIDING OF.VICER (Mr.
MARTIN in the chair). The bill is before
the Senate and is open to amendment.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming ob-
tained the floor.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for the purpose of sug-
gesting the absence of a quorum?
Mr. ROBERTSON _ of Wyoming. I
yield.
? Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ab-
sence of a quorum is suggested. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk called the roll, and
the following Senators answered to their
names: ?
Aiken Connally
Baldwin Cooper
Ball Cordon
Barkley Donnell
Brewster Dworshak
Bricker ," Ecton ?
Brooks Ellender
Buck
Bushfield
Butler
Byrd
Cain
Capehart
Capper Hawkes
Chavez , Hayden
--Ferguson.
Flanders
Fulbright?
George
Gurney
Hatch
Hickenlooper
Hoey
Holland ?
Jenner
Johnson, Colo. -
Johnston, S. C.
Kem
Kilgore
Knowland
Langer
Lodge
Lucas
McCarran
McCarthy
????????????????????=.?1
oved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020 04 0-01-1
8474 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
McClellan O'Mahoney Taylor
McFarland Overton Thomas, Olds.
McKellar Pepper Thye
McMahon Reed Tydings
Magnuson Revercomb TJmstead
Malone Robertson, Va. Vandenberg
Martin Robertson, Wyo.Watkins -
Millikin Russell Wherry
Moore Saltonstall White
Morse Smith Wiley
Murray Sparkman Williams
O'Conor Stewart Wilson
O'Daniel Taft Young
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighty-
four Senators having answered to their
names, a quorum is present.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, I desire to speak on behalf of
the avowed objectives of Senate bill 758,
and to propose. amendments which will
enable it to achieve its goal. To the bill.
itself--as it now stands?I am unalter-
ably opposed. I cannot by any flight of
imagination regard it as an effective in-
strument for the attainment of its as-
* serted objectives. I cannot, indeed, re-
gard it as even a worth while effort to
achieve them. Aside from its pretentious
title, and a pious declaration of policy
thrown as a sop to those whose criti-
cisms could not be completely ignored,
there is nothing in the bill which prom-
ises any substantial improvement over s
the existing security structure of the Na-
tion. There is much, on the other hand,
which will subtract from, rather than
add to, the national security.
Mr. President, at the outset I want to
state and I desire it to be publicly known
that I am 100 percent for unification of
our armed forces. I am for the unified
command of all forces in every theater
of operations in wartime or in peace-
time--which we have today. I am op-
posed to a "merger" of the armed forces;
and when I say that, Mr. President, it
seems to me unnecessary to say that
I am opposed to Senate bill 758 in its
present form. In this form, Mr. Presi-
dent, the bill is first and foremost a
merger of the armed forces.
According to the dictionary definition
of the word "merger," it means, "To sink
the identity or individuality of; cause to
disappear, be combined, 'or be swallowed
up; to lose identity or individuality; be
lost to view or absorbed into something
else."
I repeat that I am for the unification
of the armed forces, but, Mr. President,
in order to obtain real national secu-
rity, I am for the unification and coordi-
nation of much more than the armed
forces. I am for the coordination of
,very phase of our national life which
affects national security. I am for the
unification and coordination of those'
phases cif our national life, together with
the armed forces of the Nation. I am
for the coordination of every department
and agency of the Government con-
cerned with national security?which the
title of this bill sets forth, but never per-
forms.
Mr. President, the Armed Services
Committee of the Senate started open
hearings on this bill on March 18, and
continUed them through April until
May 9. Members of the committee who
attended these hearings found that they
left them but little time to attend to
other important Senate duties:- Almost
daily the committee was unable to prom
ceed with the hearings on account of the
lack of a quorum, and often the hearings
were delayed from 30 to 45 minutes.
This, Mr. President, was no fault of the
members of that committee; rather is
it the fault of the Reorganization Act
under which we are working. Let me call
the attention of the Senate to the fact
that in this Eightieth Congress, the
Armed Services Committee is a "merger"
of the Military Affairs Committee and
the Naval Affairs Committee of the
Seventy-ninth Congress. . Each of those
committees, Mr. President, had 18 mem-
- bers, making a total of 36. This Armed
Services Committee has a membership of
but 13 members. Yet, there are just as
many functions to be performed by those
13 members, just as many bills to be con-
sidered, just as many important hear-,
ings to'be held by those 13 members as
there were by the 36 Senators of the two
committees in the Seventy-ninth Con-
gress.
With the Senate meeting almost daily_
at noon, it does not take a mathematician
to figure out the limited time of each
day's committee hearing. Although the
committee is scheduled to meet each
morning at 10 a. m., it was rarely that
the hearings started before 10:30, and on.
many occasions not before 10:45.
Again I say, Mr. President, that this
casts no reflection on the chairman or
on members of the committee. The bald
truth of the matter is that under the
present system?that is, under the Reor-
ganization Act?it is a most difficult mat-
ter to get a quorum of the committee in
all instances.
There is another angle to this matter,
and that is the waste of valuable time
that is caused the many witnesses the
committee has to hear. The Armed
Services Committee provides an excel-
lent example of this waste of time of im-
portant witnesses. Illustrative of this is
the calling of the committee, we shall
say, to hear the Secretary of the Navy,
Mr. Forrestal, and the Chief of Naval
Operations, Admiral Nimitz. The com-
mittee is called at 10 a. m. It is 10:45 be-
fore a quorum is present, and there is
only time to hear Mr. Forrestal; and even
VA hours is all to short a time to hear the
Secretary on such an important bill.
Admiral Nimitz has to go away to come
back the next day or at the next meeting
of the committee. The same thing hap-
pens With Secretary of War, Mr. Patter-
son, and General Eisenhower?and not
only with these top officials but with
countless others who come to the com-
mittee hearings, expecting to be called,
and then go away and are asked to come
back another day. I do not know wheth-
er the Army or the,Navy or the Marine
Corps keep a record of all calls to, and
aPpearances before, Senate committees,
but it would be interesting, and I ven-
ture to say amazing, to learn the num-
ber of man-hours wasted by officers and
men of the armed services as a result of
our operations under the Reorganization
Act.
After the open hearings closed on May
9, a number of executive committee
meetings were held between that date
and June 5, the date on which the final
executive session was held; and the bill
JULY 7
was voted on to the calendar on June 6,
1947.
During all that period, Mr. President,
from March 18 to June 6, the Armed
Services Committee was practically un-
able to consider any of the vast number
of bills which were before it. For 11
weeks, out of a total of 27 weeks Con-
gress has been in session, S. 758 was be-
ing considered by the Armed Services
Committee. I repeat, Mr. President, this
Is no reflection on the chairman or any
members of the committee, but to reduce
2 major committees of 18 members each
to 1 committee of 13 members is just not
feasible or workable, and certainly is not
in the interest of efficiency.
Mr. President, I firmly believe that the
most important thing that we, the Sen-
ate of the United States, have to con-
sider is the security of the United States.
Everything else pales into insignificance
compared to the security of the Nation.
This is no party question?it is a national
question. National security does not
belong to any party, any group, any ma-
jority, or any minority. It affects every
man, woman, and child in the United
States. But more than that, Mr. Presi-
dent, our national security, or insecurity,
today affects every soul in the world.
If the United States should for any
reason Whatsoever lose or be unable to
maintain its position of national secu-
rity, then the people of no nation in the
world could be considered as secure.
Many of the nations of the world today
have no national security.
Mr. President, when I speak of na.-
tional security, I do not mean an army,
a navy, or an air force, as these are
but the physical means of fighting a bat-
tle to maintain security, or to repel in-
security after all other peaceable means
have failed. .
To be the only Nation to be well fed,
where almost every family has an auto-
mobile, where the highest wages in the
world are paid, where the greatest profits
in the world are made, where production
is, and can be, greater than in almost
all the other nations in the world com-
bined, where Our wealth and national in-
come are beyond the dreams of almost
any other nation in the world?that is
not national security.
If we do not take care of these funda-
mental assets of our nation, and co-
ordinate them all into one great security
program, then we lay ourselves open to
the possibility, maybe probability, of
having our great national security
threatened by insecurity.
Mr. President, Senate bill 758 bears the
impressive title of "A bill to promote the
national security by providing for a Na-
tional Defense Establishment, which
shall be administered by a Secretary of
National Defense, and for a`Department
of the Army, a Department of the Navy,
and a Department of the Air Force within
the National Defense Establishment, and
for the coordination of the activities of
the National Defense Establishment with
other departments and agencies of the
Government concerned with the national
security."
It is indicative of the thinking of the
framers of this bill, S. 758, that in the
original bill, title I, entitled "The Na-
Ap d For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
tional Defense Establishment," should be
purely military, and that the National
Defense Establishment, according to the
bill, was to consist of:
Section 101: Establishment of the
National Defense Establishment.
Section 102: Secretary of National De-
fense.
Section 103: Military assistants to the
Secretary.
Section 104: Civilian personnel.
Section 105: Department of the Army.
Section 106: Department of the Navy.
Section 107: Department of . the Air
Force.
Section 108: United States Air Force,
Section 109: Effective date of transfers.
Section 110: War Council.
Section 111: Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Section 112: Joint Staff.
Section 113: Munitions Board.
Section 114: Research and Develop-
ment Board.
Title II of the bill was outside, separate
and apart, from the Defense Establish-
ment, or, as it is now called, "The Secu-
rity Organization." Title II was entitled
"Coordination for National Svurity,"
and consisted of ?
/ Section 201: National Security Council.
Section 202: Central Intelligence
Agency.
Section 203: National Security Re-
sources Board.
In an effort to bring a realization to
the members of the committee that we
were seeking a national security organ-
ization and not a national military
establishment, I was able to have the
committee amend the bill so as to make
title II, "Coordination for National
Security," Title I, thus at least placing
first things first.
I must take immediate exception to
the application a the term "National Se-
curity Organization" to an establishment
which is patently a military establish-
ment. National security encompasses
far more than the activities of the mili-
tary departments and the armed serv-
ices. It is the concern of every citizen?
of every man, woman, and child in the
United States. It is not only their con-
cern?it is something to which they have
In the past contributed and must in the
future contribute a substantial portion
of their time and their toil. Can my
colleagues say to the farmer in his fields,
the worker in the factory, the teacher
in the classroom, the scientist in the
laboratory, or the civil-defense worker
patrolling his rounds?can my colleagues
say to these citizens: "You are not a part
of the National Security Organization.
None but military forces contribute to
the security of this country." I cannot
do so, and I do not believe any of my
colleagues can do so, either.' Yet S. '758
says that, and we are asked to make that .
statement law.
The drafters of S. 758 could be excused
for such a palpable misuse of the term
"National Security Organization" if there
were evidence that they were otherwise
conscious of the importance of the civil-
ian population and the civilian economy
in the achievement of national security.
We might excuse them of any intent to
deny this importance if elsewhere in the
bill there appeared some recognition of
the vital role which the civilian segment
of the Nation plays in maintaining its
security?if there were due provision to
take their viewpoint, their contribution,
and their requirements into account.
Much needs to be done to perfect the
securtiy of our Nation?but it cannot be
perfected if we confine our operation to
the province of the military. The lessons
of the past great war have indicated that
Inadequate coordination in and between
the departments and agencies of the
Government representing the civilian
elements of the Nation were of no less
importance than the shortcomings of the
military departments and the armed
services. In spite of strenuous efforts to
bring about coordination between civil-
ian elements, and between civilian and
military elements, the results were far
from satisfactory.
Notwithstanding the overwhelming
evidence that a most fertile field for
integration of the elements of national
security lies among the civilian depart-
ments and agencies of the Government,
or between the civilian agencies on the
one hand and the military agencies on
the other, the framers of S. 758 have
made no 'attempt to solve this most
im-
portant aspect of their problem.
According to its title, this is a bill "to
promote the national security by provid-
ing for the coordination of the activities
of the National Security Organization
with other departments and agencies of
the Government concerned with the na-
tional security." Wherein does the lan-
guage of the bill itself support such a
title? If such language appears in the
bill we should expect to -find it in title I?
Coordination for National Security?
and more particularly in the provisions
relating to the National Security Coun-
cil. From its name and its status as the
principal advisory body to the President
in matters relating to national security,
one might imagine that this body would
bring together all the diverse elements
of national security', where the poten-
tialities and the requirements of each
element could be weighed, and responsit
bilities apportioned. Surely this is the
common ground where diplomacy, agri-
culture, industry, labor, education, sci-
ence, and all the other civilian elements
of national security would meet with the
military and together come forward
with balanced programs for the security
of the Nation. Surely, in addition to the
military departments and the Depart-
ment of State, we should find represent-
ed here, the Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Labor, Interior, and the
Treasury, the Director of the Atomic
Energy Commission, perhaps the chair-
men of the congressional committees
most vitally concerned with problems of
national defense. But not so. Observe
Its narrow membership. Other than the
President, there are the Secretary of
State, the four military secretaries, and
the chairman of a national security re-
sources board. What have we represent-
ed here? Foreign policy, military policy,
and, to some extent, economic policy..
But what of the other elements of na-
tional security? They are simply not in-
cluded. .
If the language relating to the Nation:-
al Security Council fails utterly to sub-
8475
stantiate the claim of the bill's title that
It provides for the coordination of the
activities of the National Security Or-
ganization with other departments and
agencies of the Government concerned
with national security, what other lan-
guage is there in title I or in any other
title of the bill to support such a pre-
tentious claim? Mr. President, I have
looked searchingly and without success
for some evidence that something more
than lip service has been paid to the ci-
vilian elements of national security?
diverse elements of no less importance
than the military elements, though less
obvious and certainly less vocal. I have
sought in vain to find some recognition
of the fact that coordination and inte-
gration of these elements is one of the
real problems facing us today. I have
found no such evidence, no such recogni-
tion.
If the bill does not coordinate all ele-
ments of .national security, then what is
it intended to do? My colleagues need
not turn to the so-called declaration of
policy for an answer to this question.
The declaration of policy is a soporific to
dull the perceptions of those who seek to
understand the bill. Let my colleagues
read the language of the bill itself; there,
we can find an answer if we look closely
enough.
The real intent of this bill is to create
a vast military empire, one in which am-
bitious men will wield greater power over
the Military Establishment than has ever?
been heretofore granted to nonetbcted
individuals, and one which will wield
untrammeled power over the entire so-
( cial and economic structure of the Na-
tion.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield, or would he prefer
not to yield?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I am
yielding to the Senator from Massa-
chusetts. '
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I should like
to ask the distinguished Senator, from
what provisions of the bill does he draw
the inference that there is to be greater
military power given to any one man
than is the case under the existing law?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, when the pending bill, as it
does, creates the Secretary of National
Security, over the three Secretaries of
- Army, Navy, and Air, it puts a greater
responsibility on 'that one man than rests
on any man in the set-up today.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. But when the
distinguished Senator says that the Sec-
retary of National Security is over the
three Secretaries, is that strictly true?
The Senator from Wyoming had much to
-do with the argument pro and con in the
committee that finally reported the bill
in its present form. Does not the bill
specifically give the Secretary of National
Security limited powers, which are spe-
cifically enumerated and set forth, and
that all other powers are left in the
hands of the present Secretaries? Is
that not true?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. It is
not true in its entirety. I shall deal with
that point as I come to the question of
the merger, Mr. President. I shall take
care of the Senator's question at that
time,
ved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020 01-1
8476 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
Let us not delude ourselves as to the
character of the Military Establishment
which this bill would create under the
inaccurate title of a 'National Security
Organization." Here we have a merger
of the armed forces, sententious declara-
tion of policy notwithstanding.
I doubt seriously if we would today be
considering this proposed piece of legis-
lation had not the Army long ago set its
sights on the merger of the armed serv-
ices into a single service under a single
Secretary, a single national Chief of Staff,
and a single national general staff. The
Navy's objections, supported by a sub-
stantial portion of the Congress and the
public, resulted in a partial retreat of the
Army from its original proposal for a
single department and a single service,
and a resort to more devious tactics to
achieve the same end. The present pro-
posal is a step in the direction of the
Army's utlimate goal. It provides a
single establishment in which the three
military departments and the armed
services retain Alit semblance of auton-
omy, but not I's substance. In the
absence of the eubstance of auton-
omy, the elements of the Military Estab-
lishment will find it increasingly diffi-
cult as time goes on to resist the Army
pressure to achieve their ultimate goal.
The Army was reluctant to agree to
the insertion of numerous clauses that
apparently preserve the autonomy of the
component departments and services.
These supposedly protective 'clauses lose
all their effectiveness?and I am sure the
Army was aware of this, when they con-
sented to their inclusion?in the Presence
of other clauses which give unmistakable,
complete authority to the head of the
Military Establishment, the misnamed
Secretary of National Security.
First, let me read the merger provi-
sions, which compromise eight lines.
This is the answer to the question of the
Senator from Massachusetts. I quote
from title II, section 201 (a) :
There is hereby established the National
Security Organization, and-a Secretary of Na-
tional Security, who shall be the head
thereof.
Let us mark that. The Secretary of
National Security shall be the head of
the National Security Organization.
Subparagraph (b) describes the com-
position of the National Security Organ-
ization, as follows:
The National Security Organization shall
consist of the Department of the Army, the
Department of the Navy, and the Depart-
ment of the Air Force, together with all
other agencies created within the National
Security Organization.
The list. of those agencies is given in
the first pages of the bill, and in this case
they are almost entirely military agen-
cies. But there, Mr. President, is the
merger. Those eight lines in section 201
(a) and (b) create the merger of the
armed forces. Countless persons have
written me or told me individually, "I
am against the merger of the armed
forces, but I am for unification." Many
Senators have said the same thing. I
firmly believe the majority of the Corn- '
mittee on Armed Services are opposed to
a merger but in favor of unification. Yet'
lines 7 to 14 on page :77 of the bill, which '
I have just read, create the merger of the
armed forces of the Nation, and place
one Man in charge of those merged
forces. It does not require a lawyer to
Interpret the words of section 201 (a)
and (b). They are clear and decisive.
They are the root of the whole bill, and
so long as they stay in the bill it is a
merger bill, and the press have always
been correct in their headlines or re-
leases in giving the name "merger" to
the measure.
Only this morning in one of the Wash-
ington newspapers I came across this
language:
MERGER BILL EP IN SENATE
The Senate today opens debate upon the
Army-Navy unification bill fOrewarned that
failure to enact it would make the United
States the "only major power which has not
modified its Military Establishment"? ?
And so forth. The article goes on to
say:
The measure, requested by President Tru-
man after a more thoroughgoing merger was
spurned by Congress last year, would leave
the War and Navy Departments intact but
would place over, them a Secretary of Na-
tional Security with power to exercise "gen-
eral direction, authority, and control" over
the two war arms.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I should like to
call the Senator's attention to a clause
on page 31 of the bill with which I know
he is familiar, because we discussed the
matter at length in the committee. The
declaration of policy is stated on pages
30 and 31, and on page 31 it is specifically
said: "To provide for" three military de-
partments, and to provide for "unified
direction but not to merge" these de-
partments.
"Not to merge" them. Now how can
the Senator say that the bill is a merger
bill when the declaration of policy spe-
cifically says it is not a merger bill?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, I say the declaration of policy
ienot a part of the law. It simply states
in general terms the policy. If that
language is followed absolutely in the bill
then I have no argument with the Sena-
tor, but until section 201 (a) and (b) is
eliminated it is in contradiction to the
declaration of principles.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield again?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. If the Senator
Is correct in his statement, then what
language in the bill provides for merger?
What words in the bill are merger words?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
have just read them to the Senator. ' I
shall be glad to read them again..
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I heard those
words read, but is there anything in those
words that provides for a merger? Do
not those words provide for a unified di-
rection rather than a merger?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. No,
Mr. President, I do not think the Sena-
tor is correct. When one man, the Sec-
retary of National Security, is placed at
the head of the organization that makes
It a complete merger, and he has com-
plete authority over the various depart-
?JULY 7
rnents within that merged organization.
' Let Us for a moment see what the
duties and powers of this misnamed Sec-
retary of National Security are. I read
from section 202:
(a) The Secretary of National Security
shall?
(1) Establish general policies and pro-
grams for the National Security Organization
and for all the departments and agencies
therein;
(2) Exercise general direction, authority,
and control over such departments and agen-
cies;
(3) Supervise and coordinate the prepara-
tion of budget estimates; formulate and de-
termine the budget estimates for submittal
to the Bureau of the Bud-get; and supervise
the budget program of the National Security
Organization.
?
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Yes.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Is not the final
determination of the budget the duty of
Congress, and if it is the duty of Con-
gress, how can supervision of the work of
getting the figures together and coordi-
nating the figures, becomes such an im-
portant power as to create a merger or
to give the Secretary of National Secu-
rity more power than he should have? _
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. No:
the fact that he has such powers does not
create the merger. The result of the
merger is that he has those powers, and
he can coordinate the budget, and the
estimates all in one lump sum, for the
three armed forces.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. But the Con-
gress has the final decision?
Mr.,-4ROBERTSON of Wyoming. The
Congress makes the appropriation.
Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield.
Mr. LODGE. Does the Senator think
that under those words the Secretary of
National Security could modify the uni-
forms, and take officers out of one branch
and put them into another branch, or
anything of that kind?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
think he would have such power.
Mr. LODGE. Does the Senator know
exactly what provision of the bill gives
him power of that kind?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. The
power, I believe, comes by reason of his
being the head of these three organiza-
tions. He is the head of the organiza-
tion, and he has the power to do any-
thing with respect-to functions. I agr,ee
with Under Secretary Royall when he
says that not only has this man the
power to change functions but he must
exercise them.
Mr. LODGE. If the Senator will per-
mit me in his time, I should like to say
that I would certainly be opposed to any-
thing of that kind. I want to preserve
the traditions and the esprit de corps.
and the autonomy. I think the bill
would preserve them.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
know the Senator is honest when he says
that he would not agree with the bill if
such a provision were in it, but I assure
the Senator that that is how I read the
bill, and as I have read it from the first.
?
d For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200Z0 1
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
That is why I am on my feet today
opposing it.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield.
Mr. ELLENDER. I was very much in-
terested in the statement made a moment
ago by the distinguished Senator from
Wyoming when he said that under the
bill a vast military empire can be created.
I should like ,to ask the Senator, how
could such a military empire come into
being when under section 8 of' article I
of the Constitution appropriations for?
military purposes cannot be made for a
longer period than 2 years? In other
words, it is up to the Congress, as was
pointed out by the Senator from Massa-
chusetts, to provide the wherewithal to
keep the military and the naval de-
partments operating. If, under the
Constitution, which I am sure the bill
does not change, it is up to the Congress
to provide funds for, only 2 years, I was
simply wondering how such an empire
could be created' as the Senator en-
visaged. ? .
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
shall develop that much more fully. as I
proceed, if the Senater will bear with me.
Mr. ELLENDER. I am very much in-
terested in that point, and I should lile
to hear the Senator's position with re-
spect to it.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, I just recited the powers and
duties of this misnamed Secretary of
National Security. I should be grateful
if some of my colleagues could point out
to me just one thing that the secretary
of any executive department could do
within his department which the Secre-
tary of National Security oould not do
within the National Security Organiza-
tion under these grants of authority.
Except for the dubious right to -squeal
when stuck, we have given no autonomous
rights to the subordinate secretaries.
The provision that each department
within the National Security Organiza-
tion shall be administered as an individ-
ual unit is inconsequential. Every bu-
reau in an executive department is ad-
ministered as an individual unit, just as
every battalion within a regiment is ad-
ministered as an individual unit. This
Is not autonomy; it is simply routine
administrative organization. Nor is its
significant provision that all powers and
duties not specifically conferred upon the
. Secretary of National Security shall be
retained by the subordinate Secretaries;
for there are no powers or duties of con-
sequence which have not been conferred
upon the super-secretary. The plain fact
is that S. 758 creates a new executive
department on 'a grand scale and cloaks
the secretary at its head with every
power which ordinarily pertains to the
head of such a department. ?
My criticism, however, is not so much
that we are providing insufficient safe-
guards against abuse of power by the
head of the National Security Organiza-
tion, but rather that we are creating such
an unnecessary and undesirable organi-
zation at all. We are building a new
military empire where none was needed,
and in doing so we are-creating aFrank-
.No. 128-4
enstein monster which may work to the
detriment rather than the enhancement
of national security.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. The Senator has
stated that the bill would create a Frank-
enstein monster, and has used various
other words which would indicate one
man was being given tremendous power. ?
I should like to ask this question: If he
has only the powers set forth on pages
37 and 38, where the language occurs
designating his powers, and all other
powers are retained in the present secre-
taries, how would a Frankenstein mon-
ster be created? /What implied powers
are being given to him that would create
within him such tremendous force?
? ? Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. In the
first place, as I have extilained, he is the
head of the Department of the Army,
-the Department of the Navy, and the De-
partment of the Air Force, together with
all other agencies created within the Na-
tional Security Organization. I think
it would be well to refer to those agen-
cies at this time. They are to be found
listed under title II, the National Secu-
rity Organization, sections 201 to 214.
I think I have already read them, so
there is no need of my repeating them.
The Senator has them before him, on
page 30 of the bill. ?
In addition, we vest the super-Secre-
tary with powers to exercise general di-
rection, authority, and control over such
departments and agencies. As I previ-
ously stated, he is to have the power to
supervise and coordinate the preparation
of budget estimates, and so forth. , He is
to have the power of establishing gen-
eral policies and programs for the Na-
tional Security Organization. That
means the National Military Establish-
ment. He is to have the power to estab-
lish policies and programs for all depart-
ments and agencies thereunder. I do
not see how we could possibly give any
man more power than it is proposed to
give to the super-Secretary.
What are the arguments for the erec-
tion of a superagency for the coordina-
tion of the military efforts and activities
of the Nation? For one thing, it is
stated ,that there has been inadaquate
'military coordination in the past. The
evidence presented by the military wit-
nesses during the course of committee
hearings have brought out instances in
which coordination and cooperation
could have been improved. The other
side of the picture was generally neg-
lected by the administration witnesses.
Admiral Carney took notice of this when
he said:
I have the feeling that in many instances
proponents of merger have overlooked the
fact that a great amount of integration has
already been accomplished.
8477
the services. The simple fact seems to
be that when the need was belatedly rec-
ognized, military officers were able to co-
ordinate and cooperate with ease, dis-
patch, and effectiveness. Now that the
- lesson has been learned, I do not think
it will ever be forgotten.
We are all familiar with the excellent
job of coordination which was accom-
plished in the field by the unified field
commands. We are little less familiar
with the equally splendid job of command
coordination which was effected here in
Washington by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I have yet to hear any witness challenge
the correctness of the decisions of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff or offer a valid criti-
cism of the speed with which they were
arrived at. It does not require a merger
to perpetuate the principle of unified field
commands, or to perpetuate the Joint
Chiefs of _Staff here in Washington.
Both are here to stay, with or without a
merger.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield for'a question?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. The Senator
stated earlier in his argument, if I cor-
rectly understood him, that he was for
unification and coordination of more
than the armed forces. He has stated
that there was unification in the field,
and that there was unification in the
armed forces in Washington. If this bill,
in peacetime, seeks to legalize that uni-
fication and continue it, what is the ob-
jection to a bill of this character?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. The
objection to the bill, as I have endeavored
to show so far, and shall continue to
endeavor to show, is that the bill is a
merger of the armed forces, and very
little else. As the Senator knows, I have
always claimed that it was absolutely
necessary that the Secretary of National
Security should be under ,the President
of the United States, and should be Sec-
retary of the entire national security
picture, and not merely Secretary of_the
armed forces, displacing the Secretary
of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and
the Secretary of the Air Force as Cabinet-
officers. ?
Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does
the Senator from Wyoming yield to the
Senator from Missouri?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield. ? -
Mr. DONNELL. I should like to make
an inquiry of the- Senator from Massa-
chusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL].
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield for that purpose.
Mr. DONNELL. I observe, on page 38
_of the bill, in line 14, this language:
All powers and duties not specifically con-
ferred upon the Secretary of National Secu-
rity by this act are retained by each of the
respective secretaries. -
I observe, on page 37, as prev:ously
quoted by the Senator from Wyoming,
that the Secretary of National Security
shall, under the direction of the Presi-
dent, perform certain duties, among
which are to? /
After considerable prodding, other wit-
nesses reluctantly admitted that a nota-
ble improvement in coordination was
actually brought about during the course
of the war, and that by its end most of
the problems of coodination had been ef-
fectively solved?and without merging
c
ved Far Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002
8478 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
(1) Establish general policies and pro-
grams for the National Security Organization
and for all of the departments and agencies
therein.
(2) Exercise general direction, authority,
and control over such departments and
agencies.
The question upon which I should like
to have the comment of the Senator
from Massachusetts is this: What powers
and duties are there which are not spe-
cifically conferred upon the Secretary of
National Security by the bill? There-
fore, what powers and duties are retained
by each of the respective Secretaries, in
the opinion of the Senator from Massa-
chusetts?
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield in order that I may
answer the question?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I think it was
the general feeling in the committee
when that language was drafted that the
general policies referred to, and the
duties which the Secretary would per-
form under the direction of the Presi-
dent, were with regard to laying out the
general policies of national defense and
natiimal security. He would have noth-
ing to do, for, instance, with the educa-
tion of a naval flier; he would have noth-
ing to do with the education or training
of the operator of a tank or with the kind
of tank that the Army should use. He
could not necessarily say that we should
have more jet planes or more planes of
another character. Those are problems
which are to be worked out, respectively,
in the air department, the ground forces,
'and the Navy. He should, however, have
an idea of how-those three elements of
the national force should be used to-
gether to unify all possible methods of
establishing our national defense.
Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for a very brief obser-
vation?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield.
Mr. DONNELL. I thank the Senator.
from Massachusetts, although I am quite
puzzled as to how it is possible for any
, powers and duties not to have been
specifically conferred upon the Secretary
of National Security by this bill, when by
the very language on page 37 it is pro-
vided:
Under the direction of the President he
shall perform the following duties:
(1) Establish general policies and pro-
grams for the National Security Organization
and for all of the departments and agencies
therein;
(2) Exercise general direction, authority,
and control over such departments and
agencies; ?
(3) Supervise and coordinate the prepara-
tion of budget estimates; formulate and de-
termine the budget estimates for submittal
to the Bureau of the Budget; and supervise
the budget program of the National Security
Organization under the applicable appro-
priation acts.
It would seem to me that that lan-
guage is certainly susceptible of the con-
struction placed upon it by the Senator
from Wyoming [Mr. ROBERTSON] that it
gives the ultimate determination, direc-
-N, tion, authority, and control over these
?"'n-artments and agencies to the Secre-
f National Security. It Is cer-
tainly susceptible, it seems to me, of the
construction placed upon it by the Sena-
tor from Wyoming to the effect that all
powers and duties are specifically con-
ferred upon the Secretary of National
Security and that all that are left to the
various departments and agencies there-
under are the powers and duties to act
as subordinates under the ultimate con-
trol of the Secretary of National Se-
curity.
May I inquire of the Senator from
Wyoming if I have in substance stated
his position on the matter?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. The
Senator from Missouri has stated my
position very clearly, and I thank him.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator from Wyoming yield
further?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I know that the
Senator from Missouri is a very careful
student of legislation. I would call his
attention to the declaration of policy on
page 30 of the bill. The declaration of
policy, Perhaps, is not a part of the pro-
posed law, but it certainly could be used
in interpreting the words of the bill. If
the Senator reads that declaration of
policy I believe that he will answer the
question as the Senator from Massa-
chusetts has answered it.
Mr. DONNELL. I thank the Senator
from Massachusetts, and I shall not tres-
pass longer upon the time of the
Senators.
Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield.
Mr. LODGE. Responding to the point
raised by the Senator from Missouri, it
is my understanding that the Secretary
of National Security shall confine him-
self entirely to' those things which are
general and not to those things which
are special. In the military service those
two words have a very clear meaning. I
cannot conceive, under this language,'
and particularly under the language in
line 10 on page 38, that he would exercise
anything other than general functions
for those things which the services have
in common. In other words, it would
seem inconceivable to me that he would ,
concern himself with questions of uni-
form, equipment, supply, tactics, train-
_ ing, or any of the other things which
take up nine-tenths of the time of a mili-
tary organization.
?Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Wyoming yield fog a brief
response?
Mr. ROBEHTSON of Wyoming. I
yield.
Mr. DONNELL. I am not familiar, as
doubtless is the Senator from Massachu-
setts, who has just spoken, with the con-
struction of this language in the Army,
but it would appear to me that it is per-
fectly clear that the construction ordi-
narily given to such language as "exer-
cise general direction, authority, and con-
trol over such departments and agencies."
I say the general construction of that
language in law would certainly imply
that the official who has that authority
, has the ultimate general authority,
which, as I see it, is the final authority.
001-1
JULY 7
and control over the departments and
agencies involved.
I shall not labor the point or trespass
upon the time of any of the Senators, but
it seems to me that there is very much to
be said in favor of the construction of the
Senator from Wyoming, whether we
agree with the ultimate conclusion.
? Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, will the
Senator be generous enough to yield
again?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield.
Mr. LODGE. I think there is a mis-
understanding of the meaning of the
word "general." In most military organ-
izations with which I am familiar there
Is a general staff. Most of the activities
to which the new Secretary, as I read the
language, will devote himself will be gen-
eral, matters which the services have in
common. Most of the things done in
point of time, in point of money, in point
of administration are things that they
have always handled and will always
continue handling.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Wyoming yield for a brief
observation?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield.
Mr. GURNEY. I wish to call to the
attention of the Senator from Missouri
especially the fact that Congress cannot
itself relinquish its responsibility. Con-
gress must retain its power to regulate
national security, under the Constitu-
tion, wherein it is provided that Con-
gress shall provide for the common de-
fense. The power of the purse is
all-important. Therefore, I call the
Senator's special attention to section 308,
page 59, of the bill, wherein it is pro-
vided that the budget must be sent to
Congress not just as the National Secu-
rity Secretary wants it, but in minute de-
tail as to the manner in which the secre-
taries of the branches of the service make
their requests to the National Security
Secretary,
- Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Wyoming again yield?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming.. I
yield.
Mr. DONNELL. It ,seems to me that
the point made by the Senator from
South Dakota certainly indicates that
there is detailed statement in the bill as
to the requirements of the annual budget,
but to my mind he does not answer the
proposition submitted by the Senator
from Wyoming as to the construction to
be placed upon the language on page 38
of the bill, that all powers and duties not
specifically conferred upon the Secretary
of National Security are retained by each
of the respective secretaries.
Looking at that language we immedi-
ately search the bill to find what powers
and duties are not specifically conferred
upon the Secretary of .National Security,
and we find on the preceding page, which
is page 37, that instead of any limitation
on his powers, apparently the very
broadest possible power is conferred
upon the Secretary of National Security,
for, --Vaithout repeating in undue detail,
section 202 (a) provides as follows:
Under the direction of the President he
shall perform the following duties:
(1) Establish general policies and pro--
grams for the National Security Organization
?
?
Ap
For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
and for all of the departments and agencies
therein.
(2) Exercise general direction, authority,
and control over such departments and
agencies.
I should like to ask the Senator from
Wyoming, or either the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] or the
Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Gila-
's:TEI(], whether there is any definition of
the word "general" in decisions of courts
which would enable us to arrive at the
proper conclusion to be placed upon the
language, "Exercise general direction,
authority, and control over such depart-
ments and agencies."
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
shall have to leave that to my legal
friend from Massachusetts [Mr. .SAL-
TONSTALL] to answer.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming.
yield.
Mr. McCARTHY. I should like to ask
the Senator, since competent legal minds
differ as to the interpretation that should
be placed on this language, if that fact
alone does not indicate that the powers
which are so conferred are so indefinite ?
that they may be dangerously indefinite?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Defi-
nitely dangerous, Mr. President.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield.
Mr. GURNEY. For the purpose . of
further answering the Senator from
Wyoming, let me say that the responsi-
bility for performing the roles, missions,
and duties to be performed by the
branches of our National Security set-up
rests entirely with the President of the
United States. Under this bill, they are
not taken away from the President at?
all. Under the bill, the Secretary of
National Security cannot take them.
away from the President. They are not
changed in any.' way by the bill. The
President himself is the Commander in
Chief, and he will remain the Com-
mander in Chief under the Constitution.
He alone can set the roles and missions
of each branch of the service. Certainly
the Secretary of National Security, under .
the language on Page 37, I believe, to
which the Senator has referred, could
not superimpose himself as the one hav-
ing the authority that is, of course,
retained in the President.
Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will
the Senator further yield to me?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield.
Mr. DONNELL. I quite agree with
the Senator from South Dakota that
the language of section 202 (a) does not,
superimpose the Secretary of National
Security upon the President. In fact, as
I have indicated previously, the language
is specifically "under the direction of the
President."
But as I understand it, the point made
by the Senator from Wyoming is that
as between the Secretary of National
Security and the heads of these various
other units, namely, the Department of
the Army, the Department of the Navy,
and the Department of the Air Force,
the Secretary of National Security is su-
preme, subject only to the direction of
the President of the United States.
I ask the Senator from Wyoming
whether I correctly understand his po-
sition..
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. The
Senator is correct as to my position.
Mr. AIKEN. -Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield to the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. AIKEN. The Senator from South
Dakota said a few moments ago that the
Congress cannot yield the power of. the
purse, but must retain it. But 'under-
paragraph (3) of section 202 (a) it is
stated that one of the duties of the Secre-
tary of National Security shall be to?
(3) Supervise and coordinate the prepara-
tion of budget estimates; formulate and de-
termine the budget estimates for submittal
to the Bureau of the Budget; and supervise
the budget program of the National Security
Organization under the applicable appro-
priation acts.
Does not that mean that insofar as
the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force
are concerned the Congress by this act
delegates the power of the purse to the
Secretary of National Security?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Myi
own interpretation of that clause is that
it means that the Congress surrenders
to the Secretary of National Security, ab-
? solute power of the purse, as well as
practically everything else.
? Mr. AIKEN. I can see no other inter-
pretation to be made of that authoriza-
tion.
. Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, in connection with this mat-
ter, I should like to read something which
I think answers practically all the ques-
tions that have been asked. I refer to
the testimony of one of the witnesses
1 who was one of the -proponents of this
namely, the very able Under Secre-
tary of War, Mr. Kenneth Royall. I
quote now from pages 356 and 357 of
part II of the hearinks on Senate bill
758, the national defense establishment
bill:
Mr. ROYALL. ? ? ? I want to say on the
functiona, I think I stated it later on in
-the statement that the change of functions
can be made in three ways. The President,
by Executive order, can delegate that to the
Secretary of National Defense, or he can per-
mit the Secretary of National Defense to ex-
ercise the powers given him by the bill, but
that would be subject to the direction of
the President.
Senator ROBERTSON. On page 3, in para-
graph 5, you say for the bill to have any
real value, for it to accomplish what it is
expected, the Secretary of National Defense
must exercise as well as possess.
Mr. ROYALL. That is right.
Senator ROBERTSON. Broad authority as to
functions.
Mr. ROYALL. That is right. That is right,
, sir. Of course, that is under the direction
of the President.
May add this, Senator, and I assume
that, of course, the bill provides for three
separate departments. This does not mean
to indicate that the bill contemplates or
that any sensible Secretary of National De-
fense would make changes in roles, missions,
and functions, first, unless it was satisfactory
with the President or. some acquiescence by
the .President; and secondly, it was to pro-
mote either efficiency or economy or security
of the country.
8479
Senator ROBERTSON. But, as I gather it,
your reading of the bill provides the Secre-
tary of National Defense with the broad au-
thority as to functions, services, procure-
ment, and the like.
Mr. ROYALL. That is right; subject to the
direction of the President, and if the Presi-
dent does not himself act in that 'field, and
he has in the case of functions and roles
and missions suggested that if this bill is
enacted, he will issue an Executive order
dealing with that, and the Executive order
has been agreed on between the services.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERTSON of ' Wyoming. I
yield.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. To answer the
question asked by the Senator from Ver-
mont, let me say I think he should read
section 308 (a) in connection with the
budgetary powers given the Secretary of
National Security under section 202 (a),
subparagraph (3). Just the first few
words of section 308 (a) are:
BUDGET ESTIMATES
SEC. 308. (a) So much of the annual
budget transmitted to the Congress by the
President as contains the estimates of ap-
propriations for and expenditures by the
National Security Organization and the de-
partments therein shall be so arranged as
clearly to show?
And so forth. In other words, the Na-
tional Security Secretary will coordinate
.,the budget, and the President will sub-
mit the message, and the Congress will
have all the powers it now has under the
Constitution and laws of the United
States.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, the coordination effected in
the administration, training, and supply
of the armed services is less well known,
because it is less spectacular and far
more complex; but it was, and is, in
many respects as effective as ?that
achieved in the strategic command of
the forces. It was brought about by
cooperative endeavor and by the more
formal efforts of such bodies as the Aero-
nautical Board, the Army and Navy
Munitions Board, the Joint Research and
Development Board, and numerous other
agencies. Some of these need to be per-
petuated by legislation, while others will
continue without special statutory recog-
nition. None of them require a merger
of the armed services to continue their
effectiveness.
Mr. President, I should like to say in
this connection that the Armed Services
Committee has considered House bill
1366, which has passed the House of
Representatives. It is a bill to facilitate
procurement of supplies and services by
the War Department and Navy Depart-
ment.
? Let me cite some of the methods of
effective coordination which came about
without benefit of merger. I quote from
the testimony on Senate bill 753 of the
Honorable W. John Kenney, Assistant
Secretary of the Navy, before the Armed
Services Committee: .
First, there is the collaboration of buyers,
wherein the buying agencies of the services
are located in the same building and work
side by side. Physical proximity and mutual
helpfulness are relied upon for results.
This is the method which is used for pur-
chases of textiles and petroleum. Second is
9
ved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002
880 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
the joint buying agency, which is an agency
set' up solely to purchase specific commodi-
ties for the joint account of the Army and
Navy. The Joint Army-Navy Medical Pur-
chasing Agency is an illustration of this.
Third, there is single service, or cross-pro-
curement. Under this method, one service
buys all of a commodity required by both
the Army and the Navy. Thus the Army
buys practically all food for both services and,
to cite a different basis for division, all pur-
chases from Pratt & Whitney are made by
the Navy, and all purchases from Curtiss-
Wright by the Army.
Mr. Kenney went on to say that the
purchase of the following styles of ma-
terial has been coordinated: Landing
craft; aircraft engines and propellors;
chemical-warfare material; specified
items of construction equipment; gaso-
line, fuel, and lubricants; medical sup-
plies; specified items of ordnance mate-
rial; subsistence; textiles; internal-com-
bustion engines, hulls, and machinery
repair parts for certain vessels; solid fu-
els; lumber and allied products; specified
items of marine life-saving equipment.
Further on in. his testimony, on the
subject of utilization of facilities, Mr.
Kenney had this to say:
Much has already been accomplished in
this field of utilization -of facilities as a re-
sult of the work of such agencies as the
Aeronautical Board, the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Joint Research and Development Board, and
the Army and Navy Munitions Board. Each
case must be analyzed and-solved on its own
merits. The following are illustrative of ac-
complishment in this field:
(a) The Army-Navy Air Facilities Commit-
tee, formed to facilitate the exchange of fa-
cilities, has arranged for the exchanges of
complete airfields and joint use of fields.
The Navy has taken over 15 or 20 air stations
from the Army and has in turn released 2 to
the Army and their operation. Eighteen air-
fields are used jointly and six primary gun-
nery and bombing ranges are in joint use.
(b) All explosive shipments in the Pacific
will be handled through naval ammunition
installations which permit deactivation of
Army facilities.
(c) There is joint use of the military in-.
stallations on Johnston Island, Kwajalein,
Guam, Okinawa, Alaska, and other areas in
the Pacific. This Joint use of facilities is not
a new development. As an illustration, the
Army B-29 that took off from Tinian with
the atomic bomb for Hiroshima took off from
a field constructed by Navy Seabees and was
fueled with gasoline purchased and trans-
ported to the Pacific by the Navy. The Army
and Navy personnel who manned the plane
were fed by food purchased by the Army and
transported to the Pacific by the Navy.. The
bomb was transported to Tinian on a naval
ve.:,sel, loaded on the plane by Army person-
nel., armed in flight by a naval
omcerv-
'rhat means given final preparation
for detonation?
and released by an Army officer. -
All this marvelous coordination with-
out merger.
Let me cite some further instances of
coordination achieved without benefit of
merger. Again I quote Mr. Kenney, who
has made an admirable presentation of
the brilliant record achieved by the Army
and Navy along these lines;
The Army proving ground at White Sands,
N. Mex., collaborates with the Navy in the
utilization of specialized techniques, such as
the telemetering of missiles developed by the
Navy. 'Eventually the personnel will be
equally divided between. Army and Navy.
The naval air missiles test center at Point
Mugu, Calif., which is used to test guided
missiles, rockets, and pilotless aricraft, is
available for use by both the Army and Navy.
Navy ordnance unit at Newtown Neck, Md.,
ls being disestablished and the activities are
being transferred to the Army testing station
at Aberdeen, Md.
The Army furnished all naval chemical
warfare materials, and trains naval personnel
in its chemical warfare schools.
The school for the disposal of bombs, mines,
and similar missiles is run by the Navy at
Indian Head, Md.,,for both services.
The Army arsenals at Frankford and Rock
Island are manufacturing large ordnance
parts for the Navy.
The Army arsenal at Pickatinny, N. J., ren-
ders -various services for the Navy installa-
tion at Lake Denmark to preclude duplica-
tion.
The Army tests all-Navy flares and illumi-
nating projectiles, and the Navy tests Army
75-millimeter projectiles, 40-millimeter car-
tridges, and Air Force rockets. --
, Mr. President, I do not want to tire my
colleagues with. an endless list of theSe
fine instances of coordination which have
been effected out of Army-Navy wedlock,
but I do believe that it is important, when
we have been belabored with changes of
waste and duplication in the services,
that we hear the other side of the story.
We stand indebted to Mr. Kenney for
giving us the other side-i--the bright
? side?the side which has been purposely
ignored by the vast majority of those
who seek a merger.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. Presi-
dent?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does
the Senator from Wyoming yield to the
Senator from Massachusetts?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Will not the
Senator agree with me when I say that
each of the witnesses whom he has just
mentioned, Mr. Kenney and the repre-
sentatives of the Army and the Air Force
who told us abouCthis great cooperation,
stated that he believed that some plan
similar to that now proposed should be
put through while the present personal-
ities were still in the Army, the Navy,
and the Air Forces, so that they could
work these matters out while they were
still carrying them on in an informal way,
or under an Executive order?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
think the Senator is correct. --
Let me now give a little more of the
picture Mr. Kenney has revealed. I again
quote his testimony as it appears on
pages 247 to 278 of part 2 of the hear-
ings:
Army engineers are undertaking construc-
tion work for the Navy at Sangly Point in
the Philippines and the Navy is perform-
ing some construction work for the Army in
Alaska.
The Navy is making pier space available
at Oakland so that the Army may give up
certain leased piers in San Francisco.
The Army has made a deep-water berth
available to the Navy in New Orleans for a
floating drydock; the Navy is in turn making
berths available as required by the 'Army
thereby obviating the leasing by the Navy
of deep-water space.
Steps are in hand to reopen Navy cold-
storage space at Cheatham Annex, Norfolk,
at, the request of the Army. Joint use of
JULY 7
the Army's in-transit depots at Auburn,
Wash.; Lathrop, Calif.; and Yermo, Calif.;
was expected during the war; the combined
total space at the three depots was 3,-
000,000 square feet. Since the war the Army
has transferred the Yermo facility to the'
Navy as a subcommand of the Marine Corps
Depot at Barstow, Calif.
Many naval patients are in Army hospitals,
and many Army patients are cared for in
naval advance base hospitals. in. fact, an
agreement has been reached whereby a bed
in any governmental hospital is available
to any governmental patient.
A Joint radio circuit exists between Wash-
ington and Rio de Janeiro.
The Navy trains Army personnel for multi-
channel .radio teletype equipment.
Messages are transferred between many
communication centers for delivery to points
served only by one service. Common uSe is
made of Army telephone circuits in some
overseas areas.
Mr. Kenney continues:
This represents a brief description of some
of the areas where there has been common
use of facilities. Studies are going forward
for increasing the field of common use and
particular attention is being directed to the
following types of facilities:
(a) Harbor and port facilities at New York,
San Francisco, Seattle, and New Orleans.
( b ) Communications.
(c) Medical facilities.
(d) Transportation.
(e) Service facilities, such as laundries,
commissaries, and bakeries.
(f) Post exchange stores and ships' service
stores.
(g) Recruiting.
(h) Supply depots.
(i) Supply centers.
(j) Cost inspection.
(k) Material inspection.
(1) Audit and accounting.
All the instances of existing coordina-
tion which Mr. Kenney cited?and I ask
you to bear in mind that he made no
-claim of covering the whole field?are
evidence that great achievements are at-
tainable when there exists a will to work
together and to solve problems of mutual
importance. No evidence has been ad-
duced which indicates that the proposed
merger could do better than has been
done, is now being done, or would be done
Without a merger. It is a slur upon the
records of the fine officers responsible
for the achievements cited?as well as
countless other achievements not men-
tioned?to imply that the efforts of these
officers will cease now that the fighting
is over?that we must hold over them the
threat of compulsion by a supersecretary
to force a continuation of the work they
have thus far carried on through their
own initiative, understanding, coopera-
tion, and perseverence.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield.
Mr. McCARTHY. I have very care-
fully read the bill which was introduced
by the Senator from Wyoming, a bill
which I think contains all the good fea-
tures of Senate bill 758, with none of its
dangerous features; a bill which I think
creates and maintains a balance of power
between the military and the civilian
economy. I hope I shall have a chance
to vote for the measure introduced by
the Senator from Wyoming. At this
Appf,ej For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020004
194'7 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
time, I should like to know whether or
not the Senator from Wyoming intends
to offer his bill as a substitute for Senate
bill 758.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. No,
Mr. President; it is not my intention to
do that. I shall offer a number of
amendments to Senate bill 758, which, if
accepted, would very nearly achieve
what I set out to do in the bill I intro-
dticed.
Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, would
the Senator be willing to yield for a ques-
tion? If not, I shall not interrupt him.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield for a question.
Mr. DONNELL. Reference was made
earlier this afternoon to the importance
of the declaration of policy, as tending
to indicate the defect in the position of
the Senator from Wyoming. In the dec-
laration of policy, among other things,
it is stated, on page 31, in line 4:
To provide for their authoritative coordi-
nation?
That is to say, the various branches,
the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps,
and the Air Force? ?
To provide for their authoritative coordi-
nation and unified -direction under civilian
control but not merge them?
I emphasize the words "unified direc-
tion under civilian control." The ques-
tion I should like to ask the Senator is
this: Is there anything in the pending'
bill which requires that the Secretary of
the Army, under the bill, shall be a civil-
ian? I fail to find anything of that
kind, and I am wondering if the Sena-
tor has located any requirement to that
effect.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I do
not know that that is mentioned in the
pending bill. I do not recall it. The
Senator would be able to know better
than I do, whether the Constitution or
the existing laws call upon the President,
in appointing a secretary, to name a
civilian. According to my recollection,
the appointee has always been a civilian.
I do not recall any exception.
Mr. DONNELL. I may say to the Sen-
ator that I am not an expert on the sub- -
ject, but I do not recall any provision in
the Constitution, certainly, that would
require it.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. The
Senator is an authority on that.
Mr. DONNELL. No, I do not claim to.
be an authority; but I do not recall any
such provision. I should like to ask the
Senator whether there is, to*his recollec-
tion, any provision in the pending bill
requiring the Secretary of the Depart-
ment; of the Navy to be, a civilian. '
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. So
far as I know, there is none.
Mr. DONNELL. observe at page 41,
lines 12 and 13, that the Secretary of the
Air Force is required to be appointed
from civilian life. The point I am mak-
ing and the question I would ask the
Senator is this: Assuming that there
is nothing in the bill which requires the
secretary of the Army or the Secretary
of the Navy to be a civilian, does not the
declaration of policy, which states that
the intent of Congress 46 to provide for
the authoritative coordination and Uni-
?
fied direction under civilian control of
the various branches mentioned in the
declaration of policy, substantiate the
position of the Senator from Wyoming,
when he takes the view that the effect
of sections 201 (a) and 202 (a) was to
give a unified control in the Secretary of
National Security?
The Secretary of National Security, as
the Senator will recall, is to be appointed
by the President,, so section 202 (a) says,
from civilian life. I have not very clearly
? stated it, but? the point, if I may repeat
it very briefly, to which I invite the Sen-
ator's attention and on which I ask his
opinion, is this: If there is no require-
ment in the pending bill that the Secre-
tary of the Army or the Secretary of the
Navy shall be a civilian; if there is no
provision in the Constitution that re-
quires those two officials to be chosen
from civilian life, when the declaration
of policy provides that it is the 'intent of
Congres to provide for the authoritative
coordination and unified direction under
civilian control, would it not follow that
that language in the declaration'of pol-
icy, instead of tending to defeat- the in-
terpretation of the Senator from Wyom-
ing, would tend to substantiate it, be-
cause the only man, with the exception
?of the Secretary of the Air Force, that
I have thus far found is required to be
appointed from civilian life, is the Sec-
retary of National Security?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. It
undoubtedly would tend to substantiate
the position I take. Buii I may say to
the Senator, that I feel a civilian ap-
pointed Secretary of the Army or Secre-
tary of the Navy becomes a part of the
Army or the Navy, as the case may be,
by the very contact that he has with the
high officers of the Army and Navy, and
he naturally is saturated in Army and
Navy lore and represents the Army and
Navy, although he is a civilian.
Mr. DONNELL. I,should like to say,
Mr. President, if the48'enator will yield,
that I do not mean by these inquiries
necessarily to coincide with the ultimate
conclusion of the Senator as to whether
or not the pending bill should be passed,
with or without amendments, but the
point I am trying to make is that is
seems to me that there is very much to
be said in favor of the validity of the
Interpretation placed by the Senator
upon the powers of the Secretary of
National Security. I see the Senator
from Massachusetts is again at his seat
on this side of the aisle, and I would
ask the Senator from Wyoming if I
might very briefly put to the Senator
- from MassachUsetts the same question I
put to the Senator from Wyoming a
moment ago?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield to the Senator from Missouri for
that purpose.
Mr. DONNELL. I will state to the
Senator from Massachusetts?
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
I heard the Senator's questjon.
Mr. DONNELL. I did not know that
the Senator had heard the question.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I would say in
reply, I do not agree with that interpre-
tation, at all; because while the title of
the Secretary of War is changed to
8481
Secretary of the Army, his powers re-
main as they now are in the statute.
The title of the Secretary of the Navy
was not changed, because it was not
necessary; and a new Secretary of Air
Force has been provided. That is why
the word "civilian" was used in con-
nection with the Air Force. I cannot
say it definitely, but I believe that both
the Army and the Navy, in the statutes
are under civilian heads, and that the
language used for the Air Force is
broadly speaking the same language as
that which is found in the statutes for
the Army and the Navy at the present
time.
Mr. DONNELL. With the Senator's
permission, may I ask the Senator from
Massachusetts if there is anything, so
far as he knows, in the pending bill
which delegates the appointive power to
select the Secretary of the Army or the
Secretary of the Navy from civilian life?
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I would answer
that question in the affirmative, for the
reason that I believe it is in the present
.law, and I believe the President must
therefore give effect to the present law
In appointing the Secretary of the Army
and the Secretary of the Navy.
Mr. DONNELL. The Senator, I take
it, does not consider that the Secretary
of the Army and the Secretary of the
Navy are new officials but they are
simply old officials with the names
changed; is that correct?
Mr: SALTONSTALL. That is ab-
solutely correct.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. The
Senator is correct.
Mr. DONNELL. I thank the Senator.
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield to the Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. WHERRY. How does the pro-
vision in title III relating to succes-
sion to the Presidency, affect the present
set-up? Is it discretionary in the Presi-
dent to name under secretaries who
could fill the offius of Cabinet members?
I read the language on pages 53 and 54:
SEC, 301. The first section (4 the act en-
titled "An act to provide for the performpucc"
of the duties of the Office of President in
case of the removal, death, resignation, Or
inability both of the President and of the
Vice President," approved January 19, 1886
(24 Stat. 1), is amended (1) by striking
out "Secretary of War" and inserting in lieu
thereof "Secretary of National Security," and
(2) by striking (mit "or if there be none,
or in case of his removal, death, resignation,
or inability, then the Secretary of the Navy."
Is it the intention of the legislation to
provide that that shall be the line of
succession for the Presidency?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. That
Is what I understand, to be the intention
of the legislation.
Mr. WHERRY. Is there any statute
under which the President can name
anyone else to his Cabinet in addition
to the two Cabinet officers in question?
? Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Does
the Senator ask me if there should be?
Mr. WHERRY. Well, yes.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I am
not able to answer that question. As I
understand, the language under the
heading "Succession to the Presidency,"
oved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002
8482 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
means that in case the President were
unable to perform the duties of his office,
the Secretary of National Security would
step in, and if the Secretary of National
Security did not qualify, then the Secre-
tary of War, and then the next in line
would be the Secretary of the Navy, and
thereafter the Secretary of the Air Force.
Mr., W1-1-FRRY. That is the point I
was making. The language beginning at
the bottom of page 53 provides that the
line of succession shall be first the Secre-_
tary of National Security, and in the
event the Secretary of National Security
does not qualify or is under a disability,
then the Secretary of the Navy?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. No,
the Secretary of War is next.
Mr. WHERRY. Let me read the
language again:
SEC. 361. The List section of the act en-
titled "An act to provide for the performance
of die duties of the Office of President in case
of the removal, death, resignation, or in-
ability Th-oth of the President and of the Vine
President", approved January is, 1886 (24
Stat. 1), is amended (1) by striking out "Sec-,
retary of War" and inserting in lieu thereof
"Secretary of National Security."
I take it the Secretary of National Se-
curity is first in line to succeed to the
Presjdency after the Secretary of State,
following the official who was designated
In the succession bill recently passed.
M::. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
agree with the Senator that that should
be the interpretation.
Mr. WHERRY. If the Secretary of Na-
tional Security does not qualify or is un-
der a disability, then at least under the
provisions of the pending bill, the succes-
sion would go to the Secretary of the
Navy, who is next in line.
Mr. LODGE. No, Mr. President. Will
the Senator yield?
Mr. WHERRY. That is what is pro-
vided in the language of the bill.
Mr. LODGE. The language is
"amended (1) by striking out 'Secretary
of War' and inserting in lieu thereof
'Secretary of National Security; and
(2) by striking out 'or if ;there be none,,,
or in case of his removal, death, resigna-
tier., or inability, then the Secretary of
the Navy.' "
Mr. WHERRY. Very well. Let me
ask this question. Do the Secretary of
the Army and the Secretary of the Navy
remain Cabinet officers under the bill?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Not
under the pending bill:
Mr. WHERRY.---Is the Senator sure
thz.,, it is not a discretionary right with-
in the President to appoint them to the
Cabinet.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. The
concept of the bill is that the Secretary
of National Security becomes a Cabinet
officer, and that the present Secretaries
of the Army and the Navy are no longer
Cabinet officers.
Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Senator.
And for the purpose of succession there
is simply the one Secretary of National
Security, and in the succession line, in
which I am very much interested, the
Secretary of the Army and the Secretary
of the Navy are eliminated, and only the
Secretary of National Security is in the
line of succession. -
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Yes.
Mr. WHERRY. And that line of suc-
cession is mandatory under the terms of
the bill?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Yes.
Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, there has been much talk?
clothed in sweeping generalities?of the
savings which will accrue from the pro-
posed merger. Efforts of the Committee
on Armed Services to bring forth some
concrete instances of such savings have
been to no avail. The merger propon-
ents have been asked to give us a blue-
print of the proposed structure, indi-
cating what new demands would be
mad q upon the national purse, what
returns would be made thereto. We
have had no reply, save for a somewhat
ridiculous estimate that the establish-
ment of the proposed new departments
would cost some $982,000 per year. Even
the most ardent friends of the merger
on your committee could not stomach
this.
Mr. President, we were asked to believe,
for example, that the office of the New
Secretary of Air Forces would involve an
added expense of only $107,000 a year,
representing the salaries of the new sec-
retary and Under Secretary, two assist-
ant secretaries, and 10 clerical and ad-
ministrative personnel. I could not re-
frain from pointing out that the proposed
clerical staff for the Secretary of Air was
just about the size of the secretarial force
of a Senator from one of the larger
States. The absurdity of such an esti-
mate was even more apparent when the
salary figure of $107,000 was compared
with the similar current appropriation
for the Office of Secretary of War, $7,-
542,000, or again with the salary appro-
priation for the Office of the Secretary
of the Navy, $4,785,000.
The estimated extra cost of a separate
Secretary of the Air Force cheerfully
omitted any mention of contingent ex-
pense which would be something com-
parable, I should imagine, to the cur-
rent figures of $3,000,000 for the War
Department, or at least the $1,250,000
figure for the Navy Department. We
were asked at the same time to believe
that the Office of Secretary of National
Defense?this is the top super secre-
tary?would get along with some 100
civilian clerical and administrative per-
sonnel at a total cost of $663,000 for
salaries. Such an estimate, Mr. Presi-
dent, shows a clear ignorance or wilful
disregard of the facts of life. If anyone
who is familiar with the Washington
scene imagines that an office directing
the destinies of several million indi-
viduals and spending one-third of the
national budget is going to operate with
a civilian force of 100,persons he should
see his physician at once. Washington
simply does not operate that way. These
ridiculous estimates concerned only the
very top level of the men of the new de-
partments, of course. Beneath these new
department heads we can expect to see
the same flowering of bureaucracy that
we have never_yet failed to perceive when
-a new departmental seed is planted in our
Government. Indisputable evidence of
I I it
001-1
JULY 7
this natural process confronts us on
every side at every moment of the day
and night.
Mr. President, the board of directors
of any business firm, large or small,
would summarily dismiss an executive
who proposed a reorganization of the
business based on such vague promises
of operating efficiency and economy as
have been made to your committee dur-
ing the course of its hearings. Granting
that it has been the custom of Congress
to be less than exacting in its demands
for facts relating to the establishment.
of new bureaus and agencies of the Gov-
ernment?the history of the past decade
and a half bears ample witness to this?
still there must be a limit to congres-
sional patience in the face of such cava-
lier treatment. Surely it is not too much
for Congress to ask and receive accurate
and detailed estimates of the costs in-
volved in the establishment of new
agencies of the Government, and the
savings to be realized. Or is this too
much of a detail for us to concern our-
selves with?a detail to be handled by
the executive branch in its own inimita-
ble manner?
When officials of the executive branch
are proponents of a reorganization, they
inevitably anticipate great savings and
insignificant costs. The proponents of
this merger are no exception. But let
us look at the opinion of an official who
only a few years ago was opposed to a
similar merger of the -armed services.
Let us observe what Gen: Douglas Mac-
Arthur thought of the prospective econ-
omies of a single department when he
was in opposition to such a merger.
General MacArthur wrote as follows,
and I am quoting from the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD of April 30, 1932:
The history of the Government demon-
strates that the parasitical development of
bureaucracy springs from the setting up of
superfluous echelons of control such as the
one proposed.
Although I recognize the possibility of
effecting relatively -unimportant economies
in isolated activities, the ultimate cost of
this superimposed structure would, in my
opinion, exceed by millions any economies
that could be safely effected. The super-
Cabinet officer at its head could not fail to
be the acquisitor of one of the largest and
undoubtedly most powerful governmental
organizations the -United States has ever
known.
Continuing, General MacArthur goes.
on to say:
Rather than economy, this amalgamation
would, in my opinion, represent one of the
greatest debauches of extravagance that any
nation has ever known.
Mr. Presideht, I believe that General
MacArthur's observation is as true to-
day as it was 15 years ago, with the pos-
sible exception that 15 years ago we were
still accustomed to think of Government
extravagance in millions. Today we
think of it in billions.
I regard the erection of a vast new
military empire, merging the armed
services and setting up a gigantic new
echelon of command on top of them, as
not only profligate in the extreme, but
highly dangerous as well.
?
Ap[ove)J For Release 2006/12/15: ClA-RDP90-00610R00o2000GQ6T1
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
Let me commence my discussion of
this phase of the problem by reading an
extract from an editorial which appeared
In the Boston Herald on April 5, 1947. It
exhibits a breadth of perception which
this Nation could use more of today.
Quoting from the Herald editorial:
Now that the military have vacated the
common, and we've had our fill of buzzing
war planes, martial music, and the grim ,
presence of war machines,lt may be well to
ponder one of the more subtle threats to our
liberties. It is the threat of the "military
mind," and no small threat it is in a world
in which the greatest exterior menace to our
Nation is a totalitarian regime, whose war
plans are made secretly, and whose attacks
in an age of atom bombs and bacteriological
warfare, would surely maximize the element
of surprise.
In such an age of excessive jitteriness we
are all in awe of the military who must pro-
tect us. Therein lies the danger to which
we have reference here. It is the possibility
that we may forget our traditional subordina-
tion of the military to the civil authority.
We must not let our fear of the communist -
menace blind us to the danger of military
domination. For the thing that could most
surely end civil liberty in America would be
for the Army General Staff to gain such con-
trol over the Nation's civil government as to
make us all vassals of -the military mind.
One ha S only to recall the history of the
German General Staff to know how true
this is.
This ends the quotation from the Her-
ald editorial. But let me continue per-
haps at some length on the subject
militarism and the General Staff, for as
I shall. point out presently, the bill we are
now considering is a bill in the General
Staff pattern, and a bill which paves the
way to the dominant militarism of al
general staff.
Within a democracy such as ours the
armed forces occupy a very definite place.
Those who founded our system of Gov-
ernment were determined that the mili-
tary power of the country should be sub-
ordinate to the civil power. Only on such
a basis could our system of Government
be democratic. Not since a small but
ambitious group of officers proposed that
George Washington declare himself
king--a proposal that Washington re-
fused with a burning rebuke?has there
been a serious threat to our democracy
by any of its military agencies.
Today, however, there are sincere stu-
dents of government who believe they
can detect symptoms of militarism in the
thinking and conduct of the relatively
small--approximately 5,000?but tre-
mendously powerful War Department
General Staff.
Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, will the
'Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield.
Mr. LODGE. Is the Senator referring
to the War,Department General Staff, or
the General Staff with troops?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. The
War Department- General Staff, of ap-
proximately 5,000.
Mr. LODGE. That does not include
the General Staff with troops?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. -No;
the War Department General Staff.
That such symptoms should manifest
themselves within the General Staff is
infinitely more serious than if militaris-
tic proposals should be made in an occa-
sional article or speech by an individual
army, or naval officer. In such a case
It would quite probably represent only
the opinion of an individual, and as such
would not constitute a threat. Evidence
of militarism from within the General
Staff is not to be taken so lightly. Gen-
eral staffs are by their very nature fertile
fields for the seeds of militarism.
I most emphatically do not mean that
army general staffs as purely military
institutions are bad. On the contrary,
I believe that a general staff system is
vitally necessary for the efficient control
of a nation's army. General staffs are
required for all larger field organizations,
as well as for the top level direction of
modern armies. When kept within the
framework of the organization of the
Army, which is suboordinate to the civil
authority of the government, a general
staff is both desirable and indispensable.
However, when a general staff forgets its,
proper relationship in the system of gov-
ernment and seeks to expand its author-
ity over more and more governmental
activities, usually doing so under the pre-
text of promoting military efficiency,
then that general staff ceases to be a
factor of governmental security, and is
instead a mortal threat to the govern-
ment that supports it.
It is almost axiomatic that militarism
in any country increases proportionately
to the power of the Nation's general staff.
Of all the nations of the modern world
none has brought more suffering to man-
kind-through war than has Germany.
In no nation has militarism been more
carefully developed according to plan.
In no modern nation of the western
world has a general staff enjoyed more
power. The history of the German Gen-
eral Staff was one of constant struggle
for more and more authority and inde-
pendence within the government. ?We
would do well to compare with it the
growth of our own general staff.
From the time that Scharnhorst took -
charge of reorganizing the Prussian
Army?particularly the general staff?
after its defeat by Napoleon at Jena, the
German General Staff increased in
power. Gradually, but ultimately, the
Minister of War lost control over the
general staff. By 1866 the chief of the ,
general staff, Von Moltke, had reduced
even the Emperor to the role of a figure-
head who rubber-stamped Von Moltke's
plans for battle. The German General
Staff constantly asserted its power in
wars against Denmark, Austria, and
France, until defeated by the Allies in
1918.
Although condemned to abolishment
by the Treaty of Versailles, the German
General Staff continued to exist under
cover until Adolf Hitler decided in 1937
that the time was propitious to reestab-
lish it officially: As Germany continued
to prepare for the World War II, the
guiding influence of the renascent gen-
eral' staff was ever evident. With each
reorganization and further centraliza-
tion of military authority the general
staff gained more power over the nation.
It has been said that Adolf Hitler, by
taking personal supreme command,
superseded the power of the general
staff. But as the war went sour for Ger-
many and defeat eventually came, it be-
8483
came more evident that instead of being
superseded, the German General Staff
had trapped Hitler. Again, as in 1918,
when it created the myth of "Victory in
the field?defeat at home," the German
General Staff had craftily avoided much
of the popular?and official?denuncia-
tion for the defeat of the German Na-
tion. Adolf Hitler stands eternally
guilty before the bar of history, but the
German General Staff, the spark plug of
German militarism, has avoided indict-
ment as a collective war criminal.
We must understand the history and
functioning of the German General Staff
if we as a nation hope to avoid the disas-
trous consequences that accompany ma-
licious militarism generated by an am-
bitious and excessively powerful general
staff.
Study of German General Staff history
discloses certain procedures or events
that served as the stepping stones to the
ultimate militarization of Germany by
the general staff. They are: Continuous
and accumulative acquisition of power
through repeated reorganization of the
general staff and the war ministry; an
official, army-controlled medium of
propaganda; universal military training;
and continuous effort to centralize all
control of the armed forces under one
agency.
Our Army General Staff was originally
established in 1903 as a result of the in-
sistence of the then Secretary of War,
Elihu Root, a sincere public servant,- who
realized that a general staff was indis-
pensable to any great army. Yet, even
then the establishment of the General
Staff was not affected without opposi-
tion from those who warned of its por
tential danger.
Fortunately, Elihu Root and his con-
stant adviser, Brig. Gen. William H. Car-
ter, were no more aware of the necessity
for a general staff than they were of the
fact that many features of the German
General Staff properly belonged to a
-militaristic system of government rather
than to a democracy. Our Nation, in
establishing a general staff, borrowed
from the German General Staff concept,
but did not borrow the German General
Staff philosophy. Thus, as originally es-
tablished, our General Staff was closely
Integrated with the Army War College,
which resulted in the General Staff being
drawn toward purely military matters
and away from politics. Our General
Staff was to plan how to carry out? the
policies of the Government, rather than
to make such policies. Unfortunately,
although the founders of our General
Staff exercised extreme care in estab-
lishing a staff that conformed to our
theory of government, they could not
insure against the future growth of the
germ of militarism that clung to any
fragment of the German General Staff.
As a result of the experience of World
War I, our General Staff was reorganized.
This reorganization was restricted to ef-
fecting improvements in organization
and technique. Such basic changes as
were made were adopted from the French
General Staff system, not the German.
Our General Staff still retained its sig-
nificant relationship with the Army War
College; continuing the staff's emphasis
upon purely military planning and co-
Q 4
1
ruied For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000201-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
ordinating. It was still a military in-
stitution well subordinated to the civil
authority of the Government, occupying
a proper place within the framework of
the armed forces and our system of gov-
ernment.
The reason this 1921 reorganization
was not a step toward extension of the
powers of the General Staff was largely
due to the character of the individuals
who were members of the War Depart-
ment board which effected the reor-
ganization. The board was headed by
Maj. Gen. James G. Harbord. Included
among its members were Col.?later
Brig. Gen.?John McA. Palmer and
Col..?later Lt. Gen.?John L. DeWitt,
two of the outstanding military thinkers
of recent times. These officers were
keen students of the history of military
institutions, and they knew the proper
place of a general staff within the army
of a democracy. Under the General Staff
system which they helped formulate, the
germ of militarism was effectively sup-
pressed.
During the long span of years between
wars the General Staff continued largely
as devised by the Harbord board, and
during this time no one could with rea-
son' accuse our General Staff of being an
instrument of militarism. But by the
outbreak of World War II, the members
of' the Harbord board had been retired
or were no longer in a position to decide
General Staff policy. Further reorgan-
ization of the General Staff occurred in
1939, 1942, and 1946. These later reor-
ganizations effected the abandonment of
the concept of close relationship with the
Army War College?a relationship that
had emphasized the essentially military
aspects of the General Staff. It is sig-
nificant that since its disassociation with
an educational institution, the General
Staff has veered sharply from intellectual
military pursuits. Like the ? German
General Staff, our War Department Gen-
eral Staff became increasingly interested
in civil affairs as it was subjected to re-
peated reorganizations.
The existence of an officially controlled
medium of conditioning the thinking of
Army personnel?and indirectly the ci-
vilians?was considered important by
those who helped create the German
General Staff and design the plan for the
militarization of Germany. A program
for thought-control of an army is a pre-
requisite and infallible characteristic of
militarism and the dictatorship that in-
variably follows. Today our Army con-
ducts an Army Information School.
Graduates of this school are assigned to
duty as public information officers- to
furnish information to the public, or as .
information-education officers to furnish
information to the troops. An Army
Information Digest is distributed to all
commands, down to and including regi-
ments, and this digest lists the numerous
subjects on which Army talks, sponsored
by the War Department, have been pre-
pared and are available for distribution,
to information and education officers
throughout the Army. When we con-
template the potentialities of such a
great and yet tightly controlled medium
of spreading official- Army information,
we are constrained to remember that
when Scharnhorst began his reorganiza-
tion of the German General Staff and
planned the militarization of Germany,
one of his first proposals for effecting
thought control within the Prussian
Army involved the establishment of an
official periodical to be read to the troops.
Universal military training conducted
by a militaristic general staff would be
disastrous to a democratic nation. Uni-
versal military training subject to proper
supervision by properly constituted civil
authorities of the Government will in-
crease the security of our Nation. The
constant and clamorous support of con-
scription by the War Department General
Staff engenders a strong suspicion of
the Prussian procedures being employed
by that organization. Just prior to the
opening of the present Congress, the War
Department bombarded Members of
Congress with pamphlets supporting con-
scription. Use of taxpayers' money by
the War Department for propagandizing
in favor of universal military training
is an overt act of high-handed militarism
equaled only by the machinations of the
German General Staff.
The development of the German Gen-
eral Staff has been characterized by con-
tinued efforts to bring all elements of the
armed forces under control of a single
agency directly or indirectly controlled
by the general staff. Without going into
the separate problem of what form the
so-called merger of our armed forces
should take, we should remember that
any plan that Viould place all armed
forces directly or indirectly under the
War Department General Staff or any
agency indirectly 'controlled by it would
conform to a method by which the Ger-
man General Staff militarized Germany.
The arguments voiced by our War De-
partment for its plan for unification of
the armed forces and creation of a high
command seems inspired by the philos-
ophy expounded by those who militarized
Germany. For example, we find the fol-
lowing statements offered by high rank-
ing representatives of the War Depart-
ment before the Senate Military Affairs
Committee during hearings on the
merger proposal in October and Novem-
ber of 1945. Gen. H. H. Arnold said:
I am fully convinced that both effectiveness
and economy will 'be best served through
the establishment of single executive De-
partment of National Defense.
Lt. Gen. James H. Doolittle stated:
It is my earnest conviction that the most
sound, efficient, and economical defense es-
tablishment can be achieved only through-
a single Department of National Defense
which will coordinate the activities of the
three components.
Gen. Jacob L. Devers testified:
To fight a war of the future will re-
quire * * * a single department with
Its resultant evolutionary unification of the
Army, Navy, and Air Forces.
Maj. Gen. Millan G. White repeated
the need for a: single department for the
armed forces. Gen. Carl Spaatz also
advocated a single department. Gen-
eral Bradley said:
It is my opinion 'that the needed results
can best be attained by establishing now a
unified, single department for the armed
forces. '
JULY 7
Gen. Brehon Somervell also testi-
fied in favor of a single Department of
National Defense.
The repetitious use of the same term-
inology not only indicates a carefully
planned program of thought-control
within the War Department, but the col-
lective testimony is all the more startling
when we compare it with the following
quotation:
. Unity of military leadership in a nation
can be achieved only by placing all branches
of the armed forces under the supervision
of a single defense authority. This depart-
ment must be in charge of all military prep-
aration as well as the actual prosecution of
the war.
- This quotation is not taken from the
testimony of the Army high command
before the Military Affairs Committee as
were the other quotations above. To
the contrary, it is found in The Axis
Grand Strategy, a compilation of the
writings of Germany military writers
who contributed to the militarization of
Germany and the rise of the Nazi dic-
tatorship. When the high officers of the
War Department offer testimony that is
practically interchangeable with a key
passage in Germany militaristic litera-
ture, can we come to any conclusion ex-
cept that our War Department General
Staff has adopted the philosophy and
the methods of Scharnhorst, Von Moltke,
and Keitel? Again, we are contrained
to recall that the early proposals for cen-
tralized,control of all our armed forces
emanated from our General Staff.
It is thought-provoking and not a lit-
tle frightening when we realize that our
War Department General Staff is follow-
ing so closely the formula by which the
German General Staff gained control of
that Nation and brought on two great
world wars. When considered individu-
ally, adoption by our War Department of
each of the four German General Staff
steps toward malicious militarism might_
be of only questionable significance.
But when we find all four of the German
tools of militarism?repeated reorgan-
ization of the general staff, an official
army-controlled medium of information,
universal military training, and contin-
uous effort to centralize all control of
the armed forces under one agency?all
being so intimately connected with the
conduct of our Army General Staff, we
cannot pass off such evidence as mere
coincidence. We can come to but one
conclusion: Our General Staff is foster-
ing a program of, militarism, a program
that utilizes the means by which the
German General Staff enslaved a nation
and almost destroyed a civilization.
Thus far the War Department Gen-
eral Staff has been defeated in its ef-
forts to establish a single military com-
mander over the armed forces?not as
a result of public recognition of the dan-
ger to the Nation inherent in such a step,
but because of the recognized harm to
the military services which would accrue.
But in the provision of S. 758 for a Joint
Staff to the Joint Chiefs of Staff there
has been implanted the germ from which
the great National General Staff is ex-
pected to emerge in time. The great
general staffs of other nations sprang
from no more innocuous seeds than this.
Our own War Department General Staff,
,
d For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200\540Q0-1
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
when first created, was limited to some
40 - officers. Today-, the Pentagon is
0 scarcely large enough to house it.
Nominally, the Joint Staff is to pro-
vice assistance to the Joint Chiefs of
Stail?a function performed satisfac-
torily heretofore by a secretariat. S.
758 makes no provision, however, that
the joint ? Staff shall. be confined to
secretarial duties, nor that there shall_
be any limitation to the tenure of office
of its members or its director. By vir-
tue of its permanence, its availability,
and its invitation to the Secretary of
-National Security to bypass the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and place reliance upon
it for the administration of the military
) ? services, the Joint Staff will inevitably
expand, accumulate executive authority,
..1_,4?.......i nr,id become the fountainhead of policy
M?fection for the. Military Establish-
at. Its members will become a per-
m. te.nt national general staff corps, an
inner circle of professional military men
44' the Nation, just as the Army General'
? Staff Corps did within the War Depart-
ment. It will be a short Step indeed
fro:: such a position of actual power to
a pesition of titular power at the head
of our military forces and a position of
Al tlimiinance in the affairs of the Nation.
The manner in which the military
1
I mind?the general staff mind?will ex-
ert its control over the life of the Nation,
ir once it has established its control over
- - tie merged armed forces, is not difficult
to discern in the structure of and the
_
relationships between the several bodies
and agencies set up under S. 758 for the
avowed objective, of coordinating the
MI iitaley Establishment with other ele-
*r,.:..eits of national seeurity. Earlier we
7:?ted the lack of an adequate civilian'
?vOce in the national security structure.
We are now in a position to see that this
c,niission was not an oversight. It bears,
/ -..,:.11 the sifens of cynical intent.
I
c.
The formidable struggle which went on
between military and civilian interests in
the past war has been ably described by'
Mr. Donald Nelson in his book, The
Arsenal of Democracy. Let me recite a
,few quotations from that source.
In his introduction, Mr. Nelson makes
the following statements with regard to
the relationship between the War Pro-
duction Board and the Army:
Our disagreements with the Army are well
known and cast no discredit, I believe, upon
either party. The cause of almost all these
disputes was perfectly simple: The Army al=
r,sried to assume greater control over
?=?-? ..roc.iuction and civilian econoiny, than
the War Production Board deemed it prudent
for it to have.
On page 363, after relating many in-
stances which .are .illustratiye of the
struggle between military and civilian in-
terest, Mr. Nelson sums up the situation
? by saying:
I have no hesitation in saying that from
1912 onward the Army people, -in order to
gain control of our national economy, did
thair best to make an errand boy of WPB.
And on page 384:
A friend of mine in the Army.once toid?me
that the primary mission of the Army is to
en.force As will on the enemy. Considering
my own ex:wile:aces, I believe this to be true.
The only thing I can _add is that sometirnes
No. 128-5 ?
the Army doesn't seem to know the difference
between its enemies and its friends.
I realize that there may be many
among my colleagues who will not wish
to accept the opinion of Mr. Nelson on
this subject. These colleagues I respect-
fully refer to an official publication of
the government, The United States. at
War, put out by the Bureau of the Bud-
get. You will find expressed therein
many of the same conclusions which Mr.
Nelson presented in his book.
It is on the National Security Council
that the undue influence of the military
will be exerted at the highest level.
There it will have its effect upon the de-
termination -of foreign policy and upon
the most significant questions of do-
mestic policy. We will have lost our tra-
ditional concept that the military forces
ara the instrument of ,national policy?
they will have become primarily respon-
sible for shaping such policy. It is one
thing fo: the Nation's highest advisory
?body to have available to it information
.relating to the military means available
for enforcing policy decisions, and relat-
ing to the requirements of the military
forces to implement such policies as may
be decided upon. It is quite another
thing to pack that body with military
spokesmen and thereby place them in a
position to decide what the" policies shall
be. It is the latter alternative which
Senate bill 758 has chosen.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wy9ming. I
yield.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I call the Sena-
tor's attention to section 101(a) on page
31 of the bill. I know he has read this
paragraph, and perhaps there is merely
a disagreement of interpretation. I am
referring to the third paragraph of that
section. The function of the. Security
Council, as I interpret that paragraph,
is to make it possible for the civilian
departments of the Government to co-
operate with the military departments
so as to 'advise the President how the
military can best ?protect the national
security. The National Security Council
is set up principally for the purpose of
helping the military to gain knowledge
of the civilian departments, in order that
they may act more intelligently for na-
tional security. It' certainly is not, as I
understand, the job of the National Se-
curity Council and the military mem-
bers to advise the President how to
handle his office or how to handle civilian
affairs or how to handle civilian diplo-
matic relationships with other countries,
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Four
.of the seven named members of the
National Security Council are to be the
civilian heads of the military depart-
ments?the Secretary of National Se-
'curity and the three lower-caste secre-
taries?really under secretaries, who are
to execute in their respective depart-
ments' the directions of the supersecre-
tary. ?
It has been repeatedly asserted by pro-
ponents of this merger that the four,
secretaries, by virtue of their civilian.
origin, will think, talk, and act as civil-
ians.. This is utter nonsense.
8485
I wish the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
DONNELL] were here, because this would
more fully answer his question than I
was able to answer it at the time he
asked the question.
One has only to listen to Secretary
Patterson or Secretary Forrestal to real:-
ize that they are, as they should be, the
spokesmen of their Departments?that
they reflect the military viewpoint of the
service officers who daily surround them,
who provide them with the information
on which they base their decisions, and
.who analyze that information for them.
This is not to detract from the esteem
and admiration that I?that all of us?
have for these two gentlemen. We
would, in fact, look askance at them if
their loyalty to the' services which they
head were one whit less than it is. But
the simple fact is that any civilian who
Is placed at the head of a military de-
partment is?by the time he is suffi-
ciently familiar with his department to
represent it?so steeped in its philosophy
that he cannot help but exUde it.
It is only realistic to accept the fact
that the civilian heads of the military
departments?the four of them on the
National Security Council?will give that
body a 4-to-3 military majority, and an
unmistakable military complexion. It is
inescapable that when an issue arises on
which military interests are alined on the
one side and civilian interests on the
other. the majority vote of the Security
Council will go to the military side.
If the National Security Council is to
be the body on which the influence of the
military is to be felt at the highest level,
it is through the relationship between the
national Security Resources Board and
the Munitions Board?the latter a strict-
ly military body?that the influence of,
the military is to be made effective at ,
a working level?at least, insofar as
domestic economic policy is concerned.
There, Mr. President, we have a most
interesting picture, and a most enlight-
ening one if we only stop to think about
it. Military requirements are to be
taken care of by the Munitions Board?
and I have no doubt that they will be
well ,taken care of, for the Munitions
Board will function day in and day out,
in peace and in war, with ample per-
sonnel and facilities to do the job re-
quired of it. We may rest assured that
exhaustive studies will be made of mili-
tary requirements, and 'comprehensive
plans prepared to meet them. When
M-day comes the military will be ready
with their solution?ready after years of
painstaking study and analysis of their
needs and of the resources and facilities
available to satisfy them.
And what of civilian requirements?
It looks as though the civilians are going
to have to rely, not on a going agency
like the Munitions -Board, but on an
M-day, revival of some of the slumber-
ing relics of the past war. The civilian
is not going to have a blueprint of his re-
quirements prepared for him through
painstaking daily work during years of
peace. No one is going to go out look-
ing for factories to produce his needs.
In time of war. .No, indeed. The only
blueprint he is going to have on M-day
For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040,0131*),
- ?
8486) CONGRESSIONAL
is one that shows the agencies which will
then be activated to see what can be done
for ' him.
The National Security Resources-
Board is not the agency which is going
to prepare the blueprints for mobiliza-
tion. These blueprints are to be pre-
pared for the military forces by. the Mu-
nitions Board, for the civilian elements
of the Nation by civil agencies to be set
up under the National Security Re-
sources Board on M-day. The function
of the National Security Resources Board
Is to take the military and civilian re-
quirements as presented to it by the Mu-
nitions Board and the revived civil
agencies and translate them into over-
all requirement programs and procure-
ment schedules?in short, to integrate
the military and civilian requirements.
Under these circumstances the same
thing will happen in the future that hap-
pened in the past. On M-day the mili-
tary experts on the Munitions Board, will
come up with a laboriously conceived
plan for industrial mobilization that
meets military requirements. The civil
agencies, still wiping the sleep from their
eyes, will have nothing yet to offer. The
National Security Resources Board will
either have to take the military blueprint
of the Munitions Board or stand by and
wait until the civil agencies have had the
necessary months to get under way. At
the beginning of the last war the same
situation confronted us. The military
had a plan for industrial mobilization and
the civilians did not. The military plans
were so militarily biased that they were
discarded. The result was, in the words
of the Navy study, "the confused plan-
ning and the hasty, often misdirected,
efforts of the first war years." When
the next war comes, if there be one, there
will be no opportunity to discard biased
military plans and wait while mobilila-
ton plans are prepared which consider
all aspects of the problem. The National
Security Resources Board will have no
alternative but to accept the military
plans for mobilization and hope that the
-national economy can stand it. ,
In its relation to the proposed Muni-
tions Board, the proposed National Se-
curity Resources Board is not unlike the
existing National Defense Council in its
relation to the existing Army_ and Navy
Munitions Board. In the years leading
up to World War II, the Army and Navy
Munitions Board had the necessary work-
ing staff to do the job of economic plan-
ning for war, and actually did so, while
the National Defense Council, with no
subordinate civilian agencies to assist it,
stood by with its hands in its pockets.
It should occasion no surprise that the
planning done by the Army and Navy
Munitions Board took, into primary ac-
count the requirements of the military
agencies, and left the residual resources,
If any, for the civilian segment of the
population. Nor should it occasion any
surprise that the biased plans of the
Army and Navy Munitions Board had to
be discarded at the start of World War II.
The basic objection to the relationship
between the National Security Resources
Board and the Munitions. Board thus
springs from the reliance which the Re-
sources Board must inevitably place
RECORD-SENATE JULY 7
upon the military Munitions Board as
its only continuously functioning subor-
dinate agency for the preparation of
plans for industrial mobilization. The
Resources Board not only has no active
subordinate civilian agencies, but does
not even have an adequate staff which
could perforril even a few of the func-
tions of such agencies. For that matter,
in the absence of a suitable staff it is
difficult to see how the Resources Board
could even perform its assigned func-
tions, let alone those of inactive civil
agencies.
A real clue to the reliance which is
to be 'placed on the Munitions Board is-
to be found in some of the activities of
the existing Army and Navy Munitions
Board, the predecessor of the Munitions
Board to be set up by Senate bill '758.
According to an article entitled' "The
Army's Plans for the Next War," which
appeared an the February 1947 issue of
the American Mercury:
The Board is setting up some '70 in-
dustrial advisory committees to deal with
all phases of governmental- and industrial
war activity. Army and Navy procurement
officers are in the field inspecting potential
war plants. The part each of these will play
in the national defense, the weapons it will
make, and even the schedule upon which it
will turn them out are being determined
now.
Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield: ?
Mr. LODGE. I may have misunder-
stood the distinguished Senator from
Wyoming, but I thought I heard him say
that in the War Department General
" Staff there are 5,000 officers. I have just
looked up that matter, and I think it is
correct to .state that at the present time
In the War Department General Staff
there are. 810 officers.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I am
advised that the General Staff of the
War. Department was 5,000, but is
slightly below that number today.
Mr. LODGE. I wonder whether the
Senator included in that number the
staff officers with the troops.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. It
may be that the Senator from Massachu-
setts is correct as to that. ,
Mr. LODGE. Of course that is en-
tirely different. There are staff officers
with the divisions in the field. But in
the War Department the staff officers
are 810.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I have
the chart for the total number, but prob-
ably the Senator from Massachusetts is
correct when he says that the number I
have stated would include the officers in
.the field, as well.
Mr. LODGE. L thank the Senator.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, here indeed is indisputable
evidence that the present Army and Navy
Munitions Board is taking the mobiliza-
tion of American industry completely
under its wing. Now let me quote a pro-
vision of Senate bill '758:
When the chairman of the Board first ap-
pointed has taken office (the chairman of
-the new Munitions Board, that is), the Joint
Army and Navy Munitions Board shall cease
to exist and all its functions, records, and
personnel shall be transferred to the Muni-
tions Board.
In short, Mr. President, the Munitions
Board is to continue to regard as its do-
main the whole of American industry.
As a matter of fact, the Army and Navy
Munitions Board is not only going into
fields that are to be the concern of civil
agencies under the Resources Board? ,
after M-day, of course?but is also going
into the problem of how those civil agen-
cies are to function. The same article in
the Mercury Magazine which I quoted
a moment ago goes on to say:
Among the other activities sponsored by
the Board is a probing analysis of the record
of the War Production Board. It has called
in- a group of outstanding civilians who
served with the WPB to dig through its his-
tory and make recommendations for the or-
ganization of a new WPB in any future war.
In short, Mr. President, the military is
going to make sure that in the next war
it will not meet the civilian opposition to
its schemes that it met during the. last
war. I hardly need suggest that the out-
standing civilians will be those whose
views, while members of the WPB, coin-
cided with the Army's views in the dis-
putes between the WPB and the General
Staff.
While on the subject of the American
Mercury article, I do not think I should
fail to give you one more quotation which
is illustrative of the ambitious plans of
the military mind:
The Army is also anxious for legislation
which would provide for a labor draft in case
'of World War HI. Overtures are now being
made to the CIO and the AFL,to win organ-
ized labor's support for such a measure.
The final clincher in the military de-
sign to secure control of the National Se-
curity Resources Board, and thereby to
secure control of the national economy in
time of war or emergency, is the inter-
locking membership between the Re-
sources Board and the Munitions Board.
This exists, not as a fact but as a possi-
bility, though a real one it is, since the
membership of the Resources Board is
unspecified, except for the Chairman,
who is to be appointed from civilian life.
Many proponents of the merger have,
suggested, in fact, that an interlock-
ing membership would be a desirable
arrangement. I think it would be dis-
astrous.
The pattern of military control of the I t
ation is carried forward another im-
ortant step in the provision of the bill
hat the Director of Central Intelligence
ay be a military officer. The bill really
oes further than this; by its emphasis
n provisions relating to a military direc-
or it suggests that the Director should
be a military officer. Originally, the bill
required a military director; the modi-
fication to permit a civilian to serve as
Director was inserted only after opposi-
tion to such an obviously improper re-
quirement. The mere fact that the bill '
still permits a military officer to serve
as Director is sufficient indication, to my 1
way of thinking, that the drafters of the
bill still expect the President to appoint ,
a military officer to the Director's job. .
It is necessary to go to Executive order
*-'to find out what the functions and
' powers of the Central Intelligence
1947
Apeviatl For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
Agency are, to be. Many of those who
have taken the trouble to do so?and I
alcomment parenthetically that it should
be unnecessary to go to an Executive
order to interpret a statute?have, re-
ported that the proposed Agency has
all the potentialities of an American
gestapo. Needless to say, it would be an
invaluable asset to militarism.
From, all- that I have so far said I hope
it will have become apparent to my col-
leagues that we are being asked, in Sen-
ate bill 758, to create a military empire
'which cannot be justified on the grounds
advanced for it, namely, those.of in,
creased effectiveness and economy, and
one which is designed to immeasurably
enhance the power Of the military over
? the general affairs of the Nation.
There can be no compromise on this
question of military versus civilian con-
trol of the policies of the Nation. There
- likewise can- be no compromise on the -
..
basic military philosophy on which our,
armed services are to be Organized. The
Army and the Navy hold diametrically '
, opposite views on this philosophy.
Unless we wish to make our Military
Establishment an arena for a continuing
struggle Which may *well plunge us down
the road to military defeat and national
downfall, we must recognize these funda-
mentally incompatible points of view,
and make a choice between them at the
very outset. -
The Army General Staff is completely
sold on the theory that everything that
flies through the air should be put in the
Air Force, everything that Walks or rolls
bn land should go to the Army, while
everything that sails on or in the water
belongs to the Navy. The Army calls
this the ideal philosophy. for the organ-
ization of the 'armed' services.
This philosophy of the Ariny is known
as the :,,ri-,elemental philosophy, Since
it segregates the components of military
power according to the natural elements
In which they operate. It might also be
called the authoritarian - philosophy,
since it was the accepted philosophy of
,.--- Napoleonic France, of Von Moltke's and
Hitler's Germany, and of Mussolini's
Italy-. It is the Russian military phi-
losophy today. ? ?
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
yield. .
Mr. GURNEY. I understand that the
Senator from Wyoming -would prefer to
conchtde his remarks on Wednesday, for
I understand that tomorrow we are to
have other business before the Senate.
As chairman of the committee and Sen-
ator-in-charge of this bill, it -is not my
inteation in any way to hold any Sena-
tor on the floor tonight.' I should have
0 no objection to some understanding, at
least, that the Senator from Wyoming
could have the floor again on Wednes-
day when this bill would come up for
consideration as the unfinished business.
If that is agreeable to. the Senator from
Wyoming, I would just as soon have the
Senate take a recess at this time.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, I am in no sense a filibusterer,
and I: would, indeed, appreciate- having
such action taken.
Mr. WIIITE. Mr. President, the un-
derslanding is that tomorrow the Sen-
ate will proceed with the disposition of
the Doosley nomination. The Senate will
meet at 1`1 o'clock, and the vote will oc-
cur at 4. 1 would be my hope that we
might then .oceed, after 4 o'clock, to
dispose of oth matters on the Execu-
tive Calendar.
The PRESIDE T pro tempore. The
Chair will state t'q the Senator from
Maine that there is also an agreement
that after 4 o'clocl a parliamentary
point of reference resp ting Joint Reso-
lution 145 is to be sett d.
Mr. WHI.i'E. .Then y suggestion
would not be a happy one, but from 11
o'clock until 4 the day woll*cl be given
to the consideration of the Dobley nomi-?
'nation.
The PRESIDENT pro tempbre, The
time from 4 to 6 is to be given- bo the
appeal from the decision of the Ckair.
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, Nin
keeping with what the majority leader
has said about the program for tomor-
row, I think it should also be stated, so
that Senators can prepare for the bal-
ance of the week, that the policy com-
mittee desired to have it announced that,
if it meets with the pleasure of the Sen-
ate, at the completion of action on the
unification bill, which it is hoped will be
by Thursday afternoon at least, the tax
bill will be ready to be. reported, and will
have the right-of-way on Thursday and
Friday, if, as I have stated, action on the
unification bill shall be concluded on
Thursday. It is the intention of the
policy committee to have the Senate sit
on Saturday, if necessary, in order to
complete the consideration of the tax billt
if that is possible. So that Senators
should hold themselves in readiness for
a session Saturday, if it becomes nec-
essary that One be held.
Mr. MORSE. I am wondering if the
? Senator has in mind a meeting on Sun-
day, as well.
Mr. WHERRY. I will say with a great
deal of optimism that it is my hope that
it will not be necessary for the Senate
to meet on Sunday, but such, an emer-
gency might arise.
NOMINATION OF JOE B. 'DOOLEY
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, as in
executive session, I ask unanimous con-
sent that there be printed' in the RECORD
endorsement of the nomination of Mr.
Joe B. Dooley to be United States district
judge by 15 former presidents of the bar
association of the State of Texas. -
There being no objection, the com-
munications were ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, as follows:
DALLAS, TEx., July 5, 1947.
Senator Tom CoNrivim.y,
Senate Office Building:
As former presidents of the State Bar As-
sociation of Texas we unanimously certify to
the character and ability of Joe Dooley and
endorse him for United States district judge.
D. A. Simmons, of Houston; Robert W.
Stayton, of Austin; T. W. Davidson,
' -of Dallas; A. H. Britain, of Wichita
Falls; Henry P. Burney, of San An-
tonio; H. C. Pipkin, of Amarillo;
Ben H. Powell, of Austin; John C.
.Townes, of Houston; Few Brewster,
,of Temple; Gordon Simpson, of
# Tyler; James L. Shepherd, 'of
i; Houston.
, 8487
HARLINGEN, TEX., February 4, 1947:
Senator Tom CONNALLY,
Washington, D. C.:
I respectfully endorse the nomini-ition of
Hon. Joe 13. Dooley, of Amarillo, for judge of
the western district of Texas. He is held in
high esteem by the bench and bar of Texas
and in my opinion his appointment is one
of the best made during my legal experience.
He posses the attributes of character, judicial
temperment, and moral integrity of. the high-
est degree and will reflect credit upon the
Federal judiciary if confirmed. ,-
CLAUDE E. CARTER,
Former President, State Ear of Texas.
BEAUMONT, TEx., February 5, 1947.
Hon. ALEXANDER WILE'Y,
United States Senator, Chairman
of the, Senate Judiciary Committee,
Senate Office Building,
Washingtoz, D. C.:
I notice that the Senate Judiciary Com-
mittee is considering the appointment of
Mr. Joe B. Dooley, of, Amarillo, Tex., for
judge of the United States District Court
for the western district of Texas. I know
Mr. Dooley to be an able, outstanding lawyer,
and legal scholar during my term as presi-
dent of the State bar of Texas, 1943-44,
during which time he served as vice presi-
debit of such State bar. I had occasion to
be tiksociated with him often and to hear
comments of the Texas lawyers as to him.
From this I feel, and believe that a large
majority\ of the Texas lawyers feel that he
is fully qualified to make an able judge of
the United. States District gourt. Accord-
ingly I desir'6 to add my name to those recom-
mending hirsi\to your committee.
MAJOR T. BELL,
_Former President, State Bar of Texas.
DALLAs?TEx., February 5, 1947.
Senator ALEXANDER WILEY,
Chairman, SenatkJudiciary Committee:
Mr.' Joe Dooley, nominated for district
judge, northern district of Texas, is a man
of the highest integrity and a lawyer of
the first order of ability.\ He has had wide
and varied experience, and is one of the
'most outstanding lawyers of Texas. He
possesses the personal qualities of courtesy,
patience, fairnes, and courage. He is thor-
oughly grounded in the principles of the
Constitution and the body m of\the law, and
'as a judge will perfor 'his dut impartially
and fearlessly. The lawyers of 'Texas over-
whelmingly approve his appointMent. I was
formerly chief justice of the emirt of civil
appeals at San Antonio and was '-last year
president of the State bar of Texas,?.succeed-
ing Mr. Dooley in the latter position. I
make this personal reference to give'\ assur-
ance of my basis of opinion and to 'afford
the committee, in considering the nomina-
tion, the assistance that is due from the. bar.
JOHN H. BICKETT, Jr.,
. Former President, State Bar of TexaS.
DALLAS, TEX., July 7, 1947.
Hon. Tom CONNALLY,
Senate Office Building:
Please add my endorsement, Joe Doolef;
was not present when other past president
Texas bar endorsement was sent.
ANGUS G. WYNNE'. ,
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I al-
so ask to have printed endorsements of
Mr. Dooley's nomination from repre-
sentative members of the State bar in
Texas. '
There being no objection, the com-
munications were ordered to be printed
In the RECORD, as follows:
8488
(
plSved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002010494901-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS,
SEVENTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT,
Amarillo, Tex., June 12, 1944.
Hon. TOM CONNALLY,
United States Senator of Texas,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR SENATOR CONNALLY: It seems to be
generally known that there will soon be a
vacancy due to the retiring of one of the
?juclz,es of the United 'States District Court
of the Northern District of Texas, and we are
all interested in seeing a good, strong, active
successor appointed.
Since the western and northwestern part
of the district has never had a man on the
court, we feel that we are in a position to
urge a most earnest consideration of the ap-
pointment of a good man who we believe
would be the most acceptable man to the
bar generally in the district. We recommend
without reservation and urge the appoint-
ment of Joe B. Dooley, of Amarillo, when
the vacancy occurs.
Mr. Dooley s well and favorably known
throughout the State. He has the qualifica-
tions and we think he possesses the natural
ability 'for such a position. He has never
been in politics but has exercised consider-
able influence in strengthening the judiciary
and in trying to keep it above criticism. He
has been closely identified with the organi-
zations of. the legal profession, is an out-
standing and popular leader within their
ranks, and has their confidence and respect.
He is a merriber of the law firm of Under-
wood, Johnson, Dooley & Wilson, of Amarillo,
and enjoys a good practice: He is old enough
to be settled and deliberate, yet- young
enough to be active and alert, with the pros-
pect of at least a score of years of valuable
service ahead of him.
Hoping this matter will have your most
earnest consideration at the proper time,
and assuring you of my. personal regards, I
am,
Very truly yours,
E. L. Prrrs,
. Chief Justice.
STAMFORD, TEX., February 16, 1947.
Hon. Tom CONNALLY,
Senate Office Building:
Advise Dooley if prairie-dog law,yer can
assist to call me collect. He is suited and
Qualified for appointment by nature, char-
acter, balance, integrity, experience, ability,
and judicial temperament. A vast majority
of the lawyers of the district will be pleased
by hls confirmation.
CHAS. E. COOMBES.
AMARILLO, TEX., February 9, 1947.
Senator Tom CONNALLY,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.:
My occupation is that of a cattleman and
farmer. This expression is prompted by no
one. I have known Joe Dooley as a gentle-
man and friend for 25 years. I' have no ax
to grind. As a student of the law he is re-
garded very highly and thorough. In my
opinion-he will discharge his duties on the
Federal bench in an honorable and unim-
peachable manner.
Respectfully yours,
BEN MASTERSON.
. STOCKTON, Tgx., February 25, 1947.
Senator Tom CONNALLY, ? .
Senate Building: ?
Believing; the vast majority of the lawyers
of Texas desire the appointment of Joe B.
Dooley, of Amarillo, as district judge for the
northern district of Texas, I want to express
my appreciation' of your continued efforts
-on his b,..half.
TRAVERS CRUMPTON,
' District.,Attorney,
4;ighty-third Judicial District of Texas.
EL PASO, TEX., February 24, 1947.
Hon. TONI CONNALLY,
Senate Chamber:
As an outstanding lawyer and gentleman,
Joe Dooley is entitled to the appointment
as United States district judge, northern
district of Texas. We earnestly urge your
continued support.
MAURY KEMP.
EUGENE R. SMITH.
J. M. GOGGIN.
WYNDHAM K. WHITE.
EL PASO, TEX., February 24, 1947.
Senator Tom CONNALLY:
We are enthusiastically endorsing the ap-
- pointment of Mr. Joe Dooley as district judge.
CYRUS H. JONES.
THORNTON HARDIE.
ALLEN 11: GRAMBLING.
HEN R. HOWELL. ?
WILLIAM B. HARDIE.
-,Et. PASO, TEX., March 6, 1947.
Senator Tom CONNALLY,
Senate Office Building:
Heartily approve your stand on appoint-
. ment. of Joe B. Dooley and will appreciate
your continued efforts on his behalf.
.7. L. RASBERRY.
SAN ANGELO, TEX., February 26, 1947.
Hon. Tom CONNALLY,
United States Senate:
The undersigned attorneys of San Angelo
and, we think, Practically our entire bar here
strongly commend your stand on appoint-
ment of Dooley as United States district
judge. He is worthy of the honor and we
wish you success in your effort to secure his
confirmation.
Lloyd Ker, Louis Gayer, B. W. Smith,
W. A. Griffis, Travis Baker, Herschel
Upton, Lee Upton, Tom Lear, C. T.
Dalton, James P. Farrell, Olin
Blanks, John Logan, H. E. Jackson,
Scott Snodgrass.
DALLAS, TEX., July 4, 1947.
Senator Tom CONNALLY,
Senate Office Building,
Washingtem, D. C.:
The 1911 law class of the University of
Texas of which Joe B. Dooley, of Amarillo, is
a distinguished member held its thirty-sixth
annual reunion in cooperation with the State
bar in Dallas today. Forty-six members con-
sisting of more than two-thirds of the sur-
viving members of the class were present
representing every political thought in Texas
today. By unanimous vote the class in-
structed the undersigned to assure you that
Joe B. Dooley is an outstanding lawyer of the
very highest personal integrity, Tully capable
of discharging any responsibility and de-
serving of any honor that may be conferred
upon him. Copy of this telegram is being
sent to Senator W. LEE O'DANIEL.
C. M. CALDWELL, Abilene, Tex.,
President.
EUGENE L. HARRIS, of 'Houston,
Secretary'.
Mr. CONNALLY. I also ask to have
printed a tabulation of the civil cases
handled in the United States Federal
Court for the Northern District of Texas..
There being no objection, the matter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Tabulation of civil cases, U. S. Federal Court,
Northern District of Texas
Fort Worth 1,212
Amarillo 816
Lubbock 603
Abilene - 446
1
JULY 7
Wichita Falls 388
San Angelo 184
Amarillo and Lubbock 1,319
Abilene, Wichita Falls, and San An-
gelo 1,010
Amarillo, Lubbock, Abilene, Wichita
Falls, and San Angelo 2,337
-The above tabulation is based on letters
from the clerks offices at the several cities
named covering the number of civil suits
filed at said respective offices of the Federal
court in the northern district of Texas since
the effective date of the Federal rules of civil
procedure, which was September 16, 1938.
The Fort Worth letter is dated October 11,
1946, the Amarillo letter October 15, 1946,
and the Lubbock, Abilene, Wichita Falls,
San Angelo letters all dated October 14, 1946.
'ADDITIONAL REPORT OF SPECIAL COM-
MITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE NA-
TIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAM?IWPER-
AMERICAN HIGHWAY (S. REPT. NO. 440)
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I
wish to file with the Senate a report from
the Special Senate Committee Investi-
gating the National Defense Program on
its investigation of the Inter-American
Highway. I ask unanimous consent to
submit the report, and request that it be
printed with illustrations.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-
out objection, the report will be received
and printed as requested by the Senator
from Michigan.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President; be-
fore sending the report to the desk, I
desire to make a brief statement con-
cerning the committee's investigation.
In one respect, Mr. President, the corn-?
mittee's investigation of the Inter-Amer-
ican Highway differs from many of the
other investigations the special commit-
tee has conducted. This investigation -
was a job given the committee by the
Senate itself. It was not a matter which
the committee had decided to go into
from its general investigation of war ex-
penditures. I think it would be helpful
for the record to recall, briefly, the cir-
cumstances under which our committee
undertook this work.
In June, 1945, Fulton- Lewis, Jr., the.
commentator, in a series of radio broad-
casts, attacked some aspects of the
manner in which sections of the Inter-
American Highway in , Central America
had been built by the Army engineers.
Mr. Lewis recited information obtained
, from people who had worked on the
project. Transcripts of these broadcasts
were made a part of the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD by certain Members of the Sm-
ate. A number of Senators, during the
course of the debates, urged that the
matter be thoroughly explored by the
Special Senate Committee Investigating
the National Defense Program.. As one
of the Senators on the floor at that par-
ticular time, I. as a member of the com-
mittee, thought the program should be
investigated by the Senate committee,
and so expressed myself.
On June 19, 1945, former Senator
James M. Mead, then the chairman of
the committee, announced in a speech
on the floor of the Senate that the com-
mittee would undertake the investigation.
Subsequently, a subcommittee was ap-
pointed, of which the chairman was the
nrsrnvc "0a40001711eR
-?
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
_Enr Rele.ase 2006/
.5 ? _CIA:RDPqn-OnAl 0R000200040001-1
94,7
AppFoved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
CONC-111E,SL,NL.1_, 2E7'0 F)-SENATE
" '(C) Acalinted gross income less than
aaf,aa: :if the aefjusted gross income is less
than $5.0:00, the, standard deduction shall be
an aricanta, equal to 10 percent of the ad-
justed .aroas income upon the basis of which
the 'Lax' applicable to the adjusted gross in-
come of --.the taxpayer is determined und.er
the tax ta 'al0 provided in section 103:
"(c; be years to which applicable:
The amaindaments made by this section shall
be applicablca.with respect to taxable years
Walla ag after :December 31, 1947. For treat-
ment G: taxable ,years beginning in 1947 and
enc....g in 1046, see section 6."
ICCTICF OF MOT.:f..PN TO SUSPEND THE
-- AMENDMENT TO MILITARY
ESTABLISHMENT PROPRIATION BIL
Mr. GURNEY subrnitted the following
notice :in v.7riting:
:in accordance with XL:- of the
.nding Rules of the Senate, I hereby
: notice in wri'iing thak it is my in-
Eon to move to suspend paragraph
of rule XVI for the purpose\ of propos-
ing to the bill (H. R. 3378) Making 'ap-
propriations for the Military Eatablish-
meat for the fiscal year ending ;Jane 30,
IC L3, and fcr other purposes, the f I:low-
ing amendment, ria
On page 50, after section 17, insert a, ew
section aea,ding as follows:
.
'Sac. 11. Tile limitation imposed by sect
7.a. la of the Oct of May 24, 1946 (60 stata.
, El:an not apply during the fiscal year
loaa to ouch personnel as the Secretary of
War may dater:nine: to be necessary in lieu
of military personnel authorized and appro-
priated for to carry out the purposes of this
act: Paavie,ea, That not to exceed 25,000
civilian employees may be employed under
the authority ca -Ills section."
Mr. GURN-1.? also submitted an
amendment, intended' to be proposed by
him to tdc ate bill 3673, making appro-
priations for the Military Establishment
foi? the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948,
and for other purposes, which was or-
dc:-0:, to lie on the table and to. be
? (Por text, of amendment referred to,
see the foregoing notice.) ? .
0:F THE REMAINS OF MEMBERS
? OF ARMED aaORCES KILLED IN WAR
Ma. LODGE. Mr. President, at the
last ca2.1 of the calendar objected to the
unaiiiiiieus consent cora:: ..ntion of or-
dor No. 504, House bill aa:. 3 amend the
aa,. entitled "An act to provide for the
e- nos and return of the remains
of certain persons who died and are
bufiod o:itsida the continental limits of
the United States," approved May 16,
10-:.3, in order to provide for the ship-
ment o: the remains of World War II
dead to the. homeland of the deceased or
of next of kin, to provide for the dispo-
sition of group and mass burials, to pro-
vide for the burial of unknown American
World War II dead in United States mili-
tary cemeteries to be established over-
'seas, to authorize the Secretary of War
to accaaire land overseas and to estab-
Loh United States military cemeteries
thereon, and for other purposes.
Since making that objection I have
conferred with officers in the Department
in charge of this function, and I find
that all the doubts I. had entertained are
resolved. I therefore withdraw the ob-
jection.
The De.7,2i2ID:12,NT pro 17;oes
the Senator desire the present consider-
ation of the bill?
Mr. LODGE. No; I do not desire that.
I merely want the REconD to show that I
have withdrawn ray objection.
MEETING OF COMMITTEE DURING
SENATE SESSION
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Subcom-
mittee on Health of the Committee on
Labor and Public Welfare be permitted
to hold a hearing during the session of
the Senate today.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-
out objection, the order is made.
MORALS OF SELLING LIQUOR- ICLE
FROM KIPLINGER
[Mr. CAPPER asked and obtained, leave to
have printed in the REcoan an article entitled
"Morals of Selling Liquor," published in the
July 1947 issue of Hiplinger magazine, which
appears in the Appendix.]
k'Ul LE SOVIET AGREEMENTS -EDITO-
RIAL FROM THE WASHINGTON DAILY
NEWS
[Mr. MoCLELLAN asked and obtained leave
to have printed in the Rsoorm an editorial
entitled "Futile Soviet Agreements," pub-
lished in the Washington Daily News of July
9, 1947, which appeals in the Appendix.]
BET .a.alat GOVERNMENT-EDITORIAL FROM
THE WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS
\[Mr. McCLELLAN asked and obtained leave
toahave printed in the REaorm an editorial
the ashington Daily News, July 9, 1947,
entitled "Better Government," published in
whichl,ppears in the Appendix."
A CAPITALIST LOOKS AT LABOR-
ARTICLE' BY CYfaU5 EATON
[Mr. MORSE asked and obtained leave to
have printer' In the RECORD an article entitled
"A Capitalist Looks at Labor," by Cyrus Eaton,
published in the University of Chicago Law
Review for April, 1947, which appears in the
Appendix.]
REFUSAL TO ACC= GOVERNMENT SUB-
SIDYLETTER F2a01,1 JOE M. BAKER
[Mr. WILEY asked 'and obtained leave to
have printed in the I:Zucca:a a letter from
? Joe M. Baker, district fireproof Lades man-
. ager of the Milcor Steel Co., of Washington,
D. C., together with an article by Edwin A.
Lahey, which appear in the ',Appendix.]
WALTER CHANDLER-AD7RESS BY
WALTER P. ARMSTP.CNG
STPI, a/ART asked and obtained leave
to have printed in the RECORD an address
entitled "Walter Cha.ncller-Citizena Lawyer,
Soldier, Public Servant," delivered by Walter
P. Armstrong, of the Memphis bar, at a_ testi-
monial dinner given to Walter Chandler in
Memphis on September 20, 1946, which ap-
pears in the Appendix.]
AUTHORIZATION FOR RE.- 'T FROM,
FINANCE CONIMITIEE'
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President,
Committee on :Finance has favorably re-
ported House bill 3050, a bill for the re-
duction of taxes. I ask unanimous con-
sent to be permitted to submit a .report
by midnight tonight.
The PRESIDING 0.10.eaCER. Withou
objection, permission is granted.
MRS. MrLDRED WELLS MARTIN
The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid' be-
fore the Senate the amendments 9:Z the
of Jtejorcsentatives to the bill (S.
MO) lea tie relief of Mrs. Mildred Wells
which were, on page 1, line 7,
ii.:"i-fisert "; to pay the aura of
;;'2,523 to ties. Mabel Jones, of Camden,
S. C."; Gn page 1, line 10, strike out "the'
said Mrs. Mildred Wells Martin" and
insert "them"; on page 1, line 11, strike
out "she was" and insert "they were";
on page 1, line 11, strike out "a pas-
senger" and insert "passengers"; and to
amend the title so as to read: "An act
for the relief of Mrs. Mabel Jones and
Mrs. Mildred Wells Martin."
Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate concur in the.
amendments of the House..
The motion was agreed to.
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT-
APPROVAL OF BILLS
Messages in writing from the Presi-
dent of the United States were com-
municated to the Senate by Ma. Miller,
one of his secretaries, and he announced
that on today, July 9, 1947, the President
had approved and signed the following
acts:.
5.394. An act authorizing the issuance of
a patent in fee to Raymond Wesley Doyle;
S. 396. An act authorizing the issuance of
a patent, in fee to Thurlow Grey Doyle;
S.397. An act authorizing the issuance of
a patent in fee to Lawrence Stanley Doyle;
S..393. An act authorizing the issuance or:
a .patent In fee to Spencer Burgess Doyle;
and
S.399. An act authorizing the issuance of
a patent in fee to Gladys May Doyle.
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As in executive session, -
The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid be-
fore the Senate messages from the Fresi-
* dent of the United States submitting
?sundry nominations, which were referred
to the appropriate committees.
(For ? nominations- this day receia
see the end of Senate proceedings.)
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE-ENROLLED
BILLS AND -JOINT RESOLUTION SIGNED
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its read-
ing clerks, announced that the Speaker
had affixed his signature to the following
enrolled bills and joint resolution, and
they were. signed by ?resident pro j
tempore:
s. 640. An. act to authorize the Secretary
of Commerce to sell certain property occupied ?
the Weather Bureau at East Lansing,
Lich., and to obtain other quarters for the
s Lid Bureau in the State of Michigan;
S. 1316. An act to establish a procedure for
:aicilitating the payment of certain Covent-
;.lent checks, and for other purposes;
H. R. 494. An act to reorganize the system
of parole of priscahers convicted in. the Dis-
1 aict of Columbia;
H. R. 3737. An act to provide revenue for
aim- District of Columbia, and for other pur-
poses; and
H. J. Res. 170. Joint resolution authorizing
of a
memorial to Andrew. W. Mellon.
UNIFICATION OF THE. ARMED SERVICES
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 758)' to promote the na-
tional security by providing for a National
Defense Establishment, which shall be
adminia ..red by a Secrc ..ary of National
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020 040001-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE JULY 9
Dcfense, and for a Department of the
Army, a Department of the Navy, and a
Department of the Air Force within the
National Defense Establishment, and for
:.be coordination of the activities of the
National Defense Establishment with
other departments and agencies of the
Government concerned with the national
security. ?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming ob-
tained the floor.
Mr. WHERRY, Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The?
clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the
following Senators answered to their
names: .
Aiken
Bl5whi
:3all
L rkley
Ero'vster
Bricker
Bridges
Brooks
3ucl;
13mhfreld
Butler
Byrd
Cam
Capper.
Chavez
. Connally
Cooper
Cordon
Donnell
Dworshak
Ecton
Ellender
Ferguson
Flanders
Fulbri.ght
George
Green
Gurney
Hatch
. Hawkes
Hayden O'ConOr
Hickenlooper O'Daniel
Hill O'Mahoney
Hoey . Overton
Holland Pepper -
Jenner Reed
Johnson, Colo. Revercomb
Johnston, S. C. Robertson, Va.
Rem Robertson, Wyo.
Kilgore Russell
Knowland Saltonstall
Smith
Sparkman
Stewart
Taft
Taylor
Thomas, Okla.
Thye
Tydings
Umstead
Vandenberg
Watkins
Wherry
White
Wiley
Williams
Wilson
Young
Langer
Lodge
Lucas
McCarran -
McCarthy
McClellan
McFarland
McGrath
McKellar
McMahon
Magnuson
Malone
Martin
Maybank
Millikin
Moore
Morse
Murray
Myers
Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the
Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPER/1AT] is
absent by leave of the Senate.
The Senator from New. York [Mr.
.lives] is absent by leave of the Senate
because of a death in his immediate
family.
t! The Senator from New Hampshire
[Mr. TOBEY] is necessarily absent be-
cause of illness in his family.
Mr. LUCAS. I announce that the
Senator from California [Mr. DoWNEY]
is absent by leave of the Senate.
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr.
EASTLAND] is absen a public business.
The Senator from 'Utah [Mr. THOMAS]
is absent by leave of the Senate, having
been appointed a delegate to the Inter-
national Labor Conference at Geneva,
Switzerland.
The Senator from New York [Mr.
WAGNER] is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore.
Eighty-eight Senators having answered
to their names, quorum is present.
1V1r. ..OBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
. President, when consideration of Sen-
ate bill 758 was temporarily suspended
on Monday I had, up to that time, en-
deavored to show that the bill provided
for a complete merger of the armed
forces in every aspect. I had also en-
deavored to point out that the savings
which were estimated to result from the
paesage of the bill would not in fact re-
sult; that on the contrary the set-up as
envisioned under S. 758 would vastly in-
crease tlie .cost c the operation of our
armed services.
I had also pointed oat many, many in-
stances of coordination between the
Army and Navy which. had taken place
without the benefit of any merger, and
which were increasing day by day until
there Was almost complete coordination
in practically every function of the
Army, the Navy, and the Air Force which
it was possible to coordinate.
I had also endeavored to point out to
the Senate the dangers of the military
dominance of not only the military sys-
tem of the country but of our whole
economic system.
Now, Mr. President, I desire to dis-
cuss for a short time the different con-
cepts of the Army, Navy, and Air Force
with regard to the basic set-up of our
armed services.
The Army General Staff is completely
sold on the theory that everything that
flies through the air should be put in
the Air Force, everything that walks or
rolls on land should go to the Army,
while everything that sails on or in the
water belongs to the Navy. The Army
calls this the "ideal" philosophy for the
organization of the armed forces.
This philosophy of the Army is known
as the "trielemental" philosophy, since
it segregates the components of military
power according to the natural elements
in which they operate. It might also be
called the "authoritarian" philosophy,
?since it was the accepted philosophy of
Napoleonic France, of Von IVIoltke's and
Hitler's Germany,- and of Mussolini's
. Italy. It is the Russian military phil-
osophy today.
The paper simplicity of trielemental
concept is its leading attraction for those
who are unfamiliar with military prob-
lems. There is something very alluring
about a concept which puts the various
military components into such neat com-
partments. It looks obvious and eco-
nomical to have all aircraft under a
single management?the same with ships
and ground troops. But those who are
familiar with all the ramifications and
problems involved know that the sim-
plicity and the economy are not realized
in a practical application of the concept.
? The truth of the matter is that the
conduct of warfare becomes more rather
than less complicated under the triele-
mental philosophy. The reason for this
lies in the fact that the trielemental con-
cept makes every major military opera-
tion a joint operation. Even amateur
students of warfare know that ground
operations require close air support as
well as aerial observation, reconnais-
sance, and spotting of artillery fire.
They know that naval operations rely
heavily upon aviation for attack on sur-
face targets, and for reconnaissance,
gunfire spotting, and aerial defense.
They know also that amphibious opera-
tions require the highly coordinated use
of ground, sea, and air forces. Every
major operation thus demands the par-
ticipation of at least two of the military
components which are completely segre-
gated by the trielemental concept.
Since the trielemental philosophy
makes every important operation a joint
operation it forces on us the necessity
of habitually maintaining joint com-
mands, joint administrative echelons,
joint logistic structures, all of these in
addition to the completely developed
structures set up separately to admin-
ister the ground forces, the sea forces,
and the air forces. Instead of the sim-
ple and economical structure hoped for,
the trielemental concept in its prac-
tical application requires us to maintain
an exceedingly complex and costly over-
head structure replete with duplications.
The objections of complexity and cost
are secondary, of corse, to the primary
question of military effectiveness, and
here the objections to the trielemental
concept are even more cogent. The co-
ordination of ground, sea, and air ele-
ments in a modern campaign is a most
difficult problem. Split second timing,
rapid shifting of forces, and. intimate
familitarity of one element with the
problems of the others are of para-
mount importance. These are not easily
achieved, if they can be achieved at all,
in a trielemental system where mixed
forces must be assembled for each job,
under a temporary joint command.
The question may well be asked, Why,
in the face of these objections which are
obvious to any 'Military dilettante, would
the Army and the Air Force support such
a philosophy? The answer lies in a cor-
ollary of the trielemental concept?a
corollary which says that one element of
the armed services should dominate the
others. In the past, when the triele-
mental concept has held sway, the domi-
nant element has been the Army?hence
the attractiveness of this philosophy for
the Army. In the future the Air Force
hopes to become the dominant element?
hence the attractiveness of the triele-
mental philosophy for the Air Force.
The corollary of armed services combi-
nation by a single element springs
largely from the premise that an ele-
ment which is common to all operations
should occupy the key position. The
Army points to the fact that all warfare
reaches its final conclusion on land,
.hence they argue that the land element
is the common element and should domi-
nate. They fortify this argument by re-
citing the relative strengths of the vari-
ous elements and by pointing out that
even navies and air forces require land
bases and are to that extent always de-
pendent on the land forces for a place
from which to operate. The. German
Army used this same argument effec-
tively in establishing its own dominance
of the German armed forces.
The Air Force does not go along all the
way with this line of reasoning, of course.
They are willing to agree to the general
premise that if there is a common ele-
ment to all operations it should domi-
nate the armed services. They think,
? however, that aviation will eventually
? become the common element. The mat-
ter of relative service size does not bother
them particularly, as they hope the pres-
ent size relationship will shift in their
favor before very long. They brush'aside
as inconsequential the Army's contention
that wars are fought from land bases for
land objectives.
There are other reasons why the Army
and the Air Force are intrigued with the
trielernental philosophy. Its rigid corn-
partmentalization would put naval and
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200046001-1
1947 CONGRESL FCECC::-.D?SE:NTATE
Marine Corps aviation out of business or
into the Air Force, and would pat the
lieet marine force out of business or in
the Army. The Army and Air Force
have itched for years to take over these
elements of the Navy. Such desires of
the Army and Air Force are really side
however. Their real aim is the
donimation of the armed services as a
whole. If the ft,C?C'i States accepts the
trielemental cc along with its cor-
ollary of single-service domination, the
stage be set for the most spectacular
interservice battle this country has ever
seen--the battle between the Army and
the Air Force to determine which one
will be top dog in the United States
defense establishment.
It may be that the trielemental philos-
ophy, with its corollary of single-service
domination, is the correct philosophy for
a country which is forced by geography
or by other influences to concentrate the
major portion of its strength in a single
element of its armed forces?for a coun-
try which can safely relegate its other'
military components to a subordinate
role.
We have the word of General von
Brauchitsch that it was the proper thing
for the Germans to do. It may also be
? that it is the proper philosophy for a
totalitarian state. No less an expert
than General Keitel, Hitler's chief of
staff, wrote that the organization of the
German armed forces command, the ul-
timate embodiment of the trielemental
philosophy, represented "the most logi-
cal and most efficient solution for an
authoritarian state."
Before we accept these opinions, how-
ever., we shou'id not overlook the misuse
, of the German Air Force and Navy which
resulted from the German acceptance of
the trielemental philosophy, nor should
we overlook the historical misuse of
navies and air forces by other countries
which made the same decision. Without
exception, those nations which have em-
braced the trielemental philosophy in the
past have gone down to military defeat.
Let us not follow their example.
Opposite the trielemental philosophy
is the task force or functional philosophy
espoused by the Navy. This might also
be called the democratic philosophy, in-
asmuch as it is the traditional military
-philosophy of the democratic nations of
the world. In this concept, land power,
s;:a ;Gwen and air power are recognized
as the basic elements of over-all mili-
tary power, rather than ground troops,
ships, mid aircraft. One component of
the armed services, the Army, is made
responsible for the exercise of land pow-
er and is given the necessary forces?
primaaily land forces, but including nec-
essary air and sea auxiliaries?to do the
? jam By the same token the Navy is
given the requisite 'sea, air, and amphi-
bious ground forces to wield cl.'. itive sea
power? while the -air force is equipped
with appropriate air, land, and sea forces
to exert strategic air power. Each serv-
ice thus constitutes a balanced arm to
077erc:.:se one particular aspect of over-
_ military power. -
The chief advantage of the task-force
philosophy, as contrasted with the tai-
-elemental philosophy, is that it provis:...:s
a far more en aramairalon of the
several eleamaiir of miartny s irena..11.
It is well aray: a. that nie enereise of
land power hive. -ars a ancat deal more
than the efforts of gronnai troops. In
particular, it involves the closely coordi-
nated use of aviation to provide oaser-
vation of the battlefield, to report de-
velopments behind the immediate field
of operations, to spot and adjust artil-
lery fire, and to bomb and strafe enemy
troops and positions which are holding
up the ground advance. These support-
ing missions can be carried out effec-
tively only by aviation which is organic
to the ground troops, which has trained,"
habitually with ground troops, and
which is under the immediate control of
the ground commander. Effective land
power thus demands that the ground
force be constituted as a balance force
comprising not only ground elements,
but aviation elements as well. By simi-
lar reasoning, organic water-borne ele-
ments are also a necessity for a balanced
ground force. The ground commander
should not be fOrced to call upon a naval
commander for the boats required to ef-
fect a river crossing.
Air power, on the other hand, seeks
to destroy the enemy's will and ability
to fight, not by attacking his troops on
the field of battle, but by direct attack
on his seat of government and the main
elements of his war economy. It also
bears the primary responsibility for de-
fending the Nation against aerial at-
tack. It cannot discharge these respon-
sibilities with aircraft alone. It, too,
demands a balanced force. It must have
the means to defend its ground installa-
tions against surprise attacks from the
ground. It must have the antiaircraft
troops to complete its aerial defense
of the Nation, and it must have the boats
and other naval appurtenances neces-
sary to operate strategic bombers from
seaplane bases.
The Navy has always been constituted
as a balanced force for the exercise of
sea power. It has maintained a sub-
stantial aviation component for aerial
defense of the fleet, for aerial attack of
naval targets, for antisubmarine war-
fare, for sea reconnaissance, and for ob-
servation and control of naval gunfire.
It has maintained a fleet marine force
for the seizure and defense of the bases
required for .fleet operations.
Much of the success of the recent
naval campaign in the Pacific was di-
rectly due to the fact th?at naval avia-
tion had been maintainen for years as
an organic part of the Navy, was sub-
ject to Navy command, and was thor-
oughly familiar with naval operations.
Similarly the fleet marine force was an
effective force in amphibious operations
because it had been maintained as an
arm of the fleet, had developed amphibi-
ous techniques in conjunction with the
fleet, understood fleet operations, and
contained a marine aviation component
which was expert in the support of am-
phibious forces.
The taan-forca philosophy leads to
economy as well as military effective-
ness. Most warfare is capable of divi-
sion into well-defined areas where land
power, sea power, and air power are ap-
plied individually and independently, ex-
8661
cent for the over-all coordination at the
very top lavel.
Li Europe, after the Normandy land-
ings, the cembined armies of the United
States, Great Britain, and France en-
gaged in ? a tremendous land campaign
which embraced all the elements of land
power and which was entirely apart from
the strategic air offensive against the
heart of Germany. The latter was a
manifestation of air power. At the same
time that land power and air power were
being exerted in Europe, sea power was
keeping open the Atlantic lanes for the
transport of supplies and manpower. In
the Central Pacific, meanwhile, sea power
was being pushed to the very doorstep
of Japan, setting the stage for the exer-
cise of air power against the Japanese
war potential and the eventual- exercise
of land power on the home soil of Japan.
It is only in the marginal areas that
land power, sea power, and air power
are exercised in conjunction with each
other, and there only for relatively short
periods. Under the task force philoso-
phy, such joint undertakings are of a
transitory nature, marking the shift in.
emphasis in a particular area from sea
power to air power, from sea power to
land power, or from air power to land
power. Under the task force concept,
joint operations are therefore of com-
paratively rare occurrence and are short-
lived. We are not faced with the con-
tinual necessity of maintaining joint
commands. The task force philosophy
thus insures a simple command, admin-
istrative, and logistic structure, one
which is immeasurably more effective
and economical than the dual structure
required by the trielemental concept.
Inasmuch as the task force philosophy
renders joint operations the exception
rather than the rule, no single service
appears as a common element in every
major operation, and ,there is no result-
ing corollary that a single service should
dominate the others. There is, in fact,
no place whatsoever in the task force
concept for the combination of the armed
services by a single element, since the
task force philosophy is the characteris-
tic philosophy of nations which must
place equal or nearly equal reliance on
air power, sea power, and land power for
survival. Such nations dare not permit
the subordination of any of these ele-
ments to another.
The task force philosophy has been
the traditional American philosophy, just
as it has been the traditional military
philosophy of all major _democratic na-
tions. It is the p1-17,7 :r;phy which has
enabled these natie, naild incompa-
rable military machinas without surren-
dering to them the power of government.
It is also the philosophy which has
emerged victorious in every modern war.
It is obvious that these two philoso-
phies are implacably opposed to each
other. In view of the manifest impos-
sibility of compromising these concepts,
and in view of the unwillingness of the
Army and the Navy to surrender their
conscientious convictions, it is not
prising to find that the merger bill now
being considered glosses over this all-
important matter, leaving it as a subject
for .continuing interservice controversy
and ultimately for Executive decision. .
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200040001-1
862 CONG.SiLCL RECOF,D' -SENATE JULY 9
am opposed, Mr. President, to such
a procedure, for I believe that it is es-
sent-.al to national security that the issue
be settled now and by action of Congress.
If it is true that one philosophy is par-
ticularly appropriate to a democratic
nation. whose first line of defense lies
in its sea power and its air power, then
I believe that Congress should make its
choice in favor of that philosophy and
write that philosophy into law. .
I should like to make particular men-
'tion of naval aviation and the Marine
Coitis, two components of our armed
fors, the maintenance of which is in-
dispensable to the task-force philosophy,
two components which will not long'
exist if the Army succeeds, by the device
of Executive order, in foisting upon us
its trielemental concept.
Whenever these two branches of the
service, namely; naval aviation and the
Marine Corps, have been mentioned in
committee, my colleagues have united to
express their admiration and esteem.
My colleagues have never failed to utter
their objections to any suggestion which
would deprive these gallant services of
the continuing opportunity to serve the
Nation in the future as they have in the
? past. In the face of these utterances, I
find it difficult to understand their re-
luctance to provide adequate protection
in the proposed legislation. I cannot
.reconcile their outspoken solicitude for
the welfare of naval aviation and the
Marine Corps with their repeated re-
fusals to set at rest the minds of the
thousands of officers and enlisted per-
sonnel in those services. ? On numerous
occasions there has been evidence pre-
sented to us that naval aviators and
marines are with good reason appre-
hensive of what the future has in store
for them. We cannot make a sounder
contribution to national security than to
give these fine officers and men the as-
surance they are waiting for. If we must
write a little more detail into the law
than some of my colleagues think neces-
sary?and I for one. do not regard the
necessary provisions as details?then let.
us do so, for the reward is overWhelrn-
iiigly great. It is the peace of mind of
those who should be able to devote their
u.ninterrupted attention to the dangers
? .11 threaten from without.
. ere as I an of the bitter struggle
exists between the two opposing
doncepts of military organization, I per-
innally find much of substance to the
fears expressed by the marines and the
naval aviators. One need only look to
the 1478 series of papers of the joint
Chiefs of Staff for evidence that within
the past few years there have been re-
peated and strong attempts to restrict
the combat functions of naval aviation
and the Marine Corps. The very func-
tions which have made these services
great, the functions in which they have
rendered incalculable service , to the
Nation.
Many of my colleagues will be startled
to learn that the leaders of the Army
and the Army Air Force proposed, al-
most at the outset of this controversy,
that the Marine Corps should no longer
be accorded an opportunity to continue
us leadership in: the development of am-
pie ublOus Which is th3 primary
paaCatiLia occi,:patiOla of the corps. It
is difficult to comprehend how such a
proposal could be seriously advanced in
the face of hiseorical facts. The Marines
brought this highly specialized form of
warfare to perfection almost single-
handed, starting at a time when the Army
was content to accept the lesson of
Gallipoli as indisputable evidence that
the job could not be done.
The Pacific campaign of the war just
ended is a tribute to the foresight of the
Marines, and to the skill and persever-
ance with which tt. -,,yursued their ob-
jective. It is no t. 'their credit that
they cheerfully ta',,;,;h6 the art of am-
phibous warfare to the Army when the
latter service belatedly recognized its im-
portance on the very eve of war. The
'amphibious doctrines and equipment
perfected by the Marines contributed no
small share to the success of the Army
landings in north Africa and Normandy.
It is no less startling to learn that
behind public utterances of affection and
esteem for the Marine Corps, the Chief
of Staff of the Army and the command-
ing general of the Army Air Forces
proposed variously during the. past 2
years or so that the Marines should be
transformed into boat crews, that in time
of war their combatant operatior. ? should
be limited to feints or demonstrations,
or that their units should be lightly
armed and limited to regimental size.
This is the fate, carefully veiled in mili-
tary secrecy, that the leaders of the
Army and the Army Air Force have in
store for the Marines. What a fate,
Mr. President, for the intrepid corps
which stormed the beaches of Guadal-
canal, Bougainville, Tarawa, Saipan,
Tinian, Guam, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and
Oltniawa! What bitter irony that the
commanding general of the Army Air
Forces should propose such a fate for
the gallant corps which fought the bit-
terest battle of its illustrious .history
at Iwo Jima in order that the B-29's of
the Air Force might find a welcome haven
when they returned crippled from the
bombardment of Japan, in order that
the same E-29's might have fighter pro-
tection on their hazardous trip to Japan!
What a mockery if that glorious symbol
of American bravery and self-sacrifice?
the raising of the flag on Mount
Suribachi?is to 'become the symbol of
the passing of the Marines as a com-
batant corps! I ask my colleagues if
they are prepared to became a party to
such a descration?
The Army knows that the respect of
the Nation for naval aviation and the
Marine Corps is too high to permit a
summary destruction or emasculation of
those services. It is for this reason that
the War Department has consented to
their nominal continuation under Senate
bill 758. But at the same time they have
insisted that the basic functions of these
services should not be written into law,
but should be reserved for determina-
tion by Executive order. The method
in this is all too plain. Executive orders
are written with one stroke of the pen,
and can be changed or canceled with an-
other. Under Executive order the func-
tions of the Marine Corps and of naval
aviation can slowly be whittled away,
bit by bit, until nothing but the name
remains.
The probable course of events which
would follow the passage of Senate bill
758 is obvious from examination of the
proposed Executive order which accom-
panied it when it left the White House.
In this order the functions of the armed
services are set forth in detail. It is an
order replete with duplications, just the
sort of duplications which this bill pur-
ports to avoid. These duplications are
purposeful, duplication is to be estab-
lished in every controversial "field. Then
at some later date, under the guise of
eliminating duplication, the Marine
?Corps and naval aviation will be forced
to vacate the field in which they have
attained original primacy and operated
so gallantly and effectively in the past.
I do not anticipate immediate and
drastic reductions in functions. Drastic
reductions, particularly in the immediate
future, would invite the attention of
Congress and the public to the duplicity
of the scheme. The reductions will be
postponed, and when they occur they
will be in the nature of nibblings, each
bite of insufficient size to attract notice, .
hut in the aggregate and in the end the
result would be the same?destruction or
emasculation.
I stated that the proposed Executive
order was detailed. I think it Was made
so purposely, in order to convey to Con- .
gress and to the members of your com-
mittee the impression that a statutory
delineation of functions would be cor-
respondingly detailed, and therefore in-
appropriate to legislation. Such is not
the case. The basic functions of the
Army, the waterborne Navy, and the Air
Force are simple of statement and rela-
tively immutable. Because they border
, on the functions of the other services,
although they do not duplicate them,
the functions of naval aviation and
the Marine Corps require slightly great-
er specification; but they are still capa-
ble of statement with a breadth and
brevity appropriate to legislation.
It is most fitting and proper that Con-
gress should legislate the functions of
every service. In the well-chosen words
of General Vandegrift:
To do so is no more than to state the
reasons for its existence. When Congress
calls the several armed services into being,
it recognizes a specific need for each of the
several components of Nation security:- The
very existence of each component is predi-
catd upon a conclusion by Congress that
a mission actually exists?that a role must
be filled. As specifically relates to the Ma-
rine Corps, Congress should ask itself
whether the ti%-:ditional need for an am-
phibious fighting force in being still ex-
ists?whether the need for a Marine Corps
is in fact justified by the events of the
past and the forecasts of the future. If it
determines the Marine Corps' function is
still to exist, then it should be set forth
in law?otherwise the implicit will of Con-
gress can be utterly and legally ignored.
I agreed wholeheartedly, Mr. Presi-
dent, with General Vandegrift when he
said that.
Frankly, I think the position of those
who advocate leaving the delineation of
functions to Executive order is unten-
able. Are we so awed or panic stricken ?
S
?
A
pOd For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020004&1-1
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECCRD-SENATE
by our fears of the future that we must
write a blank check for those to whom
we look for military security? Would it
be any more absurd if our fears of an
economic depression led us to create a
huge Government. reconstruction cor-
poration, financed with billions of dol-
c, and if we left it to the President
az an appointed head to decide what the
functions of the corporation should be?
I am certain that we would write the
functions of such an organization with
the greatest of care; and I doubt if any-
one would have much success in avoid-
ing a careful delineation of functions by
talking about the evils of freezing organ-
ization and making It too rigid. Yet
that is exactly what the Army and its
friends have told us. They have asked
for a blank check, and have-thrown up
their hands in horror when we have
talked of how it should be spent..
All this talk of freezing things in the
pattern of the present leaves me singu-
larly unimpressed, particularly when it
comes from military officials whom Con-
gress has repeatedly had to spur into
progress in the past,. Numerous com-
plaints have been made that past statu-
tory delineation of functions has im-
peded progress in the services. I chal-
lenge the truth of such statements. The
fact is that there was little impetus for
change within the services, and it was
rare indeed for a military spokesman to
come to Congress and, ask that changes
be made. The opposite was frequently
the case; Congress had to force prog-
ress on the military service. If my
memory serves me correctly, we would
have entered World War II with an
equestrian Army if it had not been for
the efforts of Congress to separate the?
Army from its idolatry of the horse. I
think Congress may still have to step in
to divorce the Army from the pigeona
Those who protest the statutory de-
lineation of service functions on the
ground of undue rigidity or legislative
draftsmanship are seeking to beguile us.
So long as there was a possibility that
a delineation of functions could be legis-
lated which would further the Army ob-
jectives with respect to naval aviation
and the Marine Corps, there was no ob-
jection on the part of the Army's friends
to so doing. The President, when he
thought a year ago that he had arrived
at an accOptable compromise on the sub-
ject of functions, recommended that his
compromise be written into the law.
The Army, however, was not willing to
compromise on this point, and seeing
that they could not accomplish their ob-
jective in the law, determined that it
would be settled oufSide the law and to
their satisfaction.
Mr. President, I cannot speak too
strongly on behalf of naval aviation
and the Marine Corps, not because of
my personal admiration and esteem for
members of those branches of the serv-
ice, but because to my way of thinking
those progressive branches of the serv-
ice have a most significant contribution
to make to the security of the Nation_
in the years ahead. That contribution
will not and cannot be made if these
organizations are deprived of the coat-
No. 130.----2
batant functions they new perfcrm. I
want to see those functions written into
law. If the future demands a change
in those functions, I am confident that
the Navy will have no hesitation in com-
ing te ug and asking us to change the
law. d I am confident that the Con-
gress will meet the demands of the fu-
ture with vigor and dispatch.
I should like to say, Mr. President,
while I am speaking of writing functions
into law, that I have observed a marked
tendency throughout this bill to leave to
determination by Executive order many
matters which in my opinion are mat-
ters for determination by the legislative
branch of the Government.
I have just discussed at length the
manner in which the functions of the
armed services are to be left to the dis-
cretion of the executive branch of the
Government. Earlier I pointed out that
In place of a statutory statement of the
functions of the Central Intelligence
Agency there is simply an affirmation of
functions assigned by Executive order.
I might also point out that much of the
decision as to what is to be transferred
from the Department of the Army to the
Department of the Air Force is likewise
left to the executive branch. Going-still
further, I might call attention to the
fact that for a period of 2 years from the
date of enactment of the pending bill,
ostensibly a transition period during
which permanent legislation is to be
written, the secretary of national se-
curity is to be permited to determine
which of the organizational features of
the War and Navy Departments, born of
Executive orders issued under war
powers acts, are to remain effective. It
is not without interest to recall that in
?the original version of the bill there was
no 2-year limitation on the exercise of
such power. I commend my committee
colleagues for inserting the 2-year limi-
tation, but I shall be greatly surprised
If in the course of the next 2 years there
are no further attempts to restore the
power of the executive branch to deter-
mine the organizational structure of the
military departments.
It is apparent, when one considers the
features of the bill which I have just
mentioned, that the bill provides no more
than a framework for our national se-
curity structure, and leaves to the execu-
tive branch the task of filling in the de-
tails.
Some of my colleagues have in fact
stated that all this bill should attempt
is the setting up of such a framework. If
this is my colleague's goal, then I can-
not but admit my admiration for the
way in which they have succeeded. This
is indeed a bill which cannot stand alone;
it is a bill which rests upon existing Ex-
ecutive orders, and will require countless
additional ones to make it effective.
I for one do not subscribe to this sort
of legislation, if it can in fact be called
? legislation. However much we may have
been obliged by circumstances during
the past decade or so to confer broad
grants of authority to the executive
branch of the Government, I do not be-.
neve that I misgage the sentiments of
the majority of .this body when I say
8663
that the tendency today is for Congress
to regain its traditional role as the sole
legislative agency of the Government.
This wholly admirable tendency will re-
ceive a drastic set-back if we revert
now?in connection with this bill?to the
practice of drafting only in broad out-
line, leaving to the executive branch the
authority to interpret our intent and to
fill in the vacuum we create.
I regret, Mr. President, that I am
obliged to take so much of my colleagues'
time in presenting my objections to S.
'758?time on which there are so many
other heavy demands. The necessity
arises, however, from the difficult position
in which a critic of the proposed legisla-
tion finds himself. The other side of this
controversy is the side which has enjoyed
the advantage of superficial plausibility.
It is the other side of the argument which
has at its disposal the slogans, the catch
phrases, and the glib generalities which
can be such an effective facade for an
unsound structure. The critics of this
legislation, on the other hand, are faced
with the necessity of. making and pre-
senting a patient analysis, of searching
for the thought behind the word, of
throwing light where light was not in-
tended to fall. If I fail to convince my
colleagues, it will be because I have not
devoted sufficient time to the exposition
of my position, not because I have de-
voted too much time to it. '
When Senate bill 758 was first intro-
duced into the Senate .and referred to the
Armed Services Committee, I had made
a most careful analysis of its provisions.
I found in it so much that cried for cor-
rection that I despaired of remedying its
defects and deficiencies, one by one, and
decided that the preferable course
would be to take the avowed objectives
of the bill, with which I am in complete
agreement, as well as many of its de-
tailed provisions, to which I could and do
heartily subscribe, and draft a new bill?
one which I thought would meet the full
approval of all those to whom the avowed
objectives of Senate bill 758 are a goal
and not a subterfuge. The bill (S. 1282)
was the result of my endeavors and was
referred to the Armed Services Com-
mittee.
I was greatly disappointed. As time
went on, it became apparent to me that
many of my committee friends were dis-
posed to accept what I regard as con-
siderably less than full attainment of our
common goal. There emerged from
committee a bill which by no stretch
of the imagination can be considered
a bill to promote the national security.
I would be less than just to my col-
leagues if I failed to observe that impor-
tant changes have been made in Senate
bill 758 in committee. Senate bill 758,
as reported by the committee, is dis-
tinctly a better bill than it was in its
original form. Much still remains to be
done, however, if we are yet to enact a
law which can be a source of subsequent
security to the Nation and of pride to
ourselves.
The first step which needs to be taken
Is to recognize that the "national secu-
rity organization" created by title II is,
in reality, nothing more than a national
1-0RctOL2U 004
Ai:proved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200
8664 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
military establishment, and should be so
designated throughout title II.
The next step is to give some founda-
tion in fact to the statement in the decla-
ration of policy that it is not the intent
of Congress to merge the military depart-
ments and the armed services. This. we
can do only by discarding the concept of
the national military establishment as a
super department with a secretary at its
head, and employing the term "national
military establishment" simply as a col-
lective term embracing the military de-
partments, the armed services, and the
various agencies created under title II
of the bill.
'? By revising our concept of the national
military establishment and eliminating
the need for a head thereof, we make it
possible to place the Secretary of Na-
tional Security in his proper position
as an assistant to the President in all
matters relating to national security.
Once we have established the Secretary
of National Security in a position where
he reflects an over-all viewpoint, as the
President's chief assistant in all matters .
relating to national security, there need
be no objection to his performing, in
addition to his broader duties, the spe-
cific duties set forth in section 202 with
respect to the departments and agencies
collectively comprising the national mili-
tary establishment, for these depart-
ments and agencies will loom no larger
in his perspective than any of the other
? Government departments and agencies
concerned with national security.
By way of illustrating the proper posi-
tion of the Secretary of National
Security, I call to mind the position of
Mr. Byrnes when he was acting as top
coordinator of the war agencies. The
term "Assistant President" was fre-
quently applied to Mr. Byrnes at that
time, and I think it was an appropriate
title. The Secretary of National Secur-
ity should occupy a similar position?one
from which he would supervise and co-
ordinate all agencies of National Secur-
? ity. Top men of the Nation must be
sought for this job. Mr. Byrnes, Mr.
Hoover, and Mr. Charles Wilson, of Gen-
. eral Electric, come to my mind as men of
the type needed.
Once we have placed the Secretary of
National Securty in his proper perspec-
tive, it remains only to transfer those
sections relating to him to title I of the'
bill, the title relating to coordination for
.0.14-11,7ational Security.
1 With _respect_ to the CentraLXntelll-
kJ A'gency, I shall kav,eio.other.....critics
prqblem otwriting-into-law
-a Drop ie_L?.e_t_of functions to ,replac_e_the
t, bland reference...0 P_resenLduties _under
;.1 cutiYeQLcte.LAsarnin3ltepin
_-Che le,s it ?hould
.1
.he made mandatory, howeVer,_tha-t..the
director of 'Central Intelligence should at,
all times.be,a, civilian who Can..make.S.Uch
a position a career.
The measure which I have already out-
lined, namely, the establishment of prop-
er status and perspective for the Secre-
tary of National Security, and the cur-
tailment of military influence on the
National Security Resources Board, will
do much ,to give a proper balance to the
National Security Council. I would go
even further than this, however, and
01-1
JULY 9
broaden the membership of the council \ baffled, and thoroughly disgusted. FBI agents
to bring into it, at the very least, the 1 and security police who replaced the highly
chairmen of those congressional corn- ? trained military counteragents guarding Oak
m Ridge during the war are at this moment
ittees most intimately concerned with
combing vast grounds and the labyrinth that
the broad 'aspects of national security. . cOmprises the electro-magnetic or gaseous
Finally, Mr. President, we should give ! diffusion plants of the inner nuclear fission
to naval aviation and the Marine Corps works.
the assurances of continued usefulness Guards and workers, clerks and scientists
Which they have repeatedly asked, and are being interrogated repeatedly as the
which SO far have been denied them. We I G-men and civilian Intelligence officers seek
need not go into details of reorganization to repair the damaging Security leak by
and technique in so doing, but we must nature recoveringof t ht eh edocumentsis be The exact
being withheld.
mark out for them a clear-cut field of Individuals known to be of questionable
endeavor in which they Can function with loyalty, and even those with close kin who
a full and lasting consciousness of secu- , are Communist Party members, are working
rity and freedom from interruption or 1 at Oak Ridge. The wife of one employee is
interservice vendetta, on the staff of the Soviet Embassy here in
All these changes, Mr. President, are .1 Washington. Another atomic-energy scien-
1 tist spent his vacation in Canada, visiting
embodied in the amendments which- I with Dr. Alan Nunn May, since jailed by
will propose. It is ITly fervent hope that . the Canadians for betraying atom-bomb
my colleagues will not fail to give them secrets during the war. Others n the sus-
their full support and thereby cast a pect list 'work daytime in the atom-bomb
vote for real national security. 3 plants and then hang around evenings,
ALLEGED. THEFT OF SECRET FILES'.AT
?.?1 apparently out of sheer curiosity.
-'
It would be a fairly simple matter to climb
!OAK RIDGE, TENN. over the fence at Oak Ridge. Guards no
Mr. BALDWIN obtained the floor, longer patrol the perimeter of the grounds
Mr. HICK LOOPER. Mr. President, as they did in wartime, although this fact
came as a surprise to the deputy general
counsel of the Atomic Energy Commission,
who also was the acting director of security:',,
It would be a simple matter also to sabotage '
Oak Ridge, since it is unlikely that anyone
would be halted in approaching within 75
yards of the plants. A hand grenade would
do the job. '
Representative J. PARNELL THOMAS, Repub-
lican, of New Jersey, said when informed of
the Sun's investigation that "This comes as
no surprise to me." THOMAS recently visited
Oak Ridge to check on Communist infiltra-
tion in the plant and returned to submit a
secret report to the committee that was criti-
cal of the security procedures and revealed
the presence of known Reds and numerous
fellow travelers.
The Congressman declared that security
patrols are lax and virtually useless. Ile
stated further that the FBI has its hands
tied,. because under the law agents can only
report their suspicions concerning disloyal
Individuals. They lack the power to act.
Another prominent Congressman, alarmed
over the laxity of security, is JA1VIE5 VAN
ZANDT, Republican, of Pennsylvania, a for-
naval intelligence'officer, who is baffled
bl the Sun's disclosures. VAN ZANDT is 011
re rd as approving military security control
ak Ridge and at other atomic-energy-
Will the Senabpr yield?
Mr. BALDW . I yield to the Sena-
tor from Iowa.
Mr. HICKENLOQPER. Mr. President,
I will say to the Se ator from Connecti-
cut that I should le to take about 10
or 12 minutes to make a statement on
a very vital matter w 'ch I think is of
great interest to the Senate and the
country.
The PRESIDENT pro t pore. The
Senator from Connecticut sli.elds to the
. Senator from Iowa. ?
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mi Presi-
dent as chairman of the Joint mmit-
tee on Atomic Energy, I should 'ke to
make a statement concerning a very, dis-
turbing article which appeared in \the
Ne York Sun this morning. The aqi-
cle elates to the security situation at
Oak , iclge; Tenn., in connection wit
the opkation of the atomic-energy proj-
ect ther6 It is particularly alarming to
note theris a statement that certain
highly clas Tt:d files have been stolen
from that ins 'tution.
Mr. Presidentot this point in the REC-
ORD I ask unanlmous consent to have
printed the teletytfe story as it came over
the wire a little while ago. The matter
has not yet appeared\ in the editions of
the newspapers which have been received
here in Washington, lnit,I am informed
that the teletype copy I hold in my hand
is the story upon which the news reports
are based. ???
There being no objection, tDi teletype
story was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:? \
\
Unknown agents, working from within the
atomic-energy plant at Oak Ridge, Tpnn.,
have stolen several files of highly s?et
data on the atomic bomb, an investlgattqn
by the New York Sun revealed today.
Disclosure of this startling laxity on the
part of American security agents who per-
mitted the loss of such top secret informa-
tion is expected to blast the Nation's atomic-
energy set-up into a total reorganization.
Full details, when revealed, will rival the
Canadian atom-bomb spy story, the alarmed
informants of the Sun predict.
Congressmen serving on the Joint Com-
mittee on Atomic Energy are frightened,
at
plant
Alth ugh the congressional committee will,
go slow in putting the finger on Russian
agents as responsible for the missing docu-
ments bec use of international implications,
there are no uch inhibitions connected with
the FBI revel tions. Four Soviet agents dur-
ing the past 2 ear's have made an effort to
wean atom bothi information from Ameri-
cans. One or to may have returned to
Russia.
Two of these agellts attempted to secure
information from scientists at Columbia Uni-
versity in New York. The other two operated
in the field near the binatom plants. None
was successful in his efforts, although the
FBI remains mum concerning the previous
attempts of additional persons who may have
been cooperating with the agents. The four
were not arrested or jailed, principally be-
cause of the weakness of United States laws
and because they led the 0-men to other
emlin agents.
Mr. RICKENLOOPER. Mr. President,.
thet,joint committee, in carrying out the
duties-,charged to it by law, has been ex-
?ceedingly zealous to observe the security
standards not only at Oak Ridge but in
act at all installations of the Atomic En-
:, -4-
AprOed For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
ergy Commission. Our findings at these
installations, whatever they may be, have
04 3-ways been brought to the attention of
,._,
,,. Atomic Energy Commission. Corre-
spondingly spondingly the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion has been exceedingly cooperative in
reporting' , its views and findings and.
problems to the joint committee. When-
ever corrective steps, regardless of their
? importance \or vitality, are considered
necessary, they are taken with prompt-.
ness and dispatch.
So far as the, loss of files at Oak Ridge
Is concerned, My committee has no in-
formation on ths subject, and presently,
no reason to bepeve that important,
highly classified, secret documents have
been surreptitiously removed or stolen
from that institutiOn. However?and I
say this, Mr. Preside t, because, while it
has been considered tal and important
secret information, ye perhaps in the
light of this news sto y, specific facts
should be given to the Congress and the
country?the Atomic Endgy Commission
did appear and report to the joint com-
mittee that there were certain missing
atomic energy files at the '7,,os Alamos
Oar- la New Mexico. This information
has been known to the joint sommittee
for some time. The occurrence took
place in March 1946 when two Army
sergeants, who had been detailed\ to the
. project, then under the War INpart-
rnent, took certain documents and in-
formation with them when they ere
demobilized.
The fact that the documents were
missing was discovered by the present
Atomic Energy Commission in the earl '
part of this year, shortly after it took
charge. Those facts were brought to the
attention of the FBI and to the attention
of the joint committee. The FBI, with
immediate vigor and in full cooperation
with the Commission, promptly located
the two men; and the documents were,
as we believe, completely and fully re-
Covered. The FBI investigation indi-
cates, at least up to now, and I believe
that the indications are presently sound,
that the individuals were souvenir hunt-
ers, and that they did not allow unau-
thorized persons to have any access to
these documents. We have no present
Information that any unauthorized per-
sons did in fact see the documents other
than the two Army sergeants. The mat-
ter, however, is under present considera-
tion by the Department of Justice.
Mr. President, I can say that, so far as
I know, the? members of the joint com-
mittee are convinced that no effective
breach of security in those instances was
accomplished,' and that the Security was
In fact maintained, even though there
was a surreptitious removal of certai
important documents and information at
that time.
*The documents apparently were pt
locked up with the iirivate papers i the
''files of these individti Is. The evidence
a \
does not disclose that they were dis-
played, as I have said tt, anyone.
? I wish further to report ,to the Senate,
to the Congress, and to the public that
the joint committee, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, the militait, and naval
establishments of the Government, all
are keenly aware of the transeendental
importance of the security of the facili-
ties of the Atomic Energy Commission.
I wish to state at this time that all pos-
sible effort is now being concentrated and
will be continued to be devoted to the
protection of these installations and the
information kept therein.
Mr. President, I may say that there are
a number of apparent conjectures in the
teletype story, perhaps based on suspi-
cion, perhaps based upon guess, some of
which might be classified as "dope" par-
agraphs, if you please, and I feel that the
story probably May arouse a wrong con-
notation insofar as concerns the secu-
rity and the vital protection that are be-
ing provided and thrown around the in-
stallations in our atomic energy plants
and their operations.
I may say, Mr. President, that I pre-
sume no enterprise, regardless what its
size may be, can always be 100-percent
secure in all its details against any pos-
sible invasion by individuals or any pos-
sible access by unwarranted persons.
I may also say that our \committee is
convinced that while there are always
problems of security in connection with
these plants, we are convinced that a
vigorous and an intelligent effort is being
made and an effective program provided
to safeguard these plants. I should like
to give the Senate that assurance as the
overwhelming opinion and belief of the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.
Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will
my colleague from, Connecticut yield to
me for a very brief observation? *,
Mr. BALDWIN. I am glad to yield to
my colleague.
Mr. McMAHON. I wish to commend
the Chairman of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy for the clear and lucid
tatement he has made as to the appar-
ently indisputable facts of the situation.
I vish to congratulate the Atomic Energy
Commission for their vigilance in dis-
covering the incident to which the chair-
man \:,)f the joint committee has referred
so soon after they took over control of
the organization.
I wish\ further to pay high tribute to
the Federal Bureau of 'Investigation for
their truly' magnificent work in this case
so.soon after the Commission discovered
the loss in going to work, bringing the
culprits to book, and restoring the mate-
rial to a place of security.
I think it is somewhat regrettable that
the story which has appeared has so far
deviated from what are the facts in the
case, and I am delighted that the Senate
and the country may be assured that the
Commission to which we have entrusted
this great and overwhelming responsibil-
been derelict in its trust.
UNIFICATION OF THE ARMED FORCES
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 758) to promote the nation-
al security by providing for a National
Defense Establishment, which shall be
administered by a Secretary of National
Defense, and for a Department of the
Army, a Department of the Navy, and a
Department of the Air Force within the
National Defense Establishment, and for
the coordination of the activities of the
National Defense Establishment with
other departments and agencies of the
1-1
8665
Government concerned with the national
security.
Mr. BALDWIN.. Mr. President, I rise
to speak briefly on Senate bill 758, which
has been misnamed by some as the mer-
ger bill, but which is really and truly
correctly called the unification bill. ?
I may say that it is with some regret
that I find myself differing with my dis-
tinguished, able ? and learned colleague
from Wyoming [Mr. ROBERTSON]. He
said that Senate bill 758, as it came out
of the committee, is a .much better bill
than the bill which was originally sub-
mitted to the committee. In that I feel
he is absolutely correct. I want to say
that one reason why it is a better bill is
because our distinguished and able col-
league from Wyoming, who has this mat-
ter very close to his heart, and who has
made a deep study and examination of
the whole subject, was able to make some
very able and worth while contributions
to the work of the committee, and the bill
bears the imprint, in some very important
features, of the contribution which ? he
made.
I might say also, Mr. President, that
when I first considered the bill I was
against it. I was against it perhaps al-
most entirely for nostalgic reasons. It
was my privilege and opportunity to
serve on a destroyer overseas in World
War I, and in World War II my two
older boys served in the United States
Navy, one on a destroyer. So I have a
deep and abiding interest, indeed an
affection, for the naval service, because
it was my privilege and opportunity to
serve in the Navy at a very impression-
able time in my life, and because since I
have continued that interest. I was
somewhat doubtful as to whether, in a
plan of merger or unification, the Navy
would eventually get its full share of
what it needed in the way of direction,
funds, equipment, and all the other
things which are necessary for the
establishment and maintenance of an
adequate and effective naval service. I
am confident that there are in the bill
guarantees which will enable the Navy
to grow and develop in the future as
it has in the past; that it will be able
to attract able leadership and able sea-
men, and that we shall continue to have
an increasingly better Navy. I believe
that there are safeguards in the bill
which do the same thing for the other
branches of the service.
At the outset there was a great deal
of discussion as to what would happen
to the Marine Corps. I yield to no man
in my admiration for the Marine Corps.
There is not now, and probably there has
never been a more effective fighting unit
than the American Marine Corps. Its
history is a glorious one, and in it we
all take tremendous pride. Since it was
a part of the Navy, I, too, was extremely
anxious to see to it that every guarantee
was placed in the bill to assure the con- -
tinuance of the Marine Corps, enable
it to continue to draw to its ranks able
leadership and good men, and make cer-
tain that it should have funds sufficient
for its maintenance and development,
and for the equipment which an armed
service needs.
061.Q0.02'
860
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000001-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
At this point I invite attention to a
provision in the bill which deals spe-
cifically with the protection and con-
tinuation of the Marine Corps as a sep-
arate unit. On page 41 of the bill, in
section 206, subsection (b), there is this
;language:
(b) The provisions of this act shall not
authorize the alteration or diminution of
the existing relative status of the Marine
Corps (including the Fleet Marine Forces)
or of naval aviation.
It seems to me that that language
throws as strong a safeguard around
these two services, preserving them as
independent services, and as a part of
the Navy, as language is capable of
doing.
Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
. Mr. BALDWIN. I yield to the Sena-
tor from South Carolina.
Mr. MAYBANK. I am very much im-
pressed with the provision of the bill
which the Senator has just read. Is- it
not a fact that before that provision was
finally written Admiral Sherman and
General Vandegrift agreed to it, and
believed that with that amendment the
bill was satisfactory to the Marine Corps
and to the Navy?
Mr. BALDWIN. The Senator is cor-
rect. I thank him for bringing that fact
to my attention. Both Admiral Sher-
man and General Vandegrift were pres-
ent, and they were in agreement with
respect to the language of the provision.
- Mr. MAYBANK. Is it not also a fact
that in executive session we had several
conferences with General Vandegrift
and Marine Corps groups, in which he
specifically answered the question on be-
half of the Marine Corps, to the effect
that the provision was satisfactory to
the Marine Corps?
Mr. BALDWIN. The Senator is cor-
rect, to the best of my recollection. I
thank him for his contribution.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BALDWIN. I yield.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I ask
the Senator if the language to which
General Vandegrift agreed was not the
particular language in regard to the Ma-
rine 'Corps.
Mr. BALDWIN. That is correct.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. He
was not agreeing to the over-all bill, but
simply to the specification of the func-
tions of the Marine Corps.
Mr. BALDWIN. That is correct. As
I remember, General Vandegrift was
present at -several of our sessions. My
recollection is that it was his specific
purpose in appearing before the com-
mittee to see to it that the Marine Corps
was preserved. It was our specific in-
tention, not only as a result of our own
feelings, but as a result of what he had
to say and our admiration and respect
for him and his character, to place in
the bill language as strong as language
could be made. I do not intend to im-
ply that General Vandegrift approved of
the bill as a whole. I do not recollect
that he was asked that question, or that
he gave an opinion on the bill as a whole.
SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING 01.TICER (Mr.
Wittinms in the chair). Does the Sena-
tor from Connecticut yield to the Sena-
tor from Massachusetts?
Mr. BALDWIN. I yield.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I remind the
Senator from Connecticut that General
Vandegrift specifically approved the
language with relation to the Marine
Corps, which language was drafted in
his presence, after several meetings, and
after several hours in the last meeting.
It is my recollection that he specifically
and affirmatatively approved the lan-
guage as it now is.
? Mr. BALDWIN. That is my recollec-
tion, too. I thank the Senator from
Massachusetts for his contribution.
Mr. President, there is another phase
of the bill which has been discussed at
length, and upon which I should like to
comment at this point. In all the dis-
cussion concerning this proposed legis-
lation the position, function, and author-
ity of the Secretary of National Secur-
ity have probably aroused the greatest
interest. There were some who felt that
in providing for a Secretary of National
Security we would be creating a super-
official who would have wide and broad
powers over the administration of all
the armed forces, including the Army,
the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air
Forces. So a great deal of time was tak-
en in the committee in discussing the
place which the Secretary of National
Security should have.
At one time it was felt that it would
be wise to make the Secretary of Na-
tional Security the chairman or vice
chairman of the Security Council, to
serve in that position as a designee of
the President. I am frank to say that
I shared that view, because I felt that
'in accomplishing the unification of the
armed forces it might be well to center
authority in the National Security Coun-
cil and have the organization branch out
from there. However, I must admit that
the change which was made was a better
suggestion.
So when we examine the section which
deals with the National Security Coun-
cil we find that the Council is to be com-
posed of the President, the Secretary of
State, the Secretary of National Security
appointed under the act, the Secretary
of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy,
the Secretary of the Air Force, and the
Chairman of the National Resources
Board, together with such other mem-
bers as the Presideht may designate from
time to time.
I think it was forcefully demonstrated-
that to make the Secretary of National
Security vice chairman of the National
Security Council would be to place him
in a position of too much power and
authority. It would place him ahead of
the Secretary of State, for example. It
was finally decided by a majority of the
committee that it would be wise to have
him on the National .Security Council,
but that he should not serve as the vice
chairman; that he should have no dif-
. ferent status than that of any of the
other Secretaries, including the Secre-
tary of the Army, the Secretary of the
Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force,
JULY 9
any one of whom may, for a meeting or
for a period of time, be designated by
the president as the acting chairman of
We National Security Council. So it
seems to me that in making the change
which was made, by not providing that
he should be the vice chairman of the
Council, to serve in the absence of the
president, we have somewhat curtailed
the possibility of power which many
were fearful he might exercise in such a
position.
Mr. President, it is very important that
all the armed forces should have ade-
quate appropriations. In the bill it is
provided that the Secretary of National
Security should be the one to submit the
budget. Of course, the Departments of
the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force,
in turn would submit their budgets to'
the Secretary of National Security. It
would be within the range of possibility
and, perhaps, of probability that the
Secretary of National Security might
feel that more money should be spent on
one particular branch of the armed
services than on another and that he
might want to curtail the amount of
money available for a particular branch
or division of a branch of the armed
services. So, Mr. President, we speci-
fically provided in the bill that when the
budget is submitted to the Congress,
which, after all, is the agency which has
the final authority of passing upon the
amount of the appropriation, it must
show what was recommended by the
Secretary of National Security and must
also, in turn, show what was recom-
mended by the Secretary of the Army,
the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary
of the Air Forces, and also what was
recommended by the Budget Bureau
itself. So that Congress, which is the
final arbiter as to the amount of money
available for our armed forces, will have
before it in the appropriation bill for
the armed forces a detailed estimate of
what the Secretaries of National Secur-
ity, the Army, Navy, and Air Forces
recommended.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. BALDWIN. I yield to the Senator
from Massachusetts.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Is there not one
additional step? Cannot the Secretaries
of the Navy, Army, and Air Forces, prior
to the budget's actually reaching Con-
gress, object to what the Secretary of
National Security recommends and make
a report directly to the President before
he submits his budget?
Mr. BALDWIN. That is correct. That
is a point I shall now cover. It is also
possible for any of the Secretaries to go
around the Secretary of National Se-
curity to the President himself on any
matter.
So it seems to me, Mr. President, that
we have safeguarded one very important
point, namely, the opportunity of the
Secretaries of the several branches of the .
services themselves to appear before the
Congress and make their own recom-
mendations as to appropriations, and
thus make it a public issue in the Con-
gress of the United States. It seemed
,that that was an adequate provision to -
safeguard against the possibility of any
1947 ,
App ed For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020004
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE ? 8667
taries, and such other persons as the
President may designate. Of course,
that Council could bring to its service
any officer it might desire. Conse-
quently, it is the main coordinating fac-
tor, I think, in all our preparations for
national security and for our defense.
God grant that we shall not have to pre-
pare for war, but merely for the possi-
bility that it may come, and thus be pre-
pared to defend ourselves. , ?
; EnAjej:_th2Soppjcit Ilmje_is.s,stablished
a central .intelligence agency to-iii-Ovide .
coordthaTed, jaAcciilafej_ intelligence:, for
11*-G-o-ire-E-iiri-e-nt agencies concerned, with
national ecurity Wn one leads the I
re'coVd 0-r the:Past war in regardfolliat
field iiiisIfoirind tha_t. there was mlich-lio
be? desired in the way intelligence' was
covered, and there was great -Conflict !
1 about' it:----r say nothing here in depre- I
'dation of the men who were engaged in
, the intelligence service, because some re-
markable and extremely courageous
thing -were - done. Nevertheless, we '
i
demonstrated from our experience the
peed of a central intelligence_ agency;
and-MS-bill provides such an agency.
Neither a Nationaf Security Colincil nor I
1 'an intelligence agency now exists.
I he bill provides - for a National '
Security Resources Board to advise the
President and the Congress on the co-
ordination of the military, industrial,
and civilian requirements of all national
resources for war. It gears the capacity
of our national economy to the require-
ments .of national security and works
closely with the National Security Coun-
cil. That Board does not now exist.
We had its counterpart in several differ-
ent boards during the war, but it took
a long time to coordinate them and have
them work together. Provision is made
for that by this bill.
The bill creates a National Security
Organization consisting of the armed '
forces proper, together with certain
additional agencies whose need has been
shown by experience. Such an organi-
zation does not now exist, and its
absence constitutes a serious lack of co-
ordination in the armed forces.
Let me say here that I thank the
learned and able Senator from Wyoming
for his contribution in regard to that
particular phase of the bill, because I
think he brought home to the committee
very forcefully that, after all, we are
dealing with two different sets of func-
tions, namely, the civilian ones, which
we want to provide with coordinating
agencies, and also the armed forces as
such. It has been through the recom-
mendations of the distinguished Senator
from Wyoming that the bill in large
part has taken its form.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
Will the Senator yield to me once more?
Mr. BALDWIN. I yield.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. The Senator
was discussing the National Security
Council and its importance. Does the
Senator agree with me when I say that
the purpose of creating .the National
Security Council is not to set up a new ?
function of government with extra-
ordinary powers, but solely to provide
an organization to give advice to the
President, j' not on. general affairs of
state, but through civilian groups, on
Secretary of National Security arbitrarily
reducing appropriations beyond what the
Secretary of a particular branch of the
service felt was needed.
In speeches in the Senate with refer-
ence to subjects which we discuss from
day to day there is often reference to
the history of the past. I think that is
most desirable, Mr. President, because,
in my judgment, we cannot too often
review the things that have happened in
this country in the past and the activities .
of the great men who have made them
happen.. So I was interested in looking
up the question of how the C-binet office
of Secretary of the Navy came about.
In the original organization of the
Federal Government under President
Washington there was no Secretary of
the Navy. There was simply provision
f or a Secretary of War. It apparently
was the assumption at that time that the
Secretary of War would deal with all
matters relating to war, but apparently
later it was believed that there should
be a Secretary of the Navy; because it
was felt, perhaps, that too much atten-
tion was given to the Army by the Con-
gress and that Army officers were too
powerful and influential in the Govern-
ment. Therefore the Cabinet position
of Secretary of the Navy was created.
The office of Secretary of the Navy came
into being under the administration of
President Adams, in 1798. It was ap-
parently the intention of those who
organized the Federal Government that
the armed forces should be unified under
one Secretary, and no doubt it was the
exigencies of the particular situation,
when we had no navy whatsoever, that
made it appear advisable that there
should be a separate Department of the
Navy. But, Mr. President, while the fact
that now we may be carrying out what
were the original intentions of the found-
ers of our Government, or those who set
it upon its successful course, does not
necessanly imply that we must follow
them, there is afforded, it seems tome,
an interesting precedent.
Erielly, what does this unification ac-
complish? First, it provides a National
Security Council to advise with the Pres-
ident and the Congress on the integra-
tion of our domestic, foreign, and mili-
tary policies. That is a very important
consideration. It is something which
we did not achieve in World War II un-
til we had had a long and bitter experi-
ence with a different situation. We
tried to establish it in Washington in
a way that would provide the greatest
coordination, but we found from experi-
ence that there was much delay, much
uncertainty, and a lack of a sound inte-
gration of policy and program, and it
was not until along toward the end of
the war that we approached in our or-
ganization an establishment which is
similar to that provided for in this bill?
the National Security Council. True,.
the personnel are different, but our ex-
perience demonstrated conclusively that
we needed something of that kind. So
this bill creates a National Security
Council.
I might point out, Mr. President, that
the National Security Council is entirely,
as I recall it, a civilian organization. It,
is made up of the President,.the &ore"-
.
affairs of _state affecting the national
security and tending to make the mili-
tary forces more efficient? Is not that
correct?
Mr. BALDWIN. I agree whole-
heartedly, Mr. President. In other
words, it is not essentially an admin-
istrative agency. It is an advisory
council.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. And it is ad-
visory on security matters alone.
Mr. BALDWIN. That is correct.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BALDWIN. I yield. .
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Is it
not also somewhat of an enlargement
upon the existing committee, the State,
War, and Navy Coordinating Committee,
which reconciles and coordinates the ac-
tion to be taken by the State, War, and
Navy Departments on matters of com-
mon interest, and then establishes its
policies on political-military considera-
.tions?
Mr. BALDWIN. I believe that is cor-
rect.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. That
committee is in existence, and it now
meets every week.
Mr. BALDWIN. That committee is
not identical with the National Security
Council. The Council will take over the
functions of that committee. So I think
I am correct when I say that we now have
no National Security Council; but today
in the Government most of the functions
covered by this bill are, in large part,
and at least as to the great majority of
them, being performed. The purpose of
this bill is to coordinate and unify the
performance of those functions. It seems
to me that is the only purpose of the
bill
Mr. President, this bill provides for a
Secretary of National Security as head
of the National Security Organization.
In effect, that official will, in a sense, be
an assistant to the President, just as the
Senator from Wyoming has indicated.
But he will exercise general direction and
control over, and will resolve differences
between, the military departments, ex-
cept when such differences are of a na-
ture to be resolved by the President as
Commander in Chief. The Secretary of
National Security in no way will diminish
the responsibility and authority of the
President, but he will merely provide the
President with an impartial assistant to
view national security problems from the
over-all standpoint, rather than from
that of any one element of the armed
services. '
Of course, Mr. President, as I have pre-
viously pointed out, and I should like to
emphasize this point again, the mere fact
? that the Secretary of National Security
is the man dealing with the armed serv-
ices and is the one who is closest to the
President, and the fact that it may be
said that he rather insulates the other
Secretaries from the President, should
be considered in the light of the provi-
sion contained in this bill that any one of
the Secretaries?the Secretary of the
Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the
Secretary of the Air Force?can go to
the President. So it seems to me that
when that specific provision is made, the
Secretary of National Security could not
ved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200 4 01-1
8668 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
well find fault, as it has been claimed
that he might, with a Secretary who,
when finding himself in disagreement
with the Secretary of National Security,
goes to the President, who, of course, as
Commander in Chief is the final arbiter
of disputes' of that kind.
The Secretary of National Security is
charged with preparing an over-all
budget for the national security, and this,
for the first time in the history of our
country. That will give the Congress
some basis for granting appropriations
in proportif to the realistic require-
ments, it se'. is to me, rather than on
the impractical basis upon which the
Congress must act today in many cases.
The Secretary of National Security will
also be in a position to aliminate certain
duplications, inefficiencies, inequities,
overlapping, and wastage which result
from the present system of two inde-
pendent departments, each one pursuing
objectives of national security, but with
no one, short of the President, to coor-
dinate their efforts.
Of course, certain military and civilian
assistants are proyided for the Secretary
of National Security; but it is my recol-
lection that he is not to have a military
staff as such.
Mr. President, it seems to me that with
the experience all of us have been
through, now is the most appropriate
time' in all our history to take this pro-
posed step. Now there is great interest
in it. Now the recollections of all of us
are freshest about our past experience
in these matters. Now the records of the
past war are available to us and are be-
fore us. So now is the, time to take this
step.
We cannot help but be impressed with
the recommendations of the men who
have led our armed forces. Many of
them recommend the passage of this bill.
Among them are General Eisenhower
and Admiral Nimitz. It seems to me that
these men, who so recently have demon-
Strated their abilities, capabilities, pour-
, foresight, and judgment, are men
whose opinions and recommendations
should be given great weight, indeed. I
do not mean that the Congress should
defer to the military in any sense of the
? word, but I think we are getting advice
at this time from men who have estab-
lished; perhaps if not the finest, at least
one of the finest records that have ever
been established for military and naval
and air leadership in the history of these
United States.
Mr. President, this bill establishes the
Departments of the Army, the-Navy, and
the Air Force?three, whereas formerly
there were two. In effect, the present
Army Air Force is redesignated as the
United States Air Forces, and a new Ex-
ecutive department is established for its
administration, thus recognizing the
compelling lesson of World War II that
air power is on a parity with land and
sea power. These three departments are
to be administered by their respective
Secretaries, and will be under the gen-
eral supervision of the Secretary of Na-
tional Security.
It has been ably demonstrated in the
rent war, on many a front, Mr. Presi-
dent, in spite of the great pride of the
Air Force in its effectiveness, that the
Air Force without the Army and Navy
cannot win a war. It has also been
amply demonstrated that the Army can-
not do so without the Navy and the Air
Force, nor can the Navy do so without
the Army and the Air Force. Conse-
quently, when we give the Air Force a
status equal to that of the other two
main branches of the armed services, I
think we are not completely throwing
overboard the recognition that these
three forces must continue to be inte-
grated. As was stated several times in
the course of the hearings, whatever the
Air Force may do in the way of bombard-
ment or whatever the Navy may do in
the way of bombardment or in the way
of bringing material and equipment to
the spot and keeping the lines of supply
open and beating off attacks on the lines
of supply, both under the sea, on the sea,
and in the air, it is the man with the gun
and the hand grenade, who slogs up the
beaches and along the roads and through
the fields and gullies and mountains,
who, in the last analysis, takes the land
and holds it and makes the victory com-
plete. I think the mere fact that the
Air Force has been so all-powerful means
that probably it will be used in the fu-
ture as it has been used in the past,
namely, to carry that most devastating
of all weapons, the atomic bomb. Nev-
ertheless, I think that from the testi-
mony of various witnesses at the hear-
ings it is apparent that they recognize
the great importance of the other two
branches of the armed services, and rec-
ognize that time and time and time again
they were entirely dependent upon the
other two branches for their support and
help and success.
Mr. President, specific safeguards for
the continued existence of the Marine
Corps and naval aviation are provided in
the pending bill. I have already. dis-
cussed that point.
In the bill the National Guard Bureau
is perpetuated, and under the bill it will
perform the same functions for the new
Air Force, Army, that it now performs
for the War Department.
The bill provides for a War Council
as an advisory body to the Secretary of
National Security on the over-all prob-
lems of the armed forces. Presently no
such identical agency is in existence.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff are continued
as the principal military advisers to the
President. The effectiveness of the Joint
, Chiefs of Staff is approved by giving to
the Secretary of National Security the
power of decision in certain matters upon
which the Joint Chiefs of Staff cannot
agree, and which the President delegates
to the Secretary.
Mr. President, I doubt if we would ever
have in our history a Secretary of Na-
tional Security who, knowing that his
decision would commit the administra-
tion, would not be extremely careful to
see that any matter of policy of a mo-
mentous or extremely important nature
was put up to the President of the United
States for his final decision; and that is
as it should be, as I see it, under our
Constitution.
At present the requirement for unani-
mous consent before the Joint Chiefs of
JULY 9
Staff can reach a decision is generally
considered a serious deficiency. I think
we were all impressed at the hearings by
the testimony of General Eisenhower on
that point. He went so far as to say that
oftentimes, or sometimes, perhaps even
a poor decision was much better than
none at all; that is, things had to be
decided, they had to be decided so that
other things could be done which de-
pened upon that decision; and the pro-
posal before us makes that more readily
possible.
A research and development board is
established to continue the existing Joint
Research and Development Board. The
important functions of this Board will be
charged ultimately to the Secretary of
'National Security.
Each one of these development boards,
Mr. President, can be called in by the Se-
curity Council, and the knowledge and
Information it has will be available to the
National 'Security Council and to the
President at any time. It seems to me
that the set-up under the bill makes a
much better working organization than ?
we have had heretofore.
Many times, when the subject of re-
organization of our armed forces has
come before the Congress, it has been
opposed by some on the basis that it.
would pave the way to military control
? of our Government, and to its ultimate
overthrow, and military dictatorship. It
is very well that Americans should be
fearful of that possibility. This suspicion
of the military is traditional to our peo-
ple, although throughout the history of
the United States there has never been
any justification for it.
The framers of the Constitution, mind-
ful of the military tyranny abroad in
the world at that time, provided adequate
safeguards against military domination
in a newly founded government. In the
first place, they provided that the civil-
ian head of the State, the President,
should be the Commander in Chief -of the
armed forces, as he still would be under
the bill. Congress cannot change the
Constitution of the United States.
Furthermore, all the executive depart-
ments which administer the armed forces
are controlled by civilian Secretaries. Of
course, the Secretary of National Security
will be a civilian. Most important, the
constitutional clause limiting military ap-
propriations to a period of two years ab-
solutely retains ultimate control in the
hands of the legislature, in the hands of
of the Congress, and consequently, being ?
retained in the hands of the Congress,
it is retained in the hands of the Amer-
ican people. This power of the purse-
strings is, in the last analysis, the real
guarantee against any military threat.
There is another safeguard against
military domination, namely, the very
character and nature of our professional
soldiers and sailors. The nucleus of the
American officer corps comes from West
Point and Annapolis. Every Member of
Congress is certainly conscious of the
democratic method by which appoint-
ments to these great institutions are
made.
The graduates of ,the two academies
represent a cross section of American in-
telligence and leadership in American
?
Appre5d For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020004 1-1
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
Ideals.. They are in no way regimented
or molded into militaristic form. They
are a part of our national life. There
is no caste system which separates them
from the people whom they serve. Fur-
thermore, the officers who enter our
armed forces directly from civilian life
certainly represent a non-military, un-
biased viewpoint.
Of course, presently we have found that
our military and naval leadership, as
produced by the academies, is not going
to be adequate. The last war demon-
strated that that was so, and it probably
Is going to be so in the future. As a
result, provision is made whereby boys
graduating from our regular colleges may
seek and find careers in the armed forces.
I am happy to say that in my experi-
ence, with the Navy, particularly, I find
a very keen desire on the part of naval
officers of the higher ranks to take in
on an even basis men who come from
colleges and are not graduates of the
Military and Naval Academies. Facili-
ties and programs are now under way to
make it possible for these men to attain,.
technically, as good an education in the
armed forces, and in the use of weapons
and tactics, and all that goes with mili-
tary preparedness and operations, as is
available to the men who graduate from
the Academies. There is a keen, earnest
desire to take them In and make them
part of the great body of the officer per-
sonnel of the armed forces of the United
States.
Returning to the question of military
domination, some of our foremost sol-
diers have become the most ardent civil-
ians once they have -laid down their
arms. Men like Washington, Andre.7
Jackson, Zachary Taylor, Robert E. Lee,
Ulysses S. Grant, J. J. Pershing, certainly
cannot be cited as menaces to the Amer-
ican system. Neither can such great citi-
zens as Secretary of State Marshall, Gen.
George Patton, General Eisenhower, or
General MacArthur, or any of the other
great generals of the war lately con-
cluded, be cited as men who would favor
military domination. Of course, the im-
portant consideration is that the example
they have set, both as leaders and as
citizens, soldiers and sailors and civilians,
is one which has made an impression
upon the youth of the country that will.
last for ages to come.
The question of civilian control, as I
have said, has been raised repeatedly in
the discussions. Although the armed
forces of the United States are at pres-
ent under stringent civilian control, and
although there has never been any legi-
timate fear that such control might be
lessened or was becoming undermined,
the unification bill, it seems to me, greatly
increases civilian control over the Army,
Navy, and Air Force.
Let us examine into that for a mo-
ment. In the first place, the traditional
and constitutional control of the Presi-
dent as Commander in Chief of the armed
services remains unchanged. Secondly,
the Congress, with its constitutional re-
sponsibility. for the raising and support-
ing of armies and navies, will, as in the
. past, continue to control appropriations
and statutory authority, for the armed
forces. .
Mr. President, it seems to me those
are two very vital matters. First, the
President of the United States is bound
to be, as he should be, responsive to the
will of the people, and certainly the Con-
gress is, as it should be, responsive to the
will of the people.
Next, the Secretary of National Secu-
rity is a civilian official who acts as a
delegate of the President. The Secre-
tary is expressly forbidden in the bill
to establish a military staff. In fact, em-
phasis is placed on the civilian aspect of
his office by the spelling out of four
principal civilian assistants to aid him.
He is to have no military assistants.
The Secretary of each of the Depart-
ments which administers the Army, the
Navy, and the Air Force is also to be a
civilian, as are his Assistants and Under
Secretaries. These Departments are en-
tirely controlled by civilian heads, and
the military personnel therein are sub-
ordinate to civilian direction.
Certainly these provisions in the bill
In ?no way lessen this civilian control.
In fact, if anything, they increase that
control by one echelon; that is, by the
addition of a Secretary of National
Security.
Not only is there increased civilian
control in the direction and mainte-
nance of the armed forces, as just stated,
but there are several new agencies which
will have considerable influence over the
military forces, but they are to be pre-
dominantly civilian in nature and
composition.
I think one great thing the bill accom-
plishes is that it brings into closer con-
tact with the armed forces themselves a
larger number of civilians than ever.
That was true during the war, and one
thing the bill does is that it continues and
preserves those relationships with these
new agencies, several of which are con-
trolled in large part by civilians.
For example, the National Security
Council is composed of a civilian Secre-
tary of State, a civilian Secretary of Na-
tional Security, the civilian Secretaries
of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the
Chairman of the National Security Re-
sources Board, a civilian executive secre-
tary, and such other members as the
'civilian President may designate. Mili-
tary domination of that body hardly
seems likely.
Next, we find nothing but civilians in
the National Security Resources Board,
which is composed of a civilian Chair-
man and such civilian heads or repre-
sentatives of the various executive de-
partments and other agencies as may be
designated by the civilian President.
Furthermore, the Research and De-
velopment Board and Munitions Board
are headed by civilians. Also the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency may be a civil-
ian, as decided by the President. In
addition, the War Council is headed by
the civilian Secretary of National Se-
curity.
The only military agency in the entire
bill is the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the
reason that is a military agency is that
. it is set up to do a purely military job.
Actually, the insistency on civilian
? control of the armed forces tends to be-
? come somewhat academie in view of the
8669
nature of modern war.' The great 'Da-
tion of the able-bodied men of this coun-
try were in uniform in World War II,
but civilian control of our Government
was not diminished. It was not neces-
sary to take?steps to increase civilian
control to offset any imagined threat
that the military, total over 10,000,000
at the peak of the war, might get out
of hand. Lack of civilian control over
the military in the United States has not,
through 172 years of history, become
acute. There has never been a menace
to our civilian form of government. I
pray God that there never will be. Most
certainly, Mr. President, the pending bill
makes adequate and complete provision
against it.
In fact, in a modern war it does not
make too much difference whether a
citizen is in uniform or not because the
entire country goes to war in this day
and age. To quote General Eisenhower:
War is no longer the concern of the sol-
dier alone; in its commencement, its waging,
and its settlement, he is only one of many.
Although the outcome of battle is depending
upon his action, the strength for a victory
Is the product of the entire nation behinci,
him. The economist, industrialist, scientist,
the farmer, worker, and teacher are all nec-
essary to the waging of war. Similarly they
are likely targets of enemy action. Security
against war is a function that belongs to
all citizenship.
In a word, there has always been ade-
quate civilian control over the armed
forces. Now that we have found a need
for wider civilian participation in the
national security, . we are proposing in
this bill an increase in the civilian con-
trol to be exercised what might be termed
the national, not merely the military,
mobilization of the United States in the
interests of its own existence.
In closing, Mr. President, I should like
to say simply that the pending legislation,
like all legislation enacted by the Con-
gress, is not perfect. Many of us still
can find fault with some of its provisions;
many of us, as individuals, can pick out
things that we think might be better,
things that might be done more effec-
tively the other. way; and it is well that
that is so. Let us continue that interest,
because it is an evolution through which
we are passing. This has not been done
before, in time of peace, but the lessons
that have been learned both in time of
peace and in time of war dictate that we
should now take advantage of our great
experience, and that now, when our re-
collections are strong and the men who
have had these experiences in a most bit-
ter war are here to advise us, now is the
time when we should take a step for unifi-
cation of the armed forces. I submit,
Mr. President, that the pending bill does
that as effectively as any legislation
? which I believe it is possible for us to
. evolve and write at the present time.
? Mr. HILL obtained the floor.
Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield? `. ?
Mr. HILL. I yield to the Senator from
' South Carolina.
Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I
want to thank the Senator from Alabama
for yielding to me, so that I may make
Merely a short statement in connection
with the pending bill: The subcommit-
3670 ?
Apo-oved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000001-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE JULY 9
tee of the Committee on Armed Services,
consisting of the Senator from Connect-
icut [Mr. BALawin], the Senator from
Iowa [Mr. WiLsox] , and I have a most
important meeting at 2:30 o'clock, to con-
sider the GI terminal-leave bill. It is
for that reason that I shall limit my re-
marks, and shall make but a very brief
statement. .
I should like to say first that, last year
and year before last, as a member of the
Committee on Military Affairs, I attended
the hearings, day after day and month
after month. This year, as a member of
the Armed Services Committee, I likewise
attended, whenever possible. I believe
that the bill which has been finally drawn
and reported to the Senate by the able
and distinguished chairman of the Armed
Services Committee is far superior to the
bill which was discussed and agreed upon
last year in the Military Affairs Commit-
tee.
I am in thorough accord with what has
been said by many of the distinguished
Senators who have preceded me. En-
dorsing the able argument of the Senator
from Connecticut [Mt. BALnwiN], I
should like to add that before I finally
voted for the bill, I was perfectly satis-
fied from the testimony of Admiral
Nimitz and Admiral Sherman that the
Navy was properly protected. I might
say that in the hearings, at page 114, I
asked Admiral Nimitz the direct question,
whether he was perfectly satisfied with
the bill as written. He replied .that he
was perfectly satisfied with it.
I am not one to put my judgment
above that of the able war leaders of
this country. Last year, before the com-
mittee, General Marshall, then Chief of
Staff, and others testified on the sub-
ject. This year, General Eisenhower,
Admiral Nimitz, General Spaatz, and
other distinguished leaders appeared
and testified. After hearing from all of
them, who were satisfied and approved
the bill, there was objection from a man
for whom we all have great respect and
admiration, General Vandegrift, the
leader of the Marine Corps. It was at
the suggestion of members of the com-
mittee that the General was recalled.
He appeared twice, later, in executive
session, and finally agreed thoroughly
with the amendment, insofar as the Ma-
rine Corps was concerned, which was
read a few moments ago by the Senator
from Connecticut. I supported this
amendment because of my respect for
General Vandegrift. Hence all war lead-
, ers agreed.
One of the great benefits of the bill,
as I see it, Mr. President?and I feel very
keenly about it, and always have?is the
raising of the Army Air Force to a higher
position in the armed services of the
country. The Army Air Force per-
formed a magnificent service in the war.
I am very glad to say that in this bill
the status of the Army Air Force, in my
judgment, will be raised to that of the
Ground Forces and of the Navy, and,
above all, the status of the Naval Air
Force, which performed so gallantly and
contributed so much to our victory in the
Pacific, will not be interfered with. I
am convinced the amendment protects
the Naval Air Force and also protects the
Marine Corps.
There is little else that I may say.
Much has been said on the subject of
the Security Council. Much has been
said about the powers of the Secretary
of National Security, and about other
things. But I believe the committee has
submitted to the Senate a bill that is
worthy of the consideration and vote of
every. Senator.
I take this opportunity to commend
the committee for its untiring work, and
to thank the chairman for the many
courtesies he showed to all members of
the committee during the lengthy hear-
ings. I thank the Senator from Alabama
again for yielding to me. My only re-
gret is that, since I must attend an-
other meeting, I shall not be here to
listen to the address by the distinguished
Senator from Alabama, as he discusses
the bill in greater detail.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Alabama yield for the
purpose of suggesting the absence of a
quorum?
Mr. HILL. I hope the Senator will
not insist on that. I prefer to proceed.
I thank the Senator very much. I deeply
appreciate his offer. -
Mr. President, we won the greatest
war in history?at a cost of over a mil-
lion casualties; a quarter of a million
lives and over $300,000,000,000. We
won with our industrial capacity, our
natural resources and the genius of our
people. We won by the heroism and
sacrifice of everyone?our men and
women in uniform and those out of uni-
form. But regardless of wealth, indus-
try, and resources, we would have lost
World War II but for two powerful al-
lies: Time and space.
Time was bought for us by the blood
of those peoples who were attacked first,
time to prepare; time to mobilize; time
to plan; time to forge our winning war
machine. Time saved us. But it was
given to us by others. We will not have
thiS gift again.
Our other indispensable ally was
space. There was a barrier of thou-
sands of miles between us and our ene-
mies. The weapons of 1941 could not
cross this barrier. But?like our ally of
time?space will not save us again. The
weapons of today can cross that barrier.
The weapons of tomorrow will laugh
at it.
. By VJ- day we had entered a new age
of science, of warfare, and of world
relations. The United States has at-
tained an unprecedented ascendancy
among nations. Willing or not, we have
acquired new and awful obligations. A
large part of the responsibility for the
future peace of the world rests with us.
The world looks to us for our coopera-
tion, but even more it depends upon our
willingness and ability to back coopera-
tion with the military power to preserve
the peace. The peaceful nations of the
world know that they can cooperate to
preserve -the peace only if they are
backed by a strong United States, strong
not only in moral values and material
resources but strong in military poten-
tial.
The nations that are not peaceful or
cooperative look to us also. Our re-
sources make us world enemy No. 1 of
any envious or aggressive power. Have
no doubt about it; we would be first on
the list for any sneak attack. The
United States will be tomorrow, if it is
not today, within range of immediate as-
sault from any portion of the globe.
We must quickly adapt our defenses to
our new position. To delay is to jeopar-
dize our own future safety and the peace
of the whole world. Our present or-
ganization for defense is geared to the
past. Early and favorable action on the
pending bill is a necessary first step to
reorganize for the future. No effective
modern military war plan can possibly
be evolved by our present disjointed,
compartmentalized, jealous bureaus of
War and Navy Departments. We can-
not complacently continue an organiza-
tion proved imperfect by the past war,
and which the logic of the present so
obviously proves obsolete.
The idea of the unification of the
Armed Services is not new. In May,
1944, 1 year before VE-day, I introduced
S. 84, a bill for the unification of our
Armed Services. This was before the
shortcomings of our system were as well
known as they are now; before the radi-
cally new weapons and means of war re-
vealed at the war's end were known to
the public.
The Senate Military Affairs Committee
bill, S. 2044, which was reported out of
committee in the closing days of the last
Congress, was an improvement and de-
velopment of the earlier bill. It was the
result of careful, protracted, and exhaus-
tive hearings and studies, but no action
was taken because of the smoke screen of
false issues which -was thrown around
this simple, logical, *urgent proposition.
What is now proposed has been the sub-
ject of thorough thought and long in-
vestigations over the years by many
authorities. It is not by any means, as
some misinformed opponents would have
us believe, a new or radical measure.
But until World War II there was no
working proof of the merits of the idea
In modern warfare. Until recent world-
shaking scientific developments, there
was no compelling urgency to change.
The proof of the idea's effectiveness and
the need for its adoption are upon us,
demanding action now.
The urgent recommendation of the
wartime Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee
has been followed in this bill, in the cre-
ation of a National Security Organiza-
tion. The Joint -Chiefs of Staff estab-
lished the committee in 1944?at the
height of the war?to study and recom-
ment the best and most efficient form
of peace-and-wartime military organi-
zation. The committee was composed of
two ranking generals and two ranking
admirals. It had the advantage of be-
ing able, during the war, to visit and ob-
tain the opinions of senior military ex-
? perts both in Washington staff positions
and in the top positions of command
overseas. Every theater of operations
? was visited. The views of 40 generals
and a like number of admirals were ob-
tained. The basic recommendation of
the committee, supported by the views of
over 90 percent of all Army commanders
and exactly half of the Navy command-
ers overseas, was to establish a single
organization of national defense. The
bill in its present form, however, creates
no single military commander of all
armed forces: an office which the Joint
1647
Approd For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020004
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
Chiefs Committee included. But the
basic idea of the bill, the single Security
Organization, was the basic idea of the
0 wartime Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee.
Great benefit was derived, likewise,
from the evidence taken during the
lengthly hearings conducted by the
Woodrum Committee of the House of
Representatives on the same basic issue
of a single organization. In 1944?also at
the height of the war?that committee
took over 320 printed pages of valuable
testimony. It took no action, deferring
to the comprehensive study then being
conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Special Committee to which I have just
referred. Of particular interest was the
evidence taken by the Woodrum Commit-
tee on the subjects of supply and pro-
curement, which emphasized the abso-
lute necessity of a single Security Organ-
ization to prevent the appalling waste
and staggering cost to the taxpayer of
competing separate supply systems.
The bill before us is not an Army plan
or a Navy plan. It is a legislative ,plan
evolved through a typical example of the
working of our legislative process as pro-
vided by the Constitution. It comes
closest to the plan of the Committee of
the Wartime Joint Chiefs of Staff on the
military side, and closest to the Eberstadt
- plan, devised by Mr. Ferdinand Eberstadt
at the request of the Secretary of the
Navy on the civil-economicz.industrial
, iNsinde
eaIttti. 1
National
: Securitywouldag ,n c e . Security A geResources providencc Council,
Bu onaertihld,, eadequatethe
eme National:i n eT nt 1,6a
tra_t
security
, measures at all times, rather than only
when hostilities threaten. It creates the
(
B-darCand the Research and Develop-
ment Board, in order that we may make
? certain that our foreign and military,
? policies are coordinated and mutually
supporting; that a central intelligence
iagency may collect and analyze the mass
of information which is-so essential,for-
the Government to maintain peace and.
without which the Government -cannot
wage.war. successfully ; that scientific re-
search and development may be coordi-
nated, not only within the military serv-
ices, but between the military services
ancLother Government agencies and with
industrial and educational activities;
that intelligent planning may guarantee
coordination of our military program
with the Nation's resources in manpower,?
materials, and facilities; and that all '
these objectives may be accomplished
with the greatest possible economy con-
sistent with a strong and effective na-
tional sec , .:ity.
? The result is a balanced, workable
composite of the sound, constructive pro-
posals advanced through the long history
of this vital measure. In that regard it
is significant that the Army-Navy agree-
ment evolved by Admiral Sherman and
General Norstad and transmitted by the
President to the Congress with the full
approval of Secretaries Patterson and
Forrestal and of Admiral Nimitz and
General Eisenhower is in important par-
ticulars identical with S. 2044 of last year,
which was evolved by the Senate Military
. Committee. Thus the pending bill, S.
758, can find its genesis in proposals
,
No. 130---3
which the Congress commenced to study
over 3 years ago and which have through
mature and deliberate consideration been
embodied in the wise and constructive
measure now before the Senate.
The bill is simple. In essence it does
two things: First, it creates a single Sec-
retary at the head of a National Security
Organization for general supervision and
control of an autonomous Army, Navy,
and Air Force; and, second, it creates
machinery for coordin'iting military and
foreign policy on the one hand and mili-
tary and industrial mobilization of re-
sources on the other. That is all. But
If these things are not done, I fear for
our future security.
In order that the record may be clear,
let me briefly state some things that the
bill does not do. First, it does not pro-
vide for a merger of the services. We
still have an Army and a Navy with an
Air Force. They are virtually untouched
by this bill or Ly any of its predecessors.
I should like once and for all to blow
away the biggest smoke screen that has
so skillfully been laid around this bill by
Its artful opponents. The bill does not
affect the Marine Corps or naval avia-
tion, or even the Navy. Except for set-
ting up a separate Air Department, it
does not affect the Army or Air Force.
It is not an armed service bill at all. It
Is an organization of the constitutional
Commander in Chief for his own official
family for supervising these services. It
is an arrangement of offices in the execu-
tive branch of the Government?not of
navies and armies?certainly not of in-
terior subcommands of the Navy such as
the Marine Corps and naval aviation.
The United States Marine Corps is no
more affected by the bill than is the
United States Infantry. The bill deals
with civil organizations, not military or-
ganizations.
The three major services, Army, Navy,
and Air Force, will be separate autono-
mous entities?not a single merged serv-
ice of all arms. But they will form a
single team which they do not form
today. Each of the three coordinate
arms is administered by its own civilian
secretary, and commanded by its own
military commander. Each has its own
staff and personnel. Each continues its
own distinctive uniform, perpetuates its
traditions, maintains its own esprit de
corps. Each arm is left free to develop
itself in its own special sphere of ac-,
tivity. Each arm alone conducts its own
Individual operations and all those ac-
tivities in which it alone is expert. But
the authority to compel teamwork, to
provide for over-all planning, to elimi-
nate waste and duplication, to advise the
President responsibly and intelligently
on interservice differences, is estab-
lished in the person of the civilian Secre-
tary of National Security. In those
fields where spheres of activity and
Specialty overlap and conflict, the Sec-
retary has the full authority to direct
unified, integrated action;. to require
planning, training, and operations as a
team. That is all. There is clearly no
submergence of any service.
Furthermore, as I have previously
stated, the bill does not set up a supreme
; military commander. No military au-
_
?
8671
thority exists above the commanding
officers of the three coequal compo-
nents. The Joint Chiefs of Staff is a
balanced body drawn from all the serv-
ices, and It is only advisory. But unifi-
cation of general direction, supervision,
and administration resides in the single
secretary as the- direct delegate, agent,
servant, or lieutenant of the constitu-
tional Commander in Chief, and no
longer is left to desultory committee ac-
tion in which unanimity must be reached
before decisive action can be taken.
With an understanding of what the
bill does and does not do, let us look at
its basic idea?unified direction and con-
trol of the military departments of the
executive branch of the Government.
On the 7th of December 1941, the de-
fense of the country was entrusted to
the hands of two separate and independ-
ent organizations. One was the War
Department; the other, the Navy De-
partment. These two organizations were,
legally, as distinct and as unconnected
as were the State Department and the
Treasury or the Post Office Departments.
Practically, they had in some ways be-
come even more distinct than these civil
agencies are from each other. But their
responsibility was single and indivisible.
This single responsibility was to defend
against and overcome the military forces
of our enemies. Their responsibility was
single, but their authority was divided.
This was almost fatal. Pearl Harbor
proved that. We looked to the Army for
the defeat of the foe on land, and to the
Navy for his defeat at sea. Twenty
years after Billy Mitchell we still had
the same basic framework under which
the Navy fought the pirates of Tripoli
while the Army fought the Indians. Yet,
above both land and sea there now lay
a new battleground?the all-covering
third element of the air. A smooth path
extended across the historic domains of
the older services. Shore lines meant
nothing to this new air power. Yet the
Army and Navy had their whole machin-
ery geared to a line of demarkation at
high-water mark. The Japs saw this
flaw in our machine and took advantage
of it. Pear Harbor was the result.
The lesson is still recorded at Pearl
Harbor for all to read. It is to be found
there in the burned-out hulls of a great
part of our Pacific Fleet. It is perpetu-
ated there by 3,000 American graves.
But the lesson of waste and defeat is
proved by a much longer record than?
that of December 7, 1941. It extended
all through the dark days of 1942. Hun-
dreds of thousands of tons of shipping
and supplies lie rotting on the bottom
of the North Atlantic. The watery
graves of thousands of merchant sea-
men; the shattered armies, air forces,
and navies of England and Russia, Aus-
tralia and Holland must be reckoned in
the cost.
The hulks of the Prince of Wales and
the Repulse at the bottom of the South
China Sea are further tokens of the
blunders that beset the traditionalists of
our sister navy in the British service.
The lesson that we learned is team-
Work?coordination, integration, and
unity. We learned it the hard way. It
was taught us by the enemy in our de-
,. ?
troved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020 001-i
8672 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
feats. This basic truth was forced on us
constantly and daily throughout the war,
in every aspect of our mighty effort: The
armed services can no longer stand sep-
arate and apart one from the other.
The proof was costly indeed. Impro-
vised temporary measures and hastily
rigged expedients were powerless to stop
the awful waste. With cessation of hos-
tilities, still other considerations have
arisen which compel us to stem service
separatism. I shall speak more about
these shortly. But first let me review
the major reasons why a single national
security organization is so necessary at
this time. For this is not something we
can safely lay aside again. We cannot
just let it slide. To reject unification
now might be to risk our survival as a
iree people.
First, modern military operations re-
quire the coordinated action of all -arms
and all services. In the course of the
lengthy hearings of the Committee on
Military Affairs or the Committee on
Armed Services not a single witness who
appeared, whether of the Army or Navy,
military or civilian, for unification or
against it, this year or last year, denied
what has now come to be accepted doc-
trine: The necessary coordination of
action in theaters of operation, out where
the actual fighting is taking place, can
be insured only if some one individual
has single authority to direct all land,
sea, and air forces within that theater.
The truth of this doctrine, now accepted
by all, was forced on our separate mili-
tary departments only by the urgent
necessities of conflict. It was slow in
obtaining acceptance. It was resisted
by those who were jealous of the power
and prerogatives of their department or
bureau or service. It was resisted by
the very same considerations that now
oppose a single organization. But
neither America nor the armed forces
themselves could then afford delay. We
cannot afford it now.
Thus, in every theater of war, no mat-
ter how diverse the conditions, there
emerged one supreme commander:
Eisenhower in Europe, MacArthur in the
so)^.west Pacific, and Nimitz in the
cc :al Pacific. They were supreme
not only in operations but in all of the
manifold administrative and supply
functions in their theaters. These the-
aters were virtually single govern-
mental departments of the three fight-
ing arms together with all their support,
operating successfully in the field. No
suggestion was then long entertained
that equally satisfactory results might
be had by relying on voluntary coopera-
tion and agreement among the various
arms, or that inter-service committees
should be tried instead of a single com-
mander. The chips were down; the
peril was too apparent to debate the
obvious action. Departmental preroga-
tives were suspended to win the common
victory.
What was proved to be necessary.
yesterday in the hemispherical theaters
of war is today even more imperative in
global defense. ,
What was the D-da,y landing on the
beaches of Normandy? .Was it an Army
show? The Army came through the
surf and fought their way inland in one
of the greatest military achievements in
history. Was it a Navy show? The
Navy landed the men and supplies in
perhaps the most complex naval opera-
tion the world had ever seen. Was it an
air show? Air power cleared the enemy
from the skies, stopped his reinforce-
ments from reaching the battlefield,
dropped airborne troops behind him and
bombed and strafed away his resistence.
Never before were so many sorties flown
In a single day.
Again, what effected the final sur-
render , of Japan? Was it air power,
which, operating from bases won by sea
and land power, left over 40 percent of
the urban areas of the Jap's 60 major
cities in ashes, gutted his war industries,
killed over 250,000, left 10,000,000 home-
less, and held the potentiality for com-
plete annihilation by repeated atomic
attacks? Was it sea power, which with
air power, had swept the Jap's Fleet from
the oceans and blockaded his homeland?
Was it land power, which with both sea
and air power, had won the air, sea and
ground bases from which the final as-
sault on his homeland could be launched?
There is no answer to these questions
. except this: All these operations were
won by triphibious teams of land, sea,
and air. The nineteenth-century rea-
sons for two departments are gone with
the horse and buggy. We must stream-
line for a streamlined age.
The need for unity in the last war
will be multiplied many. times in the
next. Pilotless aircraft, homing rockets,
supersonic planes, and atomic explosives
will finish the demonstration that the
Japanese Zero of 1941 so dramatically
began. Any future battle may extend
anywhere in the world with forces of
land, sea and air. To divide our defense
against such warfare along lines that no
longer exist is sheer folly.
There is even less reason for depart-
mental separation in Washington today
than there was for separation of the
Army and Navy at Pearl Harbor in 1941.
Five long years of positive proof has
hammered home the compelling need for
unity. It simply cannot be seriously or
rationally maintained that, although we
must have unity of military command in
the field, we should not have unity of
civilian authority in Washington. There
is not one consideration which forced us
to adopt unified command in combat that
does not, with even greater logic, compel
the acceptance of over-all administra-
tion of our armed forces here at home.
We cannot have effective unity of effort
down the line if we lack unity of pur-
pose and direction at the top. We can-
not fight as a unit unless we are directed
as a unit. Neither a man nor, a fight-
ing team can serve two masters. We
cannot prepare our forces for unified ac-
tion unless we train them together. We
' cannot hope for true common action in
the battle when there is no single com-
mon plan of battle. All this means uni-
fication of planning, training, research,
intelligence, and supply, as well as uni-
fied operations. In other words, all de-
partmental functions, as well as field
Command, must be unified.
There is another cogent reason why
Unification is needed in Washington, in
addition to the ones I have just stated,
JULY 9
and that is that our own country may
be a battlefield of the future. Any en-
emy strong enough to be a threat to
world peace, will have weapons of range
and power sufficient to attack our home-
land, the United States Itself. If the
enemy is going to launch a world war,
he will launch those weapons against us.
Our clear duty is to admit this fact, and
to plan now for our security. If the
United States should become a true
theater of operations, no one would argue
that we should have divided command
in this, the most vital theater of all, while
admitting the necessity of unity else-
where.
If we are to be prepared at all to meet
the speed of future attack, we must pre-
pare in peacetiir . We cannot wait for
the distant red glow of another and far
more disastrous Pearl Harbor to give us
the danger signal. This unification pro-
posal lies at the very base of all this
country's postwar military planning.
We know that this over-all planning
function cannot be satisfactorily dis-
charged by the President alone in his
constitutional role of Commander in
Chief. Military planning is a problem
of tremendous and growing scientific
complexity. It is a problem which re-
quires the broadest possible knowledge of
the several arms' missions, potentialities
and status; it requires a broad vista of
foreign intelligence, and of current and
future scientific developments. This de-
mands not only the full-time individual
attention of a single over-all civilian au-
thority, but also the integrated effort of
a large staff of specialized and capable
military and scientific advisors and pro-
fessional planners. The President, with
the multitude of other demands on his
time and effort, cannot be humanly ex-
pected to personally make sound initial
rulings on the partisan plans brought to
him by the separate services. He should
be able to rely for such coordination on
a single member of his Cabinet, on the
head of an organization responsible to
him for the national security. The
President has made it quite clear, in his
successive messages to the Congress, that
he needs this assistance. The President
is in the best position in the world to
know whether he, as Commander in
Chief, needs this assistance. This vital
national function clearly requires the
facilities of a specialized organization. It
could not possibly be achieved either by a
single deputy at the White House level
or by any committee or board between
the White House and several separate
department heads. All these devices
have been tried before, and they have
? never worked. The Joint Chiefs of Staff
are not working now?just as General
Marshall predicted in 1945. This bill
provides a real remedy to the problem of
adequately supervising comprehensive
security .planning in this new age of
scientific warfare. This bill is the first
necessary step in solving that problem.
Another serious consideration, in ad-
dition to the urgent ?need for unified
planning, is the problem of joint train-
ing. Officers cannot be indoctrinated in
the tactics of unified command under a
system of separation. Officers and men
of each force must absolutely be required
to learn the techniques, weapons, ca-
Ap ed For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
pabilities, limitations, and functions of
their sister services. This is no job for
boards or committees for voluntary co-
ordination. This is a vital operating job.
It requires direction, not debate. All
agree that training of each service for its
own specially must not be neglected.
Also, men must be indoctrinated in the
customs and traditions of their own
service. Everybody wants all the services
to retain the splendid esprit de corps
which each has developed throughout the
years, but the hand of tradition should
go no further. Insofar as it inspires
morale, it is good. Insofar as it is allowed
to divide our defense force, it is bad.
I come now to the question of cost.
Here is our big chance to really do some-
thing about economy, instead of just
talking about it.
When the peril was great, we waged
war without counting the cost. In
peace, this is impossible. We enter the
postwar era with obligations, resulting
from the last war, Which we know now
will last for many years. These obliga-
tions require us to be much stronger than
our traditional military policy has ever
before demanded. The price of ade-
quate security has increased greatly with
the advance of scientific warfare. Our
national, security is bound to be a drastic
drain on the Treasury. It will strain
our reserves ,of manpower as well as our
pocketbooks. Our limited reservoir of
technicians and scientists will be drained
for years to come. We can never again
afford to be as profligate with our assets
as we were in World War II?in war or
peace. We have learned that our re-
sources in men and materials are far
from inexhaustible in modern war. We
must plan now to hoard and ration them.
All our plans must call for their most
economical and efficient use. This re-
quires a single security organization un-
der a single responsible civilian secretary.
There is an even more vital aspect of
this problem. I speak of scientific re-
search. This will require vast sums of
money in addition to all other expendi-
tures. In the end, if properly directed
and coordinated, it may save us much
of the cost of war. In any case, our
armed forces must continue to move for-
ward into ever new fields of development
If we are to plan adequately for our se-
curity. War has become increasingly a
struggle of technicians. It is more and
more a struggle between men of science.
It requires no great foresight to see that
this trend will be progressive. But
though research is costly in money, it is
more costly in scientific manpower. We
may beg, borrow, or steal money, but we
cannot conjure up scientists. Yet, be-
tween the War and Navy Departments,
there has been little or no coordination
in research activities.
Wi-kat of the budget? What is the
remedy? Mr. President, we now have
two separate agencies coming before
separate committees of the Congress to
compete for separate shares of the na-
tional budget for the same purpose?the
national security.' So long as we con-
tinue this practice, we shall continue to
be advised, not by judicious counselors,
but rather by jealous partisans, special
pleaders, each clamoring for. as much
money as the traffic will bear. :A single
plan and a coordinated budget must be
evolved by a single professional agency.
Only by means of a single organization
under the direction of a single secretary
can we hope to obtain a single-balanced
plan or a coordinated budget providing
for a reasoned distribution of available
funds according to military value. In
the absence of such an agency, Congress
cannot possibly weed out continuing
waste, duplication and parallel activities,
nor stop needless spending. There is no
other way out.
The wartime Joint Chiefs of Staff
served us well. It was the best substi-
tute for unification which could be im-
provised at the time. It produced suf-
ficient integration of effort to win the
war. This country will remain eternally
In the debt of those great military leaders
who devoted their efforts to making this
body work. Although under the pres-
sure of war they were able to give us
enough coordination to bring victory in
World War II, they did not and could
not give us the efficient integrated team
we will need for a war of the future.
While these top military leaders have un-
doubtedly done their best to get together
on questions of grand strategy, the com-
peting departments have kept up their
rivalry and their duplciations and in-
herent waste.
Mr. President, the final major consid-
eration which I wish to urge in support
of i.the single organization proposed by
this bill is air power.
World War U demonstrated beyond all
argument, speculation, or doubt the ter-
rific and overwhelming force of air power.
Regardless of handicaps imposed upon it
by antiquated military and naval organi-
zations acting sometimes as unsympa-
thetic stepfathers, air power, by its in-
herent might, was able to overcome all
these. It clearly established itself in
battle as a complete and basic arm which
must be employed side by side in an in-
tegrated effort with the land and sea
arms. Air power has achieved its eman-
cipation in fact. At this tardy date, we
cannot do less than to legalize the eman--
cipation it has already won by its mag-
nificent performance. This bill does
that.
The question of unification, as I have
said, has long been made the subject
df the fullest and most comprehensive
debate that is possible under a free de-
mocracy. The entire problem has been
subjected to the most thorough study and
restudy. We have had the benefit of re-
ports and recommendations originating
in civil, in military, and in legislative
sources. We have examined all wit-
nesses, we know the positions of all par-
ties, we have heard all sides. We have
heard them at great length. We have
heard them to the total exhaustion of the
subject. There is no aspect of the prob-
lem that has not already been present-
ed, re-presented, and presented again.
Mr. President, there has been no argu-
ment on any side of any phase of this
subject that was not presented several
times. The evidence has long been com-
pletely before us and is completely be-
'fore the Nation. I know of no similar
question that has been the subject of
more widespread public debate. The
country is clearly for unification.
8673
Our military departments are for it.
Secretary Forrestal has taken the lead
in evolving the Army-Navy agreement
which gave the immediate impetus to the
bill in its present form. Secretary Pat-
terson has been urging unification for
years. Admiral Nimitz and Generals
Eisenhower, Spaatz, and Vandegrift
have all agreed to this bill in its present
form. General Norstad and Admiral
Sherman, who drafted the agreement,
represent the Army Air Forces and naval
aviation, respectively. The public and
press demand for prompt, action is over-
whelming.
In the meantime, our Military Estab-
lishment, awaiting our action, stands
today deprived of the fundamental prem-
ises upon which all its planning must
be based. It has stood thus for two
long years while we have delayed. The
state of unrest and uneasiness which the
continued pendency of this matter has
occasioned is being daily aggravated.
Further delay and inaction can serve no
wholesome purpose. Our duty to Amer-
ica is clear?the urgency is great?the
time is now.
Senators who support the cause of
unification today will be called the
statesmen of the future, for the cause is
sound, and the national security requires
action. Those who oppose unification
now may well weigh the consequences
of their decision.
I speak earnestly because I feel deeply
that unification is right, that it is neces-
sary, and that it must precede any
orderly and sane solution of our security
problem.
With this expression of my own con-
viction, I commend the issue to the Sen-
ate. I believe we should act at once.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, at the
outset of my discussion of the unifica-
tion bill, I want to pay very deserved
tribute and commendation to one of the
opponents of the bill. I refer to that
very distinguished Senator from Wyo-
ming [Mr. ROBERTSON]. As a member of
the Armed Services Committee, serving
over many weeks with the Senator from
Wyoming, also a member of that com-
mittee, I developed a great respect f or
the sincerity of purpose and the intelli-
gent approach which the Senator made
to this bill, and which he evidenced in
offering opposition to certain features of
It. As a result of the work of the Sen-
ator from Wyoming on the 'Armed Serv-
ices Committee in opposition to the bill,
it is a much better bill than it was when
the hearings were started and when the
executive sessions on the bill were begun.
Time after time the Armed Services
Committee, in a good-faith attempt to
adjust differences in points of view with
the Senator from Wyoming, accepted a
great many of his suggestions. Although
the adjustments did not satisfy him in
their entirety, I may say that I think the
Senator from Wyoming, in turn, appre-
ciates the approach which those who are
opposed to his point of view in the com-
mittee took in our discussion of the bill.
In my opinion, the country owes much
to the Senator from Wyoming for the
fine contribution he made in Committee
In presenting his differences in points
of view to the rest of us, for we now have
ved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200 01-1.
8674 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
a bill which I think avoids the pitfalls
which the Senator from Wyoming called
to our attention at the beginning of the
discussions.
Furthermore, as a member of the
Armed Services Committee, I want to
commend the chairman of the commit-
tee, the Senator from South Dakota [Mr.
GURNEY] , for his patience, his fairness,
his absolute impartiality in seeing to it
that all had their full say and that due
consideration was given to every sugges-
tion made by each member of the com-
mittee. There was no attempt in the
consideration of the bill, Mr. President,
to hasten action in the committee. In
fact, at times the members of the com-
mittee were criticized because they did
not proceed more rapidly in reporting
the bill; but each one of,us recognized the
vital importance of the bill to the future
security of the Nation. Hence, we felt
that whatever time it took to make a full
disclosure of our points of view and to
?
iron out, to the extent we could, our dif-
ferences, was time well spent.
After those careful deliberations, I,
reached the final conclusion that the bill
in its present form should be passed by
the?Senate of the United States.
A CHALLENGE TO ACTION
Mr. President, the unification legisla-
tion pending before the Senate and known
as Senate bill 758 is of as great impor-
tance to the United States as any measure
awaiting action by this body. It is a sub-
ject upon which the Congress must come
to a decision without delay or be guilty
of dilatory and negligent performance of
its duty to the American people.
WHAT KIND OF UNIFICATION?
This matter of unification has been the
subject of a continuing controversy for
nearly 3 years. We of the Congress,
along with many of our fellow citizens
both in and out of the armed services,,
have been very much perplexed about
this issue as we have tried to enter a fair
judgment on it. It has not been so much
that we have doubted the need for some
kind of unification?that has hardly even
been suggested. It has been rather that
fears and confusion have arisen as to
just what the form and substance of the
unification measure we might adopt
should be. .
The general reasons for some kind of
unification have been all too obvious to
most of us. We have seen two great but
independent organizations, the War and
Navy Departments, each going its sepa-
rate way toward the single end of pro-
viding security to the United States.
Common sense alone would be enough
to convince any reasonable man that
something should be done to bring these.
services together. And as reinforcement
to the common-sense reasons for unifica-
tion, there are many specific examples and
conditions, as portrayed to us by expert
testimony as well as in actuality, which
attest that it is both uneconomical and
inefficient for two independent agencies
to be seeking to accomplish the same ulti-
mate mission.
No, Mr. President, it has seldom been
doubted that unification as a sound and
vital measure in the interest of national
security, should be brought about. The
controversies which have delayed a deci-
sion on this subject have always de-
veloped around the specific details of
unification. Indeed, there have been
raised in the past numerous doubts?
most of which have been sincere and
legitimate?as to how far toward unify-
ing the armed services any unification
bill should go. And although nearly
everybody has said he favors unification,
events have revealed measurably dif-
ferent definitions of the term "unifica-
tion." It finally became apparent that
resolution of the issue boiled down to a
removal of the specific objections that
have arisen.
OLD OBJNCTIONS REPEATEDLY RAISED
In certain of the bills which were in-
troduced in previous years, there was
proposed a single military Chief of Staff,
who was feared by many to be a potential
"man on horseback"?a military threat
to the. civilian control of our Govern-
ment.
Even with the elimination of the single
military Chief of Staff there have been
voiced objections that the proposed single
Secretary of National Security, albeit a
civilian, would have too much power to
be safe, would abrogate the powers of
the President, and would become a
czarlike authority unto himself?a dire
menace to our form of government.
It has been further contended that to
put any man short of the President,
whether he be civilian or military, over
the armed forces would cause our secur-
ity establishment to become unbalanced
because the top man might neglect one
of the forces through favoritism toward
another one. This fear of even civilian
control of the armed forces has been per-
haps unreasonable since, after all, what
kind of control do we want if not
civilian?
ADEQUATE PROTECTION FOR MARINES, NAVAL
AVIATION
Throughout the consideration of this
bill I have been of particular concern
that nothing should hurt or serve to re-
duce the effectiveness of the various ele-
ments of our great fighting forces. When
fear was expressed from certain quarters
over the future of the marines and naval
aviation, I was moved to join, and did
join, with the Senator from Wyoming to
do what could be done in seeing that
nothing should detract from the useful-
ness to the United States of these serv-
ices. I wanted to be certain that under
the bill they would not lose their identity
or their value as members of our fight-
ing team. With the other members of
the Committee on Armed Services, I
made it my business to see that guaran-
ties were made to safeguard the marines
and naval aviation.- Such guaranties
have now been written, in my opinion,
into the bill and are satisfactory to the
commanding general of the Marine
Corps and to the top naval aviators.
Further, the assurances of Generals
Eisenhower and Spaatz, of Admiral
Nimitz, and of the Secretaries of War
and Navy?in whom I share the un-
bounded confidence of My colleagues?
are safeguards which we can all assume
to be as reassuring as any which could
be written Into the statutes.
JULY 9
on.TrarroNs PROGRESSIVELY ELIMINATED
Progressively and with considerable
patience on the part of all concerned,
these and all other doubts and fears over
.the authority and control to be granted
this top Secretary have been removed
or allayed. Finally, today there is almost
unanimous accord that the threats which
have been inherent or imagined in pre-
viously proposed legislation to unify the
armed forces have been erased. This ac-
cord has been reached through the dem-
ocratic processes of our Government.
All parties concerned have been heard
and the conflicting views have been
blended by compromise?the American
way of reaching peaceful conclusions.
The legislation before the Senate repre-
sents a series of carefully drawn com-
promises which reflect a meeting of the
minds among those who were once in dis-
agreement. From all the negotiations
which preceded the final bill there has
evolved a workable, sound proposal. The
fact that the legislation is practical and
beneficial, and at the same time satis-
fa -tory to the major interested factions,
is, indeed, a high tribute to the American
system.
OBJECTIONS TO TOP MAN ELIMINATED
The traditional civilian control of our
armed forces is guaranteed. The civilian
Secretary of National Security is superior
to the three military commanders?
Army, Navy, and Air Force. There is no
single military 'chief of staff. The top
Secretary views the over-all problem of
national security impartially and on a
broad basis, and is a principal assistant
to the President and adviser to the Con-
gress on the general subject.
Mr. President, I do not think we should
overlook the fact that he will function
under the bill as the adviser to the Con-
gress.
The Army, Navy, and Air Force retain
their identities as integral members of
the security team. They are adminis-
tered by three departments of the Gov-
ernment, the civilian secretary of each
of which has access to the President.
These three secretaries and the senior
military officers of each service will be
the principal assistants to the President
and advisers to the Congress in their own
particular fields. Thus, in addition to
having the viewpoint of the several serv-
ices, the country will have the benefit
of an official whose sole job is to study
and advise on what should comprise a
balanced program of all the services.
Lack of such an official constitutes a
striking deficiency in our Government
today.
CIVILIAN CONTROL INCREASED
Every precaution has been taken by
the Army and Navy representatives who
drafted the original bill, and by your
committee in amending it to its present
form, to insure adequate civilian control.
The President, of course, retains the
paramount civilian control of the armed
forces, as Commander in Chief. The
bill actually makes it easier for the Pres-
ident effectively to carry out his duties
as civilian commander because it gives
him much needed assistance in this tre-
mendous task.
. It seems to me, Mr. President, that we
should not overlook the fact that the
AppOd For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020004
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
President does remain the top civilian
controller of our armed services. Under
our democratic system we do not have to
fear that any military official, be he
civilian top secretary under the unifica-
tion bill, or a man in uniform, will at-
tempt to take unto himself too much
power, which some seem to fear might
still be possible under the bill. Why do
I say that? I say it because the Presi-
dent of the United States would soon be
apprised of any such attempt on the part
of any official under the unification bill.
A President of the United States usually
likes to be reelected, and if he discovers
that there is opposition in the country
to an attempt on the part of the Secre-
tary of National Security to take more
power unto himself that he should have
under the spirit and intent of the bill,
the Secretary is going to hear from the
President. If the situation were such.
that the particular President did not
want to be reelected, we could be sure
that his party would want to elect some-
one in his place. So we have under the
bill, as we have under all legislation, the
ultimate political control resting in the
people of the country which will manifest
itself if anyone under this bill should
attempt to engage in arbitrary or abusive
power. I am not at all fearful so long
as the President of the United States
remains the civilian controller of our
Military Establishment, or of any man
in uniform, or of any civilian who is a
top Secretary, abusing the power granted
to him under the terms of the bill.
Of course the constitutional power of
the Congress to raise and support armies
and navies comprises the real civilian
control over the military, and this funda-
mental safeguard can never be abridged
by the establishment of new agencies.
We are the ones who vote the funds. The
Congress, incidentally, will be aided
greatly in. obtaining a balanced picture
of the problem of security, for at any
time it can call for advice from any rep-
resentative of the different services or
the several impartial agencies and offices
established to deal with the broad phases
of the entire matter of security. Under
existing circumstances, the Congress is
denied such valuable information and
counsel as it will be afforded under uni-
fication, and is constantly harried by
pressures from all sides for this or that
phase of national security, without ever
getting an appreciation of the over-all
picture. ?
Mr. President, I served for a time on
the old Naval Affairs Committee. It
seemed to me our common practice was
to move somewhat in the dark as we
took up naval affairs matters, which re-
lated also to military matters but which
fell within the jurisdiction of the then
Military Affairs Committee. I feel that
the same problem exists within the Ap-
propriations Committee under our pres-
ent system. One subcommittee deals
with naval appropriations, another sub-
committee with Army appropriations,
and seldom do the twain ever Meet in a
common underetanding of their mutual
problems,
" One of the great procedural and ad-
ministrative strengths of the bill, as I ,
see it, is that for the first time, through
the top Secretary provided for in the
bill, there will be submitted to Congress
an over-all budget report, and over-all
advice as to what a balanced program
should be for the Army, the Navy, and
the Air Force.
I now want to say, because the pending
bill is not perfect in many respects, that
I think one point the Senator from Wyo-
ming makes is a very telling point. I do
not think the record on the bill shows
that any great economy will flow from it,
certainly in the early years of its admin-
istration. I may say to the Senator from
Wyoming that, as a lawyer, I would have
to say that I think the preponderance of
evidence in the record supports his con-
tention that the bill will not produce
great economies at first. If one wants
to vote for the bill solely on the ground
of economy he will find that the evidence
does not support such a vote. However,
It is not a wasteful bill, it is not a costly
bill in the sense that it increases costs
for the same functions.as now rendered.
It had within it, in my judgment, the
procedure which makes it possible for
the top Secretary and the Secretaries of
Air. Navy, and Army to bring about
great economies as they learn to work
together in closer cooperation, as I am
sure they will, once the terms and pro-
visions of the bill are put into operation.
I happen to be one who feels that once
the law is on the statute books and the
Secretary of National Security and his
Assistant Secretaries proceed in confer-
ence after, conference, they will see a
multitude of ways to bring about econ-
omy. I have always been, and still am,
critical of wastes within the administra-
tion of the War and Navy Departments.
They go back to roots which have grown
for decades. I think we have before us
a bill which would make it possible to
tear up .some of those roots.
I do not believe that the bill goes
nearly far enough with regard to the
whole question of greater unification for
procurement. Further, I would that it
provided for greater unification, for ex-
ample, in such specific instances as med-
ical services; but it does not make it im-
possible for that type of economy to de-
velop. In fact, I think that type of
economy will be possible only under the
terms of this bill. It certainly will not
come about if we continue the status quo.
Let me say frankly that I admit that
In my judgment I cannot show from
the record any great economies which
? will immediately flow from the passage
of the bill. I am satisfied that econo-
mies will develop as the officials given
responsibility under the bill come to ad-
minister it and come to see that the
spirit and intent of Congress in pass-
ing the bill is to place upon them the
responsibility for effecting economies.
Then, too, with this bill and the pow-
ers given to the top Secretary, it seems
to me that we shall be in a much better
position when he sits down to advise with
Congress when he makes his annual re-
ports to us, to require him to show spe-
cific cause why certain economies, if
they are not in his report, are not made
or cannot be made, ,
I suppose that my economic argument
could be summarized in this way: Al-
though the bill in its present form does
not immediately effectuate great econ-
8675
omies, it does provide the procedure and
the administrative machinery for ef-
fecting such economies if the top Secre-
tary and the three Assistant Secretaries
keep faith with the spirit and intent of
the act.
This bill represents a careful step in
the gradual, deliberate chain of evolu-
tion which is typical of arriving at
change in our governmental structure.
No radical departure is entailed. S. 758
does not seriously ,alter the present
scheme of things, but does take advan-
tage of certain obvious lessons of World
War II and gives the country a means
to see where other improvements may
possibly and appropriately be made.
If experience gathered from function-
ing under the bill so dictates, further
revisions in our national-security struc-
ture may be proposed and judged by the
Congress and the people. That is cer-
tainly not violent, but is the American
way of progress.
The bill has been so revised from the
versions of previous years that some say ?
that it is now too weak to be effective.
It has been accused of having no teeth
to make the improvements that must be
made. I have heard it said that so much
power is reserved to the Army, Navy, and
Air Force and that there will not be the
flexibility necessary to make indicated
changes. This may be, although I doubt
It very much. In any case, the actual op-
eration of the bill is the only true test
of its effectiveness. -Therefore, if after a
?few years too much authority seems to
be vested in the three military depart-
ments and unnecessary duplications can-
not be eliminated because of restrictions
in the bill, the Secretary of National Se-
curity and the President may make fur-
ther recommendations to the Congress
for such alterations as seem desirable.
To this end, the bill makes specific provi-
sion for further studies and recom-
mendations.
In any case, the legislation does not go
too far. It is a good first step. It not
only retains civilian control over the
military, but it increases that control.
Adtually, there has never been a serious
threat by the military in the history of
the United States. Our professional sol-
diers and sailors have never manifested
a desire to run the country. They have
always taken pride in their role of pub-
lic servant. In fact, during the delibera-
-Lions on this unification bill, military
leaders have been the foremost in insist-
ing that maximum civilian control be
provided in all parts of the legislation.
. It is a favorite form of cynicism on
the part of some critics constantly to
throw in the direction of the military
very unfair and below-the-belt criti-
cisms, I think that has frequently been
costly to the prestige of our military, par-
ticularly in the minds of the youth of the
land. During the war I had an opportu-
nity on the home front to pass judgment
upon the faith in our .democratic proc-
esses of the high military authorities.
Frequently I saw them in a position where
materials of war were being held up be-
came of domoetic difileultiee on the home
front, but not once did I hear a high
authority in the military take the posi-
tion that we should, adopt undemocratic
procedures for. the handling of those
Aeved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200
8676 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
problems. I want to say to the credit
of the military that it has been my ob-
servation that they usually demonstrate
a greater faith in our democratic proc-
esses and in the right of our people to
be protected from military abuses than
do many of our civilian officials. I was
pleased with my observations of our mili-
tary government in Germany last fall?
to note that in the operation of that mili-
tary government first attention was al-
ways given the question as to whether
any rule, regulation, or administrative
order was in accordance with democratic
rights. So I am not one of those who
take the position that there is any basis
in fact?certainly no basis in fact was
developed during the hearings and the
consideration of this bill?for fear of
usurpation of power on the part of the
military to the detriment of American
domestic processes.
Now that the objections against unifi-
cation have been met and the fears
calmed, this moderate, temperate, and
yet progressive bill stands before the
Senate for decision. Where unanimity
once was lacking, the agreements which
have been reached and from which this
bill results must surely remove all former
obstacles. Where controversy and con-
fusion once clouded the issues, there is
now, for the most part, satisfaction on
all sides. Not even the obstacle of politi-
cal partisanship attends this measure. ,
It has shared the same impartial treat-
ment that has been so wisely afforded
our foreign policy.
One immediate need for the bill lies in
the fact that the Army and Navy are in
urgent need of some permanent basis for
their future organization. Except for
certain emergency authority under which
the armed forces were drastically re-
organized for their successful prosecu-
tion of World War II, there is nothing on
the statute books under which these
forces can shape their postwar organi-
zations except the antiquated laws which
governed their organization between the
two world wars.
It is the lessons of World War II which
we must now apply. We must look for-
ward so that we shall not be caught un-
prepared and outmoded if another war
must come. If it comes, it will come
fast.
I believe that that is what the bill
would do. It applies those lessons in an
intelligent, gradual fashion and provides
a means for a further study of the com-
plex problems of national security.
One of the most compelling lessons of
the recent war is that there are imperfec-
tions and gaps in the relationships be-
tween the military and foreign policies
of this country. This bill corrects that
situation by the establishment Of the
National Security Council, wherein the
complex and now uncoordinated prob-
lems of bringing foreign policy into har-
mony with the military means to enforce
that policy may be brought to light .and
resolved.
A corollary lesson is that the people,
the Congress, and the President have no
single individual or agency charged with
the over-all problem of national secu-
rity to whom they can look for impartial
recommendations and coordination.
This bill provides the Secretary of Na-
tional Security, a sort of Deputy Presi-
dent, to assist the Chief Executive in the
carrying out of his great responsibility
as Commander in Chief.
Unification will also apply another
clear lesson of World War II, and World
War I for that matter, and that is that
there must be an agency to plan and ad-
minister the proper allocation of the eco-
nomic and human resources of the coun-
try so that both civilian and military
needs are adequately met in time of war.
The National Security Resources Board
is proposed for just that purpose. Under
a National Security Establishment
wherein the efforts of all the armed serv-
ices are brought into harmony?and
there is no such establishment today?
unnecessary duplications of money and
effort can be eliminated. And through
the recommendations of the Secretary of
National Security to the President and
the Congress, continuing improvements
in efficiency and economy can be made
which will carry out the obvious intent of
the Congress.
The various civilian agencies and the
key civilian officials provided in the bill
assure the traditional (and essential, if
our system of government is to con-
tinue) civilian control of the Military
Establishment. Together with the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, these civilian agencies
comprise an organ which can plan and
prepare for the United States to meet
the threat of a total war. Mark you, Mr.
President, no one longer doubts that the
next world war, if it should come, will be
a total war. Much of this planning has
not even been started, and without pas-
sage of this bill it will continue to be
delayed.
The issues of unification are now clear.
Controversy no longer exists. All In-
terested persons and parties have had
their doubts satisfied, and there is hardly
a responsible individual in or out of Con-
gress who has cause to oppose this pres-
ent bill. There is opposition to details,
yes; but not to the great objective of the
bill. Even those vigilant guardians of
our American way of life, the Daughters
of the American Revolution, in their re-
cent national convention here in Wash-
ington, adopted a strong resolution in
favor of this legislation. i
The United States must not be forced
to depend upon an outmoded military
establishment to fight or avert another
world war?and may a strong America
prevent it from ever coming.
The Congress must act now?this ses-
sion?in order to give the country and
the people the best security for the money
spent. The lessons of World War II, only
recently so vivid to us all, are dimming
as time passes. We cannot ignore them.
It would be a shocking incrimination of
the Congress, and a welcome scandal for
those at home and abroad who decry our
form of government, if that which the
country and its responsible leaders so
clearly want is ignored or delayed by the
representatives of the people in the Con-
gress. I entreat my colleagues in the
Senate, Mr. President, to take immedi-
ate and favorable action, to accomplish
the translation of the unification bill,
S. 758, into enacted legislation so that
it may become a law of the land to pro-
vide a suitable structure for our postwar
01-1'
JULY 9
national security in a world where lack
of security may well spell a nation's death
warning.
STRENGTHENING Tar, UNI I ea) NATIONS
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. President, earlier
in the day the junior Senator from Mich-
igan [Mr. FERGUSON] submitted a res-
olution expressing the desire and the
need for strengthening the United Na-
tions. I was one.of the sponsors of the
resolution. However, a number of my
colleagues and I feel that the previously
presented resolution is not sufficiently
specific and not sufficiently strong.
Therefore we are presenting another res-
olution. This action is not to be con-
strued as a condemnation of the pre-
vious resolution, but rather as a more
accurate expression of the thinking of
some of us on this all-important subject.
I might say, Mr. President, that the con-
current resolution which I shall send to
the desk is one which was approved by
a large group of Members of the Senate
and of the House of Representatives.
The concurrent resolution, as I send it
to the desk, is as it has come from the
House of Representatives where it is
being or has been offered by Representa-
tive JUDD and Representative HAYS, to-
gether with a large number of cosponsors.
I send the concurrent resolution to
the desk and ask that the clerk read it,
Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will read the concurrent resolution.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con.
Res. 24) submitted by Mr. TAYLOR (for
himself, Mr. CHAVEZ, Mr. JOHNSTON Of
South Carolina, Mr. Tonle Mr. PEPPER,
and Mr. MURRAY) was read and referred
to the Committee on Foreign Relations,
as follows:
Whereas all the world deeply desires dur-
able peace; and
Whereas the United Nations was created
as an instrument to preserve the peace of
the world; and
Whereas experience increasingly indi-
cates that the United Nations in its present
structure is not fully adequate for this task;
and
Whereas the United Nations Charter in
its article 109 provides a procedure whereby
the Charter of the United Nations may be.
revised and amended: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of
Representatives concurring), That it is the
sense of the Congress that the President
of the United States should immediately take
the initiative in calling a general conference
of .the United Natidhs pursuant to article
109 for the purpose of making the United
Nations capable of enacting, interpreting,
ad enforcing world law to prevent war.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. 'President, I ask -
unanimous consent to have printed in the
RECORD, immediately following the print-
ing of the concurrent resolution, article
109 of the United Nations Charter.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
ARTICLE 100
I. A general conference of the Members
of the United Nations for the purpose of .
reviewing the present Charter may be held
at a date and place to be fixed by a two-thirds ?
vote of the members of the General Assem-
bly and by a vote of any seven members of
the Security Council% Each member of the
United Nations shall have one vote in the
conference.
ApprOd For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020004
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
signed l'ip by one man in a matter of a
few days in a city like Baltimore.
There ?.being no objection, the petition
and the \signature 's were ordered to be
printed in, the RECORD, as follows:
To United States Senate and House of Repre-
sentati es:
"Resolved by the United States Senate (the
House of RcpresentaliVes concurring)., That
the Presiden of the United States shall im-
mediately ta :e the initiative in calling a
general conf rence of the United Nations
pursuant to rticle l09 for the purpose of
making the IT ited Nations Capable of enact-
ing, interpret g, and enforcing world law
to prevent wan"
The ?undersi ned who are interested in
*strengthening jthe United Nations into at
least the begin ings of a world government
hereby urge thnt this resolution to strength-
en the United Iations be pushed vigorously
and that the CI arter of the United Nations
be revised and ended in the light of this
resolution. -
Philip L. S kes, Rosco Bernard, Anne
? B. Jenkin, Anna Syret, Louis Nathans,
,Edward ? H jek, Rodney Link, Sam-
? tel D. 1Kshues, Arthur Krishmer,
Fannie H.l Rice, Calvert Cummins,
Samuel I. uiorirtz, Rosa Lee Altshul,
? Max Susin, acob W. Barenburg, Harry
D. Ambrose, IR. G. Green, Colman Klein,
Eli Cohen, Maurice R. Oppenheim,
, Isaac E. Davison, Helen E. Romm, Kay
? Solomon, Eta L. Leist, Jesse Ashman,
William Kle er, Louise Levin, Charles
is)
W. Main, B -nerd E. Ster, Borris M.
Spector, Hai 'y Yaffe, Alexander J.
. Lane, Edwin ohn, David W. French,
Henry I. )3on und, Iris B. Jossen, H.
Henry Rosen rg, Philip Tachs, Louis
? C. Fried, Juiltia P. Robinson, Paula
? 131rnan, Simoni Nobel Silverberg, Hy-
- man I. Cohen, Samuel Rubin, W. A.
Schmidt, Willican T. Imid, Julius
Krump, Maxwyl Alpert, Herman
Punp Ian, Herb at Kaufman, Harry
Rapport, Ely Ashman, Abraham
.Finkelstein, H. D. Cofran, Jim Finney,
Joseph Siegel, Al red F. Dedornenico,
Harry Bernstein, rancis F. Commer,
Jakob Hesker, Cha les Caplan, Agatha
Roenstadt S. S. Zu rcher, Lil Strocket,
Anna Cohn, Emma Gardner, Dorothy
Adkins, Rose Fagark Fred Mechl, Sr.,
W. I. Magills, Emanuel J. Riback, Harry
Saeffer, Revs Marshall, Allen J. Eisner,
Bradford Bloom, Lliwrence Greene-
baum, Sophie H. Stec el, Louis Bender,
Nathan H. Miller, All T. Cohn, Abner
? J. Weinger, Johnny elis, Jack Norin,
Jas. D. Balachow, Emmet Stein,
M. A. Cummins, Meter Shapiro, W.
Keiles, Allen W. Eaton M. J. Stelnhom,
Thomas J. Ringgold, Carlie F. Par-
rish, James W. Miller, Mannes Freed-
enberg, S. C. , Ka, zoff, Maurice
Schoenfeld, Bernard Klein, Samuel
? Vataposky, Nathan Ab amanitz, Abra-
ham Kahn, Esther 1 Goldosheides,
Frederick J. Freely, Jr., Ethel E.
Wahl, William Alvin Wahl, George 0.
Biome, Anthony F. Di Domenico, Wm,
Weinblatt, Rose S. Zetzer, Allen C.
Capone, D. ?M. LeAtinett, Frank
M. Merrick, H. LaRue Parke, Anthony
I. Gedenico, Jeanne illofmen, Leon
A. Rubenstein, H. B. Hofman, Joshua
C. Gwin, Harvey D. Bickel, Medford
D. Lilly, Alberta Talbott, Marcellus S.
Jonas, Martin H. Larsen, Hugh
Anthony, F. J. Richardson, James L.
Muller, Lottie Friedler,v Herbert Lock-
wood, Edwin Greenebaum, Ellis Levin,
Jack A. Miller, Lawrence Lockwood,
Miss Anna M. Robinson, John Howard
Clarke, John J. Smith, Lena DePaul,
Thos. W. Pond, E. Joseph, John A.
Novak, Aaron A. Baer, Adolph Schick-
No. 130-5
elgruber, Louisi Samuels, M. Carolyn
Smith, Mrs. qphie f3cheasS, Mrs.
Walter Wflkensl Albert J. I,,Tathaniel,
Barney H. Schi%artz, Moses Schloss,
Genevieve J. En ish, Samdel H. Feld-
stein, Madison W ggitti, Mary Meciana,
Andrew W. eber, , A. R tert Levinson,
Stephen SnIfkl, arb, a M. Hogarth,
Erminio Flor t3 Christine Lem-
mons, Lillian ',l5aa1, Charles Roth-
UNIFICATION OF 'FRE ARMED SERVICES
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 758) to' promote the na-
tional security by providing for a _Na-
tional Defense Establishment, which shall
be administered by a Secretary of Na-
tional Defense, and for a Department of
the Army, a Department of the Navy, and
a Department of the Air Force within the
National Defense Establishment, and for
the coordination of the activities of the
National Defense Establishment with
other departments and agencies of the
Government concerned with the national
security.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on the committee amendment.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, I wish to call up an amend-
tient for Consideration. It is amend-
ment D.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
amendment will be stated. -
The CHIEF CLERK. In the committee
amendment on page 37, line 3, it is pro-
posed to strike out "Security" and insert
"Military"; in line 4, to strike out "Organ-
ization" and insert "Establishment"; in
line 5, to strike out "Security" and insert
"Military"; in line 6, to strike out "Or-
ganization" and insert "Establishment";
in line 7, to strike out all after "Sec. 201"
down to and including "Organization" in
line 14, and substitute in lieu thereof the
following: "The National Military Estab-
lishment shall consist of the Department
of the Army, the Department of the
Navy, and the Department of the Air
Force, together with all other agencies
created under title II of this act"; in
line 16, after "Sec. 202. (a)", to insert
"There shall be a Secretary of National
Security who shall be appointed from
civilian life by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate. In
addition to such other duties as the
President may assign to him in connec-
tion with the national security, the Sec-
retary of National Security, under the
direction of the President, shall perform
the following specific duties relating to
the National Military Establishment pro-
vided for under title II of this act"; in
line 21, to strike out "Security" and in-
sert "Military,"
On page 38, line 3, to strike out "Secu-
rity" and insert "Military."
To strike out all of lines 22 to 25 and
Insert: "The Secretary of National Se-
curity shall cause to be made for his use
a seal of office of such design as the
President shall approve and judicial no-
tice shall be taken thereof."
On page 39, line 16, to strike out "Se-
curity" and insert "Military"; in line 17,
to strike out "Organization" and insert
"Establishment"
8687
On page 40, in lines 4 and 5, to strike
out "within the National Security Or-
ganization."
On page 41, in lines 9 and 10, to strike
Out "Within the National Security Or-
ganization there" and insert "There."
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. May
the Chair inquire of the Senator from
Wyoming if he desires to have the
amendments considered en bloc?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I will
explain, Mr. President, that the root of
the amendments is the striking out of
section 201 (a) and the rewriting of sec-
tion 202 (a). The others are merely
changes in names which would be neces-
sary if the main objectives were attained,
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Then,
without objection, the amendments will
be considered en bloc.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Very
well.
Mr. President, I have.been very much
interested by the debate which has en-
sued during the consideration of the bill
on the floor of the Senate. I think the
Senators listening to the debate have
reached the conclusion that there is a
national security set-up which includes
not only the Military Establishment con-
sisting of the Secretary of National Se-
curity, the military assistants, civilian
personnel, Department of the Army, De-
partment of the Navy, Department of
the Air Force, United States Air Force,
War Council, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint
Staff, Munitions Board, and Research
and Development Board, but also that
the National Security Organization in-
cludes the National Security Council, the
Central Intelligence Agency, and the Na-
tional Security and Resources Board. I
think every Senator is of that opinion.
I want to say, Mr. President, that that
is not correct. The National Security
Council, the Central Intelligence Agency,
and the National Security Resources
Board are not in the National Security
Organization as Set forth in the bill.
Those three are contained in title I
under the heading "Coordination for
National Security," and are something
separate and apart from the National
Security Organization. I think that is
one of the baSic things the Senate must
realize before it can thoroughly under-
stand the bill so as to vote intelligently
upon it.
Even the chairman of the Committee
on Armed Services in his excellent state-
Ment on the bill pointed out that the
Secretary of National Security was in
effect a deputy of the President, or words
to that effect. That, Mr. President, it
Is my contention he should be. But it .
Is my contention that the bill does not ,
make him so. I am for the objectives.
of the bill as put forward, but they are
not in the bill. Hence I offer the amend-
ment which will, I hope, help to put them
In the bill.
Title 'II, deals with the National
Security Organization. It should be
called the National Military Establish-
ment, as it was called in the original bill. ?
Title I can still remain "Coordination ?
for National Security," which it is. But
Approd For Release 2006/12 15 : CIA-RDP90-00610R00020004
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
signed ?iip by one man in a matter of a
few days in a city like Baltimore.
There ?being no objection, the petition
and the signature were ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
To United States Senate and House of Repre-
sentati es:
"Resolved by the United States Senate (the
Eolisc of R resentatives concurring)., That
the Peesiden of the United States shall im-
mediately ta e the initiative in calling a
general conf rence of the United Nations
pursuant to rticle 109 for the purpose of
making the U ited Nations Capable of enact-
ing, interpret g, and enforcing world law
to prevent wa "
The undersi ned who are interested in
? strengthening tthe United Nations into at
least the begin ings of a world government
hereby urge thnt this resolution to strength-
en the United Itations be pushed vigorously
and that the CI arter of the United Nations
be revised and mended in the light of this
resolution.
Philip L. Sakes, Rosco Bernard, Anne
? B. Jenkin, Anna Syret, Louis Nathans,
,Edward - H jek, Rodney Link, Sam-
? uel D. Kllshues, Arthur Krishmer,
Fannie H.t Rice, Calvert Cummins,
Samuel I. luiorirtz, Rosa Lee Altshul,
?.Max Susin, acob W. Barenburg, Harry
ID. Ambrose, IR. G. Green, Colman Klein,
Eli Cohen, Maurice R. Oppenheim,
:rsade E. Davison, Helen E. Romm, Kay
Solomon, Eta L. Leist, Jesse Ashman,
William Kle er, Louise Levin, Charles
W
i
E. . Main, Bernard Ster, Borris M.
Spector, Hai 7 Yaffe, Alexander J.
Lane, Edwin ohn, David W. French,
Henry I. Bon pund, Iris B. Jossen, H.
Henry Rosenberg, Philip Tachs, Louis
C. Fried, Juli s P. Robinson, Paula
Ulman, Simon Nobel Silverberg, Hy-
man I. Cohen, Samuel Rubin, W. A.
Schmidt, Willi m T. Imid, Julius
Krump, Maxw 11 Alpert, Herman
Punpian, Herb t Kaufman, Harry
Rapport, Ely Ashman, Abraham
Finkelstein, H. D. Cofran, Jim Finney,
Joseph Siegel, Al red F. Dedomenico,
Harry Bernstein, rancis F. Commer,
Jakob Hesker, Cha les Caplan, Agatha
Roenstadt, S. S. Zu rcher, Lil Stroeket,
Anna Cohn, Emmal Gardner, Dorothy
Adkins, Rose Fagar/t Fred Mechl, Sr.,
W. I. Magills, Emanupl J. Riback, Harry
Saeffer, Reva Marshall, Allen .I. Eisner,
Bradford Bloom, Lliwrence Greene-
baum, Sophie H. Stec el, Louis Bender,
Nathan H. Miller, Allea T. Cohn, Abner
.7. Weinger, Johnny E,elis, Jack Norin,
Jas. D. Balachow, Emmet Stein,
M. A. Cummins, Meter Shapiro, W.
Kelles, Allen W. Eaton M. J. Steinhom,
Thomas 3. Ringgold, Calle F. Par-
rish, James W. Miller, Mannes Freed-
enberg, S. C., Ka zoff, Maurice
Schoenfeld, Bernard iKlein, Samuel
Vataposky, Nathan Abfamanitz, Abra-
ham Kahn, Esther 1 Goldosheides,
Frederick J. Freely, Jr., Ethel E.
Wahl, William Alvin Wahl, George 0.
Biome, Anthony F. Di Domenico, Wm.
Weinblatt, Rose S. Zetzer, Allen C.
Capone, D. M. Leitinett, Frank
M. Merrick, II. LaRue Parke, Anthony
I. Gedenico, Jeanne IHofman, Leon
A. Rubenstein, H. B. Plofman, Joshua
C. Gwin, Harvey D. Bickel, MedfOrd
D. Lilly, Alberta Talbott, Marcellus 8.
Jonas, Martin H. Larsen, Hugh
Anthony, F. J. Richardson, James L.
Muller, Lottie Friedler,; Herbert Lock-
wood, Edwin Greenebaum, Ellis' Levin,
Jack A. Miller, Lawrence 'Lockwood,
Miss Anna M. Robinson, John Howard
Clarke, John J. Smith, Lena DePaul,
Thos. W. Pond, E. Joseph, John A.
Novak, Aaron A. Beer, Adolph Schick-
No. 130-5
elgruber, Louis Sam cs, M. Carolyn
Smith, Mrs. aphie ScheasS, Mrs.
Walter Wilkenst Alber J. Nathaniel,
Barney IL Sch artz, Moses Schloss,
Genevieve J. Ent ish, Samnel H. Feld-
stein, Madison W ggittL Mary Meciana,
Andrew W. eber, , A. Robert Levinson,
Stephen Snifl, arb a M. Hogarth,
Erminio Flor Christine Lem-
mons, Lillian a al, Charles Roth-
-
UNIFICATION OF THE ARMED SERVICES
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 758) to' promote the na-
tional security by providing for a _Na-
tional Defense Establishment, which shall
be administered by a Secretary of Na-
tional Defense, and for a Department of
the Army, a Department of the Navy, and
a Department of the Air Force within the
National Defense Establishment, 'and for
the coordination of the activities of the
National Defense Establishment with
other departments and agencies of the
Government conCerned with the national
security.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on the commit ee amendment.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, I wish to call up an amend-
Ment for consideration. It is amend-
ment D.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
amendment will be stated. -
The CHIEF CLERK. In the committee
amendment on page 37, line 3, it is pro-
posed to strike out "SecUrity" and insert
"Military"; in line 4, to strike out "Organ-
ization" and insert "Establishment"; in
line 5, to strike out "Security" and insert
"Military"; in line 6, to strike out "Or-
ganization" and insert "Establishment";
in line '7, to strike out all after "Sac. 201"
down to and including "Organization" in
line 14, and substitute in lieu thereof the
following: "The National Military Estab-
lishment shall consist of the Department
of the Army, the Department of the
Navy, and the Departrnent of the Air
Force, together with all other agencies
created under title II of this act"; in
line 16, after "Sac. 202. (a)", to insert
"There shall be a Secretary of National
Security who shall be appointed from
civilian life by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate. In
addition to such other duties as the
President may assign to him in connec-
tion with the national security, the Sec-
retary of National Seciirity, under the
direction of the President, shall perform
the following specific dUties relating to
the National Military Establishment pro-
vided for under title II of this act"; in
line 21, to strike out "Security" and in-
sert "Military."
On page 38, line 3, to strike out "Secu-
rity" and insert "Military."
To strike out all of lines 22 to 25 and
Insert: "The Secretary of National Se-
curity shall cause to be made for his use
a seal of office of such design as the
President shall approve and judicial no-
tice shall be taken thereof."
On page 39, line 16, to strike out "Se-
curity" and insert "Military"; in line 17,
to strike out "Organization" and insert
"Establishment."
8687
On page 40, in lines 4 and 5, to strike
out "within the National Security Or-
ganization."
On page 41, in lines 9 and 10, to strike
out "Within the National Security Or-
ganization there" and insert "There."
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. May
the Chair inquire of the Senator from
Wyoming if he desires to have the
amendments considered en bloc?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I will
explain, Mr. President, that the root of
the amendments is the striking out of
section 201 (a) and the rewriting of sec-
tion 202 (a). The others are merely
changes in names which would be neces-
sary if the main objectives were attained.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Then,
without objection, the amendments will
be considered en bloc.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Very
well.
Mr. President, I have.been very much
interested by the debate which has en-
sued during the consideration of the bill
on the floor of the Senate. I think the
Senators listening to the debate have
reached the conclusion that there is a
national security set-up which includes
not only the Military Establishment con-
sisting of the Secretary of National Se-
curity, the military assistants, civilian
personnel, Department of the Army, De-
partment of the Navy, Department of
the Air Force, United States Air Force,
War Council, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint
Staff, Munitions Board, and Research
and Development Board, but also that
the National Security Organization in-
cludes the National Security Council, the
Central Intelligence Agency, and the Na-
tional Security and Resources Board. I
think every Senator is of that opinion.
I want to say, Mr. President, that that
is not correct. The National Security
Council, the Central Intelligence Agency,
and the National Security Resources
Board are not in the National Security
Organization. as Set forth in the bill.
Those three are contained in title I
under the heading "Coordination for
National Security," and are something
separate and apart from the National
Security Organization. I think that is
one of the baSic things the Senate must
realize before it can thoroughly under-
stand the bill so as to vote intelligently
upon it.
Even the chairman of the Committee
on Armed Services in his excellent state-
ment on the bill pointed out that the
Secretary of National Security was in
effect a deputy of the President, or words
to that effect. That, Mr. President, it
is my contention he should be. But it .
Is my contention that the bill does not
make him so. I am for the objectives
of the bill as put forward, but they are
not in the bill. Hence I offer the amend-
ment which will, I hope, help to put them
In the bill.
Title II, deals with the National
Security Organization. It should be
called the National Military Establish-
ment, as it was called in the original bill. ?
Title I can still remain "Coordination
for National Security," which it is. But
Approved For Relea
e 2006/1
_061 OR0004cinnt
Apned For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000
8688 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
the Secretary of National Security
should be, and in fact must be, the co-
ordinator not only of the military estab-
lishment, but also of the National Secu-
rity Council, the Central Intelligence
Agency, and the National Security Re-
sources Board, and in effect be a Presi-
dential deputy for national security.
Practically every one has named him as
such. Everyone feels that he is such
under the terms of the bill; but I repeat
that the bill does not make him that.
The bill merely makes him a super-
secretary of the three armed services,
the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.
That is set out so clearly in section 201
(a), which I am seeking to strike, that
I cannot for the life of de understand
why the Senate. should be advised that
the Secretary of National Security is
over the entire structure. Let me read
section 201 (a):
There is hereby established the National
Security Organization and a Secretary of
Y.ttional Security, who shall be the head
t Liereof.
He is the head of the National Security-
Organization, which, as I have pointed
out, includes, in title II, the Army, the
Navy, and Air Force.
But it goes further. Subsection (b)
provides as follows:
(b) The National Security Organization
shall consist of the Department of the Army,
the Department of the Navy, and the De-
partment of the Air Force, together with all
other agencies created within ? the National
Security Organization.
A few moments ago,I read the list, from
section 201 to section 214.
Mr. President, I wish to emphasize
that this Secretary, whoever he may be,
is merely the Secretary of the Army,
Navy, and Air Force. The existing sec-
retaries become mere under secretaries
cf those three organizations. They lose'
their Cabinet positions. According to
the bill, the single secretary is the Cab-
inet officer for the armed forces. That
is what ,I want to change by my amend-
want to place the Secretary of
It?4?ational Security over the entire struc-
ure.. I want to elevate him to a posi--
. ion where he will be over the National
Security Council, the Central Intelli-
gence Agency, and the National Security
Resources Board, and over the entire
military establishment as wen. He is
the coordinator.
The amendment which the clerk just
read would strike out sectiizn 201, from
line 7, on page 37, down to line 14. That
is under the heading "Establishment of
the National Secur4ty Organization."
That. Mr. President, is the merger, the
rnergin , of the anted forces under one
secretary. That is all that it does. It
has nothing to do with the National
Security Council in any way whatsoever.
In oi.:ier to place the Secretary of Na-
tional Security in a proper position I seek
to amend section 202 (a) in line 16, on
page 37, so that that paragraph will
...3.1,d:
There shall be a Secretary of National
..iiurity who shall be appointed from civilian
, re by the President, by and with the advice
:aid consent of the Senate. In addition to
such other duties as the President may as-
sign to him in connection with the national
security, the Secretary of National Security,
under the direction of the President, shall
perform the following specific duties relat-
ing to the National Military Establishment
provided for under title II of this act.
Those duties are set forth exactly in
the same way as they are set forth in the
bill. There is no change in the duties.
He has every duty conferred upon him
that is conferred upon him in the bill,
but he is no longer merely the head of
the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
Mr. President, I do not think I can ex-
plain the amendment any more thor-
oughly except by repeating myself, which
I do not intend to do. The other part of
the amendment is merely to change the
word "security" to "military" and the
word "organization" to "establishment,"
so that title 2 will assume its correct
character and be called the National
Military Establishment.
Mr. President, that is the amendment.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Wyo-
ming [Mr. RoBEWrsON] to the committee
amendment.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, the
Senator from Wyoming has several
amendments on the desk. In this in-
stance I believe he has selected the most
Important amendment in the list. I say
that because should this amendment be
adopted it would take the heart out of
the bill.
In. the first instance, as the bill was
Introduced, it provided for an organiza-
tion known as the National Defense
Establishment, similar to the organiza-
tion provided for on page 37 under the
name "The National Security Organiza-
tion." The name "National Security Or-
ganization" is more inclusive.
I make the statement that this amend-
ment would affect the heart of the bill
because not only must we have an over-
all organization, over the three military
branches?the Army, Navy, and Air
Force?but also we must have an organ-
ization including the War Council, the
Munitions Board, and the Research and
Development Board. They must all work
together. Those civilian agencies are as
necessary as the military branches in the
allocation of materials and in the devel-
opment of plans.
Therefore, Mr. President, after 'wres-
tling with this question for 11 weeks, our
committee came to the conclusion, by a
large majority vote in the committee,
that the provision should be as it is in
the committee amendment. To take sec-
tion 201 from the bill would, I repeat,
take the heart out of the bill. Therefore
I recommend that the Senate reject the
amendment.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. GURNEY. I yield.
Mr. HILL. Would the amendment
have the effect of placing the Secretary
of National Security ahead of the Sec-
retary of State in the National Security
Council?
Mr. GURNEY. That is correct.
Mr. HILL. The Security Secretary,
the Defense Secretary?the Military
Secretary, so to speak?would be placed
ahead of the Secretary of State, the of-
ficer in charge Of our foreign policy. /s
not that true?
1-1
JULY 9
Mr. GURNEY. The-Senator is correct.
Our committee did not feel that
we should give the Secretary of National
Security complete authority over the
Security Council which is established to
advise the President on security prob-
lems. Nor did we feel that the new Sec-
retary of National Security should be
given authority over the National Secu-
rity Resources Board. The Council and
the Board were set up to coordinate the
activities assigned to them in the bill,
and to advise the President. The Secre-
tary of National Security would sit on
the Council and on the Board; but we
did not feel that he should have over-
all authority. Therefore our commit-e
tee, after much debate, recommended to
the Senate that the organization be es-
tablished in the manner set forth in sec-
tion 21. It might be called an "estab-
lishment," but we prefer the word "or-
ganization."
Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. GURNEY. I yield to the Senator
from West Virginia.
Mr. REVERCOMB. The Senator has
argued that it is a part of the plan set
forth in the chart on the wall. If the
amendment were adopted how would it
change the design set forth in the chart
on the wall?
Mr. GURNEY. Because it would give
the Secretary of National Security over-
all direction of the National Security
Council and also of the National Secu-
rity Board, by moving him up in the pre-
ferred position, right under the Presi-
dent. It would in that way give the Sec-
retary of National Security a superior
Cabinet rank to that held by the Secre-
tary of State, because he would, in a way,
be over the Security Council which is
presently composed of the Secretary of
State, the Secretary of the Security
Council, and the Secretaries of the three
military branches. The committee did
not believe we should give this man that
much power over other Cabinet officers,
mainly the Secretary of State.
Mr. REVERCOMB. The Secretary of
State in serving on the National Security
CoUncil has an additional duty placed
upon him. In other words, the Secre-
tary of State as a member of the National
Security Council would in no way be
dominated by the Secretary of National
Security in the performance of his usual
functions as Secretary of State except
as he would serve as a member of the
National Security Council. In other
words, he has almost an ex officio posi-
tion on the National Security Council.
The point I want to inquire about Is
this: If we make the Secretary of Na-
tional Security next in rank to the Presi-
dent and the one to advise with him over
the National Security Council, we would
not in fact place him over the Secretary
of State in the performance of the nat-
ural duties of a Secretary of State; it
would be one over-all board on which
the Secretary of State serves with others?
Mr. GURNEY. That Board, I may
point out, is the Board that advises the
President on all matters of national se-
curity. The Secretary of State is not
now sitting on that Board as an ex officio
member; in fact, his place on the Board
- ? r ved .F Release 2 1 15
ApprZd For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020004-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8689
which zoists now by mutual agreement
is probably one of his most important
duoes, and his position on this Board
will remain as his most important duty,
to advise the military and to have the
military advise him. The foreign policy
and the military policy in that way dove-
tail together so that the President is
advised not by one and then by another
in a haphazard manner.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield for another
question? ?
Mr. GURNEY. Yes.
Mr. REVERCOMB. The able Senator
has mentioned only the Secretary of
State and the fact of the Secretary of
State being a member of the National
Security Council as the reason why he
would not put the Secretary of National
Security next to the President and over
that Council. I point out that the
Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of
the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air
Forces, who, as we know will be under
the Secretary of National Security, will
also be on the Council_
Mr. GURNEY. I May say to the Sen-
ator that the reasons I have given are
not all the reasons. In subordinating,
so to speak, the Secretaries of Navy,
Aotny, and Air, taking them out of the
Cobinet, we must not cut down their
job or cut down their responsibility; we
must keep them at a level where the
secretaries of these three branches should
ha. Ey giving them 'equal status with
Lie Secretary of National Security and
the Secretary of State on the National
Security Council we are, the committee
believes, accomplishing that purpose, be-
cause all five of them, with the assistance
of others named, will form the policy
ad advise the President on matters of
national security.
Mr. REVERCOMB. I observe from
:he plat that the Secretary of National
Security is over the Secretary of the
Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the
Secretary of the Air Force.
Mr. GURNEY. His name happens to
be above.
Mr. REVERCOMB. If he is not over
them, how can he coordinate their work?
If he does not have the authority of
higher rank, how can he coordinate it?
Mr. GURNEY; In a military way they
are separate units, and the administra-
tion of each branch remains in the Sec-
retary of that branch.
M. REVERCOMB: But the whole
puroose is to coordinate?
Mr. GURNEY. That is correct.
Mr. REVERCOMB. But if the Secre-
tary of National Security?an office
which is being created?does not have
the authority to direct the Secretary of
the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and
the Secretary of the Air Force, I should
say he could not coordinate their activi-
ties.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield for a
question? ?
TOO. GURNEY. I wish to answer the
St . from West Virginia, if I may.
. he. National Security Council there
are brought together the Secretary of
State, who is responsible for our foreign
policies, and the Secretaries ofthe three
- ?
military branches and the Socretary of
National Security himself. There are
five. When we get down to coordinating
the military branches, the coordination
of the military service does not occur in
the Council which works on foreign
policy. That coordination in bringing
them together comes in the War Council,
which the Senator will notice on the
chart in a position immediately below the
position of the Secretary of National Se-
curity. That is where the military policy
is brought together. In that way we
bring together those branches and give
the Secretary of National Security the
coordinating authority which is so neces-
sary in order to effectuate the purposes
which we feel the pending bill will ac-
complish.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Let me say, then,
that if the coordination is to take place
through the Secretary of National Se-
curity, as I have stated before, at the
risk of repetition, it seems to me that the
Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of
--the Army, and the Secretary of the Air
Force must be under his direction, or,
if I may say so, his command. As the
Senator has pointed out, they are all
brought together under the War
.Council?
Mr. GURNEY. That is correct.
Mr. REVERCOMB. And they are all
brought together under the Munitions
Board. It seems to me that unless he
has direct power to coordinate instead
of running around through all the blocks
set forth on the plat, the control over
them would not be such as to be very
effective in bringing about coordination.
Mr. GURNEY. If the Senator will
turn to page 37 of the
Mr. REVERCOMB. I was speaking of
the plat.
Mr. GURNEY. If the Senator will,
turn to page 37 of the bill I am sure he
will understand it thoroughly.
For instance, in line 23, page 37, it is
provided that he shall "exercise general
direction, authority, and control over
such departments and agencies."
I now yield to the Senator from Wyo-
ming.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
wish to advise the Senator from West
Virginia that he is absolutely correct
when he says that the Secretary of Na-
tional Security, whom we in committee
called the super-secretary, is over the
Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of
the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air
Force. It is provided distinctly in sec-
tion 201 (a) ,on page 37, line 7, as follows:
There is hereby established the National
Security Organization, and a Secretary of
National Security, who shall be the head
thereof.
Section 201 (b): ?
The National Security Organization shall
consist of the Department of the Army, the
Department of the Navy, and the Department
of the Air Force, together with all other
? agencies created within the National Security
Organization.
? At another point in the bill the Secre-
tary of the Army, the Secretary of the
Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force
are given the right to bypass their
"boss," the Secretary of National Secu-
rity, and go to the President if they see
fit to do so.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, let me
say to the Senator from Wyoming that
the National Security Council is not in-
cluded in title II of the bill, and is not
included in the National Security
Organization.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. GURNEY. I yield.
Mr. REVERCOMB. I should like to
ask a question of the Senator from Wyo-
ming.
Mr. GURNEY. I shall be glad to yield
the floor, if the Senator wishes me to
do so.
Mr. REVERCOMB. No; I do not ask
the Senator to do that.
Mr. GURNEY. Very well; I yield to
the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. REVERCOMB. I should like to
ask the Senator from Wyoming this
question: Does the plat now on the wall,
about which we have been talking, fol-
low out correctly, from the viewpoint of
the Senator from Wyoming, what is now
contained in the bill and will continue to
be contained in it unless it is amended?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming.
Absolutely.
Mr. REVERCOMB. The amendment
would remedy the fault, as seen by the
Senator from Wyoming, by permitting
the Secretary of National Security to
take authority over the Secretaries of
War, Navy, and Air; and the amendment
would not have him bypassed through
the several blocs and courses shown on
the chart or plat, which portrays the
situation under tlae bill as it is now
written; is that correct?
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, my amendment would place
the Secretary of National Security im-
mediately under the President of the
United States. I cannot help thinking
that the distinguished chairman of the
committee, the Senator from South
Dakota [Mr. Goinstavl, felt that was the
understanding, for when he made his
speech introducing this bill, as shown
at page 8464 of the CONGRESSIONAL REC-
ORD for July 7, he made the following'
statement:
The Secretary of National Security is be-
ing given no new powers by this bill. He
is a full-time Presidential representative
exercising delegated Presidential power to
assist the President in carrying out his re-
sponsibility to the Congress, the Nation, and
the armed forces.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I re-
iterate that statement, and I believe it
to be correct.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President,
will the Senator further yield?
Mr. GURNEY. I yield.
Mr. REVERCOMB. The Senator
from South Dakota has made the prin-
cipal argument that the Secretary of
National Security should not have con-
trol over the National Security Council
for the principal reason that the Sec-
retary of State is on that Council. Would
not this whole situation be met by adopt-
ing the amendment of the Senator from
Wyoming and removing the Secretary
of State from the National 'Security
Council? That can be done without los-
Appned For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000
8690 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-:SENATE
ing the advice or direction of the Sec-
retary of State. He is a member of the
President's Cabinet, -arid certainly the
President can at any time call on the
Secretary of State to advise with that
Council or to confer directly with the
President.
So would not this whole matter be
settled by adopting the amendment of
the Senator from Wyoming? Would not
the objection of the Senator from South
Dakota be met by removing the Secre-
tary of State from the National Security
Council?
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I call
attention to the fact that the bill pro-
vides, that the President shall preside
over the National Security Council, pro-
vided that in his absence he may desig-
nate a member of the Council to preside
in his place. That is set forth in title I
of the bill, on page 31.
We do not propose to give the Secre-
tary of National Security such standing
that he will in a sense be the deputy
commander in chief, shall we say? We
do not wish to take away from the Presi-
dent, in any shape, manner, or form, his
constitutional duty as Commander in
Chief of the armed forces. With the
President a member of the National Se-
curity Council and with this board set
up primarily to advise the President on
matters of national security, our com-
mittee did not feel that we should put
the new Secretary of this new organiza-
tion in a position superior to the one in
which he is now placed by the bill, as
hown on the chart. The Secretary of
State, the Secretary of War, and the Sec-
raary of Navy now meet, and they did
so all during the war, as a committee
of three to advise the President on na-
tional-security problems.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield to me once more?
Mr. GURNEY. I yield.
Mr. REVERCOMB. I would say that
In the United States no one should be
placed over the President. The Presi-
dent is Commander in Chief of the armed
forces.
Under the amendment of the Senator
from Wyoming, as I understand, the Sec-
retary of National Security would be im-
mediately under the President. The fact
that the President might preside over
any of these blocs or boards which would
be set up, inasmuch as he is Commander
in Chief, and is over all, would not in
any way place him in a position inferior
to that of the Secretary of National Se-
curity, because very often the President
may attend the Council meetings and
very often he may advise with the mem-
bers of the Council. He will remain the
Commander in Chief, of course.
But it seems to me that if we leave this
bill as it is now written thbre will be
danger that the Secretary of War, the
Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary
of the Air Force will have a position
equal to that of the Secretary of Na-
tional Security. If that be so, and if
the Secretary of National Security is not
over them, I do not see that the Secre-
tary of National Security will have au-
thority to coordinate them.
Mr. GURNEY. In this bill we are set-
ting up a new organization with the Sec-
retary of National Security over those
three branches of the armed services and
the agencies that are concerned with
supplying the armed services. Let me
say to the Senator from West Virginia
that the National Security Council is
not in any way intended to be a part
of the armed services organization, nor
Is the National Security Resources Board
intended in any way to be a part of the
armed services organization.
We might call the armed services or-
ganization our policeman. But we be-
lieve that the men in the organization,
under the Secretary of National Security,
will be men of standing, and men who
will have knowledge of much value in
meeting the whole national security
problem. Therefore, taking them out of
their positions as heads of the military
branches or as heads of the Research
and Munitions and War Council Boards,
and bringing them up to sit on the Se-
curity Council, is of great value. We
do not believe that the National Security
Secretary should in any way control, by
means of a superior position, the conclu-
sions which emanate from the Security
Council or the Resources Board.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment submitted by the Senator from
Wyoming [Mr. ROBERTSON] to the Com-
mittee amendment.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, as to the National Security
Council, I wish to point out that that
Council is merely a continuation of the
State-War-Navy, Coordinating Commit-
tee, which committee reconciles and co-
ordinates the action to be taken by the
State, War, and Navy Departments on
matters of common interest, and estab-
lishes policies, based on political-mili-
tary considerations. The object of that
committee has nothing to do with form-
ing foreign policies, as has been sug-
gested here. The Secretary of State sits
on that committee, as he did on what is
known as the committee of three, to
which I have just referred, in order to
convey to the Secretaries of War and
Navy the international situation, so that
they may plan accordingly. It is the
outcome of the Pearl Harbor disaster,
when there was no coordination, ap-
parently, between the State Department
and the military.
That Council will enable the Secretary
of State to advise the Secretary of Na-
tional Security of existing conditions, so
that he may formulate his plans. The
fact that the Secretary of War, the Sec-
retary of the Navy, and the Secretary of
Air Force are placed on that Council has
only one significance, namely, that if
the Secretary of National Security is the
head of the War, Navy, and Air Forces,
as he is according to title II, those under
secretaries, as they then will be, will re-
ceive their instructions from him on that
matter, just as well as on any other
matter.
There is just one more point, Mr.
President, which I do wish to emphasize.
The Senator from West Virginia is so
right when he says that according to the
chart on the wall the Secretary of Na-
tional Security is nothing more than a
secretary of the three armed forces, co-
ordinating the other military councils
with the armed serVices1
JULY 9
It should be particularly noted that in
the case of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they
receive their direct orders from the Pres-
ident, and pass them on to the unified
commands in the various theaters of war
when we are in war, but now, during
peacetime, to the unified commands in
the Pacific and the Atlantic.
Mr. President, this amendment places
the Secretary of National Security in the
position in which he should be, next to
the President, in order to enable him to
carry out the instructions of the Presi-
dent in the whole national security pic-
ture, and not merely from the military
point of view.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Wyo-
ming [Mr. ROBERESON] to the amend-
ment of the committee.
The amendment to the amendment
was rejected.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I have
been somewhat concerned in reading
Title I, Coordination for National Secu-
rity, and the language with regard to
the National Security Council. The
language might justify the idea that all
domestic and foreign policies were to be
subordinated to the military exigencies.
On page 31, line 20, the bill reads:
The function of the Council shall be to
advise the President with respect to the
Integration of domestic, foreign, and mili-
tary policies?
That covers all kinds of policies; it
covers every policy with which Congress
deals?
so as to enable the military services and
the other departments and agencies of the
Government to cooperate more effectively
in matters involving the national security.
That merely states a result. I have
suggested to the distinguished chairman
of the committee, the Senator from
South Dakota [Mr. GURNEY], that we
should insert in -line 22, after the word
"policies," the words 'f relating to the
national security." I think that is
clearly the intention of the bill, and I call
attention to the fact that in the pre-
amble in section 2, page 30, it is said
distinctly that the purpose is "to provide
for the establishment of integrated poll--
cies and procedures for the departments,
agencies, and functions of the Govern-
ment relating to the national security."
The same question arises as to page 32,
where, in paragraph (b), the bill reads:
In addition to performing such other
functions as the President may direct, for
the purpose of more effectively coordinating
the policies of the departments and agen-
cies of the Government?
That is not qualified in any way; it
means all functions and policies of the
Government? _
and their functions relating to the national
security.
, Again it seems to me it should be made
clear that the limitation relating to the
national security should apply to the
policies as well as to the functions of the
other departments of the Government.
Therefore, Mr. President, I move that
on page 31, line 22, after the word "poli-
cies", the words "relating to the national
security" be inserted, and on page 32, line
11, after the word "policies", the words
Appped For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000
L.)
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-L-SENATE
"and functices" be inserted, and in line
12, that the words "and their functions"
be stricken out, so that the qualification
reating to the national security may
apply te the policies as well as the func-
tions of the department.
The :PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-
out objection, the amendments will be
coneidcred en bloc.
Mr. TAFT. That is correct; it is all
one question.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, cer-
tainly it is not the intention of the com-
mittee, or of anyone having anything to
do with the bill, to provide that the Na-
tional Security Council should do any-
thing other than consider questions of
national security. Personally I am glad
the Senator from Ohio has brought up
this amendment. I have conferred with
other members of the committee, and all
of us have agreed that not only do both ?
the amendments make the purposes of
the bill clearer, but we also thank the
Senator from Ohio for a little better
language. Therefore I am perfectly will-
-ince to accept both the amendments.
Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Ohio yield?
Mr.. TAFT. I yield.
Mr. McMAHON. I fully approve the-
Senator's amendment, except that I
should like to point out that I do not
think he has helped the situation very
much by putting in the language "re-
lating to the national security." Was
not that the language suggested by the
Senator?
Mr. TAFT. Yes.
Mr. McMAHON. As I see it?and I
think the Senator will agree?that is
all-encompassing. I can think of no
policy having to do with our national
existence, our Government, or our na-
tional life, that would not come within
that language.
Mr. TAFT. I think it is a question
of degree. Many policies might, but I
think most of the domestic policies which
we are considering?the question of tax-
ation, questions raised by the labor bill,
and the like?can hardly be said tcr re-
late to the national security in the sense
in which those words are used in- the
bill.
I see no reason why the Council should
not volunteer its advice as to something
if it thinks it does relate to the national
security, but I do not want Congress to
be on record as saying that the Council
can consider things which do not relate
to the national security, and I am afraid
that unless the amendment is made, that
claim could well be asserted.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I think the
Senator's amendment is a good one, and
I certainly think the amendment, read
in connection With the declaration of
policy in the very beginning of the bill,
makes it clear that the whole procedure
and machinery are tied to the national
security.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Ohio [Mr.
TAFT] to the amendment of the com-
mittee.
The amendment to the amendment,waS
agreed to.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. Prenident, I should
like to ask the Senator from South
Dakota a question. Is there anything in
the bill which changes in any way the
rules regarding the sending of military
and naval missions into foreign coun-
tries, or is that covered in the Other bill
which is now before the committee?
Mr. GURNEY. I am quite sure there
is nothing in the pending bill which in
any way ,authorizes missions to foreign
countries. There is before the Armed
Services Committee a bill seeking perg
mission to send military missions to coun-
tries other than those in the Western
Hemisphere, which latter can be done
under the present law. The Department
presently has permission to send missions
into 'countries in the Western Hemi-
sphere.
Mr. TAFT. I thank the Senator. I
understood the question was dealt with
In a separate bill.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, I should like to answer the-
Senator from Ohio in regard to this
matter.
Senate bill 758 depends largely on an
attached Executive order, which the Sen-
ator will find starting on page 5 of the
report.
Mr. TAFT. I read the Executive order,
and on the whole, it seems to me that
that Executive order is an order; in effect,
to the Army, or to the various Secre-
taries, to proceed to draw bills. If the
bill itself does not contain ? any such
authority, I do not see how an Executive
order can be read into the bill; that is
to say, an order proposed to be issued by
the President.
At the end of the joint letter by the
Secretary of War and the Secretary of
the Navy it is said:
We are agreed that the proper method of
setting forth the functions (so-called roles
and missions) of the armed forces is by the
issuance of an Executive order cOncurrently
with, your approval of the appropriate legis-
lation. We attach for your consideration
a mutually agreed draft of such an order.
The bill may have been changed; we
may have changed it. As I understand,
the committee says distinctly, on page 9
of the report:
After long and serious deliberation, your
committee decided against amending the bill
O include the basic functions (roles and
missions) of the several services. Your coin-
Mittee came to this conclusion because it
felt that such amendments would seriously
linpair the required flexibility of our military
forces, and because such action would violate
the principle of separation of executive and
gislative authority traditional in American
government.
I do not see how an Executive order
can now be issued without conforming
to the changes made in the bill, so I do
not think we are bound by the terms of
the Executive order printed -in the re-
port.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. The
Senator may be right, because the Execu-
tive order could be changed tonight, or
on any day, by the stroke of a pen.
I do call the attention of the Senator
from Ohio, as an outcome of his ques-
tion regarding the possibility of the
armed forces being sent to service in for-
8391
eign countries, to page 6' of the report,
section II, section 2, "Functions of the
United States Army," paragraph 3, which
reads:
To provide, as directed by proper author-
ity, such missions and. detachments for serv-
ice in foreign countries as may be required
to support the national policies and interests
of the United States.
Mr. TAFT. Yes; but as I understand
it, this is a proposed Executive order,
prepared' by the Secretary.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. That
Is correct.
Mr. TAFT. When the President
comes to issue an Executive order, it
seems to me he must conform the order.
to the provisions of the bill itself, and
If the bill does not contain authority
to do this particular thing?and par-
ticularly in view of the fact, I think,
there are other laws that prohibit it; I
am not certain about that, but I think
there are?then it seems to me that what
is proposed to be an Executive order
becomes of no importance. .
Mr. -ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
think that is true, but in view of the
Senator's question, I felt it only right to
point out that paragraph to him, at
least to show the thinking of the authors.
of the bill and of others who. consid-
ered it.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. TAFT. I yield.
Mr. HILL. The Senator from Ohio is
absolutely correct in his interpretation
and in his judgment of this matter.
Nothing confirms the wisdom of the Sen-
ator in this matter better than the fact
that a separate bill has been introduced
which is now pending in the Armed Serv-
ices Committee of the Senate and the
Armed Services Committee of the House,
to authorize the sending of these mis-
sions. That bill has been presented be-
cause there is no such authority in the
pending bill.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?'
Mr. TAFT. I yield to the Senator
from Oregon.
Mr. MORSE. I think the .Senator
from Ohio has made a very able contri-
bution to the debate on this matter, from
the standpoint of subsequent judicial in-
terpretation of the bill. I think it is par-
ticularly clear that unless the bill itself
contains terms of reference in regard to
military missions, then no Executive or-
der could possibly be incorporated into
the bill by reference. It would be nec-
essary to include very definite terms of,
reference in the bill, and there is no lan-
guage in the bill that would justify or
support an Executive order in regard to
military missions, as was so ably pointed
out by the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. TAFT. Then there is. the lan-
guage in the report itself, later on, in
effect disowning, it seems to me, that
particular intent.
Mr. MORSE. Furthermore, any lan-
guage in a report that is inconsistent
with the clear language in a bill has no
standing in court as carrying any weight
In determining congressional intent.
'. Annrve F
'iRstease`.
R 00610R .020 041.6001i41:-
82
ASIA
Approved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200046t1 -1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE-
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. TAFT. I yield to the Senator from
South Dakota.
Mr. GURNEY. I shOuld like to make
just one more statement so it will be
clear in the RECORD that there is noth-
ing in the bill which in any way author-
izes foreign missions. The purpose, of
course, is that any missions which may
be authorized by law would be provided
by the security organization, but they
could not be used in any way unless they
were otherwise authorized by some other
law. They are not authorized in the bill
at all.
Mr. TAM'. I am glad to have the
opinion of so many members of the Com-
mittee on Armed Services who have par-
ticipated in the framing of the bill. I
think there can be no doubt of the intent
of its framers.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
committee amendment is open to further
amendment.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, I have another amendment
here, but I should like to say I am a little
amused, because in committee, in the
consideration of the bill, when we were
endeavoring to get the functions stated
in the bill itself, we were told that that
was not necessary, as they would all be
taken care of in the accompanying Ex-
ecutive order.
I now offer amendment No. 7, and ask
that it be stated.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Senator from Wyoming offers an amend-
ment, which the clerk will state.
The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to
amend the committee amendment, on
page 49, line 10, by striking out the period
and inserting the following: "and shall
be chosen in rotation from the three
armed services: Provided; That the total
service of any officer as Director of the
Joint Staff shall not exceed 4 years in all:
.4nd provided further, That the combined
service of any officer as Director or mem-
ber of the Joint Staff shall ni4 exceed
years in all."
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
Presider, the object of the amendment
is very evident, I think. It is merely to
provide for a rotation of the important
office of Director of the Joint Staff, and
it limits the time one officer can possibly
be the Director or a member of the Staff.
I hope there will be no objection to the
amendment.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, our
committee considered this matter some-
what. It has-been the custom for a long
time for the chief of branch in both the
Army and the Navy to serve for a period
of years. Without doubt that custom
will be followed, because in the Navy each
officer is required to have sea duty ever
Sc often, and, of course, when an Army
officer is brought into Washington to
be Chief of Branch, he is only allowed to
serve, generally, for 4 years. I hope the
amendment will not be brought forward
at this time, for the reason that it will in
a way disrupt the smoothness Of the bill
as it now reads, and the acceptance of
it by the several departments. It has
been agreed to by the land, sea, and air
forces, and I can see no reason why We
should accept the amendment at this
late date. I would not be authorized, as
chairman of the committee, to accept it.
I hope, therefore, the amendment will
be defeated.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Wyoming to
the committee amendment.
The amendment to the amendment
was rejected.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
committee amendment is open to further
amendment.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, I send to the desk amendment
No. 8.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Senator from Wyoming offers an amend-
ment, which the clerk will state.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, I wish to delete certain por-
tions of the amendment, and ask the
clerk to read that part of the amend-
ment which begins "On page 50, strike
out lines 8 and 9, and insert the follow-
ing." That begins at the bottom of the
sheet, and I think goes over to the other
side.
The CHIEF CLERK. In the committee
amendment, on page 50, it is proposed
to strike out lines 8 and 9, and insert the
following:
(2) To advise the National Security Re-
sources Board of the military material and
manpower requirements in order that they
may be integrated in the over-all plans for
national industrial mobilization.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. That
is all that is proposed. That is the only
change I am asking. Again, I say, I
hope the committee will accept the
amendment. I think it states much
more clearly than does the committee
amendment the purpose in mind, which
is simply to plan for military aspects of
industrial mobilization, that the National
Security Resources Board, which would
largely be responsible in the matter,
should be advised. The amendment
merely seeks to provide that the Na-
tional Security Resources Board shall be
advised of the military material and
manpower requirements, in order that
they may be integrated iri the over-all
plan for national industrial mobilization.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, will the
Clerk restate the ?amendment? I am
unable to keep track of just which
amendment it is. By the way, Mr.
President, these alfiendments are identi-
fied by letter.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is
Identified by the letter H, at the bottom
of page 1 of the amendment. The
amendment will again be stated.
The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to
amend the committee amendment, on
page 50, by striking out lines 8 and 9,
and inserting the following:
(2) To advise the National Security Re-
sources Board of the military material and
manpower requirements in order that they
may be integrated in the over-all plans Mt.
national industrial mobilization.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Wyoming to
the amendment of the committee.
??The amendment to the 'amendment
was rejected.
-Approved For Release 200 1 15 R 1
JULY 9
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
bill is open to further amendment.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I
offer an amendment which I ask to have
stated.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
amendment will be stated.
The CHIEF CLERK. On page 41 it is
proposed to strike out lines 4 to '7, in-
clusive, and to insert in lieu thereof the
following:
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of this
or any other act, the existing status of the
Marine Corps (including the Fleet Marine
Forces) or of the Naval Aviation shall not
be altered or diminished; nor shall .their
existing functions or missions be transferred
to other services.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, the
amendment hardly requires any expla-
nation. It is obvious from the reading
of it that the purpose of the amendment
is to provide that neither the missions of
-naval aviation nor the Marine Corps,
nor their functions, can be transferred
to any other branch of the service by the
supersecretary. I feel that if, for exam-
ple, it is to be decided at some future
time that naval planes should not protect
shipping, if it is to be decided that the
marine amphibious units should be dis-
posed of, it should be done by the Con-
gress, and not be left to the whim and
caprice of some supersecretary who at
that particular moment might happen to
hold the position of authority.
Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I assured
the Senator from Wisconsin that I would
here on the floor of the Senate make a
statement regarding my personal belief
In the value of the Marine Corps, and of
my determination, so far as I could do so,
always to oppose any move which would
cripple or destroy the Marine Corps.
I am opposed to the Senator's amend-
ment. I am opposed to it in the first
place because the bill on page 41, begin-
ning in line 4, contains a provision safe-
guarding the Marine Corps, which has
been approved by General Vandegrift.
That is the first reason why I am opposed
to the amendment.
I am opposed to it in the second place
because I think it is most unwise to seek
to legislate tactics into the statute law
of the United States. I think we have got
to leave questions of military strategy to
professional men to make the decisions
at the proper time,
Mr. McCARTHY. May I interrupt the
Senator at that point? Is it the Sen-
ator's understanding that under the bill
as presently written the supersecretary
can at will transfer missions and func-
tions from one branch of the service to
another?
Mr. LODGE. I would say in the first
place that I never use the word "super-
secretary." I think that is a sort of a
smear word, and I do not think it is accu-
rate. Secondly, I do not think the Secre-
tary of National Security possesses a
single power in the world that the Presi-
dent of the United States has not had
for 150 years.
Mr. McCARTHY. Let me ask the Sen-
ator a further question. Is it the Sen-
ator's thought, then, that some of the
powers which the President has had for
150 years are to be transferred to the
supersecretary, if I may call him that?
R 2 6400014
Ap
ed For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
Mr. LODGE. Well, the Secretary of
National Security, of course, exercises his
power subject to the direction of the
President.
McCARTHY. I should like to get
the Senator's thought on this point, if I
may. The Senator from Massachusetts
has done much work on the bill and given
a good deal of attention to it. Is it the
Senator's thought that under the bill as
presently written the Secretary of Na-
tion Security does have the power, for
example, to say that naval planes shall
no longer protect Navy shipping? Does
the Senator think he has the power, for
example, to say, "We will completely do
away with the marine amphibious force
and transfer that function to the Army?"
Does the Senator think the bill gives him
that power?
Mr. LODGE. I am very glad the Sen-
ator raised that question, because I '
should like to assure him, and I should
like to assure the high command of the
Marine Corps, a body to which I .am
bound by a great many close ties, and I
should like to assure anyone else who
may be worried about it, that the fate of
the Marine Corps does not depend upon
some statute that we pass here in Con-
gress. The Marine Corps can no more
be abolished or crippled than can the
United States Senate. In fact, I think
the position of the Marine Corps is more
secure, because the United States Senate
has its roots in the Constitution, whereas
the Marine Corps has its roots in the
hearts of the American people. There is
no need to be worried upon that point.
There is no need to be worried over such
flyspecks as where commas are to be
placed, or such legalistic matters. That
is a matter about which no one need be
worried, because the position of - the
Marine Corps is absolutely assured.
Mr. McCARTHY. I am not so much
concerned with the fate of the Marine
Corps or the fate of naval aviation, but
I am concerned with the strength of our
military force& I know the Senator is
well acquainted with what is known as
the 1478 series.
Mr. LODGE. No, I was not at the high
level of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ,during
the war. I do not know what conversa-
tions they had.
Mr. McCARTHY. That series was dis-
cussed in the Military Affairs Committee
of the Senate, and it is now under con-
sideration by the House Armed Services
Committee. The House committee is
studying that matter. It consists of an
exchange of papers between the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and -if the Senator were
familiar with the contents of those docu-
ments I am sure he would be disturbed
aboue.the fate of naval aviation and the.
fate of the Marine Corps, and conse-
quently the fate of our military forces.
Mr. LODGE. Let me say to my good
f...:end from Wisconsin that one can un-
doubtedly find some individual in one of
the departments who has at some time
written a paper in which he said he did
not like the Marines. I know that an
Assis;ant Secretary of the Navy came be-
fore a Senate committee and said the
Navy was a complete force in itself, and
ought to take over all sorts of land func-
tions. One can always find some Indi-
vidual who expresses some such outland-
ish opinion. But what I want to point
out to the Senator is that if anyone
wanted to do anything which would crip-
ple the Marine Corps, he would first of
all have to get by the President of the
United States, he would then have to get
by the Congress of the United States,
he would have to get by all the con-
gressional committees, he would have to
get by the press and the radio of the
country, he would have to get by the
American people, and that, to me, is sim-
ply out of the question.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President?
Mr. LODGE. Let me finish my objec-
tion to the Senator's amendment. We
used to provide by statute the number
of men there should be in a company of
infantry, and how many corporals and
sergeants there should be in the com-
pany. I remember we provided in the
Defense Act of 1920 that the infantry
was to be in charge of the development
of the tank. When I was on active duty
there developed a demand for a fast
tank, and there developed a demand for
a self-propelled artillery piece which the
artillery would operate. Because it had
a caterpillar tread the authorities could
not get around the statute in any other
way than by calling it a combat car.
When we begin legislating tactics into
laws of the United States we are gazing
into a crystal ball and will be making a
mistake. I think the language proposed
to be inserted by the Senator from Wis-
consin, if adopted, would kick back on
the Marine Corps some day.
Mr. McCARTHY. I am not trying to
legislate tactics. I think, however, it is
wrong for us to give to some appointed
official power which no man has ever had
before. I think if any of the missions
or functions of the Marine Corps are ever
to be changed, they should be changed
by the Congress and not by any super-
secretary.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I
want to point out to the Senator from
Wisconsin how correct he is in referring
to the statements made by the high of-
ficials regarding the Marine Corps.
General Spaatz, head of the Air Force,
said:
During the war the Navy developed and
employed the Marine Corps as a major force
In land and air warfare. This is patently
an incursion by one service into the normal
roles of the other two services. Such a war-
time practice should not be considered as a
cogent reason for perpetuating this assump-
tion of mission on the part of the sea forces.
I recommend therefore that the size of the
Marine Corps be limited to small, readily
available, and lightly armed units, no larger
than a regiment, to protect United States
interests ashore in foreign countries and to
provide interior guard of naval ships and
naval shore establishments.
The Chief of Staff of the United States
Army said:
There is real need for one service to be
charged with the responsibility for initially
bridging the gap between the sailor on the
ship and the soldier on land. This seems to
me properly a function of the Marine Corps.
I believe the Joint Chiefs of Staff should
give serious consideration to such a concept.
Approved,For Release 20
1-1
.8693
The need of a force within the fleet to pro-
vide small, readily available, and lightly
armed units to protect United States inter-
ests ashore in foreign countries is recognized.
" I quote further:
Once marine units attain such a size as to
require the combining of arms to accomplish
their missions they are assuming and dupli-
cating the functions of the Army, and we
have in effect two land armies. I therefore
recommend that the above concept be ac-
cepted as stating the role of the Marine Corps,
and that marine units not exceed the regi-
ment in size, and that the size of the Marine
Corps be made consistent with the foregoing
principles.
Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the Sena-
tor from Connecticut.
Mr. BALDWIN. Let me say to the dis-
tinguished Senator from Wisconsin that
I shared the same feeling with reference
to protecting the Marine Corps that he
himself has expressed. I felt that they
were entitled to all the protection lan-
guage could give them, without freezing
missions and freezing units so that in
' time of warfare they could not be ade-
quately and completely handled. I feel
that the bill does exactly what the Sena-
tor wants to have done. Let me refer to
section 206 (a)?
Mr. McCARTHY. Let me interrupt
the Senator. If the Senator feels that
the bill doe g exactly what I want to have
done, in view of the fact that many of
us differ with the Senator's interpreta-
tion of the bill, can the Senator have any
conceivable objection to making sure
that the bill does what he thinks it does?
Mr. BALDWIN. My objection to the
particular amendment lies against the
word "mission," because it seems to me
that in time of war if the Supreme Com-
mand says, "Here is the available air
power which we have. It happens to
belong to the Marine Corps. We must
send it to protect some military trans-
ports," it does not want to be faced with
the situation that the statute does not
permit the use of naval aviation or ma-
rine aviation to protect military trans-
ports or other things of that nature. It
seems to me that the language in section
206 (a) is adequate to do what the Sena-
tor wants to do. It provides as follows:
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
government?
That is the administration at Wash-
ington?
the headquarters, United States Marine
Corps?
That is here?
the entire operating forces of the United
States Navy (including naval aviation) and
of the United States Marine Corps, includ-
ing the reserve components of such forces;
all field activities, headquarters, forces, bases,
installations, activities, and functions under
the control or supervision of the Department
of the Navy; and the United States Coast
Guard when operating as a part of the Navy
pursuant to law.
It Is further provided;
(b) The provisions of this act shall not
authorize the alteration or diminution of the
existing relative status of the Marine Corps
1 'CI R g/06,1
04
Aptyred For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R0002000 01-1
8694 CONGRESSIONAL RECORI5?SENATE
(including the Fleet Marine Forces) or of
naval aviation.
It seems to me that we would weaken
the provisions of the bill by adopting the
Senator's amendment, because subsec-
tion (a) of section 206 is a detailed de-
scription of what shall constitute the
naval forces of the United States, includ-
ing all the component parts of the
Marine Corps itself, and Including, naval
aviation. As I recall, this particular
section of the bill received more atten-
tion from the committee, from the point
of view of time and discussion, than did
practically any other part of the bill.
This language was prepared with ex-
treme care. At one of the sessions Gen-
eral Vandegrift and Admiral Sherman
were present, and we worked over this
language and finally obtained an agree-
ment. They indicated at the time that
it was satisfactory.
M. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. HILL. I ask the Senator from
Connecticut, with reference to General
Vandegrift, if it is not true that the corn-
nnttee brought General Vandegrift, Com-
mandant of the Marine Corps, into ex-
ecutive session at the time it was
considering this very language, and
whether this language, drafted by the
committee in the presence of General
Var degrift, was not specifically approved
by him?
Mr. BALDWIN. That is my recollec-
tion.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I
think that is the whole trouble with the
drafting of the bill. We have called in
generals from the various branches of
the service, and if a!' certain amendment
or section met with their approval, it was
given no further study. I was not a
member of the committee?
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. -Let me finish.
Mr. HILL. Certainly.
Mr. McCARTHY. I was not a member
of the Committee on Armed Services, but
I did attend many of its meetings, and
watched much of the deliberation. I
think that is the principal criticism that
could be made of the committee, even
though I know that it did an excellent
job otherwise. It would call in a general
or admiral and ask his advice. As the
Senator says, General Vandegrift was
called in; and because General Vande-
grift said that this language met with his
approval, the committee concluded that
It was all right.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. HILL. Let me say to the Senator
that we did call in many generals and
many admirals, as well as many persons
who were not either in the Army, the
Navy, or the Air Force. We sought the
best advice, the greatest possible store
of information, and the wisest counsel
we could find. We did not necessarily
accept a provision because some general,
some admiral, or some civilian approved
it. However, as the Senator from. Con-
necticut has said, we did perhaps give
more time to the provision with respect
to the Marine Corps than to any other
provision. We worked long and hard,
because we were all interested in doing
everything we could to safeguard and
protect the Marine Corps. As I have
stated, we counseled with General Van-
degrift. He approved this language;
and after the committee had weighed it
carefully, the committee decided that
the provision now in the bill was the best
possible language to do that which all
of us wanted to do, namely, protect and
safeguard the Marine Corps.
Mr. McCARTHY. Let me point out
to the Senator that prior to the time
when the committee called various gen-
erals and admirals to obtain their ad-
vice, the President, as Commander in
Chief, had ordered this particular bill,
and that every general and every ad-
miral who was before the committee was
under specific, definite orders. There is
no question about that, is there?
. Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the Sena-
tor from South Dakota.
Mr. GURNEY. Let . me say to the
Senator that if he will read the para-
graph at the top of page 9 of the report?
I am sure he has already read it?
Mr. McCARTHY. I have.
Mr. GURNEY. I will not ask the Sen-
ator to read it again. It was the inten-
tion of the committee to preserve the
basic? functions and the required flexi-
bility of our entire military force. Per-
sonally, I believe that General Vande-
grift accepted the language which we
presented to him because he thought it
was all right. ram sure that our com-
mittee accepted it because we thought it
was all right.
Mr. President, I include myself among
other Senators who have made similar
statements this afternoon. I yield to no
one in my firm resolve to protect the
standing of the Marine Corps and of
naval aviation?and, in fact, of all
branches of the service. I believe the
bill does just that. I will say definitely ?
to the Senator from Wisconsin that the -
Secretary of National Security provided
for by the terms of the bill could not,
by himself, without the President's direc-
tion, change the functions, roles, or mis-
sions of the Marine Corps in any way.
There is no authority in this bill or in
any law which gives him such power.
' Mr. McCARTHY. I suggest to the
Senator that the mere fact that the com-
mittee may have sold General Vande-
grift a bill of goods does not make this
provision right.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
- Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. REVERCOMB. It is very ap-
parent that we are all interested in pro-
tecting the status of the Marine Corps,
and that the Marine Corps should exist
In the same status it has today. The
Senator's amendment reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of this or
any other act, the existing status of the
Marine Corps (including the Fleet Marine
forces) or of Naval Aviation shall not be
altered or diminished.
If the amendment were to stop there,
Would it not be the same as the pro-
JULY 9
vision of the bill in subparagraph (b)
of section 206, on page 41?
Mr. McCARTAY. Except, if the Sen-
ator will refer to page 41, line 4, he will
note that I add after the words "this act,"
the words "or any other act."
Mr. REVERCOMB. I have some mis-
givings with regard to making provision
that none of the missions shall be trans-
ferred or changed. The word "missions"
troubles me somewhat. As I understand
the word, I do not think we should, by
legislation, stop the heads of the military
forces from directing missions. If we
take the status or perhaps the functions
and provide by legislation that they shall
remain as they are, that the Marine
Corps shall be intact as a recognized unit,
I think we will have what is desired,
and what apparently is the intent of the
bill, as expressed even by the Senators
? who have spoken against :the proposed
amendment. It seems to be their in-
tent. But I myself must express a mis-
giving as to the use of the word "mis-
sions." That I understand to be the per-
formance of a particular service.
Mr. ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the Sen-
ator from Wyoming.
Mr. ROBERTSON of. Wyoming. I am
Interested in the discussion of the ques-
tion of functions and missions, because
I questioned Under Secretary Royall very
thoroughly in committee on this very
question. The examination will be found
, on pages 362 and 363 of the hearings be-
fore the Committee on Armed Services,
regarding our national defense establish-
ment.
I read from the hearings, as follows:
Senator ROBERTSON. Well, that is possibly
what he said when he was referring to the
Executive order, but this is the bill he is re-
ferring to, and, as I say, I quote him again:
"I further understand it that no function
of one department of-Government and no
organization can be changed from one to the
other except under specific provisions of law,
and that if the President wants to make such
a change, he has to lay it before the Con-
gress for approval."
That was a quotation from General
Eisenhower. Then I asked Mr. Royall
these questions:
Senator ROBERTSON. Then you feel, do you,
that the Secretary of National Defense, or
the super-secretary must be given the power
to change the functions of amphibious war-
fare, of land-based naval aircraft, and of
guided missiles, if he sees fit?
Mr. ROYALL. I think he should have that
power, subject to the direction of the Presi-
dent, and I do not think it is confined only to
the functions that happened to be performed
by the Navy. I think he should have it as to
the Air Forces and the Army. I think he
should have the right, for example, in the
question of the Army Ground Forces which
bore the big brunt of this war, at consid-
erably more casualties than all of the others
put together, including the Air Forces and
everybody else?I think he should have the
authority.
Senator ROBERTSON. You would not exclude
the marines from that?
Mr. ROYALL. I say "including all of ,the
rest": That the Ground Forces had more
casualties than all of the others put to-
gether.
Senator Romarrsom'In proportion to their
number more than the marines?
Aooroved For R
leae 2
1 15 : CI R 00 1OR
000406
ved For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R000200
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
Mr. ROVALL. Gross; T do not know about
proportion. I am a great admirer of the
marines.
Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the Sena-
tor from Connecticut.
Mr. BALDWIN. I recall the question-
ing of General Royall on that subject
by the Senator from Wyoming ? [Mr.
F.'.orezarisoNl, and he went into it very
thoroughly. I should like to do him the
honor of saying that because of the dis-
cuseion and the questioning by the Sen-
ator from Wyoming, when we went into.
executive session in the committee we put
into the bill the language which is in it
specifically to protect the Marine Corps.
If that point had not been raised, and
the Senator from Wyoming had not
pressed it so effectively and earnestly,
I doubt very much that we would have
this language in the bill. It is a very
decided change from the original draft
introduced in the Senate.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the Sen-
ator from Massachusetts.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I want to ask
the Senator from Connecticut if We did
not go further and, as a result of the
testimony of Secretary Royal], insert the
provision that the three departments,
the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force,
should retain all their present functions?
Mr. BALDWIN. That Is correct.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. And that the
Secretary of National Security should
have the functions given to him by stat-
ute?
Mr. BALDWIN. That is my recollec-
tion, Mr. President'
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, in
order to have the RECORD clear, in case
this amendment is not agreed to, I should
like to ask the chairman of the Com-
mittee on Armed Services, if I may,
whether he feels that the bill as written
does or does not give the supersecretary
the power to transfer functions from one
branch to another. Does the Senator
feel that the bill gives the supersecre-
tary the right to say, for example, that
naval aviation shall no longer have land-
based planes?
Mr. GURNEY. To make the answer
very simple I will say "No"; there Is
nothing in the bill which gives the Sec-
retaey such right. It must come from
the President, as it has since our Army
and Navy started.
Mr. McCARTHY. The Senator feels,
then, that under the bill as presently
written the supersecretary cannot say-
that the amphibious operations of the
Marine Corps are a duplication of the
amphibious operations of the Army, and
therefore we shall do away with am-
phibious Marine Corps units?
Mr. GURNEY. Definitely, the Secre-
tary of National Security will not ?have
that power.
Mr. McCARTHY. I disagree with the
Senator, but I am glad to have that an-
swer on the RECORD.
Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the Sen-
ator from New Mexico.
No. 130-8
Mr. ClIAVEZ. 1.:7r. President, I hope
the Senator from Wisconsin will insist
on his amendment. Irrespective of what
some general or so:ae admiral might have
done, the fact still remains that they do
want to get away from the Marine Corps.
I hope that the Sebator will outline com-
pletely the thought. Not only that, but
when the amendment comes to a vote
I hope he will insist on a record vote.
Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Sen-
ator from New Mexico very much; and to
show how correct he is, all I need do. is
refer to the statement of General Spaatz.
He said the Marine Corps should be no
larger than one regiment. The Chief
of Staff said that there should be no
duplication on the part of the Marine
Corps of things being done by the Army.
That is an unqualified statement that he
feels that the Marine Corps should no
longer have any amphibious units. I
think that for that reason the bill as
presently written is tremendously dan-
gerous.
- The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment submitted by the Senator from
Wisconsin [Mr. McCiamtv].
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore.. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the
following Senators answered to their
names:
Aiken Hill Myers
Hoey O'Daniel
Holland O'MahoneY
Johnson, Colo. Overton
Johnston, S. C. Pepper
Kilgore Revercornb
Knowland RobertSon, Va. '
i.,oriczer Robertson, wyo.
L
Russell
Lucas Saltonstall
McCarron Smith
McCarthy Stewart
McClellan Taft
McFarland Taylor
McGrath Thye
McKellar Umstead
McMahon Vandenberg
Malone Watkins
Martin Wherry
Maybank White
Mil]ikin Williams
Moore Wilson
Morse Young
Baldwin
Ball
Barkley
Brooks
Butler
Byrd
Cain
Capper
Chavez
Connally
Cooper
Cordon
Donnell
Dworshak
Ecton
Ferguson
George
Green
Gurney
Hatch
Hawkes
Hayden
Hickenlooper Murray
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Sev-
enty-one Senators having answered to
their names, a quorum is present.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Wis-
consin [Mr. McCARTHY] to the commit-
tee amendment.
Mr. McCARTHY. I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President; a
parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Is an amendment
to the pending amendment in order?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is
In order. ?
Mr. REVERCOMB. Then to the pend-
ing amendment I offer the following
amendment, to strike out the words "or
missions", so that the amendment then
will read:
Notwithstanding the provisions of this or
any other act, the existing statua of the
AnoFoved For a e 20 /I 15 CIA*R
-1
8695
Marine Corps (including the Fleet Marine
Forces) or of the naval aviation shall not
be altered or diminished; Or shall their
existing functions be transferred to other
services.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I
have no objection to that amendment to
my amendment, and I shall be glad to
accept it.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Inas-
much as the yeas and nays have been
ordered, the Senator from Wisconsin
can perfect his amendment only by
unanimous consent.
Is there Objection to the perfection of -
the amendment as indicated? The
Chair hears none; and, without objec-
tion, the amendment is perfected as
indicated.
The question now is on agreeing to
the perfected amendment of the Sen-
ator from Wisconsin to the committee
amendment.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,1
shall not prolong the debate, except to
say that the amendment of the Senator
from Wisconsin was discussed in the
committee for a long time. We felt that "
it would do more harm than good to the
Marines.
I. call attention to the fact that the
word "relative" appears in the bill, but
that word is omitted from the amend-
ment. The amendment reads "existing
status." The bill reads "existing relative
status."
The bill does not freeze the Marines in
their present status and their present
duties, but it allows them to take their
relative status as a part of the Navy and
as a part of our armed forces in any
situation that may arise. We do not
know what part the Marines will be called
upon to play in these days of jet bombs,
atom bombs, and guided missiles. We
wish to preserve the Marines in the same
relative status to the Navy that they now
are In. But we do not Wish to freeze
them to their existing status, as we know
it today. We want them to go forward,
not backward, as Admiral Halsey stated
so well at Philadelphia on the Fourth of
July.
So, Mr. Piesident, I sincerely hope
that the perfected amendment of the
Senator from Wisconsin will be rejected.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I am
sure the Senator. from Massachusetts is
sincere in telling us that he is concerned
about the Marine Corps. This amend-
ment was offered in the House, but there,
instead of the final four words "trans-
ferred to Other services," the word "cur-
tail" was used. I understand that is the
word to which the Secretary of War ob-
jected.
The Senator from Massachusetts seems
to be disturbed because we omitted the
word "relative." That was done advis-
edly, because I think it has no meaning
whatsoever in that connection, and is
deceptive. But if the Senator from Mas-
sachusetts believes that word is neces-
sary in order to protect the Marine Corps,
I shall be glad to perfect my amendment '
by inserting that word in it.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does
the Senator from Wisconsin request
unanimous consent that he may perfect
his amendment in the way, indicated?
,-006I ?ROW-200040001-,
?(
d For Release 2006/12/15: CIA-RDP90-00610R00020004GQQ1-1
833 CONGRESSION AL RECORD-SENATE
Mr. McCARTHY. Yes; for the benefit
of i,he Senator from Massachusetts, I
make that request.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is
there objection to the perfecting of the
amendment as has been indicated? The
Chair hears none; and, without objection,
the amendment is further perfected as
ir.d
Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Sen alorwill state it.
Mr. LODGE. Where is that word to
be inserted in the amendment?
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, it is
to be inserted before the word "status"
in line 2 of the amendment.
Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, it is my
opinion that the amendment offered by
the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. MC-
CARTHY], as perfected, should be agreed
to. I approve of the words of the Sen-
ator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTON-
STALL] that the Marines should not be
frozen, and for that very reason I think
the amendment of the Senator from
Wisconsin should be agreed to.
If we do freeze them, if we do take the
advice of some naval officer or army of-
ficer in the Department of National Se-
curity, who is going to carry out land-
ing operations inecase of war? All one
has to do is to read the history of the
Marines to know their worth. Because
we do know their history, because we do
respect their valor and their courage,
and know how they take their objectives
in places which the Army and the Navy
could not reach, we do not want them
frc.zen. We want the Marines to remain
as they are, and as they have been in the
past, able to go forward with the per-
formance of their duty as they have been
in the past, from the inception of the
country.
Mr. President, it is fine to think of the
Army and to think of the Navy. Both
those services have done wonderful work.
But why at this late day, after a brilliant
history, should we do something that
would sidetrack the Marines?
Mr. President, I do hope the amend-
ment of the Senator from Wisconsin will
be agreed to.
'Me PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Wis-
consin [Mr. MCCARTHY] to the amend-
ment of the committee. The yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the Clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the
Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPEHART]
is absent -ay leave of the Senate.
The Senator from New York [Mr.
IvEs] is absent by leave of the. Senate
because of a death in his immediate
The Senator from New Hampshire
[Mr. ToaRy] is necessarily absent be-
cause of illness in his family.
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. REED],
who is necessarily absent, has a general
Pair with the Senator from New York
[Mr. WAGNER].
The Senator from Maine [Mr. BREW-
sTER], the Senator from Ohio [Mr.
Emma], the Senator from New Hamp-
shire [Mr. BRIDGES], and the Senator
from Delaware [Mr. BUCK] are unaVoid-
ably detained on official business.
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr.
BUSHFIELD] , the Senator from Vermont
[Mr. FLANDERS], the Senator from In-
diana [Mr. JENNER] , the Senator from
Missouri [Mr. KERI], and the Senator
from Wisconsin [Mr. WILEY] are neces-
sarily absent.
Mr. LUCAS. I announce that the
Senator from California [Mr. DOWNEY]
Is absent by leave of the Senate.
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr.
EASTLAND] is absent on public business.
The Senator from Utah [Mr. THOMAS]
is absent by leave of the Senate, having
been appointed a delegate to the Inter-
national Labor Conference at Geneva,
Switzerland.
The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Fut-
BRIGHT], the Senator from Washington
[Mr. MAGNUSON], the Senators from
Maryland [Mr. O'CoNort and Mr. TYD-
iNGs] , the Senator from Alabama [Mr.
SPARKMAN], the Senator from Oklahoma
[Mr. Timms], and the Senator from New
York [Mr. WAGNER] are necessarily ab-
sent.
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr.
ELLENDER]' is absent on official business.
The Senator from New York [Mr. WAG-
NER] has a general pair with the Senator
from Kansas [Mr. REED]. If present and
voting, the Senator from New York
would vote "nay."
If present and voting, the Senator
from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], the Sen-
ator from Alabama [Mr. SminvitiN], the
Senator from Utah [Mr. Timms], and
? the Senator from Maryland [Mr. TYD-
INGs] would vote "nay."
The result was announced?yeas 19,
nays 52, as follows: ---
YEAS-10
Aiken
Brooks
Butler
Chavez
Ecton
Hayden
Hickenlooper
Baldwin
Ball
Barkley
Byrd
Cain
Capper
Connally
Cooper
Cordon
Donnell
Dworshak
Ferguson
George
Green
Gurney
Hatch
Hawkes
Hill
Brewster
Bricker
Bridges
Buck
Bushfield
Capehart
Downey
Eastland
Langer
McCarthy
McClellan
McFarland
McKellar
McMahon
Malone
NAYS-52
Moore
O'Daniel
Revercomb
Robertson, Wyo.
Wherry
Hoey Pepper
Holland Robertson, Va.
Johnson, Colo. Russell
Johnston, S. 0. Saltonstall
Kilgore . Smith
Knowland Stewart
Lodge Taft
Lucas ' Taylor
McCarran
McGrath.
Martin
Maybank
Millikin
Morse
Murray
Myers
O'Mahoney
Overton .
NOT VOTING-24
Thye
Umstead
Vandenberg
Watkins
White
Williams
Wilson
Young
Ellender
Flanders
Fulbright
Ives
Jenner
Kern
Magnuson
O'Conor
Reed
Sparkman
Thomas, Okla.
Thomas, Utah
Tobey
Tydings
Wagner
Wiley
So Mr. McCARTHY's amendment to the
amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
amenclqient of the committee is open
to further amendment.
Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, in
connection with the construction placed
A nnrobvtad .FOr R141P2Se_
15 ClAR
JULY 9
by the Senator from Wyoming on the
powers of the Secretary of National
Security, as compared with those of the
heads of the Departrhent of the Army,
Department of the Navy, and the De-
partment of the Air Force, there occur-
red a day or so ago some colloquy on the
floor of the Senate as to the possible
effect of the declaration of policy in in-
terpreting the meaning of the language
In sections 201 and 202. In that con-
nection I made the point that the lan-
guage in the preamble, that is to say, the
declaration of policy, referring to unified
direction under civilian control, tended
to substantiate the view of the Senator
from Wyoming, because of the fact that
there is no requirement in the bill that
anyone except the Secretary of the Air
Pone and the Secretary of National
Security shall be anointed from civilian
life. It was suggested by the senior
Senator from Massachusetts that there
may be some statutory provision which
makes it obligatory that both the Secre-
tary of War and the Secretary of the
Navy shall be chosen from civilian life.
In order that the record may be clear
on this point, I desire to offer and to
read into the RECORD a letter from Ernest
S. Griffith, Director of the Legislative
Reference Service of the Library of Con-
gress, dated July 8, 1947, addressed to
me in response to my request of the
same date as follows:
THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE SERVICE,
Washington, July 8, 1947.
Hon. FORREST C. DONNELL,
United States Senate, ?
Washington., D. C.
DEAR SENATOR DONNELL: This Is in re-
sponse to your telephone inquiry of this
morning as to whether there is any provision
in the Federal statutes or in the Constitu-
tion of the United States which would re-
quire either the Secretary of War or the
Secretary of the Navy to be a civilian.
You are advised that neither the Constitu-
tion nor any Federal statute requires that the
incumbents of these cabinet positions be
civilians.
However, no officer of the Army on the
active list is permitted to hold any civil
office, whether by election or by appoint-
ment, and every such officer who accepts or
exercises the functions of a civil office there-
by ceases to be an officer of the Army, and
his commission is thereby vacated 110 U. S.
C. 576; R. S. sec. 1222).
Prior to the act of August 6, 1882 (22 Stat.
238), specifically authorizing such tempo-
rary designation, it was held that' the pro-
hibition of the above statute was sufficiently
broad as to preclude a general of the Army
from serving even temporarily as Secretary
of War during the absence of the Secretary
without vacating his commission as general
of the Army (14 Op. Atty. Gen. 200).
No statutes similarly restricting Navy
officers in the acceptance of civil employ-
ment have been noted.
? Sincerely yours,
ERNEST S. GRIFFITH,
Director, Legislative Reference Service.
Mr. President, I submit respectfully
that the statement by Mr. Griffith tends
to substantiate the point made by the
Senator from Wyoming as to the proper
construction of the declaration of policy
and its effect upon the respective powers
of these officials.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. _ The
amendment is open to further amend-
ment. If there be no further amend-