(c) The organization of the Army may be kept abreast of developments in the science of warfare and in the molding of an effective team of land, sea, and air forces.

(d) Duplication and overlapping of functions may be reduced to a minimum within the Army Establishment, in the interest of economy and effectiveness of organization.

In order to accomplish the purposes of this proposal, it is necessary that many laws be repealed. Some of these laws are obsolete or unnecessary, some have been superseded by later laws and are not now in effect, some are not now in force by virtue of action taken under authority of title I of the First War Powers Act, others are now in effect and would be replaced by new provisions contained in the enclosed draft of bill. Section 401 of the proposed bill lists the various laws to be repealed. There is enclosed a compilation showing the text of the laws listed for repeal. Among them are the first 20 sections of the National Defense Act of 1916, except for a few provisions in those sections not related to the purpose of this proposal.

This proposal would also amend various laws which authorize certain acts to be performed by particular offices or branches of the Army, so that hereafter those acts could be performed by whatever office or branch of the Army the Secretary of the Army might from time to time designate. Section 402 lists the various laws that would be amended by the bill. There is enclosed a compilation showing the text of the laws to be amended by this proposal.

This proposal does not abolish any of the principal offices now operative in the Department of the Army. However, the offices of Chief of Infantry, Chief of Cavalry, Chief of Field Artillery, and Chief of Coast Artillery, whose operation has been suspended under the authority of war powers, would be abolished. It would establish by law the office of Chief of Transportation. That position is now operative under the authority of war powers, it was found to be necessary during the war, and it is desired that it be established by law as an office in the Department of the Army. The draft of bill would prescribe that there be a Provost Marshal General who would be a general officer of the Army detailed to that position. That position was found to be necessary during the war, is now in existence, and it is proposed that it be continued permanently.

The desired flexibility in organization in the Department of the Army is in part accomplished by repeal of laws specifying the duties of various offices in the Department, and by providing that the Secretary of the Army, under the direction of the President, and the Secretary of Defense, be authorized to prescribe the duties of these offices. This will permit the transfer of a particular duty from one office in the Department of the Army to another, should any such transfer be found desirable. However, this proposed bill does not repeal or amend any of the laws prescribing the duties of the Judge Advocate General and the officers of the Judge Advocate General's Corps. Those duties are of a judicial nature and are essential to the operation of the Army's court-martial system. Neither does this bill repeal nor amend any of the large number of laws pertaining to the civil functions of the Chief of Engineers and the Engineer Corps. This proposal pertains only to the military organization of the Department of the Army and the Army, and does not deal with the civil functions of the Department.

This proposed legislation does not change existing laws relating to the National Guard or the Organized Reserve Corps. A separate study is being made of the entire Reserve component situation, but this proposal does not deal with that subject.

The enclosed draft of bill does not change the numbers of officers now authorized by law in each of the several commissioned officer grades in the Army, or in any branch or component thereof. It makes no change in the laws applicable to promotion, pay, and retirement; and does not give to any person any right, privilege, or benefit not now authorized by law. It is an organization bill, and does not change existing provisions relating to the strength of the Army.

The enclosed draft of bill would classify the branches of the Army as "basic branches" and "special branches." The special branches are those in which regular officers are appointed and commissioned under existing law, and for which existing law prescribes separate promotion lists. These are the several corps of the Army Medical Service, the Chaplains, and the Judge Advocate General's Corps. There is no change in any of the special branches, except that the Medical Department would be known as the Army Medical Service.

The basic branches are those to which officers are assigned under existing law when appointed in the Regular Army without specification of branch. Under existing laws regular officers of the basic branches are carried on the single Army

promotion list, and this bill does not change these laws. The enclosed legislative proposal prescribes that there shall be such basic branches in the Army as the President may from time to time direct in the interest of developing and maintaining whatever arms and supporting activities he determines to be necessary to the efficiency of the Army, but lists the basic branches that shall be in the Army until such time as he directs otherwise. The branches so listed are the same as those now specified by law, except as follows: There would be an Armor Branch, which would replace the Cavalry Branch specified in existing law. There would be an Artillery Branch, which would be a continuation of the Field Artillery and the Coast Artillery Corps. There would be a Transportation Corps and a Military Police Corps which are now in existance under war powers, and which should be continued. In order to obtain uniformity in nomenclature, all of the basic branches, except the Infantry, Armor, and Artillery, would be known as Corps. Thus the Adjutant General's Department, Finance Department, and Ordnance Department would be known as the Adjutant General's Corps, Finance Corps, and Ordnance Corps, respectively.

The proposed bill further provides that members of the Army may be detailed to duty in particular fields, including but not limited to intelligence, counter intelligence, and military government.

* *

*

Attention is invited to subsection 305 (c) of the National Security Act enacted July 26, 1947 (61 Stat. 508). This subsection prescribes: "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 * * may, to the extent determined by the Secretary of Defense, continue in force for two years following the date of enactment of this Act. *" [Italics supplied.] The 2-year period specified in that provision will expire July 26, 1949; but it is obvious that treaties of peace will not be signed before that date and that title I of the First War Powers Act will continue in force for some indefinite time thereafter. The word "notwithstanding," with which the provision quoted above from the National Security Act begins, shows that that provision is a guaranty that the organization of the Army existing at the date of enactment of that act may continue for the 2-year period specified, even though title I of the First War Powers Act might be terminated during such period; and that it is not a limitation of the existence of such organization to such period. Nevertheless, the existing situation is not a desirable one, since the authority for the continuance of the present organization of the Department of the Army will depend upon continuance of title I of the First War Powers Act. The organization of the Army should no longer rest upon war powers, but should be placed as soon as possible upon the firm basis of permanent legislation. For this reason, the Department of the Army recommends early consideration of the enclosed legislative proposal.

If enacted, this proposed legislation would result in no increased cost to the Government. On the other hand, it is believed that the flexibility which would be provided by this proposal would enable the Department of the Army, under the direction of the President and the Secretary of Defense, to evolve a more effective organization, in keeping with developments and changes in the organization of the National Military Establishment, which would eliminate overlapping and produce substantial economies. However, the Department of the Army is unable to estimate the potential saving that could be achieved as a result of such actions.

This proposal has been coordinated among the departments and boards in the National Military Establishment in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

The Bureau of the Budget has been consulted and advises that the enclosed draft of bill, together with a recommendation for prompt consideration, may be submitted to the Congress as a part of the President's legislative program.

Sincerely yours,

GORDON GRAY, Secretary of the Army.

Mr. KILDAY. This is the Army organization bill. The first witness will be Secretary Gordon Gray, of the Department of the Army. You have a prepared statement, have you, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary GRAY. Yes, sir; I have a prepared statement, which I will proceed to read, with your permission.

Mr. KILDAY. Go right ahead.

60266-50-No. 187- -2

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON GRAY, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

Secretary GRAY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the Secretary of Defense has asked me to express his regret at being unable to appear in person before you today, and he has requested that I read to you the following letter from him, which I will hand to the committee staff member when I have finished reading it.

LETTER OF HON. LOUIS JOHNSON, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Secretary GRAY (reading):

My dear Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I am unable to appear before you in person at this time to express my views on H. R. 5794, to provide for the organization of the Army and the Department of the Army, and for other purposes. I have requested the Secretary of the Army to present the following statement for me.

This bill has my wholehearted support. With the enactment of the National Security Act amendments of 1949, the Department of Defense was placed on a sound statutory basis, and unification was thereby advanced. The bill now under consideration is, in my opinion, consistent with that act; and will provide an equally sound statutory basis for the Department of the Army, because it will vest in the Secretary of the Army the authority necessary to conduct all affairs of the Army Establishment. Along with this authority there is given to the Secretary of the Army suitable means for its exercise. The duties of the Chief of Staff are set forth; but, with two exceptions, which will be stated by Mr. Gray, the bill does not prescribe or continue in force separate authorities or duties for officers in the Department of the Army subordinate to the Secretary and Chief of Staff.

It is therefore apparent that this bill is in harmony with the recommendations of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. While that Commission's recommendations on the National Security Organization related only to the top structure, i. e., the Department of Defense, and did not deal specifically with the Department of the Army, nevertheless the following passage from the Commission's report is as applicable to the Department of the Army as to any other Department of the Government.

In our first report we have urged that the foundation of good departmental administration requires that the Secretary have authority from the Congress to organize and control his organization, and that separate authorities to component subordinates be eliminated (H. Doc. 86, 81st Cong., 1st sess., p. 6).

If this recommendation of the Commission on Organization should be carried out Government-wide, either by statute or by reorganization plan, the Secretary of the Army would possess even broader powers than those conferred upon him by H. R. 5794. Should such a development take place at some subsequent date, it would be a development entirely in consonance with the bill before you.

I regard H. R. 5794 as consistent with unification of the services under the principles prescribed by the Congress. The enactment of this bill will permit the Secretary of the Army to make such organizational changes as may be necessary now or in the future, to meet the requirements of the Army in carrying out its mission under the National Security Act of 1947 and the amendments thereto of 1949.

Secretary Gray and General Collins will explain and discuss the details of the bill with you; but, if the Committee so desires, I shall be glad to appear before it at a later date and answer any questions which the members of the Committee may care to ask me.

With warm personal regards, I am,

Sincerely yours,

LOUIS JOHNSON.

This letter, Mr. Chairman, is addressed to Chairman Vinson of the committee and I presume that you will want it for your records. The general purpose of this bill is set forth in the title: "A bill to provide for the organization of the Army and the Department of the Army."

As you know, the Army today is organized in large part pursuant to executive action taken under title I of the First War Powers Act of 1941 (55 Stat. 838). Under the authority of this statute, the organization of the Army has been modified frequently and considerably during the last 9 years. This is particularly true at the departmental level. The changes were necessitated at first by the requirements of the emergency and the demands of the war, then by demobilization and the adjustments during the postdemobilization period, especially the adjustments which have been required by unification.

Our present organization, as I have said, has been adapted to present conditions and modern needs solely under the authority of the First War Powers Act of 1941. Upon the expiration of that act, unless the Congress adopts other legislation to take its place, the organization of the Department of the Army will have to revert to the out-dated structure established by statute prior to 1941. I am sure I need not point out the administrative difficulties that would immediately arise.

[Interpolating:] I might say, Mr. Chairman, just to give an example or two, upon the expiration of the War Powers Act and if there is not substantive legislation in its place, immediately the construction and transportation activities in the Army would revert to the Quartermaster Corps.

Mr. COLE. Instead of what?

Secretary GRAY. Instead of the Transportation Corps. We now have a Transportation Corps which was established under the War Powers Act.

Mr. COLE. Do you have a Construction Corps?

Secretary GRAY. No. The Corps of Engineers now do the military -construction.

Mr. KILDAY. But didn't we pass a special statute transferring that? Or was that a statute limited to the war? I recall we had it up in the former Military Affairs Committee.

Secretary GRAY. It is my impression, Mr. Chairman, that that transfer was made solely under the War Powers Act. No; you are correct. I am informed that there was an act passed December 1, 1941, on that particular activity.

Mr. KILDAY. On construction?

Secretary GRAY. Yes; but that is the type of administrative change that I have in mind. I do not want to make a point of those examples, except to indicate the type of some of the major changes that would take place upon expiration of the War Powers Act; if new legislation is not enacted.

[Returning to prepared statement:] I should like to emphasize that the bill deals exclusively with internal organizational matters and does not deal with problems of personnel and personnel management, the strength of the Army, appropriations or the expenditure of funds, and other such matters.

We have tried to incorporate in this bill the lessons we have learned and one of those lessons-a most important lesson-is that infinite. organizational details should not be included in the statutes. Such details, often included in legislation at the Army's request, have been a great handicap to good administration, especially in time of emergency. At one time, for example, tables of organization for in

fantry companies were included in legislation proposed to the Congress by the War Department. Contrast that with the fact that since the end of the last war we have changed our infantry-company T/O's five times. They are under constant study and revision in the light of changing weapons and requirements. At another time the law set forth in precise detail how many officers, by rank, would serve on the General Staff. Today, of course, this is subject to change almost daily, with .eassignments occurring constantly.

In my opinion, the great lesson in management which we have learned in recent years is that the executive must have the authority to adjust and adapt his organization to carry out his responsibilities in changing situations. The head of a military department, particularly, must have such authority if the department is to provide the maximum state of military preparedness with the greatest economy.

The problem, of course, is to determine to what extent the organization of a department should be fixed by statute, and to what extent it should be left to the responsible head of the establishment. I feel that this bill, simple and flexible as it is, provides a workable answer to that problem. The bill grants the necessary authority while at the same time preserving unimpaired the control of the Congress over such vital matters as appropriations and the roles and missions assigned to the Army. It would permit reasonable changes in organization and in the duties of officers as future experience, in peace or in war, might show to be necessary. What we have sought in working out this bill is a marriage, and a balance, between authority and responsibility. As pointed out by the Secretary of Defense in his letter, this is in accord with the recommendations of the Hoover Commission.

Title I of the bill deals with the authority of the Secretary and is comprehensive. Its purpose is to insure that the Secretary has the means of carrying out his traditional and legal function as responsible head of the Army Establishment. It provides that, except as otherwise prescribed by law, by the President, or by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army shall be responsible for and shall have the authority necessary to conduct all affairs of the Army Establishment.

Title II, relating to the Chief of Staff and the Army Staff, defines the status and responsibilities of the key military officials of the Army. It provides for a Chief of Staff with rank of general, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, who will (1) supervise all members and organizations of the Army, (2) perform the duties prescribed for him by the National Security Act of 1947 and this bill, (3) preside over the army staff, and transmit to the Secretary the plans and recommendations of the army staff and advise him with respect thereto, and (4) act as the agent of the Secretary in carrying such plans into effect. It is also provided that the Chief of Staff shall

perform such other military duties not otherwise assigned by law as may be assigned to him by the President.

It is provided further:

Except as otherwise prescribed by law, by the President, or by the Secretary of Defense, the Chief of Staff shall perform his duties under the direction of the Secretary of the Army.