You will note that this provision continues the civilian control of our military forces which is so inherent in our traditions and so important a part of our constitution. I might take this opportunity to assure you that the Secretary of the Army, the Chief of Staff, and the Army at large fully support, without question, that basic concept of our form of government.

Title II also provides for a Vice Chief of Staff, such Deputy and Assistant Chiefs of Staff as the Secretary may find to be necessary, and such other personnel, military and civilian, as may be assigned or detailed under regulations prescribed by the Secretary; all of whom shall, in addition to the chiefs of branches, such as the Chief of Engineers, Adjutant General, Surgeon General, and Judge Advocate General, and the military personnel of their offices, belong to the Army Staff. The Secretary may designate part of the army staff the Army General Staff.

The duties of individual members of the Staff, other than the Chief of Staff, are not set forth in this bill. It provides that the Army Staff shall render professional assistance to the Secretary of the Army and the Under Secretary and Assistant Secretaries, and that the duties of the chiefs of branches shall be such as may be prescribed by the Secretary or required by law. The Secretary will therefore be able to make the best use of each member of the Staff, according to his talents, and to assign duties to different branches or officers as it is found to be necessary. However, existing laws prescribing the duties of the Judge Advocate General and of the medical services, which are principally of a professional nature, are not repealed by the bill and will continue in force.

Title III of the bill relates to the organization of the Army. I might point out that section 306, especially, provides a very desirable flexibility with regard to the various branches of the Army, by enabling the Secretary to make requisite organizational changes in order to meet and keep pace with new developments. For example, the advent of guided missiles may require guided-missile troop units, just as the development of the tank imposed the need for armored units.

Sections 301 and 302 of title III define the Army and state its composition. Section 303 is a sensible provision which permits the tactical organization of troops in accord with the development of weapons and methods of fighting and the situation at any given time. Section 304 provides for the division, for Army administrative purposes, of the area of the United States and other territory in which units or activities of the Army may be located as future needs may require.

Section 305 states the composition of the peacetime establishment of the Army, and provides that it shall include all those military organizations necessary for mobilization in the event of a national emergency.

Section 306, as I indicated just now, will permit flexibility in the organization of the Army. It continues the branches now in existence, such as the infantry, Corps of Engineers, Chemical Corps, and so forth, changes the name of cavalry to armor, consolidates the two parts of the artillery, and validates the Transportation Corps and the Military Police Corps, which were created in 1941 under the War Powers Act. But the important feature of this section is that it does

not make any branch mandatory or permanent except the several corps of the Medical Department, renamed the Army Medical Service, and the Judge Advocate General's Corps. Branches may be consolidated or abolished, and new branches may be set up, as may be found necessary. As I have said, this sort of flexibility is vital if our organization is to keep pace with new developments.

Title IV contains repeal provisions, saving clauses, an so on.

To summarize, the enactment of this bill will properly establish the present structure of the Army, as developed during the past 9 years under the War Powers Act; it will provide sufficient flexibility of organization to permit such improvements in organization and methods as may from time to time be found necessary in the light of changing conditions; it will facilitate quick and effective adjustment to the needs of any emergency that might arise; and it will reaffirm specifically the traditional American concept of civilian control over the military.

General Collins is here with me to explain the provisions of the bill in detail, and we will be most happy to answer any specific questions you may have. If there are any general questions, I shall be glad to answer them now, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KILDAY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE BILL

Now, under the existing permanent law which would again become effective in the event the War Powers Act expired, aren't certain duties and functions assigned specifically to various assistants or the Under Secretary?

Secretary GRAY. I think you have reference, Mr. Chairman, to the National Defense Act provision to the effect that the Assistant Secretary of War, who would now be an Assistant Secretary of the Army, has procurement and industrial mobilization responsibilities. If I may address myself to that for a moment, I should like to say this about it. Of course, when that provision was passed the Assistant Secretary of War was given the industrial-mobilization responsibility for the Government. In other words, he was responsible for all industrial mobilization. Events have overtaken that provision of the National Defense Act, because under the National Security Act of 1947 there were created several agencies, among them the National Security Resources Board and the Munitions Board, which between them pretty nearly have by statute now the major responsibilities that were given on a broad governmental basis to the old Assistant Secretary of War.

We would have a very confused situation if that old provision for the Assistant Secretary of War were continued in force, because there would be statutory responsibility both on him and on these other cies which have been set up under recent legislation.

agen

In this bill, as presented to the committee, the matter of procurement and industrial mobilization is specifically referred to. I think it is a wise provision in the bill. It provides in effect that the Secretary of the Department shall have, or shall cause to be delegated, responsibility for those matters. In other words, the bill imposes a specific responsibility upon the Secretary himself, or, if he wishes to delegate it, upon an Under or Assistant Secretary, to assume the

responsibility as far as the Army Department itself is concerned for procurement and industrial mobilization.

So, to the extent that the situation now justifies, since the advent of the Munitions Board and the Resources Board, this bill would continue a specific responsibility in the Secretary of the Army for these areas of procurement and industrial mobilization. Otherwise, I believe that the Under and Assistant Secretaries are not charged under basic law with any specific responsibilities. Does that answer your question?

Mr. KILDAY. Of course, if it is carried on by an Assistant delegated for that purpose, he would act in the name of and for the Secretary? Secretary GRAY. That is correct, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. Whereas the Under Secretary or the Assistant Secretary has heretofore had the statutory power to exercise it in his own

name.

General COLLINS. Might I add something to the Secretary's statement, Mr. Chairman? You remember that was modified when Mr. Stimson took office. He insisted that it be done under the direction of the Secretary of War. If I am not mistaken, the law was changed to that effect. So, this bill really continues the responsibility of the Secretary of the Army that did reside under that amendment directly under the Secretary of War.

Mr. KILDAY. That was

General COLLINS. I would like to check that with some of the staff to be sure that I am correct. I am informed that is correct.

Mr. KILDAY. Of course, that bill was passed at the time Judge Patterson became Under Secretary.

General COLLINS. Right, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. That was the only statutory authority fixed by statute in one of the Assistant Secretaries?

Secretary GRAY. I think that is correct.

Mr. KILDAY. Of course, we recognized in later legislation that mobilization is something far greater than just Army. In modern warfare you are going to have to mobilize the civilian economy and the manpower of the country.

I do not know whether you would want to answer this or whether someone else should. I notice you suggest going back to the old term "United States Army" now. We just about got educated here on the committee to the distinction between the United States Army and the Army of the United States, and now we are going to do away

General COLLINS. We are trying to eliminate that confusion, Mr. Chairman, by doing away with this multiplicity of terms and just speak of the United States Army, which will include the Regular Army, the National Guard of the United States, and the Organized Reserve Corps.

Mr. KILDAY. There will be no difficulty in carrying out details in the event of total mobilization.

General COLLINS. No, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. Federalization of the guard or calling of the Reserves? General COLLINS. No, sir; I am sure not.

Mr. KILDAY. It can be worked out on your temporary promotions and what not, which heretofore were in the Army of the United States? General COLLINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. The only thing that troubles me about it-when you get on the floor with legislation and you are talking about the Regular Army, and many people understand that and we are likely to be getting into difficulties when you are legislating for just that one component of the service. When we had the Air Force organization bill here I do not think it has been reported out of conference yet-we removed from it the reference to the Regular Air Force and called it the United States Air Force.

Any further questions?

Mr. HÉBERT. May I ask the Secretary a question?
Secretary GRAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HÉBERT. Mr. Secretary, in the letter that you read from Secretary of Defense Johnson and also in your general statement, you made specific reference and placed importance upon the fact that this is in line with the recommendations of the Hoover Reorganization Act. May I ask: Would it be possible for the President under the provisions of that act by directive to put in the force of law the proposals which are advanced here by the Army, such as was similarly done in the so-called Unification Act? In other words, I want to be specific in what I am asking about. When the amended Unification Act was before the committee, there was an indication that the committee was not receptive to that act. Then, by ways and means, it was received here that unless we passed that act the President would do it himself without our sanction. Is that possible here?

Secretary GRAY. Let me say first: I know of no such proposal that that be done. In other words, I have heard no suggestion that it be done that way. I think it is possible.

Now I would like the legal experts to check me on that, but it is my impression that he could do it.

Colonel BAYA. Under the Reorganization Act, it would be possible for the President to submit to the Congress a plan that would bring about substantially the same result as this bill. However, this bill cleans up many old laws by specifically repealing them. A reorganization plan does not clean up the books by repealing the old laws; but merely says: regardless of the old laws functions shall be transferred and changes made in accordance with the plan.

Mr. HÉBERT. That is the point I wanted to bring out. In other words, no matter what this committee thinks or no matter how this committee decides, if the President wants to exercise his powers under the Reorganization Act, he can by directive exercise his authority under that act, the same as was threatened in the so-called Unification Act.

Colonel BAYA. Yes, sir. He could submit a plan and it would be subject to the vote of the Congress; yes, sir.

Mr. HÉBERT. So that does prevail. So we are sitting here this morning merely hearing something that if we do not agree upon the President can put into law?

Colonel BAYA. He could submit a reorganization plan; that is correct. I don't know whether the Congress would approve it or not. Mr. HÉBERT. That is correct. But he could do it.

Colonel BAYA. Yes, sir.

Secretary GRAY. It would have to be approved by the Congress Mr. Hébert.

Mr. HÉBERT. I recognize that. I wanted to get the mechanics, to find out if we are not in the same position we were in when we considered the so-called unification amendments. The committee at that time was not in a receptive mood for that legislation. The committee has since indicated certain mistakes were made. And the legislation was passed under pressure that if we did not pass it the President would put it into effect. I wanted to find out if the same situation prevailed here, which evidently it does.

Now the second question

Secretary GRAY. Mr. Hébert, before you do that, may I revert to an earlier question? I have additional information on the duties of the Assistant Secretary on procurement which I think it is important to put in the record. As you recall, the Eightieth Congress passed Public Law 413, which was the Armed Services Procurement Act. The spirit of that act is entirely in consonance with the provision that the Secretary may delegate to an Under or Assistant Secretary procurement responsibilities. The Congress has recognized that principle in Public Law 413. I think that ought to be in the record.

Mr. KILDAY. What I was primarily interested in there, Mr. Secretary, was whether there were any other specific statutory powers granted to assistants or to the Under Secretary rather than to the Secretary. That is the only one.

Secretary GRAY. That is the only one I know.

Mr. HÉBERT. Now, Mr. Secretary, you mentioned the fact that the bill gives the Secretary flexibility in maintaining branches of the service. You mentioned the engineers, the transportation corps, and so forth. Under this proposed legislation could the Secretary just by simple order or acting under his authority say there shall be no Corps of Engineers?

Secretary GRAY. The Secretary

Mr. HÉRERT. That is a branch that you mentioned.

Secretary GRAY. There is an amendment which will be presented when we get to going over the bill which relates to recognizing the professional qualifications of engineers. But in answer to your spe cific question, this bill would make it possible on a finding of necessity by the Secretary to abolish any of the branches, with the exception of the Judge Advocate General's Corps, the Army Medical Service; and I might add the law relating to the chaplains is not changed by this bill. Mr. HÉBERT. But the Secretary by mere direction, under the authority granted in this proposed legislation, could abolish any branch of the Army.

Mr. VINSON. May I ask this question, Mr. Chairman? Is the main objective, then, complete civilian control over the Army?

Secretary GRAY. Well, that is a part of it, sir. To maintain and preserve what we have always had in the Army, civilian control, but also to enable the Department head to meet changed conditions. For example, take the cavalry branch. That is a branch which does not have the importance that it once had. I mentioned before you came in, I believe, Mr. Chairman, the other side of the picture. That is, I pointed out with the advent of guided missiles we may want to develop a guided missiles branch of the service, whatever it might be called. We would have that flexibility under this statute to eliminate obsolete, outdated branches and create new ones as the necessities might dictate.