ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Mr. VINSON. Would you have any authority under this bill to establish as an adjunct to artillery, a tactical air support branch?

Secretary GRAY. No; the roles and missions of the Army, Navy, and Air Force would be unchanged by this bill. This is simply internal Army organization. It would not enable us to make any change in the roles and missions which have been assigned to us by Congress.

Mr. VINSON. But the main purpose of it and the underlying principle and theory of the bill is to have complete civilian control over the Army?

Secretary GRAY. To give the civilian head of the Department, who of course, is the Secretary of the Department, authority commensurate with his responsibility to administer the affairs of the Department. Mr. VINSON. It shapes the Army in accordance with the views of the civilian Secretary?

Secretary GRAY. That is right, sir.

Mr. VINSON. If one civilian Secretary has a certain concept as to the type and character of the Army, under the authority granted in the bill, he could issue orders to promulgate his viewpoint?

Secretary GRAY. Well, I don't know what you mean by his viewpoint.

Mr. VINSON. All right; his idea as to how the Army should be organized.

Secretary GRAY. I think that no Secretary would make any major changes in the organization of the Army or the way it operates, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. VINSON. Well, the authority is there; is it not?

Secretary GRAY. Yes; I would say the authority is there.

Mr. VINSON. And a new Secretary coming in might reach the conclusion that his predecessor was in error in various places and he could change it.

Secretary GRAY. Yes; that is right, sir.

Mr. VINSON. So you would have an uncertain condition existing. It would all depend upon the whim or views or conclusions of the civilian Secretary, and there would be no statutory designation of the various branches of the Army?

Secretary GRAY. That is correct, sir. There is a statutory designation in the beginning, but those branches could be changed upon a finding of necessity by the Secretary. I don't think it would ever be on the basis of whim.

Mr. KILDAY. In section 206 you provide:

There shall be in the Army the following officers: Chief of Engineers, Chief Signal Officer, Adjutant General, Quartermaster General, Chief of Finance, Chief of Ordnance, Chief Chemical Officer, Chief of Transportation, Surgeon General, Judge Advocate General, and Chief of Chaplains.

Then you go further, in subsection (c), and provide that—

Each of the officers named in this section shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army or required by law.

Now under that the Secretary could assign to any one of those chiefs any duty that he saw fit, even though it was a duty formerly performed by another chief.

Secretary GRAY. That is correct. And we have done that under the War Powers Act, under which we are operating at the present time, as shown by some of the illustrations I gave.

Mr. KILDAY. Of course your present organization is practically all under the War Powers Act.

Secretary GRAY. That is right, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. Now under this provision would it be the Department's position to say the civil functions of the Army Engineer Corps could be transferred?

Secretary GRAY. No; the civil functions are untouched by this bill.
Mr. KILDAY. What would prevent it?

Secretary GRAY. They are covered by separate statutes. Separate laws relate to the civil functions. Under this bill the civil functions cannot be changed.

Mr. KILDAY. Under the language of this subsection—

be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army or required by law—
those functions are now required of the Engineer Corps by other laws.
Secretary GRAY. That is right.

Mr. KILDAY. I wanted to get that developed for the record because
I know it is coming up.

Secretary GRAY. Yes, sir. The civil functions are not touched by

this bill.

I would like to qualify a little bit one portion of my earlier statement. Of course, the several corps of the Army Medical Service, the Judge Advocate General's Corps, and the Chaplains, as I have indicated, are special branches. Under this bill we would not be able to make an Ordnance officer the Surgeon General. There are special professional qualifications required of members of those branches, and the laws pertaining to them are not changed.

Mr. KILDAY. Of course the Judge Advocate General has specific powers in connection with the administration of military justice.

Secretary GRAY. That is right. His duties and powers are not changed by this bill. As a matter of fact, Congress has twice in the last 2 or 3 years made changes in the law pertaining to the Judge Advocate General's Corps. They passed the Army and Air Force Acts a couple of years ago and now this new bill, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, again makes substantial changes. But whatever the Congress has done about the Judge Advocate General's Corps, it is untouched by this bill.

Mr. KILDAY. Any further questions?

Mr. HÉBERT. Mr. Secretary, in connection with relying on the Hoover Commission Report to support your desire for the adoption of this legislation, you are familiar with the fact that the Hoover Commission has recommended the transfer of the civil functions of the Army engineers to the Department of Commerce, I believe? Secretary GRAY. Interior.

Mr. HÉBERT. To the Interior, rather.

Secretary GRAY. I am familiar with that.

Mr. HÉBERT. Do you subscribe to that proposal? The Hoover Commission has recommended it.

Secretary GRAY. May I answer that off the record, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. KILDAY. Off the record, please.

Mr. HÉBERT. Surely.

(Remarks off the record.)

Mr. HÉBERT. One other question. You make this statement:

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

1

Am I to take from that statement that that means the federalization of the National Guard?

General COLLINS. Federalization when called to active duty.

T

Mr. HÉBERT. No. I have reference to the Gray Board report, General.

Secretary GRAY. I will say, Mr. Hébert, that so far as I know, there is nothing of the Gray Board report reflected in the provisions of this bill.

Mr. HÉBERT. That report is in status quo?
Secretary GRAY. That is right, sir.

Mr. HÉBERT. All right, sir.

Secretary GRAY. I would say, further, if I may, Mr. Chairman, that this bill does not affect or does not in any way deal with the problem of the Reserve components, either National Guard or Reserves. Mr. HÉBERT. This legislation does not deal in any way with the Reserve components?

Secretary GRAY. That is correct.

Mr. HÉBERT. Which includes National Guard. And nowhere in this legislation would it be within the power of the Secretary to federalize the National Guard, except to call it up in an emergency?

Secretary GRAY. Except in accordance with laws as they now exist. Mr. HÉBERT. Existing law, yes.

Secretary GRAY. That is correct, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. That is a declaration of emergency by the Congress. Any further questions of the Secretary?

(No response.)

Mr. KILDAY. I understand you are going to remain with us for a while?

Secretary GRAY. I should be happy to; yes, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. I suggest, then, we go to General Collins. Then if there should be questions to be referred to either one of you, we can do it all at the same time.

Secretary GRAY. Right, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. Do you have a statement, General?

General COLLINS. Yes; I have a statement which I would like to read to you. It is a brief statement.

STATEMENT OF GEN. J. LAWTON COLLINS, CHIEF OF STAFF

General COLLINS. Two years ago Mr. Royall, then Secretary of the Army, approved a project for a thorough study of the legislation needed to place the Army on a sound statutory basis. The bill now before the committee is a result of that study.

Preliminary to an explanation of the bill in detail, you might like to know the manner in which that study was made and the bill developed.

First, all existing laws of a general and permanent nature affecting the organization of the Army were compiled and arranged to facilitate their careful consideration. The object of this procedure was to determine what laws now in force should be repealed, and what new legislation would be needed, to provide a permanent statutory basis for the organization of the Army and the Department of the Army. An organization was desired which would take advantage of the les

sons learned during the recent war and would be consistent with the important laws affecting the national military establishment that have been enacted since the cessation of hostilities, for example, the National Security Act, the Armed Services Procurement Act, and the Officer Personnel Act.

Second, based upon a study of the compilation I have just mentioned, there were prepared a "Plan for a Bill," and later, several successive drafts of a bill. These were studied and comments were made by all principal offices and divisions within the Department of the Army. As a result of that study, a draft was presented to me when I was Deputy Chief of Staff. After familiarizing myself with it, I laid it before General Bradley, who was then Chief of Staff. After spending many hours in considering it, he approved it. Mr. Gray, who was then the Assistant Secretary of the Army, also had extensive responsibilities in its development. It was next presented to the Secretary of the Army, Mr. Royall. After careful consideration, including many conferences and modifications, he also approved it.

It was then submitted to the Departments of the Navy and the Air Force and other agencies of the Department of Defense for their concurrence which was received. It was finally approved by the Secretary of Defense and the Bureau of the Budget.

The Secretary of the Army has given you an explanation of the need for this legislation and a general explanation of the bill. The staff has prepared a pamphlet which states first, the gist of each section; second, the text of the section; third, the laws which that section will replace; and fourth, an explanation of the section. Each of you has a copy. It is this blue-bound document which has been handed to each of you.

Without taking any more of the committee's time in general explanation, I propose that we consider each section in detail and in turn; that Mr. Blandford read the text of the section; that Lieutenant Colonel Baya then read the explanation of that section from the pamphlet; after which Mr. Gray and I shall be glad to answer any questions which members of the committee may care to address to us.

If the committee agrees to these suggestions, I ask the members to turn to page 12 of the blue pamphlet before them, unless you have some specific question which you want to direct to me first.

Mr. KILDAY. I believe it would be well for us to take it up section by section. We probably would save time in directing our questions to each section, and then we will have the hearings in proper order so that they may be easily referred to later.

You go ahead and read, Mr. Blandford.

TEXT OF SECTION 1, "SHORT TITLE"

Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir. [Reading:]

SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Army Organization Act of 1949."

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title I-Secretary of the Army;

Title II-Chief of Staff and the Army Staff;

Title III-Organization of the Army;

Title IV-Repeals, Amendments, and Saving Provisions.

EXPLANATION OF SECTION 1,

Colonel BAYA (reading:)

"SHORT TITLE"

Since 1949 has passed without enactment of this bill, the short title should be changed to read, "Army Organization Act of 1950."

TEXT OF SECTION 2, "DEFINITIONS"

Mr. BLANDFORD (reading:)

SEC. 2. As used in this Act

(a) The terms "Army of the United States," "United States Army," and "Army" are synonymous and mean the Army or Armies referred to in the Constitution of the United States, less that part established by law as the Air Force. The United States Army includes the components and persons prescribed in section 301 of this Act.

Mr. KILDAY. Is there any explanation which is desired to be made?

EXPLANATION AND DISCUSSION OF SECTION 2, "DEFINITIONS”

Colonel BAYA. I will read from page 14 of the blue book.

Neither statutory nor official use of the terms, "Army of the United States," "United States Army," and "Army," has been consistent, and there have been attempts to distinguish among them. As a matter of logic and good English, there is no more sense in making such a distinction than there would be in distinguishing among "Congress of the United States," "United States Congress," and "Congress." They all mean the same body. To assign different meanings to words, which according to their ordinary definitions mean the same thing, results in misunderstanding and confusion. The definitions contained in this section are in accordance with law and good English usage, and add clarity and exactness to the bill.

For the composition of the Army, as distinguished from a definition of the word, see section 301 of the bill.

Mr. VINSON. Then, the purpose of that is to give a positive statement as to what constitutes the Army of the United States, or the United States Army, so everyone can understand it?

Secretary GRAY. That is right.

Mr. VINSON. Now these previous bills that we passed have all these terms in them. I think.

Secretary GRAY. That is right, sir.

Mr. VINSON. From now on we will know. We will have one name. What will be the name of it?

General COLLINS. The United States Army.

Mr. VINSON. Now heretofore the term "United States Army" has sometimes been used to refer to the Regular Establishment. But in time of war the National Guard was called into Federal service and the Reserve was called. Then you had the Army of the United States. General COLLINS. Right, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. Now, a member of the Regular Establishment, say he was a captain, was given a temporary promotion to major. He became major in the Army of the United States instead of major, United States Army. What would you do under this provision?

General COLLINS. I would like to ask Colonel Baya to answer that specific technical question, Mr. Chairman.

Colonel BAYA. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, the statutes enacted by the Congress since the foundation of the Government in 1789 have generally used the words, "Army of the United States" in referring to

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »