There is another phase of it that comes in the next section. I think we should go ahead and read it and get the explanation and anything else that will come up here will probably be in the next section. Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Chairman, may I straighten out just one thing for the record here?

General, you say that the present General Staff consists of the Chief of Staff, the Vice Chief of Staff, the Deputy Chiefs of Staff, and the Assistant Chiefs of Staff and the officers assigned to those offices?... General COLLINS. Yes.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Now do you propose under the new law to go down to the branch chiefs and make them part of the General Staff? General COLLINS. No.

Mr. BLANDFORD. In other words, you will draw a line below the
General COLLINS. G's.

Mr. BLANDFORD. G's?

General COLLINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLANDFORD. And all these people will be known as the Army staff?

General COLLINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLANDFORD. But the chiefs of branches will not become part of the General Staff?

General COLLINS. No.

Mr. KILDAY. Go ahead with section 202.

TEXT OF SECTION 202, "CHIEF OF STAFF"

Mr. BLANDFORD (reading):

SEC. 202. The Chief of Staff shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, from the general officers of the Army, to serve during the pleasure of the President, but no person shall serve as Chief of Staff for a term of more than 4 years unless reappointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Chief of Staff, while holding office as such, shall have the title of general, without vacation of his permanent grade in the Army, and shall take rank as prescribed by law. He shall receive the compensation prescribed by law and shall be counted as one of the officers authorized to be serving in grade above lieutenant general under the provisions of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947.

EXPLANATION AND DISCUSSION OF SECTION 202, "CHIEF OF STAFF" Colonel BAYA (reading):

When the General Staff was established by the act of February 14, 1903 (32 Stat. 830), it was prescribed that all of its members, which included the Chief of Staff, "be detailed therein for periods of 4 years, unless sooner relieved." The position of Chief of Staff, which was created by that act, was one to which a general officer of the Army was detailed, as distinguished from an office to which the holder is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. To this day no statute requires that the Chief of Staff of the Army be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Nevertheless, Generals Marshall, Eisenhower, Bradley, and Collins were so appointed, though the legal basis for such action is not clear, Existing law does, however, require that the Chief of Naval Operations and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (sec. 2, act of Mar. 5, 1948, 62 Stat. 67; sec. 208 (b), National Security Act, 61 Stat. 503). Section 202 of the Army Organization Bill will require that the Chief of Staff of the Army be appointed in that manner. It further provides that he be appointed "to serve during the pleasure of the President, but no person shall serve as Chief of Staff for a term of more than 4 years unless reappointed by the President, by and with the advice and

consent of the Senate." This will be in general a reenactment of the law now in force as to the term of the Chief of Staff. The term of the Chief of Staff is now governed by the provision quoted in paragraph 3b of this comment, which will be repealed by this bill.

The provisions of section 202 of the bill as to the title, rank, and compensation of the Chief of Staff will make no change in the law now in force. The rank of the Chief of Staff is now prescribed by section 208 (b) of the National Security Act of 1947 (61 Stat. 503), which provision is not repealed or changed by this bill. It reads as follows:

"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." The compensation of the Chief of Staff is now prescribed by sections 201 (a) and (b) of the Career Compensation Act of 1949 (Public Law 351, 81st Cong.), which fix the pay of a general, and by section 304 (c) of that act, which authorizes a personal money allowance for officers while serving as the Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Commandant of the Marine Corps, or Commandant of the Coast Guard. Those provisions are not repealed or changed by this bill.

The provision quoted in paragraph 3c of this comment, which will be repealed by this bill, is therefore obsolete insofar as it concerns the compensation of the Chief of Staff and his relative rank. The remaining part, which provides that the Chief of Staff "while holding office as such, shall have the rank and title of general" will be replaced by similar language in section 202 of the bill.

Mr. KILDAY. Is it correct that no Chief of Staff prior to General Marshall was nominated and confirmed?

Colonel BAYA. Sir, I am not sure about that. I think General MacArthur

Colonel JOHNSTON. Colonel King can answer that question.

Colonel KING. You are correct; no Chief of Staff prior to General Marshall was nominated to the Senate and confirmed by it. They were detailed by a military order-not appointed-by the President. And that is still the way the law reads.

Mr. COLE. You mean they were detailed by the President?

Colonel KING. Detailed by the President as Commander in Chief, but not by virtue of his appointing power.

Mr. KILDAY. And there is now no law requiring that it be done.
Colonel KING. Now no law requiring it.

General COLLINS. At least none that we could find, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KILDAY. Is there any understanding of the reason for the sudden decision to nominate them?

Colonel KING. Sir, it was done before I came to this position that I now hold. I was not consulted about it. I do not know why it was done, unless it was simply to coordinate with the Navy and the Air Force practice.

General COLLINS. I think that is it.

Mr. VINSON. It was to give prominence to this position.

Colonel KING. That may be so. I can only speculate on why it was done.

Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I think as far as the law with reference to Chief of Staff is concerned, it is all right.

Mr. KILDAY. I think he should be nominated and confirmed.
General COLLINS. Certainly he ought to be.

Mr. VINSON. Certainly. And if he is reappointed he should go before the Senate again.

Mr. KILDAY. That brings up the next question, though, of providing that he serve at the pleasure of the President. If he is going

to be nominated and confirmed, shouldn't he be confirmed for a definite period of time?

Mr. VINSON. All officers in the Army serve at the pleasure of the President.

General COLLINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. VINSON. The commission reads at the pleasure of the President. And while he may be given an appointment, it is usually for a certain length of time. The President should, particularly in this office, have the right to remove or transfer any time he sees fit.

General COLLINS. Right.

Mr. VINSON. The President must have flexibility and not have as the head of a branch of the armed services a man that might fail to meet the President's views. I think he must have that right.

Mr. COLE. Why isn't it wise to write that right into the law, when you are requiring that he be confirmed by the Senate, so as to remove any arguments that might arise in the future? Definitely say that, while he is appointed for a fixed term, he is subject to removal by the President.

General COLLINS. We would certainly have no objection to it, Mr. Cole.

Mr. COLE. It should be done.

Mr. KILDAY. Don't you do that when you say "at the pleasure of the President"?

General COLLINS. Of course I think that is inherent in the powers of the President. "During the pleasure of the President" is in there Mr. COLE. All right.

Mr. VINSON. Is there any distinction between the detail and the assignment of an officer? It is the same thing; isn't it? You can detail an officer and it is equivalent to assigning an officer; isn't it?

General COLLINS. Mr. Vinson, you have got me. I ought to know the answer to that, but there are a lot of technical things that frankly I do not bother myself with. I really would prefer to have one of the staff answer that question.

Colonel BAYA. Sir, in a general sense there is no difference between detail and assignment. But in the assignment of an officer to a branch, to one of these basic branches like Infantry, Artillery, or Cavalry, as used in that sense, it has a connotation of permanence; whereas the term "detail" has a connotation of a temporary period.

Mr. VINSON. I see.

General COLLINS. Somewhat like the General Staff. You are detailed to the General Staff, you are not assigned. That gets back to that fundamental thesis that we had a while ago. We do not believe in assigning a man permanently to the General Staff Corps. We detail him temporarily to the General Staff Corps.

Mr. KILDAY. Anything further on this section?

Mr. COLE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am wondering why the law with respect to the Chief of Staff does not impose upon him some duties, delineate his responsibilities?

General COLLINS. Section 204, I think, Mr. Chairman-in fact it does outline pretty thoroughly, in section 204, what are the duties and responsibilities of the Chief of Staff. That is his duties that are provided by law.

Mr. COLE. All right, then, before we leave section 201, the last sentence which you said you have no objection to omitting: I can under

stand why you do not mind it being omitted because you can do it anyway even though that is not in the law.

General COLLINS. That is right, as long as you do not say we cannot do it.

Mr. COLE. I think it would be wise to omit it, because to me it is meaningless.

General COLLINS. We would be perfectly willing to omit it.
Mr. COLE. We are referring to the sentence:

Part of the Army staff may be designated the Army General Staff.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Cole, my understanding was, that was where you are going to put the limitation, that only a certain number of the Army staff could be designated as the Army General Staff and there would also be a limitation imposed on the size of the Army staff. So you would have to have that language in the bill.

Mr. VINSON. You want to draw a distinction between Army staff and that part of the Army staff called General Staff? General COLLINS. Yes.

Mr. VINSON. And you put a maximum on each one?
General COLLINS. Right.

Mr. VINSON. While we are on that subject, I think we all understand that there would be a limit on the period of duty in Washington city.

General COLLINS. That is right; we write all those limitations right

in there.

Mr. VINSON. That is right; right in there.

General COLLINS. Right, sir.

Mr. VINSON. I think Mr. Chairman, that section 202 with reference to the Chief of Staff is all right.

I think the record should show that the country is indeed fortunate to have such an outstanding officer as the present Chief of Staff. He is meeting every requirement and living up to the high standard that his prodecessors have set. I think, General Collins, the Nation is fortunate to have a man with your vision, your judgment, and your calmness occupying this position. I am gratified to see you occupying it.

General COLLINS. Thank you very much.

Mr. KILDAY. I think we all concur in that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HÉBERT. Except I would add, too, Mr. Chairman, that he comes from the First Congressional District of Louisiana.

General COLLINS. And am very proud of it.

Mr. KILDAY. Despite that, I think he is a pretty good fellow. Mr. COLE. There is another thought, Mr. Chairman, on the appointment of the Chief of Staff, for the sake of conforming with the principle of unification, with respect to the rank from which a person can be taken to be put up into the Chief of Staff position. As it is with the Navy, it is fixed by statute that the Chief of Naval Operations must be a flag officer.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Not below the grade of rear admiral.

General COLLINS. It says here also, "from the general officers of the Army," in line 25.

Mr. VINSON. General officers would correspond to flag officers?
General COLLINS. Yes.

Mr. BLANDFORD. The Navy law says practically the same thing. Mr. KILDAY. Section 203.

TEXT OF SECTION 203, "VICE, DEPUTY, AND ASSISTANT CHIEFS OF STAFF"

Mr. BLANDFORD (reading):

SEC. 203. The Vice Chief of Staff, the Deputy Chiefs of Staff, and the Assistant Chief of Staff shall be general officers of the Army detailed to those positions. In case of the death, resignation, absence, or sickness of the Chief of Staff, the Vice Chief of Staff, or the senior Deputy Chief of Staff if there be no Vice Chief of Staff, shall, unless otherwise directed by the President, perform the duties of Chief of Staff until his successor is appointed or such absence or sickness shall cease.

EXPLANATION AND DISCUSSION OF SECTION 203, "VICE, DEPUTY, AND ASSISTANT CHIEFS OF STAFF"

Colonel BAYA (reading):

The position of Vice Chief of Staff, established by this section, is substantially the same as that of Deputy Chief of Staff prescribed in the provision quoted in paragraph 3 of this comment, which will be repealed by this bill. By administrative regulation published under the authority of title I, First War Powers Act (55 Stat. 838), there now exist in the Army the positions of Vice Chief of Staff, two Deputy Chiefs of Staff, and five Assistant Chiefs of Staff

General COLLINS. Actually that should now be four.

Colonel BAYA. It was reduced to four since this pamphlet was prepared.

These positions correspond to similar ones in the Navy and Air Force. The titles of those positions in the Navy are prescribed by sections 3, 4, and 5'of the act of March 5, 1948 (62 Stat. 67), and are Vice Chief of Naval Operations, Deputy Chiefs of Naval Operations, and Assistant Chiefs of Naval Operations. The titles in the Air Force are prescribed by administrative regulation and correspond with the Army titles.

Section 203 of the bill prescribes that the Vice Chief of Staff, the Deputy Chiefs of Staff, and the Assistant Chiefs of Staff shall be general officers detailed to those positions. This is in substance a restatement of existing law, and does not of itself give to these officers any added rank, and does not require that they be confirmed by the Senate. However, section 504 of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 (61 Stat. 887), which will not be repealed or changed by this bill, permits the President to designate these positions as ones of importance and responsibility, and authorizes him to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, general officers to the grade of general or lieutenant general, as may be designated by him for the position concerned, while they are serving in them.

The second sentence of section 203 of the bill provides for the succession to the duties of the Chief of Staff in the case of his death, resignation, absence, or sickness. There is now no statute on the subject, and none has heretofore been necessary, for the reason that the position of Chief of Staff is not under existing law a statutory office to which a person is appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Mr. KILDAY. Any questions?

Mr. VINSON. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Now, under this section 203, the Vice Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chiefs of Staff come from any branch of the service?

General COLLINS. That is right, sir.

Mr. VINSON. Now don't you think he should come from what I am going to use as an expression, "the line?" Of course, you do not have a line and staff as in the Navy, but

Mr. KILDAY. Isn't it correct that in the Personnel Act we provided that all generals should be generals of the line?