Colonel BAYA. Sir, I think you recognize that constitutional power by the "unless otherwise directed" there. He has the complete authority to direct who shall succeed.

Mr. KILDAY. Then we assume that it is one of the powers pertaining to the President as Commander in Chief, rather than one of those things to be by law regulating the Army.

Colonel BAYA. Yes, sir. This sets up what will happen unless

Mr. KILDAY. If that assumption is corerct, then we want to put in the Secretary.

Mr. COLE. I think that would be entirely compatible with the principle of Presidential authority because

Colonel BAYA. You could put in "the Secretary under the direction of the President."

Mr. KILDAY. Well, that is a whole lot different.

General COLLINS. But that is assumed throughout the bill, that anything of that sort is by the direction of the Secretary under the direction of the President.

Mr. KILDAY. Except here, this is the first place that there has been a suggestion that we deviate from "unless otherwise directed by the President" and so on. That is, it is suggested now that we give the power to the Secretary of the Army. All of the other places we have put the President and the Secretary of Defense ahead of the Secretary of the Army. Here we are going to give the Secretary, if this suggestion is concurred in, the statutory authority that we have not given him anywhere else in the bill thus far.

General COLLINS. Yes, sir. That would be true. If you want to be consistent, you would have to add the Secretary of Defense in hereI really do not think you would want that added-under the other provision of the National Security Act which says that each of the departments shall be administered by their Secretary.

Mr. VINSON. Who issues the commission or who issues the order to the Vice Chief of Staff?

General COLLINS. It is issued actually by The Adjutant General, but at the bottom of the order will be "By order of the Secretary of the Army." Isn't that right?

Colonel BAYA. Yes, sir. The order also has in it the initials "DP", which mean "by direction of the President."

Colonel JOHNSTON. There is a decision of the Court that unless there is a law that states otherwise, any order of the Secretary is an order of the President.

Mr. VINSON. That is right. Then you might say the President does it through the Secretary.

General COLLINS. That is right. It is really a delegation of his power to the Secretary of the Army.

Colonel JOHNSTON. The traditional language used in Army orders, where an order actually transfers an officer, is "By direction of the President."

Mr. VINSON. It looks like to me, under that statement, and of course when these positions are filled, the Secretary of Defense and the President all know about it, and it cannot be done unless it meets their approval.

Mr. KILDAY. What is your pleasure as to the language? Let us get this terminated.

Mr. VINSON. I would let it stand just like it is.

. Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Cole?

Mr. COLE. It is all right on this second problem. But on the first sentence, where the Vice Chiefs are designated, I think it should expressly say detailed to those positions by the Secretary of the Army. Colonel BAYA. It should be "by the President" there, too, sir, to make it compatible.

Mr. COLE. Because under this previous section, 101 (d), you have given the Secretary authority to detail people throughout the entire department.

Mr. KILDAY. No: we did not.

Mr. BLANDFORD. No, sir. That raises the same issue that we had in section 103. You then have the statutory situation where the Secretary would have statutory authority to detail in conflict

Mr. COLE. You mean the qualification contained in subparagraph 101 (d) does not apply to the authority I propose to give the Secretary in this section?

Mr. BLANDFORD. It might be so construed,

Mr. COLE. All right; forget it.

Mr. VINSON. Go ahead.

Mr. KILDAY. Section 204.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Chairman, do you want to raise the point on whether the Vice Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chiefs of Staff should be detailed or appointed?

Mr. COLE. I think that is a subject you should make inquiry and raise because there is

Mr. BLANDFORD. I think it should be discussed.

Mr. KILDAY. Go ahead.

Mr. BLANDFORD, General, doesn't it seem a little strange that you would have a Vice Chief of Staff and a Deputy Chief of Staff and Assistant Chiefs of Staff detailed to those positions and yet your chiefs of branches are going to be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate? These people are all senior to the chiefs of branches, the President must appoint the chiefs of branches, and yet these other officers will be detailed to these positions and won't have to be confirmed by the Senate and they are not detailed for any stated period of time.

General COLLINS. Frankly, if you wanted to have the thing consistent, the thing to do would be to have the chiefs of the branches detailed by the President or by the Secretary of the Army.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Either that or have these people appointed by the President and confirmed

General COLLINS. But there is nothing new about that.

Mr. BLANDFORD. No.

General COLLINS. This is merely continuing the existing practice. There are all sorts of other considerations that are involved in the selection of the chiefs of services at times.

Mr. VINSON. Well, whenever you use the word "appointment" it generally implies a term, a length of time.

General COLLINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. VINSON. And these men are merely detailed. They may not be kept there but for 6 months.

General COLLINS. That is right.

Mr. VINSON. He is just assigned a certain billet. I think there is a big distinction, the way it is running through my mind, between appointment and detail.

General COLLINS. That is right.

Mr. VINSON. Just being detailed instead of being appointed.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Well, supposing you have this situation, Mr. Chairman. Supposing you have a Chief of Staff who becomes ill. He has a long illness. The Vice Chief of Staff for all intents and purposes is then the Chief of Staff.

Mr. VINSON. That is right.

Mr. BLANDFORD. He will attend the Joint Chiefs of Staff meetings and everything else. He is a detailed officer. He is not an officer appointed by the President. He has never been confirmed by the Senate. And yet he is performing all the functions of the Chief of Staff. Yet he is a detailed officer. He is not an officer that has been appointed, who has presumably been examined by a Senate committee as to his qualification. I merely raise the point because I think———

General COLLINS. But the appointment of these_officers-these are three-star men. We have to submit to the White House a list and it has to have the approval of the President. Whenever you put an officer into either the three-star grade or the four-star grade, they have to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate also. Mr. KILDAY. Is that then a permanent rank or is that justGeneral COLLINS. A temporary rank.

Mr. KILDAY. That is a temporary rank.

General COLLINS. Nevertheless, even in a temporary rank we have to submit those names to the Senate. They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Mr. BLANDFORD. That is the major generals. But

General COLLINS. No, no. Lieutenant generals.

Mr. BLANDFORD. If the President says they are of sufficient importance. Now if he does not act, why, that does not take place.

Mr. VINSON. How often are changes made in the detail of the Vice Chief and Deputy?

I was

General COLLINS. Normally one of those men would stay in one position for 3 or 4 years, Mr. Vinson. But it may be less. Vice Chief of Staff for only 6 months, I guess it was.

Mr. VINSON. I know in the Navy quite often they have a new Vice Chief.

General COLLINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. VINSON. Of course having them detailed prevents the fear of this overriding General Staff idea.

General COLLINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. If he is appointed and confirmed for a definite term then you are strengthening the concept of a too powerful General Staff, whereas if he is detailed he is strictly a temporary officer.. Mr. VINSON. I think the word "detail" is sufficient.

Mr. COLE. Is it not correct that bureau chiefs in the Navy Department are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate?

Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir; I think they are all confirmed.

General COLLINS. They are comparable to the chiefs of our services, exactly.

60266-50-No. 187

Mr. VINSON. Let us read section 204 for the time being, before we adjourn, Mr. Chairman. There are a few questions I want to ask about section 204.

Mr. KILDAY. Yes, sir; read section 204.

TEXT OF SECTION 204, "DUTIES OF CHIEF OF STAFF”

Mr. BLANDFORD. (reading):

SEC. 204. (a) The Chief of Staff shall have supervision of all members and organizations of the Army, shall perform the duties prescribed for him by the National Security Act of 1947, by this Act, and by other laws, and shall perform such other military duties not otherwise assigned by law as may be assigned to him by the President. 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.

(b) The Chief of Staff shall preside over the Army Staff, shall transmit to the Secretary of the Army the plans and recommendations prepared by the Army Staff, shall advise him in regard thereto, and, upon the approval of such plans or recommendations by the Secretary of the Army, he shall act as the agent of the Secretary of the Army in carrying the same into effect.

EXPLANATION AND DISCUSSION OF SECTION 204, "DUTIES OF CHIEF OF STAFF”

Colonel BAYA (reading):

The language of this section follows that of the two statutes now in force quoted in paragraph 3 of this comment, which will be repealed by this bill. The provision quoted in paragraph 3a is a part of the act of February 14, 1903 (32 Stat. 830), creating the General Staff and the position of Chief of Staff, which act was drawn by Secretary of War Elihu Root. The quotation in paragraph 3b was inserted in the National Defense Act on June 4, 1920 (41 Stat. 764). These two provisions have been in force, the one nearly half a century, and the other 30 years, and have worked satisfactorily. Their language should therefore be retained. The clauses of the statute quoted in paragraph 3b, which have not been carried into section 204 of the bill, will be found in section 205, next discussed.

Mr. KILDAY. You had some questions, Mr. Vinson?

Mr. VINSON. Yes, sir.

Now this is not the same as the Chief of Naval Operations and Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General, because they both have command functions under the law and under this you do not have any command function.

General COLLINS. That is correct, Mr. Vinson.

Mr. VINSON. Now, why shouldn't we put them all three together on the same basis? Now the responsibility of the Chief of Naval Operations-let me say first: under the explanation of this section the Chief of Staff has not had command functions since the creation of the position in 1903.

General COLLINS. That is right, sir.

Mr. VINSON. The Air Force Chief of Staff and the Navy Chief of Naval Operations have statuory command functions. I particularly know the Chief of Naval Operations has important responsibilities by law: "It shall be the duty of the Chief of Naval Operations to command the operating forces and to be responsible to the Secretary of the Navy for their use, including, but not limited to, their training, readiness, and preparation for war, and plans therefore." Section 208 (b) of the National Security Act provides that 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." Now there is an inconsistency in the responsibility of these three positions. Now why shouldn't you have the same command function as the Chief of Staff of the Army, as the Air Force and as the Navy? Now of course here are your duties right here, plus those as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

General COLLINS. Well, that is a very interesting question, Mr. Vinson, one we have given considerable thought to. Again-I hope I will have your indulgence to make this statement-it has always been a very curious thing to me personally and to the Army to have the reiterated charges that in the Army the General Staff or the generals can take over civilian control, when, since 1903, in unmistakable language, the Chief of Staff of the Army has been subordinate to the Secretary of the Army in every respect, without any limitations.

Now, we believe that this ought to be continued so far as the Army is concerned. I am not discussing either one of the other services. I can only speak with respect to the Army.

You will remember that at one stage of the game General Sherman, who was the General of the Army after the Civil War, had difficulties with the Secretary of War and he went out to St. Louis, I think it

was

Mr. VINSON. We had a great deal of difficulty with him, too. Let us get a little closer down

Mr. KILDAY. He is going to tell you something against him.

Mr. VINSON. He need not tell me anything about that. Come on down to date.

Why shouldn't you as the Chief of Staff of the Army have the same command function that the corresponding positions in the other two branches of the Service carry? That is my question.

General COLLINS. Well, certainly no Chief of Staff that I know has been hampered by the lack

Mr. VINSON. All right.

General COLLINS. Of that command authority. Frankly, in the Army we have kept our Secretaries of War and of Army thoroughly informed as to what we were doing. For example, I got through with the Joint Chiefs of Staff meeting yesterday afternoon, and this morning I spent almost an hour with Mr. Gray thoroughly briefing him on what transpired at the Joint Chiefs of Staff meeting yesterday. I do that habitually.

Mr. VINSON. Then, I might judge from your remark, you do it anyhow regardless of whether there is any statutory responsibility placed on you?

General COLLINS. No, sir; I have no inherent authority. All of the orders in the Army that are issued to the field are by direction of the Secretary of the Army. That is the way our orders are habitually published, on anything of a major character. When you get down to a subordinate unit, you say by command of general so But all of the actions

and so.

Mr. VINSON. All right.

General COLLINS. From Washington are always published by direction of the Secretary of the Army.