The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a. m. in room 212, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C., Senator Estes Kefauver (chairman of the subcommittee composed of Senators Kefauver, Stennis, Long, Saltonstall, and Flanders) presiding.

Present: Senators Kefauver (presiding), Stennis, Long, and Saltonstall.

Also present: Justice M. Chambers, of the committee staff. Senator KEFAUVER. The committee will come to order, please. This is a subcommittee to consider S. 677, a bill to fix the personnel strength of the United States Marine Corps and to make the Commandant of the Marine Corps a permanent member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Let the record show that by appointment of Chairman Russell the members of this subcommittee are Senator Stennis, of Mississippi; Senator Long, of Louisiana; Senator Saltonstall, of Massachusetts; Senator Flanders, of Vermont; and the chairman of the subcommittee is Kefauver, of Tennessee.

Copy of the bill, with the amendment thereto, shall be placed in the record at this point.

(The bill and amendment referred to above is as follows:)

[S. 677, 82d Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To fix the personnel strength of the United States Marine Corps, and to make the Commandant of the Marine Corps a permanent member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the first sentence of section 206 (c) of the National Security Act of 1947 is hereby amended to read as follows: "The United States Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy, shall include four full-strength combat divisions, four full-strength air wings, and such other land combat, aviation, and other services as may be organic therein, and the personnel strength of the Regular Marine Corps shall be maintained at not less than four hundred thousand."

SEC. 2. The Commandant of the Marine Corps shall be a permanent member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[S. 677, 82d Cong., 1st sess.]

AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Douglas (for himself, Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Smathers, Mr. Case, Mr. Fulbright, Mr. Gillette, Mr. George, Mr. Johnson of Colorado, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Tobey, Mr. Ecton, Mr. Neely, Mr. Butler of Nebraska, Mr. Duff, Mr. Sparkman, Mr. Schoeppel,

1

Mr. Lehman, Mr. Johnston of South Carolina, Mr. Ives, Mr. Murray, Mr. Chavez, Mr. Brewster, Mr. Morse, Mr. Hendrickson, Mr. Nixon, Mr. Thye, Mr. Aiken, Mr. Capehart, Mr. Humphrey, Mr. Kefauver, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr. Wiley, Mr. Flanders, Mr. Dirksen, Mr. Mundt, Mr. McCarran, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Bricker, Mr. Maybank, Mr. Young, Mr. Magnuson and Mr. Smith of North Carolina) to the bill (S. 677) to fix the personnel strength of the United States Marine Corps, and to make the Commandant of the Marine Corps a permanent member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, viz:

On page 2 line 4, strike out the word "less" and in lieu thereof insert "more." Senator KEFAUVER. At this point I wish to point out that the name of the chairman of the subcommittee appeared as one of the cosponsors of this bill. It is my inclination to have my name withdrawn as cosponsor inasmuch as I am a member of the subcommittee.

However, after consulting with some of my colleagues on the subcommittee, I want to state that while I have been generally interested in the problem that this bill brings before the committee for consideration, I shall endeavor to maintain an open mind on the matter and reserve judgment until all the evidence is presented, so that we can give everybody's viewpoint consideration, and that will not prevent, to the best of my ability, my acting upon the weight of the evidence and persuasiveness of the testimony as it is brought out here.

On January 27 the Department of Defense was requested to give the committee the benefit of their position on this legislation. While the receipt of this request was acknowledged on January 30, the report of the Department was not received until 2 p. m. yesterday. Copy of this report will be made a part of the record at this point. (The report referred to above is as follows:)

Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL,

THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, April 12, 1951.

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Department of Defense has given careful consideration to the bill, S. 677, To fix the personnel strength of the United States Marine Corps, and to make the Commandant of the Marine Corps a permanent member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The purpose of S. 677, with the amendment thereto introduced March 21, 1951, is to provide for the Marine Corps four full strength combat divisions, four full strength air wings, a personnel strength of not more than 400,000, and to provide that the Commandant of the Marine Corps shall be a permanent member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The provisions of S. 677 which would prescribe a fixed composition and strength for the Marine Corps are considered undesirable. The strength and composition, it is believed should be left flexible in order that the strength may be governed by the needs of naval and related operations.

Traditionally, the Marine Corps strength has been geared to the strength of the Navy for a number of practical reasons. The Marine Corps is not a selfcontained organization. Thus, the Bureaus of Ordnance and Ships provide the Marine Corps with the equipment, landing craft, guns, etc., that they need. The Marine air arm is trained along with naval aviation cadets. The Bureau of Medicine and Surgery provides the Marine operating force as well as the naval operating force with the requisite officers, supplies, and equipment. The Marine personnel are hospitalized in naval hospitals. To disturb the traditional balanced relationship of the Marine Corps to the other operating forces of the Naval Establishment would effect a distortion of the entire pattern of planning and logistical support for the Naval Establishment as a whole.

The Marine Corps has had many years of highly successful operations under statutes authorizing the Corps an enlisted strength based on a percentage of the enlisted strength of the Navy.

In connection with the proposal that the Commandant of the Marine Corps be made a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense had previously asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for their views in connection with other

bills introduced in the Congress on this subject. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were then and are now unanimously opposed to the proposal as "unnecessary, undesirable, and impracticable." I concur with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in this matter and enclose for your information a copy of the Joint Chiefs of Staff paper on this subject. Items on the agenda of the Joint Chiefs of Staff concerning Marine Corps matters are referred to the Commandant of the Marine Corps for comment prior to consideration. It has also been the practice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to invite the Commandant to be present at meetings when subjects of importance to the Marine Corps are being discussed.

In addition to the fact that full consideration is now given to the views of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the combat elements of the Marine Corps are part of the operating forces of the Navy and the headquarters of the Marine Corps is not staffed to consider all the problems confronting the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

It is important, in passing upon the merits of this bill, to examine it in the light of not only the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, but also in the light of the present organization of the Naval Establishment as prescribed pursuant to Public Law 432, approved March 5, 1948. Under that act and under General Orders 5, 9, and 19, the Marine Corps is an integral part of the operating forces of the Naval Establishment, and the Chief of Naval Operations has command over the operating forces of the Naval Establishment. It is considered that the proposed legislation would provide a division of command and responsibility within the Department of the Navy and would seriously disturb the logistical support pattern of the Naval Establishment.

Under all of the circumstances, and for the reasons outlined above, I strongly recommend against the enactment of S. 677.

Because the hearing on this bill has been scheduled by your committee for April 13, 1951, this report has not been sent to the Bureau of the Budget for its advice.

Faithfully yours,

G. C. MARSHALL.

Senator KEFAUVER. For the information of the subcommittee members copies of the report have been placed at each place. A copy has also been furnished to Senator Douglas.

It is our intention to hear witnesses who are present today until 11:15. At that time there will be a special meeting of the full committee. The subcommittee will meet again this afternoon at 2 p. m. and continue until the witnesses present have been heard.

It is my further understanding that the sponsors of the bill have two or three additional witnesses who desire to be heard on Tuesday morning. Accordingly, the subcommittee will meet again at 10 a. m. next Tuesday for the purpose of hearing these witnesses as well as: the representatives of the Department of Defense.

It is expected that we will finish the hearing on that day.
Senator LONG. Mr. Chairman.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Long.

Senator LONG. Might I ask this question? Is it necessary that we have that meeting at 10 o'clock Tuesday? The reason I inquire is because I have another committee meeting at 10 o'clock Tuesday. If you could set it for Tuesday afternoon, I would appreciate it, because it would enable me to be present.

Senator KEFAUVER. Suppose we check with the other committee members and see how the situation is.

Senator LONG. Thank you..

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Douglas, who has taken the leadership in this legislation, intends to and we hope will be present throughout all the hearings. We are delighted to have you with us, Senator Douglas.

We want to extend to Senator Douglas the right of sitting with the committee and of asking any questions of any witnesses that may ap

pear, and we hope you will have no delicacy or hesitancy in speaking up and bringing out any points of information that may be of assistance to the committee.

Before proceeding with the hearings we have two statements, one from Senator George, the senior Senator from Georgia, the other from the senior Senator from New York, Senator Ives, which they have requested be read into the record.

The statements seem to be fairly brief, and I know that what they have to say will be of interest and of use to the committee considering this problem. I will ask Colonel Chambers to read them.

Mr. CHAMBERS. I have here a statement from Senator Walter George, of Georgia, with the accompanying note:

Mr. Chairman: I am conducting hearings on several tax conventions and witnesses are here from the west coast today, hence I am submitting a brief written statement on the bill which I very much desired to present in person to the committee.

WALTER F. GEORGE.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to testify on S. 677 now before you. As you know, it was introduced by Senator Douglas and 43 Senators, including myself. I am certain that there are other Senators who will support the bill in principle. Since they may not agree in all of its details, they did not join in its introduction. It is most unusual for so many Senators to join in the introduction of legislation of this kind, particularly when it appears to be contrary to the thinking of some of our military experts.

It is not necessary for me to extoll the virtues of the United States Marine Corps, nor attempt to convince you gentlemen of the great need for combatant troops of the caliber which the marines have always given our country. Nor do I intend to advance the detailed arguments in support of the bill. This will be done by my colleagues who are prepared to go into the matter in great detail. Suffice it to say that I subscribe to the bill with the amendment suggested by Senator Douglas. From my knowledge of the facts I am convinced that the bill is a proper one and will give our country the greatest possible return in national defense for the amount of money that we will have to expend.

My appearance here today is to explain why it is necessary for the Congress to pass detailed legislation in an area where we usually delegate broad powers to the executive department.

The Congress is charged by the Constitution to provide for the common defense. From time to time throughout the history of our country it has passed laws designed to meet this responsibility. Sometimes these laws have been recommended by the executive department and sometimes they have originated within the Halls of Congress. In either event it was the will of the people speaking through the Congress which finally resulted in the legislation being passed. It was in this manner that our present military structure was created.

I have had the honor of being a Member of the Congress for a great many years. During this time I have had occasion to notice that the Congress had overruled the executive department on many matters to properly carry out its legislative responsibilities. During this same period of time I have noticed that the Congress has repeatedly tried to make it clear to the executive department that it wants a combatant United States Marine Corps available to carry out its traditional role in the defense of our country. I am well aware of the fact that there are those who have piously stated that there is no intention of doing away with the Marine Corps, and in that statement I think they were factually correct. They never intended to do away with the Marine Corps as such, they simply intended to see that it was maintained in name and at such size that it could not carry out combatant missions. It could carry out ceremonial and guard duties.

I do not feel that it is proper to go into the recriminations of the past. The record is clear that some of our greatest military leaders within the past few years have advocated that the Marine Corps be reduced to small, lightly armed units which certainly could not carry out the functions which the Congress had in mind for them. Perhaps the most recent expression of the interest of Con

gress in the Marine Corps can be found in section 206 of the so-called Unification Act as it passed the Congress. This act contained language which was opposed by the executive department but which spelled out clearly the functions of the United States Marine Corps. Shortly after its passage, the late James Forrestal, then Secretary of Defense, called a meeting at Key West, out of which grew what were supposed to be the agreements and decisions on which the services would carry out the Unification Act. These agreements in substance gave the Marine Corps, for planning purposes, four marine divisions, along with appropriate aviation and supporting ground forces. There certainly has been no effort to implement these decisions. In fact the trend has been to the contrary. At the start of the Korean War the Marine Corps was at a badly reduced, twodivision level. With the other services expanding at a tremendous rate, both in number of organizational units and in personnel, the Marine Corps is being held to its original two divisions plus one regimental combat team. So far as manpower is concerned, the Marine Corps, according to present plans, will start the fiscal year 1952 with 203,000 men and end with 175,000.

The combatant Marine Corps that has been developed is a hard-hitting, flexible, air-ground team. It is capable of fighting as a part of a naval amphibious force, or, as in Korea today, as a part of the United States Army. It is difficult to understand why any thinking military man can object to spending money for such useful tools. Certainly a Marine division costs considerably less than an Army division, and its combat capabilities are well known to all. Similarly, its close air support aviation has developed techniques for the close support of ground troops to the point where the Air Force is now beginning to develop their own along the same lines. If professional jealousy enters into it, which I hope is not the case, then I am certain we have no place for such thinking in our military structure.

Yet, in spite of these facts, I am convinced that if the Congress does not spell out what it wants the Marine Corps to be, that the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on which the Marine Corps has no representation, may eventually reduce it to a state of combat impotence. The past and current record is clear on this point.

I have a sincere regard for the members of our Joint Chiefs of Staff. I respect their judgment, and, generally speaking, am inclined to go along with them in their recommendations. However, they are human, and because they are they are subject to the weaknesses of human reasoning. Certainly they have made mistakes in the past and will continue to make them in the future. We can only hope that their mistakes are less costly than those of comparable military leaders in other countries.

In any event, I, as a Member of the United States Senate, feel that the only way the Congress can be sure that we do have such a combatant Marine Corps is through a specific directive of the Congress. It must be unmistakable in its language.

We probably will be accused of being arm-chair strategists and be denounced for going against the wishes of our military advisers. The Congress cannot divest itself of its responsibilities for providing for the common defense. We in the Congress have created the present military organization. Certainly we have the right and responsibility to require that the law that created these military experts be carried out in all of its details. Furthermore, we must change the law from time to time in accordance with our best judgment.

It is my sincere hope that this bill be reported favorably to the floor of the Senate at the earliest practicable date, where I am sure there will be little or no difficulty in securing its passage.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Could you refresh my memory? What is the proportion of the Marines to the strength of the Navy now by statute?

Mr. CHAMBERS. Sir, the statute, under the normal law, which is not on the books at the present time, Senator Saltonstall, because we repealed it here for the duration of this emergency some 6 or 8 months ago, but normally the law says that the authorized enlisted strength of the Marines is 500,000 and that the authorized enlisted strength shall be 20 percent

Senator SALTONSTALL. Of the Marines.

Mr. CHAMBERS. Of the Marines shall be 20 percent of the authorized enlisted strength of the Navy.