General VANDENBERG. Yes. My original approval of the Joint Chiefs proposal on practically all of these was simply on the clarification of what we at that time thought must have been the intent. It was on that basis that I approved it.

The CHAIRMAN. It is perfectly obvious here this morning, and I think the record ought to show, that the matters we have had under discussion you gentlemen are in general agreement, all four of you. Admiral DENFELD. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. And that you don't object to a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but you want him appointed subject to the testimony that has been given here and the amendments that have been offered, and you want to try to keep the military functions of the Defense Establishment under the military and are willing to surrender up everything else within reason, but you don't want battle plans made by someone who does not have responsibility for winning the war.

So there is no real division on any front that I can see here among you four gentlemen.

Is there any other part of the bill which you feel ought to be changed or you want to comment on or you have any suggestions upon?

Admiral DENFELD. As far as I am concerned, I think that the military aspects are what we know most about and what we should address ourselves to. I think the rest of the bill as far as I am personally concerned, is a question that the Secretary of Defense and the President and the Secretaries ought to decide.

The CHAIRMAN. General Bradley?

General BRADLEY. I feel the same way, sir. We have tried to confine our comments to those matters which we think are of a military nature and then merely an attempt to try to clarify exactly as to what our duties are.

The CHAIRMAN. I think I ought to say on behalf of the whole committee-and I should have said it when you gentlemen came in here we wanted you to feel perfectly free to make any comment on any part of this bill that you feel will help the National Defense Establishment and help us to prepare for any contingency. So if we don't ask a specific question, there is implied in our invitation here the thought that you will tell us anything in your minds that you might have, and we invite you and request you to do it, anything which will make this a better bill than it might otherwise have been. General CATES. May I say something?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

General CATES. I believe the bill gives to the Secretary of Defense the power to reorganize the services. It gives him the power not to transfer the functions, but he can control the functions by transferring certain personnel and certain units.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean in peacetime or wartime?

General CATES. Either time, sir. I believe that it is conferring entirely too much power on him. He could transfer not the functions of naval aviation or the Marine Corps, but he could actually transfer all training facilities, the personnel, even the headquarters. He would have to leave the functions.

Carrying it further, he could actually transfer the Marine Corps to the Army and still let them maintain their present functions.

Senator SALTONSTALL. In other words, you think subparagraph 3 on page 4 gives the Secretary of Defense too much power? General CATES. Yes, sir, I do.

Senator SALTONSTALL. This is the same question I asked Mr. Forrestal: If you eliminated the word "personnel" from that, you would cut down his power a great deal; is that right?

General CATES. Yes, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. And "personnel" in that section doesn't seem to belong.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you could take "personnel" and put it out separately and, of course, circumscribe it more or you could leave it out entirely, but as Senator Saltonstall says, if "personnel" is taken out, 90 percent of your objection to this particular provision would be eliminated.

General CATES. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir. Any other suggestions? Did you finish, General Bradley?

General BRADLEY. Yes, sir; unless it be to put in some plea for some kind of an act that would strengthen our position today. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have been taking a terrific beating in the press and everywhere else, and we think a lot of that stems from the fact that there are some deficiencies in the present law, and I am speaking as an individual and not as a member of the Joint Chiefs. As an individual, I hope you will do something to strengthen the Military Establishment to a point where, to put it in slang, we can get off the hook and can really perform our functions as we think you want us to carry them out and make the Military Establishment a more efficient one.

That is merely a plea for something to strengthen it which, as I say, I think would restore some of the confidence in the leadership of our Military Establishment, which is being rapidly lost.

The CHAIRMAN. You think it is too loose now?

General BRADLEY. Yes. I think we all realize it is difficult for us to function and get decisions under the present law. We think this law will strengthen that and cure a lot of those deficiencies.

The CHAIRMAN. General, is it fair to ask this question: In whole or in part, taking the amendments which you have offered, at least the spirit of them, insofar as they are applicable, with the law, as we now have it before us, you would give us a recommendation that it be passed? Is that a fair summation?

General BRADLEY. Yes, sir. As far as I know, I think it is strengthening the Military Establishment very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral Denfeld, have you any comment along

that line?

Admiral DENFELD. No, sir. As I say, I have addressed myself primarily to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I haven't gone into the rest of the legislation too carefully, but I do think that while I originally thought that the present law was sufficient, after working with it a year and a half, I feel there should be some strengthening of it so that we can perform our functions more efficiently.

The CHAIRMAN. So that I might quote you more or less definitely, on the military phases of the law that we have had under discussion this morning, with the amendments suggested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, insofar as their spirit and letter can be interwoven into this, you would recommend the passage of this act?

Admiral DENFELD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Without any reservation?

Admiral DENFELD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. General Vandenberg, I put to you the same question rather than repeat it.

General VANDENBERG. I would like again to make the point that all of the recommendations that I agreed to did not in any way, in my opinion, at the time that I agreed to them, diminish in any respect the authority and control of the Secretary of Defense, because I think that his power and his control should be greatly enlarged.

The amendments that we suggested were amendments that we couldn't see any other way of doing, and that is why I agreed. As far as the one that General Cates commented on, in my opinion that takes some authority away from the Secretary of Defense, and I would not concur in it.

The CHAIRMAN. General Cates, I think you have made your position clear, so I won't go over it again unless you have something additional

to say.

General CATES. I probably shouldn't volunteer this, but I regret to say I am not in accord. I do not think the National Security Act has been given a fair trial. I think it will work. If we keep continuously changing it year after year and keep it in a state of flux, I can assure you it will affect morale very much.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir.

General BRADLEY. I would like to correct one thing in my remarks as to what I agreed to as to suggested changes. That was confined to those of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and not necessarily those of General Cates, because I had not studied that.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Admiral Denfeld, I will address this to you as the senior: Do the Joint Chiefs of Staff feel that making the departments military departments and no longer executive departments of the Government, but combining them into an executive Department of Defense have any effect on the prestige or opportunity to act independently of the various Army, Navy, and Air Force groups?

Admiral DENFELD. We haven't considered that. The only thing we have addressed ourselves to is the military.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Put it this way: It will not diminish your effectiveness as a military force to be changed into one executive department and become simply military departments within that executive department?

Admiral DENFELD. I haven't given that too much consideration, Senator Saltonstall. I think the Secretaries ought to give their opinion on that point.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this question, Admiral: Assuming that your military functions and rights and field of operations are safeguarded, no matter what the political complexion of the department may be, that is your main concern, isn't it?

Admiral DENFELD. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. So that if you are protected, whether you go into one department or whether it is three, basically you have no objection, provided you don't have to surrender functions that are primarily military to civilians?

Admiral DENFELD. That is correct, sir.

Senator BYRD. I assume we will have the Secretary of the Navy testify.

The CHAIRMAN. I doubt if we are going to be able to have him. He is going to be away for a couple or 3 weeks. He told me yesterday, having called me voluntarily on the telephone, that he would give us a statement and he would like, if he is requested, to use the medium of furnishing a statement rather than be called because he says his health is not too good.

Senator BYRD. Is there any other Assistant Secretary? I think we ought to have an expression here from the Secretary of the Navy or somebody representing him in person.

The CHAIRMAN. We have already gotten an expression from the Secretary of the Navy here, haven't we, in writing?

Mr. MUDGE. No.

The CHAIRMAN. I will either ask him to give us the complete position on the thing in writing or designate someone from the Navy Department.

Senator KNOWLAND. I would like to urge that it not just be in writing, but if the Secretary is not able to come himself, that the committee ask him to designate his Under Secretary or somebody else who may present the civilian viewpoint in the Navy Department.

That is the same point I raised the other day. I think we have an obligation to go out and get the information rather than necessarily relying on volunteering.

The CHAIRMAN. If the clerk will remind me tomorrow morning. I will get in touch with the Secretary wherever he is. He is away on vacation, I think, in Florida.

Senator KNOWLAND. The same applies to the Army.

The CHAIRMAN. We will get the Army very easily. I will either get him to give me his own views or designate someone to give us his views so we can have them in the record.

Senator SALTONSTALL. I have one more question.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Admiral Denfeld, did the Joint Chiefs of Staff consider in any way whether or not the Chairman should have any length of term or should the term be indefinite? I feel quite strongly that there should be a rotation in this office.

Secretary Symington expressed no opinion on that from a civilian point of view. Did the Joint Chiefs of Staff consider that!

Admiral DENFELD. We did not consider that, and I think it doesn't make so much difference because whoever is appointed, if he is not satisfactory, he can be replaced even if he has a term of duty.

Senator SALTON STALL. Suppose you get a man of great prestige. we will say like General Marshall, who might carry on there for 8 or 10 years, assuming the President stayed in office. Isn't there value in the rotation of that office from the military point of view?

Admiral DENFELD. I think it would be a good idea; yes, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. But you gentlemen did not consider that sufficiently important from a military point of view to make recommendations?

Admiral DENFELD. No, sir.

Senator KNOWLAND. What is the law now as far as the chiefs of the individual services-what is their term?

Admiral DENFELD. The Chief of Naval Operations term shall not be more than 4 years.

General BRADLEY. The same way with the Army, appointed for 4

years.

Senator BYRD. Can they be reappointed?

Admiral DENFELD. Yes, sir.

General BRADLEY. He has to be reconfirmed by the Senate. have had two, General MacArthur and General Marshall.

We

Senator SALTONSTALL. Why wouldn't that be a good length of term for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

General BRADLEY. Speaking again as an individual, because we never discussed this particular matter on the Joint Chiefs because it never occurred to us, I have always thought in terms that it should be limited and should be rotated among the three services because if it stayed in one service over a long period of time, even if you had a man like General Marshall, the other services over a long length of time might feel they were not being properly represented in spite of the fact that they had a member on the Joint Chiefs; so, speaking personally, I think it might well be a good idea to limit the length of his term unless reappointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

That would give you control over whether or not it should be extended beyond 2, 3, or 4 years, whatever you chose. It would make it possible for him to continue in office, but leave the power in the Senate in the reconfirmation of him.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, former President Hoover will come before us at 10:30 o'clock on Monday, and I don't anticipate having any hearings between now and Monday. Immediately upon the conclusion of Mr. Hoover's testimony, I will try to get Secretary Royall and Mr. Sullivan, or somebody designated by him to give us the viewpoint of the Army and the Navy.

That is all for this morning and I thank you gentlemen for coming up and giving us the benefit of your views.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p. m., the committee adjourned.)

89469-49- 9