curement. In this way, the Board brings together the accumulated knowledge of the men charged with the operating responsibility. Participation of that operating personnel in decisions on policy is desirable for any organization. This is the most effective way to obtain economy without impairing the efficiency of an organization which must be military both in peace and in war. At this time, I would like to digress to a certain extent to discuss the difference between the organization proposed in S. 888 and S. 758, both of which bills are before your committee. I have two charts here, which I think explain that. The chart which you see there is the organization proposed by S. 888, and there is a smaller chart which has been appended to the statement. That is the so-called Thomas bill, Senator Robertson. Of particular importance is the fact that the legislative form of the departments is preserved in one bill and not in the other. It is preserved in S. 758 and not in S. 888. In S. 888, the Department of Common Defense becomes the sole department within the meaning of section 158 of the Revised Statutes, and the War and Navy Departments and the officials thereof are abolished. That is section 108 of that bill. The Secretary of Common Defense is given the authority to distribute the functions, powers, and duties of the abolished departments and officials among the United Secretary of Common Defense and the Secretaries for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, as he sees fit. Also in S. 888, four directors are created who have plenary authority in the field of research, education and training, procurement and supply, and intelligence. And if you look on that chart, you will see that this authority cuts across that of the Secretaries for the services. Thus, there are six officials with authority superior to that of the Secretaries. They are the Secretary of Common Defense, the Under Secretary, and the Directors of Research, Education and Training, Procurement and Supply, and Intelligence. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have no authority other than advisory. As you will see there, they are shut off on the left-hand side of the chart. Military education and training, which is an essential element of military command, is vested in a civilian director, when it should be under the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, as in S. 758. The Secretaries of the services are charged with responsibilities of administration (sec. 103) but the command is vested in ranking military officers (sec. 106). Thus, for the first time in the history of our Nation, the Secretaries are subordinate to the military commander. The heart of the organization of the services, in S. 888, has been removed, and the authority of the Secretaries of the services diluted. These cross-cuts and vacuums of responsibilities and authority in S. 888 make the bill incapable of administration. And I would like to show the difference in the chart of organization under S. 758. You will see that the lines of responsibility and authority are clear-cut and definite, as distinguished from the way they are scrambled in S. 888. Senator BYRD. D'd you advocate that bill, S. 888? Mr. KENNEY. I testified before the Senate Naval Affairs Committee last July in opposition to it. At that time also Secretary Forrestal expressed his opposition to that bill, for many of the reasons which I have now given. Senator BYRD. The War Department favored it at that time, as I recall. Mr. KENNEY. I believe the War Department did express approval of that bill in the hearing before the Military Affairs Committee. To me there is a vast difference between the two bills, and since they are both before this committee at this time, I thought I would like to digress for a moment to explain what I thought was the difference in the two bills, and why I was in favor of one and not in favor of the other. Senator BYRD. Why are both of them before the committee? Has it been introduced? The CHAIRMAN. It was introduced as S. 888 by Senator Thomas 3 or⚫ 4 weeks ago. Senator SALTON STALL. Mr. Chairman, might I ask Mr. Kenney a question at this point? The CHAIRMAN. Senator Saltonstall. Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Kenney, is not S. 758, which is now before us, substantially similar to the plan which the Navy adduced last year? Who is that gentleman from New York who produced that plan? Mr. KENNEY. Mr. Eberstadt. Senator SALTON STALL. Yes. Is it not very substantially similar to the Eberstadt plan? Mr. KENNEY. Many of the suggestions of Mr. Eberstadt have been incorporated in 758. Senator SALTONSTALL. And may I ask this question: Is not 758, as now drawn, very substantially similar to the English system, as it has been set up? Mr. KENNEY. In my opinion, there is very, very little difference between the form of organization in 758 and that advocated in the British white paper. Senator SALTONSTALL. And that, as you have just pointed out, is a very much looser organization. Mr. KENNEY. That is right. Senator SALTONSTALL. And your interpretation of this loose organization is along the looser side in every instance? Mr. KENNEY. That is right, Senator Saltonstall. Senator SALTON STALL. So that, to carry out Senator Robertson's idea, or speaking now against his idea, this is a loose organization and in your opinion should be interpreted on the loose side in every instance where there is a difference of opinion? Mr. KENNEY. I don't know whether I agree with you on the meaning of the term "loose interpretation." I think that the bill should lay out the broad framework of organization, without going into details, such as the spelling out of functions. Senator SALTONSTALL. Well, I had in mind that you interpreted the word "direction" back here a page or two in your statement. Mr. KENNEY. I said that I felt that the direction and authority which the Secretary of National Defense had over the departments was an authority of over-all direction, which was applied to the departments in their entirety, and not the internal administration of those departments. Senator SALTONSTALL. That is a word that has been discussed at length here in the last few days, as to whether that word should stay in the bill or not. Would you be willing to elaborate a little on your idea of "direction," or would you prefer to do it at a later time? Mr. KENNEY. Well, as I have said, my idea of direction is: A direction toward the operation of the departments in their entirety. I mean, it is the type of direction, you might say, that the commander of a task force would give to a ship in the task force. It is directed that the ship proceed in a certain direction, but not that certain of the officers in that ship shall do certain things. Senator SALTONSTALL. It is a general order, in other words? Senator SALTONSTALL. Is that word necessary in the law, in order to make the law effective? Mr. KENNEY. I would not think so; no. Senator SALTONSTALL. In other words, to use the language, eliminating that word, if he had "authority and control over such departments and agencies," and if he were to coordinate the preparation of budgets, you think that would give him sufficient authority, in your interpretation of this framework; which is that it is a rather loose framework rather than a tight framework? Mr. KENNEY. I would think so; yes. Senator SALTONSTALL. And that would be sufficient coordination of the departments to get the results that you want? The CHAIRMAN. You are referring to line 10 on page 3 of S. 758? Senator SALTONSTALL. Yes, sir; lines 10 and 11 on page 3. Mr. KENNEY. I would think that that would give him adequate authority to do all that it is contemplated that he would do under this bill. Senator SALTONSTALL. In other words, the Navy favored the Eberstadt plan, which was a loose framework rather than a tight framework; and the Navy favors this bill as opposed to S. 888, because it is a carrying forward of the loose-framework idea, which the Navy feels they can operate under and not lose their identity and not lose their necessities of life? Mr. KENNEY. That is certainly one of the reasons, Senator; but, on the other hand, don't forget that in our opposition to S. 888 there was included a consideration of the fact that you abolished the departments, and gave authority to the Secretary to distribute the functions as he saw fit, and place much authority in six people who are over the secretaries. Frankly, I wouldn't know what the secretaries were supposed to do in that organization. That was one of the principal reasons why we objected to it. Now, as I recall, the Eberstadt plan did not provide for an over-all Secretary. His supervision was to be done by a committee. I would differ with Mr. Eberstadt on that. It was my opinion that it would be desirable to have an over-all Secretary with certain powers over the Department. It is a very desirable thing to have a person there who can act as an arbiter between the various departments. We found it so during the war in the case of Mr. Justice Byrnes. Senator SALTONSTALL. Just one more question: Then you think that much of the nub of the disagreement on this whole thing concerns the drafting of section 102 (a) on page 3, which is the section that gives authority to the Secretary of National Defense. Now, do you think that that section could be drafted in a looser language, and still accomplish the purposes of this act? In other words, could you give him less authority, less direct authority, less direct control, over the budget, over the direction which the Department shall takeand still accomplish the purposes of this act? Mr. KENNEY. Yes; I think that can be done. But to be perfectly frank with you, I would prefer that it not be done. Because I think it is unnecessary, when you read the act in its entirety, as to the character of authority which this man has. Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you. Senator BYRD. In answer to Senator Saltonstall: you thought the word "direction" could be eliminated, on line 10. And what would you do with the same word “direction” in line 22? Mr. KENNEY. Well, as a matter of fact, I think that the phrase in line 22, "under the direction of the Secretary of National Defense," is to a certain extent surplusage, in view of the powers which are given in line 10. I do not think that the restatement of the fact that they shall be under the direction of the Secretary of National Defense really adds very much. Senaor BYRD. It seems to me it does. It says: Provided, That the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy; and the Department of the Air Force, under the direction of the Secretary of National Defense, shall be administered as individual units by their respective secretaries. If you eliminate "under the direction of the Secretary of National Defense," then it reads simply, "shall be administered as individual units by their respective secretaries." Mr. KENNEY. But you have already said, in line 10, that he shall exercise "direction, authority, and control over such departments and agencies." You have just stated it twice, as I see it. Senator BYRD. If you cut out the word "direction" in both places, to what extent does that diminish the authority of the Secretary of National Defense? Mr. KENNEY. I wouldn't think that it diminished it one iota. From the point of view of drafting, if you were going to eliminate the word "direction," then you change line 22 to say "under the authority and control of the Secretary of National Defense." Senator TYDINGS. What would be the difference in execution if you did change the word "direction" to "authority and control"? It would add up to the same thing, would it not? A man who had authority and control certainly directs, and there would not be any point in switching the words around; you would be at the same station, as I see it. Mr. KENNEY. I think that is true, Senator. Senator BYRD. I agree with that. I just wanted to know what the effect would be if we elminated the word "direction." Senator ROBERTSON. This provision in line 20 is a provision, as I see it, to keep the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force as individual units. That is a provision following the authority set out here of the Secretary of National Defense. This is a provision that all that may be true, provided that the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force shall be administered as individual units by their respective Secretaries. Is that not true? Mr. KENNEY. That is right. Senator ROBERTSON. Then why put in the words "under the direction of the Secretary of National Defense"? You set that out up here, but you are providing now that they shall be individual units. When you put in "under the direction of the Secretary of National Defense," you kill that. Mr. KENNEY. I hadn't so interpreted that proviso. Senator ROBERTSON. But you will admit there is a possible interpretation there. Otherwise, what is the use of the provision? Senator BYRD. It certainly gives the Secretary of National Defense control. He cannot abolish the units, but he has the control of the units. And Admiral Sherman very clearly testified to that the other day; that it is not a general supervision, but it is any detailed changes that he would desire to make within the respective units. Senator ROBERTSON. I agree with the Senator from Virginia. As I see that provision, it is for the very purpose of stating that in spite of all this super-Secretary power, the power that you give to this super-Secretary, you state definitely, as I have said, that the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of Air Force shall be administered as individual units by their respective Secretaries. Senator TYDINGS. You think there is a conflict there, Senator; that you give it to one and then say that the other has it just the same? Senator ROBERTSON. No; you do not give it at all. Senator TYDINGS. Well, as I get this-I am trying to follow itand as I get it, here is one provision that says that these shall be administered as individual units by their respective Secretaries. Then, above that, it says that they shall be directed by the Secretary of National Defense. As I interpret the meaning of that, it seems to me that he says that today everybody will wear a blue uniform, for example, and then they go back in their departments and carry it out, and there is no real conflict. Now, I am just trying to follow you on this. And is it proposed here that he not have the authority to say they shall all wear blue uniforms? Senator ROBERTSON. Well, I should definitely think so. It is proposed that he shall have that authority. Senator TYDINGS. That is right. Senator ROBERTSON. But what is the use of administering individual units if the Secretary of 'National Defense has the authority to say that they shall wear blue uniforms instead of white uniforms? Senator TYDINGS. Well, the way I understand it is that the word is given to the colonel that his regiment will attack at 6:30 the following morning and cover such and such objectives in such and such a manner, and then he in turn tells his majors what the general plan is, and they carry out the order in their respective units. They operate so as to make the whole plan function efficiently. Otherwise, you would just have the colonel up on top, who would tell the others how to run the show. And you certainly would not want to have the three majors tell the colonel how to run the battle. That is the way I interpret it. Now, maybe I do not interpret accurately, and certainly if I do not, I want to change it, but I am trying to follow what we are trying to do here. |