By this action the Committee on Rules and Administration reduced the amount specified in Senate Resolution 13 as referred by $17,750-from $110,000 to $92,250. The investigative authority was correspondingly reduced to an 11-month period commencing March 1, 1963. Additional information relative to the proposed inquiry is contained in a letter to Senator Mike Mansfield, former chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration, from Senator Henry M. Jackson, chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security Staffing and Operations of the Committee on Government Operations, which letter (with accompanying budget) is as follows: Hon. MIKE MANSFIELD, U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Chairman, Committee on Rules and Administration, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to Senate Resolution 13, 88th Congress, 1st session, which was introduced in the Senate on January 14, 1963, requesting funds for studies as to the effectiveness of present national security methods, staffing, and processes as tested against the requirements imposed by the rapidly mounting complexity of national security problems. The requested funds would cover the period from February 1, 1963, through January 31, 1964. Prior to submitting this resolution to the Senate, it was reported favorably by the Committee on Government Operations. Attached hereto is an estimated budget for the period. It is estimated under this budget that it will require $110,000 to carry on the inquiry during the present year. As you know, the Subcommittee on National Security Staffing and Operations is now studying the administration of national security at home and in the field with a view to making findings and proposals for improvement where appropriate. The subcommittee, which began its inquiry in May last year, has devoted the initial period of its activities to a thorough and careful analysis of the basic problems in its study, in order to lay a sound foundation for hearings. To date, we have held more than 300 discussions with present and former Government officials, military leaders, and expert students of national security operations. These consultations have ranged from talks with Cabinet officers of this and previous administrations to discussions with officials in the middle and lower echelons of the Government. In addition, members of the staff have taken a firsthand look at the staffing and operations of U.S. missions and military establishments in Asia and Europe. The discussions held and on-the-spot inquiries made have resulted in a great many thought-provoking and helpful ideas. The staff is preparing a number of background studies in cooperation with the Legislative Reference Service and the executive branch. Two of these, "Selected Papers" relating to the administration of foreign and defense affairs, and "A Bibliography" on the administration of national security have been printed. An initial staff study analyzing the basic issues to be explored in hearings is in an advanced stage of preparation. I am pleased to report that of the $70,000 authorized for the subcommittee for the 8-month period ending January 31, 1963, we expect to return approximately $30,000 to the Senate contingent fund. This saving reflects the fact that we were able to obtain the services of our chief consultant and research assistant on a part-time basis and operate the subcommittee during this first phase with only one administrative staff. During the coming period of accelerated activity, including hearings, we shall need to budget additionally for a secretary, and for further research assistance. Beginning next month, we plan to hold a major set of hearings which will continue through the present session. These hearings will bring the best minds of our country to bear upon the basic issues of administration of national security. We expect that a series of specific findings and recommendations relating to national security staffing and operations will emerge from our studies and hearings. The executive branch has extended its cooperation to the subcommittee. As you know, my colleagues and I are approaching the problems before us in a nonpartisan and professional way. The study is being made by the Government Operations Committee in accordance with its jurisdiction under rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, providing that the committee shall have the duty of B. studying the operation of Government activities at all levels with a view to determining its economy and efficiency; C. evaluating the effects of laws enacted to reorganize the legislative and executive branches of the Government. I shall be available to give the committee any further information desired. Thanking you for your cooperation and with kind regards, I am, Sincerely yours, HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security Staffing and Contribution to employees health benefit programs (Public Law 86-382, effective July 1, 1960). Contribution to civil service retirement fund (61⁄2 percent of total salaries paid).. Contribution to employees Federal employees group life insurance (27 cents per month per $1,000 coverage).. Reimbursable payments to agencies.. Travel (inclusive of field investigations). Hearings (inclusive of reporters' fees). Witness fees, expenses. Stationery, office supplies.. Communications (telephone, telegraph). Newspapers, magazines, documents.. Total.... Grand total. 450.00 5, 525.00 315.00 5,000.00 4,500.00 5,000.00 2,000.00 700.00 1,300.00 250.00 78.47 25, 118. 47 110,000.00 Funds requested, Senate Resolution 13, $110,000. Funds approved by the Committee on Rules and Administration, $92,250. Senator JACKSON. We are deeply honored to have with us today, as our first witness, Gen. Lauris Norstad. As much as any other living American, he is the statesman general. His record of service in the Armed Forces goes back 33 years, when he was graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in 1930, and commissioned a second lieutenant of cavalry. A year later, graduating from advanced flying school, he transferred to the Air Corps. He has won the Distinguished Service Medal with one oak-leaf cluster, the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit with one oak-leaf cluster, the Air Medal, and the French Legion of Honor. General Norstad's service to the Nation has included extensive duty in Washington during some of the most critical days in the Nation's life. He has served abroad with distinction in American and allied commands. From 1956 through 1962, General Norstad has been Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, and Commander in Chief, U.S. European Command. With his retirement this year, General Norstad became a member of the board of directors of Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., and president of the international division. At the same time, he continues his public service as chairman of the Atlantic Council. General Norstad, therefore, speaks to us this morning with the background of a lifetime of service to the Nation. It is a privilege and honor for this committee to have General Norstad here with us today. General, we welcome your statement. STATEMENT BY GEN. LAURIS NORSTAD, FORMER SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER, EUROPE; MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, OWENSCORNING FIBERGLAS CORP., AND PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL DIVISION; CHAIRMAN, ATLANTIC COUNCIL General NORSTAD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and gentle men. I am delighted to have this opportunity to appear before this committee. I am particularly honored to be the opening witness in your study of national security staffing and operations. While I have been in various committee rooms of the Senate and the House many times in the past, this is a unique experience for me this morning since this is the first time that I have appeared out of uniform. Until this particular point in my life, my experience has been almost entirely in the Armed Forces. Nearly all of my adult activities have been in the service of the United States, so what I am going to say to you this morning is drawn from that background, from that experience. I think perhaps my first active participation in the matters which your committee is investigating was shortly after the war when I was working with a man whom I admired a great deal and whom I felt then and still feel is one of the outstanding military leaders, one of the outstanding military men of our time, Adm. Forrest Sherman. With him we attacked a number of problems which contributed to a development of the National Security Act of 1947. I recall, in the field of interest to this committee, our work on the subjects of the worldwide command arrangements for the U.S. forces in the postwar period and the roles and missions of the Armed Forces. Then we spent many, many hours with the Senate committee in advising and assisting in the development of the legislation itself, which led to the Security Act of 1947, the so-called Unification Act. But an unusual amount of my life and experience has been overseas with American activities and with allied activities. Since I first put on the uniform of a West Point cadet 37 years ago, I have spent something more than half of my service beyond the continental limits of the United States. I think that perhaps living and working far from our shores has given me a certain kind of perspective that is given others who have had the same experience. It is not necessarily a better perspective, but it at least comes from a slightly different angle, and it reflects a different type of responsibility, type of interest. At the outset, I would like to say that I believe an outstanding characteristic of the years since the Second World War has been the steadiness of purpose and action of the United States in building strength in the free world. We may not all of us at all times under all circumstances, completely be happy and pleased with what is being done or the speed at which it is being done. But I think we can all acknowledge there has been this forward action and this steadiness of purpose. The Soviets have pursued their ambition with great determination but they have encountered, on our part, a will that has been at least as firm as their own. This confrontation in what we call the cold war has from the very start involved a test of wills, and on the outcome of this test depends, to a very good degree, the future of the freedom for which our forefathers have sacrificed and the forefathers of our allied associates have sacrificed, and which is something that is vital to the lives of all of us. For many years, certainly since the end of the war, we have been preoccupied with the weakness of Western Europe. For the years to come, certainly for the immediate future, we will have to be adjusting ourselves to the fact of European strength. In great part, the problems ahead-and there are and there will be great problems arise from the success of our activities and the efforts of our allies in Western Europe. But I think here is a place where the American people can take particular pride and satisfaction because of the remarkable improvement. The vastly increased strength of Western Europe is unquestionably a product as much of the policies of the United States as of the efforts of the people of Europe themselves. I think we can all agree that we would rather live with the problems that this success brings to us than to be wrestling with the difficulties that would have grown out of continued European weakness. Success seems sometimes to be regarded as a state, or condition, or situation in which there are no problems. But then it seems to me that a successful country, like a successful individual, as long as it is successful, as long as it is growing, as long as it is going forward, and as long as it is contributing something constructive, is bound to meet with problems, perhaps increasing problems, new problems, as it solves the old ones. So the fact of a problem is a characteristic of success. We have learned I believe in this country-this country and its allies some very important lessons from the last war and from the circumstances that immediately preceded and followed that period. I think we have shown a capacity to continue to grow, to expand, and to learn. I have no qualms about the future so long as we are able to assess the past coolly and calmly and on the basis of that analysis and assessment, to improve our performance in the future. Along with the other democracies we learned, particularly in the 1930's, the period immediately preceding the last war, that a foreign policy-a policy of any kind-has an essential relationship to power. Foreign policy can be no more impressive and no more effective than the force, the power, the strength that supports it. Perhaps it takes a long time to learn and to apply this very elementary principle after it has been established. You will recall as early as 1911 Admiral Mahan said to a congressional committee: It appears to me that the three functions of Government-the diplomatic, the Army, and the Navy-work now in what you might call watertight compartments. *** It seems there is very little appreciation in the country of the relation between diplomacy and Army and Navy. * * * Our military and naval policy depends substantially upon what we conceive our relation to be with foreign countries, a forecast of the future, and what the probabilities of the future are. *** I think what is very much needed in this country is to bring the three functions into necessary relation with one another. In 1947 when Congress passed the National Security Act, creating the Department of Defense and the National Security Council as we know them now, I think we took a very definite forward step in achieving the aims that Admiral Mahan laid down. It is unnecessary for me to say that the President has always had full and complete authority over the Armed Forces and the President still has, and must have, to exercise that authority. However, no President can give to the management and direction of military affairs the time that the job requires. He needs a deputy or assistant, someone responsible to him but charged with the responsibility in this field, to assist him in carrying out his function both as the President and as the Commander in Chief. If we did not have the Secretary of Defense that this calls for, a Secretary of Defense with authority, the President could spend his entire time at critical times such as those we have experienced in the recent past, he could spend all his time and all his energy and still not really get the job accomplished. I know that it is sometimes said that the so-called Unification Act of 1947 did not unify the Armed Forces but instead divided them. It is my judgment-and I am looking back over my shoulder to the time immediately before the act became effective-I just cannot believe that this charge, this suggestion, will stand up. The National Security Act with its amendments over the next few years created a strong Department of Defense and it has given strength and authority to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. We can, and we should, and we do criticize when criticism is warranted but it seems to me that the structure of the Military Establishment permits us to have stronger services which are balanced internally and in relation to one another, all of them under the supervision, direction, and control provided for by law. If we sometimes think that we have difficulties with this establishment, and I am sure sometimes we do, we should consider where we would be today if we went back to the pre-1947 period when there was at best only perhaps the loosest type of coordination between the services. I must say that it is very difficult for me to imagine it and I would be frightened to think of it. As I said earlier, I have spent part of my time serving in unified commands. I know this committee appreciates the function of the unified command and the importance and interest of this development, but I am not sure that there is full, complete understanding in the country of the degree to which the services of the United States are now organized and operated according to |