Page images
PDF
EPUB

Senator SALTONSTALL. We will have time to go into this in the future, in greater detail, but it seems to me, Mr. Secretary, that the great issue that will come up and be discussed, and in which there is interest, is this power of decision in the Secretary, and the extent of the authority of one military man over all the other military men. Now, is it your conception, as I listen to you, that it is a task of resolving differences rather than, to use an extreme word, autocratic decision?

Secretary FORRESTAL. The answer is "Yes." It is a matter of recommending solutions where there are differences of opinion rather than autocratic, or maybe arbitrary, decision.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Now, Mr. Secretary, might I ask three other questions, more technical?

Could you please describe what is the change in relationship of the Munitions Board and the Research Board to the Secretary? I haven't gone into that as perhaps I ought to have, but could you explain that, from the standpoint of the present Unification Act?

Secretary FORRESTAL. The present act provides for membership by an Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary from each Department, on the Munitions Board and the authority is then vested by the 1947 act in this Board, consisting of the three members from the Departments, plus the Chairman.

The Research and Development Board is similarly composed of people appointed by the heads of the respective services, plus the Chairman.

The essential difference in this proposed legislation is that under the proposed legislation the head of those Boards can be assigned a power of decision by the Secretary of Defense-and that in turn addresses itself to Senator Byrd's question about economy.

I think that that power of decision will accelerate the achievement of the economies, because when you sit down and discuss things at a board meeting and come to agreement, the rate of agreement might not be as rapid as you might desire.

Senator SALTONSTALL. That is a question of administration, where the Secretary of Defense really delegates his decisions down the line? Secretary FORRESTAL. Yes, it is a staff function. These Boards would not operate, would not be designed for operations nor would it be proposed that they operate

Senator SALTONSTALL. The Secretary of Defense, on page 5 at the top of the page has given all the functions of the head of an executive department in the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, as amended.

Does that mean that the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force would not have any powers of heads of departments under the Budget Act, that that is all given to the Secretary of Defense so that it will be his recommendation, and his alone?

Secretary FORRESTAL. Well, he will exercise control over the departments, and will delegate authority to the departmental Secretaries to whatever extent may be necessary to enable them to administer the departments; that is, he will delegate to them the powers necessary to secure that administration.

Senator SALTONSTALL. But, they will not have the ability or the opportunity to go to the President over the head of the Secretary of Defense, in case of disagreement?

Secretary FORRESTAL. No.

Senator SALTON STALL. That is eliminated, and presumably they would not be able to come to Congress in opposition to the views expressed by the Secretary of Defense.

Secretary FORRESTAL. That would flow from the first position.

Senator SALTONSTALL. So that the Secretary of Defense being given power of decision and being given the power of a department head over the executive budget, becomes or is given very substantially increased power by this act.

Secretary FORRESTAL. The "power of decision" over the War Council, Senator Saltonstall, is in the 1947 act and does not represent a change. The principal thing that the Secretary of Defense is given here is some additional authority, plus the use of a staff to enable him to exercise his powers. I think that I have observed, from my own experiene, that the lack of a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the lack of an Under Secretary, the lack of a sufficient number of Assistant Secretaries in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and also the express prohibition against the creation of a military staff has limited the instruments and means by which he can operate, and that is essential. I put fully as much emphasis upon the tools given him to work with as I do upon the increased powers.

Senator SALTONSTALL. If I may most respectfully say, I think I express the views of all of us, and most of the Congress in saying that we have great confidence in you as an individual, but if this bill becomes law, and there is perhaps an unwise appointment of a Secretary of Defense, or a man feels his oats, so to speak, when he gets to be Secretary of Defense, this bill will give him very substantial and arbitrary power.

Secretary FORRESTAL. There is no denying that fact.

Senator SALTONSTALL. And that is the risk, the calculated risk that we would take in getting so great a unification and great economy-and greater opportunity for action?

Secretary FORRESTAL. I think that is an excellent summation of it. Senator SALTON STALL. Now, may I ask, Mr. Chairman, two technical questions?

As I read this act, on page 4, line 19, you have got the word "personnel," and above that "taking appropriate steps"

Secretary FORRESTAL. If I may interrupt, Senator Saltonstall, in connection with one of your earlier observations, the Congress can always call in any individual it chooses. There is no denying that fact, and your secretaries of departments would presumably speak for the broad policy of the Department of Defense, but it would notwhat I am trying to say is that the proposed legislation does not seek to abolish the power of the Congress to ask questions of the secretaries of the departments.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Well, I am trying to bring out all these points very briefly, because it seems to me these are the points that we have got to go into very carefully, and be prepared to answer; because, these are the questions that we did answer in the negative 2 years ago.

Secretary FORRESTAL. Yes.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Now, on page 4, line 19, you include in the powers of transfer, the word "personnel."

Would it not be wise to take that word out of that subparagraph? I say that with this thought, that if you had the power to transfer

personnel and do it a little bit arbitrarily, while you may not change the combatant functions, you practically change them because you say you reduced the personnel of one force and put it into another force, and it does not seem to me to be necessary, in that subparagraph. It would be wiser to leave it out.

Secretary FORRESTAL. I think that is a very wise reservation, and rather a good point to consider.

We have recently established a Personnel Policy Board which is dealing with many of the problems of the services. We find that there might be, for example, in the question of medical services, need for the power to transfer medical officers from one service to another one, which would be highly desirable.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, if you will allow me to interrupt, I have read this, and put a different interpretation on this from the interpretation of Senator Saltonstall. While you are discussing this, if I may, I would like to clarify this and find out which interpretation is correct. What it really adds up to is-the Secretary of National Defense shall have power to take appropriate steps, including such coordination, transfers, and consolidations, that is, he can coordinate, transfer, and consolidate, as may be necessary for the purpose of eliminating unnecessary duplication of overlapping fields of procurement, personnel, and so on.

You are eliminating, you are not transferring, really, unless it is read in connection with what might be called the predicate of the thing. You transfer and coordinate and consolidate in order to save personnel, expenses of procurement, and so on, and your power of interchange of personnel, in my opinion, only enters into it very remotely.

Secretary FORRESTAL. That is why I called up the example of the medical service. In fact, I think if you achieve that consolidation, there will evolve, undoubtedly, a transfer of certain personnel, for example, Naval personnel to Army hospitals, and vice versa.

Senator SALTONSTALL. I agree that that is a small point, but I thought in debating this bill, and also working it out, you could accomplish your objective without that word in there, which might become a dangerous word.

Secretary FORRESTAL. It might raise a hurdle, all right.

Senator SALTONSTALL. May I ask just one more question, Mr. Chairman, and then hope that we'll have opportunity for further questions as the thing develops.

There is no length of appointment to the office of Chief of Staff. Assume that the Republicans get in for 16 years and we have a Secretary of Defense that gets in for 12 years, and we will say that the President has confidence in his Secretary of Defense, and he continues to reappoint the same man, and the Secretary of Defense continues to appoint the same Chief of Staff.

Is that not a dangerously long time for one man to be Chief of Staff, assuming that we have the same civilian Secretary? Is it not wiser to put in a length of service of the Chief of Staff?

Secretary FORRESTAL. I think it might be well to limit the term of service. The purpose in leaving out any specific term was to make it possible to change him before any statutory term of office had expired.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Then, it should be "not more than"?

Secretary FORRESTAL. "Less than," in other words.
Senator SALTONSTALL. "Not to exceed."

Secretary FORRESTAL. Not to exceed, say, a certain term of years. Senator SALTONSTALL. In other words, to leave one man in on top of all the military services, say for 8 years, or 12 years, or more, would be a very unwise thing?

Secretary FORRESTAL. There is no question about that. My own thinking is quite the reverse. You may want to shorten his tour of duty.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Chapman?

Senator CHAPMAN. No questions right now.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Baldwin?

Senator BALDWIN. I have no questions at the moment.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Johnson?

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Secretary, the National Military Establishment is not now a department of the Government?

Secretary FORRESTAL. No.

Senator JOHNSON. This would make it a department of the Government?

Secretary FORRESTAL. Yes; that is one of the primary purposes of the Act.

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Secretary, you said in your statement that the changes proposed here would briefly do four things: Clarify the authority of the Secretary of the Defense-will you elaborate on that a little bit? I assume you mean the present act just gave the general directions and didn't give you power of decision, the power to veto or the power to call in the Secretaries and say, "Now, quit running in all directions."

Would you care to elaborate a little bit on what you meant by "clarifying the authority of the Secretary of Defense"?

Secretary FORRESTAL. What I really mean is, there is an inherent conflict between, in the first place, the word "general" in section 202 and much of the other language in the act. The situation as it stands, I think, is not satisfactory. I think there is an inherent conflict in the concept of the Secretary's power to control, and the specific statement that each of the three departments shall continue to be administered as a separate entity. Those are two conflicting philosophies which seem to me to be totally illogical.

Senator JOHNSON. The present act just expresses the hope that you may have general direction, and assumes that that general direction. would give you the coordination you want.

The proposed act gives you the power to bring it about; is that the difference?

Secretary FORRESTAL. Yes; I would say so. What I call the philosophy of the act is essentially different under this concept than it is under the act of 1947.

Senator JOHNSON. One is the real thing and the other is the hope. Secretary FORRESTAL. Yes. One is based on the idea of coordination. The other is the present bill, and is based upon the concept of the straight line of authority.

I do not mean to leave the inference that it would flow entirely from the language of the act, because I think that no matter what the language of the act had been you would have had to go through a period

of time, as we have now done, in order to be clear as to precisely what authority you wanted to exercise.

I have been struck by the fact that when you go into any department of the Government, such as the Army or the Navy or the Air Force, you go into an organization which is in existence and has its staff and functioning elements all going forward. When we went into this organization, putting it on top of three very active ones, with our own organization amorphous and unorganized and understaffed, the difference was very grave.

Senator JOHNSON. Sumarizing your statement, this clarifies that authority, would you say, that you do not have now?

Secretary FORRESTAL. I think that through the elimination of the word "general," and through tying together these departments into a single executive department, it becomes very clear that the three operating departments are specifically and definitely under the authority of the Secretary of Defense.

Senator JOHNSON. We can say to the Congress, under the existing act, "The Secretary is vested with the authority to exercise general direction and control over individual executive departments, but under the proposed bill, the Secretary is given the general direction, given the authority and is actually given the control where he can make a decision, if he finds it necessary."

Secretary FORRESTAL. Yes; and I think it would be well to point out as I say, the conflict in logic between the use of the word "control" in the 1947 act and later in the same act, the statement that each department is to be administered as though it were a separate executive entity.

Senator JOHNSON. And your experience under the existing act is such that in your judgment you need the power that the existing act does not give you?

Secretary FORRESTAL. That is my opinion, and I say that without any oblique references, and without any question of what has occurred. I think it is a question of what you might call the philosophy of the act, the concept of the kind of authority exercised by the head of this department.

Senator JOHNSON. Now, the second thing the proposed bill does, is give you an additional staff. You did not have authority under the existing act to acquire all the staff personnel you needed-Under Secretaries?

Secretary FORRESTAL. The creation of the staff facilities is paramount even to the increase of power. There was some power in this act, in the current act of 1947, which it was very difficult to exercise because of the lack of those staff facilities, in terms of military staff and in terms of civilian assistance the lack of an Under Secretary and Assistant Secretaries, for example.

Senator JOHNSON. So that the proposed bill

Secretary FORRESTAL. May I say, the whole question of getting personnel to come into an office such as mine, is very great, and there was not in existence what the other departments had, operating departments-that continuing thread of the professional military skill and executive capacity which they do have, to which I could turn.

Senator JOHNSON. So, the proposed bill gives you the additional power you think you need, and proposes to give the additional staff you need to exercise that power?

« PreviousContinue »