Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Mr. BATES. That is a difference without any distinction in any way whatsoever, in my judgment.

Mr. HARDY. To tie into this particular point and see if I am properly interpreting it, the remarks made by Secretary Gilpatric, on this same subject, in a speech he made on May 2, talked about these steps. He said, generally speaking, these steps have had a common design to bring together and establish more centralized control over functionally alike activities in the Military Establishment.

Then he proceeds to discuss these things that we are talking about now. And right in the last paragraph of his statement he has this to

say:

I have tried to sum up in this cursory fashion where we have been and where we are going. The effect of most of the changes and the other steps that I have outlined will leave you with one impression, and that is that there has been a tendency, a very pronounced tendency, to centralize more authority in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, a trend that has given rise to considerable skepticism and criticism in a number of quarters.

Now did Secretary Gilpatric misstate your view on it?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I would like to read the entire statement, Mr. Chairman, which I don't have in front of me. I think it is quite clear, and, as I believe, the committee report that we have referred to earlier points out, that a series of legislative actions taken by the Congress since the end of World War II and specifically those of 1947, 1949, 1953, and 1958, have all increased the authority and responsibility of the Secretary of Defense, and I presume, although, as I say, I don't have Mr. Gilpatric's statement in front of me, that that is in particular what he had in mind when he made the statement.

Mr. HARDY. I think we may want to explore that further. Now Mr. Bates, do you have anything further?

Mr. BATES. Not right now.

Mr. BLANDFORD. May I pursue this matter one step further. The way I interpret your statement, then, and the reason that I quoted the statement that Mr. McCormack made is that your counsel used that as a portion of the basis of the justification for the establishment of these agencies. It is not a statement that we inserted here. It is a statement that you used in support of your position.

Now, you have used that statement in support of the agencies you have now created. Am I correct in interpreting that you do not have any intention at this time, nor is there a projected study underway nor is any contemplated at this time that there will be any agency or any further combining together of medical and hospital services, or any possibility of lifting MATS from the Air Force and placing it under DSA, or taking MSTS from the Navy and putting it under DSA, or establishing a new transportation agency and putting MATS and MSTS under such agency, or at this time you have no project under study or any contemplated with regard to a legal agency, to combine all the legal activities or the public relations activities or the recruiting activities or military police, the training of military personnel, and liaison activities?

I am merely using the same justification that you did for the creation of the other agencies.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Let me go back and say that I feel I am directed by the law, and as I read the language it is quite clear on

this point, to take appropriate steps including the transfer, reassignment, abolition, consolidation of functions other than major combat and functions, to provide in the Department for more effective, efficient, and economical administration and operations and eliminate duplication and it is that specific provision which was the foundation for the establishment of DIA and DSA.

Now secondly, with respect to the major portion of your question, you listed a large number of functions and/or activities and asked do I intend to organize separate agencies, removing those functions from the military departments and transferring them to the separate agencies?

Let me say in response to that I don't recall all the specific functions you listed specifically enough to say categorically that with respect to a particular function I have no such plan, but I can say this specifically, I have no plan, nor any study directed toward the establishment of a separate agency withdrawing functions from the military department to be assigned to that agency, and because I have no plan nor study directed toward any separate agency, I think I can say specifically with respect to the functions you mentioned that I have no plan for transferring them from the military departments to a new, separate agency.

I can say that I am directed by the law to continually appraise the assignment of functions within the Department to assure that we are operating in the most efficient possible manner and therefore I plan to continue to appraise such functions and I suspect that we will find that there will be functions which are now assigned to one military department that might properly be assigned to another military department.

I say I suspect, because I know of no such functions at the present time but I suspect that that may be the case. I haven't in the time I have been Secretary-a year and 3 or 4 months-had an opportunity to analyze in detail all of the functions assigned to all the departments, nor have the present Secretaries or Chief of Staff had that opportunity.

Mr. BLANDFORD. To follow the statement that Mr. Hardy and Mr. Bates made in connection with the definition of a service activity, and to follow further the statement they made that the only way that Congress can judge whether you are right or wrong in any further consolidation or centralization of these activities is to criticize you after you have created the agency which might come up at the wrong time insofar as the national security is concerned, do you think that the law is so loosely written, particularly since you have used the interpretation of one individual as to what its meaning is, do you think that that section is so loosely written that perhaps it would be well for the Congress to define what we mean by "service activity" and not depend upon this nebulous explanation which has been discussed here this morning, because apparently "service activity," to use the interpretation that your counsel gave it in explanation of the agencies that you have created, could cover everything that I have mentioned?

You could create these agencies; you could say that it would bring about savings; and Congress could only say: "We don't think that it brings about savings," but we wouldn't be able to do much about it.

Secretary MCNAMARA. No. The specific answer I would give to your question is: "No, I don't believe the law is so loosely written as to lead to that situation."

But most importantly I would say that I think that any law to be properly administered must be founded on the assumption that the administrator of the law will act intelligently with respect to the intent of the law and in this particular Department it must be founded on the assumption that there will be continued cooperation and discussion between the Department and the important congressional committees.

It has been my intention that there should be such discussion. I have been blessed by a very helpful and cooperative attitude on the part of the committees that I deal with and in particular in connection with matters such as these, I find it helpful to discuss them in advance with the committee chairman and other members of the committees.

I think that if I recall correctly I did just exactly that with respect to the Defense Supply Agency. I assume that other Secretaries will do the same. I think that the committees have a right to assume that that will be the case.

So that I see no need for any change in the law.

Mr. BLANDFORD. What I am trying to boil this down to, Mr. Secretary, is there are certain words in here that have caused some concern in some areas that, in giving us your legal position justifying the establishment of these agencies, you have quoted an authority which would permit you to absolutely assume practically all of the functions of the military departments.

Now the only thing that a military department actually has exclusive jurisdiction over today is training, because once the troops are trained and assigned to unified or specified commands, the services lose operational control over those people.

So training is the one single big thing left in the military department today other than the actual supply to the unified commands and that, under DSA, will be on a retail basis.

So the word "training" does appear here. Your definition of what a service activity is could include the word "training" and you have used that explanation in justification of the others.

That is, really, what we are trying to boil down to: What can't you take over under this language?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Let me go back first and say I completely disagree with your statement as to what the military departments have responsibility for today. Their responsibility far exceeds training. As a matter of fact they are responsible for the research, development, and procurement of $25 billion per year.

Mr. HARDY. But you could take that over.

Mr. BATES. Under the 1958 act the Secretary of Defense has complete authority to assign any weapons system to any of the services he sees fit.

Secretary MCNAMARA. But I think it is completely clear that that relates to new weapons systems.

Mr. BATES. Let's parlay that over 10 years and what have you got? Secretary MCNAMARA. But in any event it does relate to new weapons systems. I am speaking about $25 billion per year of research and development associated with present weapons systems.

Secondly, with respect to the question of Mr. Blandford, it is completely clear that there must be a determination that the transfer of one of these specified functions will lead to a more efficient operation of the Department, and this is not something that is beyond determination either before or after the fact.

Mr. HARDY. Well now, Mr. Secretary, you can get as many interpretations on what is going to lead to efficiency and economy as you can get different Secretaries of Defense or different advisers to the Secretary of Defense.

So just completely disregarding personalities in this thing, we are trying to explore what the possibilities are under this legislation. And to use-I serve on another committee, and we have jurisdiction over the examination of the Government performance with respect to efficiency and economy. Now I know how broad that can be, and I know how many little avenues you can get down when you are exploring efficiency and economy, and I know that different people, reasonable people, can come up with vastly differing judgments on

that.

I am just wondering if, using that as your limitation, and apparently that is the only limitation you see, using that as your limitation, a Secretary of Defense under existing authority could come up with what in effect is a single service; isn't that true?

Secretary MCNAMARA. No, sir; absolutely not. The law is very clear on this point; the law is very, very clear on this point.

Mr. HARDY. The intent is certainly clear, but I am not at all sure but that the technical authority is there.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Oh, yes, sir; without question, because the law specifically states that statutory functions cannot be transferred without presenting the plan to the Congress and if I recall the specific provision of the law it must lie before the Armed Services Committees of Congress for 30 days. If either committee reports out a resolution of disapproval, its House by resolution-that is to say not by normal legislative action, but by resolution-can prohibit the transfer.

The law is clear that any statutory function cannot be transferred without a plan for that transfer being presented to the Congress. It is absolutely impossible for the Secretary of Defense to create a single service today.

Mr. HARDY. Mr. Secretary, I don't know, I hope you didn't deliberately ignore a portion of the amendment which was in Mr. McCormack's amendment because certainly it seems to me that it nullifies a good of what you just said. It says for the purpose of this paragraph, and this has to do with your consolidation, "any supply or service activity," and that is what we have been trying to analyze here, it is the key to the whole thing, relates back to that determination of what is service activity

any supply or service activity common to more than one military department shall not be considered a major combatant function within the meaning of paragraph 1.

So that has given you a complete escape clause which according to the interpretation of your General Counsel you can use for anything that you see fit, if he uses Mr. McCormack's definition.

Secretary MCNAMARA. No, sir; I don't believe that is the case. I would like to ask my counsel in a moment to comment upon this. But I was addressing

Mr. HARDY. If that doesn't abridge what the whole No. 1 point that you made a while ago is then I just don't read the English language. Secretary MCNAMARA. I was responding to the question that you asked, do I not have authority to create a single service? My specific answer is that I do not have that authority. The legislation is very clear in restricting my authority by the means that I indicated to you. But I would like my counsel specifically to comment upon the point you raised.

Mr. VANCE. With respect to the point which you raised, the McCormack amendment does provide that with respect to the common service and supply activities they shall be deemed not to be a major combatant function and therefore they do not need to be reported to the Congress if there is to be a consolidation or a transfer. Secretary MCNAMARA. But that is with respect only to those activities

Mr. HARDY. What are they? We can't get a definition of them that we can live with.

Secretary MCNAMARA. It is quite clear that the majority of the activities of the Department are not covered by that definition and therefore the majority of the activities of the Department of Defense could not be put into a single service.

Mr. HARDY. Would you tell us what you mean quite clearly by that that they are not, because it is not clear to me. I don't know what is covered by that.

Now the statement that was put in the record that outlined what this was supposed to cover, the statement of Mr. McCormack, which Mr. Vance has used as his basis for these actions, that statement is just about as inclusive as you can get and there aren't very many things that the Department of Defense does except maybe fire rifles, that aren't covered by that.

Secretary MCNAMARA. I think tactical doctrine is one, Mr. Chair

man.

Mr. HARDY. I tried to eliminate that just by a little homely illustration.

Secretary MCNAMARA. But this is fundamental and extremely important. It is one illustration.

Mr. BATES. Even that, over a 10-year period you could wind up with an Army just with a title and without any weapons. You could do that.

Mr. HARDY. You might

Mr. BATES. You can assign any new weapons system to any of the services you see fit. So that authority, plus the interpretation of this authority, gives the Secretary of Defense tremendous authority to do anything he wants practically.

Mr. HARDY. I think you could even go a step further than that, if in service activity you could contend that each of the services had the right to use a rifle, that then is a common activity.

Secretary MCNAMARA. We are now discussing a detailed interpretation of the legislative language and I would like Mr. Vance to comment upon Mr. Bates' interpretation of it.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »