your views in this matter. I would like to ask you if either the President or any of his subordinates, for example, the Secretary of Defense or the Under Secretaries, have consulted you and sought your views on this plan?

Mr. EBERSTADT. I think the question put to me was whether I had seen these proposals before they were submitted by the gentlemen of the Rockefeller committee. The gentlemen of the Rockefeller committee were kind enough to ask me to testify, but I never saw the proposals until they were published.

With respect to your other questions, the answer is "No."

Mr. FOUNTAIN. Would we be justified in saying that the Joint Staff is the working group of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Mr. EBERSTADT. Exactly correct.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. Isn't it a little bit unusual for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to have control over the working group of the Joint Chiefs of Staff-the Joint Staff?

Mr. EBERSTADT. It is an organizational anomaly. I think you could not find it anywhere else.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. Mr. McCormack said the chairman might well be removed and in your testimony in response to certain questions you discussed the trend that was present in the world today and the possibility of their becoming actualities. I would like to ask you, isn't it possible, if this plan is adopted, for those trends to become a fact before the chairman is removed?

Mr. EBERSTADT. That is what I am afraid of.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. No further questions, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. HARDEN. Mr. Pilcher, do you have any questions?

Mr. PILCHER. I think Mr. Eberstadt has answered the question I wanted to ask him, but I want to put it in plain language. Don't you agree, as a businessman, that under this proposal, if you give to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff the right to discontinue the services of a member of the Joint Staff, to a certain degree you make him a complete boss?

Mr. EBERSTADT. I don't think there is any degree. I think you make him the absolute and complete boss.

Mr. PILCHER. In other words, you make him a dictator so far as the Joint Staff is concerned?

Mr. EBERSTADT. Yes, sir.

Mr. PILCHER. Those are all the questions I have.

Mrs. HARDEN. Mr. Dawson, do you have any questions?

Mr. DAWSON. No. I do want to thank you for your clear and concise statements of your views and also the ability you have to handle yourself under cross-examination.

Mrs. HARDEN. Mr. Fountain, do you have any questions?

Mr. FOUNTAIN. For the purposes of the record, in view of the testimony of Mr. Eberstadt with respect to the time consumed by him and by his colleagues on the Hoover Commission task force, it is amazing to me that he and his colleagues were not contacted before this proposal was submitted to the Congress.

Mrs. HARDEN. Mr. Eberstadt, I appreciate your coming over and giving the committee the benefit of your views. Thank you.

Mr. EBERSTADT. May I thank the committee for the great consideration that they have shown me. I wish them wisdom in solving this question.

Mrs. HARDEN. We shall now hear from Dr. David B. Allman.

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID B. ALLMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, ATLANTIC CITY, N. J.; ACCOMPANIED BY C. JOSEPH STETLER, SECRETARY, COUNCIL ON NATIONAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE

Dr. ALLMAN. I am Dr. David B. Allman of Atlantic City, N. J., where I am engaged in the active practice of medicine. I am a member of the board of trustees of the American Medical Association, and I am appearing here today as a representative of that association relative to Reorganization Plan No. 6, 1953.

Although all of the provisions of the proposed plan to reorganize the Department of Defense are of interest and concern to physicians as individual citizens, the interest of the American Medical Association is confined to section 3 of the plan.

This section would authorize the appointment of six additional Assistant Secretaries of Defense from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Although the specific duties of these Assistant Secretaries are not specified in the reorganization plan, it is assumed that the assignments suggested by the report of the Rockefeller committee on the Department of Defense organization, dated April 11, 1953, would be favorably considered.

As you are well aware, it is the recommendation of the Rockefeller committee that one of the proposed Assistant Secretaries be placed in charge of health and medical affairs with the responsibility formaintaining high health standards among the personnel of the Armed Forces and for providing and managing hospitals and other medical installations at the smallest possible cost in dollars and professional personnel.

On February 7, 1953, the board of trustees of the American Medical Association approved a recommendation of the Council on National Emergency Medical Service that a position as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health and Medical Affairs be created by law. It is the belief of the association that the creation of such a position would insure a proper correlation of military and civilian medicine, especially in the matter of apportionment of essential, highly trained health personnel.

Although it is impossible to date the inception of the interest of the American Medical Association in military medical affairs, I should like to call the attention of the committee to the activities of the association in this regard since the enactment of special draft legislation designed to procure physicians for the Armed Forces.

In August 1950 and again last month the medical profession, after careful and thoughtful consideration, supported the need for special draft legislation, notwithstanding its discriminatory character. The association, in its discussions with the Department of Defense and in its testimony before the various committees of the Congress, has clearly stated its desire to terminate such legislation at the earliest possible time. It has consistently been our strong recommendation. that physicians and dentists called to active duty in the military forces under this law be used efficiently and, except under unusual circumstances, for the care of military patients as differentiated from nonmilitary personnel.

However, since the original enactment of this legislation in 1950, nonmilitary medical activities have increased. We have been advised

by representatives of the Department of Defense that compulsory legislation of this type will be necessary for 5 additional years or until 1958. It is understandable, therefore, that the medical profession is seriously concerned and desirous of discovering alternative methods for meeting the requirements of the Armed Forces for health personnel. The existence of this law, plus the continuing need for civilian medical participation in military planning and operations as they relate to medical and health services and to the assignment and utilization of medical and allied health personnel, we believe, necessitates competent high-level civilian direction within the Department of Defense. We are happy to note that in this regard the message of the President of the United States transmitting Reorganization Plan No. 6 to the Congress states:

There must be a clear and unchallenged civilian responsibility in the Defense Establishment.

It is our belief that the incumbent of the position as Assistant Secretary for Health and Medical Affairs should advise the Secretary of Defense concerning the development of policies, procedures, and programs dealing with the coordination of the medical and hospital services of the Armed Forces and the mobilization and utilization of health personnel.

Mrs. HARDEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Hoffman, this is Dr. David B. Allman, who is on the board of trustees of the American Medical Association.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I heard his testimony. I have a question to ask. Just what remedial legislation does this statement propose?

Dr. ALLMAN. Well, the statement is simply in support of that section 3 of the reorganization plan. It is in support of it, and we feel that the plan is a good one and should be adopted.

The CHAIRMAN. Wherein does the proposed plan give you an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health and Medical Affairs? Dr. ALLMAN. Section 3, I believe.

The CHAIRMAN. That doesn't name any such Secretary.

Dr. ALLMAN. The plan does not, but the elaboration of the Rockefeller committee does.

Mr. DAWSON. Where did you get that?

Dr. ALLMAN. The report of the Rockefeller committee, which is dated April 11, 1953.

Mr. DAWSON. Did you appear before them?

Dr. ALLMAN. No.

The CHAIRMAN. That doesn't name any such Secretary.

Mr. DAWSON. Was it a public-relations job that got the support of the AMA?

Dr. ALLMAN. You say was it the public relations

Mr. DAWSON. Was it the offer of this particular Assistant Secretaryship which has been added to the Secretaries that got their support?

Dr. ALLMAN. No; I think that had nothing to do with it.

Mr. DAWSON. Did your organization have a meeting subsequent to the date you named?

Dr. ALLMAN. Yes; we have had several meetings on

Mr. DAWSON. On this matter?

Dr. ALLMAN. This was one of the matters; yes, sir.

34999-53--8

Mr. DAWSON. Who appeared before your organization?

Dr. ALLMAN. No one, except our trustees. No one outside.

Mr. DAWSON. Who met with the Rockefeller commission, if you know?

Dr. ALLMAN. I do not know whether anyone met.

Mr. DAWSON. You do not know?

Dr. ALLMAN. Excuse me just a minute.
Mr. Stetler may be able to answer.

I don't know.

Mr. STETLER. The only contact we have had with the Rockefeller committee was a letter which we submitted to indicate that our board of trustees had recommended that a position as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs be established.

Mr. DAWSON. Do you have a copy of that letter with you?

Mr. STETLER. No, but we could furnish it.

Mr. DAWSON. Would you furnish the committee with a copy of that letter?

Mr. STETLER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you very much then.
The correspondence requested follows:

Mr. NELSON A. ROCKEFELLER,

MARCH 20, 1953.

Chairman, Committee to Study Defense Department Organization,
Executive Office of the White House,

Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR MR. ROCKEFELLER: As you are aware, the medical profession is vitally interested in the health activities of the various executive agencies of the Government. This interest is particularly keen with respect to the Department of Defense because of the large number of physicians in the Armed Forces and the existence of legislation such as the "doctor draft law" (Public Law 779, 81st Cong., as amended).

The American Medical Association has studied the draft bill which has been prepared by the Department of Defense to extend the "doctor draft law" beyond its present expiration date of July 1, 1953, and has adopted a position on various aspects of the measure.

I should like to call your attention in particular to the recommendation adopted by the board of trustees on February 7, 1953, with respect to the creation of a new position in the Department of Defense. This particular recommendation provides:

"In an effort to insure a more equitable utilization of medical manpower by the Armed Forces, the association recommends the establishment of a new position as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. It appears that the proper way to provide for this would be by an amendment to the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. In this connection it is believed that a continuing concerted effort should be made to effect a lowering of the present ration of 3.7 physicians per 1,000 troops."

Although this recommendation will be stressed by the association in its testimony on any legislation designed to extend the "doctor draft law," it is believed that it presents a matter of primary interest to your committee in considering any reorganization of the administrative mechanism of the Department of Defense. The matter is therefore being submitted for your earnest consideration.

Sincerely,

GEORGE F. LULL, M. D.

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, D. C., April 5, 1953.

Dr. GEORGE F. LULL,

Secretary and General Manager, American Medical Association,

535 North Dearborn Street, Chicago, Ill.

DEAR DR. LULL: Thank you very much for bringing to my attention the recommendation adopted on February 7 by the board of trustees of the American Medical Association, proposing the establishment of a new position of Assistant

Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. This very important recommendation will be given careful consideration by the Committee on Department of Defense Organization, and I appreciate your sending it to me.

Yours sincerely,

NELSON A. ROCKEFELLER,

Chairman, Committee on Department of Defense Organization.

Dr. ALLMAN. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Finletter.

Will you identify yourself for the record?

STATEMENT OF THOMAS K. FINLETTER, FORMER SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

Mr. FINLETTER. Mr. Chairman, my name is Thomas K. Finletter. I served as Secretary of the Air Force from May 1950 to January 1952.

I am very glad to have this opportunity to appear before this committee in connection with the President's Reorganization Plan No. 6, Department of Defense.

There should be, I believe, a presumption in favor of any reorganization plan submitted by the President. The responsibility for the management of the executive branch is on the Chief Executive. As a general proposition, therefore, it would seem that the views of the Chief Executive as to the manner in which the executive branch should be organized should receive the very highest consideration.

Reorganization Plan No. 6, however, raises certain fundamental questions as to the future of the Defense Department and of the strength and quality of our military force in being which are so important that I shall venture to put forward to the committee certain criticisms of the principles upon which this reorganization plan is based.

Reorganization Plan No. 6 in itself is not radical in nature. The changes it would make are gradual. Nevertheless, it is part of a historical line of development of the Defense Department which, it seems to me, is leading that department in a direction which is not for the best interests of the country. Reorganization Plan No. 6 would lead us 1 step further toward a single monolithic establishment, with one service in one uniform, and toward a diminution of civilian control over major military policies. The provisions which have this effect are

(1) The increase in the authority of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in section 1, subsections (c) and (d) of the proposed reorganization plan; and

(2) The increase in the number of assistant secretaries from 3 to 9-section 3 of the proposed reorganization plan.

Also, in the negative sense, the reorganization plan holds to the principle of concentration of the operation of the services in the Department of Defense which was started in the 1949 amendment to the Security Act.

What I mean by that, Mr. Chairman, is that it seems to me, rather than holding to this tendency toward overcentralization within the Department of Defense, which was started by the 1949 amendments, and rather than increasing it, we should now be going in exactly the