Mr. EBERSTADT. Senator, may I say that, of course, the transfer, if followed up by reductions, is sound, but the problem as I have observed it, has not been so much or perhaps alone one of authority. It has been a problem of knowing what to do and where to do it.

The job of the Secretary of Defense is a pretty good sized job, and what we have presented to you today is aimed at giving that man accurate knowledge on which he can act.

If the budget is set up and, for example, there is an airfield program, and he can scrutinize that, he then has before him knowledge on these things as a whole, instead of detailed situations. I do not happen to know of the Fort Worth and Dallas situation.

Senator JOHNSON. I do not want to base it on that. It is not a matter of one illustration. It is all through it, and anybody who has studied the Defense Department as much as you have knows that the overlapping and duplications are not confined just to civilians.

Mr. EBERSTADT. I realize that and, therefore, we are suggesting to you today a tool or spyglass whereby you can find that and whereby. you do not need to depend on anybody else to find it. It will come up to you in form simple enough so that you yourself will see it beyond question.

Senator JOHNSON. I am not only interested in finding it. When it is found, perhaps it cannot be found, you cannot say positively that a transfer will save, I do not know whether he can save or not unless there is duplication which can be cut out, but if there is, and he finds it. with his spyglass, and if he determines that it will save us money, he is in a strait-jacket and he has got to turn his head the other way and cannot do it if you restrict him with this language.

All I say is give him authority to do it, to make the transfer, not combatant functions, he will not swallow up the Marine Corps or swallow up the Navy, because we have our little commitments in all these fields, and we want to have our cake and eat it, too, but he can, if he finds it necessary, take a Navy doctor and put him in an Army hospital.

Mr. EBERSTADT. It is done now to a very great extent. Mr. McNeil, would you comment on that?

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Eberstadt, we are saying here that the Secretary shall not be construed to be authorized-I am not talking about what is done now or to be done 10 years from now, or what was done 10 years ago, but what will be done when this law is passed which says he cannot make a transfer. I say perhaps we should not put that prohibition on him. I am compromising to the extent of saying that we will still restrain him from touching these combatant functions, but I am asking what economic justification is given for prohibiting his transferring personnel in these related fields? We have a lot of people in public information offices, in the health field, the training program. Maybe he cannot save, I do not know.

Mr. EBERSTADT. Yes; he can.

Senator JOHNSON. But he sure cannot touch them under this. This says he cannot transfer them.

Mr. MCNEIL. If I may speak to that, I think there is a difference between the meaning of the word "transfer," which would mean transferring from the Army or the Air Force or the Navy uniform, and the definition of the word "detail" or "attach for duty."

The CHAIRMAN. If you put the word "permanent" in front of the word "transfer"

Mr. MCNEIL. There is one other example. In Panama today there have been ordered to duty in the Army hospital certain Navy doctors on the Atlantic side. On the Pacific side there are certain Army doctors and others, because they are specialists, detailed to duty in the Navy hospital. They still retain service identity, but they are working full time in a joint effort. That is practicable today, so I think perhaps part of the question is the definition of "transfer" and "detail" or "attaching to the other service for duty." That authority exists today. I do not pretend to be an expert on this subject, but I do not think that would be prohibited by this language.

The CHAIRMAN. It is getting on to 12:30, and I would like to say we will meet tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock. I hope the members of the committee will come in promptly at 11 because tomorrow is Friday, and we would like to conclude by 12 if we can. At that time I am going to ask Mr. McNeil and the budget people to be available so as to briefly run over what these amendments provide and to get the budget people's point of view thereon.

So I hope that you will all be here at 11 o'clock and that we can pretty well get it roughed out tomorrow because we will take next week to perfect it.

(Whereupon, at 12: 25 p. m., an adjournment was taken to reconvene at 11 a. m. of the following day, Friday, May 6, 1949.)

NATIONAL SECURITY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1949

FRIDAY, MAY 6, 1949

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a. m., in room 212, Senate Office Building, Senator Millard E. Tydings (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Tydings (chairman), Byrd, Chapman, Johnson of Texas.

Also present: Mr. Ferdinand Eberstadt.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Mr. Cake, we had yesterday and put in the record a letter giving generally the Treasury's position on this bill. We understand you want to make some additional statement.

Mr. CAKE. Yes, sir; I would like to make a statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Give your name and position to the reporter, please.

STATEMENT OF GILBERT L. CAKE, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER OF ACCOUNTS, TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Mr. CAKE. My name is Gilbert L. Cake, and I am Associate Commissioner of Accounts of the Treasury Department.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the two matters with which the Treasury Department was primarily concerned that were mentioned in the letter apparently have been taken care of satisfactorily in the present draft of the legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Good.

Mr. CAKE. The question of whether there should be a statutory provision establishing within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the three military departments a comptroller through whom accounting and budgeting functions should be performed, the Treasury Department is not in a position to comment upon that because it involves the internal management of another department.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, with the amendments that have been worked out, you are now in agreement with the proposal. When comes down to the problem of comptrollers' functions in the different departments, you look on that neither one way or the other, but as their own separate function.

Mr. CAKE. Yes, sir. We feel that it is a matter of internal management within another executive department.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Cake.

Next we will hear from you, Mr. Stauffacher. Give your full name and your position.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES STAUFFACHER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN CHARGE OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET

Mr. STAUFFACHER. My name is Charles Stauffacher, and I am Assistant Director in charge of administrative management of the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have inserted into the record one or two additional remarks with respect to the position of the Budget Bureau. In the first place, I might say that our letter to the committee did deal only with those aspects of the bill with which we were in objection and did not comment

The CHAIRMAN. You confine yourself this morning-I think it would be wise if you would-to those parts of the bill that you think can be improved upon and tell us what your objection is and what you think we can do about it to get rid of the objections.

Mr. STAUFFACHER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. STAUFFACHER. Our major objection, as the letter indicated, dealt with the organizational arrangements in sections 401 and 402, primarily the creation by the statute of an Office of the Comptroller and the assignment by the statute of functions to the Comptroller rather than to the Secretary of Defense.

Our principal purpose in raising these points was to conform title IV to the form and purpose of the amendments suggested by the President to the other sections of the bill in which, if you will recall, he suggested that statutory functions previously vested in the Munitions Board, Research and Development Board, and Joint Chiefs of Staff should be made the statutory functions of the Secretary of Defense. We feel that same principle should be applied with respect to the duties of the Comptroller. We would have no objection whatsoever to the statement of the functions placed in the bill, but would prefer to see them made functions of the Secretary, to be performed in the manner that he sees fit.

The CHAIRMAN. What you want us to do, then, is to give these functions to the Secretary of Defense and then state that under him the Comptroller shall carry out such duties in connection therewith as the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe? Is that in a general way the philosophy of what you say?

Mr. STAUFFACHER. That is absolutely correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. STAUFFACHER. I would like to call the committee's attention again for the record to the third paragraph of the letter from the Secretary of Defense, which, I understand, makes exactly the same proposal. I will not read that unless you care to have me do so.

The CHAIRMAN. Otherwise, you are in accord with these amendments or do you still have other suggestions?

Mr. STAUFFACHER. The same principle that we would ask you to apply to the organization of this office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense we would also suggest be applied to the Office of the Comptroller in the three military departments.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean we would give responsibility to the head of the department and then give the Comptroller in that department certain powers to help him carry them out?