Изображения страниц

Mr. KIMBALL. I think somebody has got to direct them, but I think it should be a rotation, it should be for a definite term and a rotation between the services.

The CHAIRMAN. So that no one would hold it too long to the detriment of the other two?

Mr. KIMBALL. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. What would you think would be a good term, 4 years? Are you thinking primarily in terms of peacetime, 4 years!

Mr. KIMBALL. Two years in times of peace and in times of war you might want to extend the man's term for a second 2 years, it might be necessary. It would be pretty hard to change horses in the middle.

The CHAIRMAN. The appointment of the Chairman or Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, your idea would be to have it confirmed by the Senate?

Mr. KIMBALL. I think that all of these offices should be confirmed by the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, would you provide for a term of 2 years, to follow out your thought, but you wouldn't have the prohibition in there that he couldn't be reappointed for 2 years, if the President and Senate wanted to do it, or would you

makeMr. KIMBALL. I would think he should only be reappointed for over the 2-year term in time of war, because otherwise you wouldn't get a very effective rotation between the services.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you wouldn't allow him to serve more than two terms, let's put it that way?

Mr. KIMBALL. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. He would serve for 2 years. He could be reappointed for two more by the President with the consent and advice of the Senate, but he couldn't be reappointed to fill a term for 6 years. Now that would apply only in peacetime. Of course, if you were in a war and you had a good man, I suppose you wouldn't mind keeping him in ?

Mr. KIMBALL. I would think it should only apply in wartime. In peacetime, you should change every 2 years to get fresh blood coming in.

I know in the Navy Department, years ago there was a terrific stagnation. Now they have gotten it so the young ones are coming up and the ones that are not competent are going out. We are losing some officers that are marginal, that have a lot of great capability, but when they get around the age of 53, if they are not selected for admiral, they are automatically out. We do an injustice to some people. We certainly get a fresh flow of talent coming up with a terrific ambition to work, so there is something for them besides waiting for somebody ahead of them to die.

The CHAIRMAN. As I see it now, you would have it mandatory that there should be a rotation every 2 years in the Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in peacetime?

Mr. KIMBALL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. But in wartime you would allow service for 4 years by and with the advice and consent of the Senate?

Mr. KIMBALL. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. But not longer. Your theory would be where you have a man in there during the war that the Senate pass a special act to extend his term, if we wanted to, is that your thought?

[ocr errors]

Mr. KIMBALL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any questions you gentlemen would like to ask Mr. Kimball ?

Senator Hunt. Mr. Chairman, I have been thinking ever since we started these hearings, and I cannot see any objections to the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Corps retaining that

, designation.

The CHAIRMAN. I lean that way myself.

Senator HUNT. I dislike to see them lose that distinction of being Secretary of Air, Secretary of War, and I don't see that naming them Under Secretary in any way makes any change in their status.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Senator Hunt, if you would allow me to interrupt you, let me try this out on you, because evidently you and I are thinking in the same general direction. I have gotten to this point: That if you keep on calling these fellows the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, that to a large extent takes care of the conflict of those who are assisting the Secretary of National Defense because the heads of each one of the three Departments has such a ranking public estimation, aside from the definition that we have given in this bill, that those who are mere assistants to the Secretary of National Defense would be subordinate to the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force.

Is that your thought?
Senator Hunt. That is my thinking, too; isn't it yours?

The CHAIRMAN. That is the way I see it. How do you feel about that, Bill?

Senator KNOWLAND. I don't know whether that exactly happens or not, because the three Secretaries, no matter how you gloss it over, are still going to be subordinate not only to the Secretary of National Defense, but to the Under Secretary of National Defense.

The CHAIRMAN. You have missed my point. What I mean is this: That those who are Assistant Secretaries of National Defense are just given that title. They are primarily there to assist the Secretary of National Defense, to do his job whether it be budgetary, or what not. They are really fellows who stand at his right hand and say what is going on here, and so on. These other fellows administer a whole military department, Secretary of the Navy, so that in the bill we should define that the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force, the heads of the three Military Departments, are superior to the Under Secretaries, the Assistant Secretaries, and whatever you would call them, of National Defense.

Senator KNOWLAND. I don't think you can have a line of command and I don't think this bill does that, Millard, with all respect to you. I think the Department of National Defense is put up on a higher echelon. I think the Secretary of National Defense's position is very clearly the top man in the Military Establishment.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Senator KNOWLAND. I think that the Under Secretary is specified and meant to be the deputy of the Secretary of National Defense, with all his powers, authorities, duties, and succeeds to his position in case of a vacancy.

So, I don't think there is any question but what the Secretaries are subordinate to both the Secretary of National Defense and Under Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you up to this point. Senator KNOWLAND. I agree with you on this: I have felt that you have one of two courses open to you. Either you maintain your Secretaries of the Navy, Air Force, and Army, in which case I don't believe you should create the positions as Assistant Secretaries of National Defense. Leave them assistants to the Secretary of National Defense, then you don't get into any trouble, but if you are going to create three Assistant Secretaries of National Defense and not assistants to the Secretary of National Defense, then I think you are going to get some confusion in the Defense Establishment as to who is over who and where the line of command goes. That is my own opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you.

Senator KNOWLAND. You can take one of two courses, but I think you confuse it if you take both.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree. Here is where I didn't make myself clear. I see what were in your thoughts, and here is what is in my thoughts. The question is, leaving out all titles for the moment, do we want the line of command to be Secretary of National Defense, Under Secretary of National Defense, Secretary of Army, Secretary of the Navy, and Secretary of the Air Force, or do we want the line of command to be Secretary of National Defense, Under Secretary of National Defense, Under Secretary for the Army, Under Secretary for the Navy, and so on.

In my opinion, all of us want the first situation and we want to have these men who help the Under Secretary and who help the Secretary of National Defense to be purely assistants to him without chain of command over the three parts.

Senator KNOWLAND. I don't want to see an intermediate echelon there. I think that would be very bad.

Senator HUNT. Mr. Chairman, I think what the designation "Under Secretary” carries is unfortunate. I think they should be Assistant Secretaries. I think we should get away from that word “Secretary in that echelon and that group and call them administrative assistants, or something The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you.

. Mr. KIMBALL. That is what they have in there now. They have three administrative assistants in there now.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't know what we call them, but that is what they are supposed to do, to help the Secretary of National Defense administer the great task that he has, but they are not really what you might call lieutenant generals so that they can go around and give orders in his name.

Senator HUNT. If we take that line of command down through the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary, and the three Under Secretaries, and then into the Secetary of War, of Army and Navy, there would be no great desire to ever be Secretary of War or Secretary of the Navy or Air.

The CHAIRMAN. I am with you. I want to see these three Department heads keep those old titles, Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, there is a lot of prestige goes with that and you will get good


[ocr errors]

administrators. If you belittle it more and more, in the end it belittles everything you have serving under it.

Mr. KIMBALL. The job is too big. For instance, the Navy alone is the size of 15 or 20 of the largest corporations in the world. That is quite a tremendous job.

Senator KNOWLAND. Just to repeat again, I think if you ever create Assistant Secretaries of National Defense, the very logical event will finally be the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary will be so worked there in that office that he will say “I am going to have you look at the Navy Department, I am going to have you look at the Department of the Army, and I am going to have you look at the Air Force.” Pretty soon you are going to have your Secretaries reporting up through the Assistant Secretaries in the Defense Establishment.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you in your thoughts, and mine are very much the same.

Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. Chairman, in this last bill we passed creating the Under Secretary of Defense, that is the designation, isn't it?

Senator KNOWLAND. Yes.

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, I agree with the chairman. I think we consider the Secretary of Defense and assistant to the Secretary of Defense as part of that one person or organization, then you don't get into this difficulty that we have.

The ('HAIRMAN. Ånd to show the philosophy of the thing is what we all seem to want. I was just reading here a bill that somewhat determines the importance of the job, the pay. When we get down to the pay we say, section 301, National Security Act, is amended as follows:

The Secretary of Defense shall receive the compensation prescribed by law for heads of executive departments.

This is on page 15. Then:

The Under Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force shall each receive the compensation prescribed by law for Under Secretaries of executive departments.

Thus we have already the Secretary of National Defense, the Under Secretary of National Defense, Army, Navy, and so on.

Now, then, you come along after that and we don't fix the compensation, but we say these other fellows who help the Secretary shallI think this ought to have some clarification but I think the intent is pretty clear in the salary appropriation where we fix the salaries at the higher levels and then leave it open such as we shall prescribe.

Mr. KIMBALL. What this essentially does is cut the salaries of the three Secretaries, as it is written.

The CHAIRMAN. How much does it cut them?
Mr. KIMBALL. I think $1,000 or $2,000.

nk $1,000 or $2,000. Vo; it cuts them from $15,000 to $12,500, $2,500. I might add that I don't think any of them can live on the $15,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think we have some awfully fine testimony on this bill. I really think we have some of the finest testimony,

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any comment on the budget angle of this proposition while we are waiting for Secretary Royall?

Mr. KIMBALL. I don't think the bill itself is going to result in any savings, but I think there is a tremendous lot of work to be done in the

[ocr errors]

Establishment on unifying procurement and accounting practices so first we will know what we are spending and then we can put our finger on getting a par for the course.

It is so hard to find out what they think they should turn out of any given shore establishment for the amount of money they get. I have instituted a series of work measurement programs so we know what we are getting for our money in any given establishment. I don't know of any other approach. That is the way you approach it in a business. You want to find out what your output is for the dollars. You take the best one you have and bring the others up to that and try some way to improve them. That is a lot of work.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this, Mr. Secretary: Have you had a meeting of the three services at any level, and have you made a list of those functions, or services, or operations dealing in the field of finance, and have you agreed on lists where there is a common activity and other lists where there is no common activity in reference to expenditures so that you know already in advance what operations. financial operations, can be conducted by one agency for the other two?

Mr. KIMBALL. Yes, sir; they have done that.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this, then, before you describe it: How many different operations that were formerly carried on by each of the three departments or, before the Air Force, by each of the two departments, are there that can now be carried on by a single department?

Mr. KIMBALL. I can't answer that.
The CHAIRMAN. Would it be as many as 20?

Mr. KIMBALL. Yes; I think there would be more than 20. Practically, sometimes, you don't gain anything.

The CHAIRMAN. Here is what I am getting at: Is there any place that this committee could get a list of the financial functions, or operations, or services, that have been agreed upon as services which either one of the three could conduct for the whole three, and then the other services


The CHAIRMAN (continuing). And then the other services that are not susceptible of unified administration where each one would have to act separately?

Mr. KIMBALL. Oh, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to get hold of that. We have done a lot of talking about it, but nobody has produced it.

Mr. KIMBALL. What they will do is they will sit down and talk about one common thing they want to buy. The Air Force will sav, “You buy for us, Navy," or "We will have the Air Force buy it."

The CHAIRMAN. What I want to do is get a list of what they can buy.

Mr. KIMBALL. One of the fallacies of that approach on items that are not too large, you are able to buy better if one service buys, so we let the one service buy. They agree pretty well way down the line. They will find one thing, maybe spark plugs, they will find what they can buy and have one buy it. But in a basic commodity, oil

, flour

, those things, you don't gain anything by setting up an over-all purchasing department. You would have an exchange of prices between the services so you are all going to get the same prices.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »