Изображения страниц

There was the need there for cooperation, but so departmentalized were the two services that you had this duplication.

Mr. EBERSTADT. Senator, as a matter of fact, some steps along those lines have been taken.

The CHAIRMAN. I know that.

Mr. EBERSTADT. It would seem to me that there is no reason why he should not have the authority to reduce personnel, there is not any reason why he should not have authority to transfer personnel, but subject to one thing. I should think you gentlemen would like to keep within your control, at present at least, any shifting of functions.

Now, if the transfer of personnel were a transfer of personnel in the interest of economy, I should say to deprive the Secretary of that power would be to ask him to step on the accelerator and put on the brake at the same time.

Senator JOHNSON. Will you look at the top paragraph on page 5 here? I want to ask a question.

Mr. EBERSTADT. May I complete one sentence of my answer?
Senator JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. EBERSTADT. But I think that you would want to be pretty careful to see that transfer of personnel is not availed of as an indirect transfer of functions which you might not approve.

Now, let us take, for example, the case, which is quite symbolic, and a case that is often discussed-the Marine Corps. I do not know what your views are on that, but it would be conceivable that under the language--as now drawn-of this section, the personnel of that institution could be transferred to the Army or to the Air Force.

Senator Johnson. Where is any language giving him that authority?

Mr. EBERSTADT. I should have said, if the language is changed, if that limitation is taken out, the personnel could be transferred to the Army or to the Air Corps.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you would limit or prohibit transfer where there was a merger of basic functions and permit transfers in places where the transfers would not eliminate the basic functions of the three services? Would that hit the target?

Mr. EBERSTADT. Well, I would want to think about that. I would think that a freedom of transfer of personnel, generally and particularly a free shifting of officers between the services might be a desirable thing, for many reasons, in addition to economy. But I would commend to your attention and suggest that you

think very carefully how you would limit that general right to transfer personnel so that it could be used for purposes for which it was intended and could not be used as a means to accomplish purposes which you do not want.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to impose on you, Mr. Eberstadt, but if, without asking you to do it, if a thought occurs to you or, rather, if the language occurs to you that would be explicit enough to safeguard and at the same time give liberty, we would be very glad to have you suggest it to us because we all know what we want, but we have not been able to come precisely into the target.

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be persistent about that, but I want one more comment. First, Mr. Eberstadt said “No," and then he qualified it. It seems to me the objective we all have is maximum efficiency and maximum economy.


I have had to go hurriedly over his amendment, and it appealed to me. I do not want those controls stopped down the road. If you look at the language at the top of page 5—

Mr. EBERSTADT. Of the original bill or of our amendment? Senator Johnson. S. 1269, March 16. Do you have it there? Mr. EBERSTADT. I have it.

Senator Johnson. Now, after the comma following the word "proper”, we start placing a prohibition, a limitation there.

Now, the question has already been raised—I am not a lawyer either, but one of the first things the Secretary of Defense did when he came in was cut out various publicity offices for the three Departments and concentrated them in one.

I do not know whether he has military personnel transferred there or not. Assume he has. Assume they are not all civilians. The question is: Did he have authority to do it? Well, he did it

, whether he had authority or not.

Mr. EBETSTADT. I never heard the question raised.

Senator JOHNSON. The question of authority is raised now, it is being raised in this bill. I think he ought to have that authority. I asked you if you thought he ought to have it, and you said "No," and you qualified it. Now, I am asking this.

Mr. EBERSTADT. Excuse me, Senator, I said "No, not without limitations.”

Senator JOHNSON. All right, let's see how far that limitation goes in this language:

Taking of appropriate steps, including such coordination, transfers, and consolidations as may be necessary, to eliminate unnecessary duplication or overlapping in the fields of procurement, supply, transportation, storage, health, research, and personnelat first we had it “civilian personnel,” but we say “personnel”— and in such other fields as he may deem proper, but this shall not be construed te authorize the Secretary of Defense to make transfers of military personnel from one military department to another or to reassign the combat functions assigned to the military departments by sections 205 (e)et cetera.

Now, I have this feeling, as just one individual member, and I do not think it is shared by many others, if any; I think if the Secretary of Defense, with his Joint Chiefs of Staff, and his Chief of Staff there sitting operating this Department from day to day, if he says that one service can perform this job where we have three performing it, I do not know why he should not consolidate it, even if they are in uniform and even if Congress back in 1908 did say that we would have a corps composed of this to do this, this, this, et cetera ; but I grant you that that is very controversial and some of us have our private allegiances and we think we should not disturb them and at the same time we want economy.

Now, if we are going to holler economy and save 112 billion or 3 billion, whatever we can, out of it, we have to give them the instruments to accomplish it.

What would you think if we left that language on page 5 as it is now—“This shall not be construed to authorize the Secretary of Defense,” and after the word "defense,” strike out “to make transfers of military personnel from one military department to another,” strike that out of our proposed law, take that limitation off of it, say that 'he is not prohibited from making transfers if it will accomplish the objectives we have here, and then the language would read:

But this shall not be construed to authorize the Secretary of Defense to reassign the combatant functions assigned to the military departments by sections 205– et cetera.

That would protect the basic functions of each of the military departments. For instance, No. 206 says that the Marine Corps—at least, it is one of these sections—it says that the Marine Corps will be established and perform certain functions and it shall have an air force to do this job; the Navy the same thing, the naval aviation shall perform certain functions; so they are protected, and he cannot reassign the combatant functions of those Departments, but he can get the yeoman out of the Navy and the sergeant out of the Air Force and consolidate in the fields of military health and military publicity and military other things, and it seems that that would at least come part of the way.

What would you think of at least removing that prohibition from it?

Mr. EBERSTADT. Senator, from the point of view of economy, you gain nothing just by consolidating and transferring because whether you pay it out of the Army pay roll or the Navy pay roll or the Air Force pay roll, you pay it, so you do not achieve economy simply by the act of transfer. It does not of itself create economy.

Senator Johnson. No, but if you have three publicity services, Army, Air, and Navy, each with 50 men, and if you establish one at the top with 65, you would save 85 men.

Mr. EBERSTADT. That is what they call in business firing people. I think economy can be achieved by reducing the number of people engaged in a function, not simply by transferring them. I am not sure that is what you meant, but I wanted to make the point that the transfer in and of itself is not a measure of economy. There must be a reduction in the number of people devoted to these programs, and one of the difficulties and perhaps one of the frustrating elements is that as one sees these functions consolidated, they are not always accompanied by a pro rata reduction in the number of personnel.

You pick up 30 people from each and combine them into 90, and maybe it costs you more than it did before, so that there is no particular magic in that. I would

like to think about the question. I recognize that the Secretary of Defense must have certain rights with respect to transfer of personnel. Now, how far those rights should go-for example, and I would not wish to be committed to this, but, for example, suppose the section you have talked about there readas he may determine proper, but this shall not be construed to authorize the Secretary of Defense to make transfers of military personnel from one military department to another so as to effect a reassignment of combatant functionssomething of that type might do. I have not thought of it carefully.

Senator JOHNSON. That is what I want you to give your attention to, because I think you are eminently fitted to do this and here, looking at your suggested amendment, you say on page 14 that the number of employees, which in the opinion of the Secretary is required for such transferred functions or activities may be deducted from any personnel maximum limitation. You are shifting them, so I assume you proceed on the theory that maybe by consolidating, maybe by transfering, maybe by better organization, that you can effect some economies.

Now, I say what is holy about the sergeant and the yoeman, if you can do it? I do not say that it naturally follows that Senator Baldwin and Senator Tydings can take over all my work and save eight of the secretaries I am employing, but I am saying that if the Secretary of Defense wants to follow the spirit of this act, that he ought to have the authority to do it, and I am afraid that we are going to put prohibitions around him in this act, just like was done 2 years ago, and 2 years from now you will be back here saying that, well, we need a little more strength here.

Mr. EBERSTADT. I just pointed out to you that when that act was up I criticized that language of the act as being too general, but there has recently been under that act an action which has shown that the fabric of the act is probably somewhat tougher than people thought and which went right to the essence of these questions.

Senator JOHNSON. I think this: I said on the committee the other day, with great respect for both of the individuals concerned, but since you are commenting on what has happened, I would say this: I always felt the act was not strong enough, it did not go far enough, we had too many individuals in lobbying to take care of specific things that they had vital interests in, but even with the act we had, I thought that Secretary Forrestal, with the great job that he did, that he did not use all the authority he had.

Now, I heard on all sides that the new Secretary may be using some authority he does not have. I do not know whether he has it or not, but individuals are composed differently, and I just want to be sure that, as far as I am concerned, I am going to get out here and preach economy all day long and say we have got to have it and could save it and, Louis Johnson, you have got to get it for us, and Symington and the rest of you, get in there, Congress issued an ultimatum, but we have built a wall around you and we tell you that whenever you see anybody with a star on his shoulder or a stripe on his arm, you go in the other direction, because they are untouchable and they come directly to us. You run the operation, there is your outfit, but you leave them alone. If you can get some $1,800 civil-service clerk whom you can kick in the pants, okay, we will applaud you, but when you get into these things called functions and you get into this transfering of military personnel and you get into the matter of consolidation of recruiting into one recruiting service, or you want to have just one hospital in a town; no, sir.

What I wanted you to say, or hoped that you could say was that you realized that the Secretary of Defense is an able and discreet man and if we want economy, let's give him some authority to do it.

Now, there have been stories going around that he is going to consolidate this function, that function, et cetera, and I know he has replied, “Well, I have no such intention to go that far," but I do not want the law to say to him that when you find you can consolidate and you can transfer and you can save and you can do what the people are demanding be done-cut this military expenditure—that we are not going to let you do it if he has a uniform on. If you can get him

in a pair of blue jeans or a pretty gingham dress, you can function to the skies.

Senator MORSE. I do not know of anybody yet who has pointed out to this committee the exact language of the existing statute that gave the Secretary of Defense the authority to make the decision hat he has made.

I assume that this committee is going to try to find out the basis of the exercise of that authority. Now, it may be in the act, but it has not been pointed out to me yet.

Mr. EBERSTADT. Senator, may I just say that nobody could be more interested in the achieving of economy than I am, but there is one thing that is even much more important than economy, and that is our national security.

Senator JOHNSON. I agree with you.

Mr. EBERSTADT. And I continue to be well satisfied with that responsibility residing in Congress. When it comes to major questions of the transferring of major functions, I would like to see that duty and the responsibility continue to reside with you gentlemen. I would not care to see that transferred out of congressional jurisdiction. However, when it comes to transferring personnel, et cetera, regardless of the number of stars, if it does not go to questions of basic functions, I would have no reservation on it.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you give some thought to that, Mr. Eberstadt, among the other duties we have thrust upon you? If you come up with some suggestions, we will be very happy.

Mr. EBERSTADT. Perhaps in that process I could assist Senator Johnson. Maybe I could assist him and he could assist me.

Senator JOHNSON. I would suggest that you strike out “Thou shalt not touch military personnel,” but leave in the prohibition that you cannot reassign combatant functions. If we want to move a Navy doctor into an Army hospital in Dallas, Tex., because the hospital has a heavy load, let him do it. It is not combatant.

Mr. EBERSTADT. Military personnel are being assigned today with the other services. During the war that was very general.

Senator JOHNSON. I am not talking about today. I am talking about what it is going to be when this act becomes law with this prohibition saying that this will not authorize the Secretary of Defense to touch military transfers. That is what is going to be the law if we leave it in here and if some of you fellows do not take a position on taking it out.

Mr. EBERSTADT. I should say you should qualify that.

The CHAIRMAN. We are going to let both you and Senator Johnson either work separately or together, and we will put you in the American League or the National League, or one in each league, but we do want you to give us a suggestion.

Senator BALDWIN. I think Senator Johnson presented one side of that, and I think somebody should say a word about what might be the other side.

Do I understand you to say you think it is a decision that should rest in the Congress as to what should compose our forces for national security and the particular functions that each would perform?

In other words, it is your opinion that that is a decision on such a high level that only the direct elected representatives of the people should decide it?

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »