by a comptroller to be appointed from civilian life by the Secretary of Defense and who shall receive compensation at the rate of $ per annum.

(b) The comptroller shall advise and assist the Secretary of Defenseand down further you have

subject to the authority and direction of the Secretary of Defense, the comptroller shall * * *

It is a little hard for me to see how we can go much further to put the responsibility on the Secretary of Defense and then establish this man to assist him to discharge it. I do not quite see what you are driving at there.

Mr. STAUFFACHER. The only thing we are driving at is the point exactly as with the Munitions Board, Research and Development Board, and Joint Chiefs of Staff. That you place statutory functions in the Secretary of Defense so that-for example, if he should find there is some phase of policies and procedures connected with organizational and administrative matters relating to the budget or with progress and statistical reporting that could be better handled in some other part of his organization, he could then shift them without. having to come back and ask Congress to change the law.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe you could do it if it was just sort of collateral, as you say. As I see this, this deals primarily with money.

Mr. STAUFFACHER. On every one of these budgetary matters that are here, the committee has shown its strong intention to make the Secretary of Defense responsible for the important substantive determinations of the budget.

Now, all we are saying is: Why, then, do you want to come along and make those decisions and tie his hands and say that in preparing that budget he has to have this particular man that you set up by statute do these particular pieces of work in the whole process, which may or may not, as experience goes along, be tied together. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Eberstadt, give us the other side.

Mr. EBERSTADT. I have taken up so much of the committee's time that I do not want to take up any more. You asked me to do a job. I tried to do the job, and I recommend the bill in its present form. The CHAIRMAN. I think that we will serve no purpose in going further into it, anyway, right now. Thank you very much. Have you finished, Mr. McNeil?

Mr. MCNEIL. If you choose, I have 12 charts that might give you a quick over-all picture of important features of title IV.

The CHAIRMAN. Do that, and I will ask you to look at the clock and finish at 5 minutes to 12 because there is one amendment here that I want to act on before the Members disperse.

Mr. MCNEIL. I think I can do it in less time than that. Before presenting the charts there are one or two technical changes that have been pointed out as being desirable. The Comptroller General has suggested the change of one or two words that do not change the sense of the particular section, but which they think will clarify the bill. and if they may be taken up with your staff, it will be very helpful. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, they will be adopted as suggested, if the staff agrees. I understand they are purely technical. Mr. MCNEIL. Purely technical, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Before we proceed with you, Mr. McNeill, I would like to mention this.

Senator Johnson, the other day you brought up the very pertinent matter that has been giving us all concern, and I think it is on page 5 of the new bill, you will find it right here. There we had the contradiction, to wit, that the Secretary of Defense was to do certain things, but then we said but this shall not be construed to authorize the Secretary of Defense to make transfers of military personnel from one military department to the other, and you very properly and pointedly showed that in a measure we had required him to do something and then put the hobbles on him.

So Mr. Eberstadt has made this suggestion as probably the best attempt to reconcile the divergent points of view into a fluidity of purpose, and here is the suggestion he makes:

Provided, however, That the Secretary of Defense may make such temporary assignments of military personnel from one service to another as he deems to be in the interest of economy and efficiency.

So if it is to be only a temporary assignment, nobody could have any fear that the permanent functions were being transferred. What is your thought on that?

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a definite improvement over what you have. I do not want to press the point except to state my personal view here. You are trying to clarify the vague authority in the Unification Act that we would not stand up to 2 years ago. You give the Secretary great powers in the act over what I consider more or less minor things, but when you get down to the real things, you write into the act certain prohibitions.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Senator JOHNSON. I realize from a practical standpoint those prohibitions are necessary, although I do not agree with them, and if it were left up to me, I would leave the language in paragraph 3, “taking appropriate steps," and go down through "as he may deem proper." Now, I realize the sentiment of the committee and of the Senate probably would not go that far.

As a second alternative, I would strike the language, if you want to do that, I would strike the language in line 3, "to make transfers of military personnel from one military department to another." I just would not place that prohibition on him. I would not handcuff him. I would not hold him back that much if I wanted him to do the things I indicated over here.

Now, if that is not acceptable, if you struck that out, that would read:

This shall not be construed to authorize the Secretary of Defense

eliminate line 3 and the first four words on line 4, making it read— this shall not be construed to authorize the Secretary of Defense to reassign the combatant functions assigned to the military departments.

We would still be telling him to take appropriate steps to coordinate and consolidate and to eliminate without prohibiting him from doing it in certain areas. It is a direction to do a positive and affirmative thing and then you limit it by saying that this shall not be construed to apply to this field.

It is basically a prohibition. If you want to prohibit him, I want the committee to know it is prohibiting him, I want the committee to know and I want the Secretary of Defense to know that he is prohibited from doing it. Then we will accept it.

The CHAIRMAN. Let's lay aside for a moment the robes of statesmanship and put on the robes of politics long enough to answer this question. I like your thoughts very much personally.

If we safeguard to the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the combatant functions which are assigned by law to these military departments and permit transfers insofar as they do not transgress missions and rules, do you think we can get it through the Congress?

Senator JOHNSON. I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I keep worrying about. I hate to lose the whole bill on a proposition of this kind.

Senator JOHNSON. I think Mr. Eberstadt's amendment would practically do the same thing and might not be objectionable.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we would be wise, I really do, to play it safe and to take Mr. Eberstadt's last suggestion and put it through and let everybody know we were dealing candidly and open and aboveboard and leaning backward not to take any advantage of them by the use of words and get all of this great improvement in the thing through rather than to hazard the chance of losing it all because somebody thought they were going to be left out in consideration in this bill.

Senator BYRD. I would like to ask Mr. Eberstadt what is the legal definition of "temporary"?

Mr. EBERSTADT. I do not know what the legal definition is, Senator, but it is customary in the services to make temporary assignments which last a pretty long period, and I was using the word there in a broad sense, having neither the toga of statesmanship nor the garb of the politician, I tried to look at it in a practical operating sense, to meet what I think are the differing views of those concerned, and I think that meets it.

Senator JOHNSON. I was interested in what "transfer" meant. I do not like to put all these prohibitions in and still think I am going to get economy out of it, but I gather the committee does.

The CHAIRMAN. I would take your point of view, I am on your side, and I think you are right, but I do not think you will be understood. You will be misunderstood and we will lose it all.

Senator JOHNSON. I looked in the dictionary to see what "transfer" meant after the question was raised yesterday, and Webster says that military transfer is the soldier removed from one troop or body of troops to another, and then he points out that that is now rare. of course, it is rare or we would not prohibit it.

We are going to say it is impossible.

Well,

Then I thought about what Senator Byrd said about what does Mr. Eberstadt mean by "temporary"? I asked him that question when we discussed the amendment. Did it mean a week or a month or a

year or 2 years or 4 years?

Webster says it means lasting for a time only, continuing for a limited time, not permanent.

Mr. Eberstadt says in his statement-I think I am quoting him correctly-it could mean a year or two.

Now, I think that we improve and decorate and make the prohibition on the Secretary of Defense look a little better, and maybe that is as far as the chairman can go in getting this thing through.

Senator BYRD. I want the Senator from Texas to know I am not antagonistic to his demands, but I call attention to the fact that if we permit the transfer of military personnel, then we should take out

what we have set up in sections 205, 206, et cetera, which sets up the Marine Corps as a separate mission and naval aviation, because if you permit the transfer of all military personnel, you do not have any Marines, you do not have any Marine Corps.

I think it would be better, to have a bill we can sustain and justify, we would have to take out the other sections that set up a Marine Corps. It says in the other section that you can transfer all military personnel. There will not be any Marine Corps if you transfer all the Marines.

I could not vote to permit the transfer of all military personnel and then say we are going to have a Marine Corps and going to have naval aviation, et cetera.

Do you get the point?

Senator JOHNSON. Yes.

Senator BYRD. You cannot have a Marine Corps without marines. Senator JOHNSON. No; but that is not my position. What you can do and what I can do are two things. I want economy, and if the Secretary of Defense is to take appropriate steps, I would give him appropriate authority.

If you want to protect and insure ad infinitum a Marine Corps and marine aviation to go along with it, you can do that by prohibiting him from reassigning these combatant functions.

Senator BYRD. The point I make is that the Senator, I think would be on stronger ground if he makes a motion to strike it all out, have no Marine Corps, have no naval aviation, because to let them take the military personel from it and say we are going to have a Marine Corps seems to be absurd.

Senator JOHNSON. The sentiment of the committee-certainly each of us has views-

Senator BYRD. Am I not correct about it, that what you are driving at is to permit the Secretary of Defense to do what he pleases, not have a Marine Corps, not have naval aviation, et cetera?

Senator JOHNSON. No; I am driving at the matter of permitting the Secretary of Defense to do what you tell him to do: Take appropriate steps to consolidate and to transfer, and not say provided you shall not do any of these things.

I do not know whether he would want to transfer the Marine Corps or not or transfer for naval aviation. I do not know what his transfers may be.

Senator BYRD. You want to give him the power to transfer the Marine Corps?

Senator JOHNSON. I would give him the power to do the things you say.

Senator BYRD. Does the Senator want to amend this so that we would give to the Secretary of Defense the authority to transfer the Marine Corps and naval aviation, for instance? I am trying to find out what he proposes.

Senator JOHNSON. I will not propose it as the Marine Corps or as naval aviation. I propose that he be permitted to do what we tell him to do and what we stop him from doing.

Senator BYRD. How would you amend the bill?

Senator JCHNSON. I would do away with the prohibition you put on the Secretary of Defense by putting a period after the word "proper." I would strike the rest of the paragraph.

Senator BYRD. You would eliminate the present law that sets up as missions naval aviation and the Marine Corps, et cetera?

Senator JOHNSON. I would not put that prohibition on him.
Senator BYRD. You would eliminate that from the law?

Senator JOHNSON. Yes.

Senator BYRD. If you have them set up, you should not let anybody transfer all personnel from them, because there would be no Marine Corps if you had no marines.

The CHAIRMAN. You could probably satisfy both of you gentlemen to a large extent by taking the Eberstadt proposal and spelling it out just a little further, so that it would read like this, so that you could not transfer the whole Marine Corps:

Provided, however, That the Secretary of Defense may make such temporary and limited assignments of personnel from one service to the other for short periods of time as he deems to be in the interest of economy and efficiency.

You certainly would have put enough of a corral around it then that I do not believe you could reasonable envisage the destruction of any functions or personnel per se of any of the three or four branches. Senator JOHNSON. I am not passing on the question of destroying any particular function or any particular group. I do not want to place that prohibition on him, but I am practical enough to know that if we are going to get a bill out of this committee, that we have got to prohibit him from touching certain untouchables.

Now, he may not want to touch them, and it may not be wise to touch them, I am not passing on that question, but the committee, I believe, does want to pass on it and say it is untouchable; and, therefore, I think as far as we can go at this point is to permit him to make temporary transfers, and I so stated to Mr. Eberstadt, that I thought that was an improvement over the prohibition you now have in here. The CHAIRMAN. Let me put it up specifically to the committee. Would you object to changing this particular provision so as to read as follows:

Provided, however, That the Secretary of Defense may make such temporary and limited assignments of military personnel from one service to the other for short periods of time, as he deems to be in the interest of economy and efficiency. Now, I have spelled it out.

Senator JOHNSON. How does that modify it?

The CHAIRMAN. All I have said is "temporary and limited," which means they do it not only for a short period of time, but you limit the numbers, perhaps, that would be transferred; and the other is you actually are a little redundant by saying "for short periods of time" in addition to "temporary.

Senator JOHNSON. I think Mr. Eberstadt makes it clear there that it is the intent of the committee and of Congress to not shift functions and shift groups and reincorporate and take a commander in the Navy and make an officer in the Army out of him; and I move we add that language following the word "hereof," as suggested by Mr. Eberstadt. Now, read that amendment and let's see if we can't all agree.

The CHAIRMAN (reading):

Provided, however, That the Secretary of Defense may make such temporary and limited assignments of military personnel from one service to the other for short periods of time, as he deems to be in the interest of economy and efficiency.

It is redundant, but we are certainly allaying fears, proper fears in many respects that something radical is going to be done without con