Senator MORSE. I will only take a minute or two, Mr. Chairman. I want to say that I have been very greatly impressed with the testimony, Mr. Secretary, and with the objectives that you seek in this bill.

As I understand the testimony, you feel that one of the results of the enactment of the bill will be that it will cause the personnel of the Armed Services, Navy, Air Forces, and Army, to recognize the importance of the unity problem that confronts them in the prosecution of the war, or in the operation, even, of the peacetime armed forces establishment.

Secretary PATTERSON. It was very noticeable all through the war that near the fighting fronts these barriers of service, and prerogatives, and prestige vanished. As you got farther to the rear, they got more tender on those points.

And, of course, the hottest of all, in that way, was Washington itself: On prerogative, prestige, "my service."

Now, service pride is a great thing, but not when it is carried to the extreme of disparaging the other services, or trying to build up unnecessarily a service where that service is being carried on at the same time by others, and is ready and available.

I believe that a great benefit can be brought about by this bill through bringing about better contacts, more frequent contacts, between the men in the services.

The minute they have better contacts, the whole problem is solved. I refer to the problem of prerogative and prestige, and all that, of a single service at the expense of others. The contact matter solves it. It is isolation that brings that situation about.

It was very noticeable all through the war; but when they were really in trouble, such as out on the fronts, in the Pacific and in Europe, they did not have any trouble of that kind.

I recall well going to the South Pacific theatre when it was in command of Admiral Halsey, and you could not tell what service a man came from at his headquarters. There was not a man there, Army, Navy, Marines, or Air, who was not proud to serve unider him.

Senator MORSE. And it is your view that when you get this administrative coordination at the top level, which is provided for in this bill, that, in and of itself, because of its requirement that these top officials function in a coordinated manner, will produce a great deal of economy by way of elimination of duplication of effort.

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir.

Senator MORSE. It has been my observation, only mine, that an interesting change has even developed in our committee.

We sit today as a coordinated committee of the old Naval Affairs and Military Affairs Committees. I served on the Naval Affairs Committee. I think it was only natural for us on the Naval Affairs Committee to develop a naval affairs point of view. We at least looked to it twice to see that the Navy was not going to be hurt in anything. And I suspect that some of our colleagues on the other committee had pretty much that attitude as to the Army.

Here we are today, functioning as an Armed Services Committee, with equal responsibilities and obligations to both the Army and the Navy, and I think that is probably going to produce some economies up here too.

Secretary PATTERSON. I think it is one of the most wholesome things that has happened.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hill.

Senator HILL. Mr. Secretary, are you not in this position: That you cannot have your cake and eat it too? Most of us say we are for coordination, and we are for integration, and we want to economize where we can.

If you are going to do that, you cannot keep things as they are. You have to have somebody at the top to pull together these over-all programs, to bring about this practical coordination. Is that not your position?

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir. If you want the two departments to be independent as they have been, then keep the organization as it has been; do not pass this bill.

Senator HILL. Well, is there any other way to bring it about except by having someone at the top responsible for these over-all programs and policies?

Secretary PATTERSON. I know of no other way; the committee thing will not work. They will say, "Have more committees; instead of having 10, let us have 100."

Senator HILL. You have tried that.

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes; and I say it is no good. If there is no one there to settle the dispute, you will get the job done only in a partial, half-baked way.

It is true of human affairs generally that where the thing is in the debating stage, with no one to decide, no one will yield.

However, if there is someone there who finally announces the decision, all parties take it very well, and all go together to work on a program.

Senator HILL. You no doubt recall the Eberstadt plan which really, I think, was generally accepted as a Navy plan.

Unless my memory serves me wrong, the Munitions Board, which was a board just about like you have it on this pending bill, dealing with procurement, supplies, matériel, even went further than you have gone in this bill.

Mr. Eberstadt gave to the Director of that Board, now called the chairman under this bill, the power of decision.

In other words, he raised the question in connection with this whole matter of supplies, matériel, and procurement. If you were ever going to get any coordination, somebody had to have the power of decision; and in his plan, the Eberstadt plan, he gave that power of decision. He gave it to the one man who was the chairman of the board. He had on that board a representative of the Navy, a representative of the Army, and a representative of the Air Forces.

But this chairman, who was an outsider, was given, by him, that power of decision.

Do you recall that?

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir, I do.

Senator HILL. I just wanted to say this, anent what you said earlier : that we had all kinds of hearings on this question of unification last year. We had many wonderful statements; yours, and General Eisenhower's, and General Spaatz' and General Arnold's, and all the rest of them. But the strongest argument that we had was not on the

hearings on the unification bill; it was when the Army came up to ask for an increase in its officer strength up to 50,000. The top men of the Army, including General Eisenhower, came up, and they had all kinds of wonderful charts to show why the Army needed to step up its strength to 50,000 officers. But the trouble about the charts. the trouble about the story, was that it was only half of the picture, only half of the story.

You said what the Army had to do out in this theater of operations and what they had to do in this area, and what they had to do somewhere else, but there was nothing said about what the Navy was going to be doing; whether they were going to be in that particular theater; whether they were going to be in that area.

So we did not get a picture of the real needs, so far as defense was concerned. All we got was a half story, which was all that you could give, or were capable of giving.

Is that not true?

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir. That was a piecemeal presentation

to you.

Secretary HILL. That was a piecemeal presentation; is that not right?

Secretary PATTERSON. It certainly was.

Senator HILL. And so the committee, and for that matter the Congress, could not act with that information which it should have had; which was the whole picture and not a half picture, a whole truth rather than a half-truth.

Under this bill, it would not only be possible, but it would be the purpose and the intent that this committee, sitting on a matter of that kind, would get the full and complete picture.

Is that not true?

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, we are going to have some questions by Senator Baldwin in a minute.

I just want to call your attention to the fact that we had a committee once, a committee on pay schedules in both the Army and the Navy. I remember that we started both off at the starting line, all equal. Then, during the years since that pay committee brought in their recommendations, it has got all out of kilter.

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It has got all out of kilter with rapidity of advancement being different in both services.

Then, we had another committee agreement between the Army and the Navy on percentage of disability allowances. And the retirement under that in the different services is certainly not equal, even to the most disinterested person. That happened in quite a few committees. Secretary PATTERSON. Years ago, we always had to explain why there was a different point system for separation from the service. Maybe that was right. I do not know. But people did not seem to think so.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Congress had an awful time explaining that, and answering about a million letters, I think.

Seantor Baldwin?

Seantor BALDWIN. I have just one question, Mr. Chairman. Under this bill, Mr. Secretary, the President, of course, appoints the super-Secretary as Senator Bridges describes him. But the Presi

dent still has the power of appointing the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force.

Would you not expect that the senior secrtary-that is, the superSecretary-would have a great voice in the determination of the selection of these other secretaries?

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir; but, of course, that is just what goes on today; the same thing. The President appoints the Under Secretaries and the Assistant Secretaries in all of the executive agencies; not only War and Navy, but State, Commerce, Treasury, and all of them. The Secretary himself-which would be another possibility— does not appoint those men.

Senator BALDWIN. But they are not policy-making officers on the basis that the Secretary would be.

For example, would not the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Navy be policy-making officers?

Secretary PATTERSON. It would be pretty embarrassing in a Department if the Secretary and Under Secretary did not get along well together.

Senator BALDWIN. Well, it seems to me that there has been considerable virtue in the fact that the respective Secretaries of the services of War and Navy in seeking all they could for their own Departments, have in effect built those Departments up to a high degree of efficiency, although they may not be as completely integrated as they should be, and as unified.

But on the other hand, if the super-Secretary was to have voice in the selection of the other Secretaries, would that not tend to mold the policies in the respective Departments along the lines that the superSecretary thought they ought to go, maybe to the detriment of a particular service?

Secretary PATTERSON. That might be. I think the plan of appointment, though, in the act, is in line with precedent and is correct: Appointments by the President, as is provided in the act. I guess probably in business it is the other way, is it not?

In business, the head of a department or division of business would generally appoint his own assistants, but that is not true in the Federal Government.

Senator BALDWIN. Of course, the difference with business is that you are not dealing with national welfare and national safety, which affects everybody in the United States. You are dealing merely with the welfare of a particular business.

Secretary PATTERSON. They think it is just as important, though. Senator BALDWIN. Well, if the super-Secretary did have, and I think he must of necessity have, considerable voice in the selection of these other Secretaries, then the possibility of their exercising the privilege of going around the super-Secretary to the President is rather a limited possibility, is it not?

Secretary PATTERSON. Well, yes; except that under the law here they owe their office solely to the President of the United States. They are appointed by him. I suppose they could be removed only by him.

Senator MORSE. They would really form a little cabinet on national defense and security; that is, when you get down to the way this thing works out in practice, the President remains Commander in Chief, and he is not going to sit there and let anything happen to

the Navy or to the Army or to the Air Forces of any major consequence without having these men all in to talk to them about it. Is that not the way it works out?

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes.

If there was anything of a major character, the President would, of course, have to be advised of it and approve of it. There is no doubt about that.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, I would be glad to have you confer with the Secretary of the Navy and give the committee a letter as to the advisability of having an Under Secretary of National Defense, in connection with the matter of safety, shall we say.

We would like to have that information, not right away, but after you have had full time to consider it.

The committee wants to thank you for coming down with your fine statement this morning. Of course, we may ask you to come back after we have more thoroughly plowed the ground in this bill, and I. am sure you will be glad to come.

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If any of the committee members can stay with me a little while, even though the Senate is in session, I believe I would like to hear from Mr. Suckert this morning, who is representing Mr. Symington, who is ill. It will take a matter of 10 minutes, or something like that, to get his testimony in the record.

Then it is the intention of the chairman, if it is agreeable to the committee, to recess until Tuesday, at which time we will hear from General Eisenhower.

Mr. Suckert, we are glad to have you with us, and we hope you will convey the best wishes of the committee to Mr. Symington. We hope that he will get back on the job soon.

You may go ahead.

STATEMENT OF W. STUART SYMINGTON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF WAR FOR AIR, WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., PRESENTED BY EUGENE M. ZUCKERT, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR, WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. ZUCKERT. Thank you very much, sir.

It is regretted that illness prevents Mr. Symington, the Assistant Secretary of War for Air, from appearing before your committee this morning.

On his behalf, I want to express our appreciation for your kindness in permitting me to read the testimony which Mr. Symington prepared for delivery before your committee.

That testimony follows:

It is with pleasure that the Air Force presents to you its wholehearted concurrence in the bill submitted by the President for integration, of the armed services.

We are glad the proposed legislation gives parity to the Air Froces, although not surprised; because every known study of possible unification made during and since the war has suggested such parity. The record of the Air Force in World War II justifies this position of equality.

To us it appears there are two especially significant characteristics of this proposed legislation.

First, the Secretary of National Defense would not be just a figurehead. On the contrary, he would-and I quote from the bill-“establish policies and pro