Secretary PATTERSON. Not that I know of.

The CHAIRMAN. Any more so than in this bill?

Secretary PATTERSON. Not as much, I suppose. I don't know. My assumption would be that their duty is to administer and manage the Department. It is as broad as that.

The CHAIRMAN. Are not the A-B-C's of the powers that the Navy and War Secretaries have to be found in the laws passed by Congress? Secretary PATTERSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You operate under those laws.
Secretary PATTERSON. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, specifically, in the setting up of the War and Navy Departments in the first place, were they given a list of rules to follow, or were they given broad powers? Do you know that?

Secretary PATTERSON. I have never made a study of it, Senator Gurney, but my guess would be that they are just expected to run their departments.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have put in the record at this point the original law setting up the War and Navy Departments. (The law referred to is as follows:)

STATUTE I

CHAPTER VII

AN ACT To establish an Executive Department, to be denominated the Department of War

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be an Executive Department to be denominated the Department of War, and that there shall be a principal officer therein, to be called the Secretary for the Department of War, who shall perform and execute such duties as shall from time to time be enjoined on, or entrusted to him by the President of the United States, agreeably to the Constitution, relative to military commissions, or to the land or naval forces, ships, or warlike stores of the United States, or to such other matters respecting military or naval affairs as the President of the United States shall assign to the said Department or relative to the granting of lands to persons entitled thereto, for military services rendered to the United States or relative to Indian affairs; and furthermore, That the said principal officer shall conduct the business of the said Department in such manner as the President of the United States shall from time to time order or instruct.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That there shall be in the said Department an inferior officer, to be appointed by the said principal officer, to be employed therein as he shall deem proper, and to be called the Chief Clerk in the Department of War, and who, whenever the said principal officer shall be removed from office by the President of the United States, or in any other case of vacancy, shall, during such vacancy, have the charge and custody of all records, books, and papers, appertaining to the said Department.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the said principal officer and every other person to be appointed or employed in the said Department, shall, before he enters on the execution of his office or employment, take an oath or affirmation well and faithfully to execute the trust committed to him.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary for the Depatrment of War, to be appointed in consequence of this Act, shall forthwith after his appointment, be entitled to have the custody and charge of all records, books, and papers in the office of Secretary for the Department of War, heretofore established by the United States in Congress assembled.

Approved, August 7, 1789.

STATUTE II

April 30, 1798

CHAPTER XXXV

AN ACT To establish an Executive Department, to be denominated the Department of the Navy

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be an executive department under the denomination of the Department of the Navy, the chief officer of which shall be called the Secretary of the Navy, whose duty it shall be to execute such orders as he shall receive from the President of the United States, relative to the procurement of naval stores and materials and the construction, armament, equipment, and employment of vessels of war, as well as all other matters connected with the naval establishment of the United States.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, that a principal clerk and such other clerks as he shall think necessary, shall be appointed by the Secretary of the Navy, who shall be employed in such manner as he shall deem most expedient. In case of vacancy in the Office of the Secretary, by removal or otherwise, it shall be the duty of the principal Clerk to take the charge and custody of all the books, records, and documents of the said office.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Navy be and he is hereby authorized and empowered, immediately after he shall be appointed and shall enter upon the duties of his office, to take possession of all the records, books, and documents and all other matters and things appertaining to this Department which are now deposited in the Office of the Secretary of War.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That there shall be allowed to the Secretary of the Navy an annual salary of Three thousand dollars, payable quarter yearly at the Treasury of the United States, and the respective Clerks in the Office of the said Department shall receive the same compensations and be subject to the same regulations as are provided by an act, supplemental to the Act establishing the Treasury Department, and for a further compensation to certain officers in the offices of the other executive departments.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That so much of an act entitled "An Act to establish an Executive Department, to be denominated the Department of War" as vests any of the powers contemplated by the provisions of this Act, in the Secretary for the Department of War, shall be repealed, from and after the period when the Secretary of the Navy shall enter on the duties of his office.

Approved, April 30, 1798.

Senator BRIDGES. Mr. Secretary, let me clarify just a little bit my position. I do not want you to get the idea, either you or Secretary Forrestal, or anybody else that I am against the objective which you are seeking. I am trying to find out from you both whether you are for a merger, or integration, or what.

I agree with you that I am probably not familiar with all of the details. But it is also true that I do not know exactly what you are for. However, I think we seek the same objective.

Secretary PATTERSON. I said at the outset and also at the end, that I am for this bill.

Senator BRIDGES. Well, I cannot be for the bill as it is written. But I am for the same objective that you seek. What I want to ask you now is this: Do you not think it would be wise to stipulate right out in the bill the actual functions of the respective agencies and military departments?

Secretary PATTERSON. No.

Senator BRIDGES. Why?

Secretary PATTERSON. The contemplation is that the functions of the three services will be defined in an Executive order to be issued by the President. I think that is perfect. It is more flexible.

If you once write something in a law, and times change, it is then sometimes pretty hard work to get the law changed swiftly.

In the summer of 1941, I had a condition in the War Department where the basic act, the National Defense Act of 1920, gave to the Quartermaster Corps the duty of all Army construction-except construction that the Secretary might assign to the Corps of Engineers. That wasn't in the basic act. That was added by an act of 1940.

And under that, the Secretary of War, on my recommendation, assigned all Air Force work to the Corps of Engineers. So we had a condition there in the summer of 1941 where two-thirds of the construction program—and it was a vast program then on account of the building of all the camps and munitions plants-was under the Quartermaster Corps and one-third of the program was under the Corps of Engineers. It was a general mess, on account of the division of responsibility over a single program. They were competing with one another, getting the same contractors on different segments of the program. And it all came down to a very simple settlement, which was to put all responsibility for construction activities in the Corps of Engineers, who were obviously the most qualified people for it. However, it took me months to get that little act through, even though no one testified against it. I testified for it, and General Marshall testified for it, and two or three others, and showed the need. It was necessary to integrate that activity in the Army.

I do not think there was any testimony taken in opposition to it. and yet it took months to get that thing changed, a trivial little thing

like that.

Senator BRIDGES. Now, in this bill, there is provision for the Navy to retain Naval Aviation as an arm of the Navy. Do you think that is properly safeguarded? I mean, do you think that the super-Secretary could eventually edge Naval Aviation practically out of existence? Retain it in name, but gradually edge it out until it is all centralized in the Air Force?

Secretary PATTERSON. No; he could not. Congress can, either by passing an act or in its actual action annually on appropriations. They can on any activity. There is nobody immune from that.

Coast Artillery, Field Artillery, Infantry, none of them are immune from that, and none ought to be. Nobody ought to be treated as immune from any change.

Senator BRIDGES. In your interpretation, how far do you think the super-Secretary will go in his direction of the activities of the regular Secretaries of Navy, War, and Air? The bill says they will work under his direction. What is your interpretation of the phrase "work under his direction"? How far is he going to dictate to you?

Secretary PATTERSON. Oh, I can think of all kinds of matters where he could say, in regard to things of importance, "We will have elimination of competition on this matter and therefore all three departments will follow this policy."

It might be on pay or quarters or any kind of thing. I would say that on a matter like that they work under his direction, and they ought to work under his direction. It depends upon whether it affects all services alike. If it is a matter that is peculiar to one service, and they have special conditions, then I believe the Secretary of that particular department of service ought to have the handling of it. There are such matters.

Senator BRIDGES. Now, Mr. Secretary, did you hear my question to Mr. Forrestal the other day, which was answered by Mr. Kenney, about certain areas, as to economy? I mentioned particularly the San Francisco Bay area on the Pacific coast and the Florida area here on the east coast, and certain other key sections.

Have any surveys been made to determine what services or establishments or plants or fields can be eliminated if this bill is passed? Secretary PATTERSON. I take it there are such surveys. I would prefer not to answer it though, because Secretary Royall and Secretary Kenney will testify and they will know much more about it than I would.

I might say this: Unless there was strong reason shown to me, I could not see why there should be in San Francisco several ports of embarkation. There may be some reasons, but I would have to be convinced of the need. I would say there ought to be one port, to serve all alike. That can be a Navy installation, for all I care. If there is a better case for it, it ought to be so.

Senator BRIDGES. Would you be in favor of having some tests made to see what economies could be effected, using given areas as a testing ground; and let us see if we can really get some economies? Secretary PATTERSON. Yes. I am not for any hasty, slap-dash action in cutting out activities of a kind like San Francisco or Florida. Those things have to be very carefully studied, or damage will be done.

Senator BRIDGES. I am not in favor of slap-dash action either. I am interested in careful testing to determine what duplications could be eliminated and sample economies that could result.

Now, Mr. Secretary, do you think economy could be effected under this bill?

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes.

Senator BRIDGES. How much?

Secretary PATTERSON. I cannot say how much, but it is very substantial, I believe.

Senator BRIDGES. Well, Secretary Forrestal testified there could be substantial economies achieved in wartime. Do you agree with that?

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes.

Senator BRIDGES. Do you think there can be any economies effected in peacetime?

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes.

Senator BRIDGES. Of what proportions, without mentioning dollars and cents?

Secretary PATTERSON. I can only say at this time that I am sure they would be substantial. But that, again, I would rather leave to Under Secretary Royall and Assistant Secretary Kenney, because they have studied it more carefully.

Senator BRIDGES. How long after the bill is passed will we start seeing some evidence of these economies, if the bill passes?

Secretary PATTERSON. How long will occupation last in Germany? They always ask me that question.

Senator BRIDGES. I am thinking at the moment about this country, the establishments in this country, and some of the other establishments in our own territories here. When could we expect some economy?

Secretary PATTERSON. If you wanted just a guess, an estimate, I would say 2 years.

Senator BRIDGES. We could not expect economies in the first year? Secretary PATTERSON. Well, I would not be in favor of any hasty action along the line of cutting out duplications. They ought to be cut out and they can be cut out, but it would take a very careful study indeed to decide how these things should be handled in the future. You ought to have a trend toward interdependence between the forces; there is no question as to that in my mind. But it would take a very careful study indeed as to which service should do it for the benefit

of all.

Senator BRIDGES. Mr. Secretary, shortly after this bill was announced, or shortly after the agreement of Secretary Forrestal and yourself was announced, there was a press conference held. I do not recall at the moment who gave out the statement at the press conference, whether it was one of you secretaries, or General Eisenhower, or some other individual. Therefore, I do not want to attribute it to a particular individual.

But I remember distinctly the reports in the paper and over the radio that actually this bill would mean a greater cost for national defense, certainly in the first year or two.

Secretary PATTERSON. I was not present when that statement was made. I was present at the press conference, but Secretary Forrestal and I had to leave early and did not stay for the whole thing. That must have been said after we left. I do not agree with that.

Senator BRIDGES. You do not agree with that?

Secretary PATTERSON. No. I do not know how they figure that it would cost more, except as to these five or six people that are up on top. It could not be much more. I think, on the contrary, it would be much less; but that it my own view.

Senator BRIDGES. And your judgment is that whoever made the statement was undoubtedly in error?

Secretary PATTERSON. I think it was an error.

Senator BRIDGES. I call your attention to the fact that the general impression of the country is that if you are going to unify or integrate or merge these services, whichever is done, it means that one of the primary accomplishments would be more effective national defense, and another would be major economies. And many people were shocked, as I was, at the statements made in this press conference to which I refer to the effect that merger or integration or unification was actually going to cost more money.

Secretary PATTERSON. I do not agree with that statement that it is going to cost more, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Byrd?

Senator BYRD. Mr. Chairman, the other day I asked the Secretary of the Navy for certain information, which is furnished in this memorandum.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am glad to hear from the Secretary, but this letter, as I read it, is not responsive to the questions that I propounded. I said then that the Secretary of the Navy, in a most eloquent and able statement to the Naval Affairs Committee, had convinced me that bill 888 would be very harmful to the morale of the Navy and the Marine Corps. So I want to ask the Secretary of the Navy if he will not elaborate upon the letter he has written and take up, line by line,