Page images
PDF
EPUB

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

grams, exercise direction, authority, and control." He would rely on the advice and suggestions of the three Departments, but his would nevertheless be the final decision, subject to the approval of the President and the Congress, with respect to the policies and the cost of our future security.

Secondly, it is proposed that the three Departments, Army, Navy, and Air, be administered as separate units.

It would seem this desire to preserve the identity of the three services is a wise move. Not only does it thereby preserve tradition, and therefore morale, that priceless characteristic of any military body, but also in our opinion it is in the interest of the taxpayer, because it should give maximum efficiency at minimum cost.

Complete merger-one service, one suit-would destroy much if not most of the tradition of the services and would greatly increase the already heavy administrative problem which will be incident to any streamlining of our national defense.

In American business we have learned the risk to efficiency that lies in size for size's sake alone; and the danger of generalities about extraordinary economies that come from common operations on a completely integrated scale. It is not coincidence that our largest manufacturing corporation, and our largest marketing concern, both operate today under a plan of division into several component units which would be strikingly characteristic of the administration of the National Defense Establishment under this proposed bill.

In these corporations questions of policy are decided by the head of the over-all concern, as are differences between the divisions of the companies in question, but the actual operation of the units themselves, with the healthy rivalry of relative performance, are left to the management of the divisions.

As we see it, therefore, the proposed legislation not only would preserve the identity of our services, but also would provide central control, the latter in keeping with modern American business practice.

In time of war, cost is secondary to victory, because if any future war is lost, nothing else would matter. In time of peace, however, operation of the armed services is similar to the operation of a business, with the taxpayers the stockholders; and as in any business, the management should work to return to the stockholders as much profit as possible on their investment. In this case profit would be maximum security for the funds appropriated.

This brings us to our final point-the great amount of money that could be saved as the result of the passage of this proposed bill, without detriment to our plans for national security.

Of course integration of the armed services should be considered first from the standpoint of that security. There can be only so much money available, however, and therefore possible savings which would result from passage of the bill are of the greatest importance.

This matter, along with the entire question of operational efficiency, has been studied for some time; and it is our considered opinion that the passage of this bill, with proper administration, will save the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars over a period of years.

Senator BYRD. May I interrupt you there?

Do you have some itemized statement, or a general idea?

Mr. ZUCKERT. Sir, I understand that witnesses who will follow have some prepared statements indicating what the suggested savings might be.

Senator BYRD. What witnesses?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean the Air Corps witnesses?

Mr. ZUCKERT. No. It is my impression, sir, but I think the Secretary mentioned, that Under Secretary Royall would have something to say on that subject.

Senator BYRD. He knows about the Army, but what about the Navy? Mr. ZUCKERT. I am just speaking from my personal recollection, sir. Senator BYRD. But he makes a statement here, Mr. Symington does, that millions can be saved. I presume he knows some places where economy can be effected.

Mr. ZUCKERT. That is right, sir.

Senator BYRD. Would it be pertinent, Mr. Chairman, to ask Mr. Symington to elaborate upon that statement?

The CHAIRMAN. I think the committee would like to have any studies the Air Forces have made as to the savings they contemplate can be made.

Mr. ZUCKERT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And if there are any statements prepared, the committee would request the witnesses to present the information from the Air Corps in detail.

Senator BYRD. This is the first statement made before the committee that very large savings could be effected. I think it would be, in order for Mr. Symington, if he could, to present wherein the savings could be arrived at.

Mr. ZUCKERT. Yes, sir.

Senator BYRD. In time of peace, I meant.
The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, then.
Mr. ZUCKERT (reading):

These savings will not start overnight; nor can they be gaged accurately at this time. Up to now, however, each department has been fighting for position, a position often considered from the standpoint of size alone; and as a result there are countless examples, both in the zone of the interior and in the theaters, of needless duplication and waste.

With the world in its present condition, but with the amount of money available for security limited under our system of government, we cannot afford such duplication and waste.

Much of the service rivalry has been healthy, but some has been unhealthy. There has been an effort to establish position through relative appropriations, and therefore there has been great emphasis on just the getting of the money, with too little empasis on whether the money was spent efficiently-whether the taxpayer received maximum return on his invested defense dollar.

This bill establishes control at the top, integration into one plan of all preparation for the defense of our country-and plan therefore automatically more economical as well as more efficient.

With recognition that whereas today a strong military position is essential but the money for that position is limited, we are confident that under this integrated direction will come a cost consciousness which will permeate all levels of service management. We will be striving, all of us, to be the best instead of the biggest.

As science constantly changes any plans for future hostilities, more and more it appears that controlled quality instead of uncontrolled quantity will be the decisive factor in any possible future war.

This bill now gives the country an opportunity to obtain that controlled quality at minimum cost.

Consolidation and adjustment to get rid of waste is standard business practice; but no private business ever had the opportunity to eliminate the waste of duplication offered by this bill for unification of the services.

Now as perhaps never before in our history it is essential that our armed services prepare as a team for the defense of our country. This proposed bill for integration of the services, for the first time, makes such mutual preparation normal procedure.

Based on the fine spirit of cooperation and good will expressed by and between the services during the period of negotiations about this proposed legislation, we are confident that the purposes of the bill looking toward the security of our country will be attained upon its passage.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Zuckert.

The committee will be in recess until 10 o'clock on Tuesday morning, and the witnesses scheduled first for next week will be General Eisenhower, Admiral Nimitz, and General Spaatz.

The committee is adjourned.

(Thereupon, at 12:45 p. m., an adjournment was taken until Tuesday, March 25, 1947, at 10 a. m.)

NATIONAL DEFENSE

ESTABLISHMENT-UNIFICATION

OF THE ARMED FORCES

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1947

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, in the main caucus room of the Senate Office Building, Senator Chan Gurney (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Gurney (chairman), Bridges, Saltonstall, Baldwin, Russell, Byrd, and Maybank.

Also present: Senator O'Mahoney.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

The Armed Services Committee is now considering Senate bill 758, for unification of the armed forces. We have already had testimony of the Secretaries of War and Navy, and the Assistant Secretary of War for Air, and we are glad to have with us this morning General Eisenhower, Admiral Nimitz, General Spaatz, Under Secretary of War Royall.

We will be pleased to hear this morning from General Eisenhower on the bill.

General, I understand you have a prepared statement. We would be glad to hear that, and when you have completed your formal offering to the committee, undoubtedly the committee members will have some questions they will want to ask.

TESTIMONY OF GENERAL OF THE ARMY DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED STATES ARMY, WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C.

General EISENHOWER. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, when I returned from Europe in November 1945, I appeared before a committee of the Congress to express my convictions concerning appropriate over-all organization of the security forces of America. Those convictions were frankly and almost exclusively based on 32 years of field experience in the war, an experience that comprehended the employment of all branches of the armed services in island and in continental campaigns. As a result of that experience I came to the conclusion that the mere existence of unified command in the fieldwithout slightest reference to the individual exercising such command-is a vital factor in speedy and decisive victory in war. I believed then, and now believe as firmly, that if we had attempted to fight the late war under the same theories and practices of command

« PreviousContinue »