I do not believe that in the situation which you suggest, we should expect difficulty from even the most ambitious Secretary of National Defense, or President of the United States; or let us say, instead of the most ambitious, the most stupid, because I would say that such a man as is conceived of in this connection would be stupid rather than ambitious. Even if you had a stupid Secretary of National Defense or a stupid man as President, I would doubt that he would ignore the serious and considered objections of the civilian head of the Navy Department, plus those of the professional advisers of the Secretary of the Navy. Senator BRIDGES. Now, you referred to a stupid man; and what was the other? Secretary FORRESTAL. An ambitious man. Senator BRIDGES. And with the trend of the times in the world, let us suppose you had one of these superambitious men-one of these men who seek great power and who are arrogant in using it. Have you not left the door wide open then? Secretary FORRESTAL. Well, I think when you deal with that question, you deal with the whole broad subject of the vitality and health of democracies, and particularly our own. In my observation in this town, I think that that kind of an ambitious man would have an early grave politically. I think that you gentlemen, as well as his colleagues in the executive department, would be sufficiently allergic to the appearance of that kind of ambition to take care of him. But I think if you are going to talk to that subject, you would have to say that there is always possible in any government: The appearance of a man on horseback, the imperial Caesar, the dramatic demogog. That possibility is latent in any form of government. Senator BRIDGES. But are you not by this bill merely preparing a path, or making a bed of roses for such a man, or perhaps preparing the ground in which such a man can flourish? I mean, suppose that instead of the Secretary of National Defense, we had the three departments, and we had a top council of the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Forces, for example. In that case, you would have three men of equal rank in the Cabinet, and not this super de luxe individual up at the top. And would you not then be in a safer position? Secretary FORRESTAL. I went through all of that pattern of thought, frankly, in my own mind. For 22 or 3 years, in fact, I have been weighing those considerations. I think we have taken one step to prevent that by deleting the provision for a single military Chief of Staff in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The concept of arrival at conclusions by agreement is, in my mind, a safeguard against that possibility. And I can assure you, Senator Bridges, that in what we have been saying in the councils of the Navy, we have gone over those possibilities very fully and have arrived at the conclusion that we have sufficient safeguards in this bill. Senator BRIDGES. Could you tell me, right here-today-that if Congress should pass this act as it has been set up and submitted to the Congress, this super de luxe Secretary on top could not put the Marine Corps out of business? Would you want to make that statement to me here today? Secretary FORRESTAL. I do not want to be flippant in my answer, but I would have to take into account, in my answer, the extraor dinary tenacity of the Marines, and my answer would be that he could not. Senator BRIDGES. Well, let us get down to, we will say, the naval arm of aviation. Secretary FORRESTAL. No, I do not think he could there either, Senator. I included both those elements in my remarks here. As I say, again, you have to speak, in considering any part of this bill, in terms of the spirit in which this bill was evolved and created. Senator BRIDGES. But there is nothing specific in the bill which would guarantee that what I have suggested would not happen? Secretary FORRESTAL. What you are saying could apply to a man who would say that the infantry was no longer of use, who decided that heavy artillery ought to be scrapped, that we were going to fight the next war with nothing but gadget weapons. We went into all of that, and we went thoroughly into the question of whether we should have specific limitations in the law. I am always fearful of trying to be too particular in dealing with and taking care of shadows and dangers such as those of which we are apprehensive. What you say could be applied to any kind of a national defense organization. If this power goes to an ass, or a stupid man, he can do asinine and stupid things. But I do not have any fear of that happening. Senator BRIDGES. Now, Mr. Secretary, actually what this bill provides is a blank check, is it not? I mean, you have testified here that though there is nothing in the bill specifically, you place your dependence upon the spirit in which it was evolved. But it actually is a blank check to this superdeluxe secretary to do anything he wants to, is it not? Secretary FORRESTAL. Of course, you always have to think in terms of men. Senator BRIDGES. Yes, but you have to provide for any sort of a man. Secretary FORRESTAL. Well, I do not think there is any blank check involved here. I do not agree with the implication which your remark conveys as to the power which is given to this secretary. You are assuming that he could dominate his assistants, his Secretaries of Air, Army, and Navy; and I presume you mean that he could, if he had a disagreement flowing from one of them, ask for his resignation and therefore deny a proper expression of view. But by the same token, Senator Bridges, so can the President. Senator BRIDGES. But you get down to this: This superdeluxe secretary on top is going to have complete check, is he not, on what is done by the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Navy? Secretary FORRESTAL. The bill is written to prevent precisely that. He does have the power over the formation and composition of the budgets, which is, as I would not deny, a very substantial power. Senator BRIDGES. The power of the purse, the power of the dollar, is the power to destroy, almost, is it not? So that when you give him the power of control over composition of the budget, you give him the power actually to destroy any arm of the service? Secretary FORRESTAL. No; not completely. Senator BRIDGES. Well, if they have no money, they cannot operate, can they, Mr. Secretary? Secretary FORRESTAL. Well, you do not give him the complete power. That is why we have in here the rank of Secretary of the Navy, and why the Secretary of the Navy is permitted to go to the President and present his view. I think, on the assumption that you will have men of character, intelligence, and honesty as the heads of these services, that the power of the Secretary of National Defense is definitely limited, and it is my opinion that if he does not get that kind of man as his assistant in each of these three great parts of our security system, he will not be able to run them. He is going to have to have able men, and you cannot get able men to be "yes men." Senator BRIDGES. Now, Mr. Secretary, coming back to what the distinguished chairman of the committee said at the beginning, of course, our first consideration is the effectiveness of our armed services. But certainly the American people and the Congress want them run as economically as possible. Now, in your judgment, if this bill should pass, how much economy could we expect, as a nation, from this integration or unification, or merger, or whatever you choose to call it? Secretary FORRESTAL. Well, as I said in my statement, I do not look for very immediate economy. I do not look for large immediate economies. The economies, however, I think would be substantial when we run into large volumes of buying, because then the savings would be tremendous in, say, just the one item of 5-inch shells, or possibly from having the 5-inch shell of the Navy the same as the 412-inch shell of the Army. When you buy the volume of materials that you have to buy for war, it is obvious that the factors that give you a small saving in your procurement during peacetime can give you a very substantial saving in your procurement in war. As an example, I might cite the fact that we were buying 40,000,000 rounds per month of 40-millimeter antiaircraft ammunition. And again, it is not merely the savings in dollars which are to be considered, but also the saving in the time of the men that are employed. Senator BRIDGES. Now, Mr. Secretary, have you, either alone or in conjunction with Judge Patterson, the Secretary of War, caused to be made any surveys to determine what specific economies could be effected under this bill? Secretary FORRESTAL. Yes, Judge Patterson has, I know, and so has the Navy. Mr. Kenney, would you want to respond to that? Mr. W. JOHN KENNEY (Assistant Secretary of the Navy). There has been created a board, of which Admiral Horne is the chairman, with specific directions to investigate the possibility of common use of facilities for savings to be effected thereby. I cannot give you off-hand the numbers of those where we have already had common use, but they run into the hundreds. There are also, of course, other fields in which we are constantly working out economies in the field of the operation of the Army-Navy Munitions Board. Senator BRIDGES. Now, Mr. Kenney, you are familiar with California and with San Francisco. Take the San Francisco Bay area, which is a great area for the Army and Navy in their various installations. Within a reasonable radius around the San Francisco Bay area, where both the Army and Navy have many installations, what percentage of them could be eliminated by the passage of this bill? Mr. KENNEY. I would not like to express that, Senator Bridges, in terms of percentages. I would say that a number of them could be eliminated. In fact, the first item for consideration of Admiral Horne's Board is the question of harbor and port facilities at New York and San Francisco. Senator BRIDGES. Let us take another area. Take Florida, where we have large installations of Army camps and of Navy and Army installations. Has any thought been given, we will say, to the State of Florida? What duplications could be eliminated there? Mr. KENNEY. Well, perhaps I can read to you, Senator, the list of things which the Board has been directed to study, which will give you some idea of the direction in which we are going. They are: The harbor and port facilities at New York San Francisco, Seattle, and New Orleans. The field of medical facilities, transportation, service facilities such as laundries, commissaries and bakeries, post exchange stores, and ship service stores, recruiting, supply depots, supply centers, cost inspections, material inspections, auditing and accounting. When I list those, Senator, I do not mean that a lot has not already been done, but I am of the firm opinion that a lot more remains to be done, and a lot can be done. Senator BRIDGES. I mean that, as a matter of fact, very little has been done, has it not? Because, to date, you have been operating separate departments here, so that you may have cut down the Navy's operations, or the Army may have cut down theirs, but you could not have joined in the use, could you? Mr. KENNEDY. I would say, Senator, that a great deal has already been done, because there are in existence a great number of boards who are constantly working in this field. There is joint operation, say, of places such as Johnston Island, Kwajalein, Guam, and Okinawa. There is the problem of joint inspection of ammunition on the west coast. There is the matter of joint use of research facilities. There is a complete integration of the entire aircraft program through the Aeronautical Board, and we are prepared, at a later date, to go into that with you in greater detail, Senator; but I would say that a great deal has already been done in the field of, say, procurement alone. Secretary FORRESTAL. Here we have, for example, the items for 1944 and 1945, the items that were coordinated with the Army: they were 42 percent of the total. In 1946, the figure was 52 percent. As for items peculiar to the Nayv, the figure stood at 41 percent in 1944 and 1945, and in 1946 it stood at 30 percent. That simply points up two things: (1) a lot of progress has been made; (2) a lot more can be made. Take the question of shipping. The Army has, as you know, its own transportation system. Maybe they need to have that. Maybe they do not need all of it. But it certainly should be looked at, and we have an easy vehicle here to examine that kind of problem. Senator BRIDGES. Could we have, before this hearing ends, a list from you? I do not mean today, but over the weeks ahead. Also, I would like a list from Judge Patterson, when he testifies, setting forth the situation so far as the War Department is concerned, setting forth specific instances where steps have been taken to bring about economy; what economies, approximately, will result; when they will become effective; and the manpower savings in addition to the general cost savings. Mr. KENNEY. We shall be glad to do that, sir. Senaor BRIDGES. One other question of you, Mr. Secretary: In this bill to unify, we have set up a new department, the Department of the Air Force. What is that going to cost? Have you or Judge Patterson made any analyses? Secretary FORRESTAL. It would be the sheerest speculation. In the initial stages, in terms of any new Government department, it may create some increase. But I would not think it would create a very great increase, because the Air Forces of the Army already are, in a practical sense, independent. Senator BRIDGES. Mr. Secretary, are you going to testify further on this, or is this, as far as you are concerned, the completion of your testimony? Secretary FORRESTAL. Well, I shall respond to the wishes of the committee. I have felt that, in the first place, having seen Judge Patterson's statement this morning, which makes a summation in a broad sense of the details of the bill, the rest of it will come out as other witnesses appear. And if you want me at any time, I shall be, of course, always at your command. Senator BRIDGES. Now, Mr. Secretary, one final question I would like to ask you: You testified in the last session of Congress against Senate bill 2044. I personally think you were right in so testifying, in spite of the opinion of my distinguished colleague here, Mr. Hill, for whom I have the utmost respect and who introduced the bill. Senator HILL. Thank you, sir. Senator BRIDGES. Then, too, Judge Patterson and his associates; it was advocated by Judge Patterson and his associates, for whom I have great respect and admiration. Now, I would like to have you tell me just why you are for this bill and why you were against that bill? Secretary FORRESTAL. I will be very glad to. I tried to indicate those reasons at the outset. I thought the other bill would really result in the destruction of the thing that I very deeply feel is required to be kept; the sense of an individual entity of a service, on the part of the Navy, the Marines, and Naval Aviation. I felt, in fact I knew, that that bill would destroy that imponderable and extremely valuable asset to the Nation. The fact is, however, that while that was our point of view, the Army Air Forces felt equally strongly that they were entitled to autonomy. On the other hand, the Army has had and still has a very serious problem in retaining the position of the ground forces which, whether you like it or not, still have to be the lads who walk up the beaches and wade through swamps with a gun and nothing |