« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
6690, 6793, 6822
6686, 6768, 6789
6687, 6763, 6788
tion assignments and for designated classes of industrial
Department of Defense Continued
6876 News release pertaining to Secretary Gilpatric's remarks at Air Force Command Conference
6885 Number of personnel transferred to...
6879 Opinion as to legality of going into retail distribution.
6975 Opponents of single supply agency-
6714 Policy governing standardization program.
6851 Relationship paragraph in charter.
6734 Role of Defense Supply Council..
6733 Secretary Gilpatric's California speech.
6753 Shortages explanation..
6832 Similar items with different stock numbers..
6717 Single department procurement assignment system.
6877 Standardization authority,
6735 Supply of clothing items during last year's buildup.
6879 The future.
6754 Use of criteria and coding procedure.
6830 National Security Agency
6690, 6809 Army:
Opinion on legality of establishing agency for weapons systems
6994 Responsibilities, functions, and powers of a Secretary
6985 Major organizational components.
6686 Office of Assistant Secretary: Installations and Logistics: Data on coffee cups.
7023 Establishment of Defense Supply Agency
7026 Major responsibilities of Secretary Thomas D. Morris.
7027 Memo on integration of supply operations.
7021 Memorandum on management method criteria.
7005 Transportation and warehousing policy:
Letter regarding actions of Lt. Col. John E. Murray --- 7065
7078 Office of the Secretary:
Biography of Dr. Alain C. Enthoven, Deputy Comptroller for
Systems Analysis (Programing), Office Assistant Secretary
6958 DOD supergrade and Public Law 313 distribution.
6934 Effect of section 202(e) (6) of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended
6898 Memo pertaining to establishing a combat development and test center..
6903 Office of Organizational and Management Planning: List of major projects and studies..
6962 List of projects and studies ---
6978 Personnel strength of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs)
6935 Prime contracts
6952 Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff activities, civilian and military personnel, June 30, 1962
6943 Section 201(b)
6911 Supergrade and Public Law 313 distribution..
6934 Excerpts from debate on Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1958...
6680 International Security Affairs, major responsibilities of Secretary Paul H. Nitze..
7031 Joint Strategic Survey Council
6826 Letter dated July 9, 1962, from Hon. Thomas B. Curtis, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri, to Chairman Hardy
7040 Senate Report 1900, 86th Congress, extract..
6980 Weapons Systems Evaluation Group, explanation of
HEARINGS BEFORE SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
Washington, D.C., Monday, June 4, 1962. The special subcommittee met at 10 a.m., Hon. Porter Hardy (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. HARDY. Let the committee come to order.
I have a statement that I want to give before we take up the testimony from the Secretary of Defense.
We begin hearings today with respect to the agencies that have been created or are contemplated within the Office of the Secretary of Defense as distinguished from those agencies under the operational control of the military departments.
The defense agencies that now exist are the Defense Communications Agency, the Defense Atomic Support Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Supply Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency
The purpose of this inquiry is to analyze the statutory basis for these defense agencies, the justification for their creation, the extent of their operations, the extent to which they have absorbed previous functions of the military departments, the effect such agencies have upon the combat effectiveness and efficiency of our armed services, and the plans, if any, for additional agencies or the expansion of functions of existing agencies.
At the outset, I think it imperative that I repeat a portion of the report by the House Armed Services Committee accompanying the Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1958.
Among other things, that report stated
It is the belief of the Committee on Armed Services that the intent of the National Security Act and the basic philosophy surrounding the creation of the Defense Establishment and the Office of the Secretary of Defense was to create an overall policy manager who would be known as the Secretary of Defense. It was never intended, and is not now intended, that the Office of the Secretary of Defense would become a fourth department within the Department of Defense, delving into operational details on a daily basis. The Secretary of Defense is supposed to make policy and to make any decision that is necessary with regard to the functioning of the three military departments. Once his decision has been made, or his policy has been enunciated, it is incumbent upon the three military Secretaries to carry out the orders, directives, or policies of the Secretary of Defense.
That is the end of the quotation.
The declaration of policy of the National Security Act states, among other things, that
Each military department shall be separately organized under its own Secre tary and shall function under the direction, authority, and control of the Secretary of Defense *
The policy section also provides for the unified direction of the military departments, but further provides that the act is not to merge these departments or services."
Finally, the policy statement provides that the National Security Act is to be construed as forbidding the creation of an Armed Forces General Staff.
During the debate on the bill reported to the House in 1958, an amendment was offered by the then majority leader, Mr. McCormack, which was adopted and became a part of the law. That amendment became section 202(c) (6) of the National Security Act. It provides as follows:
(6) Whenever the Secretary of Defense determines it will be advantageous to the Government in terms of effectiveness, economy, or efficiency, he shall provide for the carrying out of any supply or service activity common to more than one military department by a single agency or such other organizational entities as he deems appropriate. For the purposes of this paragraph, any supply or service activity common to more than one military department shall not be considered a “major combatant function” within the meaning of paragraph (1) hereof.
That is the end of the quote.
In accepting this amendment, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Vinson, stated—and I quote him:
The distinguished gentleman gave the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kilday] and me and others the privilege of examining this amendment. We have examined it and know exactly what it means.
Mr. Vinson continues:
Its purpose is to bring about a more unified and economical procurement of items which are common to two or more military services. Last year some $1,200 million was procured under a single service manager, through whom the four services are buying medical supplies, clothing, and other things. There is no objection from our side to this amendment.
That is the end of Mr. Vinson's statement at that point, but further on he explained the amendment as follows:
This deals with a single method of procurement. I know what runs through the gentleman's mind. The amendment is valid, in my estimation.
Mr. Gavin of the Committee on Armed Services interposed, during this discussion, and said: I would suggest we permit the gentleman to proceed and explain.
Then Mr. McCormack replied, among other things—and I quote him:
The gentleman from Georgia is doing it much better than I could.
Later during the debate, Mr. Devereux, then a member of the Committee on Armed Services, asked:
Under this proposed amendment, would it not be possible to establish in the Department of Defense an agency which would take over the functions now being carried on by the various services? I am talking about supply, logistics, procurement, and all of that.