Изображения страниц

Mr. HARDY. Who did that?

General McNAMARA. The Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gilpatric.

There was another memorandum dated February 26, 1962, wherein he again stated that in the exercise of this authorityDSA will seek the views of the military departments and seek to obtain agreements among them, particularly with respect to questions in the technical engineering area. However, if an agreement cannot be reached, the Director of DSA will make the decision subject to the right of appeal by the military depart. ments to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

This, of course, again is for the items which we manage. Mr. HARDY. Would you apply that-we are running around in a lot of circles here, but I think maybe we are developing the point we need—would you apply that last statement which you read in that directive to the electronic parts we were discussing a while ago?

I am thinking now in terms of electronic parts which might be peculiar to a weapon system possessed only by one of the services, maybe the Air Force, and in which the Army and the Navy had no interest.

General MCNAMARA. I would suspect, and I am not in electronics as yet, as you know, Mr. Hardy, I suspect this would not be an item we would manage since it is peculiar to one of the services as you mention.

Mr. Hardy. You think it is one that you would not probably include because it is peculiar to equipment of one service?

General MCNAMARA. Yes, since you have added the other thing which says it is connected with the weapon system. In the area where technical and engineering judgment is required, I certainly am going to seek such judgment, if I am going to be faced with decisions of standardization such as this.

Mr. IIARDY. Let us eliminate the weapon system, then, and just say it is an electronic part which is required by one service for some requirement which is peculiar to that service, and is not utilized by the other services at all, but because it falls in the broad category of electronic parts, then you would construe that it is in your bailiwick and should be procured by Defense Supply?

General MCNAMARA. A point I am not making here is that the services truly code these items and they have a hand bigger than our conversation indicates in this area of deciding which of these items are going to be with DSA.

Mr. Hardy. They couldn't decide the belt buckle. How can they decide this?

General McNAMARA. They do better than that, Mr. Hardy. They are a good, efficient group of people, mainly, and there are some problems where there is an honest difference of opinion, and in those fields if I can help them in reaching a decision in the items I manage

Mr. Hardy. Where we have a cooperative arrangement, I think we will have a smooth working operation. Where we have a situation where a service thinks it can do a better job in a specialized area to meet its requirements than would be done if it were handled by DSA, then under the charter which you read you would have the authority to tell a service it doesn't make any difference about that, I am in this business and you are going to buy it from me?

General MCNAMARA. I am a soldier, Mr. Hardy, as you know. I am trying to help shape an effective défense team here. My mission is to see that they do get efficiency and effectiveness out of this Agency.

Mr. HARDY. Of course, General. I wouldn't discount that for a second. The only problem we have when you use these broad terms of efficiency and effectiveness, there is a lot of difference—there are different ideas as to the way to achieve those elusive objectives. You have to put your judgment against somebody else's judgment who might be as capable in a particular area. What do we do?

General MCNAMARA. In the case of judgment the only thing I can say is that I hope to give the best judgment to the mission that I am charged with

Mr. Hardy. I am certain you are going to do that. I am thinking in terms of any individual who is occupying that position that you are and he might be just as dedicated and just as sincere.

There might be others in the individual separate services who are just as knowledgeable in their field, who also are just as sincere and objective and dedicated to accomplish the same thing that you are headed for, but who may be in sharp disagreement with you, and actually who knows whether their judgment might be better?

General MCNAMARA. It might be. It could well be.

All I am saying is that where I can assist, I want to. I can recognize t'e danger of standardization on certain types of items that are technical and require engineering knowledge.

But I still think that I am going to follow the Secretary of Defense's guidance when he said, and I will quote him again:

I recognize that when the penalty of error is great, careful consideration must be given to standardization recommendations. However, when little risk is involved, agreement shall be reached quickly.

That is the policy I intend to follow in this field of standardization.

Mr. Hardy. That is an understandable and I think a desirable approach to the problem.

I get a little bit worried if we have a situation where there is authority, whoever might occupy that position, to disregard the judgment of others.

I am wondering whether we don't have that sort of situation now under your charter, if actually you don't have the authority to override the three services entirely!

General McNAMARA, Mr. Chairman, maybe we can clear up this picture a little better if we go through Mr. Short's

Mr. HARDY. Maybe we should.

Mr. BATEs. I hope so. We have to get an answer to an item which is peculiar to a particular service, as to whether or not, General, you think you might have the authority to put it into DSA.

We have to understand that. That is very basic here. Even your own definition that you read, that I quoted, the last six words, "for all of the military services.” That is in your directive. There is no reason to put it in. They could have stopped at the word “A gency” and put in a period. Those words were added.

What we are trying to find out is how do you interpret the law and your responsibility. Your objectives are very laudable ones. We don't question that. All we are trying to understand is how far

85066-62-No. 71


can you go as you understand it in respect to items that are peculiar to a particular service.

General McNAMARA. As I understand it, the Defense Supply Agency does not have the authority to pick up items unilaterally. In other words, we do business with those things that are referred to us, if that helps.

Mr. BATEs. That doesn't help very much because we still haven't determined who refers them to you.

General MCNAMARA. I have tried to point out the services play a great part in this coding and that they are really the ones that refer to us the type items that we manage.

Mr. BATES. If a service has a particular item peculiar to that particular service and does not refer that to you, you couldn't take it up yourself; do we understand that?

General MCNAMARA. Yes.
Mr. BATES. Is that correct?
General MCNAMARA. Yes.

Mr. BATEs. On the other hand, you do have referrals from other places than the services ?

General MONAMARA, I don't know

Mr. Bites. Does anybody in OSD refer things to you? We understand the relationship is directly between you and the individual services, and that you wouldn't pick these things up yourself unless they were referred to you by the individual services?

General McNAMARA. I have to go back to the same phrase that started us out on this under the criteria." The services would be attempting to reason under whatever the Defense criteria would be on these fields. Mr. BATES. After all that is done, somebody must exercise a judg

I am trying to find out who exercises that judgment. Is it the services?

General McNAMARA. I think the services would be the best and most proper answer.

Mr. BATES. If the service doesn't refer something to you, you don't take it under your wing?

General MCNAMARA. I believe that is an accurate statement. I think that is true.

Mr. Hardy. To button this up, then, let's take a big item and this is common to all the services. They all use aircraft. Under what sort of circumstances would there be authority to bring the procurement of aircraft under the Defense Supply Agency? I am not talking about weapons systems now.

General MCNAMARA. I have nothing under aviation.

Admiral LYLE. He says under what circumstances could aircraft be referred to DSA.

Mr. BLINDFORD. Under this criteria there is nothing to stop DSA from taking jurisdiction over the procurement of aircraft; isn't that correct, General!

General MCNUMARA. Wait a minute. The procurement of aircraft could be classified as a weapon system. If it is such, then we certainly would have nothing to do with the buying of the end item aircraft.

Mr. Hardy. There is a small percentage of the aircraft that are actually a combat aircraft.

Mr. BLANDFORD. You have a criteria that was written by an individual. The individual could merely change the criteria and eliminate category A. There is nothing in the law that refers to category A. So the Department of Defense could say they were not bound by category A and therefore category A no longer exists, therefore all weapon systems could be purchased by DSA and nothing in the world could stop them.

General McNAMARA. I point out again I act under a charter, as you know.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Isn't the answer to the question "You will procure anything the Secretary of Defense determines you will procure?" Isn't that the answer?" You work for the Secretary of Defense.

General MCNAMARA. I sure do.

Mr. BLANDFORD. If he tells you to buy 5-inch guns for all destroyers, you will buy 5-inch guns for all destroyers. All he has to do is change the category, strike out one word

General MCNAMARA. All right.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Isn't that the answer?

General McNAMARA. I think that is the proper answer. He hasn't as yet, as you

know. Mr. BĽANDFORD. No. The point is that the law says "common to more than one service," and we have already established that even though it is peculiar to one service you still do this purchasing for that service, so therefore the law doesn't mean a thing.

General McNAMIRA. I recognize the point, but again I bring out the fact that I can't speak to the law. I am not a lawyer. All I am saying is that I am a soldier doing a job that is assigned to me, and I do have a charter, and I am doing pretty well by that charter, I might add.

Mr. BLANDFORD. I don't think anybody is criticizing you for what you are doing. The point is to determine what your successor can do someday, and Mr. McNamara's successor. and the true answer is if this criteria is legal, and nobody is questioning it except the subcommittee, obviously they can turn over the procurement of every• thing to DSA and you could become the fourth service of supply and go into complete distribution and everything else.

This is conceivable since they are basing it upon a statute, even though the statute says it has to be common to more than one service.

We have already established this doesn't restrict you from taking on an item that is peculiar to one service; therefore the law doesn't mean anything. It isn't restrictive in any way.

General MCNAMARA. If I may try to get back to the vein of thought that I am attempting to give here this morning, and that is a picture of DSA as it is and what we are charged with, then in the question period I will be glad to talk on anything

Mr. BLANDFORD. I think we have established what your successor could do someday. You are telling us what you are doing now and what your objective is, and we got into this common use and commonwe got into this matter yesterday when we were referred to this section as the authority for everything.

We find today, even though the law says common to more than one service, even though it is peculiar to one service, it still comes to you as a single agency.

Admiral LYLE. The law doesn't speak in terms of items.
Mr. BLANDFORD. No. This is an interpretation of what is common.

Mr. Hardy. That is what we are trying to establish, what "common use or activity” means. When you get into categories as broad as the ones that we have been discussing, then you can take into account everything, at least I don't see how you could leave out anything, and say that it is peculiar to one service.

If you say small arms is common to all services, you are taking in everything. You could get into boats. The Army has some boats

. You could get everything. I can't think of anything that under these definitions couldn't be procured under the Defense Supply Agency.

General McNAMARA. I find it difficult to think that the Secretary of Defense would reach out for

Mr. Hardy. Would do it, that may be. We are thinking in terms of what the legal possibilities are.

General MCNAMARA. I understand the point, sir.
Mr. Hardy. Maybe we should get back.
Excuse us, Mr. Short. If you could pick up where you left off.

Mr. SHORT. The following single-manager assignments were made in 1955: The assignment for subsistence, food, was given to the Army.

In 1956Mr. Hardy. May I interrupt? We have DCA people here and we will continue these hearings right straight through the lunch hour if necessary to get to DCA, so they can complete their testimony here sometime within the near future.

Mr. SHORT. In 1956, clothing and textiles were assigned to the Army as single manager; traffic management to the Army; and medical and petroleum supplies to the Navy. And ocean transportation to the Navy. Airlift services was assigned to the Air Force.

In 1959, the general supplies assignment was given to the Army. "General supplies” meaning generally household, office-type equipment and supplies, hand tools, and such items. Industrial supplies, meaning small hardware, nuts, bolts, and so forth, plus paint and metal shapes went to the Navy.

In 1960, the construction supplies assignment was made to the Army, and automotive supplies was assigned to the Army.

Mr. BATEs. Those single managers were set up for economy and efliciency?

Mr. SHIORT. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATEs. We had a limited emergency last fall. We called up the Army Reserves and National Guard. They didn't even have clothing to give to the men.

Mr. SHORT. I think the Army

Mr. BATES. We could save a lot of money in cutting down inventories. It looks good on the record. The thing is, are we ready to move when we need to move and have the things that we need?

General McNAMARA. I find no fault

Mr. BATES. I find fault when we call up a limited number of men and we don't have the clothing to give them. That I find fault with.

General MCNAMARA. Then we are going to have to go back to who figures the requirements for the various types of things that are in these single managers

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »