Because it is a little bit confusing.

Mr. Moor. It isn't hard.

You requested, the last time we were up here, a copy of project 100, which was a study which resulted in the establishment of DSA.

You will find a page of statistics in that study which says—

This is the inventory which, if all of these categories are placed under DSA, will amount to $21 billion worth of inventory.

That is the source of that figure.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Well

Mr. Moor. And another column on that table, in that same study, says this is the procurement associated with this inventory. And that is the procurement figure.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Let me tell you where you are going, then, Mr. Moot, so this can be very clear.

And again I will quote Mr. Gilpatric.

Because all we are trying to do is establish this, that is all. No one has been critical of it as yet.

Mr. HARDY. I am critical of the fact that you all don't give us the full facts on this thing.

Mr. BLANDFORD (reading):

The items which I shall discuss are those in the field of defense management, which we think should be of interest to the aerospace industry, affecting its own operations and plans.

since they were talking to the AFSC management conference.

Now, I am quoting Mr. Gilpatric. And if you don't know where you are going-I don't mean you personally, but I mean if we can't determine where we are going, this is where I think we may be heading.

If I may quote Mr. Gilpatric?

Generally speaking, these steps have had a common design, namely, to bring together and establish more centralized control over functionally alike activities in the Military Establishment.

Now, you remember we got into the question of activities with the admiral?

There, Admiral, is your answer as to where you are going.
Mr. HARDY. We have to leave.

Mr. BATES. We have a quorum call.

Mr. HARDY. We must adjourn.

Now, Mr. Blandford, in view of the apparent misunderstanding that we have developed here over what the committee wanted with respect to the Gilpatric statement, I want to ask that you check the record against the submission.

Mr. BLANDFORD. All right, sir.

Mr. HARDY. And if there are any inadequacies there, we will try to get them cleared up.

But frankly, I am a little disappointed in the kind of situation that developed here this morning.

So the committee will now stand adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.)

Hon. PORTER HARDY, JR.,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense Agencies,
Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives.

HEADQUARTERS,

DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY, Washington, D.C., June 14, 1962.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reflecting on my testimony before your subcommittee on June 13, 1962, I am concerned that my replies may have created the impression of unresponsiveness to some of the committee's questions. I assure you that this certainly was not my intent, and is not part of my nature.

I can recall two areas which may have created this impression. These areas were concerned with my personal opinion as to what limitations should be placed on any responsibilities which could be assigned to the Defense Supply Agency in the future, and whether I felt that the National Security Act required amendment to clarify how supply and service responsibilities could be divided between the military departments and the Defense Supply Agency.

I thought I had answered one of these questions in my prepared statement, which I read to the committee at the beginning of my testimony, and the other part when I furnished to the committee in writing the views of Mr. Cyrus Vance, General Counsel of the Department of Defense, on the principal legal issues that had arisen during the course of the committee hearings. You will recall that in submitting Mr. Vance's views I stated that his views satisfied me insofar as legal issues regarding the Defense Supply Agency are concerned. However, since my subsequent answers may have led to some misunderstanding, I shall try to clarify matters in this letter.

First, as I indicated in my statement, it is my personal opinion, based on my experience, that weapons systems and other major items of equipment which reflect the highly specialized requirements of the military services that use them should be developed, procured, stored, and distributed by the military departments. With respect to the management of the remainder of the supply and related service activities performed in the Department of Defense, I think these should be assigned to the Defense Supply Agency whenever from a departmentwide viewpoint they can be more effectively performed, or more economically performed without loss of effectiveness, by one Defense agency for all the military services.

Second, while I recognize the committee's concern and its apparent feeling that more restrictive legislation may be necessary to prescribe definitively how the Secretary of Defense may divide supply and related service responsibilities between the military departments and the Defense Supply Agency, quite frankly I do not share the committee's concern or its feeling in this respect. To my knowledge, every step that has been taken culminating in the creation of the Defense Supply Agency has been taken after careful study and thorough consideration of all the facts pertaining to the area concerned, and has been the result of cooperative effort among responsible officials of the Department of Defense, civilian and military. It has been my experience that each area studied has required and has been characterized by an approach tailored to fit that area. It is my personal opinion that the Secretary of Defense must have the discretionary flexibility now provided by the National Security Act in order that this selective, tailored approach may be continued in connection with any further areas which may be considered for integration. Personally, I believe that if the National Security Act were amended to make it more restrictive in this respect it could have an undesirable effect on military supply because it would be difficult if not impossible to be sure that the same principles, beyond the broad principle now reflected in the law, could be applied to all areas which might come under consideration.

It is my impression that the committee feels that the law as now written is satisfactory provided it is executed with discretion and good judgment, but that some time in the future it might not be so executed. I feel that the concept I outlined above is so soundly based and widely accepted that any Secretary of Defense would have difficulty in placing in the Defense Supply Agency or any other agency responsibilities that properly belong in the military departments, and that there would be ample opportunity for the Congress to exercise its proper control.

These are my personal views. Beyond these, I do not feel it would be proper to express my personal opinions because, as I tried to indicate in my statement, only the Secretary of Defense is in possession of the full range of facts on which to evaluate the existing total organization of the Defense Department to insure that its logistic organization is, as it must be, consistent with the military command and defensewide activities which it must support. I have not yet had the opportunity to review the record of my testimony; while it may not clearly indicate that this was the reason for my statements regarding further consultation with the Secretary of Defense, it was in this light that I made those statements.

I request that this letter be included in the record of the hearings of June 13. Sincerely,

Hon. PORTER HARDY, Jr.,

A. T. MCNAMARA, Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Director.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense Agencies,
Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives.

HEADQUARTERS,

DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY, Washington, D.C., June 29, 1962.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Answers to specific questions raised by you and Mr. Bates have been incorporated in the transcript of the June 13, 1962, hearing on Defense agencies before your subcommittee. If you desire further information on these and other matters, I shall be pleased to furnish it.

Review of the hearing record also suggests that amplication or explanation of certain areas would be desirable, to insure that the subcommittee is fully and accurately informed on the matters discussed in the hearing.

With reference to the discussion on pages 422-426 of the transcript concerning the piece of paper identified by Mr. Blandford as "Executive Directorate, Logistics Services, Magnitude of Tasks," and "V-27," which suggested the possibility of assignment to the Defense Supply Agency of certain personnel support services, I wish to advise that although I did not recognize the paper at the time. I have identified it as a page from a publication entitled "Operational, Organization, and Manning Concepts for Defense Supply Agency," commonly referred to as the DSA "blue book." This publication was prepared by my planning staff prior to the formal activation of the Defense Supply Agency on January 1, 1962. Admiral Lyle did not recognize the paper or the quotation therefrom. The "blue book" predated his reporting as my Deputy and he had no connection with its preparation. Mr. Short and Mr. Moot also did not recognize the paper. although they had assisted in the preparation of and, like myself, were generally familiar with the document in which it was contained. Mr. Moot, in particular, participated in the development of the "blue book," but had largely confined his attention to those portions which dealt with resources needs.

The page in question was in the "DSA Organization" portion, part V, of the document, and dealt with the Directorate of Logistics Services. It outlined the assigned activities which would come immediately under the supervision of that Directorate. It also mentioned, in the paragraph dealing with present departmental assignments, certain "personnel support services *** which may be suitable for integration under the DSA concept" as illustrative of additional service activities which might be assigned.

The decision to include these personnel support services in the "blue book" originated in my office. The passage quoted by Mr. Blandford was not a proposal to seek the assignment of these services to the Defense Supply Agency, but was for the purpose of providing for the placement in the proposed headquarters organization of such service activities as proper authority might later approve for assignment to this Agency. The functions in question came from lists of common service activities cited as requiring management improvement in the reports of the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress and which were among those under consideration in Department of Defense Project 81 (initiated March 8, 1961). They were not mentioned in the specific recommendations contained in the "blue book."

With reference to Mr. Blandford's point that the cited paper was an indication that someone in authority considered the assignment of these service func

tions to DSA as authorized under the law, I have no recollection and cannot find that this question arose or was ever considered in connection with the preparation of this material.

Mr. Blandford asked (p. 461 of the transcript) whether I had heard of “any rumor or any plan being considered or discussed to put the Defense Supply Agency under the Joint Chiefs of Staff?" I replied that I had not heard of such rumor or plan. I am not aware of any plan currently under study, consideration, or discussion to change the present relationship of the DSA to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I am aware, of course, that this was included as one of the organizational alternatives for consideration by the Project 100 Committee and the Secretary of Defense prior to the decision to establish the Defense Supply Agency. This matter was discussed in Mr. Short's testimony on Tuesday, June 5. With respect to my description of Secretary Gilpatric's address to the Air Force Systems Command Management Conference at Monterey, Calif., as "offthe-cuff" remarks, my statement was based on the transcript of his address, which made it clear that he spoke extemporaneously, or off the cuff, instead of using a formally prepared speech. I have since been advised that 9 days after delivery, the edited transcription of the Secretary's remarks was issued in a formal press release. I was not aware of this at the time of my testimony. I request inclusion of this letter in the record of the hearing. Sincerely,

A. T. MCNAMARA,

Lieutenant General U.S. Army, Director.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE AGENCIES

OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, D.C., Wednesday, June 27, 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.

Mr. Secretary, we are glad to have you back with us this morning. In the course of these hearings we have run into a few points upon which we need some further clarification. And I think there are quite a number of items which have arisen that are not entirely clear.

In fact, I think there may be a few cases in which there is some conflicting testimony. And in the course of the next few days I hope we will be able to clear these up.

I am sure you can help us considerably in that direction.

In order to keep these points in proper sequence and to develop them logically, Mr. Bates and I have been over them with Mr. Blandford. So Mr. Blandford will, on behalf of the two of us, do most of the interrogation this morning.

Mr. Bates and I, of course, reserve the right which we exercise rather freely, anyhow, of injecting our own views and our questions at any point.

(Mr. Bates nods.)

Mr. HARDY. But I believe that in order to get started as quickly as we can and to keep our questions in the best possible sequence, I will ask Mr. Blandford to start in now and take these items up one at a time. And we will try to develop them as we go. We certainly appreciate your presence, Mr. Secretary.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT S. MCNAMARA, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; ACCOMPANIED BY CYRUS R. VANCE, GENERAL COUNSEL

Secretary MCNAMARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HARDY. Thank you.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Secretary, your General Counsel, Mr. Vance, has referred to section 202 (c) (6) of the National Security Act which is commonly referred to as the McCormack-Curtis amendment. It is unnecessary for me to repeat the language of that amendment, except that portion which says:

He-referring to you as the Secretary

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.

In addition, the law goes on to say that

A supply or service activity common to more than one military department shall not be considered a major combatant function.

I think it is fair to say that the subcommittee, as a result of the testimony we have received, is convinced that there is no activity conducted by the military departments that is exempt from that amendment under the interpretation that has been placed on it by your General Counsel and those who testified.

Now, Mr. McCormack talked about the operation of supply and service functions, and Mr. Vance has referred to Mr. McCormack's comments in this regard.

We think it might be well to take into consideration Mr. Vinson's comments on these amendments, which he agreed to, because of his understanding of the amendment.

Mr. Vinson said

Its purpose is to bring about a more unified and economic 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, from whom the four services are buying medical supplies, clothing, and other items.

There is no objection from our side to this amendment.

Shortly thereafter, Mr. McCormack complimented Mr. Vinson with regard to his explanation of the amendment, by saying:

The gentleman from Georgia is doing it much better than I could.

Mr. McCormack also said, which Mr. Vance has not quoted, in reply to the following question from Mr. Devereaux who was then a Member of the House:

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, and all of that.

To which Mr. McCormack replied:

In relation to supply and services in some limited respects it probably could be done, but certainly in the field in which this amendment is confined, I think everyone recognizes that we should make progress because this is the field in which we could eliminate duplication and common use items.

So you see Mr. Vinson and Mr. McCormack were talking about common use items and procurement.