fense is now separated by seven strata of authority from the civilian staff to whom are assigned the technical details. If the staff seek top-level approval of a phase of cataloging operations, or of a budgetary request, it must have clearance by the executive group, by the technical group, by the agency group, by the procurement section, by the procurement policy council, by the executive committee of the Munitions Board, and by the Board itself, before it reaches the Secretary of Defense and his immediate staff. Although an extreme example of the channels of authority in Munitions Board operations, it illustrates a general situation. Simplification can undoubtedly be achieved; and it must be, if this undertaking, universally recognized by military authorities as of crucial importance to national defense, is to be completed and made effective within the work schedule of 4 years.

With these recommendations in mind, I have introduced a bill, H. R. 321, entitled "The National Defense Catalog Act." I am taking the liberty of attaching a description of this bill that appeared in the January 10, 1949, Congressional Record. This bill assigns to the armed services the authority and responsibility for developing a catalog system to meet the needs of their military supply system. By providing representation at both the policy and operating levels for other Government agencies and for industry, the catalog system may not only reflect the comparatively simple needs of the civilian agencies but shall be in conformance with civilian practices as far as possiblewithout detracting from military needs.

Supply cataloging functions have been defined for the first time so that everyone will know the rules of the game.

The general pattern of a catalog organization and system is described without attempting to limit the flexibility in setting up the detailed procedures.

Above all it provides that the Secretary of Defense shall have the same clear, unmistakable responsibility to develop the necessary tools to carry out his supply responsibilities that the National Security Act vests in him for supply of the armed services, without interference from other Government agencies, but within the framework of overall Federal policy. Only in this way can the Secretary of Defense be made accountable for the improvements in the supply procedures so much desired, not only by this committee, but by the Armed Services Committee and every Member of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the committee, I would like to insert in the record the statement to which I referred, which appears. in the Congressional Record under date of January 10, 1949.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Without objection that request is granted. (The statement referred to follows:)

THE NEED FOR A SINGLE SUPPLY CATALOG FOR THE ARMED FORCES

Mr. Speaker, the bill entitled "National Defense Catalog Act," or H. R. 321, may be the key to unification of the services that the Congress prescribed in the National Security Act of 1947. It could be used as a pattern for the manner in which all the functions performed by the services may be organized and handled and it so affects every other operation of the services that in solving this single problem the way is open for the solution of many others.

When a log jam blocks the movement of logs down the stream, keen eyes search the log jam for the key log. When this is dynamited out, the log jam is broken and the logs resume their steady course down the stream.

Passage of H. R. 321, by solving the supply catalog problem, will remove the key obstacle that has been holding up unification.

Among other things the bill provides for the following:

The Secretary of Defense is directed to establish a single supply catalog to be used by all units of the National Military Establishment and is empowered to

issue the necessary directives to the services to see that this is done. Apparently the National Security Act is lacking in this authority.

The Secretary of Defense is authorized to delegate this authority to the Chairman of the Munitions Board who is directed to assign this authority to a single competent person, a Director, who shall report directly to the Chairman. This eliminates the "administration by debate" that is hamstringing the entire Military Establishment. The qualifications of the Director should be carefully considered. A big name or a brass hat will not achieve a workable catalog system; that has been tried in the past. What is needed is a man having a knowledge of industry, of military supply and cataloging, and who, if possible, is an engineer. Perhaps the appointment of the Director should have the approval of Congress.

Under the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Munitions Board the Director will be responsible for establishing all policies and for seeing that all operations pertaining to cataloging are carried out properly and efficiently.

A National Defense Catalog Agency is established within the National Military Establishment on the staff of the Chairman of the Munitions Board whose organization shall be determined by the Director.

Cataloging is defined for the first time. At the present time every unit of the National Military Establishment has a different idea of cataloging. This is about the same situation that would result if the term "widgeon" meant to one person five elephants, to another one cow, to another a flock of geese, and so forth. It is almost impossible to discuss over-all cataloging in the services because of the confusion as to terms and definitions.

As in any well-run organization, the top staff will establish policies and procedures and resolve differences arising in the operations units.

All operations are to be delegated to operations agencies to be established with the approval of the Secretary of Defense in the supply services and bureaus or in any common supply agency established by the Secretary of Defense, such as the Army-Navy Procurement Agency. The head of such operating agency will be appointed with the approval of the Director of the National Defense Catalog Agency and will report only to the head of the supply service or bureau. This is extremely important because catalog operations, if they are to be of the greatest service to supply operations, must be carried on so that both appear to be one great operation. If it were possible for desks of the two men charged respectively with supply and cataloging to be placed next to each other, the maximum efficiency and economy would be achieved in supply operations. One of the principal reasons for the failure of catalog operations carried on by the Government has been the separation of supply and catalog operations.

To insure that the policies and schedules of cataloging are coordinated within each department, the Secretary of the Army, Navy, and Air Force are directed to designate a staff officer whose sole responsibility will be to perform these functions and advise the Secretary as to the status of cataloging operations. This officer will not perform any actual operation; consequently he will not need a large staff.

One of the most important and far-reaching provisions is that which directs the head of the National Defense Catalog Agency to assign each item of supply carried on the records of any supply activity of the National Military Establishment to one and only one of the catalog operations group where all catalog operations will be performed on it, including identification, writing descriptions, establishing standards, and publishing the information in the catalog. This information when published will be used by all supply activities of the armed forces. Although the same criteria used to assign catalog responsibility could be used to assign procurement responsibility, no attempt is being made at this time to assign item-procurement responsibility. The benefits to be derived from establishing a single supply catalog system for the armed forces are so great that it is believed best not to attempt to assign procurement responsibility at the same time. After the catalog system is operating, it would then be comparatively easy to assign procurement responsibility.

In order to provide an incentive to the services to cooperate in the establishing of the catalog system, it has been directed that no item may be used by or procured for the use of the services unless the catalog agency has had a chance to analyze it and catalog it. The Director is empowered to determine after what period items cannot be used by or procured for the services until they have been cataloged. This will be done in such a manner as to prevent delay in supply operations.

An advisory council is provided whose representation includes the officers on the staffs of the Secretary of the Army, of the Secretary of the Navy and of the

Air Force; also it includes representatives from industry, from other interested Government departments and perhaps from Allied Nations. This council will be purely advisory and will in no way detract from the responsibility of the Director. Additional specialized representation from industry, from other technical services or bureaus, or from other interested departments may be provided as an advisory committee assisting the head of each catalog operations division. Industry has yet another channel of contact through the inspection or quality control service. With the authority to assign items and functions to catalog operating agencies, must go the authority to consult upon, advise, and approve the budget of any catalog operating agency before it is submitted to the budget officer of the department.

In this way I believe it is possible for Congress to assist the National Military Establishment in achieving unification, assist indutry by simplifying the multiplicity of Government specifications and regulations, and above all, reducing the tremendous waste and inefficiency of military supply operations.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, if there are any questions I shall be only too happy to try to answer them.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Blatnik, do you have any questions?

Mr. BLATNIK. I have no questions.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Harvey?

Mr. HARVEY. No, Mr. Chairman; I think I would much prefer to have some time to study and digest this very fine statement first. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Bolling?

Mr. BOLLING. Do I understand your basic premise is that the defense needs of this country occupy a predominant place in our total national and governmental economy?

Mr. ANDERSON. That is correct.

Mr. BOLLING. In the foreseeable future?

Mr. ANDERSON. Oh, very definitely. Not only in war, but even in peacetime.

Of course, in wartime it just expands tremendously. Now, I have no particularly criticism of the services for duplication and waste which occurred during the war. We started almost from scratch, with our Navy at the bottom of the sea in Pearl Harbor, and our Army practically none, and we grew like a mushroom, and of course those mistakes and those duplications were bound to occur.

But now we can sit back and take an objective view of this situation, and let us make the corrections that are necessary so we do not again repeat the mistakes that might very well occur if we had another war. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I have here before me the ArmyNavy catalog, the medical catalog, and I think the medical service is entitled to the committee's commendation as well as that of the Congress for what they have accomplished. They are now 99 percent in conformity on the cataloging system. And the key to an efficient supply system is cataloging.

Of course, there is going to be resistance; we all realize that, but in my opinion you cannot have anything even approaching a single procurement system, a subject in which this committee is interested, until we get a single supply cataloging system, so that every item that is procured by any branch of the service is known by the same, exact designation number.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Anderson, I can assure you that we all appreciate the time and effort you have given to this matter, and the fine statement you have made to the committee this morning. As Mr. Harvey has said, it will take some study on our part to really digest it, because it covers a very wide field, and it covers so many things

about which we need to ask additional questions and to secure additional information.

Mr. ANDERSON. I shall be happy to come back at any time that suits the committee's convenience.

Mr. HARVEY. I was going to suggest that you give us a little time. in which to digest this matter, and I was going to suggest that Congressman Anderson be given an invitation to come back for further discussion.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think that will probably be a wise procedure. Mr. ANDERSON. I will be available to the committee at any time. Mr. HOLIFIELD. There are a few things that occurred to me in going through your bill which I would like to ask you about.

In the first place, throughout the bill you indict our Federal supply procurement, both on the part of the military and the civilian level; do you not?

Mr. ANDERSON. That is correct.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. And your statement

Mr. ANDERSON. I do not want to put it quite that way, Mr. Chairman. I would not say it was an indictment, but more of a strong criticism.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. It was a strong criticism.

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. So that regardless of whether the work was done by the military agency or the civilian agency it has not been done as well as it should be.

Mr. ANDERSON. That is absolutely correct.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The duplication of items which you refer to here on page 6 of your statement, for instance, where you speak of the Navy Department trying to reduce its own military items from the present 50,000,000 items to 25,000 items, or a reduction of 1,000 to 1, so that the Navy Department has not, within its own right, adopted the efficiency which it should have adopted.

Mr. ANDERSON. They are making an effort.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes.

Mr. ANDERSON. I am afraid their efforts are such that they will never come up with an efficient cataloging system until we have a single supply catalog system for the armed services and for the civilian agencies, and to do that we will have to have some congressional action. Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is right. That is, of course, right along the line that we are thinking.

You make some statements in here in which you say-and this again is on page 6 [reading]:

It is curious that the armed services did all right as long as they were left alone.

I do not think you can sustain that position. They did not do so, they have not done so and they are not doing so; and the interference of the Federal Supply Procurement, which you protest against in this presentation of yours, has been so small-in fact, there are only four members, as I understand, of Federal Supply, who are now functioning with the different Military Standardization and Cataloging Boards, and that by virtue of the fact there are only four of them it has small effect on the military cataloging system. As I understand their function is more or less that of a liaison activity, so I am not

accepting that part of your statement as placing the blame on them in the attempt to develop a standard stock catalog.

Also I want to say that the criticism which your committee, or the Hoover Commission report contains, is a criticism of both the military and the civilian supply?

Mr. ANDERSON. That is correct.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Now the primary difference, as I see it, in your presentation here is, that because the military procurement represents sixsevenths of our total Government procurement, you maintain they should dominate the procurement

Mr. ANDERSON. Just a moment; may I clarify that?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes.

Mr. ANDERSON. My bill sets up a Director of Cataloging.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes.

Mr. ANDERSON. Under the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes.

Mr. ANDERSON. My attempt is to take in the military first, which is by far the biggest part, as far as procurement of supplies in the Federal Government is concerned, and once that is set up as a going concern it would be comparatively a simple matter to bring in the civilian agencies, then you could have the appointment of a Director of Federal Cataloging. Do you see what I have in mind?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes; I think I do. In the first place, you use the six-sevenths figure, which is based on the procurement of both the military and the common-use items?

Mr. ANDERSON. That is correct.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Until we have the break-down to see whether that is correct, or what the procurement problem, the percentage between the military items end the common-use items, we are still lacking the proper figures to go ahead on.

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. In a cataloging program. Now let us assume, for the sake of argument, and I am taking these figures out of the air, that 60 percent of the military procurement is for common-use items, and 40 percent of it for special items of a military nature, military specifications, but 60 percent is procurement of the common-use items which are used by the civilian branch of the Government. Then would you not agree with me that with proper liaison between the two, the civilian procurement on the one hand and the military agency on the other, that the job is mainly a civilian procurement job?

Mr. ANDERSON. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. If those figures are right?

Mr. ANDERSON. In the first place, I do not think your figures are correct. I think the ratio is wrong, that you would find the commonuse items probably a great deal less, as far as the military is concerned, and that the procurement of items that are actually needed for military purposes is the greater percentage.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Very well, but on that basis

Mr. ANDERSON. May I just complete this thought?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Certainly.

Mr. ANDERSON. I shall obtain those figures; I am sorry I do not have them with me this morning, but I will attempt to obtain the figures, as well as the percentage of the common-use items that are pro