Page images
PDF
EPUB

man.

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. Chair-

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]:

6 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 and 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?

Mir. 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

[ocr errors]

cured by the military and that could be used by the civilian agencies and have them with me on my next appearance.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. We will be very glad to have those figures.

If the greater percentage of the military expenditures are in the field of peculiar military items, is it not true, that H. R. 2781 does not interfere with that procurement at all, because that procurement, by exemption of the Secretary of National Defense, will still remain in the military?

Mr. ÅNDERSON. If I can accomplish the objective which I am seeking to accomplish under this set-up, this single cataloging system

Mr. HOLIFTELD. (interposing), I am in favor of that objective

Mr. ANDERSON. (continuing). In the military service, I can see the day when this can be expanded to include all.

Now we may just as well be frank about all of this, because the natural corollary of single cataloging is single procurement, and, that of course will find objections from the various sections of the armed services, but I do not ask to have single procurement until we have a single catalog. In other words, to attempt to obtain single procurement first it seems to me is putting the cart before the horse.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. It seems to me, in referring to a single catalog, that it would be more logical to break it down into the military specification items and the common-use items and have it in two catalogs.

Mr. ANDERSON. Why do that when the common-use items will be in the same catalog that would be applied to the civilian agencies?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Let me put it this way, I meant a separate section in the same catalog; I did not mean two separate catalogs, two separate books, but we do have those two problems in Government procurement.

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. We have the problem of the civilian procurement and the military procurement.

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. And certainly I would say that, in the field of military procurement, the military should have first sway over that; and in the field of the common-use items, if we are going to concentrate and consolidate all of these different purchasing agencies to prevent duplication and overlapping, and inefficiency and actual waste in times of emergency, in wartime particularly, it seems to me it would be necessary to bring the civilian and the military common-use items together.

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. In a standardized catalog.
Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, that is quite true; I agree with it.

I Mr. HOLIFIELD. And then it is a matter of policy as to whether the civilian agency shall use it to procure, the actual procurement of those items or whether it is the military.

Mr. ANDERSON. That is absolutely right.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. It is a matter of policy.
Mr. ANDERSON. A matter of policy to be established by the Congress.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes. Is there any further statement ? Are there any further questions?

Mr. BOLLING. It seems to me that one of the things that may come out of this, if we were to establish all of these common-use items along with all of the military items, that is items peculiar to the military, in one catalog, the military establishment catalog, the conclusion

a

a

may be reached that we would be looking to the military to do the procurement, all of the procurement.

Mr. ANDERSON. No. Here is what I meant, Mr. Bolling: Under my bill you set up a Director of Cataloging under the Secretary of Defense, and if that is eventually set up and it works—and it can be made to work, I know that-it may be the policy of the Congress later on to include the civilian agencies and set up a director of Federal cataloging who would not be under the Secretary of Defense. He might be an independent director of cataloging, and as I say, the natural corollary to that is single procurement, and the Congress might, in its judgment, establish a director of procurement. Do you see what I mean?

Mr. BOLLING. I do.
Mr. ANDERSON. So there would be no conflict at all.

Mr. BOLLING. It seems to me that the basic problem is the one of handling the common-use items, because nobody can argue that the peculiarly military items should be procured by other than the people who are going to use them.

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes.

Mr. BOLLING. The question then resolves itself into whether the common, over-all procurement is to be dominated by the military or by the civilian, which I think is the key question.

Mr. ANDERSON. I will be glad to bring the figures to you, but again, may I say, it is a matter of policy for this committee to submit to the Congress, and one which the Congress will eventually have to settle.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. As a matter of fact there is involved the question of domination of our civilian economy in peacetime. We concede that the military must dominate the civilian economy, through certain civilian allocation bodies, that our whole economy will be brought to bear on the war effort during wartime, but it seems to me that is a far cry from the question of the domination of our civilian purchases of common-use items for the military and for the civilian agencies in peacetime, and I would be very loath to proceed along a line which would give strength to the Military Establishment over our civilian economy in peacetime. As you indicate, that is one of the difficulties, of course.

Mr. BOLLING. I think it is very obvious, as regards the common-use items, that the military use is very large, and I think that is the key point to the whole problem. Shall the military procure for itself all of the items of common use? If it does the military will inevitably dominate the whole procurement pattern of the Government. I think we need to very carefully delineate what the common-sense items are.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the members of the committee for giving me this opportunity to present this statement.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. We appreciate very much your testimony, and the studies you have made in this field, and for sharing with us the benefit of those studies.

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you. I shall be happy to come at the committee's convenience.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Admiral Ring, how long will it take you to complete your statement ?

Admiral Ring. Not more than 10 minutes.

a

[ocr errors]

Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Chairman, I was going to suggest that we might come back after lunch and have a little more time for Admiral Ring.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. If it meets with the committee's approval we will stand in recess until 1:30 p. m.

(At 11 a. m. a recess was taken until 1:30 p. m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. HOLIFIELD. We will resume consideration of H. R. 2781, and we are pleased to have with us Admiral Ring. Will you please proceed in your own way, Admiral!

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. MORTON L. RING, VICE CHIEF, OFFICE

OF NAVAL MATERIAL, NAVY DEPARTMENT

Admiral Ring. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement which I will present, which will not take very long.

I would like first to identify myself. I am Rear Adm. Morton L. Ring; I am Chairman of the Procurement Policy Council of the Munitions Board.

I would like to first give you a statement with regard to the historical background of the Federal Government catalog efforts.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

THE MUNITIONS BOARD CATALCGING PROGRAM

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The first step toward the development of a common cataloging system for use by the various Federal agencies took place in March 1929, with the provision for the development and publication of a Federal Standard Stock Catalog (45 Stat. 1461).

The plan by which the Federal Standard Stock Catalog was to be developed provided that the head of each department concerned would be requested to report any articles which such department desired to be listed in the catalog. The scope of the Federal Standard Stock Catalog was never extended beyond the inclusion of those items submitted voluntarily for inclusion by various agencies. Its use by the military services was limited principally to standardstock items (general stores items) for the Navy and items of similar character for some of the services of the Army. However, to satisfy its own peculiar cataloging needs, it was necessary for each of the services, bureaus, and the Air Force to develop independently one or more systems of cataloging.

Due to the absence of a uniform cataloging system encompassing all items of supply, conditions which arose in the armed services during the war became so serious that both the War and Navy Departments took steps independently to establish their own uniform cataloging systems. These efforts on the part of the military departments emphasized the desirability for the establishment of a uniform Federal cataloging system. The grave need for uniformity in cataloging had been recognized also by the Bureau of the Budget, the Bureau of Federal Supply, and the War Production Board. Accordingly, President Roosevelt, on January 18, 1945, requested the Director, Bureau of the Budget, to take steps to establish a uniform Federal catalog system to include all items of Federal supply. In complying with the President's request, the Director established the United States Standard Commodity Catalog Board, consisting of a representative of the Bureau of the Budget, the War Department, the Navy Department, and the Treasury Department. This Board developed and submitted to the Director a plan for a uniform Federal catalog system.

The plan was submitted by the Director to President Truman, who in a letter dated July 15, 1946, expressed his desire “that further development of the Federal catalog system be continued through interdepartmental cooperation and joint working arrangements." He further requested that arrangements be made with

« PreviousContinue »