In 1964, equipment in the amount of $10.4 million from the Redstone weapons system was returned from several locations in Europe to the continental United States. Transfers of this equipment were made to NASA; Smithsonian Institution; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Geological Survey and Land Management in the Department of Interior; Forest Service, Department of Agriculture; Office of Naval Research, Naval Propellant Plant, Naval Ammunition Depot, Department of Navy; National Science Foundation; and National Institutes of Health. Smithsonian Institution also acquired some items from the Corporal system in the amount of $20,300.

All dollar figures are original acquisition costs.

In cooperation and coordination with the Department of Defense, arrangements were made for the return to continental United States of large dollar value excess items located in overseas areas.

Turkey..

Scrapers. Caterpillar.

Pumps, tractors, and graders..

Keelong, Taiwan.

AID for use in Greece, Brazil, and
Korea

1963

1 $20,000,000 "Jupiter" missile support equipment. $6,400,000 NASA, $13,600,000 (AEC) (NSF) (NAVY, ONR).

Note: Residue of approximately $800,000 donated to eligible institutions.

Mr. ROMNEY. One further question. On page 4 of your statement you refer to the reprograming of the inventories and the job that was done by the computer attached to the Army Supply and Maintenance Agency of COMZ.

It is my understanding that COMZ has now been relocated?

Mr. ZARETZKY. That is right.

Mr. ROMNEY. Now, does the relocated COMZ have the same capability and does it perform that same function?

Mr. ZARETZKY. Yes, sir.

USE OF EXCESS MILITARY PROPERTY IN FRANCE

59

Mr. ROMNEY. There has been no change despite the relocation? Mr. ZARETZKY. One of the commentaries on this move is that we did not lose control for a moment of our stocks in Europe, despite this tremendous movement.

Mr. ROMNEY. I think it would be helpful for the record if one of the witnesses might comment, Mr. Chairman, on the distinction between wholesale and retail supply functions. This is a specialized term which may not be completely understood except as explained by the people who use it in their special competence.

Would someone distinguish between the common understanding of those terms and your specialized use of them?

Mr. ZARETZKY. Let me try for all of Defense, and then if you want detail with respect to Army, they could elaborate.

Wholesale inventory is that inventory which the Inventory Control Point-the manager-has on his books and is stored in what he considers his depots. In the continental United States, for example, in the Army the Inventory Control Point is aware of every item that is stored within the depots in the continental United States. This is wholesale inventory.

When those items are requisitioned by a post camp or station, for example, Fort Dix, that inventory goes on the Fort Dix records. When Fort Dix issues something to a user, this is the retail inventory that he issues to the consumer, and he replenishes his stock from the wholesale inventory in the depots that are under the cognizance of the Inventory Control Point.

This is true also in the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marines. It is the same way.

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Zaretzky, you spoke on page 3 of stocks in France that had been gradually declining for operational reasons. Is that a technological matter, or what were you referring to there?

General CASE. There had been some limited drawdown of the stocks in France for over a year before De Gaulle's announcement. A major part of that drawdown had to do with our combat vehicle fleet; vehicles were taken out of depot stocks in France, where they had been stocked against reserve requirements, and issued to the 7th Army. In turn, vehicles were withdrawn from the 7th Army and brought back into depot stocks, usually in Germany, where they could be either washed out of the system if they were too old, or rebuilt and put in reserve stocks.

We did this so that all our vehicles-those in use, those in the hands of troops, and those in the depot system-would age and accumulate mileage at an even rate so that when the vehicle finally became obsolete we did not have some brand new obsolete vehicles, and other vehicles that had a high amount of mileage on them.

Mr. MONAGAN. That had no relation to the political situation?
General CASE. It had no relation to the political situation.

Mr. MONAGAN. Although you were moving from one country to another?

General CASE. In addition to that, as some items became more critical owing to competition with Southeast Asia, we were required to take items out of the reserves in France for current needs and requisition replacements which didn't arrive during the period.

Mr. MONAGAN. I don't know that I actually asked this question, but it involved-I think I asked about construction of other facilities in

82-554-67-5

volved in the move to Germany would be the construction of some storage facilities. Is that so?

Mr. ZARETZKY. Yes, sir.

Mr. MONAGAN. And do you have any estimate of what the cost of that construction will be?

Mr. ZARETZKY. General Heiser, would you like to take that?

General HEISER. Mr. Chairman, I have some figures that I can quote. Authorized and funded through fiscal year 1966 and fiscal year 1967 there is a total of approximately $10 million that is involved in storage facilities, and a part of this also is involved in those things pertinent to storage, such as the headquarters that General Case has, the SMA headquarters, which supervises all storage.

R

Now, I can get a breakout for you of this.

Mr. MONAGAN. Can you furnish it?

General HEISER. We can submit it for the record; yes, sir.

(The following information was subsequently submitted for the record :)

Storage and logistics-related construction in Europe-Authorized and funded through fiscal year 1966 and fiscal year 1967

Storage facilities, Germany.

Ammunition Renovation Shop, Miesau.......

Facilities required by the relocation of Hqs, U.S. Army Communications Zone to Worms, Germany and the Supply and Maintenance Agency to Zweibrucken_-_.

Storage facilities, United Kingdom....

Total_

Programed $6,931, 000 360,000

1, 545, 000 706, 000

9, 542, 000

Mr. MONAGAN. Is there a separation between NATO and the facilities that you are talking about? These are simply storage for equipment, but then the NATO headquarters in that move would not be within your jurisdiction or concern?

General CASE. No.

Mr. MONAGAN. And who would be concerned with that, Mr. Zaretzky?

Mr. ZARETZKY. Our International Security Affairs Office in OSD can answer those questions. I have Mr. Mullen from that Office, if you have any specific questions you wish to direct.

Mr. MONAGAN. I would like to just have that, if you have that figure on the cost of transfer of the headquarters.

Mr. MULLEN. I would have to provide the figures on the headquarters itself, and in terms of SHAPE headquarters and NATO headquarters. But it is in the range of $12 million.

Mr. MONAGAN. Would there be any further storage facilities and personal property involved relating to NATO of any substantial degree, as distinguished from what we have talked about here? Mr. MULLEN. No, sir.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Would the chairman just yield for a second on that?

Mr. MONAGAN. Go ahead. You ask all the questions you want. Mr. COPENHAVER. In regard to that, Mr. Zaretzky, is it not correct, though, that we are keeping a record of all the costs that are being incurred by the United States to move out of France, in that we seek to approach NATO to request that they will contribute partially to the cost of our moving out, even though we are talking about U.S.-owned

property as opposed to NATO-owned property? Would you agree

with that?

Mr. ZARETZKY. That is right.

Mr. COPENHAVER. In that regard, there may be some NATO-financed costs for this?

Mr. MONAGAN. There is in theory, but in fact there has been a lag.
General HEISER. This is what they call "infrastructure."

Mr. COPENHAVER. That is right. Shall I go ahead?

Mr. MONAGAN. Please do.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Mr. Zaretzky, in connection with the Army you had screened all Army equipment and all GSA equipment above a certain figure, and this is property located in France. Now, at the same time I understand that over a hundred thousand tons of property located in Germany had to be made excess-was declared excess to make room for the property coming in from France. Would that be a correct statement?

Mr. ZARETZKY. I am not sure about the figure, but the philosophy is right.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Similarly, perhaps, some in the United Kingdom? Mr. ZARETZKY. Nothing in the United Kingdom.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Was the property that was declared excess in Germany screened through the identical procedures-by the Army-as was the property in France?

Mr. ZARETZKY. That is correct.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Do you have a breakdown of that property which was declared excess? How much of that was disposed of according to different channels, for example, disposed of as surplus and picked up by AID or sent back to CONUS? Could you perhaps supply that figure for the record?

Mr. ZARETZKY. I am sure we could.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Like you have done it in your statement, with the amount, for example, disposed of as surplus and the dollar value. That would be very helpful.

Mr. ZARETZKY. It is available.

Mr. COPENHAVER. I forgot, frankly-did you say that you could have a breakdown on broad categories of the type of equipment from France disposed of as surplus? Is that possible-a broad categorical breakdown?

Mr. ZARETZKY. If you mean ammunition, for example, versus trucks and other items, I am certain that can be provided.

Mr. COPENHAVER. In that case, if you could do that for Germany, too, it would be quite helpful.

General HEISER. We will try to do this, but-you see, if we break it down we could probably break it down by class-but I would like to be sure, sir, that we work with you, because it may be difficult to break it down within the class, for example, parts away from vehicles and that sort of thing.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Actually I am just seeking a broad categorical breakdown.

In this regard, I wonder if you also could supply for the committeewith the Chairman's permission-a breakdown, shall we say, for fiscal year 1966, and maybe through January 1, 1967, or March 31-whatever you can-of the total surplus property disposed of in France and the United Kingdom, and here is what I am getting at. I want to see

whether in fact there was perhaps a significant increase in surplus property disposals out of Germany as a result of that which we pulled in from France, if you are following what I am trying to say. Because perhaps we haven't saved a great deal if we have pulled out of France but disposed out the back door in Germany.

If you have some kind of historical comparison, the year before the pull-out and the year of the pull-out, you could give me a good historical comparison. Is that possible?

Mr. ZARETZKY. Let me ask.

Colonel DAVID. When you say "surplus," are you talking about that property which we sold?

Mr. COPENHAVER. I mean both types. That declared excess to the theater, shall we say, and to the command.

In other words, I am trying to cut down your work if I can, so perhaps if I could hold it down to that screened back to the inventory control points in CONUS, if you wish.

Colonel DAVID. The most accurate information we can give you is that property which we have sold in those two countries during that period of time.

Mr. COPENHAVER. All right. If you can give me that comparison of the surplus disposals, the sales

Colonel DAVID. The sales; right.

Mr. COPENHAVER. That would be helpful, Mr. Chairman, I believe. (The following information was subsequently furnished by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and Logistics) :)

DISPOSITION OF EXCESS AND FOREIGN EXCESS PERSONAL PROPERTY AT ARMY PROPERTY DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES IN EUROPE1

1 Excludes sales (other than scrap). (For sales figures, see following:)

SALES OF U.S. ARMY AND AIR FORCE FOREIGN EXCESS PERSONAL PROPERTY IN FRANCE AND GERMANY FISCAL YEAR 1966 AND FIRST HALF OF FISCAL YEAR 1967