Page images
PDF
EPUB

do not remember; but the work going on at that time never had been help up in building the runway-taxiway apron system. There was no delay in that, and there was no change in that whatsoever while I was in command.

Mr. DONNELLY. When was your tour of duty over?

General HARDY. I am still on duty there; I was relieved by General Old about the 29th, the 28th of May.

Mr. DONNELLY. Before I develop this further, I wonder if we should not ask General Nold if the Corps of Engineers feels that, with respect to the relationship in April of 1951 between Colonel Haseman and General Hardy, the Corps of Engineers was receiving as much cooperation and coordination as it was entitled to?

General NOLD. Yes. That was a very difficult period. The planning of General Hardy was obviously difficult; he had many things to solve, and the construction period was very difficult. We had a goal to meet. The construction authorities necessarily were concerned about any interference, with the prospect of meeting their commitment. But that has nothing to do with the direct question that you asked me, except by way of explanation.

Mr. DONNELLY. If the Corps of Engineers had to do it over, would the corps want to control the communication facilities?

General NOLD. No, sir. We never have sufficient communication facilities at the start of a job. On this particular job the district's ability to get the messages rapidly, and so on, could have been improved, but it is quite desirable to have the communications under a central authority.

General HARDY. May I point out that there were very, very, very few messages that were held up. A large majority of them were transmitted without question.

General NOLD. I would like to say further, bearing on the question you asked me, that I attach no blame to that viewpoint. General Hardy desired not to transmit any message or disclose plans which he thought were very confidential, and the fact that it might have had some adverse effect on the construction authorities is another question.

EFFECT OF CHANGES IN MASTER PLANS

Mr. DONNELLY. With respect to these changes in plans, I would imagine that General Timberlake and General Myers would be the ones to comment on that. The chairman has in his hands the plans of the changes from time to time at Nouasseur.

General HARDY. May I say something off the record?

Mr. RILEY. Yes.

(Off-record discussion.)

Mr. DONNELLY. At Nouasseur we have here a series of master plans. First one approved by USAFE, May 15, 1951; the second one for Nouasseur approved by USAFE, June 12, 1951. The third one for Nouasseur was July 6, 1951, and the last, September 1, 1951.

The third stage master plan was November 28, 1951. Then we have another third-stage master plan, January 26, 1952; and a fourthstage master plan, preliminary, approved March 3, 1952; and a fourthstage master plant approved by USAFE March 18, 1952.

To what extent did this constant change in master plans affect the construction operations of the corps?

Colonel DERBY. It affected them quite a bit, in that we could not plan ahead of time as to work. As a matter of fact, a great deal of the work was done without what we call a mass diagram, that is, putting dirt here, picking it up and putting it over there [indicating].

That seriously affected the drainage plan, where we were required to keep under restudy the drainage system.

I would like to say, however, that while these were very serious inconveniences to us, we accepted them as being a normal part of doing a job in a few months that would normally be done in a few years. I think if you will look back over my previous testimony, where I described the way we carry out a project normally, I said that in the normal case we make the plans first before we build the job. That is not true on this job where we were required to make the plans and build at the same time. And it seems to me that this is something that one has to accept, that no one should object, and that includes going clear back to the using service who should be willing to pay the price of the time they want us to buy.

I certainly would be the last one to criticize their making the changes, but it did mess up things, but that is all a part of the price you have to pay for the job being done under such conditions, and if you want to find somebody to blame, you would probably have to go back to 1947 or 1948, when the planning should have been started but was not. That is the way I feel about it. That certainly had a horrible effect on any kind of planning of the work.

Mr. DONNELLY. You had two bases operational on July 14, 1951, to the extent the Air Force landed planes at Nonaseur and Sidi Slimane. Colonel DERBY. Yes.

Mr. DONNELLY. With respect to the construction of the runway and taxiways at the base, did the changes in plans in any way require you to tear up any of the construction you had done, or to move or change the strips you had completed at either of those two bases?

Colonel DERBY. I do not remember any such case-it may have required a little down at the south end at Nouasseur. We had done some stripping a part of the way for the refueling apron, and there was a change, but I think the amount of physical work that was abandoned would certainly be a trifle.

I do feel that the effect was to make it quite impossible for the architect-engineer to get out cross sections. It also affected the contractors' efforts to do what they could have done, had they had the plans ahead of time. It has a tendency to give the contracting people the impression that no one knows what goes on, it has quite a bad morale effect, but that was all a part of it.

Mr. DONNELLY. Did this have any effect on the drainage for the warm-up apron at Nouasseur?

Colonel DERBY. The warm-up apron-you mean operational apron? Mr. DONNELLY. The one where the failure occurred.

Colonel DERBY. Yes; there was some delay in the completion of the drainage.

Now, let me make one other point. If you leave Nouasseur for Benguerir, you find that we had to keep making changes in the plan there as the construction work has gone along, and at one time it resulted in shutting down on actual work, both men and equipment, for

96640-52-pt. 4-28

a period of 4 days while the architect-engineer caught up with his plans again.

That is perhaps the most glaring incident.

Mr. DONNELLY. Is there anything further any of you gentlemen wish to add?

General TIMBERLAKE. I would like to comment on this master plan statement that Colonel Derby made, but I do not know whether you want to take the time to do it this afternoon. We could not hear all of the statement. It was taken down, but we could not hear some of it, while people were talking.

Mr. DONNELLY. Could you do it in, say, 5 minutes?

General MYERS. I might comment briefly now, but I understand that we are going to have further hearings.

Mr. DONNELLY. That is correct.

General MYERS. Then we could do it then. I would say this, however, that in the initial set-up, as I said, briefly, the guidance and criteria, and, of course, the program, was going to be furnished to the district engineer, to Colonel Derby, by USAFE, by ourselves. We had an arrangement and an agreement that the architect-engineer who was employed by the district engineer would actually prepare the master plan; they would make the survey; they would make the borings and do everything else, and they would develop the master plan, and that is the relationship that continues to exist today as it existed all along, so it was actually the architect-engineer, working with Colonel Derby, who prepared the plan.

If there was delay in getting the plan prepared, that was not the fault of the Air Force, as long as the Air Force had furnished proper guidance, and only when we made changes, and then, of course, the Air Force was in it.

Colonel DERBY. Of course, each of the changes were dictated by the Air Force representatives on the job, and there was not the question of just a delay in putting out the plans, but it was a question of changes in decisions from various people.

General MYERS. The matter of pavement at Nouasseur, to my knowledge, there were no major changes made on the pavement at Nouasseur, which affected the work there. We can go into that in more detail, I think, later, after looking at the plans after they were prepared.

Mr. RILEY. Who had to approve these plans, General Hardy; was that done on the spot, or referred to headquarters?

General MYERS. They had to go to headquarters of USAFE.

Mr. RILEY. How long would that take; how long did it take to get the approval?

General TIMBERLAKE. I am not sure I got your question, but I do want to say this, that the man in the field had authority to approve anything that was necessary to get the work started, get the work in place.

Sometime we ought to go over the master plans which are in various gradations. You start out with the preliminary development plan and that goes through various stages, considering how far into the future you are looking, whether you are going to expand the base and build longer runways. That type of master planning has to be considered, and always you come up with some kind of compromise and you hit on what you eventually expect to get, what you would eventually like to have.

The first look we had at the master plan was when I visited Morocco in June of 1951; there I saw the layout which I thought was very extravagant. We asked it be sent to us, and I think we sent it back, with our changes, with the understanding, however, that nothing would be changed, and nothing would be done toward changes that would interfere with or would make valueless work already done.

Mr. RILEY. I think that gives us the picture. The committee will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow.

THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1952.

FUNDING OF CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS

WITNESSES

OFFICE, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

LYLE S. GARLOCK, ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER
COL. H. A. MORRIS

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET

WILLIAM SCHAUB, CHIEF, MILITARY DIVISION

ELLIS H. VEATCH, CHIEF, NATIONAL SECURITY BRANCH, MILITARY DIVISION

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

MAJ. GEN. G. J. NOLD, DEPUTY CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

BRIG. GEN. J. R. HARDIN, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF ENGINEERS FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

COL. GEORGE T. DERBY, FORMER DISTRICT ENGINEER, EAST ATLANTIC DISTRICT

LT. COL. L. L. HASEMAN, FORMER DEPUTY DISTRICT ENGINEER, EAST ATLANTIC DISTRICT

OTIS M. JERNIGAN, EAST ATLANTIC DISTRICT

AIR FORCES

MAJ. GEN. MANUEL J. ASENSIO, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET, DCS/C, HEADQUARTERS, USAF

MAJ. GEN. COLBY M. MYERS, DIRECTOR OF INSTALLATIONS, HEADQUARTERS, USAF

COL. ROBERT H. CURTIN, CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, DIRECTORATE OF INSTALLATIONS, HEADQUARTERS, USAF

MAJ. THOMAS R. FRENCH, CONSTRUCTION BRANCH, MILITARY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, DIRECTORATE OF BUDGET, HEADQUARTERS, USAF

LEWIS E. TURNER, CHIEF, MILITARY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, DIRECTORATE OF BUDGET

ARVIN E. UPTON, ESQ., ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

Mr. RILEY. The committee will please come to order. We will ask Mr. Donnelly to start the hearings.

Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. Chairman, one phase of the Moroccan air base construction program in which the committee is interested is the matter of funding of the construction operations by the affected services; namely, the Bureau of the Budget, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Air Force, and the Corps of Engineers; after Congress had appropriated the money.

The problem is created by the controls on appropriations which exist after Congress has appropriated the money. In order to trace the movements and transfers and allotments of the funds, it has been quite a job to go through the various services. We have had conferences with the Bureau of the Budget; the Office, Secretary of Defense: the Corps of Engineers; and the Air Force; represented here and covering all the levels here in Washington.

We have also had meetings with the representatives of the district engineer in Morocco, who had the job of building the bases, and had the need for the funds to flow in an orderly way.

SECTION 1211 OF GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT, 1951

In order to acquaint the members with the background of the apportionment system I have here the statute. I wonder if the members would like to read the statute as background. It is section 1211 of the General Appropriation Act of 1951.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that this section of the statute be inserted in the record at this point.

Mr. RILEY. Without objection, it will be inserted in the record. (The information is as follows:)

SEC. 1211. Section 3679 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (31 U. S. C. 665), is hereby further amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 3679. (a) No officer or employee of the United States shall make or authorize an expenditure from or create or authorize an obligation under any appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available therein; nor shall any such officer or employee involve the Government in any contract or other obligation, for the payment of money for any purpose, in advance of appropriations made for such purpose, unless such contract or obligation is authorized by law.

"(b) No officer or employee of the United States shall accept voluntary service for the United States or employ personal service in excess of that authorized by law, except in cases of emergency involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.

"(c) (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, all appropriations or funds available for obligation for a definite period of time shall be so apportioned as to prevent obligation or expenditure thereof in a manner which would indicate a necessity for deficiency or supplemental appropriations for such period; and all appropriations or funds not limited to a definite period of time, and all authorizations to create obligations by contract in advance of appropriations, shall be so apportioned as to achieve the most effective and economical use thereof. As used hereafter in this section, the term 'appropriation' means appropriations, funds, and authorizations to create obligations by contract in advance of appropriations.

"(2) In apportioning any appropriation, reserves may be established to provide for contingencies, or to effect savings whenever savings are made possible by or through changes in requirements, greater efficiency of operations, or other developments subsequent to the date on which such appropriation was made available. Whenever it is determined by an officer designated in subsection (d) of this section to make apportionments and reapportionments that any amount so reserved will not be required to carry out the purposes of the appropriation concerned, he shall recommend the rescission of such amount in the manner provided in the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921, for estimates of appropriations.

“(3) Any appropriation subject to apportionment shall be distributed by months, calendar quarters, operating seasons, or other time periods, or by activ

« PreviousContinue »