This report of the Military Operations Subcommittee is concerned with several problems in the disposition of excess and surplus military property. It is intended that another report concerning plans for administering this growing problem will be submitted by the subcommittee as soon as further hearings can be held with policymaking officials of the Department of Defense.

During the 1st session of the 83d Congress, this subcommittee heard testimony and reported on several aspects of military supply management, including the problems of identifying, utilizing, and redistributing property excess to the needs of the military departments, and disposing of surplus property. Following this preliminary inquiry, the subcommittee undertook an intensive survey of the surplus property problem with a major initial emphasis on a review of operations at the depot, base, post, camp, and station level.

This is a report of field inspections by members of the subcommittee at the following 10 military installations in the United States:

Camp Drum, Watertown, N. Y. (Army)
Warner Robins Air Force Base, Macon, Ga.
Jacksonville Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Fla.

Jefferson Quartermaster Depot, Jeffersonville, Ind. (Army)

Mechanicsburg Naval Supply Depot, Mechanicsburg, Pa.
Bayonne Naval Supply Center, Bayonne, N. J.

Cheli Air Force Specialized Depot, Maywood, Calif.

Advanced Base Supply Depot, Port Hueneme, Calif. (Navy)
McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento, Calif.

Sharpe General Depot, Stockton, Calif. (Army)

1

SECTION I

OBSERVATIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The military surplus property disposal program, although apparently administered within the letter of the established laws and regulations, is uninspired. The subcommittee gains the impression that the disposal of surplus property at the installation or depot level is considered by military officials as a necessary evil; as an unpopular and militarily unproductive drain upon manpower; as an unrewarding task; a potentially "hot potato."

The subcommittee observes that in many of the installations the backlog of disposable surplus property is accumulating at a faster rate than the sales can dispose of it.

The subcommittee concludes that the disposal of military surplus is a critical problem. The surplus-disposal problem is not insignificant in size. The problem is increasing in importance.

The subcommittee further observes a paradox. This unwanted child is not up for adoption.

The explanation, in part, appears to be based on a sincere conviction by some military officials that no one else can do this disposal any better. Their conviction is based upon the reportedly unsatisfactory War Assets Administration experience in disposal.

Part of the explanation for the paradox lies in the difficulties alleged to develop when nonmilitary personnel administer disposal operations on installations where military secrecy is necessary.

Still another reason for this paradox stems from the fear that the transfer of disposal responsibility to other agencies or to private individuals will not eliminate the need for a duplicate military disposal organization. Property accountability, redistribution responsibility, and disposal of low-cost unsalable items, it was alleged, would continue to be a Department of Defense function.

The subcommittee is pleased to hear that the Office of the Secretary of Defense is prepared to submit a program for the improvement of the disposal organization and of policies within the Department of Defense. In reply to the recommendation of the subcommittee in its third intermediate report, asking for a statement of plans for an effective and expeditious program of surplus property disposal, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Supply and Logistics), the Honorable Charles S. Thomas, informed the chairman on December 23, 1953, as follows:

Within the Department of Defense, the Secretary initiated on November 24 a program designated Operation Clean Sweep, designed to rid the military supply system of items surplus to its needs, assigning to the Assistant Secretary (Supply and Logistics) responsibility for the program. Attached hereto is an implementing memorandum of November 30 to the departmental Assistant Secretaries. In connection with the disposal program, the Navy has been assigned responsibility for development and coordination of a Department of Defense merchandising

8

Gyere dusecos.

1ne subcommiliee resymmends that the Secretary of Defense compdes amodigley mozne to bring about higher returns to the Government from the sales of surgius grogerty.

DISPOSAL PERSONNEL

Although the military services admit that the military ranks and civil-service grades of personnel in charge of disposal activities are low in view of the commensurate responsibilities, they argue that the activities and decisions of disposal personnel are subject to review by their more qualified superior officers.

The subcommittee observes, however, that merchandising genius is not much more inspired at any level of the military hierarchy, either at the field level or at the top level where regulations and policies are promulgated. Furthermore, it does not appear that the problem can be solved by adding more personnel and/or even more qualified personnel to administer the disposal sales programs under existing procedures.

The subcommittee concludes that the present practice of assigning low civil-service grades and low military ranks to disposal operations reveals either a serious lack of concern for the disposal program, or an unawareness of the special skills required for the effective merchandising of such a diverse range of technical and consumer goods. The subcommittee can offer only this general recommendation at this time: That the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of General Services consider seriously a fresh approach to this problem. It would seem imperative that some consideration be given to the possibility of utilizing the extensive experience of private industry in merchandising.

UTILIZATION AND REDISTRIBUTION OF EXCESS PROPERTY

The subcommittee notes several obstacles to an effective screening operation for redistribution of excess military property among the military departments. Presumably, additional screening of Department of Defense excesses among nonmilitary Government agencies faces similar difficulties.

A military service, in actual practice, is apprized of excess property which is available for redistribution from another military service through the medium of consolidated excess property listings distributed for the Department of Defense by the Surplus Materials Division (Department of the Navy). Such lists indicate the names of the items being offered, their condition, and whether fair value must be paid by the acquiring service.1 Visual inspection of excess property available for redistribution is rarely feasible prior to its receipt. Therefore, procurement officers must rely almost wholly on the information provided on such circularized listings. Unfortunately, such information is quite inadequate for several reasons.

One problem which plagues the whole system of military supply, from procurement through disposal, is the lack of adequate identification and standardization of military property. Both procurement and general supply offices are reluctant to inject nonstandard items into their already complex supply systems, and even where such reluctance may be overcome, differences in supply nomenclature may make it practically impossible for a supply officer to recognize the

1 Military services must pay fair value only for better excess property which was originally purchased through revolving stock funds or other capital working funds.

Nonmilitary agencies, with few exceptions, must pay fair value for all excess property except in the poorest condition.