years in this matter in the Air Force, to give you a review of how not only these particular decisions, but a good many of those taken last year, were arrived at. He can do this very quickly, if the committee would like.

Mr. HÉBERT. He could only do it as related to the Air Force? Secretary MORRIS. That is correct, sir.

Colonel LEDBETTER. That is correct, sir. I have no knowledge of Army or Navy requirements or bases.

Mr. HÉBERT. Before you do that let me just ask one question. Because this is important and I want to get it in right now. I want to know where this decision was made, how it was made, and why it was made.

Why was the release of this data handled in such an unusual manner, and contrary to the manner in which closures have been handled in the past, as related to the Members of the Congress?

In this particular instance you will recall that nothing was said. It was a high secret, locked in the safe. And like a swarm of locusts, at 9 o'clock on the morning that these announcements were made, individual letters were hand delivered to the individual Members of Congress whose districts were affected, at 9 o'clock in the morning.

They had no previous knowledge of it. And it was also very much of a coincidence that it happened on the morning when Congress was recessing for the Easter holidays, and all the Members were leaving. Now why was it handled in this manner? And who made that decision?

Secretary MORRIS. Sir, there was nothing unusual, as I understand it, about this handling, except the fact that instead of several hours advance notice to the Congress, due to the particular timing of the press conference that had been arranged, there was less time available.

In other words, the previous actions, some 100 that I referred to, I am informed, were handled normally on a case-by-case basis, by making an advance letter notification to the Congress, followed by a press release 3 to 4 hours later. This is my understanding.

Mr. HÉBERT. Well, I think-your understanding may be correct as far as you know it.

But my appreciation of the facts is not in accord with that. Because I know that in certain cases it was not handled as it had been handled in the past. I know that.

Mr. HARDY. I know it wasn't in the case of the one with which I had some personal knowledge.

And I know also that the orders went down to the commanding officers of certain of these installations, with respect to specific time to open those orders and not to let anybody know about their existence until that time, and at that time he was to notify the press and call in his key personnel.

Mr. HÉBERT. May I ask here-Mr. Kilgore and Mr. Fisher, did you know about it until the letters were handed to you?

Mr. FISHER. No.

Mr. HÉBERT. You did not know about it.

Did you know, Mr. Kilgore?

(Mr. Kilgore nods negatively.)

Mr. HÉBERT. I think the record speaks for itself, Mr. Secretary.

Secretary MORRIS. As I say, to my knowledge this is no different from the past practice, with one or two exceptions, namely, that there was a large group announced simultaneously in this case.

Mr. HÉBERT. Here are two members sitting right here that tell you. We have been in Congress quite a number of years around here. And the four of us tell you this was a most unusual situation, in the way it was handled.

Mr. HARDY. This is not the first time there have been installations closed in my district.

Mr. HÉBERT. It is not the first time for me.

Mr. HARDY. And there has never been anything like this, in my 14 years of recollection, on the Armed Services Committee.

Now it was the craziest operation I have ever seen.

And there is one other aspect about this whole thing, Mr. Secretary, that bears on the qustion that I started out with, and that is the quesion as to how this thing was done.

Now I think maybe, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to call attention to how this committee got into the thing. Mr. HÉBERT. Yes.

Mr. HARDY. I received some specific information about it. And I talked to the chairman here about whether or not we shouldn't get into it. And at his suggestion, I went and talked to Mr. Vinson, and urged that he undertake a study of this thing. And Mr. Vinson agreed to it. And he talked to our chairman of the subcommittee. And then a letter was sent out, over Mr. Vinson's signature, asking for the information on these things.

Now, supposedly you must have had all your data gathered before you made your decision.

Secretary MORRIS. That is correct, sir.

Mr. HARDY. But how long did it take you to even acknowledge that letter? How long did it take you to get up to an office where somebody should have known about it?

And from that time on, Mr. Secretary, there was intense scurrying around trying to find some basis to send some facts up here to this committee.

And I have a little bit of personal knowledge about it, which came over the grapevine, which may be wrong. And if it is wrong, I sure would like to have it corrected.

Secretary MORRIS. Well, sir, you are talking personally to the man who received the letter and had the responsibility for the response, and my assistant, Mr. Fore, who actually prepared the response.

We have had-and I have considerable material on all of these

cases.

Our desire in each case has been only to respond in the way that the committee needed information, so far as we can learn of that need. Mr. HARDY. Couldn't we have the chronology, then, on the supplying of this information and what happened in the meantime? Secretary NORRIS. Well, certainly, sir.

Mr. COURTNEY. You want to put this in the record?
Mr. HARDY. I think it is important.

Mr. HÉBERT. It is important.

Mr. COURTNEY. For the record.

The letter of inquiry from Mr. Vinson went forward announcing his purpose to have this subcommittee inquire. And that was dated on May 2, 1961, directed to the Secretary.

The letter of acknowledgment is dated May 10, 1961, and was received here on the following day, and this is directed to Mr. Vinson. Mr. HÉBERT. Put Mr. Vinson's letter in the record.

Mr. COURTNEY. I would like at this point to put Mr. Vinson's original request and, for the chronology, the response.

Mr. HÉBERT. Yes.

Mr. COURTNEY. Which is May 10.

(The letters referred to are as follows:)

Hon. ROBERT S. MONAMARA,

Secretary of Defense,

Department of Defense.

MAY 2, 1961.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I have directed the Subcommittee for Special Investigations to make a study of the economy and efficiency to be achieved by the closing of bases, stations, and other installations, some 72 in number, recently announced by the Department of Defense.

I, therefore, request that you arrange to submit the justification data assembled by the departments, to the subcommittee. By "justification," of course, I mean the data assembled by your Department in support of the action taken and the economies to be effected thereby.

Formal hearings are not contemplated at this time or until a full study has been completed, for the information of the committee.

Because of the fact that many of these moves are to be made in the very near future, I would appreciate the information being made available at the earliest convenient time.

Sincerely yours,

CARL VINSON,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services.

THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, May 10, 1961.

Hon. CARL VINSON,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to your letter of May 2, 1961, I am pleased to enclose data sheets covering each of the 52 military installations in the continental United States at which operations are being reduced or discontinued, as announced on March 30, 1961. These sheets outline the reasons why these bases were selected for reduction or closure, and provide details on the personnel changes involved and the savings in operating costs to be attained.

An announcement covering the remaining 21 installations involved in this closure action, all of which are located outside continental United States, has been held in abeyance pending notification of the governments of the countries involved. As soon as this notification is accomplished, I shall provide your committee with similar justification data covering these additional installations. I believe it is important to point out that we have developed, in accordance with the President's instructions, a program to assist the personnel and communities affected by base closures. Constant attention is being devoted to improving these measures which include the establishment of special employee placement offices; the phasing of closure actions to minimize the impact on employees and communities; and assistance to community leaders in planning readjustments and productive uses for facilities declared excess. We are being joined in these efforts by the Departments of Commerce, Labor, Health, Education and Welfare, and by the General Services Administration, the Small Business Administration, and the Civil Service Commission.

I am well aware of the interest which your committee has always displayed in the efficient utilization of our installations, and I know that we can count on its strong support in our recent actions and in our future efforts to dispose

of excess bases and facilities. This program conforms to our stated policy of disposing of all real property which is not essential to the support of current or future military requirements. We feel very strongly that this program to eliminate excess property holdings and to curtail unnecessary expenditures is of great importance to the Military Establishment and to the Nation, and we earnestly seek the cooperation of all concerned in its execution.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT S. MCNAMARA.

Mr. COURTNEY. Now, there is, so far as I know, no written record since that time, excepting-well, let Mr. Sandweg supply the details. Mr. SANDWEG. I think that in addition to Mr. McNamara's letter, since there is this question arising now, the enclosures to Mr. McNamara's letter should also be inserted in the record, because they contain a very short and concise summary of the basis for each enclosure.

Following the receipt of this communication, the Department of Defense was requested to supply additional and more explanatory data concerning this matter.

Mr. HARDY. Now let's understand what that original consisted of. Because it didn't consist of anything other than a conclusion.

It didn't present any factual data which provided the basis on which the action was taken, did it?

Mr. COURTNEY. These are 30 pages, Mr. Chairman, which covered the whole list of 50 some odd bases.

Mr. HÉBERT. I think that should be placed in the record.

Mr. GAVIN. Who brought this to the attention of the chairman, so that he wrote a letter?

Mr. HARDY. I did.

Mr. HÉBERT. Mr. Hardy did.

Mr. GAVIN. I see.

Mr. COURTNEY. Now as you know, of course, as we understand this morning, the subject has been narrowed down to the specifics of this morning.

Mr. HÉBERT. We understand

Mr. COURTNEY. This letter covers, of course, a great many things which we are not concerned with.

Mr. HÉBERT. We want it in the record, so the record will be complete.

(The material referred to is as follows:)

JUSTIFICATION DATA COVERING DEFENSE INSTALLATIONS TO BE REDUCED OR DISCONTINUED IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES 1

1

PHASE OUT THE ORDINANCE DEPOT ACTIVITY LOCATED AT REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALA., AND TRANSFER THE FUNCTION TO THE MISSILE COMMAND

This activity, located on the premises of the Redstone Arsenal, employing 169 civilian personnel, has been used for reserve storage of general supplies and ammunition. Since an excess of general and ammunition storage space is available at the Anniston Ordnance Depot, Anniston, Ala., it is planned to transfer the workload from Redstone to Anniston in the near future. An annual savings in operating expense of $913,000 will be realized.

It has been determined that the facility being released can be immediately applied to meet a new requirement of the Army Ordnance Missile Command for the storage of missile materiel, thus avoiding new construction.

Job opportunities for the 169 personnel released from the Ordnance Depot Activity will be available both at the missile command and the Anniston Depot.

1 The following were announced in Department of Defense press release 269-61, dated Mar. 30, 1961. The statistical data are in most cases as of Dec. 30, 1960.

DECLARE AS EXCESS UNNEEDED PORTIONS OF ALAMEDA ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ALAMEDA, CALIF.

This installation has 1.4 million square feet of administrative and warehousing facilities used by the Military Subsistence Supply Agency, the California National Guard, and the Navy. About 25 percent of the facility will be gradually released during the next 2 years by relocating portions of these activities into available space at the Presidio of San Francisco and the Oakland Army Terminal. This will achieve a reduction in overhead costs of approximately $750,000 per year. A reduction of 80 civilian positions is anticipated when the activities are fully relocated.

The facilities released will be declared excess and turned over to the General Services Administration for disposal. The remaining portions of the center will be utilized by the Military Subsistence Supply Agency as a storage and transshipment point for perishables; and by the Navy as an adjunct to the Alameda Naval Air Station, which adjoins the center. (Three warehouses will be used by Navy.)

INACTIVATE AND DECLARE AS EXCESS BENICIA ARSENAL, BENICIA, CALIF.

The Army Ordnance supply and maintenance system in the Western States contains six major facilities which are being utilized at only 60 percent of capacity. This is resulting in unnecessary costs estimated at $28 million per year. Surveys have been made to select those installations which can be efficiently phased out over the next 3 years by consolidating their inventories and activities into fewer locations.

It has been found that the Benicia Arsenal is one of the two best suited to accomplish these objectives. (Mount Rainier Ordnance Depot, Wash., is the other selected.) Benicia Arsenal lacks the prerequisite safety area for storage of ammunition and missiles and thus cannot fulfill multiple-purpose Ordnance Corps storage and maintenance missions efficiently and economically.

A 3-year plan of phaseout has been developed under which the Benicia maintenance and supply responsibility will be shifted to Sierra, Calif., and Tocele, Utah. In calendar year 1964, when the phase out is completed, the arsenal, which had an acquisition cost of $32.6 million, will be declared excess and turned over to GSA for disposal. Annual operating savings of $15.4 million are anticipated.

The Benicia Arsenal has 2,322 civilian positions, of which 1,327 will be a net savings after workload and payroll are transferred to other points. The reduction in employment will be accomplished during the 3-year period, by normal attrition, transfer of employees with the mission, and retraining for other assignments. A special personnel office will be established for this purpose.

DECLARE AS EXCESS AIR FORCE PLANT NO. 10 (NORTHROP), HAWTHORNE, Calif. This plant was constructed in 1943 at a cost of approximately $4.6 million for aircraft production. The contractor is presently using the facility for aircraft and missile production. The property is being reported to the General Services Administration to determine if a sale of the property to the using contractor, Northrop Aircraft Co., can be negotiated.

This proposed disposal for fiscal year 1962 will cause no loss of employment. DISCONTINUE STAR COM MINOR RELAY STATION (ARMY) LOS ANGELES, CALIF., BY TRANSFERRING TRAFFIC TO DAVIS, CALIF.

This is a minor manual relay station in the Army teletype network serving 14 military activities in the Los Angeles area. The station is in General Services Administration owned and operated space. By fiscal year 1963 the primary relay station at Davis, Calif., will be augmented and automated to a point where it can, with greater efficiency, absorb the traffic now being handled by the Los Angeles manual station. The reduction in operation will eliminate 20 civilian positions and provide an annual savings of $65,000.

INACTIVATE AND DECLARE AS EXCESS ELLIOTT ANNEX TO THE NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER, SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

The Elliott annex consists of 117 acres and 209,000 square feet of covered storage space located in the vicinity of the Naval Supply Center at San Diego.