Letters, statements, etc.-Continued Royar, Rear Adm. M. L.-Continued Page Percentage ratio of naval personnel ashore versus naval personnel 282 Price paid for a consignment of green coffee__ 316 287 314 171 170 Schweizer, John E., Marking Device Association, St. Louis, Mo.: Letter from Chas. K. Schweizer Co., to Director of Purchases, United States Government Printing Office, June 16, 1952 Letter from Elmer F. Way, secretary and general manager, Marking Device Association, Chicago, Ill., to John Schweizer, Letter from E. Q. Cannon, Jr., Salt Lake Stamp Co., to Congress- man Herbert C. Bonner, August 27, 1952....... Letter from George O. Stump, assistant contracting officer, Office of the Chief of Ordnance, Washington, D. C., to Pannier Corp., Pittsburgh, Pa., July 24, 1952 Letter from Lt. Col. John B. Deane, Seneca Ordnance Depot, Romulus, N. Y., to Charles K. Schweizer Co., November 2, Letter from Maj. W. L. Horton, USAF, Dayton, Ohio, to Superior Marking Equipment Co., July 6, 1951. Letter from R. W. Redin, vice president, Superior Marking Equipment Co., to Headquarters, Eight Hundred Sixty-second USAF Specialized Depot, July 11, 1951- Letter from W. P. Southwell, Sr., San Antonio, Tex., to John Teletype from Daniel H. Campbell, director of purchases, War Department request for proposal and contractor's proposal.. Strnad, Lt. Col., Medical Service Corps, chief, Army Liaison Division, questionnaire Munitions Board Medicine Supply Support Tests, Ward, Elmer H., chief, Management Office, Utah General Depot: Letter from B. A. Monaghan, department counselor, Depart- ment of the Army, to Congressman Herbert C. Bonner, Novem- Labor costs of shipping and receiving operations per ton shipped Department of the Army supervisor pledge- Way, Elmer F., secretary-general manager, Marking Device Asso- 175 169 578 579 158 Exhibits St. Louis Exhibit 3.-Marking Device Association, officers and directors, 176 Alameda Exhibit 1.-Presentation of the depot commander and staff of the Alameda Medical Depot on the Munitions Board Medical Supply Oakland Exhibit 2A.-Paint_manufacturing shop, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, Calif.-Report on cost study of operations for the Oakland Exhibit 4.—Cross-servicing agreement for supply of roasted coffee to NSD Seattle, implementation of, September 18, 1952.. Oakland Exhibit 5.-Report on cost study of operations for the period March 27, 1952-June 26, 1952, inclusive, coffee roasting plant, Naval Supply Center, Oakland, Calif.. San Francisco Exhibit 1.-Committee print, briefings on supply relation- ship between GSA and the Department of Defense, August 8, 1952-.-- San Francisco Exhibit 2A.-Letter from Ray Ward, staff director, Inter- governmental Relations Subcommittee, to National Coffee Association, San Francisco Exhibit 2B.-Letter from Edward Aborn, president, Na- tional Coffee Association, to Ray Ward, August 6, 1952_ San Francisco Exhibit 2C.-Letter from Edward Aborn, president, Na- tional Coffee Association, to Ray Ward, August 28, 1952. San Francisco Exhibit 3.-Information about coffee-purchasing methods employed by the Veterans' Administration, and Federal Specification OF THE COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS,1 The Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations met at 9:30 a. m., Monday, August 18, 1952, at headquarters, Air Matériel Command, U. S. Air Force, Dayton, Ohio, Hon. Herbert C. Bonner (chairman) Present: Representatives Herbert C. Bonner, chairman; (Mrs.) Cecil M. Harden, Charles B. Brownson, and Thomas B. Curtis. Staff members present: Thomas A. Kennedy, general counsel; Ray Ward, staff director; and Herbert Roback, staff director, Reorganiza- Air Force members present: Hon. Roswell Gilpatric, Under Secre- tary of the Air Force; Lt. Gen. E. W. Rawlings, commanding general, Air Matériel Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base; Maj. Gen. W. H. Tunner, deputy commander; Maj. Gen. M. E. Bradley, Jr., Directorate of Procurement and Production; Maj. Gen. C. A. Brandt, Directorate of Maintenance Engineering; Brig. Gen. L. R. Parker, Directorate of Supply and Services; Brig. Gen. W. T. Hefley; Col. C. Pratt Brown, commanding officer, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base; Col. James A. Mullins; Col. Lester W. Light; Col. W. E. Carter; Col. W. B. Packard; Col. Lee W. Fulton; Col. William E. Sault; Clarence Mr. BONNER. The subcommittee will come to order. Before proceeding with the hearings, I have the honor to introduce to you the members of the subcommittee and the fine staff. On my left is Mrs. Harden, ranking Republican member; next is Mr. Brownson of Indiana; next is Mr. Curtis of Missouri; my name is Herbert C. The staff members are: Thomas A. Kennedy, general counsel of the full committee; Ray Ward, staff director of the subcommittee; and 1 It is a genuine pleasure to be able to accept the invitation of Secretary Gilpatric to come to Dayton to learn as much as possible about the operations of the Air Matériel Command. Certainly no one can contend that he knows all of the detailed workings of your great organization. Members of the Congress have a tremendous responsibility in passing legislation and in investigating the operations of government and must, of necessity, rely more or less, on general principles, and to a large extent upon the application of common sense. We all know of our staggering national debt, which exceeds $260 billion. We know that the annual budget is in the magnitude of $80 billion. In view of world events, we know that we are and must engage in large-scale spending for years to come. We know from our own experience and from the excellent report of the President's Materials Policy Commission that we are getting to be more and more a have-not nation with respect to national resources. We know firsthand from our overseas experience that we are scouring the face of the earth to procure critical and strategic materials so vitally necessary for our defense efforts. From these facts we know that the time is coming when we will be like many of the countries in Asia, Asia Minor, and Europe which have depleted their national resources and have ceased to be important powers. During the Eighty-first Congress we started detailed studies of supply management, particularly in the military services. We have found many evidences of overlapping and duplication in the common fields of supply. Our report No. 658 was critical of these practices, and some of the criticism was directed to the Air Force. Later we made an inspection trip around the world and saw the same wasteful practices carried on in many places. Our more recent report No. 1994, based upon some 1,500 pages of hearings, is perhaps more critical of the Air Force, since it was very evident to the subcommittee that the Air Force intended to set up its own supply service even for common items and perhaps to set up other technical service groups as well. I mean by this ordnance, chemical, engineer, signal, and so forth. O'MAHONEY AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATION ACT The reports and hearings of the subcommittee were used extensively during debate in the House and in the Senate and led to some important appropriation cuts and legislative action taken in both the House and the Senate. The so-called O'Mahoney amendment (sec. 638 of the Department of Defense appropriation bill, 1953), stems in part from the information provided by this group. We feel also that recent action by the Secretary of Defense in the establishment of a logistic command in Europe, in stopping further Air Force supply expansion in Europe, and in strengthening the Munitions Board with the issuance of the new charter endorses and supports the subcommittee's work. AIR FORCE SHOULD TAKE LEAD FOR UNIFICATION We are all very proud of the Air Force and feel that it is a wonderful organization; and, as I recently stated, it constitutes our first line of offense and defense. We need a powerful Air Force, and we need it now. At the same time, it is the feeling of this group that the Air Force has been making a mistake in playing the game of the Army and the Navy, insisting on being completely autonomous in supply where it is not necessary and in creating triplicating facilities for common services. If the Air Force, which is a new group and unfettered by too long tradition, would take the leadership in fighting for unification where unification is practicable, I believe that untold sums of money would be saved and that the Air Force would be undoubtedly the biggest benefactor through the savings. May I urge upon you gentlemen to consider this thought very seriously, and you can certainly rely upon the support of this subcommittee in helping you in such a cause. If, as Secretary Finletter stated, all that stands between us and a strong Air Force is money, any savings effected in supply management can be translated into air strength. I understand that your plans are to present a briefing to the subcommittee and that we can then see what is to be seen within the available time. I would suggest that we meet again tomorrow for a question and answer period. As you know, we have decided to spend two full days at this command. Gentlemen, the Congress of the United States has reached a limit in raising taxes, and yet the operation of the Government continues to call for more money. As we stated in our trip around the world to various groups, we have scraped the bottom of the barrel and we cannot go any farther. It is necessary that the Congress, both Democrat and Republican Members of Congress, apply themselves diligently to the subject of reducing the tax burden on the American people, and you gentlemen are just as much interested in this as any other citizens of the United States. I don't know of any group of men that I admire higher than those who wear the uniform. It is with no spirit of criticism or a personal desire to criticize that I or any of our subcommittee have begun these inquiries. It is for what we think is in the best interest of the country. We are open to suggestions to see whether we are right or whether others are right. SECURITY MATERIAL Now, with respect to the proceedings, it has been the custom of this subcommittee in the past when we have held hearings that the hearings have been gone over by the various departments of the Government for the extraction of security matter. This subcommittee and the full committee and its staff are cleared for security. It was my plan this morning to hear what you may have to say and leaving out security or restricted matter. Mr. Brownson has with him his secretary who has not been cleared by the full committee or the chairman of the full committee; so I wanted to ask you, General, that question. Mr. BROWNSON. Might I suggest that if there is any restricted matter, that there would be no hesitation at all about Mr. White's leaving during that portion of the testimony. However, I think it would be very helpful, in view of the difficulties that we ran into in our trip around the world, to see that any restricted matter is clearly labeled beforehand for the record so that we may have a clear differentiation between the restricted parts and the parts of the record which we will later be able to print. After the restricted matter was taken out of our reports on the trip around the world, we find in reading the printed hearings that there are many |