In the system in General Services where you gentlemen work can you make suggestions as to how to operate this organization better, in your individual functions?

VOICES. Yes; there is.

Mr. BONNER. And do you offer suggestions as to how to operate your functions?

Mr. BONNER. Are there any other questions that the subcommittee desires to ask?

Mr. ROBACK. Just one point, Mr. Chairman: The question was raised at this briefing session back in Washington as to whether, if there were standardization of these items that were selected, these 124 items that would have made any difference to the possible conclusions.

In other words, if there were many variations of items would that have made the GSA's assumption of the supply of the military so complicated that results might have been, so to speak, negative rather than positive? And the answer was that that would have made no difference.

Those conducting the study stated that whether these items were standardized or not wouldn't make any difference as to the feasibility of GSA's distribution. These 124 items actually are only a few separate categories of items. For example, there are 7 items of computingmachine paper, 25 items of mimeograph paper, 13 items of manifold paper, and so forth. In other words, of the 124 items that were actually selected for scrutiny, there are just about 6 or 8 or 9 or 10 actually different items.

Mr. ROBACK. That is right.

Now, the question is, if there were standardization and effective cataloging of those items would that possibly make a difference as to the feasibility of the GSA supplying the military in this field?

Mr. LARSON. I should say obviously it would make it eminently more practical and easier to do, and obviously much more economical.

Mr. ROBACK. That seems to be a common-sense conclusion, and it was other than what was stated by the representatives of the survey at the hearing. I merely wanted the record to show that.

Mr. BONNER. Mrs. Harden, do you have any further questions?
Mrs. HARDEN. No further questions.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I would like the record to show that, while I am not a member of the Bonner subcommittee, I am intensely interested in this matter, as it does stem from legislation which was sponsored by the Holifield committee. And I want to express my thanks to Mr. Bonner for his courtesy in inviting me to participate in these hearings, and the ones that preceded it, which I was unable to attend. And also my appreciation to the other members of the committee, and especially my appreciation for the fine work that they are doing along this line. I think it is going to be of great value in the implementation of Public Law 152.

Mr. BONNER. I want to express again my thanks and the appreciation of the subcommittee for your full cooperation, and tell you that we have enjoyed being with you, and if there is any misunderstanding about any questions or answers or expressions, just let us know.

Mr. BRADFORD. Mr. Chairman, may I say for the record that it was a great honor for us to have your committee inspect our warehouse operation today, and we are very grateful to you for taking the time and having the interest to go down and really study it the way you

did.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, if I may interpose again, I would like to say that I am planning to take a different subcommittee to Seattle and to Alaska on another trip of committee business, but I would like to have the staff alerted, if you have a staff in Alaska, and I know you do have in Seattle. I would like to spend a few hours in each place looking into the GSA operation in those areas.

(Whereupon, at 5: 50 p. m., Tuesday, August 26, 1952, the subcommittee adjourned.)

FIELD CONFERENCES ON FEDERAL SUPPLY

MANAGEMENT-PART IV

(Section 1)

(Meeting held at Headquarters, Utah General Depot, Ogden, Utah)

THURSDAY, AUGUST 28, 1952

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES
IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS,1

Ogden, Utah.

The subcommittee met at Headquarters, Utah General Depot, Ogden, Utah, at 9:30 a. m., August 28, 1952.

Present: Representatives Herbert C. Bonner, chairman; (Mrs.) Cecil M. Harden, and Chet Holifield.

Staff members present: Thomas A. Kennedy, general counsel; Ray Ward, staff director; and Herbert Roback, staff director, Reorganization Subcommittee.

Also present: Hon. Harold Pearson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, Research and Matériel; Maj. Gen. P. H. Tansey, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-4; Maj. Gen. H. Feldman (retired); Brig. Gen. I. K. Evans; H. A. Abersfeller; Col. Alexander A. Dobak; Col. L. L. Skinner; E. H. Ward; Col. C. P. Cook; Maj. N. W. Davison; Maj. Thomas S. Braswell; É. C. Burnett; Rear Adm. C. H. Gillilan; Commander F. E. Johnstone; Lt. G. R. White; John F. Kinnemann; Shirley R. Shelton; Col. H. R. Volin; Maj. R. Pollack; William G. Leithiser; and Max W. Petersen.

Colonel SKINNER. Gentlemen, we are honored this morning by having with us Hon. Herbert C. Bonner, who will open the conference that we have this morning.

Mr. BONNER. The subcommittee will come to order. Colonel Skinner, and other gentlemen of your staff, this is a subcommittee of Government Operations Committee of the House of Representatives. Those present are Mrs. Harden, of Indiana; Mr. Holifield, of California; and myself. These are other members of the subcommittee who were unable to be present with us today, but they have been present on practically all of the other hearings we have conducted. The staff of the committee is composed of Thomas Kennedy, general counsel; Ray Ward, staff director of the subcommittee; and Herbert Roback, staff director of the Holifield Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization.

1 Name changed to Committee on Government Operations, July 4, 1952.

I am sure you gentlemen are aware of the fact that Congress delegated to the Committee on Government Operations the responsibility of investigation of expenditures of Federal funds in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of Government. The subcommittee therefore is a management committee. This subcommittee's concept of right is to get the most for the least and get the best for what we spend. We have reached the point in our national life when we must conserve and make better use of the materials we have. We are almost becoming a "have not" Nation. The competent Paley Commission on Mineral Resources has recently pointed out that we may be in critical need of many items by 1975. In other words, our wastefulness may deprive our children of the things that we have today. In addition to the procedure we have followed for years, we are, at best leaving an enormous debt for those who will follow after us—it is $260 billion now and growing daily. Our annual budget of $80 billion adds its weight to what may take years and decades to liquidate.

BULK OF BUDGET FOR MILITARY SUPPLIES

We know that the bulk of the budget is for military supplies and equipment. We have understood that there is an important merchandizing study being conducted here. This subcommittee has visited installations on the Atlantic seaboard; we have been out and visited certain installations on the Pacific coast; we have been around the world. We know there is a spirit of cooperation among the men in the armed services; we know the men in the armed services are just as interested in economy and efficiency as the Members of Congress and the membership of this subcommittee. The point is to find ways and means to bring this to pass and to get the three branches of the national defense to cooperate and work together to reduce unnecessary expenditures by cross-servicing, consolidation, and the interchange of ideas and to serve each other.

POSSIBILITIES FOR SAVINGS

Our reports and hearings gave the Senate a great deal of sound information on which to bring about amendments to appropriation laws during the last session and reductions in the Federal budget. I say these things not to brag nor to seek undue credit, but to illustrate the untold millions and billions that can be saved, in the opinion of this subcommittee. This subcommittee has not indulged in sensational publicity. We have tried to find the fundamental things to point out and to work on to get improvements. There are many things that we might have pointed out to the newspaper people, but we are interested in you; we admire the men that wear the uniform; we don't want to bring any undue criticism; we don't want to reduce the striking power of the armed services; we want to, if possible, lend such aid as we can to effect a more efficient striking power and a more cohesive striking power, both in the air and on the seas and on the land. So, with that, Colonel Skinner, you and your staff now tell this subcommittee just what you are doing and what you contemplate doing and how you propose to buy more efficiently and economically and change some of the old ways into more modern businesslike practices.

STATEMENT OF COL. L. L. SKINNER, COMMANDING OFFICER, UTAH GENERAL DEPOT

Colonel SKINNER. The Honorable Mr. Bonner, Mrs. Harden, Mr. Holifield, members of the congressional committee, and distinguished visitors, I am Colonel Skinner, commanding the Utah General Depot, and it is my pleasure this morning to welcome you to this installation. We hope that your visit will prove to be instructional as well as pleasant. Further, we sincerely hope that as a result of your visit you will be able to point out to us how we can improve our operation and assist you in your objective to obtain the maximum defensive value for each tax dollar expended. I do not believe the objective set for this depot differs materially from that of your subcommittee. However, our sole purpose for our existence is to insure that our combat troops have timely and adequate supply of all items which will insure the combat effectiveness of our troops in any situation they may face. I do not believe it is out of order to state that we realize our responsibility for the economical operation of this depot. However, the success we obtain in this respect makes us realize that even in this small segment of our supply system, there are areas in which economies can be effected. The elimination of these problem areas and the struggle to reduce the cost of each operation are a constant challenge to the depot commander.

MANAGEMENT OFFICE

To assist me in these problems I have a very efficient and active management office charged with management surveys, analysis of operations, and reappraisal studies, and to make to me recommendations to correct our deficiencies. I have with me on this platform this morning Mr. Elmer Ward, who is chief of my management division, who will later on address you and give you a more comprehensive picture of the statistical part of the depot.

In addition to that, at the depot at the present time we have Lieuenant Colonel Cook and Major Davison-Colonel Cook from the Office of the Comptroller of the Army and Major Davison from the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-4, who are engaged in conducting a test of a simplified supply system which we hope will render our present procedures more effective and more economical. They will explain this later on in the morning in detail.

ORGANIZATION OF UTAH GENERAL DEPOT

At this time I would like to take a few minutes to acquaint you with our organization. As the name implies, the Utah General Depot, we have five of the technical services operating under their respective chiefs of service in Washington for the technical operations of their section. These are the Adjutant General Supply Section, Chemical Supply Section, Engineer Supply Section, Quartermaster Supply Section, and Signal Supply Section. These are operating under their respective chiefs of service in Washington. In addition to that, on the same operating level, we have the defense printing plant, operating under an industrial fund basis and providing printing service on a competitive basis to all Government agencies in the Pacific area.

25062-53--37