the names of persons receiving disciplinary action for performance not involving malfeasance because it destroys their future effectiveness.

V. LATER DEVELOPMENTS

AMC and its subordinate command, ECOM, have continued since July 1, 1964, to explore the possible solutions to meet the Army's needs for radiacmeters. Modification work at the AMC depots within available funds has continued on the IM-108A's to that IM-174's are now available on a limited basis for use in an emergency.

In August 1964 a visit was made by a team from the electronics command, headed by a general officer, to the Canadian Admiral plant, then producing IM108A-type radiacmeters, to observe the production techniques.

Models of the Canadian meter and the civil defense meter are being tested at the U.S. Army Materiel Command's test and evaluation command, Aberdeen, Md.

Plans for research and development efforts to achieve a better long-range position in the radiacmeter field are continuing. In September 1964, a contract was placed with Eon Corp. for Engineering Development Models of the AN/ VDR-1, a multipurpose instrument which will not only provide a new and needed vehicular capability, but will also provide a replacement for the IM174/PD. This equipment is scheduled for type classification in fiscal year 1968. In February 1965, General Besson initiated a further review of the actions taken by the commanding general, electronics command, in connection with the radiacmeter case. As an independent and supplemental program, the commanding general, AMC has convened a review board of technical personnel from a number of commands other than ECOM to review the specifications which were the basis for the five U.S. Army contracts as well as the Canadian Army specification which was the basis for its contract with Admiral, Ltd. Specifically, this board will attempt to establish, factually, why the Canadian production of radiacmeters appears to have been successful while the U.S. Army experienced great difficulty with what is essentially the same specification. The board, as a result of its experience in this investigation may well develop recommendations applicable not only to radiacmeters, but to a broad spectrum of procurement specifications. It is anticipated that, when the board completes its review and its findings are presented to the commanding general, certain scientific advisors from industry will be invited to consult with General Besson on the lessons learned and remedial actions to be taken.

BETTER ENGINEERING DRAWINGS

Senator DOUGLAS. Now one issue which came up last year in our hearing was the necessity of developing better engineering drawings prior to the awarding of the contract so that the charges would be less. You made that recommendation. I thought it was excellent. Has any progress been made in developing these better drawings?

RATE OF PROGRESS

Mr. NEWMAN. We do know that the Secretary of Defense has called the individual services together and put major emphasis on getting the technical data. However, in our observations recently on the F-4 program on which we are working for the House Appropriations Committee, we found that there is a lot to be desired in getting technical data on that program.

TEN-YEAR PROGRAM

As you know, that program if it goes along as planned, will be here for at least 10 years. So there is still a major problem with engineering drawings.

Senator DOUGLAS. What is the F-4 program?

Mr. NEWMAN. The F-4 program is the fighter plane, the Phantom II, which is being produced for the Navy and for the Air Force by McDonnell Aircraft.

Senator DOUGLAS. This is the so-called TFX?

Mr. NEWMAN. Not the TFX. The TFX, or F-111, is manufactured by General Dynamics at Fort Worth. The F-4 is manufactured at the St. Louis McDonnell plant. Senator DOUGLAS. Thank you.

ROLE OF GAO IN ASSISTING CONGRESS

Now there is one comment, not so much concerned with this investigation as on general work of the General Accounting Office. I have always been much impressed by the work of your agency. I have always felt that we in Congress should utilize it more.

Some years ago when I perhaps foolishly took on the task of fighting appropriation bills on the floor of the Senate, not being a member of the Appropriations Committee, I would dig out your reports and on the floor try to get your suggestions adopted. I must say that I had zero success. I became convinced that this as a practical matter was like tilting at Don Quixote's windmills. I was very happy when my friend, Senator Proxmire, entered the Senate and relieved me of this responsibility. He is younger than I am and exercises more than I do and has tremendous vigor. It took me 10 years to get discouraged.

Senator Proxmire has been in now for 7 years. This wears a man out, Mr. Campbell, and other issues crowd in upon him. Flesh and blood, at least ordinary flesh and blood after a time gives up. I hope that your work could be introduced into the deliberations of Congress at an earlier stage than the floor. It is almost impossible to cut an appropriation bill significantly on the floor because the Appropriations Committee stands together. All the chairmen rally to the defense of their fellow chairmen. These are the sages of the establishment, so to speak. They constitute what a famous writer said was a "citadel" of the Senate. To storm those heights with merely the reports of the Comptroller General is like trying to knock down a fortress with a bow and arrow.

So I have felt that if we could have the General Accounting Office furnish advice to the Appropriations Committee of the House and Senate I am not proposing a consolidation of the committees prior to the budget being approved it would help. I try to read these hearings before the Appropriations Committees. They consist almost entirely of statements by the agencies themselves and then if by any chance the House cuts the appropriation, which it frequently does, then on appeal to the Senate the pleas are always for restoration or increase. No one appears--I think literally no one appears to defend the original cut or to suggest economies. It is ex parte testimony.

Therefore, the Appropriations Committee does not have adequate cases in which the weaknesses of these projects are presented. This is one of the weaknesses of democratic government anyway, or any type of government, in consequence, the taxpayer is not adequately presented.

You know where the bodies are buried more than any other agency. You are the auditing agency after the fact, after the appropriation has been made.

47-662 0-65- -14

Now, once in a while we try to bootleg material to them before the fact but you are very careful on this matter and rigidly protect your duties.

Would you be willing to assume the responsibility for-what are there, 16 appropriation bills-having 30 of your men or additional staff of 30 men act as public defenders before the Appropriations Committee?

GAO SUPPLIES STAFF TO HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think that that would be a job which we probably would not be in a position to competently do. We now do supply, in the last year since the new chairman of the House Appropriation Committee has been functioning, a rather large number of people to that committee.

Senator DOUGLAS. You do?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes. I have it in mind because each year when they come home, as they are coming home now, I pose with them for pictures, you see. This is a very select group of young men-not so young, too. I will say this: In the last year or two, last year particularly, our reports up there to the committees and subcommittees have seemed to be of far greater interest than they were before.

Senator DOUGLAS. Now, with the understanding you are only replying to a question which I put and not volunteering the information, have you had the same success with the Senate?

Mr. NEWMAN. Mr. Chairman, in both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees we prepare a compilation of about 200 reports. Half of those are draft reports which have been in the hands of the Secretary of Defense.

These reports are used during the hearings. In addition, I would like to say that along the lines you are speaking of, the chairman, Mr. Mahon, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has requested us to delve deep into major, big programs. For example, the TFX or the F-111 as it is known today. Also the F-4 program I just mentioned.

Now this means retraining of our staff. We are, say, crawling in this area. They want to know in what areas and how are the millions going to be spent during the years to come. What is going to be "GFE against CFE." What is going to be advertised fixed price. What is going to be sole source. We are now working on areas which will be reviewed by the House Appropriations Committee next year and the following years when these appropriation requests come up for approval.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Don't you think that is progress, Mr. Chairman? Senator DOUGLAS. It sounds fine. I not only hope it will spread but it will continue and spread from the south side of the Capitol to the north side.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think so.

Senator DOUGLAS. Thank you very much.

This afternoon at 2 o'clock Mr. Lawson Knott will testify.

(Whereupon at 12:05 p.m., the committee was recessed to be reconvened at 2 p.m. the same day in room 457, Senate Office building.)

AFTER RECESS

Representative GRIFFITHS (presiding). We are pleased to have as our witness this afternoon Mr. Lawson B. Knott, Acting Administrator, General Services Administration. The Chairman's letter of April 7, 1965, to you will be inserted at this point.

(Letter to Mr. Knott follows:)

Mr. LAWSON KNOTT,

Acting Administrator, General Services Administration,
Washington, D.C.

APRIL 7, 1965.

DEAR MR. KNOTT: The Subcommittee on Federal Procurement and Regulation will hold hearings on April 27, 28, and 29, 1965, as a continuation of the program of the former Subcommittee on Defense Procurement.

You are scheduled to testify, accompanied by such staff as you desire, on April 28, 2 p.m., room 457, Senate Office Building.

The subcommittee report of September 1964 contains a number of conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the work of the General Services Administration and to the development of an efficient and effective Federal supply and services system. Testimony as to progress made on these points during the past year will be of value to the subcommittee. Of special interest is the "short-shelf-life project," and the procurement and management of ADP equipment.

Faithfully yours,

PAUL H. DOUGLAS.

Mr. Knott, will you please introduce your associates and proceed with your statement.

STATEMENT OF LAWSON B. KNOTT, JR., ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY H. A. ABERSFELLER, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE; MAURICE J. CONNELL, COMMISSIONER, DEFENSE MATERIALS SERVICE; HOWARD GREENBERG, COMMISSIONER, UTILIZATION AND DISPOSAL SERVICE; EDMUND D. DWYER, DIRECTOR, DATA PROCESSING COORDINATION STAFF, AND CHARLES W. GASQUE, JR., DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL

Mr. KNOTT. It is a pleasure for me and members of my staff to appear before your subcommittee today as you again consider the economic impact of Federal procurement.

I have with me Messrs. H. A. Abersfeller, Commissioner of our Federal Supply Service; Maurice J. Connell, Commissioner of our Defense Materials Service; Howard Greenberg, Commissioner of our Utilization and Disposal Service; Edmund D. Dwyer, Director of our Data Processing, and our Deputy General Counsel, Mr. Charles W. Gasque, Jr.

I would like to have each of them assist me in presenting information and data pertaining to their respective areas of responsibility which, we believe, will be of interest to you and your subcommittee. We appreciate, Madam Chairman, the continued interest which you and the members of your subcommittee have manifested in the role and responsibilities given the General Services Administration by the Congress in the field of Federal procurement, and are happy to have this opportunity of reviewing with you the programs and accomplishments of GSA in this important and essential governmental activity.

ment fluctuates with the international situation. In the event the United States committed its forces tomorrow, the requirement for radiacmeters would be immediate and urgent.

As evidence that the basic design of the radiacmeter was sound, the successful production of the Canadian radiacmeter IM-108B is cited. The Canadian producer utilized the basic U.S. Army radiacmeter design. As the result of a coordinated effort by the Canadian Government and its producer, a radiacmeter has been produced which is suitable for use by the Canadian forces and would be available to meet emergency requirements of the U.S. Army.

Our Canadian defense production representative states that Canadian Admiral could deliver 1,000 per month, beginning immediately, if we ordered.

IV. ADVERSE PERSONNEL ACTIONS AGAINST CIVILIAN ENGINEERS

As a result of the report of investigation by the General Accounting Office and subsequent related Army investigations dealing with the radiacmeter procurements, Maj. Gen. F. W. Moorman on July 10, 1964, issued letters proposing separation of seven high ranking engineers.

All seven employees were associated with the U.S. Army Electronics Materiel Support Agency (USAEMSA). One was the division chief, two were assistant division chiefs (at different times during the five procurement actions), one was a branch chief, one was the section chief, and two were the project engineers for specific production contracts. All these individuals initiated or approved technical action requests which (which are engineering change orders called by Signal Corps TAR's) which permitted deviations from the original specifications and which changed the performance standards for the radiacmeters.

One of the responsibilities of the Field Engineering Division, USAEMSA, was to act as the technical representative for the contracting officer after award of a production contract. The Field Engineering Division was not responsible for contract awards. This Division was responsible for—

(a) evaluation of production samples;

(b) monitoring production;

(c) evaluating technical action requests (TARS) which change the approved design;

(d) insuring that manufactured products are in accordance with specifications; and

(e) technical approval of production.

Under the civil service statutes and regulations, Government employees who are veterans and who have acquired status as permanent civil service employees have certain rights concerning advance notification of proposals to effect adverse actions. Accordingly, General Moorman's letters are identified as letters of intent to effect removal of each employee. The effective data was to have been August 14, 1964. In summary, the letters stated that these employees had failed to take effective action to eliminate flaws in the manufacture of radiacmeters. The failure was a lack of attention to and an awareness by them of their respective responsibilities. Each employee was notified of his right to answer his notice of proposed removal personally and in writing and to submit evidence, affidavits, or produce witnesses within 10 working days from the receipt of the letter of intent. The employees were advised that full and careful consideration would be given to any answer submitted and that, as soon as possible a written notice of decision would be issued to them. At the employees' requests, the authorized 10-day period in which to answer the letters was extended by General Moorman so that, by the middle of August 1964, the written replies to these charges by the employees were received.

During the several months' period while the commanding general, ECOM, considered the employees' replies to the proposed action and while in conference with the attorney of the employees, the suggestion was made that lesser penalties might be called more appropriate than the dismissal action. The employees called to the attention of the commanding general, that during the period in question, the division staff had a heavy workload, and that, with the single exception of this procurement they had a long record of faithful service. It was during these meetings that the commanding general, ECOM, carefully explained to the attorney representing the employees that he felt his obligation was to initiate corrective action. General Moorman expressed his belief that disciplinary action was initiated only as a corrective measure and not as punishment. He reported that, if the employees demonstrated an understanding of what they were expected to do by recognizing that they were responsible for the defects in the performance of the radiacmeters as charged, then he would consider assessing lesser penalties.