Chronological index to reports issued July 1, 1955, through June 30, 1957 (total reports submitted, 200)-Continued

MSA

Feb. 12, 1957

Mar. 15, 1957

Mr. MICHEL. I have one more question related to my earlier observation. Do you not think it is just as important that we have as extensive and comprehensive an audit of all operations here as we do stateside?

I got the impression from your earlier testimony that you did not deem it as necessary, and I wonder why, because, as far as I am concerned, it would seem to me that we ought to be even more so here abroad rather than stateside.

Mr. BLAIR. Mr. Congressman, my personal opinion is that I feel we are accomplishing the most good for the least money by conducting the type of examination or management type of review that we are conducting. Just as does GAO stateside, we do conduct comprehensive examinations of segments or areas of an agency's activities, but not of all areas or activities. We are following up with the control agencies and other services to see how adequate a job they do and then going into the area where we feel they have not followed up sufficiently. It appears to me that you would not get the portion of return on a dollar basis if we built up a large staff over here. The other side of the coin is that it is a problem, believe me, to staff this office. We have 64 authorized spaces and we have 52 on board. It is a problem to get a man to pull up stakes at home and to come over here to the unknown to do a job here. I do not think we want anybody who is not highly qualified. Each man has to carry a full burden, and we cannot afford to have a cripple.

When you start bringing grades 5 and 7 over here, it is just too expensive, or even a grade 9, for that matter. The lowest we have

9 is 1 grade 11 in the Office at the present moment. We can use to advantage 2 or 3 of the lower-grade employees to take off some of the detail work from the higher-grade personnel, but it is a problem to get them to come over. Considering those two factors, it is my opinion that the Office policy to conduct the type of examination we conduct is best.

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Blair, I believe that is it.

On behalf of the subcommittee, I wish to express my appreciation to you and your staff for staying with us here all day. This subcommittee has already indicated to you that all of us are very pleased with the excellent job that has been done by you and your men in this branch. Certainly the contribution cannot be measured just in dollars and cents, and we recognize that. We compliment you on the excellent job that you have done.

Mr. BLAIR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for myself and on behalf of the staff of the General Accounting Office and the Comptroller General. It is certainly a pleasure to work with you and furnish whatever information you desire. After all, we are working for you and the other committees of the Congress.

Mr. FASCELL. We will now take a short recess. (Thereupon a short recess was taken.)

AFTER RECESS

Mr. FASCELL. The committee will come to order.

Gentlemen, we must apologize for having kept you waiting. As usual, we ran into more than we anticipated, and we appreciate your courtesy in bearing with us until we could get to you at this late hour. Mr. Haskell and gentlemen, this is the Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, which is part of the Government Operations Committee of the House of Representatives.

Our interest overseas is varied, but stems principally out of the operations and responsibilities of the General Accounting Office and its relationship not only to the executive branch of the Government, but to the legislative branch of the Government.

With that in mind, we have reviewed today and by prior staff work the entire activities of this Oflice since it was established in 1952. Obviously, with over some 500 reports having been submitted, I am sure you can appreciate the extent of the work involved. After reviewing the staff work and after our hearings today, we have concerned ourselves with very definite areas which seem to present the greatest problems and we have established a rather tentative priority list of urgent matters. Some of them fall directly within your responsibility, and we are very happy to have you here with us today to discuss this area of the program with us.

Mr. Haskell, if you would start out and identify yourself for the record, your position, and the gentlemen with you, we would appreciate it.

STATEMENT OF JOHN H. F. HASKELL, DEFENSE REPRESENTATIVE,

NORTH ATLANTIC AND MEDITERRANEAN AREAS; ACCOMPANIED BY BRIG. GEN. J. F. RODENHAUSER, DEPUTY DEFENSE REPRESENTATIVE, NAMA; LT. GEN. T. B. LARKIN, DIRECTOR, MUTUAL WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM; REAR ADM. M. R. KELLEY, MUTUAL WEAPONS DEFENSE TEAM; COL. K. F. DAWALT, MUTUAL WEAPONS DEFENSE TEAM; W. E. HOAGLAND, SPECIAL ASSISTANT (NO PROFITS); AND E. M. SHAFER, LEGAL ADVISER

Mr. HASKELL. I am John Haskell, Defense representative, North Atlantic and Mediterranean areas and I also have the job of defense adviser to the United States delegation to NATO here in Europe.

With me, on my left, is Gen. J. F. Rodenhauser, United States Air Force, who is my deputy. Next is Mr. W. E. Hoagland, special assistant for no-profits negotiations on offshore procurement contracts. Next is Lt. Gen. T. B. Larkin, who many of you probably know. He is United States Army, retired, and presently director of the mutual weapons development team operating here in Europe. On General Larkin's left is Mr. E. M. Shafer, who is assigned by the General Counsel of the Department of Defense as the counsel for my office. Behind General Larkin are two senior members of the mutual weapons development team; namely, Rear Adm. M. R. Kelley and Col. K. F. Dawalt.

Mr. FASCELL. All right, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Haskell.

Do you have some kind of a statement you would like to make with respect to your operations in this area?

Mr. HASKELL. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to thank you for taking us somewhat out of order this afternoon which is very helpful to the operations of our offices and duties here. We are very

a

grateful to you and it is worth waiting as long as you want us to.

I have no prepared statement but I am generally familiar with the area Mr. Poland explained to us. I have brought along copies for members of the committee and your staff, revised terms of reference which spell out the duties and obligations of these two offices which I, and most of my staff, hold together.

Mr. FASCELL. That is, Defense representative for the North Atlantic and Mediterranean Command ?

Mr. HASKELL. Defense representative to the North Atlantic and Mediterranean area, which is a bilateral United States job where we are reporting to the Secretary of Defense and the other one, which is that of Defense adviser, United States regional organizations, where not all, but largely the same people work as the defense element or Defense adviser to our Ambassador, Mr. Perkins, who represents the United States on the NATO Supreme Council.

We have these two different types of activities. In the first one, I report to the Secretary of Defense through the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. General Larkin reports on scientific and other matters to the Secretary of Defense through the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Research and Engineering). When we put on the other hat and work for NATO, we likewise are reporting to Defense, but through the Ambassador. We are, of course, a part of a country-team idea with the Ambassador representing the President and the rest of us taking care of our normal duties of our respective departments.

I have these terms of reference. They are quite changed from what they were. This became effective on December 10, 1956, and relieved us of considerable operational activity and permitted a certain saving of manpower and overhead and operations.

Mr. FASCELL. This is what?

Mr. HASKELL. This is my current bible, sir. It is what I am told to do.

Mr. FASCELL. This is directive No. 5132.8, dated December 10, 1956 and is entitled “Department of Defense Instruction–Terms of Reference for the Defense Representative, North Atlantic and Mediterranean Area and Defense Adviser, United States Regional Organizations."

Do you have any operational responsibility?

Mr. HASKELL. Under the DEFREPNAÑA or Defense representative hat, my job is to do such jobs as are assigned to us, very little operational work. The job on the offshore procurement negotiations is considered in a sense operational because it is negotiating operations, but as far as being in the end item program, being anywhere in that chain of progress of submitting requirements for military equipment, that goes to EUCOM and then to the Defense Department. We are in a sense kibitzers. We are given special assignments to look for this and that but we are free to advise the Secretary of Defense on policy considerations and being somewhat detached from the operations, we are perhaps, with a small staff, able to do that.

In the field of defense adviser, we are more operational in that certain of the committees of NATO which have to do primarily with defense rather than political affairs, are staffed by our people and