« PreviousContinue »
The GAO notes that feasibility of such actions is dependent on a full management engineering study with respect to each possible tenant. The Army has made a similar analysis in the past but considered that it could not afford the high one-time costs indicated for the limited potential long-range savings. It should be noted that these estimates provide approximately the same or less reduction in costs as the Army plan, at appreciably higher one-time costs. In both of these estimates the GAQ has retained current activities, including the Food and Container Institute, in the Chicago Administration Center, thereby eliminating the significant managerial and operational advantages which can be achieved by mission consolidation.
Senator STENNIS. We have Dr. William Hampton, who is director of research, Ocean Spray Cranberry Co., who is going to testify in favor of the move.
Doctor, we are very glad to have you here, sir, and I hope we can conclude with you in time to make your other appointment. I did not know that you were present awhile ago, or I would have taken you before General Seeman.
All right. Do you have a prepared statement, Doctor?
Senator STENNIS. All right. You proceed in your own way and make your points for the record.
Mr. HAMPTON. I am going to be very brief, sir.
Senator STENNIS. All right. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HAMPTON, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH,
OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRY CO. Mr. HAMPTON. My name is William F. Hampton, and I live in Duxbury, Mass. My business is a professional scientist and research manager.
I think that the views which I may have by virtue of those qualifications might be of use to your committee in your deliberations.
Senator STENNIS. I am sure they will, and we are glad to have them.
Mr. HAMPTON. My technical qualifications are I hold a master's degree and a doctor's degree in chemistry. I have worked in the New England area since 1944, excepting for a 3-year stint of absence with the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.
In that period of time, I have served in various capacities as a research worker and as a research manager with General Foods Corp. General Seafoods Division, and their Birdseye Division.
By virtue of my professional and scientific background and my work, I have had opportunity to get to know in the period that I have lived there, the scientists in the New England area.
In that time, I have developed the very highest regard for these men.
I also know people across the country and in many countries around the world. It is my very definite professional opinion you will not go anywhere where you will find better qualified people than you will find in the New England area, particularly in the Boston area.
This applies in any type of work which may be required to be carried on. The people are diversified and very competent. · With regard to facilities in the New England area, there are the very finest facilities that are available anywhere in the world in any respect whatsoever.
• Therefore, sir, as a professional scientist offering an opinion for the benefit of the committee, I will say you will not find better facilities or people anywhere; in fact, I doubt if you would find them so good.
On the aspect of professional scientific research management in the area of food, we have a rather unusual situation. Food technology is a very broad subject. It encompasses many sciences: biology, bacteriology, physiology, chemistry, physics, engineering, atomic science, and so on, and so forth.
In tackling food technology research problems today, this is true generally in the area of any type of research, I believe, it is unusual to find a lone operator. The practice rather is that the team approach is used.
The nature of the problems to be tackled, the type of skills that have to be brought to bear on the solution of the problem, the type of expense, and so forth, all demand what we call professionally the team or group approach.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize to your committee as strongly as I should, insofar as consolidation is possible, whereby you can bring to bear all the talents and experiences in diversified fields for the solution of the food problems, you would be well advised, in my opinion, to do so.
I feel that in this respect the move that is contemplated here, would very definitely be indicated to be one whereby the effectiveness of the work can be very substantially increased, and I am quite positive from research management experience that very definite economies in the management and administration of the research program can be effected.
Senator STENNIS. Thank you very much.
As a professional scientist, will you answer this question : Do you think the Army could operate these undertakings through private enterprise, private research, and so forth?
Mr. HAMPTON. I think, sir, it probably would be very difficult because of the very unusual and unique nature of the type of problems that the Army has to tackle.
I do not have firsthand knowledge of these. I only have a superficial knowledge. But I do know that they are of a very highly specialized and rather unusual type which, sir, I would suggest makes all the more important the consolidation feature.
Senator STENNIS. There is just no other demand for much of this work outside the military activity ?
Mr. HAMPTON. I would say, sir, it would be very expensive to have it done outside, and difficult to manage.
Senator STENNIS. Thank you.
Thank you, Doctor, very much. We appreciate your being here and the fact that you waited.
Do you have anything further now, Senator?
Senator STENNIS. We want to thank all the witnesses who have been here and have been very helpful to us. There is one other name on my list here, and that is, Dr. Raymond J. Spaeth.
Mr. WILSON. I submitted his report.
Senator STENNIS. That is already in the record, and I will mark that off.
Gentlemen of the committee, Congressman Yates had to answer a quorum call, and I told him that he would be given a chance to finish his answers to that question or say anything else he wished at 2:30, when the committee reconvenes. If you cannot be here, you might want someone to be here, Senator.
Senator SALTONSTALL. I cannot be here.
Senator STENNIS. That concludes the matter except what Mr. Yates may have to say in rebuttal.
Senator CASE. I have nothing else.
Senator STENNIS. May I announce that this disposes of the witnesses for today on that question and others, except the following:
We expect to hear General Harrison this afternoon who is president of the National Guard Association.
Mr. Mallicoat, who is deputy director of the Oregon State Department of Planning and Development, with reference to real estate; Mr. Robert Weir, with reference to the same subject; then Mr. McGanney of the Southern Pacific Pipelines, California, a substitute proposal, with reference to a jet fuel pipeline that is a Navy matter. Will the Navy have someone here on that subject? All right, gentlemen, now by consent of the subcommittee, we will take a recess until 2:30. Especially to those witnesses who have been here this morning, we will certainly pursue this further and analyze their testimony, and I hope we can reach a sound conclusion.
We will hear these other witnesses as rapidly as possible after we reconvene at 2:30, until which time the committee stands in recess.
(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m. the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 2:30 p.m.)
Senator STENNIS. The committee will come to order. Congressman Yates, we will be glad to hear you further now. Mr. YATES. I am sorry that a quorum call took me away from the committee.
Senator STENNIS. All right. You heard virtually everything that was said here this morning, Congressman Yates ?
Mr. YATES. Yes, sir.
Senator STENNIS. I do not think we took any further proof, unless it was a sentence or two after you left.
Mr. YATES. I should like to make several points, Senator, if I may. Senator STENNIS. Yes.
STATEMENT OF HON. SIDNEY R. YATES, MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE NINTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS—Resumed
Mr. YATES. First, I think that upon rereading of the report of the Comptroller General and his letter of transmittal, I think it is not against the interest of those whom I represent today.
I think we have no quarrel with the findings of the Comptroller General.
He recommends only that the CAC be disbanded. He does not say where this new building should be.
It would seem to me that in line with your suggestions and in line with the questioning given by Senator Cannon to the general this morning, that it might be wise for the armed services to find out from the Illinois Institute of Technology what their offer really is in the light of the attitude of the Army at the present time.
The report of the Comptroller General, which was alluded to by Senator Saltonstall, indicated only that the first suggestion of the Illinois Institute of Technology was excessive in cost. There is no suggestion that the Army ever went back there, and sought to find out what the costs would be on a comparable basis to Natick.
Secondly, there are other factors than mere space in determining the location for the Food and Container Institute.
There is the question of the food industry, the container industry, the research centers, the training centers, the maintenance and recruitment of personnel. These, too, have to be considered in this overall question.
Thirdly, I should say that the committee would want to read carefully the Comptroller General's report in pointing out that this is not a question of the saving of expense through the reduction of space alone, but also, the Army says that, it will say, part of its recommendation is predicated upon the elimination of 261 employees.
I would assume this could be done at Chicago just as well, and if this is true, that this portion of its recommendations certainly does not justify a move to Natick.
There is also, with due respect for the statements of General Seeman this morning, I suggest that he was not completely direct in his replies to the question of Senator Cannon.
With respect to some of these, and of the chairman as well, as to what the intention of the Quartermaster Corps for the future was likely to be, I suggest that this is a very valid line of questioning, and I direct or invite the attention of the committee to the debate which occurred in 1952 in the Senate on this very installation.
Senator STENNIS. Pardon me, Congressman. We want you to submit everything you wish.
Mr. YATES. I am going to be through in 3 minutes.
Senator STENNIS. These hearings are being held today at considerable cost, at least to the chairman and I think to the other Senators, of other matters, and I am sure to you, too, Congressman Yates.
If we can get the facts in here, we can argue them or we can weigh them all later. Any new facts, you could put in now, and then we would be glad to give you further time to analyze for yourself. This General Accounting matter was only received this morning, was it not?
Mr. YATES. That is right, sir.
Senator STENNIS. And this is an important matter, and we know it is important to you. We would like to give you unlimited time, but
we are just not in position to do so now, and we have other witnesses here from great distances.
Mr. YATES. I respect the Senator's suggestion. Senator STENNIS. If you can bear with that, Mr. YATES. I have two final points to make. Senator STENNIS. All right. Mr. YATES. The first is that there occurred in 1952, during the Senate debate, this colloquy, this exchange. There was placed in the record an exchange of correspondence between Senator Humphrey of Minnesota and the then Secretary of Defense, Robert Lovett. The question was asked:
“Will the fundamental and theoretical research institutes at the Quartermaster Research and Development Center be located in Natick? · Will all scientists and technicians whose field is applied research be in Natick?
“All Quartermaster positions now in Washington, Philadelphia," and mentioning a number of other places, "will be consolidated in the new center; the Quartermaster Corps Food and Container Institute will remain at its present location in Chicago, Ill."
That was the representation that was made when this was first talked about.
Senator STENNIS. Eight years ago ?
Now, with respect to the justification which the Army put into the record, I think the Senate committee should take cognizance of the fact that the authorization in this request is $3,628,000, but there is also the estimate of future authorizations for $8,180,000.
Is this the first of several installations for the future? I think this bears questioning, too, by the Senator.
I thank the Senator for his indulgence in permitting me to make my presentation.
Senator STENNIS. Thank you. You always come here unusually well prepared, and you make your points clear and concise.
Mr. YATES. Thank you, sir.
Senator STENNIS. I think that throws the burden on the Army now to explain that $8 million. It could be, Congressman Yates, that that is the prospectus now for the entire project, because in our system here of considering the innumerable military installations, we insist they give us a perspective for the entire installation for future years, so I will call on the Army to explain their $8 million figure.
Senator Cannon, did you have any more questions?
Senator CANNON. I think three points, two of which now have been covered.
One, that the Army, as I understand it, is going to review the report and give us their comments?
Senator STENNIS. The General Accounting Office report.
Senator CANNON. Yes; because that does not seem to agree with the Army's estimate.
(NOTE.—An analysis of the GAO report will be found on p. 579.)
Senator CANNON. Secondly, that the Army will attempt to furnish us with an explanation of this additional moneys that are in their total breakout.