excess property in forwarding our war on hunger activity in agricultural development.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Do I understand that you mentioned that you used military transports for shipment of excess property to your other countries?

Mr. WATERS. In most instances.

Mr. COPENHAVER. In most instances?

Mr. WATERS. Yes.

Mr. COPENHAVER. With regard to the type of excess property which you have selected for shipment to Vietnam out of Operation FRELOC, do you have any breakdown of categories of equipment that you have shipped to Vietnam which you could supply the committee at the chairman's permission? Do you have any categories that you could supply for the record?

Mr. WATERS. You wanted just the breakdown-the breakdown from FRELOC, now, not the total amount of excess?

Mr. COPENHAVER. If you could do both.

(Subsequently AID provided the following document :)

Mr. Jack K. Woll, Chief, PROC/GPR, AID/Washington.
P. H. Scordas, OIC, AID/EPRO-4, Frankfurt.

MAY 23, 1967.

Shipment of Operation FRELOC source excess property to Vietnam.

Mr. WATERS. The biggest part of FRELOC were jeeps. We earmarked the jeeps that were available to Vietnam.

Mr. COPENHAVER. After you have a program for rehabilitation of equipment, this is then shipped to various countries for your on-going programs. Do you have any problems with regard to spare parts thereafter for the maintenance of this equipment? How do you go about obtaining spare parts for this equipment?

Mr. WATERS. Spare parts has always been a problem, not only for excess property, but for all equipment provided in developing areas of the world. There is too little attention paid by people acquiring equipment in developing countries to this question of maintenance and part support.

So we are aware of and constantly are trying to tighten our regulations procedures, whether for new procurement or excess property which would require that parts are included in the original order.

We do have, however, people in the excess property regional offices who are under instructions to take parts support into account in approving transfer of equipment. We have special procedures in trying to encourage parts support. We notify the original manufacturer of the equipment when equipment is being introduced into a new area in the hope that they can establish parts support themselves.

We do require our missions in the field, and this is particularly true in the Latin American area. They have set up a special procedure asking for excess property to be used in a program to set aside as funds to buy new parts to support the equipment. So, we are constantly concerned with this parts problem in trying to keep the equipment from not being fully utilized because of lack of parts. Whenever we find that a line of equipment or a type of equipment or parts are not available from the original manufacturer, we just discontinue using that equipment.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Have you found a situation existing whereby the military will declare excess pieces of equipment, and yet have in their depots, perhaps, excess quantities of spare parts for the equipment which they have not declared excess? And if so, do you seek to get the military to declare that excess, also? Or what do you proceed on?

Mr. WATERS. We go after parts as well as equipment, and it all depends. If the military is excessing out a certain line, if the excess is a result of phasing out a certain line of a year's model, that sometimes happens, then, we have more success in getting the old parts as well. If it is individual pieces of equipment because of condition, but they are still making parts support for that line of equipment, they have use for these parts, we either have to turn to the manufacturer for parts, or turn to cannibalization of other pieces of equipment for parts, or just try to buy parts supports in the open market.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Finally, in regard to a question that Mr. Romney explored with you, do you have-do you maintain any inventory list of property which you have acquired through the excess property program stored at marshaling sites or other locations where you store equipment having been repaired which would show how long you have had this in inventory? For example, perhaps a crane which you have had in inventory for a year or 2 or 3 years which was either picked up by a want list?

Mr. WATERS. Yes. The turnover is rather rapid. We do keep the individual cards on the equipment. I think we could provide you with the average time held and the turnover of these items.

Mr. COPENHAVER. If in going through these lists you were to discover that you had a crane, for example, which you had in inventory for 2 or 3 years and you decided you probably would not have a want list requested for that piece of equipment, what would you do with it?

Mr. WATERS. We would turn it back to the military. In other words, if we didn't have use for it, we would turn it back to the military. Then, it would be their determination, whether they declared it surplus or used it in some other activity. But we do we would not hold this unduly.

In the first place, Mr. Woll is a pretty good businessman operating this program. Every time we hold equipment very long without having use for it, it ups our cost because we are paying for the space we rent for these marshaling sites. We want to keep the equipment moving. So, we find that when we have dead items that are not being moved, we have to write it off as a bad investment and turn it back to the military. This results in our being rather careful in our screening to make sure we have items we can use.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Has the military obtained any large amount of equipment from AID in the last year or two which they had formerly declared excess?

Mr. WATERS. They have required some back from us when they have discovered a particular need for something we had. I don't know the quantity of that. Mr. Woll could probably give us more information.

Mr. COPENHAVER. If you could supply it.

(Subsequently, AID provided the following information:)