volved in the move to Germany would be the construction of some storage facilities. Is that so?

Mr. ZARETZKY. Yes, sir.

Mr. MONAGAN. And do you have any estimate of what the cost of that construction will be?

Mr. ZARETZKY. General Heiser, would you like to take that?

General HEISER. Mr. Chairman, I have some figures that I can quote. Authorized and funded through fiscal year 1966 and fiscal year 1967 there is a total of approximately $10 million that is involved in storage facilities, and a part of this also is involved in those things pertinent to storage, such as the headquarters that General Case has, the SMA headquarters, which supervises all storage.

Now, I can get a breakout for you of this.

Mr. MONAGAN. Can you furnish it?

General HEISER. We can submit it for the record; yes, sir.

(The following information was subsequently submitted for the record :)

Storage and logistics-related construction in Europe-Authorized and funded through fiscal year 1966 and fiscal year 1967

Storage facilities, Germany.

Ammunition Renovation Shop, Miesau_.

Facilities required by the relocation of Hqs, U.S. Army Communications Zone to Worms, Germany and the Supply and Maintenance Agency to Zweibrucken___.

Storage facilities, United Kingdom___

Total

Programed $6,931, 000 360.000

1, 545, 000 706, 000

9, 542, 000

Mr. MONAGAN. Is there a separation between NATO and the facilities that you are talking about? These are simply storage for equipment, but then the NATO headquarters in that move would not be within your jurisdiction or concern?

General CASE. NO.

Mr. MONAGAN. And who would be concerned with that, Mr. Zaretzky?

Mr. ZARETZKY. Our International Security Affairs Office in OSD can answer those questions. I have Mr. Mullen from that Office, if you have any specific questions you wish to direct.

Mr. MONAGAN. I would like to just have that, if you have that figure on the cost of transfer of the headquarters.

Mr. MULLEN. I would have to provide the figures on the headquarters itself, and in terms of SHAPE headquarters and NATO headquarters. But it is in the range of $12 million.

Mr. MONAGAN. Would there be any further storage facilities and personal property involved relating to NATO of any substantial degree, as distinguished from what we have talked about here? Mr. MULLEN. No, sir.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Would the chairman just yield for a second on that?

Mr. MONAGAN. Go ahead. You ask all the questions you want. Mr. COPENHAVER. In regard to that, Mr. Zaretzky, is it not correct, though, that we are keeping a record of all the costs that are being incurred by the United States to move out of France, in that we seek to approach NATO to request that they will contribute partially to the cost of our moving out, even though we are talking about U.S.-owned

property as opposed to NATO-owned property? Would you agree with that?

Mr. ZARETZKY. That is right.

Mr. COPENHAVER. In that regard, there may be some NATO-financed costs for this?

Mr. MONAGAN. There is in theory, but in fact there has been a lag.
General HEISER. This is what they call "infrastructure."

Mr. COPENHAVER. That is right. Shall I go ahead?

Mr. MONAGAN. Please do.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Mr. Zaretzky, in connection with the Army you had screened all Army equipment and all GSA equipment above a certain figure, and this is property located in France. Now, at the same time I understand that over a hundred thousand tons of property located in Germany had to be made excess was declared excess to make room for the property coming in from France. Would that be a correct statement?

Mr. ZARETZKY. I am not sure about the figure, but the philosophy is right.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Similarly, perhaps, some in the United Kingdom? Mr. ZARETZKY. Nothing in the United Kingdom.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Was the property that was declared excess in Germany screened through the identical procedures by the Army-as was the property in France?

Mr. ZARETZKY. That is correct.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Do you have a breakdown of that property which was declared excess? How much of that was disposed of according to different channels, for example, disposed of as surplus and picked up by AID or sent back to CONUS? Could you perhaps supply that figure for the record?

Mr. ZARETZKY. I am sure we could.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Like you have done it in your statement, with the amount, for example, disposed of as surplus and the dollar value. That would be very helpful.

Mr. ZARETZKY. It is available.

Mr. COPENHAVER. I forgot, frankly-did you say that you could have a breakdown on broad categories of the type of equipment from France disposed of as surplus? Is that possible-a broad categorical breakdown?

Mr. ZARETZKY. If you mean ammunition, for example, versus trucks and other items, I am certain that can be provided.

Mr. COPENHAVER. In that case, if you could do that for Germany, too, it would be quite helpful.

General HEISER. We will try to do this, but-you see, if we break it down we could probably break it down by class-but I would like to be sure, sir, that we work with you, because it may be difficult to break it down within the class, for example, parts away from vehicles and that sort of thing.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Actually I am just seeking a broad categorical breakdown.

In this regard, I wonder if you also could supply for the committee— with the Chairman's permission-a breakdown, shall we say, for fiscal year 1966, and maybe through January 1, 1967, or March 31-whatever you can of the total surplus property disposed of in France and the United Kingdom, and here is what I am getting at. I want to see

whether in fact there was perhaps a significant increase in surplus property disposals out of Germany as a result of that which we pulled in from France, if you are following what I am trying to say. Because perhaps we haven't saved a great deal if we have pulled out of France but disposed out the back door in Germany.

If you have some kind of historical comparison, the year before the pull-out and the year of the pull-out, you could give me a good historical comparison. Is that possible?

Mr. ZARETZKY. Let me ask.

Colonel DAVID. When you say "surplus," are you talking about that property which we sold?"

Mr. COPENHAVER. I mean both types. That declared excess to the theater, shall we say, and to the command.

In other words, I am trying to cut down your work if I can, so perhaps if I could hold it down to that screened back to the inventory control points in CONUS, if you wish.

Colonel DAVID. The most accurate information we can give you is that property which we have sold in those two countries during that period of time.

Mr. COPENHAVER. All right. If you can give me that comparison of the surplus disposals, the sales

Colonel DAVID. The sales; right.

Mr. COPENHAVER. That would be helpful, Mr. Chairman, I believe. (The following information was subsequently furnished by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and Logistics) :)

DISPOSITION OF EXCESS AND FOREIGN EXCESS PERSONAL PROPERTY AT ARMY PROPERTY DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES IN EUROPE1

1 Excludes sales (other than scrap). (For sales figures, see following:)

SALES OF U.S. ARMY AND AIR FORCE FOREIGN EXCESS PERSONAL PROPERTY IN FRANCE AND GERMANY FISCAL YEAR 1966 AND FIRST HALF OF FISCAL YEAR 1967

The following information is furnished concerning types of DOD personal property sold by invitation for bid (IFB): Commercial-type motor vehicles (trucks, sedans); construction equipment; laundry and drycleaning equipment; telephone switchboards (French make); household and kitchen equipment; plumbing, heating, and sanitation equipment.

Prior to sale, all property was made available to the Agency for International Development (AID) and other Federal agencies. The major portion of the material finally sold was in poor and/or unserviceable condition.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Mr. Zaretzky, in response to a question Mrs. Heckler asked you, you indicated in your statement that there would be an annual saving of $50 million or $60 million a year.

Without in any sense being critical of the military or DOD, is it not a fact, though, that because of the move out of France it will cost us many millions of dollars, not to mention the property which we will have to leave in France and that we may not really get any saving out of the French move for perhaps 5 or 10 years.

Mr. ZARETZKY. As I indicated earlier, I do not have the actual costs. of the move, and I think the chairman indicated that certainly there is that tradeoff, and this must be considered when we look at the net saving, in the number of years it would take.

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Zaretzky, will you furnish that information about cost of removal when you do receive it? I don't believe I specifically asked you to do it.

Mr. ZARETZKY. We certainly will.

(Subsequently, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and Logistics) supplied the following information :)

As of May 31, 1967, approximately $100 million had been expended for the relocation of United States and NATO forces, materiel, and facilities out of France.

Mr. COPENHAVER. I raise that point again because, although I think it is very good to show the savings, somehow it comes out wrong that we show a profit out of being kicked out of France with our billion or more dollars' loss that we have had to incur in there. That goes to the point I wanted to pin down.

In regard to a position that Mr. Romney was discussing with you, am I correct that, after the excess property was screened through the entire DOD, the remainder was partially picked up by the MAP program and AID, and that probably most of the balance of the property was then sold as surplus in France? Would that be a fair statement?

Mr. ZARETZKY. I think first we must get clear that MAP is part of the Defense requirements.

Mr. COPENHAVER. I recognize that point. Intra-DOD, you might say, and after that it went to AID primarily, and the remainder of the balance would be sold as surplus in France. Is that a correct statement?

Mr. ZARETZKY. That is right.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Do the current laws and regulations prevent any of that property, prior to being sold as surplus in France, to be screened through the donable property program?

Mr. ZARETZKY. I believe the law

Mr. COPENHAVER. I am sorry. The domestic donable property program.

Mr. ZARETZKY. As far as I know, the domestic donable property program does not screen overseas excess.

Mr. COPENHAVER. I wanted to explore this with you.

First of all, was GSA or HEW invited to participate in, or to screen such property?

Mr. ZARETZKY. Yes, sir. I personally checked with GSA, and asked them to accompany me on the last trip-two trips before to do just that. They have a man in residence in Wiesbaden who I got together with, and we went through some of the items that they could possibly be interested in. Generally speaking they are not interested in picking up used furniture, for example, and bringing it home, or for that matter, used tools. And so they practically said nil to any of the items that we offered.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Were they talking about furniture or tools which GSA may believe the other Federal agencies would want, or which the potential recipients of donable property might want?

Mr. ZARETZKY. My contact with the donation program obviously is through GSA.

Mr. COPENHAVER. And therefore they made no mention in that regard of what they wanted.

We are dealing with $25 or $30 million worth of property here. I wanted to check it out.

If they or HEW-had indicated that they wanted certain items of property, then you would have shipped them back to CONUS? Is that correct? For their program?

Mr. ZARETZKY. Are you saying if GSA indicated a need, would we ship it back for GSA?

Mr. COPENHAVER. For the domestic donable property program.

Mr. ZARETZKY. That is an assumption we never got to. They never indicated such a need.

Mr. COPENHAVER. I am just curious-if they had, who would have paid the cost of transportation?

Mr. ZARETZKY. I don't know.

Mr. MONAGAN. There is a legal question, I think, as to whether the domestic program can apply to foreign excess or not.

Mr. COPENHAVER. The reason I asked, I have looked into it somewhat I don't have the statute or regulation before me-but as I interpret it—perhaps incorrectly-so long as it is not brought back to go into competitive commercial channels in competition with private businesses, it could be brought back.

In other words, if it is brought back to be sold against a private business sale in the open market, the answer would be "No," but to be brought back for the donable property program there is a possibility of that, and those agencies have a better avenue

Mr. MONAGAN. It is hypothetical as far as these gentlemen are concerned.

Mr. COPENHAVER. I won't pursue that any more.

Mr. Zaretzky, is it not correct that France does do business with Communist nations-with both Red China and North Vietnam, and has sold equipment and property to these countries?

Mr. ZARETZKY. I am not aware of this.

Mr. COPENHAVER. Would either of your other associates be aware of that?

The reason I raise this point is-what checks does the Army impose upon purchasers of this equipment-some of which I understand is military equipment, ammunition, and what-have-you. What check