« 이전계속 »
Senator SAXBE. They run the depots? The personnel who run those are assigned to TASCOM?
Mr. BeLIEU. Yes. Of course, he has organizational structures below him. Tactically regiments, battalions, brigades. He has MATCOM, materiel command, and so forth, below that. I think your staff has a well-defined outline of this. If not, we can provide one for the record so that it will show.
I would say, if the Chair and committee so sees fit, on the way over I thought I might have been remiss, we could provide a glossary of terms and technical data if it would help anything, for the appendix, for later review. This is a very complicated subject.
Senator Saxbe. Do we have a military structure graph of this?
Mr. CONSTANDY. It is not, yet. We anticipated introducing that later. There is a glossary, Senator, attached to the folder.
See exhibit No. 97, p. 199.)
Mr. BeLIEU. We can furnish any kind of staff command function chart. If we looked at an organizational chart with Mike Davison at the top, Conroy is the staff officer assigned. Below that would be Eifler's TASCOM and below that his subordinate structures.
Senator SAXBE. Just to straighten it out in my mind-you have been over there—are these surplus yards or junkyards, generally run in conjunction with larger military installations, or are they isolated ?
Mr. BELIEU. Maybe I can answer it from the list I have here.
There are 11 disposal activities in USAREUR. In Berlin, it is by itself. Baden, Wurttemberg is second. Germersheim is part of the support activity.
Senator SAXBE. For instance, is the tank junkyard area in the ready area? I have seen that. Is that where you have your 6,000 tanks over there?
Mr. BELIEU. This would be back in the hands of troops.
Mr. CONSTANDY. Senator, we have a map which shows the disposition of each of the principal yards, of which there are 11. Those yards, in turn, have 18 satellites. They are generally geographically located in the same general areas, as are the other military installations. They are normally related to a specific installation. Usually, a depot.
(The following documents were introduced as an exhibit on p. 233.)
USAREUR PROPERTY DISPOSAL LOCATIONS
Munich, Bad Toelz, Berchtesgaden, Bad Aibling,
Garmisch, Oberammergau Murnau, Lenggries,
Augsburg, New Ulm.
Bayreuth, Bamberg, Grafenwoehr, Hohenfels,
feld, Kirchgoens Bad Nauheim, Freidberg, Butzbach,
Marburg, NATO/SHAPE Chievres, Belgium. Kaiserslautern Army Depot, Nahbollenbach, Baum
holder, Pirmasens, Germersheim, Miesau, Kaiserslautern, Bad Kreuznach. USA Ammo Depot, Miesau. Pirmasens, Zweibruecken, Dahn, Fischbach, Salzwug.
Muenchweiler, Pirmasens Army Depot, Clausen,
Baumholder, Wiesbaden, Nahbollenbach.
bisch-Hall, Crailsheim, Goeppingen, Moehringen,
Mr. BELIEU. I guess adjacent to the ready alert equipment.
Mr. Constanty. Yes, sir. A depot existing in a geographic area will receive from whatever units are in that area whatever type of surplus material they have. If there are more armored units in that area, they would tend to get more armored equipment. Some of the depots, Í believe, are designated to receive specific kinds of equipment, such as electronic equipment, and there has been a tendency to generate such equipment at property disposal yards which handle that type of equipment.
Senator SAXBE. Is most of the surplus coming back to the States, or is it disposed of over there?
Mr. BELIEU. I understand it is disposed of over there although we have had some cases where it has returned here.
Senator SaxbE. I know we have a lot of surplus clothing that has shown up in the Far East.
Mr. BELIEU. I would not be surprised to see cases where someone might have falsified or utilized a bill of lading or shipping piece of paper through here. It may never have gone through here.
82–422 0-72—pt. 1-6
Senator SAXBE. You don't try to designate where it goes?
Suppose they sell a truckload of field jackets, you don't care where they go?
Mr. BeLieu. Not if they are legitimate purchasers.
Mr. BELIEU. There is the key to it, I think. Military hardware, according to law, which is broad, is supposed to be sold only to those nations who meet our foreign policy. It is a good system except I don't know how a captain of a disposal yard is going to know what our foreign policy is. I have a hard time knowing what it is here. But the thing is that it should be demilled. Anyway, if it is not militarily operational hardware at the end of its cycle, you don't care who you sell it to.
Senator SAXBE. That equipment sold for military usage is not what we are talking about here.
Mr. BELIEU. No, I don't think it is. It does have an impact on it. We sell tanks under the foreign assistance program in line with the Foreign Military Sales Act. If it is not a tank in our current inventory we do not stock normal spare parts; the American Army does not use them any more. Therefore the foreign country has to get them where they can. That is where the pressure is on these yards if we happen to have something going through them. It could be anything that some guy does not think should be demilled, like a cylinder. But it would be of value to you as a foreign nation who had an inventory of a hundred or thousand old tanks that many of us have forgotten about. That has hanpened. I am sure.
Senator SAXBE. The 500 trucks that we sold to Pakistan, for instance—weapons carriers and personnel carriers, which were obsolete items for us, of course, were military items for them. We are not talking about those kinds of sales. What we are talking about is material that is declared either worthless to us or worthless to anybody else from a military standpoint or is so sensitive that we don't want to get into anybody else's hands. That is what winds up, supposedly demilled, and that is what we are talking about in this investigationthat this demilitarization did not take place, or that it took place in such a way that it was ineffective.
The reason it did not take place is because there was hanky-panky in the junkyard.
Mr. BELIEU. Or human error. Either one of them would have the same result.
Senator SAXBE. Or gross negligence.
Mr. CONSTANDY. I think as we go through these hearings we will find that for some of the equipment we will be surprised as to its quality. Some of it is first-rate, operable equipment before demilitarization is supposed to take place on it. In fact, some of it is new equipment. may be outmoded as to our own inventory but it is well within the standards of most of the rest of the world.
Mr. BELIEU. There are types of equipment well bevond the military hardware we are discussing. There could be things such as this (a drinking glass) that armies use. One of the things I have an apprehension about, but I can't prove, we depend now on machines to do our computing for us.
Chairman McCLELLAN. Very well.
Is there anything further?
Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. You may be excused with the thanks of the committee for your cooperation.
Call the next witness.
Mr. CONSTANDY. Warrant Officers James Johnson, Thomas Graham, and Henry Naumann.
Chairman McCLELLAN. Do each of you solemnly swear that the evidence you are about to give before tăis Senate subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Johnson. I do.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES ROBERT JOHNSON, THOMAS EDWARD
GRAHAM, AND HENRY NAUMANN
Chairman McCLELLAN. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Thomas Graham and Mr. Naumann.
Gentlemen, will you each identify yourself for the record and give us a brief summary of your present position, occupation and responsibilities. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I am James Robert Johnson, Chief Warrant Officer in the U.S. Army.
Chairman McCLELLAN. Chief what?
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am Chief Warrant Officer Thomas Edward Graham. I am in the Mannheim Field Offices, Second CID Region.
Chairman MCCLELLAN. How long have you been in the service ?
Mr. NAUMANN. I am Chief Warrant Officer Henry Naumann. I am presently assigned to the CID Command in Europe, Heidelberg, Germany.
Chairman McCLELLAN. How long have you been in that assignment?
Mr. NAUMANN. I have been in the Army 16 years.
Chairman McCLELLAN. You have been in the Army 16 years. How long have you been in your present assignment ?
Mr. NAUMANN. Present assignment, 6 years.
Chairman McCLELLAN. I forgot to ask you, Mr. Johnson, how long have you been in your present assignment?