dustrial Base. The assumption is that we would be able to enlist as many companies as necessary to satisfy the military needs. Mr. SPRATT. We provided some money-not much-in the R&D title of our defense authorization bill 1 year ago, fiscal year 1985, or maybe it was in the bill last year, for developing a module for manufacturing apparel. Are you familiar with that program? Mr. CHIESA. I am familiar with one in 1986. In 1986 we are developing modules for use as a display at universities so small businesses can look at the machinery and its capability before deciding to commit funds. Mr. SPRATT. What is the stage of that project? Mr. CHIESA. We have completed the procurement package with all its technical requirements. The procurement will be handled by one of our centers. Mr. SPRATT. When do you expect to have the displays finished? Mr. CHIESA. I do not have a good date for that. May I furnish that for the record? [The following information was received for the record:] DEVELOPING Modules for MANUFACTURING APPAREL We have two contracting actions in the Military Sewn Products Automation Program. DLA is currently negotiating a contract with North Carolina State University. The award is expected to be made in late August 1986 and manufacturing modules will be used to produce military garments 18 months after award. The second contract action is designed to increase the use of commercially available, advanced manufacturing equipment by our suppliers. This will be accomplished through the creation of demonstration sites which will be run by a coalition of universities, apparel manufacturers, and equipment vendors. The technical specification has been completed and sent to our buying center for competitive award. The forecast award date is the First Quarter, Calendar Year 1987, with the first demonstration 10 months after award. Mr. SPRATT. Do you have any other projects like this that would foster the development of textile machinery, knitting, for the apparel manufacturing industry? Mr. CHIESA. Yes, we do have in 1986 and in 1987, money to pursue what we call manufacturing technology projects, and they do run the entire range of the problems that you see in the report. A great many of them are focused on items of chemical protective uniforms because they are very difficult to manufacture, and there is no commercial base for them. We are trying to find ways to speed up and improve the quality of sewing. Mr. SPRATT. How much money are we putting into those technologies? Mr. CHIESA. We have about one-I will get those numbers for you, sir. We have a total of about $12 million in fiscal year 1987 and $32 million in the President's budget for fiscal year 1987. Mr. SPRATT. Thank you very much. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Stratton. Mr. STRATTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chiesa, I came in late. Perhaps this matter has been touched upon already. But I find it rather astonishing that you should say that there is a shortage in textiles when we have just passed an overwhelming bill to prevent all textiles from coming in from out of the country. What is it that we are short of? Is it all highly separated types of fabrics? Are we short on woolens? Why are we com 64-316 0 - 86 - 3 purchase capital equipment needed by two Butyl Glove manufacturers to help alleviate surge/mobilization shortfalls. Totes, Inc., a large and prestigious manufacturer of rubber footwear, has submitted a proposed alternate Butyl material to the Government. This submission included a proposed automated method of producing the Chemical Footwear Cover, which is more in keeping with present state-of-the-art manufacturing techniques, and proposes no loss of protective properties. This material is presently being evaluated at the U.S. Army Armament, Research and Development Command, Aberdeen, MD. No forecast of completion of these tests are available at this time. The purchase of Prepositioned War Reserve Stocks remains a valid recommendation for Butyl Gloves and Footwear Covers. INDICATIONS AND WARNINGS There is a definite erosion of the Production Base in the Rubber Footwear, Non-Rubber Footwear, Textile, and to some degree Cut-Make-and-Trim Industries. DLA will continue to closely monitor these industries. Mr. NICHOLS. You mentioned Public Law 99-190. I got the idea that piece of legislation, in effect, said that items that were purchased by DLA for military clothing had to be a domestic item, had to be used within the country. Mr. CHIESA. That is correct. Mr. NICHOLS. Would that include off-shore production? Mr. CHIESA. We could not buy for off-shore production, sir. The material and the cut-make-and-trim would have to be performed domestically. Mr. NICHOLS. What about production in Panama, Honduras? Mr. CHIESA. That would be out of the country, so we would be limited to the States. Mr. NICHOLS. Would that requirement cover things which are not clothing items? What about tents? What about camouflage cloth? What about sheets and pillowcases? Mr. CHIESA. It does cover these items, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. They would have to be purchased domestically? Mr. NICHOLS. What you are saying is virtually the entire volume of purchases that DLA makes for the military has to be made from domestic states in the United States. Mr. CHIESA. That is correct, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. In effect, if the big thing should happen, heaven forbid, you would be precluded under current law from buying items of clothing and others that we mentioned from Third World countries such as the Philippines, Hong Kong and so forth. You would be limited to the United States. Mr. CHIESA. You say if the big thing happened. You mean in the instance of actual mobilization? Mr. NICHOLS. Yes, sir. Mr. CHIESA. After that? Mr. NICHOLS. Yes, sir. Mr. CHIESA. I guess it would be up to the Congress, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. I mean under current law. Mr. CHIESA. Under current law, yes, sir. There are procedures for buying things that are not available in this country; and if we had that instance of nonavailability that could be documented and signed at the Agency head level, it could be bought off shore. Mr. NICHOLS. That would include tentage? Mr. CHIESA. Yes, sir. Mr. NICHOLS. I understand back in 1985 my staff says the Army Troop Support Command announced a plan to procure tentage from foreign sources. That is just a year ago. Can you give us some information on that plan? Mr. CHIESA. No, sir. I am not familiar with that at all. In December 1985 we became aware of the U.S. Army Troop Support Command mandate to develop plans to procure U.S. military tentage from overseas sources. The reason for this action is an incorrect perception of a shortage of capacity for tent manufacturing in the United States. Our feeling is that the Government would only have itself to blame were this capacity shortage to become a reality. You do not know anything about this? Mr. CHIESA. No, sir. I will look into that situation. Mr. NICHOLS. Will you give us a response? Mr. CHIESA. I certainly will, sir. [The following information was received for the record:] TENTAGE The Army Troop Support Command (TROSCOM) did have a serious concern about the capability of the domestic industry to produce military tentage for the Army in late 1985. However, representatives of the domestic textile industry have since convinced TROSCOM that they are capable of meeting foreseeable Army needs for military tentage. Mr. NICHOLS. Mrs. Lloyd, do you have any questions? Mrs. LLOYD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chiesa, I appreciate your being here today. Of course, our major concern is not what you are doing today and what your procedures are. We are concerned, sir, about what may happen in the year 1990 if we see the industrial base erode to such a degree that you simply do not have the domestic plants to produce the quantities of goods that I feel you are going to need. I was looking at your summary here. You say, "Our future ability to meet mobilization requirements will depend on a healthy domestic industry.' If we keep going with the present trend, do you, sir, have any reason to believe we will have any hopes of having that domestic industry to supply this if the present trend continues? Mr. CHIESA. Mrs. Lloyd, that is a difficult question for me to answer. Mrs. LLOYD. Don't you think it is one you need to be concerned about? Mr. CHIESA. Yes, we are concerned. However, let me tell you why it is a difficult question to answer. The total percentage of the U.S. output of textiles and apparel that DLA buys is approximately 1 percent. So, on the one hand, I am buying a very small percentage of the base. However, we have to monitor this trend very carefully because any deterioration in that total domestic base will certainly affect us. So while I share your concern, I do not believe I can automatically say that any trend Mrs. LLOYD. I think you ought to make it your business, because if the present trend continues, we are not going to have a domestic production. What are your plans for that? Mr. CHIESA. My plans are to continue to monitor it as closely as we can, Mrs. Lloyd, and again with the same concern that you have expressed, that with any further deterioration of that base we will use all of the industrial preparedness measures we can to try to remedy that situation. Mrs. LLOYD. Well, when you consider that the base is already weakened to meet our needs at the present time, what could be the shortcomings if, say, we might have a prolonged NATO-versusEastern-Bloc war that might last about 6 months? What would your response be in that circumstance? Mr. CHIESA. I can say if it had happened at the time when the production base analysis was accomplished (the basis for the report that I furnished to you), I would have to conclude that we did have enough capability domestically to support our requirements with the certain exceptions I mentioned. But I really cannot project with any certainty what we would be able to do if a prolonged war happened today or tomorrow. The industrial preparedness analyses that we do is a continuing effort Mrs. Lloyd. I certainly may come, in the future, to the same conclusion you have reached. I can assure you we continue to work the problem daily. Mrs. LLOYD. You cannot tell with certainty today you think you will have it in 1990. Mr. CHIESA. No, I cannot. Mrs. LLOYD. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Hopkins. Mr. HOPKINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for calling this meeting. How do you pronounce your name? Mr. CHIESA. Chiesa. Mr. HOPKINS. You are the Executive Director for Contracting, DLA. Mr. CHIESA. Yes. Mr. HOPKINS. Contracting with DLA for Defense, do you buy things differently for the Army than you do for the Air Force? Mr. CHIESA. No, sir. Mr. HOPKINS. They are all the same? Mr. CHIESA. Yes, sir. Mr. HOPKINS. Underwear is the same, socks are the same? Mr. CHIESA. We respond to the customer's needs. If the customer has stated his need differently, if he has a different end use for an item and if it is with a different specification or different requirement, it may be bought differently to that extent, sir, but we use the same procurement regulations. When we can, we use the same specifications. But, as you know, the military services have different uniforms. Therefore there are different specifications for the different uniforms. Mr. HOPKINS. How long have you been the Executive Director for Contracting, Defense Logistics Agency? Mr. CHIESA. Since June 1980. Mr. HOPKINS. Six years approximately. Mr. CHIESA. Yes, sir. Mr. HOPKINS. How many employees are there in that agency? Mr. HOPKINS. Fifty thousand under you there? Mr. CHIESA. No, sir, not under me. That is worldwide for the Defense Logistics Agency. Mr. HOPKINS. How many are under you? Mr. CHIESA. I have a staff at headquarters of approximately 90 people and then in our six supply centers where these items are actually managed and procured there are approximately 3,344 professional contracting and industrialist specialists, in the contracting business. Mr. HOPKINS. Would it be safe to say there are 3,000 under you? Mr. CHIESA. They are under me for staff supervision. The folks in the field actually work for a commander in the field. I am not in their direct chain of command, sir. Mr. HOPKINS. How many people were there 6 years ago when you came? |