as needed in photography or camping; public address systems, including microphones, recorders, and record players; shop machines, such as jig saws, drill presses, lathes, planers, and the like; duplicating machines such as mimeographs and other multigraph equipment; office equipment such as files, desks, typewriters, and calculating machines; meteorolgical equipment; portable buildings which may be used on school land for storage of supplies and equipment; diving equipment including rubber boats and small water craft which may be used on field trips for the study of biology of the waterways; trucks and trailers for transporting students to biological and geological areas in order to study these materials first hand as well as transporting exhibits and other instructional materials to teachers at institutions or in their own school; jeeps and small tractors for the working of small school farms or gardens and for the transporting of equipment to work areas. These items of equipment are now assigned to Army, Navy, and Marine units. 2. Federal agencies in possession of such surplus property should participate largely by releasing appropriate materials for educational purposes. 3. Responsibility for the disposal of surplus property to educational uses may well be vested in the United States Office of Education but it would be well to have an advisory committee which would represent all the educational interests. 4. (a) The single Federal agency authorized to hold surplus property for educational uses should be allowed to use the property directly as needed in its own operations but again, as judged by the advisory committee. (b) The Federal agency should authorize the distribution of property among educational agencies or institutions on bases which would be developed by the advisory committee. 5. (a) The purposes for which the surplus property should be distributed among educational institutions should be to assist in developing educational activities wherever these materials may serve in the interests of education. Many backward areas would not be interested in using equipment, therefore it would be unwise to distribute any more than will be well used. One of the great needs in addition to promoting research would be to train and retrain teachers. During the last few years a very large number of poorly trained teachers have been brought into the schools. There is a very great need for the retraining of these teachers and much of this will have to be done on the job. (b) The State superintendent of public instruction or the board of regents may be the State agencies which would cooperate in the distribution of property. However, it would be well to have a State advisory board in order to insure that the distributions will be made in the interests of all concerned. (c) Used equipment should be distributed to educational institutions that can make good use of it for a delivery charge only. Schools that have the necessary equipment but would like more and schools that have the means for the purchase of equipment over and above the basic needs should be privileged to buy the additional equipment at a retail price. Buyers who are not interested in the use of the equipment directly but would like to resell the material to others should be required to pay a price higher than that charged when sold to any educational institution. This would avoid the profiteering on surplus property through reselling to schools. (d) Obsolete equipment should be assigned to schools for an indefinite length of time. In other words, it should become the property of the school. (e) It would de difficult to check on maintenance and use of equipment. I think it would be well to make certain that the school needs and would make wise use of the equipment and then iot atempt to make any requirement regarding maintenance or use. Resale should not be permitted but recapture by the Government would be an appropriate condition. However, there should be a limited time period of 5 or 10 years beyond which recapture would not be operative. 6. (a) Surplus property acquired by the Federal agencies should be on the basis of needs for public service rather than on the basis of appropriated funds. (b) It would seem unnecessary to have the transfer of property authorized by Congress if the responsibility for distribution is given to such an agency as the United States Office of Education. (c) The Federal agency should be given the opportunity to satisfy the full needs of Federal as well as public education before the property is allocated to commercial disposition. (d) An over-all Federal administrator with a staff representing the various interests concerned should be given authority to determine the allocation of surplus property as between educational uses, other public uses and commercial disposition. Again it may be well to have an advisory committee working with the Federal administrator in the discharge of such responsibility. I trust that these suggestions may be of some use to your subcommittee. Sincerely yours, PHILIP G. JOHNSON, President, National Science Teachers Association. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, MISSOURI PROVINCE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE, Chairman, War Contracts Subcommittee, Committee on Military Affairs, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: I have received your communication of August 5, addressed to my predecessor, Very Rev. Peter A. Brooks, S. J., relative to disposal of surplus Government property. Permit me to express my views of disposal policies as follows: 1. First opportunity, in my opinion, should be given to nonprofit and charitable organizations and institutions. Therefore, it does not appear to me to be wise to allocate certain properties for disposal to educational institutions as distinct from other nonprofit and charitable organizations and institutions, such as orphanages, retirement homes for the aged poor, hospitals, clinics, etc. The types of property used by institutions classified as educational and by these institutions would be the same. 2. Consequently it would not seem appropriate to assign to the United States Office of Education the disposal of this property, because that agency would not be acquainted with or in contact with many organizations and institutions which have the greatest need. 3. I would recommend that a Federal agency handle the disposal. Federal agencies throughout the war period have been dealing directly with a wide variety of private and tax-supported institutions under most agreeable relations. State agencies are generally inclined to act with too little understanding of so-called private agencies and institutions and to look upon themselves as agents particularly of tax-supported and so-called public institutions. Further, the closeness to State agencies opens the way to pressure and favoritism. 4. The types of property in which nonprofit and charitable organizations and agencies would seem to be interested are as follows: Kitchen and mess-hall equipment, barracks and housing furniture, plumbing of all kinds, lighting fixtures, classroom furniture, library equipment, chairs, tables, desks, blackboards, visual education, and sound equipment, etc. 5. All types of educational institutions ought to be given opportunity to purchase surplus property on an equal basis. Therefore grade schools, mission schools, vocational schools, high schools, seminaries, colleges, universities, research institutes, etc., should participate. 6. It would seem most reasonable that a fair price should be set on items of property. The price should be determined by these factors: (a) Condition of the property and period of use; (b) Demand for that type of property; (c) The nonprofit nature of the agencies benefiting, which agencies in turn save enormous amounts of taxes; and the fact that the property is distributed among the people who paid the taxes to purchase it, rather than to individuals who will make a profit; (d) The desire to dispose of the property in the shortest possible time. Long, drawn-out procedures will be costly and absorb much of the income, and items of property will become obsolete. A very reasonable price scale which would make rapid disposal possible would seem most economical. 7. Sale should be a final transaction of such a nature that no item of property can be reclaimed by the Government. 8. No resale of surplus Government property should be permitted or there will certainly be abuse in the interests of individual or institutional profit. 9. It is my feeling that the more rapid and the more simple the disposal can be made, the better for the Government and for the people who paid for the property. If there are delays the institutions and organizations concerned will not be able to wait to fill present great needs and will purchase new property. Secondly, the Government will find huge stores of surplus property on its hands: and will be forced to release it at low bids to commercial dealers. I am grateful to you for the opportunity to express my views. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call on me. Very sincerely, JOSEPH P. ZUERCHER, S. J., Provincial. THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR MENTAL HYGIENE, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: I am glad to respond to your letter of August 7 with respect to the disposition of Government property. It is difficult for a person to respond to your letter without having considerable information as to the types of property that are under consideration, and I do not suppose any one person has that information. I would propose, however, that with suitable property the following useful application of it might be made: There is a need by the Veterans' Administration for temporary convalescent hospital, institution, or colony for psychoneurotic cases, something along the line of the Mill Hill Hospital in England. This would require living quarters, dormitory, etc., assembly, recreation, and occupational facilities. A camp or industrial village might be so converted, particularly one with many cottages. There is also need for industrial colonies for mentally defective persons. Areas surrounded by good farm land would be particularly appropriate. Of course, for mentally defective or mentally ill persons, fire-resistant or fire-proof construction is especially suitable. While cottages are useable, somewhat more congregate housing is in order. There are also certain types of mental illness for which a similar colony plan could be adapted. If there are any such properties in Puerto Rico there is a special need for them there. Puerto Rico has no provision at all for the mentally defective of its 2,000,000 population. They are, for the most part, kept in the back rooms of their homes. They need a colony with sizable acreage. I should expect that the properties useful for the above would be in the War or Navy Departments or the Office of Production Management, but I am not well enough acquainted with the latter to be sure. What I am thinking about is industrial locations to which the Government holds title. I do not think that the property should be operated by the Federal Government for the uses listed above excepting as they are already Federal functions. I think they should be transferred to State authorities on the basis of a submitted plan and commitment for their use. There should be an advisory committee of psychiatrists formed to pass judgment upon any plans submitted, for they will involve many novel features and depend heavily upon mature judgment rather than fully definable regulations. It would seem to me that the Federal Security Agency, including as it does the Public Health Service, Vocational Rehabilitation Authority and the Office of Education, would be the most appropriate Federal agency to administer the use of such property, but that there should be a recapture arrangement to apply if the service for which the transfer was made is allowed to deteriorate. I think the transfer of property should be made only to public agencies. I think research should be a legitimate part of the plans in support of which the property would be transferred. I think the distribution should be kept in Federal hands and the State be required to be the intermediary, although a county might be the ultimate agency to get the advantage of the transfer. I think the transfer should be made subject to regulations set up by a conference of representatives of the States, but that no transfer of funds from States to Federal Government should be required. Unless some good regulations were set up there will be unnecessary embarrassments due to multiple demands for the same prorerty. This would involve establishment of priorities, among which I think the evidence of need should appear at the top. I think the property should be restricted so that there would be no resale, except by Government consent and through regular Government channels. Since the readaptation of the property can result in many ill-conceived projects I think the regulations should be rather stiff in order that it may be certain to become a social asset rather than a liability. With respect to point (6b) my answer would be "yes." With respect to (c) "yes," provided there is a definite program of merit. (d) Yes, subject to a board of review composed of specialists to judge the validity of the program submitted. Sincerely yours, GEORGE S. STEVENSON, Medical Director. ENGINEERS' COUNCIL FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, The Honorable JAMES E. MURRAY, Committee on Military Affairs, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. MURRAY: In reply to your letter of August 5, I should like to discuss the points you raise by number, and limit my comments to engineering colleges. (1) Types of surplus property most likely to be useful to engineering colleges are those which can be arranged for testing in the engineering laboratories. Measuring instruments and similar equipment to be used in experiments also would be useful. I do not believe engineering colleges in general would be interested in airplanes or any such army material as trucks, etc. I would suppose that the Signal Corps, Chemical Warfare Service, Ordnance Division and Corps of Engineers would be most likely to have this equipment, especially in their research laboratories. (2) I am not sure what you mean by the question of participation “in programs involving the utilization of such property." If you mean by this that engineering college laboratories might conduct research for Federal agencies which have surplus equipment, then I believe a reasonable amount of such joint effort might be worked out. If you mean by this question to ask whether the members of the several Federal agencies could be taught by the institutions in return for the surplus property, I would say that this would be possible only when the institution and the Army post or research agency were near each other. Of course, former members of the Federal agencies will be enrolled to a large extent in the colleges under the provisions of the G. I. bill. (3) It would seem to me wise to unify responsibility for the disposal of surplus property under a single Federal agency, and the Office of Education seems a very wise choice. In general, I think that additional agencies ought not to be created, especially for a limited purpose such as the disposal of surplus property. I suppose the mechanics of the problem could be simplified if the several agencies possessing surplus property transferred ownership to the Office of Education. (4) (a) Very little of this property would be useful for the Office of Education if that agency should be selected to dispose of the material. (b) I should think the Office of Education would distribute the property among both educational institutions and departments of the Government such as the Bureau of Standards or Agriculture, where it probably could be used. (5) (a) It seems to me the basic principle of the plan of distribution should be to put the surplus material where it will be of the greatest educational or research value. This would mean that items allotted to laboratories, either in colleges or research institutions, should be where there were men competent to operate the equipment. There would be no point in sending technical laboratory equipment to colleges, for instance, where the faculty was not competent to use the material to the best advantage. (b) It seems to me the Office of Education should be the judge of the extent to which state agencies would be used. In recent years the Office of Education has established very close relations with many colleges of the country through the engineering, science, and management war training program, and I believe the Office would be able to distribute material directly with very little trouble. (c) It seems to me the property should be distributed to State and endowed institutions on the same basis. There is no reason why an endowed college should not be entitled to the use of surplus equipment just as much as taxsupported institutions. Alumni of the endowed institutions have paid their share of the taxes for the purchase of the material, and the public using the endowed institutions has the benefit of the income from the endowment, for which the gift of a reasonable amount of war material might be considered a partial offset. I think it would be very difficult to set fair market prices for either new or used surplus equipment in technical fields as much of the equipment will be out of date when available. It may still be useful for laboratory experiments but would not normally be purchased new by the college. (e) I doubt very much whether any educational institution accepting surplus war material would attempt resale, but that should certainly be prohibited. If the material is likely to be of value to the Government at any time in the near future, a recapture clause should be included in the statement of gift. (6) The question of dividing surplus material between educational institutions and public agencies was referred to in paragraph (5). The determination as to the volume and type of property to be distributed for educational use or to public departments seems to me to be a matter for congressional decision. I have an idea that there will be far more available surplus material than all the Federal and State departments which which might use this material could possibly want. Personally I believe a committee established by the Office of Education, which would have on it representatives of Government departments and educational institutions, both private and public, would be able to allocate surplus war material to the satisfaction of both groups. Without any definite information as to the amount of war material unlikely to be declared surplus, I have a feeling that there will be a great deal more than all educational institutions and Government departments can use, and that there will be a surplus for commercial disposal. The educational institutions of the country at the college level have sacrificed very heavily during these war years but have managed to carry on in spite of low enrollments. Some compensation for their struggle can be made by the gift of surplus war material for their laboratories. I do not think there should be any hesitation in presenting this property to accredited colleges without charge. Very truly yours, D. B. PRENTICE, Chairman, Committee on Engineering Schools. Miscellaneous letters on the subject of utilization of surplus war property in educational institutions: Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. CONY HIGH SCHOOL, Augusta, Maine, August 4, 1944. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: I understand that you are chairman of the committee that is studying the problem of the disposal of surplus war materials. I also understand that a great deal of this could be used by the schools of the country. I certainly hope that Congress will see fit to dispose of as much of it as possible by giving it to the public schools. It seems to me that the citizens will get a far greater return for their money in disposing of it in this manner. It would be a great mistake to repeat what occurred after the last war and sell these articles to private individuals. Very sincerely, WILLIAM A. MACOMBER, Principal. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, COUNTY OF IMPERIAL, EL CENTRO, CALIF., August 7, 1944. Chairman, War Contracts Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Military Affairs, Washington, D. C. HONORABLE SIR: After the war there is bound to be much surplus war material remaining that will have a vital educational value to schools and colleges. In the decade of depression preceding the war many, in fact, most, of the educational institutions were unable for financial reasons to buy new or replace old material and equipment. Since the advent of the war, of course, such material has been practically unobtainable. Would not the splendid material now being used by the Army schools fill a wonderful need if allotted to education after the peace has been declared? As |