Page images

able to handle all phases of the operation from procurement or acquisition to disposition with dispatch or we cannot be held fully accountable for the final results. In order to clarify section 302 (d) (2) on this point it is recommended that it be revised to read as follows:

“Any executive agency with respect to any phase (including, but not limited to, procurement, storage, transportation, processing, and disposal) of any program conducted for purposes of resale, price support, grants to farmers, stabilization, transfer to foreign governments, or foreign aid, relief, or rehabilitation ;'.

Since there was not time to obtain formal clearance through the Bureau of the Budget of the testimony presented by Mr. Scammahorn and Mr. Crow this morning, the matter was discussed informally with that Bureau. We were advised that, while there was no objection to the presentation of our views, such advice involved no commitment as to the relationship of the recommendations to the program of the President. Sincerely,



Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Bryan, of the State Department, will you take the chair again?

Mr. BRYAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to refer to this statement, which contains some minor drafting changes in section 201, which I think is probably desirable, and have it made a part of the record.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is a matter of clarification of the language?
Mr. BRYAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. And does not change the substance in any way?
Mr. BRYAN. No,

Mr. HOLIFIELD. It will be received as a part of the record.
(The statement referred to follows:)


Title II of the proposed legislation governing the question of foreign excess property has been carefully reviewed in the Department of State.

The provisions of the several sections under this title appear adequate to safeguard the interests of the Department of State with respect to the programs authorized by existing legislation.

It will be noted that each executive agency owning foreign excess property shall be responsible for the disposal thereof, except where commitments exist under previous agreements, in accordance with the foreign policy of the United States. While the Department is unable to express a general view as to whether the several executive agencies of the Federal Government are in agreement on their respective responsibilities under the proposed bill, it is believed, insofar as the State Department is concerned, that the remaining provisions thereof are essential to an orderly continuance of its responsibilities now governed by law.

The proposed legislation permits the Department to perform its residual responsibilities in liquidating its activities under the Surplus Property Act of 1944, as amended. Furthermore, the proposed bill provides authority for effectuating the cultural and educational exchange program authorized by the Fulbright Act of August 1, 1946 (Public Law 584, 79th Cong.). Moreover, adequate provision is contained therein to carry out the Foreign Service buildings program which Congress implemented, on July 25, 1946 (Public Law 547, 79th Cong.), by authorizing the utilization of credits acquired through lend-lease settlements and surplus property dispositions abroad. The provisions contained in title II of the proposed bill parallel in many respects the authority contained in the Surplus Property Act of 1944 and permit the individual executive agencies to dispose of such property accordingly.

It is believed, however, that the language contained in section 201 at line 18 beginning with the word “for” and running through the word "amended” in line 20 should be deleted. The language recommended for deletion is redundant since line 11 of section 201 already provides for effectuation of the purposes of section 32 (b) (2) of the Surplus Property Act and such language might liniit the use of foreign currencies and credits to the cultural and educational program under the Fulbright Act. The language of lines 13 through 16 of section 201 apparently intends to permit the use of foreign currencies and credits for the Foreign Service buildings program as well as for other governmental expenses payable in local currencies.



Mr. HOLIFIELD. Is Mr. Ray Ward of the Bureau of the Budget present?

Mr. WARD. Yes.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Ward, the committee requested you to enter into negotiations with representatives of the General Accounting Office and the leading establishments for the purpose of clarifying certain differences in the accounting procedure. Can you report to the committee what progress has been made?

Mr. WARD. Yes. We have received some additional language from the General Accounting Office and are currently sending that out to the principal agencies involved to get their informal reactions. This action is with the full understanding of the General Accounting Office and the Director of the Budget. We expect to have those coments in today or maybe tomorrow, Mr. Chairman, and I think Wat this matter will take care of the question of property accounting,

We have also been in touch with Mr. Niederlehner, of the Munitions Board, who is preparing a statement, which he promised to send to us. We will see if there are any points in difference. To date we have heard of no such points.

I might say with respect to the Department of Agriculture that we have been working with Mr. Scammahorn and Mr. Crow, and other people, and the minor points have been taken care of with the exception of one or two which we expect will be done today.

We are also working with the Federal Works people.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Any questions of Mr. Ward ? If not, we thank you, Mr. Ward.

Mr. WARD. Thank you.



Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Weitzel, is there any further statement you would like to make to the committee?

Mr. WEITZEL. Merely to collaborate with Mr. Ward's statement. We are working hard to come to an understanding on this. There are no misunderstandings, so far as the Comptroller General and the Di. rector of the Bureau of the Budget are concerned; I think that is a correct statement, is it not?

Mr. WARD. That is correct, yes.

Mr. WEITZEL. And between the Federal Works Agency. But at the present time the Bureau of the Budget is going through an informal clearing process, which it felt would be desirable, because the bill previously had been cleared with the agencies, the executive branch, and we do not want any misunderstandings about any part of the bill, of course. That is why we are taking it up with agencies with whom the bill previously had been cleared.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Weitzel. This display of coopera


, tion is indeed gratifying.

Mr. WEITZEL. Thank you.

[ocr errors]


FOR THE MUNITIONS BOARD Mr. HOLIFIELD. Is there a representative of the National Military Establishment in the room?


Mr. HOLIFIELD. Will you give your name to the reporter for the record.

Mr. NIEDERLEHNER. Leonard Niederlehner, counsel for the Munitions Board.

Mr. Chairman, I understand from your clerk, and also from Mr. Ward, that you desire a rather full statement from the Military Establishment at such time as we shall be able to get the approval of the Bureau of the Budget, and we are prepared to submit such statement at the convenience of the committee.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. You have the statement prepared for the National Military Establishment?

Mr. NIEDERLEHNER. We are working on statements for Mr. Carpenter, chairman of the Munitions Board, and Mr. Gray, the Under Secretary of the Army, which will go to Mr. Ward today to be sure that they are in harmony with the general program of the President and at such time as the committee wishes we will have witnesses here.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Very well. Is there anything further you wish to add?

Mr. NIEDERLEHNER. No. We are also working on the accounting provisions for the General Accounting office and Mr. Ward, and are trying to get the reactions from the working people, which may take us a few days.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. We would like to have that as quickly as possible, and when that is ready we will ask you to appear before the committee to make your statement.

Mr. NIEDERLEHNER. Thank you.


[ocr errors]

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Members of the committee, we have had a request from a delegation that is here this morning, representing the State departments of education, of 43 States, to be allowed to appear before the committee and make a short statement. Mr. William H. Moore, of Arkansas, has been selected as the spokesman. Also present are . Mr. E. H. Talbert, of South Carolina; Mr. W. B. Walker, of Oregon; Mr. J. M. Frazier, of Indiana; Mr. S. W. Paterson, of California, and Mr. Cecil Jenkins, of Missouri; and also Mr. Riggs, of West Virginia.

Mr. Moore, we will be glad to hear you at this time. Will you state your official position.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I am a representative of the State educational agencies, the national committee, which is comprised of the directors of the State educational agencies in each of the respective States.

We have 43 States in the Union which participate in this national organization. The committee itself is comprised of 2 representatives from each of the 8 Army areas; there are 16 members on the committee.

We have been interested and are interested in the acquisition and disposal of Government surplus property of all types to educational institutions, and we are intimately interested in certain features of the proposed bill under consideration here, H. R. 2781.

We have some recommendations that we would like to make for the consideration of the committee in that respect, in order that the interest of education may be protected.

If you will allow me I would like you to refer to page 15 of title I and suggest that immediately following line 20 of title I that subsection (j) be added, which would make it possible to continue the transfer of property usable and needed for public benefit alone. This proposed subsection was approved by the committee in considering the proposed Property Act for 1948, and it can be found in that proposed act. It would make possible that continued use.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. When you say committee, you mean your committee?

Mr. Moore. No; it was approved by the committee; I have the actual statute, the proposed statute, which died because of the expiration of the Eightieth Congress, that is, the 1948 proposed act. It was accepted by the committee in the hearings and made a part of the proposed statute.

If you would permit me to go into title III, which I realize you are not considering at the present time, but in which we are very much interested and we will not be here, I am afraid, when you have your committee hearing on that, I would like to go to page 30 of the proposed act, and refer to line 10, and suggest that immediately following the figure "13,” in line 10, the letters “(a) and (b)” be added.

That refers to subsections (a) and (b) of section 13 of the Property Act of 1944, which would make it possible

Mr. BURNSIDE. Would you mind giving that to me again?

Mr. MOORE. Yes. On page 30, line 10, immediately following “13," between the “(g)” and the figure “13" insert “(a) and (b).” Those are the subsections of section 13 of the Surplus Property Act of 1944.

Sections A and B provide for public beneficiary alone, to education and health.

Now I am not prepared to speak for health. I do know they have received tremendous benefits because of that, but I can speak for education,

We are intensely interested and we know how much benefit the schools throughout the country have been deriving as a result of that particular feature of the program, and we would like very much to see those two subsections placed in this measure.

Another thing that we are very vitally concerned with is in line 14 on the same page.

You will notice that in lines 14 and 15 the bill cuts off the effective date of this act on December 31, 1949. We would like to have the committee consider the advisability of eliminating the dead line, and beginning with the word "effect” add these words: with respect to benefits for educational use, when their utilization is certtified to by the United States Commission of Education.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


In other words, there is not much use of putting in subsections (a) and (b) referred to above if you are to leave the dead line at December 31, 1949, and provision should be made to continue it.

Then, we have another thing: There has been approximately $475,000,000 worth of real property transferred to education in the

United States as a whole. That represents about 5,000 schools and colleges that have received property under the Surplus Property Act. Quite a bit of that property has been transferred on a reverting clause in the transfer instrument, and we would like to know that the educational people are going to have the refusal in case of noncompliance that might be claimed, before any decision is made to take away their property.

For instance, there might be a neighbor school right next door which could make use of the property that is no longer needed by the original institution, and we would like to see that made possible.

Then another thing that we are vitally interested in is the effect that this legislation may have on the present donation bill, Public Law 889.

Mr. BURNSIDE. This property is only taken back when it is needed for national defense; is it not ?

Mr. MOORE. No. If a school fails to comply with the utilization requirements, as established in the application, on which public benefit alone is granted.

Mr. BURNSIDE. You mean, you might get into difficulty because you may have a classroom you no longer need, and they want to convert it to a garage or something of that kind?

Mr. MOORE. You might have a classroom that was needed for veterans under the emergency program, but which the school does not need for that purpose now, but actually under the terms of the con. tract it goes back to the Government without the refusal of education to come back and say whether or not they need it. The school can get the Government's approval for the transfer of the building, you see, and we have had numerous cases where that has been worked out very satisfactorily. We have had institutions which have got portions of installations, including lands and buildings, where the original transfer, it developed, was more than the institution could actually use.


Mr. MOORE. In which case we have been able to secure permission, with the approval of the Office of Education, of transfer to another institution, and we would like very much to see that benefit continued if that possibly can be done.

As I started to state, we are very much interested in the present donation bill which the Congress, the Eightieth Congress, enacted as Public Law 889, being protected by this bill in every way possible, and we further call attention to the fact that the House at the present time has under consideration a bill which was submitted by your chairman, Mr. Holifield, H. R. 3238, which would broaden the base of the present donation statute, that is, Public Law 889 of the Eightieth Congress.

I do not know whether it is possible to write this legislation to protect the program as we hope it will be when that statute becomes law or not. I might say that under the donation statute, the existing law, that is, Public Law 889, only the Military Establishment can donate

« PreviousContinue »