Mr. MOGILL. Mr. Chairman, my instructions from the national association, which I am privileged to be the president of, was to support H. R. 4660, and I understand that your bill, H. R. 7227, is a committee substitute containing some corrective amendments made necessary by the passage of Public Law 61, and it is necessary to conform to that, and probably some other provisions therein.

It is a matter of which the State has not taken cognizance as to what agency at the National level or the Federal level would handle the detail of this matter. We have a simple position, and that is that there is surplus property, and that that surplus property is desperately needed by the States and counties of the country for civil defense purposes. We do trust that under the direction of Congress the Federal agencies can work out an appropriate and proper and feasible and expeditious manner in which this can be made available to the States and the cities.

I am not prepared to qualify as an expert on which particular Federal agency ought to go into the matter. I am not quite sure that I know enough to speak to that point at this time.

Mr. BROOKS. Do you have any idea, just offhand, from your experience in one State agency, and that is in Texas, as to what savings might result if our civil defense program in that one State could participate in the use of the surplus property?

Mr. MCGILL. Mr. Chairman, as far as dollars and cents are concerned, it would be a very, very difficult thing for me to say, but working through our State surplus property agency, with which we have very fine relations, I would say this:

Our cities and our towns and our State operation would be able to see the light here which we are unable to see now, as far as making adequate preparation for disaster situations. The other day I found it necessary to find a vehicle which could be used-converted and used— for radiological monitoring purposes, and for the laboratory purposes, and then for the decontamination of polluted-water supplies affected by all manner of disaster, whether it be an enemy attack or whatnot. They found that these vehicles were in various depots throughout the State. They were surplus, and no one else wanted them, and no one else needed them. We could not get them because they could not swear that they would be used entirely for educational purposes, because they were not going to be so used. They were going to be used to save the lives of people, and not necessarily for educational purposes, and that sort of thing alone would have been of the greatest benefit to our State.

Whereas, as you know, we have disasters of all kinds happening all the time. For instance, take the case of a litter, and the mass-feeding equipment; we are unable to get those things which are needed now very desperately for the protection of life and property, and it might just be that extra something which might put us over, and I know it would save lives, and I know it would protect property in vast amounts. Mr. BROOKS. Thank you. I wonder if the committee has any questions of Mr. McGill?

Mr. Reuss?

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, I might ask this question:

I am much persuaded, Mr. McGill, by the case you make for legislation to permit the declaring of all surplus property to civil defense operations.

However, I wonder what safeguards are necessary to prevent overstockpiling by civil defense authorities. Upon whom should the duty of certification rest that a given piece of surplus material really is necessary for civil defense purposes?

Mr. MCGILL. I think it would be the plan for a city or a State to undertake to obtain through surplus property some things that normally cannot be purchased through their regular budget for day-byday run-of-the-mill operations. In our State the mayor of the city is charged by law and the county judge is charged by law with being responsible for civil defense. They would have to certify that these things are actually needed for civil defense and disaster-preparedness purposes and would have to sign and seal these documents and so state. We would have to screen those from the State level, through the office of the Governor of the State and then that would go to the State surplus-property agency and they, with the overall view there, would screen it again.

I would hope that we would play it honestly and fairly and that we would not be tempted to overstock. I see your point, and it is a good one, sir.

Mr. REUSS: Under H. R. 7227, I might ask you this, too, Mr. Chairman: Am I right in thinking that the Federal General Services Administrator has a power over what property is actually released? Who in the Federal Government under H. Ř. 7227 would examine the requests of the civil defense authorities from the various States and cities, and say "It is all right, and it is proper to release these litters, let us say, for civil defense purposes"? It is foolish to sell them to a private speculator and have that resold. Who would make that decision as under this bill?

Mr. BROOKS. It is my understanding, and those of you who have a different understanding might correct me if I am wrong, that the Federal Civil Defense Administrator would allocate such property on the basis of need and utilization for transfer by the Administrator of General Services Administration, and that the Federal Civil Defense Administrator, if he found that the State of Texas, or Maine, or New York, was demanding 5,000 huge cooking pots, or big coffee urns for emergency use, when they obviously had no use for more than 50 or 70, it would be his responsibility to not certify that need, and under those circumstances title would not transfer to those State agencies.

Mr. REUSS. Thank you.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question there: How does that tie in with the statement that has been made by the assistant to the Administrator here that they would want the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to administer this program? That is the question which has been bothering me. I want to know where the direct authority rests, and who is going to be responsible, because you go through two channels then, and it follows up your question, Mr. Reuss, which I am very much interested in. I would like to see it tied down here this morning-that point-so that we know we are not going to duplicate these requests for all this surplus property, and that it flow through other channels than civil defense, and that civil defense be completely responsible for it.

Mr. PETERSON. May I answer that question, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Peterson, we would be pleased to hear you on that question.

Mr. PETERSON. We would be responsible for it through our own channels, but we would use the procedures which have been developed by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

In other words, they have been in this business a long time, and we would expect to benefit by the experience which they have developed in this field.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. You would not use their personnel, and their facilities?

Mr. PETERSON. No.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. You would not use their services to dispense this property?

Mr. PETERSON. No. In some cases in civil defense we do make delegations to them, but in this instance, we have not delegated. We would simple take advantage of the history and the experience which they have had.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. That is entirely different; that was not clear. It was not made clear to us.

Mr. BROOKS. That explanation does help, Governor.

Mr. Kreuger, do you have any questions?

Mr. KREUGER. No, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. We want to thank you again, Mr. McGill, for coming up here from Texas to be with us. We are pleased to have had you here this morning.

Mr. MCGILL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Mr. BROOKS. Gentlemen, at this point we have a distinguished Member of Congress from Maine, from the other end of the country. He is a Republican member, Mr. Charles P. Nelson, who would like to appear before the committee for one-half a second in connection with this legislation.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES P. NELSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy very much, and I would not ask to be taken in this order, except that I have another hearing to go to, and I do have to get there.

My name is Charles P. Nelson, and I represent the Second District of Maine.

I appear here as favoring this bill, H. R. 4660, or any bill which the committee may design to accomplish the purpose of getting this surplus equipment into the hands of the civil-defense authorities.

I would like, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to submit for the record a letter addressed to me from the Governor of the State of Maine, in favor of this type of legislation.

Mr. BROOKS. We will be very glad to have the letter for the record.

(The letter referred to follows:)

Hon. CHARLES P. NELSON,

STATE OF MAINE,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
Augusta, July 11, 1955.

House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CHARLIE: I would like, briefly, to indicate my support of the position taken by Col. Harry A. Mapes, Maine's director of civil defense and public safety, relative to surplus Government equipment. He points out that much of this equipment is useful and badly needed in the civil defense effort. He points out that, at the present time, auctions are being held wherein the equipment goes to a dealer at a very low figure and is then made available to the public, some of which eventually gets into civil defense use but from 3 to 10 times higher in price than that paid by the successful bidder. Senate bill 1527 and House bill 4660 are designed to correct this situation.

I suspect that Harry has called your attention to this matter. However, I did want to add a word of my own.

With all good wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,

EDMUND S. MUSKIE.

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you very much, Congressman Nelson.
We are pleased to have had you before the committee.

Mr. NELSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROOKS. I see Congressman Charles M. Teague of California, another good Member of the House, from whom we will be glad to hear at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES M. TEAGUE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman, may I make a very short statement? Mr. BROOKS. We would be very glad to hear from you.

Mr. TEAGUE. My name is Charles M. Teague, and I am a Member of Congress from the 13th District in California. I, too, would like to urge that the committee recommend this legislation along the lines under consideration.

My particular district in California stretches some 400 miles along the coast, and contains seven military installations, and several major oil fields. In the event of attack, it would certainly be in the first line of attack, and it would be extremely important to get the people out of San Francisco and Los Angeles into the outlying areas.

I have received many communications from many civil-defense organizations in the district, urging that legislation be brought out of the committee, and adopted, and I hope it will be.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you for your courtesy in coming before us. We appreciate your taking time out to give us the benefit of your views. While we are in this vein, I would like to introduce the Honorable B. F. Sisk, from California, who would also like to make a statement at this point.

Mr. Sisk, we will be very glad to hear from you at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. B. F. SISK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. SISK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to lend my support to H. R. 4660; I have had a number of communications from my district, and the people particularly in our civil-defense organizations out there are quite concerned. I would like to ask permission to insert in the record a statement which I have with me, and to add the support of not only myself, but the people in the civil-defense organizations in my district in the hope that this bill will be enacted.

I would like to have this statement which I have prepared inserted into the record.

Mr. BROOKS. We will be glad to accept the statement, and insert it in the record at this point.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. B. F. SISK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before the committee in support of the proposal to make surplus Federal property available to our State and local civil-defense organizations and it is my understanding that H. R. 4660, now before your committee, would accomplish this purpose.

You may recall that I also appeared in support of H. R. 3322, which has now been enacted, and which makes this property available for health and educational use. I believe the arguments advanced in favor of that measure apply with equal force to the legislation now before you. Certainly, there can be no higher use of the property the Federal Government no longer needs than the devotion of that property to the health, education, and protection of our citizens.

It is my feeling that civil defense is primarily a Federal responsibility. I am sorry to say that I feel recent tests have demonstrated that we are not doing a very good job in meeting that responsibility. Throughout America we are urging that our citizens participate actively in civil-defense organizations set up by State and community. A strong civil defense will contribute immeasurably to the protection of our country, but all these local and State activities are suffering from lack of equipment and supplies, while much Federal property which could serve is being disposed of at a small fraction of its value. Specific cases have been called to my attention in which the Defense Department has sold litters suitable for wounded persons for $4 each, only to have them resold to civil defense for $9.50 each. As the Federal Government puts up matching funds for these purchases, this procedure resulted in the Federal Treasury paying out $4.75 to buy back equipment which brought $4 into the Treasury. At the same time, the State was out $3.75 more and the taxpayers got a double rousting.

Our civil-defense authorities, whom we are making responsible for our protection in case of attack, are pleading for this chance to do a better job. strongly support their plea and ask that you report favorably this enabling legislation.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Sisk, we appreciate very much your coming before our committee, and giving us the benefit of your views.

Mr. SISK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROOKS. Gentlemen, at this point I would like to go on with the witnesses which we have present, and the next witness which I would like to present to the committee is Lt. Gen. Clarence Huebner, civil-defense director, New York State, one of our larger States, and one of our finest States.

We are pleased to have you with us, General Huebner.