The distressing note sounded in some of the letters had to do with the lack of resources which were deemed necessary if the directors were to perform their jobs effectively. The resources, in most cases, involved money, and, in turn, equipment, supplies, etc.

While the State directors have the responsibility for organizing a sound civildefense program which would serve to protect their citizens and contribute to the overall security of the Nation in the event of war, many of the State governments have been reluctant or have found it financially impossible to provide more adequate funds for the operation of the State programs.

The American Legion realizes that Federal responsibility in civil defense ceases at the State line, generally speaking. However, any material assistance which the Federal Government can render to the States beyond that presently undertaken, would not only serve to benefit the State involved, but the entire Nation as well.

Today the rulers of the Soviet Union have in being a growing stockpile of both atomic and hydrogen bombs. They have in being the planes needed to deliver these weapons against our cities. These facts are both known and accepted by our Nation's leaders, both military and civilian.

If we are to assume that our people and industry will be in a position to sustain an attack, civil defense must be recognized as a vital defense program, equal to our military. In so doing, the American Legion believes that surplus Government property should be placed at their disposal without delay.

The American Legion is happy to support any measure that will make surplus Federal property or supplies available for civil-defense purpose for donation or distribution to States, political subdivisions, or local instrumentalities thereof for civil-defense purposes.

Since the passage of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 the American Legion has consistently supported this agency, its budget requests, recruitment programs, and educational efforts. In our continued support, we respectfully request your favorable consideration of H. R. 7227 or any other bill that will accomplish the same purpose.

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate that you have many matters to attend to. The long and short of it, gentlemen, is that our organization wholeheartedly supports the bill 7227 which is now under consideration, or any other bill which will accomplish practically the same purpose. That is the gist of Mr. Allen's statement.

We have had in the Legion for several years a civil-defense committee, and it has been chairmaned by Mr. Allen over the recent years, and his group has studied the problems attendant to civil defense, and they have gone before the respective Senate and House Appropriations Committees each year and supported appropriations for that purpose, and our organization has urged our posts, of which we have a little over 17,000 scattered throughout the country, to actively participate in the civil-defense problems attendant to the communities in which they are located in the 48 States and the District of Columbia.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, we are wholeheartedly in support of this bill 7227, or any other that will accomplish the purpose, and I understand from talking to Mr. Hruska, who received yesterday a telegram from Mrs. James Goodrich Ward, who is the secretary of the National Legion Auxiliary, urging the passage of this bill, I ask if it has not officially been incorporated, I respectfully request that that be done. Mr. BROOKS. That has been done.

Gentlemen, do you have any questions of Mr. Kennedy?

If not, we want to thank you very much for your courtesy in coming down, sir.

Mr. KENNEDY. It is a pleasure. Mr. Perry Brown called me and said I should be sure and extend his compliments to you.

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you very much. He is a former national commander, for whom I have the highest regard. Thank you very much for coming down.

I will recognize Mr. Lee Metcalf of Montana, who will present a statement in support of H. R. 7227, and include a letter from the director of civil defense from the State of Montana.

STATEMENT OF HON. LEE METCALF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Mr. METCALF. I appreciate this opportunity to support H. R. 7227, by my good friend, the chairman of this subcommittee, on behalf of the people of Montana.

The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 authorized the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to allocate useful and needed surplus Government property to education and health agencies. Since this program was established, about $1.5 billion worth of public property has continued in public use with the resultant saving to the taxpayers who bought and paid for this material and whose schools and health agencies need it.

H. R. 7227, and the companion bill, H. R. 4660 by Congressman Dawson of Illinois, would add civil defense to this section of the law. This amendment is in the national interest. I hope this subcommittee will see fit to report it.

In support of this statement, I want you to have the following letter from Mr. Hugh K. Potter, director of civil defense, State of Montana: (The letter referred to is as follows:)

Hon. LEE METCALF,

United States Congressman,

STATE OF MONTANA,

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL DEFENSE,
HELENA, MONT., February 24, 1955.

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN METCALF: Since January 1951, when the Federal Civil Defense Administration was established by Public Law 920 of the 81st Congress, many millions of dollars worth of surplus property, of the Defense Department, needed by State civil defense organizations, have been disposed of by sale to private individuals.

This included such items as blankets, litters, generators, communications equipment, emergency feeding equipment and vehicles.

In one instance, the State of Connecticut purchased 10,000 surplus army litters from a private dealer, who had purchased them from the Federal Government. They were paid for by 50 percent Federal and 50 percent State funds.

The Federal Civil Defense Administrator and the State directors have, for nearly 2 years, endeavored to obtain legislation to make this material available to civil defense. It has been tied up in the Office of the Director of the Budget. I have been informed that the Director of the Budget has cleared an administration-sponsored bill to correct this.

Montana Civil Defense is being administered on a basis of need, the possibility of attack and the probability of aid to other States and evacuees that may become a Montana problem.

Existing facilities are the base of operation and insofar as possible civil defense is incorporated within those facilities to enable them not only to do a job in time of disaster but to improve their service in day-to-day operation. Surplus military equipment will greatly aid our readiness to act quickly and lessen the financial load of the taxpayer.

I request your vigorous support to secure speedy enactment of this legislation in the national interest of survival and economy.

Respectfully yours,

HUGH K. POTTER, Director of Civil Defense.

Mr. BROOKS. I would like to present Albert W. Cretella from Connecticut, who is interested in H. R. 7227, and feels that it is of considerable merit, to present his statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT W. CRETELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mr. CRETELLA. Mr. Chairman, thank you for permitting me to submit a statement in connection with this legislation, H. R. 4660 and H. R. 7227, to authorize disposal of surplus Government-owned property to State civil defense organizations.

It has now been firmly established that civil defense is an integral part and an important part of our Nation's overall defense network. I know that in the State of Connecticut many constructive things are being done for the protection of her people in case of attack by nuclear weapons. State and local directors, as well as hundreds of conscientious volunteers are selflessly giving their time and their services to this plan.

Connecticut is in a potentially dangerous location with her number of defense factories scattered throughout the State in addition to her proximity to highly industrialized areas of adjacent States. The civil defense authorities therefore are facing up to this coldly realistic fact and are doing everything possible to assure the greatest protection to the greatest number of people.

But, Mr. Chairman, there is a limit to the amount which can be accomplished by State and local organizations without aid from the Federal level. The Federal Government owns many different kinds of surplus property such as medical supplies, transportation and radio equipment, et cetera, which will be of inestimable value to civil-defense units.

You have heard testimony during these hearings that because civil defense organizations cannot qualify as educational institutions, they are unable to procure these materials directly from the Government. As has been previously pointed out by Mr. McGill of Texas, the classic example of waste in money to the taxpayers occurred in Connecticut where materials were sold to the office of civil defense there by private individuals for about twice the amount for which they were originally purchased from the Government.

Why should our taxpayers be forced to pay doubly for equipment, once for the military and once again for civil defense, with a profit to private parties in addition?

From testimony before the members of this subcommittee made by directors and members of civil defense organizations all over the United States, it is obvious that this legislation is meritorious and essential for the continuance of this program.

I, therefore, want to associate myself completely with these people who are experts on the needs of State and local civil defense, with the hope that Congress will amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, to authorize disposal of surplus Government property to the various State civil defense organizations. Thank you.

Mr. BROOKS. I would like to recognize Congressman Oliver P. Bolton, and point out we are very pleased to have him back from a serious illness and glad to see that he is up and about.

He is looking fine, with a nice tan, after a couple of months' rest from a heart attack.

STATEMENT OF HON. OLIVER P. BOLTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, may I first express my appreciation for your courtesy in permitting me to present my views on H. R. 7227 which would enable the Federal Government to turn over property adjudged to be surplus to the States for civil defense purposes.

It was my privilege, before becoming a Member of the 83d Congress, to serve as a member of the county civil defense staff in Lake County, Ohio. As a result of this experience, as well as the overall picture of civil defense which I have acquired since becoming a Member of Congress, I am especially interested in any action which the Congress can take to assist these volunteer groups to build up the defenses of our country at home. I believe the legislation before this committee would contribute much toward this end.

As one of many examples of the need for this legislation, let me cite the difficulties which I have encountered in attempting to acquire for the civil defense organization of Ashtabula, Ohio, an abandoned Coast Guard tower which the local organization needs as an observation post. On the one hand, the Honorable Val Peterson, Administrator of the Federal Civil Defense Administration, advised me that the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, and regulations issued thereunder, failed to provide him with the authority to request the transfer of this tower to his agency for civil-defense use. He noted in a letter to me dated July 1, 1955, that:

Except as provided for under conditions of a civil-defense emergency or major natural disaster, there is currently no authority to donate federally owned materials for civil-defense purposes.

On the other hand, Rear Adm. F. A. Leamy, commander of the Ninth Coast Guard District at Cleveland, Ohio, has stated to me in a letter dated July 15, that:

It is unfortunate in this case that the Federal Civil Defense Administration does not feel that they have the statutory authority to forward a request for the tower, inasmuch as the Commandant, Coast Guard Headquarters, has authorized me to effect the transfer when the proper request is received.

It is my understanding that passage of this legislation will not only clear up much of the confusion which now exists, but will make it possible for many communities not now able to participate in the civildefense program, because of lack of finances, to receive equipment badly needed for their civil-defense programs. I understand that Mr. Peterson, Civil Defense Director, has testified in support of this legislation and I hope that your committee will give it every favorable consideration.

Mr. BROOKS. I would like to introduce Hon. Richard H. Poff, from Virginia. He is 1 of 2 Republicans from Virginia, and he, too, is endorsing this legislation which will give the civil-defense agencies a right to use surplus property.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD H. POFF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, my name is Richard H. Poff, and I am privileged to represent the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia. There are several bills before your committee touching upon the subject under inquiry. There are similar bills before other legislative committees of the House and Senate. My bill on the subject, H. R. 5262, was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and I have been advised by its chairman that it would defer action to your committee which, under the rules of the House, has primary jurisdiction over legislation governing the disposal of surplus Government property.

I am wholly unconcerned about whose name appears on the legislation. My only concern is that Congress pass legislation at this session which will make available surplus property to State and local units of the United States Civil Defense Corps and Farm Emergency Civil Defense Corps.

Under existing law, the procedure governing the disposal of Federal surplus personal property by donation is contained in the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, and regulations issued thereunder.

Pursuant to such authority, the General Services Administrator is authorized to donate available surplus materials to tax supporting or tax exempt nonprofit institutions, hospitals, clinics, health centers, school systems, schools, colleges, and universities, upon allocation by the Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (formerly Federal Security Administrator), after determination by the Secretary that such property is usable and necessary for educational or public health purposes including research. Except as provided for under conditions of a civil-defense emergency or major natural disaster, there is currently no authority to donate federally owned materials for civil-defense purposes.

The bill which I introduced called for an amendment of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950. It also vested in the Administrator of the Federal Civil Defense Administration the authority and responsibility of fixing terms and conditions of property disposal. After further study, and in view of the fact that the General Services Administration has initial statutory jurisdiction over the disposal program as provided in the 40 United States Code 484 (j), I am constrained to believe that the best approach would be to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, and retain in the General Services Administrator his present authority in connection with surplus disposal as provided in H. R. 4660. Following that approach, the Federal Civil Defense Administrator could be vested with authority to determine whether the property is usable and necessary for civil-defense purposes and with the responsibility for allocating the same among the designated local units on the basis of needs and utilization.

It occurs to me that, in this connection, the committee might give some consideration to the advisability of formalizing by statute the rules governing allocation and relative priorities among applicants.