"The trouble appears to be that the Nation has permitted itself to be frightened by possibilities of nuclear warfare into dumping huge sums of money in any sort of thing that at first glance would appear to offer some sort of defense in case of attack. So much of the Nation's wealth could be wasted in such fruitless efforts that if war did come we would be ill prepared economically to cope with it. "What is needed is a down-to-earth study of the entire defense situation with a view of putting it on a practical basis both as to its operations and its costs. Certainly America wants to be prepared against any eventualities, but there is a vast difference between actual protection and spending ourselves bankrupt buying sand with which to cover our heads."

Senator GRUENING. Well, now, whose responsibility would this be if the allegation, the charge of improper use were verified? Would that be the State agency that would be responsible?

Mr. BARRY. No, sir. Under this civil defense section of the law, it is somewhat similar to this proposed agricultural extension law. You see, that is set up by the Administrator of FCDA, now OCDM, who determines who is going to be eligible, and just exactly what they can get and can't get, and who is responsible for checking on it to see what they do with it.

FCDA, now OCDM, delegates to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare the responsibility for administering the program. We acquire the property for them, that is HEW does, and through us, distribute to local civil-defense organizations. But that is the end of it. That is where our legal responsibility ends.

Senator GRUENING. Is it your impression that the demand for surplus exceeds the supply?

Mr. BARRY. It certainly does, yes, sir.

Senator GRUENING. So that the demands that are now provided for, the agencies now provided for in the law, can't get all they want, is that right?

Mr. BARRY. No, sir, they cannot. That is true in every State.

Senator GRUENING. Now, would you, from your experience, favor cutting out some of the eligibles-health, education?

Mr. BARRY. No, sir.

Senator GRUENING. Civil defense?

Mr. BARRY. Well, if they don't change, they are going to cut themselves out. That is all I care to say about that. I didn't favor them coming in.

Senator GRUENING. Well, I think that answers the question. You didn't favor their coming in. You wouldn't object to cutting them out? Mr. BARRY. I think it is as bad as we said it would be, or worse.

Senator GRUENING. My attention is called to the fact that you did oppose the entry of civil defense several years ago. You are on record to that effect.

Mr. BARRY. Yes. I got a lot of unfavorable comments from the various States about it.

Senator GRUENING. About how large is the personnel engaged in the State agencies? I don't know that you would know offhand.

Mr. BARRY. It varies tremendously. I have been working with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare now, developing a questionnaire in which we have 200-some-odd questions, I believe, on all phases of the operation. We have in Texas six warehouses, in six widely separated parts of the State, and we have about 120 employees. Some other States equally large in population, but smaller in area, have no need for such wide distribution of warehouses, and that cuts

down on their number of employees. We transport most of our own property, all of it within the State, with our own trucks. But some certain other States, like Ohio, for instance, ships all of their property commercially, so that makes a difference.

Senator GRUENING. In your State, who financed the construction of these warehouses?

Mr. BARRY. They are all leased.

Senator GRUENING. The State pays, or does the Federal Government pay?

Mr. BARRY. The Federal Government pays for nothing.

Senator GRUENING. The State pays the whole cost of receiving the property and distributing it?

Mr. BARRY. Yes, sir; our budget for this coming year will be a little over $700,000.

Senator GRUENING. Well, for that $700,000, what would you estimate would be the value of the surplus property that you distribute in the State of Texas?

Mr. BARRY. $15 million a year.

Senator GRUENING. In other words, your cost of handling and distribution is about roughly 5 percent?

Mr. BARRY. Yes, sir. And it is accurately determined by a CPA. We run a cost accounting every quarter.

Senator GRUENING. Well, thank you very much. The prepared statement you submitted will appear at this point in the record. (The statement of Mr. Barry is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF L. K. BARRY ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE AGENGIES FOR SURPLUS PROPERTY

My name is L. K. Barry; I am here to testify on behalf of the National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property of which all 53 States and possessions are active members and of which I am the president.

The National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property, at its recent 12th annual conference, went on record as being opposed to increasing the types or categories of institution and organizations eligible to acquire donable surplus Government personal property. The gist of the resolution passed by our national association was as follows:

"Addition of eligibles would make for a thin distribution of the property now available.

"It would not increase the amount of surplus available.

"It would complicate and make impractical the administration of the program." There were many long and well considered reasons for this action.

1. The donation program administered by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the State agencies for surplus property has become big and complex. It is highly organized and strictly regulated but has been subject to continuous and confusing changes in procedures growing out of changes in regulations by the various Federal agencies concerned with the program. There seems to be a possibility that the donation program will settle down in the next few months to where it is thoroughly understood by all concerned: those oper. ating the program, the Federal disposal agencies, and the donees benefiting from the program. The addition of new eligibles at this time would seriously delay the stability of the program.

2. Not one of the bills under consideration would create an outlet for types of surplus not now being utilized by the present donees and not now in short supply to satisfy the needs of the present donees. Regardless of what they, in all good faith and sincerity, may say about the types of surplus property they would need being that which is now being sold rather than donated, experience has proven that any new eligibles will want and will compete for exactly the same types of property that educational, public health, and civil defense organizations are now utilizing.

3. The addition of a single new type of eligible would necessitate redrafting almost every one of the many forms, manuals, and regulations now in use by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the State agencies, and this would cost the Deprtment a very appreciable amount of money; the total cost to the State agencies would be far more. Since all State agencies for surplus property are wholly or largely self-supporting from fees charged the donees they serve, these additional costs will of necessity have to be borne by the donees.

4. If new eligibles are created, it will be like opening Pandora's box. Each session of the Congress will find dozens of pressure groups seeking admission to the program, even more so than has been the case heretofore. During my 13 years in the program I have had applications for participation from dozens of ineligible types of organizations that were in my opinion at least as worthy, as well administered, and far more in need of surplus than are any of those now under consideration.

5. It is not generally known that before donable surplus is made available to State agencies for surplus property for distribution to our schools, hospitals, and civil defense organizations, the State forestry services, the State highway departments, the soil conservation districts, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Campfire Girls, Boys Clubs of America, Civil Air Patrol, and an ever-increasing number of public and private schools with ROTC's have a priority over our donation program in acquiring military surplus-and over 93 percent of all donable surplus comes from the military. Most of those knocking at the door of eligibility are badly misinformed about the quantities of usable surplus available. Most of that which is apparently usable by eligibles but which goes on sale has been screened for the donation program and has been rejected as uneconomically repairable for use by donees. If, in some States, as appears to be the case, usable surplus is being sold in appreciable quantities, this is due entirely to an inefficient State agency for surplus property which, in turn, is due to lack of vision on the part of State officials controlling the State agency; the addition of eligibles would in nowise correct this situation; the State agency would not become more efficient or energetic simply because of an increase in the number of eligibles.

6. There is no need whatever for the passage of S. 1018 making coverative agricultural extension work eligible: it is already eligible. These experiment stations and agricultural extension projects under the Texas A. & M. College system, for instance, have acquired $400,000 worth of donable surplus the past 12 months. They have done equally as well as Ohio and proportionately as well in some other States. In those States where these programs are not getting property the fault lies wholly with the colleges under which they operate. Those of us with long experience in the program know that the language of S. 1018 is such that it actually could create a rival program wholly separate and apart from the program now operated by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and contrary to the intent of the Congress that a single State agency handle all donations of Federal surplus within that State.

If there be any doubt about this, I point to section 203 (j) (2) of the Federal Property and Administration Services Act of 1949, as it now stands, under which Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and numerous other activities of special interest of the Armed Forces enjoy a priority in acquiring donable military surplus. Part of that section reads:

"If the Secretary (of Defense) shall determine that such property is usable and necessary for such purposes, he shall allocate it for transfer by the Administrator (of GSA) to the appropriate State agency for distribution to such educational activities."

The law very plainly states that distributions to these so-called special interest activities shall be made by the State agencies yet not a single item of donable surplus in the entire United States has ever been transferred by the GSA to a State agency for distribution to such special interest activities. S. 1018 would, in all probability, result in a similar situation with respect to agricultural extension work because it puts under the Secretary of Agriculture, rather than under the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the responsibility of certain determinations.

7. With the possible exceptions of remarks specifically about S. 108, my remarks apply in general to all bills under consideration. However must call attention to one feature of S. 1210 and S. 1365, bearing on the eligibility of volunteer fire departments and welfare agencies, respectively. In both cases, donations would be made to organizations administered largely by volunteer workers. In most cases there would be almost no accountability for donated

surplus by such orgnaiztaions and no practical means by which legitimate use of donated property could be assured. And, I must add, in most sections of the country, volunteer fire departments are already the nucleus of the civil defense organizations in small towns and communities and are thus eligible for and receiving donable surplus.

Senator GRUENING. Mr. Harry Hayman, former president of the National Association for Retarded Children.

STATEMENT OF HARRY HAYMAN, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CHILDREN

Mr. HAYMAN. Thank you, sir.

I am not former president of the national, I am former president of the local unit here, which is a member of the national association. I have a telegram 17 here from the national association which I would like to enter into the record. Rather than read it, I would like to tell you what this surplus property will mean to us at a local level-since all these people have had their paid help here representing them, I would like to tell you what it means to our group. We will benefit from this bill. And I would like to tell you what it means, if you will permit it.

Senator GRUENING. Mr. Hayman, which bill are you testifying on? Mr. HAYMAN. I am testifying for S. 1365, 1210, and 1018, and whatever parts of the other bills that would assist us in securing surplus proprety for the use of our association.

Senator GRUENING. Wait a minute. S. 1018 authorizes surplus property to agricultural extension work. That isn't your category.

Mr. HAYMAN. No; it is not our categary, sir. But I cannot tell from reading it-I am not a lawyer-whether we would come in under certain clauses there.

Senator GRUENING. Have you a list of the bills under consideration there, and would you point out which ones would benefit the retarded children?

Mr. HAYMAN. Yes, sir. I tried reading them, but I am not a lawyer, and I couldn't get too much out of them.

Certainly, S. 1365 and I guess that is about the only one that from this list here that I could tell would benefit us. But from reading over the other bills, we may come in under certain of the other bills. Senator GRUENING. Well, your interest is particularly in retarded children, is it not?

Mr. HAYMAN. Yes, sir. I am representing the national association as well as the local association here in Washington, D.C.

Senator GRUENING. Well, now, those children are, as a rule, in special schools, are they not?

Mr. HAYMAN. Where there are special schools available for them, yes, sir.

Senator GRUENING. Otherwise, how are they being educated, where there are not special schools?

Mr. HAYMAN. Here in Washington, is a rather sad situation. We, ourselves, in our own group, have been growing every year. We have a long waiting list for our facilities. We only are able to handle about 100 children. There are certain other private schools here which probably handle another 400 or 500. As close as we can de

17 See p. 109.

termine, there are about 8,000 retarded children here in the District of Columbia. Public school facilities have only one school which provides facilities for only 30 children.

Senator GRUENING. Which school is that?

Mr. HAYMAN. That is the school on Military Road, the Military Road School. It is a fine school, but, again, it can just handle a small number of children.

Senator GRUENING. Is that eligible under the provisions that permit surplus property for public schools?

Mr. HAYMAN. I don't know if that is eligible, sir. I can only speak for our own school.

Senator GRUENING. What is your own school?

Mr. HAYMAN. Our own school is organized under our organization, and we are running it this year at the St. Mary's Episcopal Church, who have donated the use of their facilities, at 23d Street, right near Virginia Avenue.

Senator GRUENING. Does that receive any surplus property?

Mr. HAYMAN. No, sir, we have not received any for our association at all.

Senator GRUENING. Have you requested it?

Mr. HAYMAN. We have no way of requesting it, sir, since apparently there is no legal method of getting it.

Senator GRUENING. Under the existing law, the surplus property is available for purposes of education and health. And certainly a retarded child would fit into both those categories, I would think.

Mr. HAYMAN. They certainly would appear to fit in those categories. But we are also eligible for aid in the form of grants under certain other bills. But

Senator GRUENING. I will ask Mr. Gray to come forward again. I wonder whether you would join in this discussion, Mr. Gray, so we can clarify the situation.

Obviously, the retarded children should be the object of our greatest solicitude. Now, are they included or excluded?

Mr. GRAY. Many of them-I think I could safely say most of them, if they operate a bona fide school, which meets our definition of a school, and a great many of them do, are eligible and receive surplus property on the same basis as any other school. We do have a problem where some institutions are mainly custodial, and do not meet the qualifications of a school, and those we have not been able to find eligible. But there are a great many schools for retarded children all over the country which have been able to demonstrate that they do operate an approved school. And they are eligible to receive surplus property.

I don't know about this particular group here. I would be interested in knowing if they have ever made application for a determination of eligibility.

Mr. HAYMAN. I can't really say at this time, I would have to check our records on that. But I will also speak, then, if the custodial schools are not eligible, I would like to speak for them as well.

Mr. GRAY. Well, the law, I want to point out, reads "school," and a strictly custodial institution is not a school. And we do have to draw the line there.

44978-598