Senator GRUENING. There would be no additional expense entailed upon the Government, would there, in this transportation? Senator ALLOTT. None whatever-because the title to the property and the delivery of the property would have occurred to the educational institution before they ever got it. I have looked through this very carefully, Mr. Chairman, and when I talked with Dr. Townsend about this I must confess that I approached it with a rather wary eye, but after discussing it thoroughly, I could detect nothing which gave the possibility of any abuse. Senator GRUENING. I think it would be desirable, in fact essential, that we have some list presented by those who are familiar with the work, so it is clear what is to be shipped overseas. I mean as this represents a departure, it need not include necessarily everything, but I think we would have some statement as to the type of property. Senator ALLOTT. Well, I think that is all right. Of course, the general types of equipment that educational institutions can get under the Surplus Property Disposal Act run the whole gamut of everything the Government might declare surplus. There are comparatively few institutions of learning that are carrying on foreign programs. For example, I know my own university carries on no foreign program, and I don't know of a foreign program being carried on by my State. There are a few universities like Syracuse, and American, that have carried on extensive foreign programs, but the total bulk, the total number of schools and colleges carrying on foreign programs would be a very, very small part of the total number of schools and colleges. All this would permit them to do is utilize the same surplus property overseas, to which they are now entitled. Senator GRUENING. We have Dr. Townsend here. Possibly he would be able to shed some light on this. He is supposed to be one of the witnesses. We will hear him later. Senator ALLOTT. All right. I am sure he can throw some light on this. I will check, and if he does not give as large a list as this committee desires, I will be glad to try to expand it. Thank you very much, sir. Senator GRUENING. Thank you, sir. Our next witness will be Senator Keating." STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH B. KEATING, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Senator KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to have this opportunity to be heard by your committee with regard particularly to S. 1365, introduced by myself for a considerable number of other Members of the Senate, which would authorize the disposal of surplus property to certain welfare or recreation agencies, and S. 2244, introduced by Senator Goldwater for himself and a number of Senators, seeking to promote the welfare of the Indian tribes, by making available to them surplus personal property. These are important measures which will provide substantial help for worthy groups in great need for such material. I commend the chairman for scheduling these hearings on these measures. It has long been my contention that action in this field is overdue. I would like to discuss each of these bills separately, primarily S. 1365, although both seek similar objectives. S. 1365 is identical to a measure which I sponsored as a Member of the House of Representatives, and which gained widespread and vigorous support from a wide range of groups, including endorsing letters from almost every State in the Union. Without exception, organizations working in the welfare and recreation fields have backed strongly the principle embodied in S. 1365. Simply stated, this proposal would broaden the eligibility for Federal surplus property to include a limited number of welfare and recreation agencies. These groups would be in addition to the medical institutions, health centers, schools, colleges, civil defense and certain other organizations which may now receive such goods. The bill contains carefully drafted language to insure that only tax-supported or tax-exempt welfare or recreation agencies would be eligible for this property. În addition, a tax-exempt voluntary agency would have to hold a license from a State standard-setting agency, or receive funds through a State or local community fund, or be affiliated with or part of a national standard-setting organization. Although I am not wedded to the specific language contained in S. 1365, I do feel it provides a substantial base for legislation in this field. It was evolved after careful study with highly reputable groups, including the National Federation of Settlements and Neigh borhood Centers. The language is designed to prevent, as much as possible, any abuse of the privileges to be granted by the legislation. It provides adequate safeguards against fly-by-night organizations which might not properly utilize surplus goods. If the committee should choose to frame somewhat different standards, perhaps in consultation with officials of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and leaders in the field, I am sure such a revision would be satisfactory. In any case, most serious consideration must be given to insuring that none of these goods goes to waste or is given to anything less than fully deserving and reputable organizations. S. 1365 grew out of recommendations several years ago of the National Welfare Assembly Committee, which included members drawn from American Foundation for the Blind, Child Welfare League of America, Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, Council on Social Work Education, Girl Scouts, National Council of Churches of Christ in America, National Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centers, National Jewish Welfare Board, National Recreation Association, Salvation Army, United Community Funds and Councils, Young Men's Christian Association, and Young Women's Christian Association. The following organizations also expressed their interest in this subject in connection with that committee's work; American Hearing Society, Board of Hospitals and Homes of the Methodist Church, National Catholic Community Service, and United HIAS Service. In addition, numerous fine organizations in related fields have since come forward in support of the bill. Mr. Chairman, literally hundreds of these worthy groups from all over the country have indicated to me their desperate need of lowcost, usable Government material. For example, officials of the YMCA in Rochester, N.Y., have reeled off nearly two score types of equipment and supplies which are needed for the operation of their program and camp and which might be available under terms of this measure. I could cite such examples of proven need among worthy groups endlessly. The point is, of course, that if these fine organizations received less costly goods for their work, they would have more money left over with which to pursue their good deeds even more widely and in better fashion. This measure could thus serve as an effective budget stretcher. Mr. Chairman, these agencies are doing a magnificent job of character building among our young people, of easing the lives of our aged, and providing sustenance and security for our needy citizens. Any reasonable way in which we can help these groups in their noble work should be pursued vigorously. It is true, of course, that some of the organizations which have expressed an interest in this legislation have been declared eligible by administrative ruling. It is possible that other organizations could be given access to such goods by that method. However, it would appear that the fairer and sounder means of resolving this issue is by legislation. This could, once and for all, end the present confusion and consternation, would insure that all deserving welfare and recreation groups received equal treatment, and that the expression of policy would be one determined by the peoples' representatives. I realize certain objections have been raised by various executive agencies to bills in this field. While I am somewhat sympathetic to the reasoning behind these objections, I do not find them of sufficient validity to deter pressing forward for legislative action. Frankly, it strikes me that in many respects they indicate a timidity and a defeatist attitude on the part of the executive branch of the Government. In my view, there are no groups more worthy of benefit than our welfare and recreation agencies. They deserve special priorities under surplus disposal laws. Certainly sound administrative procedures can be evolved which would not be unduly costly and yet which would insure fair treatment of all eligible groups. In sum, Mr. Chairman, I feel we should leave no stone unturned in our efforts to help these fine organizations achieve their objectives. If, by proper legislation, we can ease the strain on their limited budgets and enable them to better carry out their work, we should do so without further delay. S. 1365 represents a sound and progressive means for helping our welfare and recreation agencies help themselves. And in the long run, of course, all America will be a better place as a result, because the success of the organizations interested in this work means a safer, healthier, happier and more secure Nation. Mr. Chairman, a large number of organizations have evidenced to me their interests in S. 1365. I would like to make inquiry, if I might. I assume the record will be left open for a few days, and I would like to have the privilege of notifying these organizations, in order to give them an opportunity to file a statement, if they care to do so. Senator GRUENING. The record will be kept open, and we will be very glad to receive any statement from these organizations.16 Senator KEATING. Thank you very much. What kind of a deadline should I give them, Mr. Chairman? 16 The letters referred to are set forth on pp. 135–142. Senator GRUENING. I think we should say within a week. them. Senator GRUENING. I have just one question. I think you made clear in your statement that you were aware of the opposition to these two bills by the two executive agencies that are concerned, the General Services Administration, and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Their view was expressed by their officials here at the hearing yesterday, to the effect that there won't be enough to go around, and that if you attempt to add other agencies, you would have either to establish a system of priorities, which would be very complex, or perhaps a first-come first-served basis, which might confront other obstacles. I just thought for the purpose of the record I should make that statement to you. I don't know that this opposition of the agencies will affect the attitude or action of the committee. I can't speak for the committee. But I think that should be part of the record. Senator KEATING. I am very glad to comment on this matter, Mr. Chairman. If the Government agencies concerned say that there is not enough to go around, according to the presently eligible groups, we must accept that statement. It can certainly be argued that the Nation owes a greater responsibility to the needy and the underprivileged who would benefit directly under S. 1365, than it does to some of the groups that are now eligible, or at least we owe them an equal opportunity. It is difficult to see how health, education, and civil defense can be clearly worthy of any higher priority than welfare and recreation organizations. In any case, these are goods bought with the taxpayers' money, and it strikes me that their disposal is a decision which should be made by the people's representatives, not by the executive branch of the Government. We ought not to be deterred by their reluctance, in a field in which their only legitimate function is to administer and carry out the law as enacted by Congress. So far as priorities are concerned, it strikes me that it is not any great problem to set up a priorities system, either by legislation or by administrative action. It is in that respect that I refer to the defeatist attitude of the agencies that have filed these reports. That attitude ought not to deter Congress from making policy decisions within its proper sphere of jurisdiction. Congress, perhaps, should spell out the priorities in the legislation, rather than leaving it to the administrative agency. We can do it, if that is desirable, and I believe that that is not any insurmountable basis of opposition to this legislation. As I understand it, they oppose all of these bills. They just want to leave things as they are, without any change whatever. I am in complete disagreement with that attitude and general approach to problems of great national interest. Senator GRUENING. Well, I think that your statement that it is up to the Congress to make the decision is certainly a highly correct one, one with which I am in complete sympathy. But I think you also realize that very frequently these executive agencies have the power to stimulate and recommend a veto. And that is a situa 44978-59-7 tion with which we have dealt in this Congress. And so I think it is important that we all be apprised that executive-administrative opposition does exist. Senator KEATING. I do appreciate that. But I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I would have no problem in deciding to override a veto on this legislation, and I doubt, seriously, that we would encounter a veto if it were enacted. Senator GRUENING. Well, thank you very much, Senator. Senator GRUENING. At this point in the record, we will introduce a statement by Senator Clinton P. Anderson on S. 2244, one of the two bills in behalf of which Senator Keating has testified. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you as a witness in support of S. 2244 to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 so as to promote the welfare of the Indian tribes by making available to them surplus personal property. You are all aware of the fact that for the most part the Indians are wards of the Government. I know that, comparatively speaking, they represent a very small portion of the total population. Nevertheless, we have an obligation to give the Indians all of the assistance we can to improve their standard of living. Millions of dollars are voted each year to assist the various tribes and bands of Indians throughout the United States with various programs on the reservations. Some of this money goes for the purchase of equipment or facilities that could be furnished from Government surplus at a saving to the taxpayer. Many groups no more deserving than the Indians are receiving surplus property under present law and regulations. We cannot be completely fair if we withhold certain surplus items from the Indian tribes and favor other groups who are more able to supply their own needs, especially when tribal funds are not available for purchase of needed items. Rather than elaborate further on the needs of the Indian, I believe I can best support S. 2244 by attempting to answer some of the objections that have been raised. One such objection is that the inclusion of Indians as donees would pose complex problems of determining priorities. I am unconvinced. The problem of certifying the 200-odd recognizable groups of Indians could not be more difficult than certifying the vast number of institutions and organizations now receiving aid. A simple system, based upon a determination of need by the Secretary of the Interior, could solve this problem easily. Such a method is provided for in the bill. The bill would make surplus property available only to tribes unable to pay. Neither can I-to respond to another allegation-see how this bill would greatly increase the cost of or cause delays in the system of administration and disposition already in use. I question any claim that additional personnel would be needed. It is entirely possible that, instead of delaying disposal of surplus, the Indians could provide a ready outlet for certain items of surplus property which might otherwise remain in storage indefinitely. |