has been levied on teachers, and cost of materials and fuel necessary for the operation of schools has advanced. In the reconversion period following the war, the schools will be asked to play a major role. In this program much of present surplus war material can be used. It would seem only right and just that materials that have already been purchased for war and are no longer to be used for that purpose should be used in training for reconversion. Our schools have always lacked an adequate amount of physical equipment to do a superior job of instruction with materials that individuals will likely use after their school training is closed. This distribution should be made on the basis of all schools, and not simply vocational schools, inasmuch as the post-war training program will be much broader than the present vocational program. By devoting as much of the surplus war commodities as possible into the educational field, the problem of just disposition of this material at the close of the war will partially be solved and the public will be getting use of that portion of it for the training of youth. I trust your position will be in sympathy with the great cause of education. Yours respectfully, D. B. METZGER, Superintendent. THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA, The Honorable JAMES E. MURRAY, MONTANA STATE COLLEGE, United States Senate Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: Sometime ago I wrote you with regard to the possibility of having a bill introduced in the legislature to make possible the sale, at a very low figure, of surplus equipment such as electric generators, motors, transformers, Diesel engines, and machine-shop equipment such as lathes, shapers, electric welders, octane-testing equipment, etc. This letter is just to remind you that we are still intensely interested in the possibility of securing some of this equipment, either as a gift to colleges, or to be made available at some low figure, of say 15 percent of the original cost to the Government. I do not know of any use to which this equipment could possibly be made which would give a bigger return on the investment. Sincerely yours, E. W. SCHILLING, Dean, Division of Engineering. TEXAS COLLEGE OF ARTS AND INDUSTRIES, The Honorable JAMES E. MURRAY, I am sure that the majority of citizens in our country agree that the use of such equipment by educational institutions to a reasonable amount be much better than having it released for profiteering by economic scavengers such as occurred at the conclusion of World War I. Yours very truly, E. N. JONES, President. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, SALEM CITY SCHOOLS, Salem, Ohio, August 29, 1944. War Property Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: With the close of armed hostilities there will be a surplus of many war materials which can be put to excellent use by the public schools of the United States. As one charged with the procurement of materials for education I wish to urge that surplus war materials be made available to public schools without cost other than the necessary administration and transportation charges. Very truly yours, E. S. KERR, Superintendent of Schools. GARFIELD HEIGHTS CITY SCHOOLS, The Honorable Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: I am writing you, at the suggestion of our board of education, to indicate our interest in the possibility of securing surplus war property for educational use. We understand that items representing billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money-many of which are sorely needed and can be used by the public schools-will be available for distribution after the termination of hostilities. I need not attempt to state the case for our educational institutions. It is quite evident that the public schools, the colleges, and universities of this country will need supplies of the kind that will be available in quantities as they have never needed them before. Many school districts, such as our own, have been deprived of essential supplies of this character for the past several years because of financial reasons or because of the fact that strategic metals and materials used in their manufacture were needed by war industries. The conclusion of this war will obviously find thousands of schools and colleges in dire need of the type of equipment that will be listed as surplus war property. The release of this material to tax supported institutions would expedite replacements and would help boards of education tremendously in the matter of conserving school revenues for the payment of salaries which will be needed to attract competent teaching service. Your aggressive interest in supporting legislation designed to release property of this kind for educational use will be valued greatly. Yours very sincerely, HAROLD R. MAURER, Superintendent of Schools. NATIONAL SCHOOL SERVICE INSTITUTE AND ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS AND DISTRIBUTORS, OF SCHOOL SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT, September 8, 1944. Representing 85 percent of school supplies and equipment industry, we earnestly favor transfer without cost either by law or regulations materials to school on basis of need. Thousands of schools are destitute, supplying them would not disturb market. It would help to establish equality of educational opportunity. Signed by H. F. MARTIN, President. L. E. PARMENTER, Executive Manager. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ON GOVERNMENT SURPLUSES AVAILABLE FOR FARM USES JULY 7, 1944. 1. (a) How can appropriate prices be arrived at for machines, tools, trucks, and tractors, etc., which are declared to be surplus war property? (b) Should such properties be sold through manufacturers, wholesalers, and jobbers? What percentage of the sales price would be a fair differential for their services? How does this compare with past profits? (c) Should there be any preference given to cooperatives? proference take the form of price differentials, priorities, etc.? Should that (d) What other terms and conditions would you put in the sales contract? 2. Preparation of farm machinery and equipment for commercial sale involves storage, shipping, maintenance, repair, and other care and handling charges as well as long delays. Agencies like the Forest Service, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation, are ordinarily required to get an appropriation from Congress when they want material. Do you consider it preferable for those agencies to be able to procure surplus farm machinery and equipment by direct transfers from other. Government agencies, without waiting for congressional appropriation and the processes of commercial sale and purchase? 3. What type of machine tools do farmers want? Can farmers use jeeps and how many? Are there other types of property for which agricultural uses could be developed? 4. (a) Should former owners of agricultural land be given the opportunity to repurchase their farms when such land becomes surplus? (b) Should such former owners be given a chance to buy comparable units in the same farming community? Should they be given a chance to buy additional units in order to enlarge their holdings to family size farms? (e) Should operating tenants be given similar opportunities? (d) Should efforts be made to resubdivide large tracts of land under Government control into more économic farming units? How far should this process go? (e) What agency should be in charge of selling (1) agricultural land; (2) farm machinery and equipment; (3) other surpluses? 5. It has been pointed out that anhydrous ammonia plants can be used to make fertilizer. There are also possibilities of utilizing surplus war plants to produce insecticides, fungicides, and other sprays. (a) Can you suggest similar projects in your own State or other areas? (b) Where should such plants be located with respect to the farm areas that they service? (c) What existing commercial plants might they compete with? What abuses on the part of existing facilities would they serve to remedy? (d) If wartime plants are to be converted to the production of fertilizers, insecticides, or other products of use to the farmer, should they be sold or leased? Should they continue to be run by the Government, or should they be offered to farm cooperatives or other business groups? (e) How much labor could such plants absorb, and what is the adequacy of local facilities for housing, transportation, etc., of such workers? (f) What would be the reaction of business and labor groups toward such a program? 6. Does your area need surplus lumber, heating equipment, plumbing, etc., for farm housing? What is the most feasible method for making such facilities available? 7. Can rural areas utilize surplus medical supplies and equipment? How would this fit in with a long-run health program? 8. Do you favor rendering surplus equipment available to colleges, universities, and schools for teaching and training purposes? Should such institutions be required to pay current market prices or should they be given some form of preference? Should the Federal Government be authorized to donate such equipment? REPLIES TO QUESTIONNAIRE ON FARM USES Senator JAMES MURRAY, Washington, D. C. SPOKANE, WASH., July 25, 1944. DEAR SIR: As chairman of a committee of 10 for the redistribution of Government surplus equipment to mines, farmers of all types, and manufacturers in and around Spokane and the Inland Empire, I wish to answer your bulletin dated July 7, 1944, on the Questions for Discussion Purposes on Government Surpluses Available for Farm Uses. 1. (a) By allocating a number of pieces of equipment enough for four counties to a responsible business house. The house to appraise the equipment (unless it be new) and distribute it to farmers of all types, mines, and industrial plants throughout the Inland Empire. The value of the equipment should be sold for an approximate 40 percent of its new value for new equipment and used equipment to be appraised here in Spokane and the price to be dependent upon the amount of work that has to be put on this equipment to make it useable. (b) We strongly suggest that this equipment for redistribution to be given to Electric Smith, who has been in business for 20 years in this district. They are very familiar with the wants and needs of the mines, industrial plants, and farmers through this district. The equipment should be handled along the following line: The company to put up a bond to cover all material allocated this district and make a report to the head agency every 30 days with a check for the amount of material that was sold during that month. The company is in a very nice position to handle this equipment as far as repair work goes. They have a department that takes care of trucks and with this department there is a lathe, acetylene welder, and electric welder, and it is organized to handle this type of business. The volume of business this company had in 1943 was approximately $500,000. As a suggestion they could handle this business for 15 percent of gross sales. That would include the sales and the collection of the accounts. I am the superintendent of the motor shop and motor sales department. This is just an explanation of where I stand with the company. (c) The committee believes that in selling a quantity of equipment to cooperatives that they should get a discount from the selling price to cover their handling expenses. (d) No terms should be put in the contract. The material should be sold for cash as the customers in this district are very well able to stand on their own feet and pay for the equipment they need. If they need additional money to pay for this equipment there are a number of borrowing agencies already set up to handle this part. 2. Agencies like the Forest Service, Soil Conservation, and Bureau of Reclama. tion and other Government agencies should pay for the equipment like any individual. If they need money to pay for this equipment they can borrow it from the Government source of money supply. 3. The farmers in this district need jeeps, trucks, air compressors, lathes, and shop tools of all types. 4. (a) They should be given the opportunity providing they can show that they are capable farmers and good workers. (b) Yes; providing they are honest and good workers. (c) Yes. (d) Yes. As to how far it should go, we don't feel qualified to answer. (e) We have answered this under 1(b). 5. This type of plant the committee is not familiar with and we hesitate to suggest how to handle it. (b) Spokane is the center of one of the largest farming and industrial sections of the Northwest. It is the center of all railroads and bus lines and would be the logical place for any type of manufacturing plant for fertilizer in this district. (c) There would be no competition with any plants of this type as there are none in this district. (d) The committee believes that this type of plant should be run by the State, and not by the Federal Government as it is our opinion that material manufactured by the States should be operated by the State and not by the Federal Government; as the State is in closer contact with the needs of the district. (e) It is impossible to tell how much labor would be used on this type of plant, but it would be approximately a 50-man job. (f) There would be no reaction as far as the ordinary businessman and labor groups go; but there are always a lot of die-hards in all political and labor groups; and as the country is going to proceed and benefit the majority, these small groups must be overlooked. 6. This area needs heating equipment, plumbing supplies for farm houses and especially so for barns and workshops. The most feasible way to handle this is through the State and through the county commissioners in the various counties. 7. Same as 6. 8. We believe that all equipment that universities and schools need for teaching and training should be awarded to them by the Federal Government free plus the overhead expense the Government must go to to handle this equipment. Respectfully yours, H. S. MARTINEZ, Chairman of a Committee of 10. COLORADO FARM BUREAU, INC., Denver, Colo., August 14, 1944. 1. (b) No. (c) Yes. (d) That they be put to good usage, actual farm use such as, leveling land, conserving land timber, better roads, or any other job to help, to better the standards of living. 2. Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, and Soil Conservation Service should be able to procure surplus farm machinery direct. 3. Farmers want large numbers of jeeps, tractors, trucks, pick-ups, refrigerators, and small buildings. 4. (a) Yes. (b) Yes to both questions. (c) Yes, when proven to have ability. (d) Returning military men should have chance at economic units. (e) Bipartisan boards should sell land and agriculture groups should have a voice in the disposal of farm machinery and other agriculture surpluses. 5. (a) No. (b) No answer. (c) None in Colorado. (d) Such businesses should first be offered to farm cooperatives and other business groups. (e) Not familiar on it. (f) Good. 6. Yes; through local dealers at a reasonable price, as these dealers have not been able to carry stocks for local demands; therefore, need consideration. 7. Yes; this is what the long-run health program needs. 8. Yes; but these schools be required to pay a reasonable amount for these commodities. Respectfully submitted. HARVEY G. JOHNSON, Secretary. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Committee on Military Affairs, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: The following are recommendations made by the Natrona County Federal Security Administration advisory committee on the disposal of Government surpluses available for farm use. 1. (a) Appraisal by competent and qualified persons and based on the physical condition at the time of appraisal. (b) Properties probably should be distributed through jobbers or wholesalers at a profit based on a percentage of the appraised value and not to exceed profits earned in the past for like services. (c) No preference to be given cooperatives. (d) Contracts would vary depending on whether the equipment was rebuilt and reconditioned. Profits should not be based on a percentage of over-all cost as to labor and material used; in other words, cost-plus would have a tendency to increase the cost of the equipment beyond its value to the consumer. 2. The committee feels that it is preferable to transfer equipment from one Government agency to another and if an appropriation has been made the appraised value of the equipment should be charged against the appropriation, otherwise a transfer could be made as a transfer of inventory. 3. Nearly every farmer could use a jeep. Welding equipment and blacksmith tools can be used by farmers. 4. (a) Former operators of lands acquired by the Government should be allowed to repurchase land sufficient for a family sized farm. |