was, the materials available would be purchased if the local school districts had not already purchased the material. For instance, visual aids, projectors, we have about 135 schools already having projectors, but we have approximately 90 of our village and city schools which do not have because their budgets will not permit it. Then we have the rural schools in the 56 counties who probably could use a projector for all the rural schools by circulating-being circulated on the library plan. Then, we also have the State visual aid library, of which Mr. Norton is a director or supervisor, and he stated that of course they are short of materials for distribution, not turning over as property, but for use and distribution through the library method to these various schools, and, of course, they are anxious to build up the library to render the service that they are called upon to render.

Senator MURRAY. In addition to the public schools and institutions, there are a number of private schools. Do you feel they should also be entitled to participation in the distribution of this surplus property? Mr. MoE. Of course, I have no authority to speak for the private schools, and haven't given that much thought.

Senator MURRAY. But if they are engaged in teaching along the same lines as the public institutions, they could greatly improve their work by having access to some of this surplus property also?

Mr. MoE. Now, in our State, I imagine that work would come in the colleges, as I don't believe we have any private high schools that have any programs of this kind. There might be some minor equipment, but as far as vocational training is concerned——

Senator MURRAY. Like where they teach chemistry or something like that?

Mr. McE. Yes, that is possible.

Senator MURRAY. They have a Christian Brothers school in Butte, for instance, where they conduct high school courses.

Mr. MOE. Yes?

Senator MURRAY. They might be able to use some equipment in conLection with their teaching program.

Mr. MOE. Well, that, of course, I think, is entirely a matter to be determined by your group. I haven't contacted any of them, so I don't know what their wishes are.

Senator MURRAY. Have you discussed the problem with Mr. Clayton, the Surplus Administrator?

Mr. McE. No; I have not.

Senator MURRAY. I think it would be advisable for you to see him. while you are in the city, and go over the subject and get his views on the matter. I think he could probably be helpful in advising you on what kind of program should be carried out.

Mr. MOE. Well, I will try to do that. I am leaving this evening, but I will try to contact him.

Senator MURRAY. If you can't see him, you could correspond with him. I think he would be able to help you.

Mr. MOE. I should be glad to do that.

Senator MURRAY. Well, thank you for your statement, Mr. Moe.
Mr. MOE. I thank you very much for this opportunity.

Senator MURRAY. I ask to insert in the record at this point reports from various Federal agencies on surplus property, in connection with the bills pending before the committee.

(The reports are as follows:)

Hon. ROBERT R. REYNOLDS,

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, May 2, 1944.

Chairman, Committee on Military Affairs, United States Senate.

DEAR SENATOR REYNOLDS: The War Department is opposed to the enactment of S. 1775, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, a bill to provide for restoring real property acquired by the United States for military purposes to the former owners thereof, with regard to which you have requested the views of this Department.

The purpose of this legislation is to insure that when any real property acquired by the United States under the act of Ju'y 2, 1917, authorizing condemnation of lands for military purposes, is no longer needed for such purposes it shall first be offered to the person from whom the property was origina ly acquired upon such terms and conditions as the head of the department or agency involved may determine to be reasonable. It is further provided that no such property shall be sold or otherwise disposed of other than to the person from whom it was acquired, for 1 year after notice has been given to the former owner, unless the former owner indicates that he does not desire to reacquire the property, cannot be found, or is determined to be dead.

Under existing law the War Department has no general authority to dispose of real property acquired for military purposes, with the exception of these facilities acquired pursuant to the provisions of Public Law No. 703, Seventy-sixth Congress. July 2, 1940, and Public Law No. 507, Seventy-seventh Congress, March 27, 1942. These acts authorize conveyances of military properties when it is deemed to be in the interest of national defense.

The act of July 2, 1917 (40 Stat. 241), as amended, referred to in S. 1775 authorizes the Secretary of War to institute proceedings to acquire by condemnation any lands needed for military purposes. It also authorizes the acquisition of such lands by direct purchase or contract when, in the cpinion of the Secretary of War, the amount asked by the owner is reasonable. Thus, the properties effected by S. 1775 would include sites acquired by purchase as well as by condemnation. However, since Public Law 703. Seventy-sixth Congress (act of July 2, 1940) also authorizes the acquisition of land for military purposes, as does the act of August 12. 1935 (49 Stat. 610-611, 10 U. S. C., secs. 13 3 a and c) and the act of August 1, 1888 (25 Stat. 357), when implemented by an appropriation act, there would be a certain number of properties now being used for military purposes to which the provisions of S. 1775 would not apply, since they were not acquired under the act of July 2, 1917. There appears to be no logical reason to restrict the operation of the proposed legislation so cly to those owners whose lands were acquired under the act of July 2, 1917.

Senate bill 1775 is very similar to a number of bills which have recently been introduced to enable the original owners of lands acquired for war purposes, to repurchase their properties. In reporting on these measures, the War Department has consistently pointed out that, as a matter of principle, the repurchase of surplus property by former owners is desirable wherever this does not conflict with the prosecution of the war effort or the best interests of the public as a whole. In general, however, it has been found that surp us properties can best be disposed of on a competitive bid basis, thereby giving all prospective purchasers an opportunity to acquire a particular site. Every effort is made to advise the former owners that their lands are to be sold and to afford them an opportunity to submit bids thereon.

One of the most serious objections to the enactment of S. 1775 and similar bills is that it would place upon the War Department the burden of ascertaining

whether the owners of the property are still living and notifying such owners of the contemplated disposition of the property. The effect of such limitation would be to delay, in some cases for a year, the disposal of most of the 75,000 tracts of and which the War Department has acquired since the inception of the present emergency. It is obvious that the War Department would be confronted with a tremendous task should such legislation be enacted, since in a great many cases the original owners are no longer residing in the same community but have reestab ished themselves in other parts of the country.

An equally serious objection to the enactment of this legislation is the fact that in many, if not most cases, the original boundaries of the component tracts within a given military installation have been obliterated and expensive improvements have been constructed upon the site. If the original owners are to be afforded an opportunity to repurchase their individual tracts, the orderly and economical disposal by the Government of such facilities as ordnance plants, airfields, and industrial sites would be practically impossible. Not only would the Government suffer a substantial financial loss through inability to dispose of a given installation, such as an airfield or manufacturing site, as a unit, but the country's post-war production potentialities would be seriously curtailed.

Enactment of this measure would encumber the titles to all lands acquired by the Federal Government pursuant to the act of July 2, 1917, by creating a right in the former owners thereof, which could not be readily eliminated as a matter of record and which would substantially impair the marketability of the Government's titles.

It is not possible for this Department to estimate the fiscal effect of enactment of S. 1775 but is believed that the expense of administration thereof and losses thereunder to the Government would be substantial. Ac ordingly, the War Department recommends that S. 1775 be not enacted into law.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission ' of this report.

Sincerely yours,

HENRY L. STIMSON,
Secretary of War.

Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY,

UNITED STATES SENATE, Washington, D. C., May 5, 1944.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: Recently I introduced S. 1794 which deals with the disposition by the Government of surplus land acquired for war purposes. The bill is self-explanatory and needs little or no comment from the undersigned. However, it seems to me that the measure in question is in keeping with the principles of equity and elemental justice.

Certainly those people whose forebears have for generations lived in the same community should have a priority on returning to that community if and when the time comes that the War Department has reached the determination that the land has no further military value.

In the letter written to you by the Honorable W. L. Clayton, Administrator, Surplus War Property Administration, you will note he states definitely that Congress might well pass legislation for this purpose. Then he proceeds to set forth certain problems which should be considered by the committee, and I shall discuss them in seriatim fashion:

1. I agree that where land has been acquired from various owners and structures ranging from barracks to large industrial plants have been erected, that it would be inadvisable to divide this property into separate units, as was found by the War Department, previous to the time they took it over. However, it should be definitely understood that when a plant and barracks are sold as a unit, that the barracks are to be used in connection with the operation of the plant.

2. It is to be hoped that the contractors now operating these plants have not obtained from the Government options on all of the land surrounding the plant. If that is true, contract rights should not be respected under these circumstances. That is especially true in the event that the plant is to be used for some other purpose, and the land obtained for protection purposes in the making of implements of war is unnecessary in the making of civilian goods. 3. I do not follow objection No. 3.

I agree that considerable latitude of administration discretion should be left in the agency. However, our troubles in the past with interpretation by the various agencies leads me to believe statutory language should be as c`ear and comprehensive as possible, in order that there will be no question about the administrator carrying out the intention of Congress.

Respectfully submitted.

SCOTT W. LUCAS.

Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY,

MAY 4, 1944.

Chairman, War Contracts Subcommittee, Committee on Military Affairs of the United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: The War Department has given consideration to the provisions of S. 1823, a bill "To establish an Office of War Mobilization and Adjustment." It does not favor the passage of this legislation for the following

reasons:

Title I of the bill calls for the creation of an Office of War Mobilization and Adjustment in the Executive Office of the President. The act contemplates that there will be a Director of War Mobilization and Adjustment and charges him with the responsibility of unifying the programs and activities of all Federal agencies affecting industrial production, economic stabilization, war production, or demobilization. Provision is made for the creation of a National Production Employment Board consisting of representatives of industry, labor, and agriculture, and the Director is required to consult periodically with this Board.

The proposed Office of War Mobilization and Adjustment would seem to duplicate the functions now being performed by a number of agencies, including the Office of War Mobilization, Surplus War Property Administration, and the War Production Board. The War Department fears that confusion may result which would be harmful to the war effort.

Title II of the proposed enactment provides for the creation within the Office of War Mobilization and Adjustment of a Bureau of Programs. The functions of this unit appear to overlap those of existing agencies. To the extent that they do not do so, they appear to be such as might be better performed in the manner best dictated by the judgment of the Director, without statutory restrictions as to administrative details.

Title III of the bill undertakes to charge the Chairman of the War Production Board with certain responsibilities, to be performed after consultation with a Production Program and Reconversion Committee upon which representation is provided for specified agencies. To this title the War Department takes exception; first, because the responsibility conferred upon the Chairman of the War Production Board is so broad as to involve an unwarranted intrusion on matters of a military nature (for example, he is charged with the duty of coordinating, expanding, transferring, and curtailing "the military production programs of the several procurement agencies"); and, secondly, because the function of the proposed Production Program and Reconversion Committee are already being performed in a satisfactory manner by committees of the War Production Board, particularly the Production Executive Committee, the Requirements Committee, and the Program Committee. While modification in the internal organization of the War Production Board may be required from time to time, it is believed that such changes should be left to the sound judgment of the Chairman, uncontrolled by rigid statutory limitations.

The provisions of title IV of the bill deal with surplus war property disposition. Provision is made for the establishment of a Surplus War Property Administration, headed by an Administrator and a board upon which are included representatives of 14 specified agencies and the 9 members of the National Production-Emp oyment Board. The addition of the members of that Board to a body already large could not fail to impair its usefulness.

In general the provisions of title IV fail to accomplish the primary requisite of any legislation dealing with the subject of surplus war property disposition in that they do not contain any clear grant of authority to dispose of surplus property. The proposed legislation contents itself with the enactment of certain restrictions and the promulgation of certain policies. It is believed that a basic grant of authority is needed, especially in view of the fact that some of the legislation under which disposition of surplus property is now being made is of linited duration. This title is likewise objectionable in that it fails to reserve to the contracting agencies power to dispose of termination inventory and to make any disposition of surplus property which in the judgment of the agency is required to facilitate the prosecution of the war. Unless the power to make such disposition is reserved the prosecution of the war would be impeded, and termination settlement greatly delayed.

It is likewise believed desirable that any pending legislation should clarify the relation of the contracting agencies and the disposal agencies and should indicate that the disposal agencies have responsib lity to take physical possession of surplus property at the request of the contracting agencies.

The legislation is likewise defective in failing to define surplus property as property declared surplus by a contracting agency. The absence of such definition may create confusion and be harmful to the efficient conduct of the war.

Rection 403 of the proposed enactment contains what appears to be an iron-clad proviso requiring surplus war property located outside of the United States or to be disposed of outside the United States, to be assigned for disposition to the Foreign Economic Administration. It is believed that this provision may interfere with military operations overseas and may prove otherwise impracticable.

Section 405 imposes upon the Director of the Bureau of the Budget the duty to receive and review the property requirements of Government agencies for the purpose of acquiring such property in their behalf from surplus stocks. This would seem to require screening by the contracting agencies of their entire program with the Bureau of the Budget and would seriously impede the procurement of the necessary munitions of war.

Section 406 imposes on each disposal agency the responsibility of organizing advisory committees and in this respect seems to duplicate facilities already avail able within the War Production Board.

Section 407 requires circularization prior to disposition of any surplus property of detailed inventories thereof to the Bureau of the Budget, the Smaller War Pants Corporation, and the Foreign Economic Administration. This is believed to be impracticable. Furthermore, this section appears to authorize the Bureau of the Budget to acquire property on behalf of the War Department and to commit its appropriations. The War Department does not believe that the Bureau of the Budget should be given operating powers of this description.

Section 408 contains provisions restricting the disposition of surplus property. Paragraph (a) requires all disposition to be made after advertisement and competitive bidding unless the head of the disposal agency certifies that disposal by some other means would better effectuate the policy of the act. Paragraph (b) prohibits sale or other transfer of surplus property unless the disposal officer certifies in writing to certain findings as to the economic effect of the sale or transfer. Paragraph (c) prevents the disposition of a plant or group of plants representing a cost to the Government of $5,000,000 or more until an opportunity is afforded the Attorney General to render an opinion on the subject. Paragraph (d) requires that every contract for the disposition of a plant shall reserve to the Government the right to rescind the contract in the event that the transfer fails to maintain the plan in operation for 3 years. Paragraph (f) requires the disposal officer to notify the Smaller War Plants