made available for educational use, it will benefit the Nation greatly by aiding materially in the development of adequate training programs, and, at the same time, will aid the Government in disposing of its surplus property beneficially without disrupting normal trade;

5. The property has already been purchased by the taxpayers of the Nation. To expect them to purchase it again by using State and local taxes would constitute an unfair and disadvantageous method of effecting a slight potential reduction in the total national debt; and

6. Policies relating to the disposal of surplus property for educational use have far-reaching implications involving the welfare and progress of the Nation and of the citizens in every State in the Nation. It is urged that all such proposed policies should have the careful consideration of qualified educational leaders. The special conference called by the Office of Education earnestly seeks an opportunity to cooperate fully in developing policies which will be of maximum benefit to the Nation and its educational institutions.

(1) The educational organization.

In the United States there are approximately 125,000 local school districts or administrative units, ranging from small one-teacher districts to large counties and cities, as well as several thousand privately controlled elementary and secondary schools. There are also approximately 600 publicly supported institutions of higher learning which are not administered by local units and more than 1,100 privately controlled higher institutions of various types. Obviously it would be extremely difficult, inefficient, and undesirable for the Federal Government to set up a system or plan for dealing directly with local school units or individual institutions in disposing of Federal surplus property. Moreover, it is neither practicable nor desirable for the Federal Government to undertake to determine the division of surplus property among elementary and secondary schools, vocational schools, and institutions of higher learning in a State. Such determination would put the Federal Government in the indefensible position of deciding matters which properly belong under State policy and which the States are better equipped to handle.

Education is a function of the States; the States are, therefore, the logical units with which the Federal Government should deal in matters of this sort. A few States now have one board or commission responsible for all phases of education, although some States have separate boards for elementary and secondary schools, for vocational education, and in several instances even for each institution of higher learning.

Each State can and should designate or create one educational board, agency, or commission which will represent all aspects of education in relationships with the Federal Government involving matters of this sort. This educational board, agency, or commission would not be expected to replace any existing educational board but would merely represent the State in dealing with the Federal Government in all matters similar to the matter of disposing of surplus property.

At the Federal level the United States Office of Education has been established to collect and disseminate information, to cooperate with the States in working out solutions to educational problems, and "otherwise to promote the cause of education throughout the country." The United States Office of Education, with its background of

many years of experience in dealing with educational problems, should, therefore, be designated to cooperate with the State educational agency of each State in working out solutions to its problems involving the acquisition of surplus property for education and also to cooperate with other Federal agencies in developing plans and procedures for satisfactory and effective distribution of such property for educational use in each State. No other agency in the Federal Government is as well qualified as the United States Office of Education to aid in determining educational needs or procedures in allocating surplus property for educational use.

(2) Financial policy and priorities in distribution of surplus property for educational use.

One of the major problems in the acquisition of surplus property by educational institutions is that of financing educational institutions operated on fixed budgets, either on an annual or biennial basis, which do not permit the establishing of reserves for future purchases. In general, school financing is on a year-to-year basis and needs must be determined in advance. Statutory provisions in most States prohibit educational institutions from making loans-except for shortterm periods within the fiscal year. The incurring of a debt, to be paid from future budgets (except for debt service for bond issues), is not permitted in most States. In order for education throughout the United States to participate to the greatest degree in and obtain maximum benefit from the disposal of surplus property, due consideration must be given to the question of whether or not surplus property which can be used to distinct advantage for educational purposes should be donated or sold-even at low prices-to educational institutions.

It seems apparent that there will be available surplus property, the title for which is vested in the Federal Government and which is now being used by State or local educational institutions. (Examples of such property are school buildings and the appurtenances thereto built in war areas under the Lanham Act.) Likewise, there probably will be available surplus property now being used by various Federal agencies for educational purposes. (An example of such property is the equipment and materials being used in Army and Navy schools.) Property of these two types should be made available with a high priority to educational institutions where needed.

There will also be available property not now being used for educational purposes but which could be used to distinct advantage by educational institutions. (Examples of this type of property would be machine tools, trucks adaptable for use as school busses, typewriters, refrigerators, stoves, 16-mm. projectors, etc.) Property of this type should be made available to other interests as well as education.

The following priorities and the methods of allocation are recommended for the disposal of surplus property:

1. Allocation, without cost, to public educational institutions of(a) Property now being used by State or local educational institutions but with title vested in the Federal Government; and

(b) Property now being used by Federal agencies for educational

purposes;

2. Allocation, at a determined price level, between Federal Government agencies;

3. Allocation, for sale to State and local tax-supported organizations, including public educational institutions and non-profit, taxexempt educational institutions. (Surplus property made available to educational institutions should be at a price level not higher, and preferably less, than the price level used for transfers between Federal agencies);

4. Allocation, without cost, of surpluses that cannot or should not be offered for sale, for any reason, to State and local tax-supported organizations, including educational institutions; and

5. Allocation for other uses.

Surplus property made available for purchase by State and local units. In order to assure that the various tax-supported agencies of State and local governments have a reasonable opportunity to obtain the surplus property they need and can use effectively, the following procedures are recommended:

1. That surplus property available for State and local tax-supported agencies and institutions be tentatively apportioned on an objective and equitable plan to each State; and

2. That for educational use in each State there be tentatively allocated that part of the total allocation to the State which is represented by the ratio between the current expense for education during some year, such as 1940, and the total current expense for all State and local governmental purposes, or on the basis of some similar equitable and objective plan to be approved by the United States Commissioner of Education and the Surplux Property Administrator.

It is recommended that surplus property not be made available for State and local tax-supported agencies and institutions in terms of "first come, first served" or of any other similar plan that might involve "grab bag" tendencies or result in unfair distribution. If, for any reason, it should not be possible to make a tentative allocation to States and to public educational agencies within each State in accordance with a plan such as recommended above, then, and only then, consideration should be given to a plan for allotting tentatively a certain percentage of the total dollar value of surplus property for educational use, with the United States Office of Education being given the responsibility of apportioning tentatively to States, on the basis of some objective and equitable formula, their respective proportionate shares of the total.

Surplus property made available without cost to public educational institutions. In order to assure that the public educational institutions in the various States have a reasonable opportunity to obtain surplus property made available without cost and which they need and can use effectively, it is recommended that such property be certified to the United States Commissioner of Education by the Surplus Property Administrator, to be apportioned to the respective State educational agencies in accordance with need and on the basis of an objective and equitable plan.

Each of the various over-all State educational agencies should be responsible, in cooperation with existing State educational boards or agencies, for the formulation of any objective and equitable plan for the reallocation of the surplus property apportioned to it to the various public educational institutions within the State.

(3) Administrative plan.

The Federal Government, as indicated above, should deal only with the States as units insofar as basic tentative allocations are concerned. If, within a reasonable prescribed time, any States have not applied. for their full quota, the unused balance should be tentatively reapportioned among the remaining States which need and can use additional property.

The following proposals pertaining to allocations of surplus property to the States for educational use are recommended for guidance: Each State, if it has not already done so, should be required to designate or create one educational board, agency, or commission which will be the coordinating agency responsible for

(a) Adopting and prescribing an equitable plan for making and to make tentative allocations to existing State educational boards for local school units and institutions of higher learning;

(b) Proposing criteria, in keeping with prescribed regulations, to be used by existing State educational boards in approving applications from local school units and institutions of higher learning for surplus property within the limits of the tentative allocation;

(c) Accepting applications approved by the existing State educational boards and certifying statements concerning educational needs so that surplus property may be obtained by the local units and institutions of higher learning as needed;

(d) Certifying to the appropriate State agency (or, for surplus property which is made available, without cost, for educational use, certifying to the United States Commissioner of Education) any surplus not needed for educational use or any additional allotment that is needed for educational use in the State; and

(e) Keeping the United States Office of Education informed regarding progress and consulting with it regarding problems and needs. (4) Quantitative data.

In order for educational institutions, in general, to acquire surplus proper y by purchase, it will be necessary for them to know in sufficient time the kind of such property available and the price thereof in order to include the necessary funds in their annual or biennial budgets. It is recommended that the Surplus Property Administrator make available such data to the United States Office of Education and to the State educational board, agency, or commission in each State as soon as possible.

It is recommended that the various State commissions for special Federal-State educational programs recommended in (1) above be advised immediately of the need for determining in advance, insofar as it is possible, the needs of educational institutions for such surplus property as may be available. These State commissions should also prepare plans and procedures for means of financing, if necessary, the purchase of such property.

Members of the special conference presenting these recommendations are

B. C. Ahrens, executive secretary, National Educational Buyers Association, New York, N. Y.

L. H. Dennis, executive secretary, American Vocational Association, Inc., Washington, D. C.

Paul E. Elicker, executive secretary, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Education Association, Washington, D. C.

J. H. Goldthorpe, research associate, American Council on Education, Washington, D. C.

H. V. Holloway, State superintendent of public instruction, Dover, Del.

John W. Lewis, assistant city superintendent of schools, Baltimore, Md.

C. C. MacQuigg, dean of engineering, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

R. B. Marson, director, legislative and Federal relationship division, National Education Association, Washington, D. C.

J. A. McCarthy, State director of vocational education, New Jersey, and president, American Vocational Association, Trenton, N. J. Eva G. Pinkston, executive secretary, department of elementary School principals, National Education Association, Washington, D. Č.

Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY,

WAR MANPOWER COMMISSION,

Washington, D. C., August 14, 1944.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: Reference is made to your request for my views with respect to the amendment introduced by Senator Johnson, of Colorado, to the bill, S. 2045, to provide for the disposal of surplus Government property and plants and with respect to the draft bill included, without subcommittee commitment, in the July 21, 1944, report of the Surplus Property Subcommittee of the Special Committee on Small Business.

The substitute version of S. 2045, introduced by Senator Edwin C. Johnson, and the draft bill set forth in the July 21 report of the Surplus Property Subcommittee of the Special Committee on Small Business, both relate to the policies and procedures which shall govern the handling and disposition of surplus war properties of the Federal Government.

The activities and responsibilities of the War Manpower Commission and its constituent agencies are only indirectly affected by such matters; our interest is to assure that the legislation and its administration will make available maximum employment opportunities. Both proposed measures include, among the basic objectives of the legislation, the promotion of maximum employment opportunities. I assume that in the administration of the legislation, due weight will be given to facilitating the transfer of workers from war to civilian employments, and to providing maximum employment opportunities for all available workers.

I have no further comments to submit with respect to the proposed

measures.

Sincerely,

PAUL V. MCNUTT, Chairman.