ments on farms. All of these things require study. You cannot just throw it on the market. Unless you do as you provide in your bill, Senator, I think Congress should retain much control before you just throw it in a wideopen market, in which there will be much speculation and waste, and the public will suffer from it in continued taxation. I was in hopes, and I am sure my good friend Senator Taft from Ohio shares that opinion, because he was on the radio program with me and I heard him say so, that he is in favor of reduced taxes after the war, and I hope we can get to that point. Senator TAFT. I hope so. Mr. LUHRSEN. I do feel the biggest thing confronting us now is to have full employment, and we should strive toward that end above everything else, and we should make unemployment insurance, the disposition of surplus property and everything else secondary, because if you have full employment you need not worry about the rest, because it will absorb production, and the distribution will be such that everybody can advance and progress. That is what we ought to do in order to pay our debt. Now I do not know as I can offer anything constructive. I know I am not as well posted on it as Dr. Lamb, but I agree with much of what he said. In principle I do not think we are apart at all. I think, in principle, you Senators and Members of Congress want to do what will do the most good for the general welfare of this Nation. Whether your approach is right in this direction or the other I cannot say, but I do hope that finally you will reach a goal that will be fair, equitable, and just to the preponderant number of our people in this country, and when you do that I think we will all be better off. That is all I have to say. Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Luhrsen. Are there any questions? If not, that ends the hearing. Unless someone else has something to offer I declare the hearing closed. (Whereupon, at 3: 40 p. m., the committee adjourned.) APPENDIX Replies to letter on educational uses of surplus war property, which is being addressed by the War Contracts Subcommittee to educational organizations: Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, STATE CHARITIES AID ASSOCIATION, Chairman, War Contracts Subcommittee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: I have your letter of August 5 asking my views, or those of the National Child Labor Committee (of which I am not now chairman), on the question of the disposition of certain surplus property owned by the Government, but no longer needed for war purposes, and in particular as to the possible use of some of such property for educational purposes. Your detailed inquiries require some thought, but may I ask one question before trying to reply to them? You speak only of possible educational uses of surplus property. Would it be equally proper to think of possible health and welfare purposes to which it might be put? Possibly education should have a priority, so to speak, but it may well be that a considerable amount of the property might more readily be used for health purposes-either health in the sense of preventive public health measures, or health in the broader sense of medical care (if it is broader). Surgeon General Parran of the United States Public Health Service has, as you know, an expanding program, including now specifically tuberculosis care and prevention. Some of the properties might very likely be of immediate use to him. Also, the welfare authorities having care of the aged and other destitute persons might very likely find some of these available properties very useful. The Federal Social Security Agency would doubtless be in contact with welfare authorities and agencies. As always, and with great admiration for your many extremely effective services for public health, welfare, and education, I am Sincerely yours, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, War Contracts Subcommittee, HOMER FOLKS, Secretary. WINNETKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: Your letter to Mr. Carleton Washburne, concerning policies of distribution of surplus war property, has come to me as Major Washburne's successor. He is now getting the schools of Italy reopened. I am happy to have the opportunity of replying to your questions to the best of my ability. 1. Presumably, the property most useful to schools would consist of the various kinds of equipment and supplies which have been used in training for the armed services and for military work. Such property is in the hands of a number of governmental agencies. In many cases land and buildings, as well as equipment and supplies, could well be turned over to the schools and colleges to strengthen them for the enormous post-war task which lies before them, and to compensate for losses incident to relative reduction in school revenues during the war years. 2. Naturally educational work should continue in all branches of the military service and such services should continue to cooperate with public educational institutions for improvement and extension of democratic education, but even if this is done the shrinking of the military arm incident to concluson of the war will mean its inability to use the vast facilities of the wartime program. 3. Orderly, economical, and efficient utilization of surplus military educational resources calls for transfer of such surplus to an appropriate and competent agency. The Office of Education, in my opinion, is the best possible agency to use in this connection. 4. (a) Naturally, such property should be used by the agency in its own operation to the extent that it is needed. (b) In the main, however, the task of the agency would be one of distribution among educational agencies and institutions. 5. (a) By such distribution the agency should aim primarily to assist backward areas, to promote research, to make available additional technical resources to those public schools, teacher-training institutions, and colleges which desire to make good use of them and are competent to do so. (b) The departments of public instruction of the various States should have full power and responsibility to cooperate effectively with the Office of Education in making the distribution. (c) Property that can be well used by the educational institutions of the country in carrying on the most basic function of Government should be transferred from the military department of Government to the educational department, or functions, as a backlog for peace, abundance, and necessary military defense in which education is basic, without any financial payment whatsoever. However, if this seemingly obvious principle is not recognized and there is a price, certainly it should be well below the market price. In no case should dealers be permitted to speculate in and profit from this situation. (d), See above. (e) See above. 6. (a) No; by no means. (b) Yes. (c) Yes; by all means. (d) I certainly think so. Respectfully yours, S. R. LOGAN, Superintendent. GIRL SCOUTS, New York, N. Y., August 10, 1944 Mr. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, War Contracts Subcommittee, United States Senate, MY DEAR MR. MURRAY: Your letter to Mrs. Means, our president, has been referred to me as Mrs. Means is now in the West and does not expect to get to New York until late September. Many of the questions in your letter could not be answered by me without a considerable period of consultation and exploration which, unfortunately, it would not be possible to do in the 2-week period which you allot to us; but the whole matter is so important that I shall do my best to reply to as many quesions as I can and hope the information will be useful and practical For your convenience, I will use the paragraph designations which appear in your letter: 1. The types of surplus property which the national organization and its local units would find extremely useful would be: Office equipment; motor vehicles, especially such as light trucks; special educational apparatus; land and buildings that might be useful for educational activities. We are developing intensively a preflight aviation course for senior Girl Scouts, and it is possible that in connection with this some aeromotor supplies and electronic devices might be extremely useful. We do not know what Federal Government agencies would be in possession of these classes of property. 2. We are not altogether sure that we understand the implications of this paragraph, but if our interpretation is correct, we would say that, where Federal agencies were in possession of propery such as land and buildings which could be used by local groups for Girl Scout camping, arrangements for program participation could be worked out along lines such as have previously been done where Girl Scout local groups have used park property in State or National areas. In some of these areas they have worked with the authorities on conservation programs such as tree planting, flood control as related to small streams, and elimination of pests. 3. We would not be able to answer this question intelligently, except to say that it is obviously easier in many ways to deal with a single agency than with a number of different ones, sometimes with varying points of view; but we should try to adapt ourselves to whatever procedure seems most expedient for the greatest number. 4. (a) We think this question has been answered under (2) above. (b) It is our opinion that if a single Federal agency were authorized to distribute property among educational agencies and institutions, the extent of its distribution should be governed by previously agreed upon criteria, and one of these might be extent of use; for example, if a camp property were involved, the agency, we think, should be able to outline plans for the use of the property as nearly as possible on a year-round basis, with due consideration for certain conditions of climate. 5. This question and its subsidiary questions are especially those which we think would require a great deal of study and consultation, but which I will try to reply to in a general way: (a) The purposes of the distribution might well be to assist in developing activities in backward areas, but we do not see why this would preclude promoting research. (b) We do not have the information to make any reply to this inquiry. (c) If the property is to be distributed at current market prices, most agencies would be precluded from participation in the plan since it apparently would mean serious capital expenditures. Possibly you may know that local councils of Girl Scouts in a great number of communities derive their support through allotments of the community chest. It is understood that councils do not undertake special money-raising activities except with chest clearance. This would mean asking the local chests to raise substantial sums of money in addition to the usual chest budgets, and I should think they would have to be consulted in the matter, and made a part of the plan before their approval could be assumed. (d) If equipment which has been changed in design or has become obsolete is made available, we would think that this should be done at nominal cost. How otherwise could it be disposed of? (e) Conditions laid down with regard to maintenance and use would vary so greatly that we do not feel we can make an adequate reply to this question. 6. Most of what is asked about the terms under which such property might be disposed of has been answered above. We really have no opinion because we do not have the information on such matters of policy as to whether an overall Federal administrator be given authority or not. Sincerely yours, Mr. JAMES E. MURRAY, MRS. PAUL RITTEN HOUSE, National Director. TEACHERS COLLEGE OF CONNECTICUT, Chairman, War Contracts Subcommittee, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MURRAY: I am very glad indeed to reply to your inquiry of August 5 concerning plans for the disposal of surplus Federal property. 1. The types of surplus property which are most needed by colleges are aeronautics equipment, office equipment, science equipment, and motor vehicles. In all probability, the military forces and the newly organized governmental departments are most likely to be in possession of the above classes of property. 2. The Federal agencies who are now in possession of such surplus property might well list the items which are available to educational institutions, and to make possible the acquisition of such by colleges, universities, high schools, and other special educational institutions. 3. I would greatly favor vesting the authority for the disposal of surplus property in the Office of Education and that all matters dealing with the disposal through the Office of Education be channeled through the various State departments of education. 4. (a) I would not favor any single Federal agency being authorized to hold surplus property for its own operations. (b) The single Federal agency (United States Office of Education) should be the sole agency to distribute property among educational institutions. 98534-44-pt. 14-4 5. (a) I would suggest that the purposes of distribution of such property be as follows: 1. To promote new educational developments such as aviation education, science education, etc. 2. To encourage further development of education in localities which are not now able to adequately finance the purchase of educational equipment. (b) The distribution should be handled exclusively through each State department of education. (c) The educational users should pay a marked-down price for such Federal surplus property. (d) Some educational equipment which is obsolete might well be used for educational purposes. For example, older types of airplane engines might well be used in classes in vocational education, industrial arts, and science. A new airplane engine would not be entirely necessary. (e) The local board of education or the governing body should be entirely responsible for the maintenance of such equipment. 6. (a) The Office of Education should in no way be limited in the acquisition of Federal surplus property through appropriations or otherwise. The Office of Education should serve as a clearinghouse and should ascertain through questionnaire or otherwise the educational equipment which is needed in the various States. (b) Covered in (a) above. (c) The Office of Education might well accept the opinion or statement of the chief State school executive as to the need of such surplus property. (d) If an over-all Federal administrator is appointed to determine the allocation of surplus property for educational uses, public uses, and commercial disposition, then it would seem to be an excellent investment to authorize the United States Office of Education to first determine the extent of educational needs. I hope that this reaction will be helpful to you in considering this important problem. Sincerely yours, HERBERT D. WELTE, President. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Washington, D. C., August 11, 1944. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, War Contracts Subcommittee, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: In reply to your letter of August 7, 1944, I desire to bring to your attention a statement recently submitted by the director of our legislative and Federal relations division to the House Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. This statement, as you will note, has to do with the problem of war surplus property disposal. It answers a number of the questions raised in your letter. I now proceed to treat each of your questions. The number of each of my observations corresponds to the number of the question you ask. 1. See enclosed statement. 2. If I understand this question, I doubt very much that I have the necessary information to justify the expression of an opinion on my part. 3. Yes, in a single Federal agency, preferably the Office of Education, which should receive surplus property made available for educational purposes. 4. (a) The least possible. (b) As much property as possible should be distributed. 5. (a) Chiefly to equalize educational opportunity-to build up the low spots. It would be impossible, of course, for highly specialized types of equipment to be distributed according to the principle of need. (b) The United States Office of Education should work through regularly established State educational agencies. (c) See the enclosed statement. (d) If equipment is without learning value, the schools should not be cluttered up with it. (e) No resale by a school or institution. The materials should be subject to recapture in the event of a national emergency. Title to materials might remain with State agencies. 6. There will be need for an umpire on the Federal level. One of its functions would be to determine the relative needs of schools, public hospitals, and so forth, |