ment. The fact that organizations such as the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America and the Camp Fire Girls were considered as eligible donees was brought to the attention of the Congress on numerous earlier occasions. See in this connection, page 16, hearing before the Committee on Government Operations U.S. Senate, on H.R. 3322 and S. 1004, 84th Congress, April 21, 1955; page 321 hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Donable Property of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, on H.R. 3322, 84th Congress, February 15, 17, and 21, 1955; pages 94 and 96, of the February 1955 report to the Commission on Organization of the executive branch of the Government, prepared by the task force on use and disposal of Federal surplus property, and page 224, donable surplus property program hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, 83d Congress, April 20, 21, 23, and 24, 1953. In view of the rules of statutory construction referred to above and the circumstances here involved we conclude that the designations by the Department of Defense of Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and Camp Fire Girls as eligible donees are within the intent of the statute as now in effect. Also, since Boys' Clubs conduct educational activities (Boys' Club of Detroit v. Paqula (69 N.W. 2d 348)), and otherwise appears to be similar in purpose to the aforementioned organizations, the designation of such organization appears proper. Accordingly, your first question is answered in the affirmative.

The second question, being based upon a negative reply to the first, does not require consideration.

Your third question concerns limitations applicable to additional donees, and the question as hereinabove quoted is restated and enlarged in your letter as "What are the limitations to the inclusion of other similar organizations, national, regional, or local, so that they will not have to resort to legislative processes?" Inasmuch as the words of the statute "such as maritime academies or military, naval, Air Force, or Coast Guard preparatory schools" are not, for the reasons heretofore discussed, viewed as precluding noninstitutional-type organizations, the limitations to the inclusion of other similar organizations would appear to be the facts of each particular case. Thus, where the facts regarding the activities of an organization would reasonably support a conclusion that it was engaged in educational activities, and such activities are deemed by the Secretary of Defense to be of special interest to the armed services because the activities of the organization are designed to develop the minds, bodies, and character of young people in qualities that reasonably might be expected to contribute to their usefulness in the defense of the Nation, or for other reasons, an administrative designation of such organization as an eligible donee would meet the requirements of the statute. The national, regional, or local aspects of an organization, except as to administrative problems which might arise as a result thereof, would not appear to be determinative. Your third question is answered accordingly.

Sincerely yours,

JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States. Mr. MONAGAN. State agencies in addition to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare administer the program in their areas and have a very important place in this picture of course.

To testify on their behalf we have with us today Mr. Wakefield B. Walker, president, National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property.

Mr. Walker, we will be glad to have your statement at this time. STATEMENT OF WAKEFIELD B. WALKER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE AGENCIES FOR SURPLUS PROPERTY

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, before I begin with my statement. I would like to say we have made certain changes in the printed statement we submitted. These statements were not printed in the manner we then submitted and I will call your attention to those changes as we go through and elaborate on them.

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Walker, before you start, we have an excerpt from the Congressional Record which contains the letter which Speaker

McCormack wrote as the chairman of this subcommittee to the Comptroller General with reference to the question we were just talking

about.

If there is no objection, I will make that a part of the record at the conclusion of the testimony of Secretary Nestingen. (See p. 16.) Mr. Walker, you may proceed.

Mr. WALKER. As I say, I do have a printed statement and I would like to have this included in the record.

Mr. MONAGAN. It may be included in the record if there is no objection.

If you wish to summarize your statement, I think we would be glad to have it in that form if you feel you can do that.

Mr. WALKER. If it is agreeable with the Committee, I would prefer to go ahead and read the statement and I think it will be rather short.

Mr. MONAGAN. Very well. Proceed.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Wakefield Walker. I am director of the Oregon Surplus Property Agency and I am also president of the National Association. of State Agencies for Surplus Property, which consists of 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

It is my understanding that these hearings are being held for the purpose of reviewing or evaluating certain aspects of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, and more particularly the sections of this act pertaining to the disposal of property excess to the needs of the Federal Government. It is also my understanding that we are privileged to make suggestions or recommendations which, in our opinion, will provide a more effective program from the standpoint of better serving health, education, and civil defense. We are pleased to have this opportunity to review the donable property program and to discuss areas which we feel require changes.

In talking with several officials connected with the donable property program and studying various reports, it is obvious that the program is weakening at a time when it is needed more than ever. With the stress on health, education, and civil defense, the demand for property by eligible recipients is increasing at a rapid pace. To meet these needs, we are faced with a shortage of property. Many installations which generated property are closed and others are in the process of being deactivated. The amount of property to become available is rapidly decreasing. Also, the quality is considerably lower than it was a few months ago.

The National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property definitely believes that the donation of Federal surplus property to health, education, and civil defense is a sound program and that it is of untold benefit to literally thousands of educational and health institutions and civil defense organizations. It is impossible to determine its value in dollars and cents. Much of the value is derived through secondary utilization. Hundreds of items of property are converted from their original intent to training material and other useful purposes.

Our association feels there should be no major changes in the administration of the program although there are several minor changes which could and would help strengthen the program. We feel that

the program should continue to be administered by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare inasmuch as this Department is primarily interested in education and health. We are also in accord that the General Services Administration should provide for the actual transfer of the reportable property and approve all such donations. The approval and donation of nonreportable property should be delegated to the Secretary.

Mr. Chairman, I might elaborate a little bit on reportable and nonreportable property. Reportable property is that property which, due to type, condition, and dollar value, is deemed to be of such value that it is reported to the General Services Administration in order to obtain further Federal utilization.

Nonreportable property is that property which, due to type, condition, and dollar value, has limited further utilization by Federal agencies and, therefore, is not reported to the General Services Administration.

The criteria for nonreportable and reportable property are established by the General Services Administration, and may be changed from time to time.

The 81st Congress enacted the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 which provided for the transfer of Federal Surplus Personal Property for educational purposes. During the second session, the same Congress amended the law by making health institutions eligible. The 84th Congress amended the law by making property available to civil defense organizations established pursuant to State law. These three categories of institutions and organizations are the only ones which are specifically named as eligible donees. There have been numerous bills to include others. To date, Congress has rejected all other organizations and institutions by not naming them in the basic law or in one of the amendments.

One of the popular features of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act was that it would eliminate priorities. In spite of these efforts, various Federal agencies have established programs on a priority over the eligibles specifically authorized. This action has placed health and educational institutions and civil defense at the bottom of the priority list. It appears that if priorities are to be a part of the program, the donees specified by Congress should be preferred over "back door" participants that have been brought into the program. The Department of Defense has and is proceeding to seek technicalities and loopholes whereby the laws could be circumvented in order to serve institutions and organizations of their choice. Obviously, this agency has lost sight of the fact that it is Congress who has the responsibility for surplus property and that some of the organizations which it is serving were earlier rejected by Congress.

Soon after the basic law was enacted, the Department of Defense made a determination that Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Boys Clubs of America, Campfire Girls, and Civil Air Patrol were educational activities of special interest to the Department of Defense. More recently the American Red Cross has been added to this list under the guise that they conduct certain educational activities which are of special interest to the armed services.

Of concern to this association, and it should be to the committee and the Congress, is the fact that the Department of Defense can, under its own determination, declare who shall be eligible to receive

surplus property. Other worthwhile educational organizations such as the schools for the physically handicapped, mentally retarded, public libraries, and educational television stations, have requested the Congress through legislation to be permitted to participate in the donation program. So far, they have never been successful. On the other hand, the Department of Defense, by directive, can declare the American Red Cross an educational activity of special interest to the armed services. We wonder how many more groups the Department of Defense will permit to participate in the program. We know that there are many other worthwhile organizations pressuring them for equal treatment.

Property available to these groups under section 203 (j) (2) is not being channeled through single State agencies as required by the act. These are worthwhile organizations and there is no objection to the use of surplus property by them. However, units of the organizations situated relatively near disposal activities are able to benefit more regularly under the present arrangement. A more equitable distribution could most certainly be effected by having the property made available through the existing State agencies for surplus property. These organizations, in most cases, would be assessed a nominal service charge the same as other recipients, but the result would be a more equal participation. It is our contention that these activities would be more equitably served through the existing State agencies for surplus property. The vast majority of packs, troops, and clubs are unable to participate because of their geographical location.

Some of the reasons for believing that activities of special interest to the armed services should participate through the donable property program are as follows:

1. The State agencies for surplus property are in a position to evaluate the various programs from the standpoint of utilization of property. For example, it has been found on numerous occasions that buses have been acquired by the special-interest activities for camp use during only a few weeks of each year. Schools could have use of the buses 5 days a week, 9 months a year. This is also true in other categories of property.

2. The economy of the program. We have qualified screeners in the field who could save duplication of screening efforts. We have trucks and drivers to remove the property, thus saving duplication in hauling. We have field or compliance personnel who are able to assist in the property utilization.

To reiterate, we are in a position to provide a more equitable distribution.

The General Services Administration Administrator has not been transferring donable surplus property to the appropriate State agency for distribution to the service educational activities as prescribed by law, but has been making all such transfers direct.

As clarification, we would recommend that legislation would designate them under section 203 (j) (2) of the act.

The present law could and should be complied with by directing the GSA regional offices to forward all approved documents for surplus property allocated to the service educational activities to the appropriate State agency for pickup of such property and for its distribution to the appropriate service educational activities.

The General Services Administration, along with other Federal agencies, has found ways and means whereby excess property may be

transferred to State departments which cooperate with certain Federal departments.

The acquisition of excess property to the programs such as those conducted by State highway, forestry, soil conservation, and aeronautics, create programs parallel with that of the donable property program. These are worthwhile enterprises, but the acquisition of property could well be channeled through existing State agencies established for this purpose. Economy could be effected in both the Federal and State Governments by eliminating this duplication of time, effort, and personnel. It would also place these agencies under the same restrictions as required of education, health, and civil defense. Under these transfers, it is possible for GSA to claim credit for Federal utilization of property.

The lack of firm screening periods or schedules contribute to confusion, duplication of effort of personnel, time, and expense. A firm cutoff date for Federal agencies to screen property would alleviate many of our existing problems and reduce the cost of acquiring property. State agencies for surplus property are put to considerable expense when property is withdrawn after it has been screened and assigned to the respective States. Our association does not object to the withdrawal of property for use by the holding activity, but we do feel that the property should not be transferred to other Federal agencies and activities after once the property has been screened and assigned to the respective State agencies. Under the present arrangement, State agencies can never depend upon receiving the property until it is either shipped or loaded on agency trucks. Frequently, the State agencies incur considerable expense by sending their trucks after property which is no longer available because it has been transferred to some other Federal activity. To reiterate, we most certainly do not object to extensive utilization of property within the Federal family; however, it should be selected during the time allotted for Federal screening.

We have received information to the effect that the Department of Defense is now making a study relative to exercising exchange sales under section 201 (c) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended. Provisions authorizing the sale of replacement property are valid, however, the value realized through the utilization by health, education, and civil defense more than offsets the revenue received from the sale of such property. The elimination of this property from the list of available surplus property to health, education, and civil defense will seriously curtail the donable property program, in all States and may cause some States to cease operations.

As an example, cars are in demand for use in driver training courses and station wagons are needed as buses to transport handicapped children. Carryall-type vehicles are desired for use as small school buses in sparsely settled areas. Trucks are needed by schools, hospitals, and civil defense organizations. Civil defense organizations have successfully converted military trucks to useful firefighting equipment.

Machine tools are in great demand by existing schools as well as those that are being newly built. Vocational training is being offered by more schools each year only because machine tools are available to them through the donation program at a cost which the school can