afford. The success of the vocational retraining program provided by the Congress may well depend upon the continued availability of machine tools through the donation program. Without the surplus machine tools, there will be many requirements which will go unfilled, thus the loss of this valuable training in our educational system.

Office equipment, such as typewriters, adding machines, and so forth, are in constant demand for use in high-school business courses. The loss of this equipment will be felt by the smaller institutions. They have been able to take advantage of the nominal service charge on office equipment without which procurement would not be possible. The General Services Administration has made use of the exchangesale provisions under 201(c) of the act for some time. Generally, they are using the authority under 201(c) to dispose of the same type of equipment as proposed by the Department of Defense. This is property under the ownership of executive agencies, such as the Forest Service, Atomic Energy Commission, Bureau of Indian Affairs and so forth. They are active in selling passenger vehicles which have been amortized. Sales are conducted of other types of equipment including office machines, machine tools, and vehicles.

It is our understanding that the provisions of 201 (c) are supposed to be limited and not used on a wholesale basis. The use of this authority on a wholesale basis is, in our opinion, a direct violation of the intent of Congress. It is also eating at the various sources of supply from which the Federal utilization program and the donation program for health, education, and civil defense survive.

The National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property is in accord with the proposal to permit the extension of eligibles in the field of health and education. We feel that public libraries, schools for the physically handicapped and schools for the mentally retarded, and educational television stations could well be added to the list of eligibles under health and education. The addition of these institutions would not in any way increase or extend the donation program to other categories of eligibles.

Recommendations of the National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property are as follows:

(1) The association believes that 203 (j) (2) of Public Law 152, as amended, should be repealed or that the Administrator of the General Services Administration be required to comply with the present law by directing that all approved documents for donation of surplus property to educational activities of special interest to the armed services be forwarded to the appropriate State agency for surplus property for distribution of the property as prescribed in the present law.

(2) That Federal activities be required to exercise their priority in acquiring property during the excess period only.

(3) That the exchange sales provision under 201(c) of the act be restricted to exchange sales only, on a one-for-one basis of like items, as intended.

In summary, it is our contention that the overall disposal program would be more orderly and less expensive to have the donable program handled by a single State agency. This goal could be achieved by eliminating all priorities with the exception of Federal utilization and disposing of property in the manner prescribed by Congress. Mr. MONAGAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Walker.

Briefly, what is the function of a State agency such as the one in which you are engaged?

Mr. WALKER. In all States, sir, it is an agency created pursuant to State law with duties to acquire property, warehouse the property, and make equitable distribution of property to the eligible recipients under this program within the respective States.

Mr. MONAGAN. Does the effect of the functioning of the program within a particular State depend upon the activity of the particular State agency?

Mr. WALKER. To a great extent, yes. The State has to be active. Mr. MONAGAN. The degree to which you seek out the property, identify it, and try to bring it in, is helpful to the institutions within the particular State.

Mr. WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. MONAGAN. I think sometimes the advantages and opportunities are not understood by some of the States, and I just wanted to bring that out.

You say on page 22 that the Department of Defense can, under its own determination, declare who shall be eligible to receive surplus property. That power still is within the provisions of law, is it not, which State that the Secretary of Defense shall determine whether the property is usable and necessary for educational activities which are of special interest to the armed services?

Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir. It goes on, such as the Maritime Academy, or the military, Air Force, or Coast Guard preparatory schools.

Mr. MONAGAN. I mean the power of the Department to make a determination is limited by that provision of law to activities which are educational and of special interest.

Mr. WALKER. It would seem to be so, yes.

Mr. MONAGAN. You state the General Services Administration has been transferring property directly rather than to the State agencies. Would you elaborate a little on that? I want to be sure I understand the point you are making.

Mr. WALKER. The services to educational activities are permitted to screen an activity for needed property. At the time they submit their application it goes from the property disposal officer to the General Services Administration for approval, and then back to the disposal officer for release, without ever having been cleared through the State agency, or their even being notified that the property is being picked up.

Mr. SCHWEIKER. Why is that? Is that just their operational procedures?

Mr. WALKER. It is part of their procedure to handle it in that manner. We feel that the law has not been followed in routing the approvals through the State agencies for release. In other words, the law provides that the property is to be donated to the State agencies for distribution to the special-interest activities.

Mr. SCHWEIKER. Under the way you think the law would operate if they went through the State agency, could they still earmark for whoever they wanted to get it, or would the final disposition then rest on the State agency?

Mr. WALKER. Under the present arrangement

Mr. SCHWEIKER. No, under the present law, not the present arrangement.

Mr. WALKER. Under the present law, the special-interest groups would be allowed to select property of interest to them, property that was acquired from military activities only. In other words, a segregation or priority system would have to be set up in each respective State agency warehouse, which it is rather difficult for us to live with. Mr. MONAGAN. Let us say there is one item that a special-interest agency and an educational institution both wanted. Under your proposal, this would come to the State surplus disposal agency. How would the determination be made as to which of those prospective beneficiaries would get the property?

Mr. WALKER. In the interim, we would propose that we would release it to the requesting activity, but eventually we would hope the law might be changed so they would participate on an equal basis with our other eligible donees.

Mr. MONAGAN. Yes; but there are two possible donees here and only one item of property. I think Mr. Schweiker is raising the question of who would make the determination as to which donee would get it.

Mr. WALKER. In the interim, it would be a matter that we would release it to the requesting institution, but if it were changed so they were on an equal basis, then it would be up to the State agency to make the determination as to where the property would be placed.

Mr. MONAGAN. You referred to the screening periods and the fact that it is your understanding that if the Federal agencies are no longer interested in acquiring this property, it becomes available for the donable program but sometimes a Federal agency may later come in and take it. Could that problem be eliminated by agreement, or what method would you suggest to take care of that difficulty?

Mr. WALKER. We feel that strong direction should be given to the effect that once property is made available to the State agencies for screening, after it once reaches our screening period, it be allocated to the agency and not transfer it to other agencies after we have once selected it and it has been assigned to us.

Mr. MONAGAN. Is there a time limit which is now established by regulation?

Mr. WALKER. There is a time limit for screening; yes, sir.

Mr. MONAGAN. This is a failure to comply with a limit which has been established?

Mr. WALKER. Not necessarily. In other words, we are given a certain period of time to select property, and in the meantime it has gone through the various channels and been approved for the State agency. In the process of time from the time you receive the document until it actually can be removed, there may be another request from some other Federal agency. At that point they would transfer it to the Federal agency and not notify the State agency.

Mr. MONAGAN. Yes. But is there not a limitation of time within which a Federal agency is supposed to take action?

Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MONAGAN. Therefore, you are suggesting, not a new regulation, but the enforcement of an existing regulation.

Mr. WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. MONAGAN. On the exchange sale proposal, you are suggesting this be confined to actual exchange sales where there is property for

property, so to speak, rather than the broad-scale use which has been proposed for that program.

Mr. WALKER. Yes.

Mr. MONAGAN. Do you have any feeling about Federal compliance standards, as to whether they are adequate or too rigid or the opposite?

Mr. WALKER. I believe you have reference there to our requirements to follow through on compliance to see that the property is being properly utilized, and so forth?

Mr. MONAGAN. Yes.

Mr. WALKER. We definitely feel there is a need for this type of requirement. We feel it should be limited so it does not increase our overall operating costs. We feel it should be on an on-the-spot basis, rather than a complete review of all recipients.

Mr. MONAGAN. Do you feel the requirements are adequate now to guarantee that the property is properly used in line with the congressional intent of the law?

Mr. WALKER. It would seem so to me, yes.

Mr. MONAGAN. Have you had any experience with the restriction or limitation of the available property because of the exchange sale program in any of the Defense agencies?

Mr. WALKER. We do have knowledge of some sales, although we are not sure about the volume of it.

Mr. MONAGAN. I am asking whether any property that normally would be available to the State agencies has been cut off because of the new proposals.

Mr. WALKER. There were some very temporarily, but that has been corrected.

Mr. MONAGAN. Was that the Air Force?

Mr. WALKER. Yes.

Mr. MONAGAN. It has been corrected?

Mr. WALKER. Yes.

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Schweiker, have you any further questions? Mr. SCHWEIKER. I am still a little confused about the exchange sales provision. Your recommendation, which you did not put in your original statement, is that the Department of Defense activities be confined to strictly exchange sales, which is a trade-in proposition plus the purchase price involved? Is that what we are talking about? Mr. WALKER. Yes, exchange item for item.

Mr. SCHWEIKER. I do not quite understand how this would solve the problem in which I understand you are interested. What would stop the Department of Defense from saying from now on when they purchase automobiles, every purchase will involve an exchange sale? Mr. WALKER. In accordance with the regulations, it is to be documented that they are being sold for exchange sale purposes.

Mr. SCHWEIKER. But if they wanted to utilize the vehicles that you say you would like to see continue in the State program, under this new provision which you suggest, could they not simply go back and make a procedural change and bypass exactly what you are complaining about?

Mr. WALKER. I think if they were to follow the regulations and are actually exchanging item for item, we would feel they were within their rights and should do so, but it is the extra ones or the additional ones that are not being used for replacement purposes.

Mr. MONAGAN. If they traded in 20 and acquired 10, that would be the type of thing you have in mind?

Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Mr. BASS. No questions.

Mr. MONAGAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Walker.

Mr. WALKER. Thank you for the committee's time.

STATEMENT OF DR. ALAN S. WILSON, VICE CHANCELLOR FOR ADMINISTRATION, UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORD, HARTFORD,

CONN.

Mr. MONOGAN. We are very happy to have with us today Dr. Alan S. Wilson, who is vice chancellor for administration of the University of Hartford, Hartford, Conn. He has a particular interest in the way this program works with reference to the schools because he has acted as executive head of the Ward School of Electronics in Hartford. Dr. Wilson, we are very happy to have you with us today. We shall be glad to hear your statement.

Dr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I am Alan S. Wilson, vice chancellor for administration of the University of Hartford, in Hartford, Conn.

The comments I will make are largely illustrative of how surplus property is used in one institution, without regard to the national picture as a whole.

During the past 29 years I have held administrative positions in three different colleges and universities located in the Midwest and New England. During these years I have served as dean, college president, and now vice chancellor of the university. For the past 10 years, one of my responsibilities has been that of executive head of the Ward School of Electronics, a separate technical institute maintained by the University of Hartford.

From a small beginning in 1952, the Ward School, aided by the indispensable help it received from Federal donable property, has equipped its laboratories and classrooms and has given instruction to approximately 5,000 young men who have been urgently needed to fill military and civilian jobs in the critical field of electronics. The graduates of the 2-year program of the Ward School are eagerly sought by the Atomic Energy Commission, our military establishments, and more than 150 business and industrial firms involved in defense and civilian work essential to the safety and well-being of our Nation. Among the companies seeking our graduates are the General Electric Corp., Westinghouse, General Dynamics, International Business Machines, Raytheon, and the United Aircraft Corp.

From my position in the educational field I believe the value of surplus property the Federal Government has given schools and colleges cannot be overestimated. In a material sense this program has made it possible for us to develop technical education in our area to a point not possible with our limited financial resources.

For instance, such equipment has enabled us to give laboratory demonstrations of the latest methods for using synchromechanisms, computer logic, and recording instruments for automatic processes.

82977 0-62- -3