If we complete the program, we will have built about 7,000 of all types of vessels. We have a huge investment there already which runs into billions and billions and billions of dollars. I suggest you weigh that provision very carefully and see where it is going to lead. Again, I suggest there is no need for me to belabor the point at this meeting.

Mr. CHURCH. The House Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries had been considering the Bland bill for several weeks before we recessed, and that subject is treated in the Bland bill.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Unfortunately, I have found myself in very sharp but courteous disagreement with the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries on occasions. But I simply provoke your attention to that section, because I think it is very important.

Mr. CHURCH. That is one of the most important subjects that that committee has considered for years, and it concerns that committee greatly.

Mr. DIRKSEN. One other item which I deposit with you in all good grace is the question of sales of goods that are abroad at the present time, and the possibility of inserting a provision relative to the denial of their reimportation into this country either in a reprocessed or modified form.

Now, it may not amount to anything; it may be just a small item in dollars and cents, may be a million dollars' worth out of this whole total, but I recall the ruckus that was made when we sent a lot of cottonseed oil across and they had it processed and then later this was a few years ago-sold it back to us as olive oil. Maybe they did; maybe they did not; but, in any event, when we sell goods over there and take a loss, I see no reason why they should be reprocessed, modified, or altered in any way and then sent back to this country; because the basis of this bill, in our post-war program, is to sell this stuff in a way to get our own economy organized and start producing jobs for gentlemen in the Army and those, in industry when they are demobilized. There is no such provision in this measure at the present time. I simply make that suggestion.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you in that. I asked Mr. Clayton yesterday if there was not some way we could prevent that. As I recall, Mr. Clayton said he did not know how it could be done. I am just wondering if you know any way it could be done.

Mr. DIRKSEN. I think, if I had a little time, I probably could draft a provision.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe the committee would be glad to adopt such an amendment, if it could be worked out without upsetting the whole program.

Mr. WOLVERTON. This morning, the colonel who testified before us used Campbell soup as an illustration which happened in the last war. They did not even reprocess it. Of course, coming from the district which I represent, I appreci te the fact it could not be improved by reprocessing; but the fact is it was returned to this country and sold, or might have been sold, in competition with our own product had not the Campbell Soup Co. purchased it from the hold-up artist who had it under his control.

Mr. DIRKSEN. One other item. Let me direct your attention to this whole question of surplus housing. We have probably produced now, under our various housing programs, 1,500,000 units, more or

62395-44- -11

less. Some of it is on reservations, and some of is is off reservations; some are row houses and some are separate houses; some are great clusters and some are small; some are large projects involving 2,500 units; some are little groups scattered around the country. But let us take a situation of this kind: Here is a group of 25 houses and they are designated as surplus, and 3 of those units are occupied by American families, and 22 units are unoccupied, and somebody comes in and makes a deal for the whole business. What happens to those 3? Will they have to go out; is it advisable to make them get out when they have lived there for 2 or 3 years and call that "home"?

We have housing scattered all over the country and it is all right for the Administrator to deal with housing here just like he deals with anything else, just like he deals with surplus goods; but are you going to knock them down? Take, for instance, the Kingsford (?) project in Louisiana, 2,300 units: They are using some of them now; but for a while there was not a family in them. Are you going to move them in their entirety, set them on a flatcar or boat and move them out; are you going to knock them down and sell them as lumber? We have an awful lot of money tied up in the housing program and, when this business is over, the first thing that is going to happen is Congress is going to appropriate very abundantly for a housing program. Both national parties have stated that in their platforms, and it is a way of making work for artisans and craftsmen everywhere in the country. And while you are setting up a house here, are you going to knock another one down there [indicating?

I do not know exactly what the answer is, but that is one of the biggest things we have to deal with, and a house is surplus under this bill.

Mr. GOSSETT. The suggestion has been made to me, just in a very cursory manner-I do not know whether it is practical or not that some of those houses might be made available for veterans who have no homes or place to go, at little rent or no rent at all. I think some thought might be given to that in the matter of disposing of this surplus housing.

Mr. DIRKSEN. I think you would almost be justified in giving a little attention to treating housing as a separate item under this bill. In the first place, there is no great need to sell it tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow you can take a little time on it. It is not just one of those commodities that moves in channels of trade; it is a fixture, fixed to the land, and probably has the germ of a program or policy that is going to have a tremendous effect upon the whole housing program in the future. So, with hundreds of thousands of disposable houses around the country, I think the committee ought to get the very best advice they can from experts in that field-and the Lord knows I am no expert; I have dealt with it time and time again; I have dealt with the Housing Authority and sat on their appropriations for years, but I realize the immensity of the problem.

Mr. GossETT. We set up migratory labor camps in different areas of the country. We hope that we will not need any of those hereafter, but we may need them, and some of these projects might well be used for migratory labor camps.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have one more item and then I believe my time has expired. This is an emotional item. It is one of those things that springs from a kindly feeling I have for people

everywhere who have been suffering the ills of the flesh and have not always gotten the medical and therapeutic treatment they should have. We may have a good deal of penicillin when the time comes, and it is a disposable surplus commodity. We may have a lot of sulfa drugs— sulfathiazole, sulfadiazine, and sulfanilamide. Those are things that have brought great relief not only to the soldiers who were wounded, but to the people when they could get them. I think it would be a great gesture to the country just to take those things that will cure ills of the flesh and give them outright to the hospitals of the country and clinics everywhere and say "You use them for the people and do not charge them for the material." Of course there will be a hospital fee and doctor's fee, but let us say "Give them to them."

I do not know how much there will be-maybe there won't be any; but if there is, I would not like to see the Government set a price on it.

That is all I have to say, gentlemen. I am grateful for your indulgence.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Just one question. Under some of the bills with respect to the disposition of surplus property, it is provided that the sale shall be at public notice, as you suggested, by posting in the post offices, with reference to the destruction of property. Others, including the bill pending here, require no notice, either public or otherwise. The matter is left entirely to the Administrator. I am wondering generally if the proper procedure would not be to dispose of this property after notice of some kind, rather than at private sale or nobody knowing anything about it? What do you think about that?

Mr. DIRKSEN. The question is this: If you follow the normal governmental procedure of advertising, posting notice, what will be your conflict in the timing element? And, after all, I think Mr. Baruch is right in his report when he said we have to sell a good deal of stuff as quickly as we can.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. That which is perishable.

Mr. DIRKSEN. That is right. And here comes an administrative requirement that does interfere with the timing. I, frankly, do not know just what the answer is on it, but I have an idea probably you will impede the speedy and expeditious disposition of those goods. Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your time.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Dirksen.

Mr. DIRKSEN. And if there has been any contribution made by me, I feel well rewarded.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you have made some very valuable contributions.

Now Mr. Charles F. Stilwell, president of the Warner-Swazey Co., Cleveland, chairman of the Committee of the National Association of Manufacturers on the Disposal of Surplus War Property, is here and wants to make a statement to the committee.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. We have a statement of the National Association of Manufacturers.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, but he wants to elaborate on it.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. He is not going to read that statement.

The CHAIRMAN. No.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Because the most of us have read the statement.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. STILWELL, PRESIDENT, WARNERSWAZEY CO., CLEVELAND, OHIO; CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS ON THE DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS WAR PROPERTY

Mr. STILWELL. Mr. Chairman and gentleman of the committee: I appreciate very much this opportunity and realize it is growing late and will take as little of your time with this as I can.

Copies of the position adopted by the N. A. M. committee on disposal of war surpluses have already been placed in the hands of the House committee. I shall therefore refrain from reading verbatim this report of our committee setting forth broad principles and procedures which the committee feels should be followed in disposing of war surpluses. Rather, I shall confine my remarks to the specific application under consideration by the House committee-namely the bill introduced by Representative Colmer, H. R. 5125.

OBJECTIVES (SEC. 1)

In the first place, I should like to emphasize that industry is wholly in accord with the objectives spelled out under section 1 of the bill. We earnestly hope that surpluses will be disposed of in such a manner as to promote production and employment, and to avoid dislocations of the domestic economy. Maximum employment will be readily obtained only through full utilization of the country's private productive facilities. And production will be directly affected by the selection and execution of policies governing property disposal. Therefore, the impact of disposal policies upon trade and industry will have a decisive influence upon swift reconversion to a high level of peacetime production and employment.

ORGANIZATION (SEC. 3)

The N. A. M. committee prefers the establishment of an independent Surplus War Property Commission to that of the Surplus War Property Administration within the executive branch of the Government, as provided for in the bill. This Commission should be given authority to dispose of all surplus property acquired in connection with the national defense and war efforts and not needed for purposes of national defense. The committee recommends that the Commission be composed of seven members nominated by the President and approved by the Senate, each member to have had at least 5 years industrial or merchandising executive experience. The Commission would then be responsible, and report directly, to Congress.

Considering the need for practical and realistic policies for the disposal of war surpluses, the committee voices the opinion that such policies can best be devised by businessmen who from experience could gage accurately what effects anticipated policies and procedure would have upon industry and therefore upon employment.

The committee does not believe, contrary to thinking in some quarters on this type of organization, that a commission would constitute a difficult administrative problem. There is no reason to assume that administrative_unity could not be achieved under the proposed commission. The N. A. M. committee proposes that the commission

function as a policy-making body, leaving to its own appointed administrator the responsibility of executing policy and carrying out procedures which had been decided upon by the commission. Executive responsibility would therefore be centered in the agent of the commission who would carry out its realistic policies. The committee recommends that the word "Commission" be substituted for the word "Administrator" throughout the text of the bill, with appropriate changes necessitated by this substitution.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say at that point that everybody I have talked to, including myself, has the very highest regard for the work which Mr. Clayton has already started to do. This recommendation of our committee, I think, comes rather tardily.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stilwell, may I interrupt you by saying I introduced a bill on the same subject, April 15, 1943, H. R. 2498, which provided for a board. I could not get the interest of anybody in the country, either industry or Government, behind that. So I am going to take a little credit for having the original idea.

Mr. STILWELL. I think again you are a little ahead of us, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I agree with you.

Mr. STILWELL. But we have asked you to hear our recommendations, and I wanted to make them complete. That is why we are putting this in. We still feel it very strongly.

Mr. CHURCH. Looking at this bill as drawn, would you recommend that group you are talking about for an advisory commission?

Mr. STILWELL. No, sir; I deal with that later, in just a moment. We provide for the committee to stand as it is.

ADVISORY BOARD (SEC. 4)

We find no fault with the creation of an Advisory Board with the exception that the Chairman of the Surplus War Property Commission would under our recommendations be the chairman of the Advisory Board, but the Advisory Board to stay just as it is. Do I make that clear?

Mr. CHURCH. You are still short of businessmen with experience on the commission.

Mr. STILWELL. No. One, we recommend a commission of businessmen; two, we agree heartily with the appointment of the advisory board as stated in the bill; three, the commission formed of appointees by the President shall elect their chairman, who may be the head of the advisory commission as well. We hope it would be Mr. Clayton.

NEXT, SURVEILLANCE BY CONGRESS (SEC. 5)

Continuous surveillance by Congress is extremely desirable. The provision requiring quarterly progress reports to Congress is very satisfactory.

DECLARATION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY (SEC. 7)

The committee recommends that legislation should provide that a joint board of the armed forces should stipulate as quickly as possible which Government-owned real estate, plants, equipment, supplies, and merchant vessels are needed for purposes of national defense. The