These requirements might well be stated in the law because, as the chamber believes, the disposal of surplus supplies will then take place in the most orderly and effective manner with the least disturbance to production and trade and a minimum interference with employment. Surplus supplies held abroad. There will be special problems that will be confronted in connection with the disposal of surplus supplies and facilities which will be located in many places all over the world. The surpluses in question are those which are competitive with the products of the United States and not to supplies, notably raw materials, which have been bought for use in the United States. The chamber recommends that the surplus-property legislation should specify that such surpluses be disposed of abroad so far as possible. In the disposition of such surpluses consideration should be given to the economic conditions in particular markets and to the interests and rights of American enterprise in the resumption of distribution through normal channels in the respective countries. Such surpluses disposed of abroad should be debarred from subsequent import into the United States. Very truly yours, T. W. HOWARD, Secretary, Surplus War Property Committee. ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTORS, Washington, D. C., August 14, 1944. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, War Contracts Subcommittee, Senate Military Affairs Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: Attached hereto is a copy of our resolution, as revised May 4, 1944, containing recommendations for the disposal of surplus Governmentowned construction and road-building machinery. This resolution was prepared by our committee on disposal of Government surplus after obtaining an expression of views from distributors and manufacturers throughout the industry. It is presented to you for the consideration of your subcommittee relative to the bill to establish a Surplus War Property Administration and to provide for the proper disposal of surplus war property, S. 2065. The bill S. 2065 contains many desirable features; however, we wish to emphasize our opposition to donating by the Federal Government of any construction and road-building machinery to any tax-supported agencies or institutions (nonFederal) under any circumstances. If the equipment has no commercial value or the estimated cost of handling, storage, and sale will exceed the estimated proceeds of commercial sale, we believe it should be scrapped through industry channels; i. e., those firms engaged in the junk business. Consistent with paragraph 2 of our resolution, wherein it is recommended that surplus equipment be sold to tax-supported bodies (non-Federal) for maintenance purposes only, at prices which would enable the Government to secure a fair return, we are opposed to the provision in the bill which would permit the sale or lease of surplus property to States, political subdivisions, or tax-supported institutions at discounts not to exceed 50 percent of the sale or lease market value thereof, as the case may be. We are of the opinion that such sales should not be at prices less than the prevailing market prices. The problem of surplus property disposal is of paramount importance to this industry and we sincerely appreciate this opportunity to submit our views on the legislation before your committee at this time. With best wishes, Very truly yours, C. F. WINCHESTER, RESOLUTION-ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTORS Whereas certain departments and agencies of the Federal Government now own new and used construction and maintenance equipment that will become surplus when the war is over, and Whereas this equipment has been obtained in a great many cases at prices lower than can be obtained in peace times, and Whereas many other Federal departments and agencies have a need for such surplus equipment in their future activities and requirements, and Whereas the Associated Equipment Distributors are interested in the disposal of such surplus equipment, first as taxpayers, and secondly as manufacturers and distributors, and Whereas it is our desire that the Government realize the greatest possible revenue from the disposition of such Government-owned surplus equipment, and Whereas the orderly disposition of such surplus equipment will favorably affect postwar employment, now, therefore, be it Resolved, 1. That a recommendation be made to the appropriate Federal agencies that new and used surplus construction and maintenance equipment and parts now owned by certain Federal departments and agencies be first transferred to other Federal departments and agencies, for maintenance purposes only, in accordance with their anticipated needs for a 3- to 5-year period, and that adequate sets of parts be furnished with such equipment. 2. That surplus equipment that exists after supplying such Federal departments and agencies be then sold to tax-supported bodies (non-Federal), for maintenance purposes only, at prices which will enable the Government to secure a fair return. 3. That after such Federal departments and agencies and tax-supported bodies (non-federal) have been supplied with such equipment as they can absorb, the balance be disposed of through established trade chnnels by offering same for sale by bids, publicly opened and read, at a rate of disposal which will not unduly disrupt trade and commerce. 4. That the welfare of small business be protected by inviting bids on small lots segregated by types, trade names, and models. 5. That acquisition of large quantities of such property for speculative purposes should not be permitted. 6. That surpluses of construction and maintenance equipment held abroad that are competitive with products of the United States should be disposed of abroad as far as possible and should be debarred from subsequent import into the United States. AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Subcommittee of Senate Military Affairs Committee MY DEAR CHAIRMAN MURRAY: As I am unable to appear before your subcommittee, I wish to submit this statement concerning legislation relative to the disposal of war surpluses and to present some specific recommendations which I hope your committee will see fit to include in legislation on this subject. On March 3, 1944, the board of directors of the American Farm Bureau Federation possed the following resolution dealing with this matter and other related problems with respect to post-war demobilization: "We commend both the Baruch-Hancock report and the report of the George committee for taking progressive steps on a definite post-war demobilization plan. "We favor the broad principles set forth in the George-Murray bill, S. 1730. However, in the interest of democratic procedure, we believe that the proposed National Demobilization Board should constitute the policy-determining body, over-rather than under-the Director, and should therefore be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Further, we believe that representatives of agriculture, industry, and labor should be included in the membership of this Board. "In view of the certainty that the food emergency will continue after the end of the war, we vigorously recommend that farmers be given priority in obtaining surplus materials and equipment needed for production as long as the necessity for abnormal food production continues. "We also believe that the disposal of surplus agricultural products should be assigned by the Board to the War Food Administrator; and that the disposal of any manufactured goods, housing, equipment, etc., which can be used advantageously by farmers, be handled in such a way as to assure farmers of equal opportunity with others to purchase such materials." The American Farm Bureau Federation believes that Congress should assume active leadership during the demobilization period. The urgency of war necessitated the concentration of power in the executive branch of the Government. However, we feel that plans for the post-war period should be dominated by the elected representatives of the people. It is a real challenge to Congress to assume the active leadership and to steer our Nation through this very difficult and delicate period of adjustment. The farmer and the American people expect Congress to assume this leadership. We believe that Congress should enact a series of legislation which would set forth the broad principles to be followed in all phases of demobilization. In the enactment of legislation pertaining to the disposal of surplus Government property, it is important that provisions be made that will adequately protect the American farmer. In order that agriculture may receive full consideration in the disposal of surplus property, we submit the following recommendations: 1. The disposal of surplus agricultural products should be assigned to the War Food Administrator or the Secretary of Agriculture. The personnel of the Department of Agriculture has had experience in administering Federal programs in this field. We consider that this is very essential in order to avoid unnecessary delay and chaos in the disposal of agricultural products. During the war period, agricultural production has been increased by about 32 percent, compared with an increase of around 10 percent during World War I. Military demands have necessitated the creation of huge stock piles of food materials. Plans should be developed very carefully to prevent these stock piles from being dumped on the market in a disorderly manner, and thus break the market price for agricultural products. As has been recently demonstrated with eggs, it does not take a large volume of surplus products to create a chaotic condition in the markets for farm products. At the close of World War I, the unwise handling of agricultural surpluses cost the farmers of this Nation billions of dollars. Most agricultural products are perishable and cannot be stored for a long period. This makes it very essential that plans be developed in advance to meet emergencies before they arise. The War Food Administrator should be instructed to consult with agricultural leaders on this problem and workable plans should be developed. 2. Farmers and bona fide farmers' cooperative associations should have priority in the purchase of machinery and trucks suitable for farm use. The disposal of any manufactured goods, housing, machinery, trucks, and other equipment which can be used advantageously by farmers should be handled in such a way as to assure farmers and farmers' cooperatives of equal opportunity with others to purchase such materials. Any surplus equipment now in the hands of the military forces should be placed on the farms of the Nation immediately, and certainly at the cessation of hostilities, equipment should be placed on farms at the earliest possible moment. These supplies, placed on the farms of the Nation, can be making a real contribution to winning the peace, while our domestic economy is converting to normal peacetime production. 3. Many farms of the Nation have been converted into military camps. These lands should be returned to farming as soon as possible. We believe that the original owners of the land should be given first chance to purchase the land at the original sale price, adjusted for any damage or improvements. If, after a reasonable period of time, the original owners do not exercise their options, then the land should be sold at public sale in units of a size suitable for familytype farms in the respective regions. 4. We believe that local committees should be established in the areas where military camps and a large amount of military supplies are to be sold. These local committees should be made up of outstanding citizens, and act in an advisory capacity in coordinating the policies of the National Demobilization Board with the needs of the local community. 5. The farms of America are badly in need of better housing and building facilities. Plans should be developed for using buildings and building materials now in Army camps for the improvement of rural housing. Careful investigation should be made as to the advisability of moving some of the buildings on the Army camps to the surrounding farms. This should not be done on a relief basis, but on the basis of the best economic use of the military equipment. 6. In some quarters there has been considerable discussion in regard to estab lishing returning veterans on farms, particularly on land now held by the Government. We believe that the returning veterans are entitled to some special consideration for the heroic services they have performed. However, we believe that it would be doing them a disservice to place them on poor land or on farms too small to maintain a satisfactory standard of living. Neither should they be used as guinea pigs to promote socialistic land colonization schemes. Land resettlement schemes for veterans have not proven very satisfactory in the past. It is, therefore, urged that all such plans be scrutinized very carefully and confined to veterans who have had sufficient experience and who can locate on farms where they will have a reasonable opportunity to support themselves and their families. Such plans should also avoid excessive governmental supervision and bureaucracy. 7. The American Farm Bureau Federation has suggested that steps be taken to have the appropriate governmental agencies make research studies and develop plans for the disposal of military camps and equipment so as to be of the greatest service to surrounding communities and to the Nation. We recommend that a study be made of one or two military camps. The material on hand at the camp should be analyzed in the light of the needs of the surrounding community. For example, a plan should be developed for the disposal of the land so as to be of the greatest service to the community. The practicability of moving the buildings to surrounding farms should be investigated. The needs of the community for trucks, tractors, and the like, and the amount of such equipment available, should be compared. The practicability of using some of the medical facilities for a community hospital might be considered. In these studies it is our idea that committees of local citizens should be used in addition to trained investigators. If such plans were developed for one or two areas, they could be used as a guide in other parts of the Nation. A national pattern should also be developed for the disposal of surplus war materials which cannot be utilized locally in the community. The advice of the national advisory committee representatives of agriculture, industry, and labor should be sought in working out these plans. In conclusion, we respectfully urge that legislation incorporating the recommendations that we have made be enacted so as to assure an orderly disposition and maximum economic use of surplus Government property. Respectfully yours, EDW. A. O'NEAL, President. NATIONAL STATIONERS ASSOCIATION Gentlemen of the Senate Small Business Committee: We appear here today in support of the philosophy contained in S. 2045, a proposal by Senator Johnson of Colorado. In November 1943 we suggested a 5-year moratorium plan for the disposal of surplus war goods, and why. Let me quickly identify myself and my group. Without going into a vast survey, using a lot of paper and time and manpowerI give you some estimates. I would say that over 90 percent of the people in my association employ less than 350 people. Out of that 90 percent I would say that 90 percent of that 90 percent employ less than 200 people, and out of that 90 percent I'd say that 90 percent employ less than 50 people. There are a heck of a lot of them that employ not more than 10 or 12 or 15, and some only 4 or 5. Now why are we interested in a 5-year padlock or moratorium plan? In the first place, to give business a chance to get its breath. It will keep off the market a lot of Government specification stuff that almost inevitably, as after the last war, would get into the hands of speculators willing to gamble with businesss chances for recovery and with the national interest. It would get into the hands of aliens in this country, who seem to have a lot of money, who are buying up property and businesses at the present time, and it would get into the hands of people who have not been in the particular business before the war. The average businessman of this country has done a magnificent job during this war. He certainly should not be put at a disadvantage of having a tremendous amount of stuff unloaded on the market at a time when he is trying to reestablish employment and at a time when he is trying to reestablish himself in his proper and legitimate place in the national economy. We like this Johnson bill. Like everything else, I suppose if we had had it to write we might have had some different things in it, of course, and after we got through we wouldn't be pleased with it, but we have a whale of a lot of faith in the Congress of the United States, and I judge that any bill of this kind that would be passed would make such administrator report to the Congress what he was doing and what was happening. Secondly, this bill provides for a declaration of surplus property—which means an inventory. It provides that the agency shall make the fullest practical use of surplus property before they go into unnecessary commercial purchases. It provides for sale abroad-and I might say at that point that our friends in Canada in our business would prefer that it be not dumped in Canada. It provides for the immediate sale of perishable property. It provides for the holding up of disposition of durable property for 5 years, and with a proper usage by the agencies, a great deal of it ought to be used up in 5 years. It seems to me that the proper exemptions have been made in the bill, and we think that the intent and purpose of this bill is more to the liking of the average businessman-and the average businessman is not a big businessman-we think that the intent and purpose of this bill is more to the liking of the average businessman than any other proposal that we have heard of. We are not in favor of setting up some tremendous bureaucracy to handle this thing. We are not against a department handling it in the proper way, but if there is a 5-year moratorium there won't be the need for a tremendous bureaucracy being set up. We think that a man, to buy any surplus property now or 5 years after the war, ought to meet two requirements: One, that he is a citizen of the United States, and the second, that where he is allowed to buy commodities, he must prove first that he was in that business definitely and legitimately before the war started. The average businessman of this country is sick and tired of having somebody look at him, touch him on the head and say, "How's my little man today?" This bill is understandable. I know it is understandable because right away people begin to talk about it. No bill is going to be perfect, but we feel that the philosophy and intent of this bill, S. 2045, is something that can be understood by the average businessman, sets up some sort of an insurance that he be not forced out of business by having to compete with a flood of surplus war goods when the war comes suddenly to an end. We recommend S. 2045 to the committee. Respectfully submitted, CHAS. P. GARVIN, General Manager. TEXT OF A LETTER ON EDUCATIONAL USES OF SURPLUS WAR PROPERTY, WHICH WAS ADDRESSED BY THE WAR CONTRACTS SUBCOMMITTEE TO EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS, August 1944 When the war is over, the Government will own a vast amount of property originally acquired for war needs but no longer needed for such purposes. Among this property will be large quantities of office equipment, motor vehicles, aeronautical supplies, electronic devices, special educational apparatus, land, buildings and many other items that might be useful for educational activities. In fact, as a result of shifting war requirements and of curtailments in war production, an increasing volume of such property is already in the hands of the Government. The War Contracts Subcommittee, which now has before it a number of bills dealing with the utilization and disposition of war surpluses, is vitally interested in the procedures and policies which should govern the utilization and commercial disposition of this property. Accordingly, I should greatly appreciate any sug gestions that you may have to offer concerning the educational uses to which such property could be advantageously put. It would be particularly helpful if you could give me your views, or those of your organization, on the following specific questions: (1) Which, in your opinion, are the types of surplus property that are most likely to be useful in educational activities? What Federal Government agencies will be in possession of those classes of property? |