"1. Class MJC. Units established at essentially military schools which provide high school and junior college instruction, but do not confer baccalaureate degrees. These units require all military students to be habitually in uniform when on the post, reservation or campus; organize their military bodies as corps of cadets under constantly maintained military discipline; have as their objectives the development of military students' character by means of military training and the regulation of their conduct in accordance with military principles; and in general meet military standards similar to those maintained at the service academies. Additionally, these units accept and maintain the specifically designated program of instruction prescribed by the cognizant Secretary for this class of instruction. "2. Class MI. Units established at essentially military schools of secondary level of instruction which meet the military training requirements of Class MJC, above. "B. Other Secondary School Units. Those military training units established at high schools and other educational institutions of comparable level which require all military students to be habitually in uniform when in school or on campus; organize their military bodies as corps of cadets; accept and maintain the specifically designated program of instruction prescribed by the cognizant Secretary for such institutions. "C. National Defense Cadet Corps (NDCC) Program Schools. "D. Naval Honor Schools. "E. State Maritime Academies. "F. Civilian Youth Organizations. These are limited to organizations (1) whose primary goal is education; (2) whose membership is national in scope; (3) which are open to youths predominantly in the 8 to 18 year old category; and (4) which have been chartered by the Congress. Civilian youth organizations which were on the eligible list in effect on the day before the effective date of this Instruction, and which would be eligible under this Instruction but for the fact that they do not have a Federal charter, must obtain a charter within two years of that effective date or become ineligible to receive property under this Instruction. In the meantime, they may be retained on the eligible list. "IV. Kinds of Property Available "An eligible educational activity may receive only the kinds of surplus personal property that are specified by written donation agreement between the educational activity and the Department of Defense. "V. Implementation and Effective Date "This Instruction is effective immediately. The military departments will revise their regulations, procedures and instructions as necessary to implement the provisions of this Instruction and forward copies of such implementations to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Personnel and Reserve) within sixty days. "CHARLES C. FINUCANE, "Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Personnel and Reserve)." 7. Section 203 (j)(3) and 203(j) (4) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 377), as amended, authorizes the Secretary of DHEW and the Director of OCDM to determine what surplus property is usable and necessary for health, education, and civil defense purposes, and also authorizes them to allocate such property for transfer by the Administrator of GSA to the State agency for distribution to these three classes of public and private institutions and organizations. The Director of OCDM has delegated his authority to the Secretary of DHEW to make these determinations and allocations. The Secretary has redelegated these responsibilities to the State agencies. These agencies actually select and determine what property is needed and can be utilized by health, education, and civil defense. The various agencies' functions are, therefore, not confined solely to distributing property. The term "State surplus property distribution agency" is a misnomer. The State agencies perform many functions that require judgment, wisdom, and commonsense. These agencies are not automatons that can or do operate "by remote control." It, therefore, is not logical to expect State agencies to function if exclusive jurisdiction is given to the Secretary of Defense to determine what property and how much property is usable and necessary for educational activities which the Secretary has decided are of special interest to the armed services. Furthermore, as Senate bill 3489 is written, these activities would have a priority which would mean that all property that the Secretary determined that they should have would need to be set aside and earmarked or placed in a special warehouse for the exclusive use of these organizations. Such a situation would create conditions that make it impossible for any State agency to administer and operate a sound program. Such guidance as the State agencies need (or are required to accept) should come from only one Federal agency. No State agency can serve two or more masters. Every State agency must have the privilege and right to operate on an independent basis with a minimum of Federal dictation, guidance, or control. 8. Instructions and directives issued by the Department of Defense are implemented by the Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, and Department of the Air Force. These implementations vary greatly in many respects. If the Secretary of Defense is given the authority he requests under Senate bill 3489 and, in turn, the services are permitted to implement DoD Instruction 4160.18 (or revision thereof) the State agencies would be faced with a situation in which they would be required to follow the determinations made by the three respective services rather than by one Federal agency. This would create an impossible situation. 9. To permit the Secretary of Defense the authority requested in Senate bill 3489 would mean in sum and substance that he could, literally, "invade" the public and private secondary school systems of the Nation and practically negate the services now being performed by the State agencies for surplus property. It appears to the Association that the single State agency concept was the intent of Congress. This intention is revealed in the Hearings on H.R. 7227. To establish a dual or multiple State agency operation is contrary to the single manager concept which Congress is endeavoring to get the DoD to adopt for procuring supplies and equipment. The single manager concept is discussed at great length in the Hearings before the Subcommittee on Defense Procurement of the Joint Economic Committee, Eighty-Sixth Congress, 2d Session. These Hearings were held January 28, 29, and 30, 1960. Senate bill 3493 would amend the foregoing basic act to authorize the use of surplus personal property by State distribution agencies. This bill was introduced (by request) on May 5, 1960, by Senator McClellan. The House companion measure is H.R. 11499, which was introduced by the majority leader of the House, the Honorable John W. McCormack, on March 31, 1960. The language of the two bills shows some variations. The association favors the passage of this bill but believes that it should be amended to read as follows: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 203 (n) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 484(n)), is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentences: 'Under such cooperative agreements, the Administrator may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, transfer any excess or surplus property to the organizational unit of the agency of that State so designated for the distribution of surplus property, for its own use, if the Secretary has determined that such property is necessary to, or would facilitate, the effective operation of that organizational unit of the State agency in performing its functions in connection with the appropriate program. Upon a determination by the Secretary that such action is necessary to, or would facilitate, the effective use of such property so made available under the terms of such a cooperative agreement, and with the approval of the Administrator, title to property so transferred shall be vested in that State agency.' The reasons for amending Senate bill 3493 are as follows: 1. Excess and surplus property is now transferred by the International Cooperation Administration to foreign institutions and organizations. Some of these entities include educational institutions. 2. Public Law 85-934 (72 Stat. 1793), approved September 6, 1958, authorizes the head of various Federal agencies who have research contracts with nonprofit institutions of higher education, to transfer title to equipment purchased with grant or contract funds. Such property is in excess status when it is so transferred, since GSA has nothing to do with determining that such property is surplus, nor can GSA remove such property from such institutions for further Federal utilization. 3. The USDA, Forest Service, under Memorandum 6410, dated November 30, 1959, may transfer excess property to the State forester of the several States. This procedure has the concurrence of GSA. 4. The USDA, Soil Conservation Service, under Memorandum AS 16, Rev., dated December 8, 1958, may transfer excess property to State soil conservation districts through the State conservationist. This procedure has the concurrence of GSA. 5. The United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, under Administrative Memorandum 2-12(1), dated January 14, 1960, may transfer excess property to State highway departments. This procedure has the concurrence of GSA. 6. Public Law 85-835 (72 Stat. 988) approved August 28, 1958, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Commodity Credit Corporation, by the provisions of section 505 of this act, to donate excess cotton (acquired through its price support operations) to educational institutions for use in the training of students in the processing and manufacture of cotton into textiles. 7. The Department of the Air Force Air Force Manual 67-1, volume XIII, amendment 31, dated December 21, 1959, authorizes excess radio and electronic equipment to be transferred to private individuals that are a part of an organization known as the Military Affiliate Radio System (MARS). 8. All of the entities, referred to under the preceding seven points can acquire Federal excess property on a priority basis before such property is made available to State distribution agencies. It is, therefore, logical to conclude that State property distribution agencies should be permitted to acquire either excess or surplus property for the purpose of conducting the program under their jurisdiction. 9. Many State agencies are an organizational unit of State departments of government. In many States the State property distribution agency is an organizational unit of a State department other than the State deparment of education, the State department of health, and the State department that administers and operates the statewide civil defense program. Unless the distribution and use of Federal property is confined to the organizational unit that administers the surplus property program, such property can be made available on a departmental-wide basis to entities of State government that have nothing whatsoever to do with the surplus property program. Senate bill 3493, if enacted as written, would create confusion in this area. It does not seem logical to conclude that the DHEW would have legal authority, by regulations or otherwise, to exclude a department of State government from receiving property unless such a proviso was contained in Senate bill 3493. There is no reason why the Director of OCDM should be included in Senate bill 3493 since all State agencies would, if they chose to do so, enter into a cooperative agreement only with the Secretary of the DHEW. To summarize and conclude I should like to say that the National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property, at its 12th annual conference, Jackson Lake Lodge, Grand Teton National Park, Wyo., June 22-25, 1959, went on record as being opposed to increasing the types or categories of institutions and organizations which would become eligible to acquire surplus property if the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 377), as amended, is further amended. The three basic reasons for the association's position are as follows: 1. Addition of eligibles would make for a thin distribution of the property now available. 2. Increasing the number of eligibles would not increase the amount of surplus property available. 3. Increasing the number of eligibles would complicate and make impracticable the administration and operation of the program. The association is well aware of the fact that Congress, in its wisdom, can continue to add to the number of eligibilities. If Congress chooses to do so the association believes that all eligibile entities should be specifically named or "spelled out" in section 203 (j) (3) of Public Law 152, as amended. The association believes that a single Federal agency should administer the program. The association believes that a single State agency should administer the program. The association believes that section 203 (j) (2) of Public Law 152, as amended, should be repealed. The association believes that section 203 (k) should be amended so that somewhere in the language of subsection (k) an amendment should be included which will give the State agencies a voice in the transfer of real property to health and education. This amendment should contain the same basic provision that is contained in the last sentence of section 203 (j) (1) which reads: "No such property shall be transferred for use within any State except to the State agency designated under State law for the purpose of distributing, in conformity with the provisions of this subsection, all property allocated under this subsection for use within such State." The association hopes that Senator Gruening's subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Government Operations will pursue the four studies which are outlined in detail as parts (a), (b), (c), and (d) contained in Senate Report No. 836, 86th Congress, 1st session, pages 8 and 9 of said report. Senator GRUENING. Is Mr. Harry Dreany of the ICA here? STATEMENT OF HARRY H. DREANY, INTERNATIONAL Senator GRUENING. You have a statement on those various bills. I wish you would summarize it and tell us which bills you are in favor of and which bills you are opposed to and what amendments you favor. Mr. DREANY. I don't believe we have actually a statement. I believe we sent a letter with respect to S. 2725 and S. 2732.5 Generally speaking, we favor S. 2732 with certain changes which we had suggested for making it a little easier to administer and to make the various determinations which will be required. Senator GRUENING. Now, you suggest an amendment to S. 2732 with the following clause: No property shall be donated under this section except pursuant to arrangements agreeable to the government of the country in which the property is to be used. I wish you would elucidate on that, on page 4 of the letter of Senator McClellan, signed by Mr. Fitzgerald. (See pp. 164, 165.) Mr. DREANY. I do not have a copy. Senator GRUENING. We have copies here. For the record, you say: The requirement in both bills (that is, S. 2732 and S. 2725), that the foreign country designate the organization to receive donations under the section presents two problems: (1) The language especially as worded in S. 2732 could be construed to mean that the foreign country may designate only one agency to receive all property disposed of under the new section, which Federal agency will presumably distribute the property to other agencies; and (2) The foreign government must play an active role by designating eligible agencies. It would seem an unnecessary complication to require one central receiving agency and to require formal designations by the foreign government. I would propose as a substitute for the sentence appearing in lines 2 to 7 on page 3 of S. 2725, and on lines 6 to 12 of page 3 of S. 2732 of the following: No property shall be donated under this section except pursuant to arrangements agreeable to the government of the country in which the property is to be used. Senator GRUENING. This language (you say) should fully protect the interest of foreign governments, while avoiding unnecessarily formal procedures? Mr. DREANY. That is correct. Because in some of the countries it might be necessary for them to set up some special agency, or it 5 See letter to Senator McClellan, dated June 1, 1960, p. 164. might not even be necessary, but they might find it desirable. It would seem simpler to avoid this expense by utilizing existing agencies if the other government wished to, but not in effect requiring them to centralize it. Senator GRUENING. Let me present a hypothetical case. Supposing that in a country there are two or three institutions of various kinds which have been started by Americans, and they are in need of some of this property, and in disposing of it for one reason or another the government of that country decided that one of these institutions should get it and the other should not. Does that not open the way for a certain amount of favoritism and partiality? Mr. DREANY. Well, I suppose you could say that, but at the same time we do consistently in all of our programs work with and through the other governments. In other words, we don't feel that we should be in the position of in effect dictating to the other government. If they had objections, some legitimate objection to a particular organization receiving the same benefits as another, well, we would feel that we should go along and respect their wishes in the matter. Senator GRUENING. However, it is American property, and I think that that is a restriction that might cause a good deal of hard feelings. Mr. DREANY. I think that we would do our best to remove any discrimination, but without making it in effect too mandatory or too compulsory. We are many times able to do by persuasion things which wouldn't be possible by compulsion. Senator GRUENING. Would the adoption of these bills facilitate the ICA program? Mr. DREANY. Generally speaking; yes, sir. Senator GRUENING. It would give you something in addition to what the Congress appropriated through its regular channels? Mr. DREANY. Yes; it would. Senator GRUENING. You get surplus property now, do you not? Mr. DREANY. We get excess property. Senator GRUENING. Not surplus property? Mr. DREANY. We get excess, and at the moment we obtain it, it loses its status as excess and becomes ICA-owned property. Senator GRUENING. But you have a chance to get excess, which has a higher rating than surplus. Why do you have to go into the surplus business? Mr. DREANY. Well, actually, there isn't too much difference between foreign excess and surplus; in other words, the excess property overseas, we can get before it becomes surplus, before it is made eligible for sale by auction or otherwise within the countries. And to the extent that we need that property in the execution of our programs we can, you are quite correct, get it before it becomes surplus. But we don't have the authority outside of our regular programs to donate it to the kind of institutions which are set forth in these bills. Senator GRUENING. You would not have the authority for the excess? Mr. DREANY. I don't believe so, no, sir, not to donate it to private individuals. Now, we could transfer it to the other government for use on one of our approved programs. Senator GRUENING. But still under this amendment that you propose, you would still have to consult the government of the foreign country in the disposal of surplus to educational institutions? |