as an invitation to present still more proposals for inclusion of additional organizations. Adoption of such proposals would inevitably result not only in increased administrative costs and complication of disposal operations, but also in jeopardizing the orderly procedures for surplus property disposal now being carried out under the direction of GSA pursuant to the provisions of that act. The nature of the legislative proposal is such as to make impossible any firm estimate by us of the probable cost attributable thereto. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, FRANKLIN G. FLOETE, Administrator. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D. C., March 28, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letters of January 17 and 28, 1957, respectively, requested a report by GSA on H. R. 2552 and H. R. 3406, identical bills to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the donation of surplus property to volunteer fire-fighting organizations. To the authorization presently contained in section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 for donations or surplus personal property for educational, public health, or civil-defense purposes, H. R. 2552 and H. R. 3406 would add a new provision for donation by the Administrator of General Services to volunteer fire-fighting organizations of surplus personal property under the control of any executive agency and determined by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to be usable and necessary for the purpose of aiding in the protection of life and property by volunteer fire-fighting organizations. These bills are but two among a number of others which have been introduced for the purpose of extending the existing authorization for the donation of surplus personal property to cover various special activities and organizations. Notwithstanding how salutary may be the objectives of these fire-fighting organizations, GSA objects to the enactment of H. R. 2552 or H. R. 3406, for the reasons hereinafter set forth. The enactment of this legislative proposal would necessarily increase the operating costs and impede the operations of this administration as well as of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Department of Defense, the Federal Civil Defense Administration, and other executive agencies concerned with the disposition of surplus property. To illustrate: Inquiries from, and interviews with, the representatives of the volunteer fire-fighting organizations seeking information about surplus property and about the procedures for obtaining it would be time consuming and costly, particularly because, as we must assume from the comprehensiveness of the term "volunteer fire-fighting organizations," such organizations are numerous in many States, and operate independently of others in adjoining communities. The reviewing of records and stocks and the screening of available surplus against the competitive requests of the many volunteer fire-fighting organizations in order that determinations of usability and need could be made would undoubtedly be laborious, and might often seriously interfere with regular operations for utilization of excess and delay the disposal of surplus property by sale. The settlement of competing claims between individual fire-fighting organizations, and of requests for donations from such groups and vying demands on account of education, public health, and civil defense, would constitute a recurring problem likely to engender ill will and create still further delays in warehouse clearance. The meritorious activities of the volunteer fire-fighting organizations are fully recognized. It must at the same time be kept in mind that there are many other organizations the objectives and programs of which are likewise praiseworthy. To single out the fire fighters for preferential treatment in the disposal of Government surplus property would be discriminatory toward the other deserving activities. To broaden the surplus property donation authority of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to cover this new group would operate as an invitation to present still more proposals for inclusion of additional organizations. Adoption of such proposals would inevitably result not only in increased administrative costs and complication of disposal operations, but also in jeopardizing the orderly procedure for surplus property disposal now being carried out under the direction of GSA pursuant to the provisions of that act. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, FRANKLIN G. FLOETE, Administrator. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of February 1, 1957, requested a report by GSA on H. R. 4007, to amend section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the disposal of surplus property to publicly owned water districts and publicly owned sewer districts. To the authorization presently contained in section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 for donations of surplus personal property for educational, public health, or civil defense purposes, H. R. 4007 would add a new provision for donations of such property by the Administrator of General Services to publicly owned water districts and publicly owned sewer districts. This bill is one of a number of bills which have been introduced for the purpose of extending the existing authorization for donation of surplus personal property to cover various special activities and organizations. Nothwithstanding the public service rendered by these water and sewer districts, GSA objects to the enactment of H. R. 4007 for the reasons hereinafter set forth. The enactment of this legislative proposal would necessarily increase the operating costs and impede the operations of this Administration as well as of the Department of Defense, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Federal Civil Defense Administration, and other executive agencies concerned with the disposition of surplus property. To illustrate : Inquiries from, and interviews with the representatives of the water and sewer districts seeking information about surplus property and about procedures for obtaining it would be time-consuming and costly, particularly because such entities are numerous in the States, and operate independently of others in adjoining communities. The reviewing of records and stocks and the screening of available surplus against the competitive requests of the many water and sewer districts in order that determinations of usability and need could be made would undoubtedly be laborious, and might often seriously interfere with regular operations for utilization of excess and delay the disposal of surplus property by sale. The settlement of competing claims between individual districts, and of requests for donations from such groups and of vying demands on account of education, public health, and civil defense, would constitute a recurring problem likely to engender ill will and create still further delays in warehouse clearance. The meritorious work done by the water and sewer districts is fully recognized. It must at the same time be kept in mind that there are many other organizations the objectives and programs of which are likewise praiseworthy. To single out the water and sewer group for preferential treatment in the disposal of Government surplus property would be discriminatory toward the other deserving entities. To broaden the surplus property donation authority of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to cover this new group would operate as an invitation to present still more proposals for inclusion of additional organizations. Adoption of such proposals would inevitably result not only in increased administrative costs and complication of disposal operations, but also in jeopardizing the orderly procedures for surplus property disposal now being carried out under the direction of GSA pursuant to the provisions of that act. The nature of this legislative proposal is such as to make impossible any firm estimate by us of the probable cost attributable thereto. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, FRANKLIN G. FLOETE, Administrator. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D. C., March 28, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committe on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of February 4, 1957, requested a report by GSA on H. R. 4107, to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the donation of surplus property to volunteer fire-fighting organizations, volunteer reserve services, squads, and first-aid crews. To the authorization presently contained in section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 for donations of surplus personal property for educational, public health, or civil defense purposes, H. R. 4107 would add a new provision for donation by the Administrator of General Services to volunteer fire departments, fire companies, or other similar fire-fighting organizations, volunteer reserve services, squads, or first-aid crews, of surplus personal property under the control of any executive agency and determined by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to be usable and necessary for the purpose of aiding in the protection of life and property by such organizations. This bill is one of a number of bills which have been introduced for the purpose of extending the existing authorization for donation of surplus personal property to cover various special activities and organizations. Notwithstanding how salutary may be the objective of these fire-fighting and first-aid organizations, GSA objects to the enactment of H. R. 4107 for the reasons hereinafter set forth. The enactment of this legislative proposal would necessarily increase the operating costs and impede the operations of this administration as well as of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Department of Defense, the Federal Civil Defense Administration, and other executive agencies concerned with the disposition of surplus property. To illustrate: Inquiries from, and interviews with the representatives of the fire-fighting and first-aid organizations seeking information about surplus property and about procedures for obtaining it would be time-consuming and costly, particularly because, as we must assume from the comprehensive coverage, “any incorporated or unincorporated volunteer fire department, fire company, or other similar fire-fighting organization, volunteer reserve service, squad, or first-aid crew," such organizations are numerous in many States, and operate independently of others in adjoining communities. The reviewing of records and stocks and screening of available surplus against the competitive requests of the many fire-fighting and first-aid organizations in order that determinations of usability and need could be made would undoubtedly be laborious, and might often seriously interfere with regular operations for utilization of excess and delay the disposal of surplus property by sale. The settlement of competing claims between individual fire-fighting and first-aid organizations, and of requests for donations from such groups and of vying demands on account of education, public health, and civil defense, would constitute a recurring problem likely to engender ill will and create still further delays in warehouse clearance. The meritorious activities of the fire-fighting and first-aid organizations are fully recognized. It must at the same time be kept in mind that there are many other organizations the objectives and programs of which are likewise praiseworthy. To single out the fire-fighting and first-aid group for preferential treatment in the disposal of Government surplus property would be discriminatory toward the other deserving entities. To broaden the surplus property donation authority of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to cover this new group would operate as an invitation to present still more proposals for inclusion of additional organizations. Adoption of such proposals would inevitably result not only in increased administrative costs and complication of disposal operations, but also in jeopardizing the orderly procedures for surplus property disposal now being carried out under the direction of GSA pursuant to the provisions of that act. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, FRANKLIN G. FLOETE, Administrator. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D. C., August 22, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of March 4, 1957, requested a report by GSA on H. R. 5448, to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to make rehabilitation facilities and sheltered workshops eligible for donations of surplus real and personal property. The amendment proposed by the bill would be in two principal respects: First, to the authorization presently contained in section 203 (j) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 for donations of surplus personal property for educational, public health, or civil defense purposes, H. R. 5448 would add a new provision for donation by the Administrator of General Services to public or other nonprofit rehabilitation facilities or public or other nonprofit workshops of surplus personal property under the control of any executive agency and determined by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to be usable and necessary for the rehabilitation of physically or mentally handicapped persons, including research. Second, to the authorization presently contained in section 203 (k) of said act for sales or leases of surplus real property for educational or public health uses, H. R. 5448 would add a new provision for disposals of surplus real property to municipalities for use by public or other nonprofit rehabilitation facilities or by public or other nonprofit workshops. The provision now in section 203 (k) for public benefit allowances, whereby benefits to the United States from the use of surplus real property for education or public health may be taken into consideration in fixing the sale or lease value of the property, would apply to the additional objects of disposal proposed by the bill. For the purposes of donating or conveying surplus personal or real property, the bill provides that the term "public or other nonprofit rehabilitation facility or public or other nonprofit workshop" shall have the same meaning such term has under the Vocational Rehabilitation Act and regulations issued pursuant thereto. This bill is one of a number of bills which have been introduced for the purpose of extending the existing authorization for the donation of surplus property to cover various special activities and organizations. Notwithstanding how salutary may be the objective of public or other nonprofit rehabilitation facilities or public or other nonprofit workshops, GSA objects to the enactment of H. R. 5448 for the reasons hereinafter set forth. Although the presently constituted section 203 (k) of the said act provides for the disposal of real property for educational or public health purposes, rehabilitation facilities and workshops as defined in the Vocational Rehabilitation Act have not generally qualified for such conveyances. Informal inquiry reveals that, should the measure be enacted, it may reasonably be expected that applications for conveyance of real property will not be limited to buildings and sites upon which they are located, but will include undeveloped land for building sites and other purposes, sometimes requiring considerable ground area. It should not be overlooked that section 203 (k) now contains broad authority for the disposal of surplus real property to States and local governments and institutions for specific public uses, either without considerations or under significantly favorable pricing formulas. In this connection, it is noted that the title of the bill speaks of making rehabilitation facilities and sheltered workshops "eligible for donations" of surplus real and personal property. From this language, read with the provision for application of the public benefit allowance, it could be argued that the intent of H. R. 5448 is to authorize conveyances at 100 percent public benefit allowance in all cases of conveyance of real property. The enactment of this legislative proposal, viewed from the aspect of either real or personal property, would necessarily increase the operating costs and impede the operations of this Administration. To illustrate: Inquiries from and interviews with the representatives of the rehabilitation facilities and workshops seeking information about surplus property and about procedures for obtaining it would be time consuming and costly, particularly in view of the fact, as we understand it, that these organizations are numerous and many of them operate independently of others in any given locality. The reviewing of records and the screening of available surplus against the competitive requests of the many organizations in order that determinations of usability and need could be made would undoubtedly be laborious, and might often seriously interfere with regular operations for utilization of excess and delay the disposal of surplus property by sale. The settlement of competing claims between the individual organizations, and of requests for donations from them and of vying demands on account of education, public health and civil defense, would constitute a recurring problem likely to engender ill will and would, as, to surplus personal property, create still further delays in warehouse clearance. To broaden the surplus property donation authority of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to cover this new group would operate as an invitation to present still more proposals for inclusion of additional organizations. Adoption of such proposals would inevitably result not only in increased administrative costs and complication of disposal operations, but also in jeopardizing the orderly procedures for surplus property disposal now being carried out under the direction of GSA pursuant to the provisions of that act. The nature of this legislative proposal is such as to make impossible any firm estimate by us of the probable cost attributable thereto. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that it has no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, FRANKLIN G. FLOETE, Administrator. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D. C., April 19, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of March 4, 1957, requested a report by GSA on H. R. 5451, to amend section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the disposal of surplus property to municipalities. To the authorization presently contained in section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 for donations of surplus personal property for educational, public health, or civil defense purposes, H. R. 5451 would add a new provision authorizing the Administrator of General Services to donate "for the needs of any municipalities" surplus personal property under the control of any executive agency and determined by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to be usable and necessary for such needs. This bill is one of a number of bills which have been introduced for the purpose of extending the existing authorization for the donation of surplus property to cover various special activities and organizations. Notwithstanding how salutary may be the objective of this proposal, GSA objects to the enactment of H. R. 5451 for the reasons hereinafter set forth. The enactment of this legislative proposal would necessarily increase the operating costs and impede the operations of this administration in connection with the disposition of surplus property. To illustrate: Inquiries from and interviews with the representatives of municipalities seeking information about surplus property and about procedures for obtaining it would be time consuming and costly, particularly because such municipalities are numerous in the several States and generally operate independently of each other. The reviewing of records and stocks and the screening of available surplus against the competitive requests of the many municipalities in order |