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 municipalities, and of requests for donations from that group 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. To broaden the surplus property donation authority of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to cover municipalities would operate as an invitation to have presented still more proposals for inclusion of additional organizations such as county mosquito control districts, 4-H clubs, volunteer fire departments and rescue squads, municipal water and gas systems, etc. As you know, GSA has consistently opposed the inclusion of these organizations within the donation program (with no question as to the worthiness of their purpose) on the grounds that their inclusion in the program would be adverse to the public interest. Also, to single out any one such organization, including municipalities, for preferential treatment in the disposal of surplus property I would be discriminatory toward the other beneficial activities. On the other hand, 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 disposals now being carried out by GSA pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. 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 D. FLOETE, Administrator. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D. C., March 12, 1958. 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. 5460, to amend section 203 (j) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to provide that surplus property which is not used in the donable property program shall be offered for sale to States and political subdivisions thereof. With respect to the pricing provision in the bill, we would like to point out that section 202 (a) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 contains the general requirement that the Administrator of General Services, with the approval of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, shall prescribe the extent of reimbursement for transfers of excess property among Federal agencies. Accordingly, section 303 of chapter III of GSA's regulations, Title 1— Personal Property Management, requires reimbursement of fair value (with certain specified exceptions) for transfers of excess personal property from one agency to another. Fair value is determined by the application of certain "fair value codes" which specify percentages of acquisition cost of the property to fix the amount of reimbursement. These percentages vary from 50 percent of acquisition cost for unused personal property, ready for use in a condition identical with new items delivered by a supplier, to 0 percent for personal property requiring major repair, conversion, or rehabilitation. In connection with the foregoing, it should be noted that, when surplus personal property is offered for sale to the public, States and local governments may submit bids therefor (subject to any applicable restrictions of their own governing laws), and that provision is made in section 302 of chapter IV of GSA's aforementioned regulations for waiver, in cases of sales to them, of reuqirements for bid deposits and payment for property prior to removal. Notwithstanding the public character of the objects to which the disposals contemplated by H. R. 5460 would be applied, GSA objects to enactment of the bill 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 States and of the numerous political subdivisions (including municipalities) seeking informaton about surplus property and about procedures for obtaining it would be time consuming and costly. The reviewing of records and stocks and the screening of available surplus against the competitive requests of the many States and political subdivisions would undoubtedly be laborious, and might often seriously interfere with operations for utilization of excess and delay the disposal of surplus property by sale. The settlement of competing claims among the individual States and political subdivisions would constitute a recurring problem likely to engender ill will and create still further delays in warehouse clearance. Furthermore, enactment of H. R. 5460 would introduce another layer of priority in the pattern for disposal of surplus property, and would in all likelihood inspire the introduction of further bills seeking recognition of priority status for other special groups. It was the experience of the War Assets Administration, a predecessor of GSA, that the priority system in effect after World War II for the disposal of surplus property proved to be cumbersome, time consuming, costly to the Government, and, in many instances, inequitable. We must therefore firmly oppose any proposal even suggestive of a return to such a system. 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 FLOETE, Administrator. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D. C., September 10, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of March 4, 1957, requested a report by GSA on H. R. 5470, "To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to make municipalities eligible for donations of surplus real and personal property." This bill is one of a number of bills which have been introduced for the purpose of extending the existing authorization for the donation and transfer of surplus property to cover various special activities and organizations. Notwithstanding the public character of the disposals proposed by H. R. 5470, GSA objects to the enactment of the bill for the reasons hereinafter set forth. Section 203 (k) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 now authorizes the sale or lease of real property to municipalities for purposes of education or public health. In addition, section 602 (a) of the act continues in effect section 13 (h) of the Surplus Property Act of 1944, as amended (50 U. S. C. App. 1622 (h)), which authorizes conveyance to any State, political subdivisions, instrumentality thereof, or municipality of surplus land which, in the determination of the Secretary of the Interior, is suitable and desirable for use as a public park or public recreational area at a price equal to 50 percent of the fair value of the property conveyed, or for use as an historic monument, without monetary consideration. The availability of surplus real property to municipalities would therefore be considerably broadened by H. R. 5470. Should the measure be enacted, there would be included, in municipal requests for surplus realty, land for city halls, civic buildings, auditoriums, memorial squares, garages, warehouses, and other purposes. It is noted that the title of the bill speaks of making municipalities "eligible for donations" of surplus real and personal property. From this language, read with the present provisions for application of the public benefit allowance (sec. 203 (k) (1) (C), Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949), it could be argued that the intent of H. R. 5470 is to authorize conveyances at 100 percent public benefit allowance in all cases of surplus real property. An inconsistency with section 13 (h) of the Surplus Property Act of 1944 is thus perceived, with its provision for pricing at 50 percent of fair value in conveyance to municipalities of surplus land for park and recreational areas. Clarification would seem to be in order, should your committee feel disposed to recommend favorable action by the Congress on H. R. 5470. 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 municipal governments seeking information about surplus property and procedures for obtaining it would be time consuming and costly, particularly in view of the fact that these organizations are numerous and, for the most part, operate independently of each other. The reviewing of records and the screening of available surplus against the competitive requests of the many municipalities 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 municipalities, and of requests from them for donations or transfers and of vying demands on account of education, public health, and (in the case of surplus personal property) 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 and disposal authority of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as proposed in H. R. 5470, 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., May 17, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of April 1, 1957, requested a report by GSA on H. R. 6316, "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." 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 (limited to the purposes of education, public health, and civil defense) to cover various other special activities and organizations. Initially, we wish to point out that in the drafting of H. R. 6316 there has been a failure to reflect the amendments made in section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 by Public Law 655 of the 84th Congress, approved July 3, 1956 (70 Stat. 493). Notwithstanding how salutary may be the objective of these fire-fighting and first-aid organizations, GSA objects to the enactment of H. R. 6316 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. 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 the 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. 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, October 4, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of April 2, 1957, requested a report by the General Services Administration on H. R. 6537, to authorize the disposition of certain obsolete and excess property to the United States Volunteer Life Saving Corps. The bill proposes to create an exception from the general pattern of property utilization and disposal prescribed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. GSA, as the agency charged with administration of that act, recommends that H. R. 6537 be not enacted. As will be shown hereinafter, the bill runs counter to the purpose expressed in the act "to provide for the Government an economical and efficient system for *** the utilization of available property" and "the disposal of surplus property" (sec. 2, 40 U. S. C. 471). Neither the Department of the Army nor the Department of the Navy nor the Department of the Air Force nor the Coast Guard, which would make the dispositions contemplated by H. R. 6537, is an "executive agency" or a "Federal agency" as those terms are respectively defined in sections 3 (a) and 3 (b) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U. S. C. 472 (a), (b)). Rather, those three Departments are military departments within the Department of Defense, itself an executive agency, and the Coast Guard presently operates as a service in the Treasury Department which is an executive agency. The authority which the bill would confer on the Secretaries of the three military departments and on the Commandant of the Coast Guard to dispose of material which is obsolete, or excess to the respective needs of those governmental entities, would prevent further utilization of the property within the executive agencies of which those entities are part, and so would be repugnant to the requirement set forth in section 202 (c) of the act (40 U. S. C. 483 (c)) that each executive agency is to make reassignments of property among activities within the agency when such property is determined to be no longer required for the purposes of the appropriation from which it was purchased. More than that, the bill would be at variance with the further provision in section 202 (c) that (after no need for the property is found in an activity within the executive agency) the agency is to transfer the property to such other Federal agency as may have need for it, as excess-that is, property not required for the needs and the discharge of the responsibilities of the Federal agency having control of the property (sec. 3 (e) of the act, 40 U. S. C. 472 (e)). This procedure for promoting maximum utilization of excess property by agencies, charted pursuant to section 202 of the act, has as its wholesome objectives the minimization of expenditures by the Government for new property. When no need for excess property is found in any Federal agency, the property then becomes surplus-i. e., not required for the needs and discharge of the responsibilities of all Federal agencies, as determined by the Administrator of General Services (sec. 3 (g); 40 U. S. C. 472 (g)). The effect of the enactment of H. R. 6537 would be to prevent any of the property proposed for disposition by the bill from ever becoming surplus. Personal property, after it has become surplus, is available (prior to sale or other disposal for a consideration) for donation for purposes of education, public health, or civil defense (sec. 203 (j); 40 U. S. C. 484 (j)). Obviously, the disposal to the United States Volunteer Life Savings Corps of property not yet determined to be surplus, making it totally unavailable for the presently authorized objectives, would further hinder attainment of the benefits of the property management procedures authorized by the Congress in the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. 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., June 4, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of May 1, 1957, requested the views of the General Services Administration on H. R. 7067, 85th Congress, a bill to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the donation and other disposal of property to tax-supported public recreation agencies. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, to include public recreation as an additional purpose for which the Administrator of General Services is authorized to donate surplus property and to include tax-supported public recreational agencies among the institutions authorized to receive surplus property. The bill places responsibility for determining whether surplus property is usable and necessary for public recreation purposes on the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. The bill also authorizes the Administrator of General Services and the Secretary of HEW to dispose of surplus real property to tax-supported public recreation agencies for public recreation the same as presently provided in the act for properties to be used for health and education purposes. The provision authorizing the Secretary of HEW to take into consideration any public benefit which has accrued or may accrue to the United States from the use of such real property by the grantees is also applicable to transfers or conveyances for public recreation purposes. This bill is one of a number of bills which have been introduced for the purpose of extending the existing authorization for the donation or conveyance of surplus real and personal property to cover various special activities and organizations. The enactment of this legislative proposal would necessarily increase the operating costs and impede the personal property disposal operations of GSA. Handling the numerous inquiries that may be expected, and reviewing records of stocks and the screening of available surplus against the competitive requests of various recreation agencies to determine the usability and need for such property will be laborious. In addition such reviews will seriously interfere with regular operations for utilization of excess, and delay the disposal of surplus |