Page images
PDF
EPUB

defense activities. This will present 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 comprehensive new group would operate as an invitation to present still more proposals for inclusion of further organizations. Enactment of H. R. 11516, or adoption of such additional proposals would inevitably result not only in increased administrative costs and complication of disposal operations, but also in jeopardizing the orderly procedures for surplus 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 FLOETE, Administrator.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

Washington, D. C., May 20, 1958.

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

Chairman, Committee on Government Operations,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of April 28, 1958, requested a report by General Services Administration on H. R. 12025, to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the donation of surplus property to volunteer fire-fighting 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 (which is 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. 12025 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 200 of the 84th Congress, approved August 1, 1955 (69 Stat. 430), and Public Law 655 of the 84th Congress, approved July 3, 1956 (70 Stat. 493).

Notwithstanding how worthy may be the objectives of these volunteer firefighting organizations, GSA objects to H. R. 12025 for the reasons hereinafter set forth.

The enactment of this legislative proposal would impede the handling of surplus property by the Government and introduce new elements of costs for the Government to pay. Specifically, it would

(a) Delay the disposal of unneeded Government property while competing claims of individual volunteer fire-fighting organizations are being considered with additional costs accruing to the Government for maintenance and storage of the property and attendant administrative tasks.

(b) Complicate the disposal of surplus property by introducing competition for available property between individual volunteer fire-fighting organizations and other claimants on behalf of education, public health, and civil defense activities. This will present 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 comprehensive new group would operate as an invitation to present still more proposals for inclusion of further organizations. Enactment of H. R. 12025, or adoption of such additional proposals would inevitably result not only in increased administrative costs and complication of disposal operations, but also in jeopardizing the orderly procedures for surplus 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 FLOETE, Administrator.

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D. C., July 15, 1958.

Chairman, Committee on Government Operations,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of June 18, 1958, requested a report by General Services Administration on H. R. 12959, to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the donation of surplus property to volunteer fire-fighting 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 (which is 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. 12959 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 200 of the 84th Congress, approved August 1, 1955 (69 Stat. 430), and Public Law 655 of the 84th Congress, approved July 3, 1956 (70 Stat. 493).

Notwithstanding how worthy may be the objectives of these volunteer firefighting organizations, GSA objects to H. R. 12959 for the reasons hereinafter set forth.

The enactment of this legislative proposal would impede the handling of surplus property by the Government and introduce new elements of costs for the Government to pay. Specifically, it would:

(a) Delay the disposal of unneeded Government property while competing claims of individual volunteer fire-fighting organizations are being considered with additional costs accruing to the Government for maintenance and storage of the property and attendant administrative tasks.

(b) Complicate the disposal of surplus property by introducing competition for available property between individual volunteer fire-fighting organizations and other claimants on behalf of education, public health, and civil defense activities. This will present 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 comprehensive new group would operate as an invitation to present still more proposals for inclusion of further organizations. Enactment of H. R. 12959, or adoption of such additional proposals would inevitably result not only in increased administrative costs and complication of disposal operations, but also in jeopardizing the orderly procedures for surplus 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.

[blocks in formation]

DEAR CONGRESSMAN DAWSON: This is in reply to your request of January 17, 1957, for a report on H. R. 2504, a bill to provide that Government surplus property may be donated to 4-H Clubs for the construction, equipment, and operation of camps and centers.

This Department is in favor of the objective of the bill, in view of the value of 4-H Club work to farm youth and the entire Nation. However, we are not in a position to make a specific recommendation regarding passage of the bill, since it would have no direct effect on this Department's surplus property disposal operations.

If such legislation is to be enacted, we recommend that it be amended so as to provide that an official entity be designated within a State to which such property could be allocated, and that its use be controlled within the administrative channels responsible for conducting 4-H Club work. In practically all conceivable instances where there would be an interest in acquiring such property for 4-H Club use, more than one individual club would be involved; hence, it would be inappropriate to allocate such property directly to an individual club.

This bill would amend section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. With the above suggested amendments it would authorize the Administrator to donate to the appropriate State agency for use by 4-H Clubs surplus equipment, materials, or other supplies determined to be usable and necessary for the construction, equipment, and operation of 4-H Club camps and centers. Determination of the usability and necessity of such surplus property for the construction, equipment, and operation of 4-H Club camps and centers would be made by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and such property would be allocated on the basis of needs.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

TRUE D. MORSE, Acting Secretary.

EXHIBIT 6 REPLIES FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND

WELFARE

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

Chairman, Committee on Government Operations,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

August 1, 1957.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your requests for reports on the following bills, listed in numerical order:

H. R. 242, a bill to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the donation of surplus property to certain community organizations, i. e., volunteer fire departments and volunteer rescue and lifesaving squads.

H. R. 2504, a bill to provide that Government surplus property may be donated to 4-H Clubs for the construction, equipment, and operation of camps and centers.

H. R. 2552, a bill to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the donation of surplus property to volunteer fire-fighting organizations.

H. R. 3406, a bill to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the donation of surplus property to volunteer fire-fighting organizations.

H. R. 4007, a bill 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.

H. R. 4107, a bill 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.

H. R. 5451, a bill to amend section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the disposal of surplus property to municipalities.

H. R. 6316, a bill 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.

H. R. 7929, a bill to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the donation of surplus property to volunteer firefighting organizations.

All of these bills would amend section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 so as to authorize donations of surplus personal property for certain purposes, and to certain organizations, not now eligible.

Of the above-mentioned bills, H. R. 2552, H. R. 3406, and H. R. 7929, relating to volunteer fire-fighting organizations, appear to be identical. (Such organizations are also specifically covered by H. R. 242, H. R. 4107, and H. R. 6316, bills which also cover certain other comparable types of organizations.)

For the reasons stated below, we do not favor enactment of any of these bills. Under section 203 (j) of the act, Federal surplus personal property determined by this Department to be usable and necessary for educational or public-health purposes, including research, may be donated by the Administrator of General Services through State surplus property distribution agencies to tax-supported or nonprofit tax-exempt medical institutions, hospitals, clinics, health centers, school systems, schools, colleges and universities. Under a recent amendment (Public Law 655, 84th Cong.), surplus personal property usable and necessary for civil-defense purposes may in like manner be donated to civil-defense organizations of States or political subdivisions and instrumentalities thereof. With respect to both of these programs-by delegation from the Federal Civil Defense Administration in the latter case such property is allocated among the several States by this Department, although within the several States distribution to eligible activities and organizations is made by the State distribution agencies subject to basic Federal regulations and standards.

Also, surplus personal property under the control of the Defense Department which is determined by the Secretary of Defense to be usable and necessary for "educational activities which are of special interest to the armed services"a phrase which has been very broadly interpreted--may be donated for such activities pursuant to allocation by the Secretary of Defense. Such defenserelated donations are given priority over donations under the other two programs. The present bills would, respectively, add to the eligible list for donation of Federal personal surplus property such diverse organizations as 4-H Club camps and centers; volunteer fire-fighting organizations, volunteer rescue and lifesaving squads, and other organizations performing community services that in their absence would be performed by a State or its political subdivisions; publicly owned water and sewer districts; and, finally, municipalities, for municipal purposes generally.

It may be noted at the outset that municipalities, as a practical matter, are already beneficiaries of the donation program under section 203 of the act in the fields of education, public health, and civil defense, and have received many millions of dollars of donated personal property for these purposes.

The mere enumeration of the activities and organizations now proposed to be added, by the nine bills covered by this report, to the eligible categories under the section 203 donation program-not to mention still other proposals heretofore made-highlights two things.

In the first place, Congress in 1949 abolished the complex systems of priorities for surplus property disposal existing under the Surplus Property Act of 1944 and limited donations of surplus personal property to educational and public health activities carried on by certain types of organizations. (Apparently through inadvertence, the public health part was at first omitted from the personal property donation provisions of section 203 (j) of the 1949 act, although it was included in the real property disposal provisions of section 203 (k) and public health had been on an equal priority footing with education in the 1944 act. The omission was corrected the next year by Public Law 754, 81st Cong.) With respect to the abolished systems of priorities, the second Hoover Commission's Task Force on Surplus Property, in its report (p. 105), stated that they "proved to be an almost insurperable impediment to an orderly disposal program * *. They resulted in long delays, vast paperwork and procedures, and administrative costs which in many cases exceed the disposal revenues." Yet in both the task force's and the Commission's opinon, the extension of eligibility to municipalities for municipal purposes generally, let alone the additional adoption of the other proposals, would again require the establishment of a priority system and would greatly complicate the administration of the program.

In the second place, as is demonstrated by the present list and by various other past and present proposals for extension of eligibility under the donation program to new organizations and activities, any proposal for an extension immediately raises the question of extension to other activities and organizations equally deserving, not only to health and educational organizations not yet eligible—e. g., mosquito districts, nurseries, institutions engaged in scientific research, libraries, museums, etc.-but to activities of public or nonprofit organiza

tions in the welfare field or in other public-purpose fields indicated by these and other bills. Thus, apart from an extension to purposes essential in the interest of national security, such as the recently established civil defense program, either the gates would have to be thrown wide open without limitation, thus diluting the program so as to be, perhaps, of little benefit to anyone, or new lines would have to be drawn which would be difficult to justify on grounds of equity and for that reason difficult to hold.

We have, in the past several months, earnestly explored the feasibility of extending eligibility under the surplus personal property donation program to a carefully limited and defined group of those activities and organizations in the welfare field, public or voluntary, which might be analogized, from the point of view of their nature and accountability, to those now eligible and hence least subject to abuse. However, any recommendations along that line would of necessity require a careful evaluation of the present and potential needs of the existing program and projected programs, in terms of the number of eligible organizations, the amount of property available for distribution, and the like. In view of the very recent enactment of the civil defense donation program, it became clear that no well-founded appraisal can be made at this time of the impact which the recent extension of eligibility to include civil-defense organizations will have on the program as a whole. For example, the civil defense director of Pennsylvania advises that at least 2,900 civil-defense organizations have been designated under Pennsylvania State law and are qualified to receive donations for civil-defense purposes. We have no figures as yet for the country as a whole, nor do we have experience which would make possible a reasonable estimate as to the amounts of property in the field of common-use items for which these organizations would compete.

Hence, either for the purposes of these bills or for the above-mentioned extension in the welfare field, forecasts could not reasonably be made at this time respecting the increased costs of administration, the extent of dilution of the amount and quality of the property available, and the dimensions of the conflict of interest for the same property which might result from any additional extension of eligibility. Under these circumstances, even apart from the formidable problems of equity in deciding which, if any, new organizations and activities (either of those enumerated in the bills to which this report is addressed or those referred to in other proposals) should be made eligible, we believe that even if otherwise advisable no further expansion of eligibility should be recommended at this time pending the accumulation of adequate experience as to the impact of the civil defense donation program. This will require at least a year or two in view of the newness of that program.

In conclusion, we recommend against enactment of any of the above-mentioned bills. We have therefore not analyzed these bills from the point of view of their technical adequacy, nor have we explored the question whether in the event of the enactment of these bills, a number of which involve activities outside the field of interest of the Department, administration of the donation and disposal program for surplus property by this Department would still be appropriate. The Bureau of the Budget advises that it perceives no objection to the submission of this report to your committee.

Sincerely yours,

M. B. FOLSOM, Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
Washington, August 1, 1958.

Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK,
Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Donable Property, Committee on
Government Operations, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to your letter of July 28, 1958, apprising us
of hearings to be held by your subcommittee on Friday, August 1, on H. R. 543,
7067, 10789, 11324, 3406, 6316, 7929, 10010, 10118, 9522, 242, 2504, 5460, I am
pleased to advise that we have now submitted reports to your committee on all
of these bills.

There is still outstanding our report on H. R. 13085 not mentioned in your letter. We shall make every effort to submit a report on that bill to your committee by the scheduled hearing date, if at all possible.

In response to your kind invitation, the Department will be represented at the hearing by Mr. Chester B. Lund, Director, Office of Field Administration, accompanied by one or more other members of our staff, who will be available,

« PreviousContinue »