Page images
PDF
EPUB

thus avoiding the possibility of a contention-an excessively strained one, to be sure that the amendment permits donations (for public-health purposes) to political subdivisions at large, as distinguished from donations to public-health agencies thereof, a construction which would enlarge the scope of the bills to an unforeseeable extent.

Mr. Herlong suggests that his bill would not "expand (the program) as it is currently being administered," and that, rather, it merely "defines and clarifies the rules for making donable surplus property available to agencies doing publichealth work, including mosquito control, which by a recent ruling of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is an eligible purpose." This is based upon a misunderstanding caused by donations made in connection with mosquitocontrol activities.

In order to permit a donation for public-health purposes, the proposed donee not only must be engaged in a public-health activity but must be one of the types of organizations specifically enumerated in section 203 (j) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act as interpreted in applicable regulations. Among these organizations are clinics and health centers, but not mosquito districts. It is true that we have held that certain organizations, in Florida and elsewhere, met both the statutory and regulatory requirements established for a clinic or health center, even though also engaged in certain presumably health-related mosquito-control activities. In such cases, donations of property for use in such activities were properly made to these organizations. In a few instances, subsequent donations were inadvertently made directly to State and local health departments which, as such, were not legally eligible donees, even though the property was to be used for mosquito-control work. This necessitated recovering from such departments the property donated when the error was discovered. Congressman Herlong thus, quite understandably, though mistakenly, assumed that mosquito-control activities were deliberately and properly accorded eligibility regardless of the fact that the receiving organization did not fall into the enumerated eligible categories of "medical institutions," "hospitals," "clinics," and "health centers."

To the extent, then, that the proposed legislation would make independently eligible mosquito- and insect-control districts, sanitary districts, malaria-control districts, drainage districts, State and local health departments, or other publichealth agencies except those specifically enumerated in the present law, it would, in fact, very substantially extend eligibility for donations.

For the foregoing reasons, as well as those stated in our report to the committee, we are opposed to enactment of these bills.

Sincerely yours,

ELLIOT L. RICHARDSON,
Assistant Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

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

August 1, 1958.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request for a report on H. R. 10010 and H. R. 10118, to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to authorize the disposal of certain surplus property to public-health agencies of a State, its political subdivisions and instrumentalities. These identical bills would amend section 203 (j) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 so as to (a) add "public-health agencies of the State, and its political subdivisions and instrumentalities," to those organizations now eligible to receive donable surplus personal property; (b) define the term "public-health agencies of the State, and its political subdivisions and instrumentalities,” as including (but not limited to) malaria-control districts, mosquito- and insect-control districts, sanitary districts, and drainage districts; and (c) define the term "public-health purposes" (for which purposes sec. 203 (j) permits donations) to include (but not be limited to) "sanitation activities generally, including sanitary land-fill programs, mosquito- and insect-control programs, malaria-control programs, and drainage programs."

These bills can be properly evaluated only in the light of the purpose for which, and the organizations to which, surplus property may now be donated, and in the context of other proposals for extension of the program which are now pending in the Congress. As you know, under paragraph 3 of section 203 (j) of the

act, Federal surplus personal property may be donated, through State surplusproperty distribution agencies, to tax-supported medical institutions, hospitals, clincs, health centers, school systems, schools, colleges, universities, and to other nonprofit and tax-exempt medical institutions, hospitals, clinics, health centers, schools, colleges, and universities for purposes of public health or education. Under paragraph 4 of section 203 (j), such property may be donated to civil-defense organizations for civil-defense purposes; property donated for such purposes is allocated by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare pursuant to a delegation of authority from the Federal Civil Defense Administrator. 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 to such activities, based upon allocation by the Secretary of Defense. Such defense-related donations are given priority over donations under the other two programs.

In addition to the 2 bills covered by the present report, there are pending before the House Committee on Government Operations a number of other bills to extend the program to organizations similar to the above-mentioned types of public agencies and activities and to municipalities (for municipal purposes, generally) which substantially parallel the 2 bills before your committee. The multitude of proposals to amend the substantive legislation would make eligible for donation municipally owned water districts, certain types of tax-supported or tax-exempt welfare organizations, recreation activities, rehabilitation centers, and sheltered workshops for the handicapped, 4-H Clubs, etc.

The mere recital of these proposals, all of them dealing with worthy activities, highlights two things. In the first place, extension of the present program to some or all of these activities might require the reestablishment of a priority system, such as was abolished by the Congress in 1949, which would greatly complicate the administration of the program.

In the second place, any proposal for an extension of the program immediately raises the question of extension to a whole host of other activities and organizations equally deserving, whether these be extensions of eligibility to health and educational organizations not now eligible, or extensions of the act beyond its present health, educational, and civil-defense objectives to activities of public or other nonprofit organizations engaged in welfare work or in other publicpurpose fields. Hence, 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, earnestly explored the feasibility of extending eligibility under the surplus personal property donation program to additional organizations and activities in the health and education fields and to a carefully limited and defined group of those activities and organizations in the wefare fields, public or voluntary, which might be analogized, from the point of view of their nature and accountability, to health and educational organizations 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. We do not, as yet, have figures 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. In this connection, we should also like to emphasize that the inclusion of civil-defense organizations under section 203 (j) of the act is too recent to furnish a sound basis for estimating the longrun impact of this addition to the types of organizations eligible for donations. Hence, either for the purposes of the bills covered by this report or for the other above-mentioned extensions proposed, forecasts could not reasonably be made at this time respecting the increased costs of administration, the extent of dilution of the amount of and quality of the property available, and the dimensions of the competition for the same property which might result from any additional extension of eligibility. Under these circumstances, apart from the formidable problems of equity in deciding which, if any, new organizations and activities should be made eligible, we believe that, even if it were otherwise advisable, no further expansion of eligibility should be recommended at this time, pending accumulation of adequate experience with respect to the present program, including civil-defense donations. This will require at least a year or two.

We, therefore, recommend against enactment of H. R. 10010 and H. R. 10118. In view of this recommendation, we have not undertaken to analyze these bills from the point of view of their technical adequacy.

Sincerely yours,

ELLIOT L. RICHARDSON,

Assistant Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND Welfare,

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

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

February 19, 1958.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of February 5, 1958, for a report on H. R. 10377, 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.

This bill is identical with H. R. 2552, on which we submitted a report to you on August 1, 1957. (That report also covered 8 other bills, i. e., H. R. 242, etc.)

For the reasons stated in our report of August 1, 1957, we recommend against enactment of H. R. 10377.

Sincerely yours,

M. B. FOLSOM, Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

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

February 28, 1958.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of February 21, 1958, for a report on H. R. 10789, 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.

This bill is substantially identical with H. R. 543, on which we submitted a report to you on August 19, 1957. (That report also covered three other bills, i. e., H. R. 5448, H. R. 5470, and H. R. 7067.)

For the reasons stated in our report of August 19, 1957, we recommend against enactment of H. R. 10789.

Sincerely yours,

M. B. FOLSOM, Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

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

March 25, 1958.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of March 12, 1958, for a report on H. R. 11324, 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.

This bill is identical with H. R. 2552, H. R. 3406, and H. R. 7929, on which we submitted a report to you on August 1, 1957. (That report also covered six other bills, i. e., H. R. 242, H. R. 2504, H. R. 4007, H. R. 4107, H. R. 5451, and H. R. 6316.)

For the reasons stated in our report of August 1, 1957, we recommend against enactment of H. R. 11324.

Sincerely yours,

M. B. FOLSOM, Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
March 31, 1958.

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

Chairman, Committee on Government Operations,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of March 21, 1958, for a report on H. R. 11516, 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.

This bill is identical with H. R. 2552, H. R. 3406, and H. R. 7929, on which we submitted a report to you on August 1, 1957. (That report also covered six other bills, i. e., H. R. 242, H. R. 2504, H. R. 4007, H. R. 4107, H. R. 5451, and H. R. 6316.)

For the reasons stated in our report of August 1, 1957, we recommend against enactment of H R. 11516.

Sincerely yours,

E. L. RICHARDSON, Acting Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

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

May 8, 1958.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of April 28, 1958, for a report on H. R. 12025, 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.

This bill is identical with H. R. 2552, H. R. 3406, and H. R. 7929, on which we submitted a report to you on August 1, 1957. (That report also covered six other bills, i. e., H. R. 242, H. R. 2504, H. R. 4007, H. R. 4107, H. R. 5451, and H. R. 6316.)

For the reasons stated in our report of August 1, 1957, we recommend against enactment of H. R. 12025.

Sincerely yours,

E. L. RICHARDSON, Acting Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

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

June 26, 1958.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of June 18, 1958, for a report on H. R. 12959, 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.

This bill is identical with H. R. 2552, H. R. 3406, and H. R. 7929, on which we submitted a report to you on August 1, 1957. (That report also covered six other bills, i. e., H. R. 242, H. R. 2504, H. R. 4007, H. R. 4107, H. R. 5451, and H. R. 6316.)

For the reasons stated in our report of August 1, 1957, we recommend against enactment of H. R. 12959.

Sincerely yours,

E. L. RICHARDSON, Assistant Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

Chairman, Committee on Government Operations,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

August 4, 1958.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of June 25, 1958, for a report on H. R. 13085, a bill to amend section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to provide for the donation of surplus property to public libraries.

This bill would amend sections 203 (j) and (k) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 so as to authorize donations of surplus personal property, and disposal of surplus real property with a public benefit allowance, to public libraries.

With respect to real property, enactment of the bill would serve no purpose because public libraries are already considered eligible under section 203 (k) of the act, above mentioned, which governs the disposal of real property for educational purposes to States and political subdivisions and instrumentalities thereof and tax-supported and other nonprofit educational institutions.

Insofar as personal property is concerned, this bill, as you know, is one of numerous bills, pending before your committee, which would extend eligibility under the present donation program to organizations or activities not now eligible. While none of the other bills so far introduced at this session would apply to public libraries, the reasons which militate against extension of this program at this time to the kinds of activities and organizations covered by those bills, and which are set forth at length in our report of August 1, 1957, on H. R. 242 and eight other bills, are also applicable to the present bill.

We, therefore, recommend against enactment of H. R. 13085.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that it perceives no objection to the submission of this report to your committee.

Sincerely yours,

ELLIOT L. RICHARDSON, Assistant Secretary.

EXHIBIT 7-REPLY FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, January 15, 1958.

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

Chairman, Committee on Government Operations.

DEAR MR. DAWSON: This responds to your request for the views of this Department on H. R. 9522, a bill to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to authorize the disposal of surplus property to certain welfare agencies.

This Department makes no recommendation regarding the enactment of the bill. This measure would extend to qualified tax-supported or tax-exempt welfare or recreational agencies the same opportunity to acquire surplus personal property by donations as is now enjoyed by public health, educational, and civil defense organizations. Since the provisions of the bill would apply to surplus property only, which is by definition property not needed by this Department for any purpose, the desirability of the enactment of the bill becomes a matter for general policy determination by the General Services Administration, the agency which has primary responsibility in the disposal of surplus Government property, and by the Bureau of the Budget.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee.

Sincerely yours,

D. OTIS BEASLEY,

Administrative Assistant, Secretary of the Interior.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »