Page images
PDF
EPUB

of such surplus property which might be used by those organizations. We are not in a position, therefore, to make a recommendation as to the merits of the bill. We should like to point out, however, that several bills have been introduced in the past which would permit the donation of surplus property to similar public organizations. While we do not question the worthiness of such bills we believe that if such legislation is deemed necessary or desirable, the enactment of general legislation is preferable to the enactment of separate legislation for each individual purpose.

If the bill is favorably considered it is believed that it should be redrafted since apparently consideration was not given to the amendments made to section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, by Public Law 200, approved August 1, 1955 (69 Stat. 430), and Public Law 655, approved July 3, 1956 (70 Stat. 493).

Sincerely yours,

JOSEPH CAMPBELL,

Comptroller General of the United States.

EXHIBIT 4REPLIES FROM THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

Washington, D. C.

Chairman, Committee on Government Operations,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of January 16, 1957, requested the views of the General Services Administration on H. R. 543, 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 General Services Administration. Handling the numerous inquiries that may be expected, and reviewing the 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 personal property by sale. We are also concerned with the possible ill will and delays in warehouse clearance that will arise out of the settlement of competing claims between various recreational agencies and between recreational agencies and agencies demanding property for educational, public-health, and civil-defense purposes.

Some of the objections stated above will be applicable in part to the difficulties that may be expected in our disposal of surplus real property. In addition the bill will amend materially the specific provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act pertaining to conveyances of real property for recreational purposes. Section 602 (a) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, continues in effect section 13 (h) of the

Surplus Property Act of 1944, as amended. Section 13 (h) (2) thereof provides as follows:

"Conveyances for park or recreational purposes made pursuant to the authority contained in this subsection shall be made at a price equal to 50 per centum of the fair value of the property conveyed, based on the highest and best use of the property at the time it is offered for disposal, regardless of the former character or use, as determined by the Administrator. Conveyances of property for historic monument purposes under this subsection shall be made without monetary consideration: Provided, That no property shall be determined under this paragraph to be suitable or desirable for use as an historic monument except in conformity with the recommendation of the Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings and Monuments established by section 3 of the Act entitled 'An Act for the preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance, and for other purposes,' approved August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666), and no property shall be so determined to be suitable or desirable for such use if (A) its area exceeds that necessary for the preservation and property observation of the historic monument situated thereon, or (B) it was acquired by the United States at any time subsequent to January 1, 1900." This bill if enacted will, in effect, eliminate the requirement for the payment of 50 percent of the fair value of the real property conveyed for recreational areas as required by section 13 (h) (2) and substitute the public benefit allowance provision now provided in section 203 (k) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended. In this connection the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, contains broad authority for the disposition of surplus real property to States and local governments and institutions for specific public uses either without consideration or under significantly favorable pricing formulas. While disposals for these purposes serve useful purposes they (1) frequently entail delays in the disposal of surplus real property by sale to the general public, (2) prevent the return of surplus real property to the local tax rolls, and (3) substantially reduce the monetary return to the Federal Government. Enactment of this measure would enlarge the scope of such disposals. With the increasing demands on available financial resources of the Federal Government to support and maintain the desired level of Federal governmental activities, any action which would result in the depletion of sources of revenue at this time is of doubtful wisdom.

For these reasons, GSA is opposed to the enactment of H. R. 543. The fiscal effects of the enactment of this measure on the returns that might be realized from the disposal of surplus property, as presently authorized, cannot be evaluated.

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

Sincerely,

FRANKLIN G. FLOETE, Administrator.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D. C., July 31, 1958.

Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK,

Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Donable Property, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of July 28, 1958, advised that your Special Subcommittee on Donable Property of the House Committee on Government Operations plans to hold hearings on Friday, August 1, 1958, at 10 a. m., in room F-16 of the Capitol Building on the following bills: H. R. 543, 7067, 10789, 11324, 3406, 6316, 7929, 10010, 10118, 9522, 242, 2504, and 5460.

General Services Administration is opposed to the enactment of these bills and in commenting on each has so advised Hon. William L. Dawson, chairman of the House Committee on Government Operations. The reasons for our objection are set forth in our reports on the proposed legislation.

As you know, numerous bills similar to those mentioned in your letter have been introduced in this and other sessions of the Congress which would amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, to extend the existing authorization for donation of surplus property. We are in the process of making a thorough study of the present donable program and hope to come up with some sound suggestions in the near future.

I appreciate your advising me of the hearing on these bills and will have a representative there as an observer.

Sincerely yours,

FRANKLIN FLOETE, Administrator.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

Washington, D. C., April 19, 1957.

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

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

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of January 16, 1957, requested a report by GSA on H. R. 242, to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the donation of surplus property to certain community organizations.

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. 242 would add a new provision for donation by the Administrator of General Services to "organizations such as volunteer fire departments and volunteer rescue or lifesaving squads, which perform community services which would be performed by the State, or its political subdivisions, if not performed by such 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 purposes of such organizations. 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 personal property to cover various special activities and organizations.

Notwithstanding how salutary may be the objective of these community organizations, GSA objects to the enactment of H. R. 242 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 community 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 description of these organizations as given in H. R. 242, they 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 community 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 community organizations, 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.

The meritorious activities of the community 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 community organization 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., June 5, 1957.

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

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

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of January 16, 1957, requested a report by GSA on H. R. 737, to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the disposal of certain surplus property to State defense forces.

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. 737 would add a new provision for donation to State defense forces, "maintained pursuant to the act approved August 11, 1955," of surplus uniforms, clothing, equipment, materials, and other supplies under the control of the Department of Defense and determined by the Secretary of Defense to be usable and necessary for such forces.

We are note in passing that in lines 9 on both page 1 and page 2 of the bill the citation for the Statutes at Large to the August 11, 1955, act should be 69 Stat. 686. Actually, however, the act approved August 11, 1955, which was an amendment to section 61 of the act of June 3, 1916, 30 Stat. 198, was repealed as a part of the repealer of said section 61 effected by section 53 of the act of August 10, 1956, "to revise, codify, and enact into law, title 10 of the United States Code, entitled 'Armed Forces', and title 32 of the United States Code entitled 'National Guard'," 70A Stat. 641. Section 109 of the new title 32 of the United States Code (70A Stat. 600) includes congressional consent to the maintenance of State defense forces in time of peace.

Furthermore, sections (b) and (c) of H. R. 737, in the references to paragraph (3) of section 203 (j) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, fail to take into account the amendments made in section 203 (j) by Public Law 655 of the 84th Congress, approved July 3, 1956 (70 Stat. 493).

The State defense forces are in addition to the Army National Guard and Air National Guard, and, as we understand, are for use within respective State borders as deemed necessary by the State chief executives, particularly for internal security when the State National Guard units are on active Federal service. There is no Federal control over, nor Federal responsibility for the State defense forces. (Congressional Record, vol. 101, July 30, 1955, p. 12314.) These forces serve no educational or public health purposes within the meaning of section 203 (j) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. Nor do their activities, being limited to and governed by the several States, come within the area of civil defense covered by section 203 (j) which contemplates Federal participation in civil defense under the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950. However salutary may be the objective of the State defense forces, GSA nevertheless objects to the enactment of H. R. 737 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. Inquiries from, and interviews with the representatives of the various State defense forces seeking information about surplus property and about procedures for obtaining it would be time consuming and costly. The reviewing of the records and stocks and screening of available surplus against the competitive requests of the several State defense forces 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 State defense forces would constitute a recurring problem likely to engender ill will and create still further delays in warehouse clearance.

As we noted previously, the State defense forces do not come within the scope of the educational, public health, and civil-defense activities designated for aid under section 203 (j) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. To broaden the surplus property donation authority of the act 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 20, 1957.

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

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

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of January 17, 1957, requested a report by GSA 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.

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. 2504 would add a new provision for donation by the Administrator of General Services to 4-H Clubs 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 construction, equipment, and operation of 4-H Club camps and centers. 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 personal property to cover various special activities and organizations.

Notwithstanding how salutary may be the objective of the 4-H Clubs, GSA objects to the enactment of H. R. 2504 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 4-H Clubs 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 the clubs are numerous, and many of them operate independently and competitively with others in a given State.

The reviewing of records and stocks and the screening of available surplus against the competitive requests of the many 4-H Clubs 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 4-H Clubs, 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 create still further delays in warehouse clearance.

The meritorious activities of the 4-H Clubs 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 4-H 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

« PreviousContinue »