Section 5 provides that the effective date of the act shall be on the first day of the first month after the date of enactment, except that in any State where a single State agency has not then been constituted for distribution of surplus property for all purposes, the Administrator of General Services may transfer such property to any State agency or official authorized by State law to receive and distribute such property until 90 calendar days after the close of the first. regular session of such State legislature. This section is intended to provide an interim arrangement for the benefit of those States which have not enacted appropriate civil-defense legislation on or before the enactment of this proposal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Some of the affected agencies were not given an opportunity to testify before the House Committee on Government Operations when H. R. 7227 was under consideration, and the house report (H. Rept. 1455) includes only those portions of the agency reports which support the bill. The agencies affected by this legislation have recommended that H. R. 7227 be amended or substantially changed to conform to the policies contained in Public Law 61, approved June 3, 1955, to avoid conflicts of administration, and to improve the overall objectives of the donable property program, which makes it necessary for this committee to consider amendments proposed by these agencies, and to conform to the views of members of this committee as expressed at earlier hearings on related proposals. Due to the fact that the amendments would be numerous and extensive, if H. R. 7227 is to be amended in all respects as proposed, and representatives of these agencies have assisted in developing the revised language and informally approved its provisions, it is recommended that the committee consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute (committee print, December 9, 1955, attached). The agencies interested in this proposed legislation have been requested to submit their further views on the committee print. The Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government made the following recommendation and comment in its report on surplus property, with respect to broadening the donable property program: PROPOSALS TO BROADEN THE DONATION PROGRAM "The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has proposed that the donation program for public-health purposes be broadened to include nursing homes, sanitation systems, scientific laboratories, treatment centers for physically handicapped, and malaria-control institutions. "The American Municipal Association appealed to the task force to include in its recommendations a change in the law to make local governments eligible for donations of Federal surplus personal property. The mayor of the city of New York wrote to the task force chairman in a similar vain. "The Federal Civil Defense Administration has advocated legislation which would permit donation of Federal surplus personal property for civil-defense purposes to States and local governments, and to Territories and possessions, without cost except for costs of care, handling, and transportation. "Other proposals have been embodied in legislation from time to time to include such donees as 4-H clubs, volunteer fire departments, and rescue squads. "While some proposed extensions of the donable program seem irrelevant or trivial, others have considerable merit. However, the Commission observes that the inclusion of other donees, such as cities and counties, would pose complex problems of determining priorities. Also the donations for civil-defense purposes, proposed to be allocated by the Federal Civil Defense Administration, would establish another Federal agency as a rival to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in allocating surplus property to State and local agencies." Recommendation No. 9 "That the Congress reexamine the provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, relating to the donation of Federal surplus property, and clarify congressional intent to transfer such property without cost to State educational and public-health institutions, notwithstanding Department of Defense requirements for reimbursement of stock funds for transfers of property from such funds" (p. 45). The task force on the use and disposal of Federal surplus property made the following recommendations for improvement of the donable property program: "1. That the law and administrative regulations be changed to require the State educational and public-health institutions, or the State surplus property agencies acting as the agents of such institutions, to pay for all Federal surplus personal property a fair value as established by the Administrator of General Services with the approval of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, in addition to the cost of care, handling, and transportation now borne by the institutions. It is further recommended that such fair-value charges be accounted for, and deducted from, the annual appropriations to the States as Federal grants-in-aid for education and public health. An exception should be made to provide that Federal surplus personal property having national-defense value, such as machine tools and electronic equipment, be leased to State educational and public-health institutions, with the right of recapture in case of national emergency. "2. That upon payment of such fair value and other costs, the title to the property transferred, except leased property, be immediately vested in the recipient institution, in lieu of the present policy whereby 4 years' use is required before unrestricted title is given. "3. That the Congress define more clearly and at greater length in the law the commodity classes of Federal surplus personal property which can be transferred and used for educational and public-health purposes. "4. That the law be changed to eliminate, for donations already made and during the tenure of the current program, the present authority of the Administrator of General Services to veto, within 30 days after notice, proposed actions by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in connection with its compliance and adjustment responsibilities; and that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare be given full responsibility for enforcing compliance and for arranging necessary transfers or adjustments in terms. "5. That the Congress continue to confine the program to State educational and public-health institutions and to educational organizations of special interest to the Department of Defense" (pp. 110-111). (Copies of letters received from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Federal Civil Defense Administration; General Services Administration; Bureau of the Budget; and Department of Defense are as follows:) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, United States Senate. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your letter of December 9, 1955, requesting an expression of our views on a committee print of the same date covering amendments (in the nature of a substitute) intended to be proposed to H. R. 7227 which has passed the House and which would authorize the donation of surplus personal property for civil defense purposes. We assume that a report on S. 1527, a bill with the same objective, which is also pending before your committee, is no longer desired in view of the fact that S. 1527 does not take account of the recent amendments effected by Public Law 61 (84th Cong.) and in view of the legislative developments on H. R. 7227. The mimeographed staff memorandum of December 9, 1955 (No. 84-1-38), which you were good enough to enclose with the committee print, so well analyzes the provisions of the committee print (as compared with those of H. R. 7227 as passed by the House), and also quotes so fully from the reports of interested agencies (including a letter from the General Counsel of this Department) on the House-passed version of the bill, that we shall refer to particular provisions only insofar as necessary to a statement of our views. 1. We favor the basic objective of the proposed legislation to make Federal surplus personal property available for donation for civil defense purposes to the civil defense organizations of the States and their political subdivisions and instrumentalities. While we have in the past questioned the extension of the surplus property donation provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (sec. 203 (j)) on a piecemeal basis, we believe that the overriding national interest in the civil defense program warrants a special exception in this instance. 2. As pointed out by your committee's staff memorandum, the committee print would remove serious objections which have been raised by the various interested executive agencies and by the Bureau of the Budget in relation to the Housepassed version of H. R. 7227. The House-passed version would, in the first place, in the case of property under the control of the Defense Department (which constitutes the bulk of surplus personal property), create a prior claim for donations to "State and local civil-defense agencies *** of special interest to the armed services," as against donations for purposes of health or education, where the property is "peculiarly adaptable for civil defense (not to include common-use items)." It would vest in the Secretary of Defense responsibility for making allocations to carry out this priority. To the extent that this priority is not used or is not available, the FCDA would then be given a further opportunity to make allocations of surplus personal property for civil-defense purposes, and this would not be limited to items "peculiarly adaptable for civil defense." We doubt that it would be practicable or wise to draw a distinction between civil-defense activities "of special interest to the armed services" and other civil-defense activities carried on by State and local civil-defense organizations. At any rate, as stated in the Budget Bureau's report of August 1, 1955, to your committee, "it would be impossible to fix responsibility for proper administration and control of the donation program if both the Secretary of Defense and the Federal Civil Defense Administrator are authorized to make allocations to civil-defense organizations." The Defense Department, in its report of August 1, 1955, to your committee, expressed the view that the imposition of such a responsibility upon the Secretary of Defense would be both undesirable and unnecessary. Again, apart from the ambiguity of the priority category as delineated in the House-passed bill and from the anomaly of a second screening for civildefense purposes where the priority is not used, the experience under earlier laws creating special priorities and preferences for surplus property disposal indicates that a priority provision of this type would give rise to formidable delays, difficulties, and perhaps disputes in actual administration. Aside from these administrative problems, it is questionable whether any rule of thumb giving priority to donations of surplus property for civil-defense purposes over those for health or education would in all circumstances best serve the national interest, especially where the civil defense use would be primarily storage for emergencies and the health or education use would be immediate and might also serve the ends of civil defense. We, therefore, believe that the committee print offers a wise solution in placing donations for civil-defense purposes on a basis of statutory parity with those for health and education, relying upon flexibility in actual administration to achieve, by and large, an equitable distribution of such property between the various interests concerned, to the extent that there might be competing claims upon the same property. It is pertinent in this connection that the FDCA iself, in submitting the proposal to the Congress, did not ask for more and in fact stated that it expected that such competing claims would normally "be reconciled at State and local levels." 3. The committee print would require that all property to be donated under section 203 (j) of the act as amended by the bill, whether for health or education, for civil defense purposes, or for educational activities of special interest to the armed services, and allocated to any State, be transferred to an overall surplus property distribution agency designated under State law in the State in which the property is to be ultimately used (instead of permitting such property to be transferred directly by the Federal agency to the donee or to a State surplus property distribution agency not authorized to distribute property for all the purposes of sec. 203 (j)). This provision of the committee print-which would take effect only after a transitional period adequate to enable all States to make themselves eligible to receive such property-would introduce a felicitous device into the act which, together with interagency arrangements contemplated by the FCDA and this Department, should reduce to a minimum any possible conflict between these two agencies. In discussions between staffs of the two agencies, as yet not formalized, an understanding has been reached that, in the event of enactment of this bill, the FCDA would delegate to this Department, under the authority of the bill and the Federal Civil Defense Act, the operating functions under the civil defense surplus property donation program; that is, the functions of screening (with the assistance of State surplus property distribution agencies) the surplus property available, making allocations to State distribution agencies, and carrying out the other Federal operating functions involved in the program. The FCDA would advise this Department of the kinds of property usable and needed for civil defense purposes, would establish minimum standards of operation for State agencies in agreement with this Department, and would establish terms, standards, and conditions as to the care and use of property by the ultimate donee similar to those established for civil defense property contributed under the Federal Civil Defense Act, to the extent that this will be permitted by the bill as finally enacted. This Department in turn expects, in the usual case, not to specify at the time of allocation to the State distribution agency whether the property is to be donated ultimately for health or education on the one hand or civil defense on the other, but such State agencies will be expected to consult with appropriate civil defense agencies within the State to ascertain their needs. In this connection, it seems appropriate to note that there are 51 State and Territorial agencies for surplus property to which property is allocated and transferred for distribution to the eligible health and educational institutions within the States. Most of these State agencies operate warehouses for the purpose, and have trained personnel and proper equipment to carry on the program of acquiring and distributing donable property. Also, most of the State agencies employ full-time screeners who make periodic visits to the various Federal installations within the State to list the surplus property that is available and considered by them to be usable for health and educational purposes. Consequently, the organizations currently in existence at both Federal and State levels in carrying out the program of donation of personal property for health and educational purposes would be particularly suited for, and adapted to, also carrying out the proposed program of donation for civil defense purposes, although in some few States some action in the form of enabling legislation or amendment to the executive orders of the governors of the various States might be required to broadenthe existing authority of the State agencies to include authority to act in respect to such civil defense functions. Thus, utilization of the facilities of this Department by the FCDA on a reimbursable basis through delegation of the operating functions under the civil defense surplus property donation program, would give promise of achieving effective coordination of the prosent health and education donation program and the proposed new program, preventing unnecessary friction, and promoting economy by avoiding duplication of personnel and services. Whether the Defense Department, in carrying out its present responsibility for making allocations of surplus personal property for donation to educational activities of special interest to the armed services, should likewise be required to utilize the same State surplus property distribution agency, as proposed by the committee print, instead of providing for direct transfer from the Federal agency to the ultimate donee in accordance with present practice, is a question on which we would defer to the views of the Defense Department. 4. In carying out the principle of statutory parity as between the health and education donation program and the civil defense donation program, the committee print has made applicable to the civil defense program all of the special provisions enacted with respect to health and education by Public Law 61 (84th Cong.) including the provision which permits the fixing of reasonable terms, conditions, reservations, and restrictions upon the use of donated property in the hands of the donee only in the case of any single item whose acquisition cost is $2,500 or more. We understand that this dollar limit would create even greater problems in the civil-defense program than in the health and education program, because property donated for civil-defense purposes in many cases will be given primarily for storage for emergency use, and because the proper care and preservation of this property for such use is thus a matter of direct national concern. If, thus, there are cogent reasons for special provisions in this respect in the case of property donated for civil-defense purposes, we assume that considerations of statutory symmetry as between the two programs will not deter the committee from making the necessary modification in the committee print. 5. The committee print also corrects certain technical drafting defects in the House-passed version. We, therefore, believe that the committee print overcomes all of the objecttions made to the House-passed version of H. R. 7227, and we recommend that the provisions of the committee print be substituted for those now in the bill. We would, however, not object to such modifications of the committee print as the committee may find suitable with respect to the dollar limit on the establishment of terms and conditions governing the use of donated property in the civil-defense donation program, and with respect to the requirement of utilization of State agencies by the Defense Department in the case of donations to educational activities of special interest to the armed services. The Bureau of the Budget advises that it perceives no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, ROSWELL B. PERKINS, Acting Secretary. Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, FEDERAL CIVIL DEFENSE ADMINISTRATION, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of December 9, 1955, for comments on the committee print covering amendments (in the nature of a substitute) proposed to the bill H. R. 7227, as amended, to authorize the disposal of surplus property for civil defense purposes. The amendments in the nature of a substitute have been carefully examined by the staff of this administration. The admendments appear to be a carefully considered and well-reasoned effort to codify and restate the present provisions of the statutes authorizing the donation of Federal surplus personal property and the addition of donable property authority for civil-defense purposes to the statute. We note that section 2 provides for amending section 203 (k) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, to give the Federal Civil Defense Administrator identical authority for enforcing compliance with the terms and conditions of property donations in the same manner as the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare with respect to donations for education or public-health purposes. While we recognize the desirability of maintaining identical enforcement provisions, the committee may wish to consider whether the same reason exists for a $2,500 minimum enforcement provision for civil-defense equipment, to be utilized as reserve stocks or for civildefense training purposes, is the same reason as the one which prompted the $2,500 minimum for property donated under the authority conferred upon the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. This administration has no objection to the States being permitted the discretion of disposing of the equipment, on such minimum standard as the Congress deems appropriate or established by regulations by the Administrator. However, this administration would suggest and decommend that where the State, political subdivision, or instrumentality disposes of equipment donated under the proposed authority, the requirement be placed upon such State, or political subdivision, or instrumentality making the disposal that the proceeds be held to the use and benefit of the civil-defense program, or such other program as approved by the Federal Civil Defense Administrator, and expenditures of the proceeds made only upon receipt of approval by the Administrator. The provisions of the proposed substitute are acceptable to this administration, and we urge the committee's early consideration and favorable action on the measure. Advice has been received from the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely, VAL PETERSON. |