« PreviousContinue »
what property is at the time surplus by furnishing copies of the lists and reports of surplus property.
We in turn, as indicated here before, screen that property as to its potential use for education and health. If a standard certification comes back to us as to the need, we usually approve that donation and return it to them, and through them to the State.
The program has been very successful; we have had very few hitches in-minor discrepancies, of course-operation problems that do come up. But in general it has run very smoothly. The figures on donation I can give you here, if you would like them, as to what we tabulated actually has been approved for donation to the schools.
At the end of the first 9 months it has been running at the rate of $145,600,000. That is on education and health. Under the present system we have had no problems of any importance. I would say it is running carefully and smoothly.
We tie into Department of Health, Education, and Welfare not only here at the national level, but also at their regional offices and our regional office. In many instances they are right in the same city.
Senator KENNEDY. It has been stated that the HEW absorbs about 7 percent of your surplus.
Mr. Thomas. I believe that figure was used by the gentleman that preceded me—that percentage was based, was it not, upon the amount that they take out of their overall screening?
Senator COTTON. I think these figures about the amount of surplus and how it will be included are most interesting. And I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we might have inserted in the record a little detail so that we could get an idea of what this setup is, and how much surplus is being generated, how it is being divided up.
Mr. THOMAS. I can submit that for the subcommittee, sir, a breakdown tabulation, for the record.
(The tabulation referred to is as follows:)
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE
Excess and surplus personal property
Governmentwide data taken from quarterly reports (SF-121) submitted to GSA by Federal agencies, for
United States, its Territories, and possessions only)
1. Acquisition cost of total excess property generated.
1 Op straight projection, this would amount to $167,629,350 iu fiscal year 1956 or a 29-percent increase over fiscal year 1955.
Senator KENNEDY. Let us return for a moment to an earlier question. How much of the amount that becomes available to you is now taken by HEW?
Mr. THOMAS. In the fiscal year of 1955, the donation program took about 10 percent of the total generations, if I remember correctly. That has increased over a period up to this present point.
We anticipate that this year they will take about $180 million. But as these figures that I have given you would indicate
Senator KENNEDY. What was that figure?
Mr. THOMAS. About $180 million for this year, fiscal year 1956. But I believe that they will take a little bit more than that, based upon a review of our operating statistics.
Senator KENNEDY. That is acquisition costs? Mr. THOMAS. All of these figures are acquisition costs. Senator KENNEDY. Have you had any conversation with the Federal Civil Defense Administration as to what they might take?
Mr. THOMAS. I have, sir. And I have done a small amount of review as to the type of items which I think that they might use.
I believe in the first 12 months of operation of this type of a program, for civil-defense donation-my best horseback guess would be somewhere in the neighborhood of around $40 million. And that is certainly just a guess.
It is dependent, I think, a lot upon the amount of interest exhibited by each State. Is each State going to get out and set up this program?
Senator KENNEDY. Of course, that would be only one-fifth of the HEW program, wouldn't it?
Mr. THOMAS. That is right.
But again, they would be taking, as I see it, from an operational standpoint, quite a number of items, and in a volume that hadn't been heretofore normally taken either on the health side or the education side. It is merely a guess.
Senator KENNEDY. In line with the questions asked by Senator Cotton, do you think that the present language of the bill is satisfactory? You don't feel that it would introduce any unmanageable problems in priority?
Mr. THOMAS. I would like to see this bill started out in the manner in which the language is presently constructed. I would like to try it on that basis. It is a good starting point, and from our past experience, I think we can work it out without too much difficulty.
Senator KENNEDY. I think that is very helpful, and we appreciate your both coming here today.
Mr. THOMAS. I will furnish that information to the subcommittee. (See p. 27.)
Senator KENNEDY. Fine.
The next witness is Mr. E. O. Rolland, national chairman, National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property.
STATEMENT OF E. O. ROLLAND, NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF STATE AGENCIES FOR SURPLUS PROPERTY
Mr. ROLLAND. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am E. O. Rolland, Chairman of the National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property. I am also the supervisor of the surplus property section of the Florida Development Commission, in Tallahassee, Fla.
The following statement is submitted on behalf of the National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property, an association representing 48 States, Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. These agencies are responsible for the administration and operation of the State programs established for the distribution of Federal surplus personal property to health and educational institutions.
The association is in substantial agreement with the intent and purpose of S. 3693. We wish to congratulate the members of this gubcommittee on the effective manner in which the proposed bill has been prepared.
The primary purpose of this bill would be to authorize civil defense organizations to be eligible to receive allocations of Federal surplus personal property on an equal basis with education and health.
Based upon 10 years' experience in the administration and operation of the surplus property program at the State level, the association respectfully submits the following points for further consideration by the subcommittee:
1. The responsibility for the administration and operation of the program at the Federal level must be assigned to a single Federal agency.
2. Åll property should be channeled through the existing State agency designated by State law or Executive order, and no property should be channeled to any eligible applicant on a direct Federallocal basis.
3. We believe that the Congress should retain the sole authority for determining eligibility and that the present practice of determining eligibility now exercised by the Secretary of Defense should cease.
I request that this statement be included in the hearings.
Senator MARTIN. This second point of your recommendation brings up a matter that I thought was very good. You did not have the idea of direct local contact !
Mr. ROLLAND. The thinking on that came about as a result of several potential problems that could develop, particularly during the interim period after the enactment of this pending bill and law, and prior to establishing by State legislation the single State agency,
At present there are some State agencies operating under Executive order, and not State law.
Senator MARTIN. That is what you are aiming at, that is what you had in mind ?
Mr. ROLLAND. Yes, sir.
Mr. ROLLAND. We merely brought out the fact that if the bill designated-existing State agencies authorized by State law or Executive order, that would clarify the point. The present State agencies would immediately step into the picture; there would be no necessity for interim procedures or practices, or some other State agencies to be established during the interim period until the State legislature could enact State legislation.
There is the possibility that the State legislature might meet and not enact legislation establishing a single State agency. This situation would necessitate means by which the agency could exist and continue to function on the program. It could be handled by Executive order, as well as State law.
Senator Martin. Do you have a specific suggestion for modification of the bill?
Mr. ROLLAND. I believe the insertion of the words after "designated by State law,” the words, “or Executive order” would clarify it.
Senator MARTIN. The interpretation is that they can do it by Executive order?
Mr. ROLLAND. Yes, they could.
Mr. SHRIVER. Mr. Rolland, is this statement or "points for committee consideration," as you refer to it, a resolution which has been approved by your group?
Mr. ROLLAND. Do you mean the four points that we gave you before, or the statement that I gave to the secretary this morning?
Mr. SHRIVER. The statement you read this morning.
Mr. ROLLAND. That is for the record and in a statement from the national association.
Mr. SHRIVER. The other question I want to ask you is in connection with item one which suggests that the responsibility for the administration and operation of the program at the Federal level must be assigned to a single Federal agency. Is that any different from the way it is operated now-or does this propose to make any changes in the way it is operating at the present time?
Mr. ROLLAND. Well, there is a question in the minds of the State agencies the way the bill is written, is it permissive legislation or it is mandatory that this cooperation between the Federal Civil Defense Administration and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare be brought about.
Mr. SHRIVER. For the record I would like to answer that question, and also insert in the record a copy of the statutory provisions of sections 201 (b), 401 (c), 401 (e), and 405 of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 which are referred to in subparagraph (4) of this bill. This part of the bill specifically provides that The provisions of sections 201 (b), 401 (c), 401 (e), and 405 of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended, shall apply to the performance by the Federal Civil Defense Administrator of his responsibilities under this section.
Mr. Chairman, it is our interpretation of this part of the bill and the Federal Civil Defense Act that the Administrator of Civil Defense is required to delegate certain functions and activities to other Federal departments and agencies, utilize the services of other agencies, reimburse other agencies for services performed, utilize existing Federal, State, and local organizations, and so forth, in carrying out his responsibility under the law. It seems to me that the only exception to this is that in certain instances where he could not do what is required, he could go to the President and request the issuance of an Executive order,
Mr. CHAIRMAN. I think it may be advisable to insert a copy of the above-cited sections of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 in the record.
Senator KENNEDY. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The document refered to is as follows:)
TITLE II-POWERS AND DUTIES
DETAILED FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 201. The Administrator is authorized, in order to carry out the above mentioned purposes, tom
(b) delegate, with the approval of the President, to the several departments and agencies of the Federal Government appropriate civil defense responsibilities, and review and coordinate the civil defense activities of the departments and agencies with each other and with the activities of the States and neighboring countries;
TITLE IV-GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 401. For the purpose of carrying out his powers and duties under this Act, the Administrator is authorized to
(c) utilize the services of Federal agencies and, with the consent of any State or local government, accept and utilize the services of State and local civil agencies; establish and utilize such regional and other offices as may be necessary; utilize such voluntary and uncompensated services by individuals or organizations as may from time to time be needed; and authorize the States to establish and organize such individuals and organizations into units to be known collectively as the United States Civil Defense Corps : Provided, That the members of such corps shall not be deemed by reason of such membership to be appointees or employees of the United States ;
(e) reimburse any Federal agency for any of its expenditures or for compensation of its personnel and utilization or consumption of its materials and facilities under this Act to the extent funds are available;
SEC. 405. In performing his duties, the Administrator shall (1) cooperate with the various departments and agencies of the Government; (2) utilize to the maximum extent the existing facilities and resources of the Federal Government, and, with their consent, the facilities and resources of the States and local political subdivisions thereof, and of other organizations and agencies; and (3) refrain from engaging in any form of activity which would duplicate or parallel activity of any other Federal department or agency unless the Administrator, with the written approval of the President, shall determine that such duplication is necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Act.
Mr. ROLLAND. If I may, Mr. Chairman, there is one thought that I would like to express. And I would like to speak as a representative of the State of Florida.
The thought has been voiced here several times on the way the property is handled, and you might say, located. The impression may have been given that the State agencies present a “want list” of the properties desired, and then HEW allocates the properties to the States. Actually, from an operational basis, through cooperative agreements with HEW, the State agencies have extensive staffs and do a great deal of fieldwork in locating this property, and in reporting these properties to HEW with recommendations as to their need and usability for the purposes authorized by Congress.
Mr. SHRIVER. Now, Mr. Rolland, I would like to ask you another question regarding the points you have listed in this statement. Item No. 3 refers to the determination of the eligibility now exercised by the Secretary of Defense. What did you have in mind, or what was the purpose of that suggestion?