AGENCY COMMENTS ON S. 1527

General Services Administration

The Assistant Administrator of General Services reported to the committee by letter dated July 21, 1955, that the agency is sympathetic to the overall objectives of S. 1527, with the following reservations:

"A number of proposals have been made from time to time for extending the authorization for the donation of surplus property so as to be papplicable to various special actiivties or organizations of a public nature. Although the objectives of these entities are generally praiseworthy, GSA has opposed the extension on such a piecemeal basis. The addition at random of diverse new classes of donees would result in confusion and in increased burdens and expense in administration, and would seriously delay and impede the overall program for the disposal of Government surplus property."

The Assistant Administrator suggested that certain amendments and changes be considered by the committee before S. 1527 was enacted into law. Although, for the the most part, the amendments were of a clarifying nature, several important changes were proposed to make this bill conform with the major changes contained in Public Law 61, which the committee had already considered and reported during the last session of the Congress.

The other changes suggested by the GSA follow.

"The text of S. 1527 should, of course, be revised to take into account the amendments made by Public Law 61 to section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949.

"We recommend the inclusion in S. 1527 of a provision similar to that in section 2 of Public Law 61 but applicable to the Federal Civil Defense Administrator and donations which would be made for civil-defense purposes. If enforcement of restrictions and compliance efforts by the Federal Government are to be limited to single items of $2,500 acquisition cost or over on donations for education and public health, a like limitation should be established with respect to donations for civil defense.

"Since there would seem to be no justification for a compliance rule for civildefense donations different from that for educational and public health donations, a sentence could appropriately be added to the new paragraph (4), to be inserted by section 4 of S. 1527 at the end of section 203 (j) of the act, reading as follows: ""The Federal Civil Defense Administrator may impose reasonable terms, conditions, reservations, and restrictions upon the use of any single item of property donated under this paragraph which has an acquisition cost of $2,500 or more.'

Bureau of the Budget

On August 1, 1955, the Acting Director of the Bureau of the Budget reported on S. 1527, in part, as follows:

"Although we have been generally opposed to the expansion of the donation program, we believed the proposal to permit donations for civil-defense purposes deserved special consideration. On February 23, 1955, we informed the Federal Civil Defense Administrator that there would be no objection to the submission of a draft bill similar to S. 1527, provided that the appropriate committees of the Congress were informed regarding the administrative problems involved. "The need for effective civil defense is clear but we are still not certain that donations of surplus personal property should be permitted for State civildefense programs. We recommend that the proposal be approached with caution by your committee because we believe the administrative problems are serious. It is specially important to avoid any necessity for a system of priorities for allocating surplus property among competing claimants, because such a system delays and complicates the entire program for disposing of Federal surpluses. We believe it equally important to avoid any arrangements which would make one or more Federal agencies responsible for allocating surplus property which is requested by more than one claimant within a State.

"In addition to these basic considerations, there are several technical points relating to the language in the bill. Most of these are discussed in reports on S. 1527 submitted to your committee by other agencies of the executive branch. In addition, as you no doubt have considered, it will be necessary to redraft the bill to a considerable extent in the light of Public Law 61 which was enacted after the bill was introduced."

Department of Defense

The Department of Defense submitted the following comments to the committee with respect to S. 1527:

"If the proposed legislation should be enacted, it would appear necessary that a provision should be inserted providing that the Administrator of the General Services shall determine the relative priorities between the Department of Health and Welfare, and Federal Civil Defense Administration, and all other claimant agencies. Further, it would appear desirable that the Administrator issue regulations requiring the various claimants to identify and justify their requirements for such surplus by general classes. This would lessen the burden of screening such property on a local area basis.

"Except to the extent of the above comments, the Department of Defense does not believe it is qualified to express an opinion on the basic matter of whether or not the existing policy as to donations of surplus property should be modified by enlarging the class of donees."

AGENCY COMMENTS ON H. R. 7227

Department of Defense

After H. R. 7227 passed the House of Representatives on July 29, 1955, the Department of Defense reported to this committee, by letter dated August 1, that it was opposed to the procedure which would be established by section 3 of the bill, commenting as follows:

"Section 3 would impose a responsibility upon the Secretary of Defense to make determinations with respect to the usability and need by civil-defense organizations of surplus property under the control of the Department of Defense. In addition, this section would require the Secretary, in making such determinations, to also determine whether the property is 'peculiarly adaptable' to civil-defense activities and to exclude 'common-use items.'

"It is believed that the imposition of such a responsibility upon the Secretary of Defense would not only be undesirable, since it would be administratively costly, but that such a procedure is completely unnecessary. According to House Report No. 1455, apparently section 3 was adopted to permit the transfer of property directly to State and local civil-defense activities and thereby avert service charges added by State disposal agencies. Thus, it would appear that one purpose of the section would be to shift any cost normally borne by the recinients to the Department of Defense.

"The Department of Defense believes that the primary purpose of H. R. 7227, and the many similar bills which have been introduced, is to make available for donation to civil-defense activities, Federal surplus property which is not so available under existing law. Section 4 of H. R. 7227, which adds a new subsection 6 to section 203 (j) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act would accomplish this and would do so by simply making applicable existing sound and well-established procedures for the disposal of surplus property. Accordingly, the Department of Defense sees no need for the provisions of section 3 and is opposed thereto."

The Department of Defense enclosed a copy of its letter, dated July 27, to the chairman of the House Committee on Government Operations, from which the following comments are quoted, relative to the advisability of enlarging the number and kind of donees for surplus property:

"An increase in priority and preference provisions of the present law will serve to defeat the basic policies and principles sought to be accomplished by the legislation as initially enacted. Furthermore, with the advent of stock funds authorized by section 405, National Security Act, as amended, the type and character of surplus property held in these funds is of such substantial quality that their donation to an increased number of beneficiaries will serve to deprive the Government of substantial proceeds from salable property.

"A number of similar bills have been introduced which would enlarge the number and kinds of possible donees, and which would, if enacted, further increase the need for a central authority, such as the General Services Administration, to determine relative priorities of the various agencies applying for donations.

"If the proposed legislation should be enacted it would appear necessary that a provision should be inserted providing that the Administrator of the General Services shall determine the relative priorities between the Department of Health and Welfare, and Federal Civil Defense Administration, and all other claimant agencies. Further, it would appear desirable that the Administrator

issue regulations requiring the various claimants to identify and justify their requirements for such surplus by general classes. This would lessen the burden of screening such property on a local area basis."

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

By letter dated August 1, 1955, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare reported on H. R. 7227, as follows:

"As you will note, the Department's report endorsed basically the proposal to make Federal surplus property available for donation for civil-defense purposes, as proposed in an earlier bill, H. R. 4660 (similar to S. 1527), subject to technical amendments. However, the Department believed that section 3 of H. R. 7227-which would give an overriding priority for civil-defense purposes to surplus personal property under the control of the Department of Defense— raised serious questions, both substantive and administrative in nature, and should therefore be deleted from the bill. The Department also enclosed a number of suggestions for technical changes in the bill intended to correct technical defects.

"While H. R. 7227, as passed by the House, would limit the overriding priority created by section 3 for civil-defense purposes to 'such property as is peculiarly adaptable for civil defense (not to include "common use" items),' the reasons stated in the Department's report in opposition to section 3 would still seem to apply to the extent that a priority would be created by the bill. Also, the technical defects pointed out in the enclosures with our report to the House Committee on Government Operations have not been corrected in the House-passed version.

"We note that the report of the House Committee on Government Operations (H. R. Rept. 1455, p. 8) quotes only that part of the Department's report favorable to the concept of donation of surplus personal property for civil-defense purposes and does not invite attention to the objections raised to section 3 of the bill. These is nothing to indicate that the House was apprised of the position of this Department when voting on the bill.

"In view of all these circumstances and the impossibility of the Department's making a timely report on the bill as passed by the House, the committee may wish to defer consideration of the bill until an opportunity has been afforded to all interested departments and agencies, the State agencies now utilized in the surplus property donation program, and the general public to submit their views on the House-passed bill."

Bureau of the Budget

The Acting Director of the Bureau of the Budget wrote to the chairman of this committee under date of August 1, 1955, from which the following is quoted:

"H. R. 7227 would place State and local civil-defense agencies in a favored position to receive donations compared to schools, hospitals, etc. Section 3 of the bill would authorize the Secretary of Defense to allocate surplus property peculiarly adaptable for civil-defense purposes to civil-defense organizations of special interest in the armed services. Such allocations would be made before the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare would have an opportunity to consider the property for possible donation to schools, hospitals, etc., which means that donations for civil-defense purposes would have priority over donations for health and education purposes.

"Furthermore, section 4 of H. R. 7227 would afford a second opportunity for allocations to civil-defense agencies by authorizing the Federal Civil Defense Administrator to make allocations of any property which might have been over looked when the Secretary of Defense was making allocations or which might be in the custody of civilian agencies. Donations by the Federal Civil Defense Administrator would not be limited to items peculiarly adaptable to civil-defense needs but would include many items likely to be allocated also for health or educational purposes.

"We are opposed to these features of H. R. 7227 because (1) as indicated in our report on S. 1527, we believe a large scale return to a system of priorities in which one group of claimants is favored over others will produce the same unsatisfactory results which in 1949 caused a general repeal of statutes on disposal of surplus property; (2) 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; and (3) we question whether civildefense agencies requesting property primarily for stockpiling purposes should,

77295-36-3

in every instance, have a priority over the current consumption requirements of schools, hospitals, etc. We doubt that the language in section 3 of the bill limiting donations by the Secretary of Defense to items 'peculiarly adaptable for civil defense' will solve these problems.

"H. R. 7227 further contains language providing that surplus property carried in working capital funds is to be considered donable for civil defense as well as education and public-health purposes on the same basis as other surplus property. This reflects one of the changes brought about subsequent to the introduction of S. 1527 by enactment of Public Law 61 on June 3, 1955. If the Congress decides to authorize donations for civil-defense purposes, we agree that the provision in Public Law 61 relating to working capital funds should apply to civil defense as well as to other donations."

SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO H. R. 7227

At the direction of the chairman, the staff has made a study of the bills intended to authorize the donation of surplus property for civil-defense use, together with the legislative history of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, and drafted an amendment, in the nature of a substitute to H. R. 7227 based on the recommendations of the agencies as above outlined, for committee consideration. A copy of the proposed amendment is attached. It is believed that the proposed amendment will be acceptable to the Federal Civil Defense Administrator and to other interested agencies and organizations. The proposed amendment will correct the defects in H. R. 7227 and conform to recommendations of the agencies as quoted above, and will enable civil-defense agencies to qualify as donees for Government-owner surplus property without impairing the well-established donable property program for health and education. Representatives of the legislative counsel of the Senate, the General Services Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Bureau of the Budget, General Accounting Office, Department of Defense, and the Federal Civil Defense Administration were consulted, and actively assisted the staff in drafting the proposed amendment. Although the heads of these departments and agencies have not officially approved the proposed amendment, their representatives have worked so closely with the staff that it is believed they are substantially in accord with its overall principles and objectives.

The drafting committee believes that this proposal will overcome the objections raised against the House-approved bill, and should the committee approve this proposal, it will enable the State and local civil-defense organizations to qualify as coequal donees for Federal surplus property without creating a parallel organization on the State level, and will minimize competition between donees for the same type of property.

PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT

The purpose of the draft amendment is to amend section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, to authorize the donation of Government-owned surplus personal property to civil-defense organizations of the States and political subdivisions thereof which have been established by, or pursuant to State law. Under the provisions of the proposed amendment, civil defense will be afforded comparable consideration as a donee for surplus property as is presently given to health and education, and will insure that the State agencies and the facilities of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare will be utilized to the fullest extent possible under existing laws and regulations.

This proposal does not contemplate the establishment of priorities for education, health, or civil-defense purposes, but is intended to authorize the donation of property which is surplus to the needs of the Federal Government to all three groups on an equitable basis and in accordance with the determinations made by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, or the Federal Civil Defense Administrator as to need and usability of the property. The requirement that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare make the determination as to which property is usable and needed for health and education, and that the Federal Civil Defense Administrator shall determine which property is usable and needed for civil defense will facilitate and insure equitable distribution of Government surplus. This requirement will make possible better coordination of the donable property program and enable the Administrator of General Services to transfer surplus property to the appropriate State agencies for distribution.

Another objective of this proposal is to require a single State agency to locate, screen, and maintain liaison with the holding department or agency, rather than authorize two groups to screen and inspect surplus under the custody and control of the holding or owning agency. This will minimize confusion and reduce the number of inspectors requesting permission to survey property located on posts and stations of the National Military Establishment, as well as reduce the time for removal of the property from the disposal agency's premises. Another advantage which will accrue, if the amendment is acceptable to and approved by the committee, is that surplus property which is needed for civil-defense use will be allocated to the civil-defense director or official charged with such responsibility in each State so that he can allocate it to the city, town, township, or other local political subdivision in the State. This requirement was placed in the bill to establish direct lines of communication from the Federal Government to the State level in order to establish better administration on the Federal-State relationship for civil-defense matters, in the same manner as are such relations carried out for health and education. Another advantage of this proposed arrangement is to reduce the number of State instrumentalities with which Federal representatives would have to deal, thereby making the problem of disposal less cumbersome, and at the same time facilitate accountability and responsibility over property allocated by the Federal Government.

Provision is also made to retain all of the restrictions and limitations contained in the recent amendments to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, Public Law No. 61, approved June 3, 1955, which provided that surplus property carried on the books of the holding or owning agency in a working capital or fund account shall be donated in the same manner as property procured under a specific appropriation, with an annual limitation for obligation purposes.

Such donations are conditioned upon the receipt of official certification from an appropriate State agency or official that such property is usable and needed for educational or public-health purposes in the State. It provides that no property shall be transferred under the authorized donation program until the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has determined that such agency or official has conformed to minimum standards of operation, prescribed by the Secretary for the disposal of surplus property, in order to insure full utilization of property donated.

The amendment would authorize the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Federal Civil Defense Administrator to impose reasonable terms, conditions, reservations, and restrictions upon the use of any single items of surplus personal property donated for health, educational, or civil-defense purposes which has an acquisition cost of $2,500 or more. Under the provisions of the proposed amendment it is contemplated that the same general rules and regulations shall be applied to all three types of donees. The staff is informed that it is possible the Civil Defense Administration may suggest an amendment to this requirement in order to place restrictions on certain types of property costing less than the $2,500 minimum, as presently required by law for health and education.

Section 2 provides for amending section 203 (k) to give the Federal Civil Defense Administrator comparable authority for enforcing compliance of terms and conditions on property donations in the same manner as the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is authorized to enforce restrictions on property donated for health or educational purposes. This is a conforming amendment, and is identical to section 5 of H. R. 7227 which was approved by the House of Representatives.

The proposed amendment would authorize the Federal Civil Defense Administrator to enter into cooperative agreements with State surplus property distribution agencies in the same manner as such authority was conferred on the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare by Public Law 61, 84th Congress. Such cooperative agreements may provide for utilization by such Federal agency, without payment or reimbursement, of the property, facilities, personnel, and services of the State agency in carrying out any such program, and for making available to such State agency, without payment or reimbursement, property, facilities, personnel, or services of such Federal agency in connection with such utilization.

Section 4 is a technical amendment to change the numbering of subsection (h) to subsection (i) of section 507 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended by "Joint resolution to provide for the acceptance and maintenance of Presidential libraries, approved as Public Law 373 on August 12, 1955."