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, Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, 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the act approved August 11, 1955, which was an amendment to section 61 of the act of June 3, 1916, 30 Stat. 198, was repealed as a part of the repealer of said section 61 effected by section 53 of the act of August 10, 1956, "to revise, codify, and enact into law, title 10 of the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, 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 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 the 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 28, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letters of January 17 and 28, 1957, respectively, requested a report by GSA on H. R. 2552 and H. R. 3406, identical bills to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the donation of surplus property to volunteer fire-fighting organizations. To the authorization presently contained in section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 for donations or surplus personal property for educational, public health, or civil-defense purposes, H. R. 2552 and H. R. 3406 would add a new provision for donation by the Administrator of General Services to volunteer fire-fighting 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 purpose of aiding in the protection of life and property by volunteer fire-fighting organizations. These bills are but two among a number of others 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 objectives of these fire-fighting organizations, GSA objects to the enactment of H. R. 2552 or H. R. 3406, 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 volunteer fire-fighting organizations seeking information about surplus property and about the procedures for obtaining it would be time consuming and costly, particularly because, as we must assume from the comprehensiveness of the term "volunteer fire-fighting organizations," such organizations 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 volunteer fire-fighting 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 fire-fighting organizations, and of requests for donations from such groups and 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 volunteer fire-fighting 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 fire fighters for preferential treatment in the disposal of Government surplus property would be discriminatory toward the other deserving activities. 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 procedure for surplus property disposal now being carried out under the direction of GSA pursuant to the provisions of that act. 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., April 19, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of February 1, 1957, requested a report by GSA on H. R. 4007, to amend section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the disposal of surplus property to publicly owned water districts and publicly owned sewer districts. 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. 4007 would add a new provision for donations of such property by the Administrator of General Services to publicly owned water districts and publicly owned sewer districts. This bill is one of a number of bills which have been introduced for the purpose of extending the existing authorization for donation of surplus personal property to cover various special activities and organizations. Nothwithstanding the public service rendered by these water and sewer districts, GSA objects to the enactment of H. R. 4007 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 water and sewer districts seeking information about surplus property and about procedures for obtaining it would be time-consuming and costly, particularly because such entities are numerous in the 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 water and sewer districts 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 districts, and of requests for donations from such groups 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 work done by the water and sewer districts is 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 water and sewer 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., March 28, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committe on Government Operations, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of February 4, 1957, requested a report by GSA on H. R. 4107, to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the donation of surplus property to volunteer fire-fighting organizations, volunteer reserve services, squads, and first-aid crews. 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. 4107 would add a new provision for donation by the Administrator of General Services to volunteer fire departments, fire companies, or other similar fire-fighting organizations, volunteer reserve services, squads, or first-aid crews, 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 purpose of aiding in the protection of life and property by such organizations. This bill is one of a number of bills which have been introduced for the purpose of extending the existing authorization for donation of surplus personal property to cover various special activities and organizations. Notwithstanding how salutary may be the objective of these fire-fighting and first-aid organizations, GSA objects to the enactment of H. R. 4107 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 fire-fighting and first-aid 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 coverage, "any incorporated or unincorporated volunteer fire department, fire company, or other similar fire-fighting organization, volunteer reserve service, squad, or first-aid crew," such organizations are numerous in many States, and operate independently of others in adjoining communities. The reviewing of records and stocks and screening of available surplus against the competitive requests of the many fire-fighting and first-aid 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 fire-fighting and first-aid organizations, and of requests for donations from such groups 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 fire-fighting and first-aid 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 fire-fighting and first-aid 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 |