Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 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., August 22, 1957.

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

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

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of March 4, 1957, requested a report by GSA on H. R. 5448, to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to make rehabilitation facilities and sheltered workshops eligible for donations of surplus real and personal property.

The amendment proposed by the bill would be in two principal respects: First, 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. 5448 would add a new provision for donation by the Administrator of General Services to public or other nonprofit rehabilitation facilities or public or other nonprofit workshops 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 rehabilitation of physically or mentally handicapped persons, including research.

Second, to the authorization presently contained in section 203 (k) of said act for sales or leases of surplus real property for educational or public health uses, H. R. 5448 would add a new provision for disposals of surplus real property to municipalities for use by public or other nonprofit rehabilitation facilities or by public or other nonprofit workshops. The provision now in section 203 (k) for public benefit allowances, whereby benefits to the United States from the use of surplus real property for education or public health may be taken into consideration in fixing the sale or lease value of the property, would apply to the additional objects of disposal proposed by the bill. For the purposes of donating or conveying surplus personal or real property, the bill provides that the term "public or other nonprofit rehabilitation facility or public or other nonprofit workshop" shall have the same meaning such term has under the Vocational Rehabilitation Act and regulations issued pursuant thereto.

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 property to cover various special activities and organizations. Notwithstanding how salutary may be the objective of public or other nonprofit rehabilitation facilities or public or other nonprofit workshops, GSA objects to the enactment of H. R. 5448 for the reasons hereinafter set forth.

Although the presently constituted section 203 (k) of the said act provides for the disposal of real property for educational or public health purposes, rehabilitation facilities and workshops as defined in the Vocational Rehabilitation Act have not generally qualified for such conveyances. Informal inquiry reveals that, should the measure be enacted, it may reasonably be expected that applications for conveyance of real property will not be limited to buildings and sites upon which they are located, but will include undeveloped land for building sites and other purposes, sometimes requiring considerable ground area. It should not be overlooked that section 203 (k) now contains broad authority for the disposal of surplus real property to States and local governments and institutions for specific public uses, either without considerations or under significantly favorable pricing formulas. In this connection, it is noted that the title of the bill speaks of making rehabilitation facilities and sheltered workshops "eligible for donations" of surplus real and personal property. From this language, read with the provision for application of the public benefit allowance, it could be argued that the intent of H. R. 5448 is to authorize conveyances at 100 percent public benefit allowance in all cases of conveyance of real property.

The enactment of this legislative proposal, viewed from the aspect of either real or personal property, would necessarily increase the operating costs and impede the operations of this Administration. To illustrate:

Inquiries from and interviews with the representatives of the rehabilitation facilities and workshops 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 these organizations are numerous and many of them operate independently of others in any given locality.

The reviewing of records and the screening of available surplus against the competitive requests of the many 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 the individual organizations, 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 would, as, to surplus personal property, create still further delays in warehouse clearance.

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 it has 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,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of March 4, 1957, requested a report by GSA on H. R. 5451, to amend section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the disposal of surplus property to municipalities.

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. 5451 would add a new provision authorizing the Administrator of General Services to donate "for the needs of any municipalities" 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 such needs. 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 property to cover various special activities and organizations.

Notwithstanding how salutary may be the objective of this proposal, GSA objects to the enactment of H. R. 5451 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 in connection with the disposition of surplus property. To illustrate :

Inquiries from and interviews with the representatives of municipalities seeking information about surplus property and about procedures for obtaining it would be time consuming and costly, particularly because such municipalities are numerous in the several States and generally operate independently of each other.

The reviewing of records and stocks and the screening of available surplus against the competitive requests of the many municipalities in order 30975-58-8

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 municipalities, 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.

To broaden the surplus property donation authority of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to cover municipalities would operate as an invitation to have presented still more proposals for inclusion of additional organizations such as county mosquito control districts, 4-H clubs, volunteer fire departments and rescue squads, municipal water and gas systems, etc. As you know, GSA has consistently opposed the inclusion of these organizations within the donation program (with no question as to the worthiness of their purpose) on the grounds that their inclusion in the program would be adverse to the public interest. Also, to single out any one such organization, including municipalities, for preferential treatment in the disposal of surplus property would be discriminatory toward the other beneficial activities. On the other hand, 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 disposals now being carried out by GSA pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949.

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 D. FLOETE, Administrator.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

Washington, D. C., March 12, 1958.

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

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

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of March 4, 1957, requested a report by GSA on H. R. 5460, to amend section 203 (j) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to provide that surplus property which is not used in the donable property program shall be offered for sale to States and political subdivisions thereof.

With respect to the pricing provision in the bill, we would like to point out that section 202 (a) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 contains the general requirement that the Administrator of General Services, with the approval of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, shall prescribe the extent of reimbursement for transfers of excess property among Federal agencies. Accordingly, section 303 of chapter III of GSA's regulations, Title 1Personal Property Management, requires reimbursement of fair value (with certain specified exceptions) for transfers of excess personal property from one agency to another. Fair value is determined by the application of certain "fair value codes" which specify percentages of acquisition cost of the property to fix the amount of reimbursement. These percentages vary from 50 percent of acquisition cost for unused personal property, ready for use in a condition identical with new items delivered by a supplier, to 0 percent for personal property requiring major repair, conversion, or rehabilitation.

In connection with the foregoing, it should be noted that, when surplus personal property is offered for sale to the public, States and local governments may submit bids therefor (subject to any applicable restrictions of their own governing laws), and that provision is made in section 302 of chapter IV of GSA's aforementioned regulations for waiver, in cases of sales to them, of reuqirements for bid deposits and payment for property prior to removal. Notwithstanding the public character of the objects to which the disposals contemplated by H. R. 5460 would be applied, GSA objects to enactment of the bill 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 in connection with the disposition of surplus property. To illustrate:

Inquiries from and interviews with the representatives of States and of the numerous political subdivisions (including municipalities) seeking informaton about surplus property and about procedures for obtaining it would be time consuming and costly.

The reviewing of records and stocks and the screening of available surplus against the competitive requests of the many States and political subdivisions would undoubtedly be laborious, and might often seriously interfere with operations for utilization of excess and delay the disposal of surplus property by sale.

The settlement of competing claims among the individual States and political subdivisions would constitute a recurring problem likely to engender ill will and create still further delays in warehouse clearance.

Furthermore, enactment of H. R. 5460 would introduce another layer of priority in the pattern for disposal of surplus property, and would in all likelihood inspire the introduction of further bills seeking recognition of priority status for other special groups. It was the experience of the War Assets Administration, a predecessor of GSA, that the priority system in effect after World War II for the disposal of surplus property proved to be cumbersome, time consuming, costly to the Government, and, in many instances, inequitable. We must therefore firmly oppose any proposal even suggestive of a return to such a system.

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 FLOETE, Administrator.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

Washington, D. C., September 10, 1957.

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

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

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of March 4, 1957, requested a report by GSA on H. R. 5470, "To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to make municipalities eligible for donations of surplus real and personal property."

This bill is one of a number of bills which have been introduced for the purpose of extending the existing authorization for the donation and transfer of surplus property to cover various special activities and organizations. Notwithstanding the public character of the disposals proposed by H. R. 5470, GSA objects to the enactment of the bill for the reasons hereinafter set forth.

Section 203 (k) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 now authorizes the sale or lease of real property to municipalities for purposes of education or public health. In addition, section 602 (a) of the act continues in effect section 13 (h) of the Surplus Property Act of 1944, as amended (50 U. S. C. App. 1622 (h)), which authorizes conveyance to any State, political subdivisions, instrumentality thereof, or municipality of surplus land which, in the determination of the Secretary of the Interior, is suitable and desirable for use as a public park or public recreational area at a price equal to 50 percent of the fair value of the property conveyed, or for use as an historic monument, without monetary consideration.

The availability of surplus real property to municipalities would therefore be considerably broadened by H. R. 5470. Should the measure be enacted, there would be included, in municipal requests for surplus realty, land for city halls, civic buildings, auditoriums, memorial squares, garages, warehouses, and other purposes. It is noted that the title of the bill speaks of making municipalities "eligible for donations" of surplus real and personal property. From this language, read with the present provisions for application of the public benefit allowance (sec. 203 (k) (1) (C), Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949), it could be argued that the intent of H. R. 5470 is to authorize conveyances at 100 percent public benefit allowance in all cases of surplus real property. An inconsistency with section 13 (h) of the Surplus Property Act of 1944 is thus

perceived, with its provision for pricing at 50 percent of fair value in conveyance to municipalities of surplus land for park and recreational areas. Clarification would seem to be in order, should your committee feel disposed to recommend favorable action by the Congress on H. R. 5470.

The enactment of this legislative proposal, viewed from the aspect of either real or personal property, would necessarily increase the operating costs and impede the operations of this Administration. To illustrate:

Inquiries from and interviews with the representatives of the municipal governments seeking information about surplus property and procedures for obtaining it would be time consuming and costly, particularly in view of the fact that these organizations are numerous and, for the most part, operate independently of each other.

The reviewing of records and the screening of available surplus against the competitive requests of the many municipalities 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 the individual municipalities, and of requests from them for donations or transfers and of vying demands on account of education, public health, and (in the case of surplus personal property) civil defense, would constitute a recurring problem likely to engender ill will and would, as to surplus personal property, create still further delays in warehouse clearance.

To broaden the surplus property donation and disposal authority of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as proposed in H. R. 5470, 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., May 17, 1957.

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

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

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of April 1, 1957, requested a report by GSA on H. R. 6316, "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."

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 (limited to the purposes of education, public health, and civil defense) to cover various other special activities and organizations.

Initially, we wish to point out that in the drafting of H. R. 6316 there has been a failure to reflect the amendments made in section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 by Public Law 655 of the 84th Congress, approved July 3, 1956 (70 Stat. 493).

Notwithstanding how salutary may be the objective of these fire-fighting and first-aid organizations, GSA objects to the enactment of H. R. 6316 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. 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

« PreviousContinue »