agencies, or though it might, if not so needed, be suitable for donation for educational, health, or civil defense purposes under section 203 (j) of the act. As you know, section 203 (j) permits the donation of surplus personal property the control of the Department of Defense to educational activities of special interest to the armed services, and the donation of any Federal surplus personal property not so disposed of to educational, public health, or civil defense agencies if suitable for use by such agencies. Thus, the corps would be accorded a privileged status, with respect to the acquisition of such property, which is at least equal to that of Federal agencies and is above that of organizations engaged in educational activities of special interest to the armed services or in other educational, health, or civil defense activities falling under section 203 (j). Further, the enactment of the proposed legislation would invite numerous additional proposals to extend eligibility along the lines of this bill, or at least, by a broadening of section 203 (j), to other worthy and equally deserving activities which are currently ineligible to receive donable property. In reports on a number of bills proposing to make additional categories of organizations eligible for receipt of Federal surplus property by donation, we set forth at length the reasons why such an extension of existing law was undesirable. (See, especially, our report of August 1, 1957, on H. R. 242 and eight other bills.) Those reasons apply even more cogently to the present bill. We therefore recommend against enactment of this bill. The Bureau of the Budget advises that it perceives no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, E. L. RICHARDSON, Acting Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives. March 7, 1958. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of September 10, 1957, for a report on H. R. 9522, a bill to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to authorize the disposal of surplus property to certain welfare agencies. This bill would extend to tax-supported or tax-exempt welfare or recreation agencies (as defined in the bill) the benefits of section 203 (j) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act relating to donation of Federal surplus personal property. For the reasons stated below, we cannot recommend enactment of this bill. Under section 203 (j) of the act, Federal surplus personal property determined by this Department to be usable and necessary for educational or public health purposes, including research, may be donated by the Administrator of General Services through State surplus property distribution agencies to tax-supported or nonprofit tax-exempt medical institutions, hospitals, clinics, health centers, school systems, schools, colleges, and universities. Under the latest amendment (Public Law 655, 84th Cong.), surplus personal property usable and necessary for civil-defense purposes may in like manner be donated to civil-defense organizations of States or political subdivisions and instrumentalities thereof. With respect to both of these programs-by delegation from the Federal Civil Defense Administration in the latter case-such property is allocated among the several States by this Department, although within the several States distribution to eligible activities and organizations is made by the State distribution agencies subject to basic Federal regulations and standards. Also, surplus personal property under the control of the Defense Department which is determined by the Secretary of Defense to be usable and necessary for "educational activities which are of special interest to the armed services”—a phrase which has been very broadly interpreted-may be donated for such activities pursuant to allocation by the Secretary of Defense. Such defense-related donations are given priority over donations under the other two programs. This bill would add to the eligible list for donation of Federal surplus personal property a large number of organizations, such as the Salvation Army, YMCA, YWCA, Travelers Aid, settlement houses, homes for the aged, youth centers, character-building agencies, adoption centers, and similar organizations. The considerations bearing upon the wisdom and desirability of extending this donation program at this time were analyzed in our adverse report of August 1, 1957, on nine bills (H. R. 242, etc) proposing to make various types of community, public, or municipal organizations eligible under that program. We there pointed out (a) that any such proposal at once raised the question of admitting other types of organizations equally deserving, thus calling either for unlimited dilution of the program or the drawing of new lines difficult to justify on equitable grounds, and, hence, difficult to hold; (b) that to let into the program a substantial spectrum of organizations or activities not now eligible would necessitate the reinstitution of a complex priority system which in the past had proved to be highly undesirable and was discarded by the present act; and (c) that it would take some time-at least a year or two-to learn the full impact of the recently enacted civil-defense donation provisions on the donation program as a whole, so that, either for the purposes of the above-mentioned extension in the welfare field or for the purposes of the specific bills then before us, forecasts could not be made respecting the increased costs of administration, the extent of dilution of the amount of property available, and the dimensions of the conflict of interest between groups competing for the same property, which might result from such an extension of the program. What we said on that occasion is equally applicable here, and we, therefore, are constrained to recommend against enactment of H. R. 9522. Hence, we have not analyzed this bill from the point of view of its technical adequacy. The Bureau of the Budget advises that it perceives no objection to the submission of the report to your committee. Sincerely yours, M. B. FOLSOM, Secretary. THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Donable Property, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MCCORMACK: This is in further reference to your letter of March 14, 1958, which transmitted a communication from the Honorable A. Sidney Herlong, Jr., and requested our comments thereon. Congressman Herlong's letter commented on H. R. 10010, which he has introduced, and explained the basis for his support of the proposed legislation. We have not, so far, been favored with a copy of the Budget Bureau's report, to which Mr. Herlong's report refers. Our own report to the Government Operations Committee on H. R. 10010 and an identical bill, H. R. 10118, sets forth our reasons for recommending against enactment of these bills, and we shall, therefore, not reiterate these reasons here. The adverse recommendation in that report is in line with the position we have taken on the numerous pending bills proposing to extend eligibility to other equally deserving public-interest activities in the fields of health, education, welfare, and recreation. Before commenting on Mr. Herlong's letter, we may note in passing that, in view of the basically adverse position taken in our report on these bills, we did not there attempt to resolve certain subordinate policy issues which should be dealt with if the proposal were to be favorably considered. For example, should, as the bills seem to imply, mosquito- and insect-control districts and programs be considered eligible as public-health agencies and activities, even where there is no substantial problem arising from the presence of mosquitoes and other insects which are disease vectors and where the primary purpose of these districts and programs is the control of pest mosquitoes and other insect pests? Again, should drainage districts and programs be eligible for donations as health agencies and activities, even where they do not primarily serve a health objective? Finally, should State and local health departments be eligible for donation for any activity which directly or indirectly promotes the public health, such as central-office work? Nor did we, in our report, analyze the bills with a view to perfecting them technically. One point that might here be noted in that connection is that the phrase "public health agencies of the State, and its political subdivisions and instrumentalities," on lines 7 and 8 of page 1 of the bill, would more clearly carry out the intent of the proposal if it were changed to read "public health agencies of the State[] and of its political subdivisions and instrumentalities," 30975-5810 thus avoiding the possibility of a contention-an excessively strained one, to be sure that the amendment permits donations (for public-health purposes) to political subdivisions at large, as distinguished from donations to public-health agencies thereof, a construction which would enlarge the scope of the bills to an unforeseeable extent. Mr. Herlong suggests that his bill would not "expand (the program) as it is currently being administered," and that, rather, it merely "defines and clarifies the rules for making donable surplus property available to agencies doing publichealth work, including mosquito control, which by a recent ruling of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is an eligible purpose." This is based upon a misunderstanding caused by donations made in connection with mosquitocontrol activities. In order to permit a donation for public-health purposes, the proposed donee not only must be engaged in a public-health activity but must be one of the types of organizations specifically enumerated in section 203 (j) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act as interpreted in applicable regulations. Among these organizations are clinics and health centers, but not mosquito districts. It is true that we have held that certain organizations, in Florida and elsewhere, met both the statutory and regulatory requirements established for a clinic or health center, even though also engaged in certain presumably health-related mosquito-control activities. In such cases, donations of property for use in such activities were properly made to these organizations. In a few instances, subsequent donations were inadvertently made directly to State and local health departments which, as such, were not legally eligible donees, even though the property was to be used for mosquito-control work. This necessitated recovering from such departments the property donated when the error was discovered. Congressman Herlong thus, quite understandably, though mistakenly, assumed that mosquito-control activities were deliberately and properly accorded eligibility regardless of the fact that the receiving organization did not fall into the enumerated eligible categories of "medical institutions," "hospitals," "clinics," and "health centers." To the extent, then, that the proposed legislation would make independently eligible mosquito- and insect-control districts, sanitary districts, malaria-control districts, drainage districts, State and local health departments, or other publichealth agencies except those specifically enumerated in the present law, it would, in fact, very substantially extend eligibility for donations. For the foregoing reasons, as well as those stated in our report to the committee, we are opposed to enactment of these bills. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request for a report on H. R. 10010 and H. R. 10118, to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to authorize the disposal of certain surplus property to public-health agencies of a State, its political subdivisions and instrumentalities. These identical bills would amend section 203 (j) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 so as to (a) add "public-health agencies of the State, and its political subdivisions and instrumentalities," to those organizations now eligible to receive donable surplus personal property; (b) define the term "public-health agencies of the State, and its political subdivisions and instrumentalities,” as including (but not limited to) malaria-control districts, mosquito- and insect-control districts, sanitary districts, and drainage districts; and (c) define the term "public-health purposes" (for which purposes sec. 203 (j) permits donations) to include (but not be limited to) "sanitation activities generally, including sanitary land-fill programs, mosquito- and insect-control programs, malaria-control programs, and drainage programs." These bills can be properly evaluated only in the light of the purpose for which, and the organizations to which, surplus property may now be donated, and in the context of other proposals for extension of the program which are now pending in the Congress. As you know, under paragraph 3 of section 203 (j) of the act, Federal surplus personal property may be donated, through State surplusproperty distribution agencies, to tax-supported medical institutions, hospitals, clincs, health centers, school systems, schools, colleges, universities, and to other nonprofit and tax-exempt medical institutions, hospitals, clinics, health centers, schools, colleges, and universities for purposes of public health or education. Under paragraph 4 of section 203 (j), such property may be donated to civil-defense organizations for civil-defense purposes; property donated for such purposes is allocated by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare pursuant to a delegation of authority from the Federal Civil Defense Administrator. Also, surplus personal property under the control of the Defense Department which is determined by the Secretary of Defense to be usable and necessary for "educational activities which are of special interest to the armed services"-a phrase which has been very broadly interpreted-may be donated to such activities, based upon allocation by the Secretary of Defense. Such defense-related donations are given priority over donations under the other two programs. In addition to the 2 bills covered by the present report, there are pending before the House Committee on Government Operations a number of other bills to extend the program to organizations similar to the above-mentioned types of public agencies and activities and to municipalities (for municipal purposes, generally) which substantially parallel the 2 bills before your committee. The multitude of proposals to amend the substantive legislation would make eligible for donation municipally owned water districts, certain types of tax-supported or tax-exempt welfare organizations, recreation activities, rehabilitation centers, and sheltered workshops for the handicapped, 4-H Clubs, etc. The mere recital of these proposals, all of them dealing with worthy activities, highlights two things. In the first place, extension of the present program to some or all of these activities might require the reestablishment of a priority system, such as was abolished by the Congress in 1949, which would greatly complicate the administration of the program. In the second place, any proposal for an extension of the program immediately raises the question of extension to a whole host of other activities and organizations equally deserving, whether these be extensions of eligibility to health and educational organizations not now eligible, or extensions of the act beyond its present health, educational, and civil-defense objectives to activities of public or other nonprofit organizations engaged in welfare work or in other publicpurpose fields. Hence, either the gates would have to be thrown wide open without limitation, thus diluting the program so as to be, perhaps, of little benefit to anyone, or new lines would have to be drawn which would be difficult to justify on grounds of equity and, for that reason, difficult to hold. We have, in the past, earnestly explored the feasibility of extending eligibility under the surplus personal property donation program to additional organizations and activities in the health and education fields and to a carefully limited and defined group of those activities and organizations in the wefare fields, public or voluntary, which might be analogized, from the point of view of their nature and accountability, to health and educational organizations now eligible and, hence, least subject to abuse. However, any recommendations along that line would, of necessity, require a careful evaluation of the present and potential needs of the existing program and projected programs, in terms of the number of eligible organizations, the amount of property available for distribution, and the like. We do not, as yet, have figures which would make possible a reasonable estimate as to the amounts of property in the field of common-use items for which these organizations would compete. In this connection, we should also like to emphasize that the inclusion of civil-defense organizations under section 203 (j) of the act is too recent to furnish a sound basis for estimating the longrun impact of this addition to the types of organizations eligible for donations. Hence, either for the purposes of the bills covered by this report or for the other above-mentioned extensions proposed, forecasts could not reasonably be made at this time respecting the increased costs of administration, the extent of dilution of the amount of and quality of the property available, and the dimensions of the competition for the same property which might result from any additional extension of eligibility. Under these circumstances, apart from the formidable problems of equity in deciding which, if any, new organizations and activities should be made eligible, we believe that, even if it were otherwise advisable, no further expansion of eligibility should be recommended at this time, pending accumulation of adequate experience with respect to the present program, including civil-defense donations. This will require at least a year or two. We, therefore, recommend against enactment of H. R. 10010 and H. R. 10118. In view of this recommendation, we have not undertaken to analyze these bills from the point of view of their technical adequacy. Sincerely yours, ELLIOT L. RICHARDSON, Assistant Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, February 19, 1958. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of February 5, 1958, for a report on H. R. 10377, a bill to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the donation of surplus property to volunteer fire-fighting organizations. This bill is identical with H. R. 2552, on which we submitted a report to you on August 1, 1957. (That report also covered 8 other bills, i. e., H. R. 242, etc.) For the reasons stated in our report of August 1, 1957, we recommend against enactment of H. R. 10377. Sincerely yours, M. B. FOLSOM, Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, February 28, 1958. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of February 21, 1958, for a report on H. R. 10789, a bill to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the donation and other disposal of property to tax-supported public recreation agencies. This bill is substantially identical with H. R. 543, on which we submitted a report to you on August 19, 1957. (That report also covered three other bills, i. e., H. R. 5448, H. R. 5470, and H. R. 7067.) For the reasons stated in our report of August 19, 1957, we recommend against enactment of H. R. 10789. Sincerely yours, M. B. FOLSOM, Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, March 25, 1958. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of March 12, 1958, for a report on H. R. 11324, a bill to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the donation of surplus property to volunteer fire-fighting organizations. This bill is identical with H. R. 2552, H. R. 3406, and H. R. 7929, on which we submitted a report to you on August 1, 1957. (That report also covered six other bills, i. e., H. R. 242, H. R. 2504, H. R. 4007, H. R. 4107, H. R. 5451, and H. R. 6316.) For the reasons stated in our report of August 1, 1957, we recommend against enactment of H. R. 11324. Sincerely yours, M. B. FOLSOM, Secretary. |