Page images
PDF
EPUB

State defense forces, as such, are not now eligible to receive donable property. However, it may be possible under certain conditions for such forces to receive property from State agencies established to distribute property donated by the Administrator of General Services. The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended by Public Law 655, 84th Congress, authorizes the donation of property for use in any State for purposes of education, public health or civil defense, or for research for such purposes. States are authorized to organize and maintain State defense forces and to use these forces for purposes deemed necessary by the State chief executives. If these forces are employed for purposes for which property donated, eligibility could then be established for available property determined to be usable and necessary for such purposes.

H. R. 737 would broaden the existing program to include State defense forces regardless of the purposes for which such forces may be used, and would necessarily increase operating costs and impede the orderly disposal of surplus property. You may recall that the Government had very unsatisfactory experience in the past under statutes authorizing donations for many different organizations and purposes. In 1949, these statutes were repealed because it had been found that numerous claimants caused surplus property to remain in warehouses at Government expense for long periods, sometimes even for years, while first one group and then another examined the list of available surplus. In the end most of the property was not wanted by any group and had to be sold. In such instances the losses due to damage and deterioration of stock and the added costs of warehouse space, care and handling, and administration seemed unjustified. The laws were repealed in order to speed up, simplify, and make less costly the task of surplus property disposal.

We have generally opposed bills to enlarge the donation program because they would increase the delays and difficulties of surplus property disposal. We believe that H. R. 737 would bring about a repetition of some of the difficulties experienced prior to 1949, and for these reasons should not be enacted into law. Sincerely yours,

PERCIVAL F. BRUNDAGE, Director.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,

Washington, D. C., April 4, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for a report on H. R. 543, 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. Property involved in this amendment includes both personal and real.

In regard to personal property, we believe it inadvisable to enlarge the number of organizations or purposes for which such property may be donated. You may recall that the Government has had very unsatisfactory experience in the past under statutes authorizing donations for many different purposes. In 1949 those statutes were repealed, because it had been found that the numerous claimants caused surplus property to remain in warehouses at Government expense for long periods, sometimes even for years, while first one group and then another examined the lists of available surplus. In the end, most of the property was not wanted by any group and had to be sold. In such instances, the losses due to damage and deterioration of stocks and the added costs of warehouse space, care, and handling, and administration seemed unjustified. The laws were

epealed in order to ed up, simplify, and make less stly the task of surplus property disposal. We have, therefore, generally opposed bills proposing to expand the donation program to include such purposes and institutions as mosquito-control districts, 4-H Clubs, volunteer fire departments and rescue squads, municipal gas, water and sewer systems, scientific research institutions and for general maintenance of cities and towns. For the same reasons we oppose extending the program to public recreation agencies.

In the case of real property, other considerations are involved. For various reasons dictated by national interests and programs, the United States owns a considerable amount of real property in certain areas and very little or none in others. Since surplus real property is not transportable, in contrast to personal property, which can be evenly distributed throughout the country, those States or political subdivisions in which little or no real property is located are at a distinct disadvantage in obtaining an equal share of the benefits to be derived from disposals. As you know, the Surplus Property Act of 1949, as amended, provides that real property determined by the Secretary of the Interior to be suitable for park or recreational purposes may be sold to States and political subdivisions for 50 percent of its fair value. We believe that this arrangement should be continued, since it provides for a reasonable distribution of benefits derived from surplus real property disposal programs.

We do not question the worthiness of these purposes but hesitate to expand existing programs. This position, in part, grows out of the difficulties described above and, in part, is attributable to a belief that any further expansion of existing programs should be supported only for major purposes which are compelling in the national interest, and which are not primarily local responsibilities. Sincerely yours,

PERCIVAL F. BRUNDAGE, Director.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,

Washington, D. C., March 22, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for a report 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.

We believe it inadvisable to enlarge the number of organizations or purposes for which surplus property may be donated. You may recall that the Government has had very unsatisfactory experience in the past under statutes authorizing donations for many different purposes. In 1949 those statutes were repealed because it had been found that the numerous claimants caused surplus property to remain in warehouses at Government expense for long periods, sometimes even for years, while first one group and then another examined the lists of available surplus. In the end, most of the property was not wanted by any group and had to be sold. In such instances, the losses due to damage and deterioration of stock and the added costs of warehouse space, care and handling, and administration seemed unjustified. The laws were repealed in order to speed up, simplify, and make less costly the task of surplus-property disposal. We have, therefore, generally opposed bills proposing to expand the donation program to include such purposes and institutions as mosquito-control districts, publicly owned water and sewer districts, municipal governments, fire-fighting organizations, and scientific and research organizations. For the same reasons, we oppose extending the program to 4-H Clubs as proposed in H. R. 2504.

We have not questioned the worthiness of these purposes, but have recommended to your committee and to the Senate Committee on Government Operations that, in view of the serious administrative difficulties involved, any further expansion of the donation program should be supported only for major purposes which are compelling in the national interest, and which are not primarily local responsibilities. Sincerely yours,

PERCIVAL F. BRUNDAGE, Director.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,

Washington, D. C., March 22, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for reports 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.

We believe it inadvisable to enlarge the number of organizations or purposes for which surplus property may be donated. You may recall that the Government has had very unsatisfactory experience in the past under statutes authorizing donations for many different purposes. In 1949, those statutes were repealed because it had been found that the numerous claimants caused surplus property to remain in warehouses at Government expense for long periods, sometimes even for years, while first one group and then another examined the lists of available surplus. In the end, most of the property was not wanted by any group and had to be sold. In such instances, the losses due to damage and deterioration of stock and the added costs of warehouse space, care and handling, and administration seemed unjustified. The laws were repealed in order to speed up, simplify, and make less costly the task of surplus property disposal. We have, therefore, generally opposed bills proposing to expand the donation program to include such purposes and institutions as mosquito-control districts, municipal water and gas systems, 4-H clubs, municipal governments, and scientific and research organizations. For the same reasons, we oppose extending the program to fire-fighting organizations as proposed in H. R. 2552 and H. R. 3406.

We have not questioned the worthiness of these purposes, but have recommended to your committee and to the Senate Committee on Government Operations that, in view of the serious administrative difficulties involved, any further expansion of the donation program should be supported only for major purposes which are compelling in the national interest, and which are not pri. marily local responsibilities. Sincerely yours,

PERCIVAL F. BRUNDAGE, Director.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,

Washington, D.C. March 22, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for a report on H. R. 4007, a bill 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.

We believe it inadvisable to enlarge the number of organizations or purposes for which surplus property may be donated. You may recall that the Gov. ernment has had very unsatisfactory experience in the past under statutes authorizing donations for many different purposes. In 1949, those statutes were repealed because it had been found that the numerous claimants caused surplus property to remain in warehouses at Government expense for long periods, some times even for years, while first one group and then another examined the lists of available surplus. In the end, most of the property was not wanted by any group and had to be sold. In such instances, the losses due to damage and deterioration of stock and the added costs of warehouse space, care and handling, and administration seemed unjustified. The laws were repealed in order to speed up, simplify, and make less costly the task of surplus-property disposal. We have, therefore, generally opposed bills proposing to expand the donation program to include such purposes and institutions as mosquito-control districts, municipal gas systems, municipal governments, volunteer fire-fighting organizations, and scientific and research organizations. For the same reasons, we oppose extending the program to publicly owned water or sewer districts as proposed in H. R. 4007.

We have not questioned the worthiness of these purposes, but have recommended to your committee and to the Senate Committee on Government Operations that, in view of the serious administrative difficulties involved, any furhter expansion of the donation program should be supported only for major purposes which are compelling in the national interest, and which are not primarily local responsibiliites. Sincerely yours,

PERCIVAL F. BRUNDAGE, Director.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,

Washington, D.C., March 22, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for a report on H, R. 4107, 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, volunteer reserve services, squads, and first-aid crews.

We believe it inadvisable to enlarge the number of organizations or purposes for which surplus property may be donated. You may recall that the Government has had very unsatisfactory experience in the past under statutes authorizing donations for many different purposes. In 1949, those statutes were repealed because it had been found that the numerous claimants caused surplus property to remain in warehouses at Government expense for long periods, sometimes even for years, while first one group and then another examined the lists of available surplus. In the end, most of the property was not wanted by any group and had to be sold. In such instances, the losses due to damage and deterioration of stock and the added costs of warehouse space, care and handling, and administration seemed unjustified. The laws were repealed in order to speed up, simplify, and make less costly the task of surplus-property disposal. We have, therefore, generally opposed bills proposing to expand the donation program to include such purposes and institutions as mosquito-control districts, municipal water and gas systems, 4-H Clubs, municipal governments, and scientific and research organizations. For the same reasons, we oppose extending the program to fire-fighting organizations and related volunteer groups as proposed in H. R. 4107.

We have not questioned the worthiness of these purposes, but have recommended to your committee and to the Senate Committee on Government Operations that, in view of the serious administrative difficulties involved, any further expansion of the donation program should be supported only for major purposes which are compelling in the national interest, and which are not primarily local responsibilities. Sincerely yours,

PERCIVAL F. BRUNDAGE, Director.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,

Washington, D. C., September 25, 1957. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for a report on H. R. 5448, a bill 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 Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, authorizes the transfer of surplus property, both real and personal, for a variety of purposes. Included are rehabilitation facilities which qualify as schools or as clinics. These are eligible under the authority to transfer surplus property for purposes of education or public health. H. R. 5448 would extend this authority to all other types of rehabilitation facilities and sheltered workshops as defined in the Vocational Rehabilitation Act.

H. R. 5448 is one of many bills to extend the donation program for additional purposes, such as mosquito-control districts, 4-H Clubs, public recreation agencies, water and gas systems, air rescue squads, municipal governments, and volunteer fire departments. We have not questioned the worthiness of these purposes, but have been opposed to further extension of the donation programs.

In regard to personal property, we believe it inadvisable to enlarge the number of organizations or purposes for which such property may be donated. The Gov. ernment has had very unsatisfactory experience in the past under statutes authorizing donations for many different purposes. In 1949, those statutes were repealed because it had been found that the numerous claimants caused surplus property to remain in warehouses at Government expense for long periods, while first one group and then another examined the lists of available surplus. In the end, most of the property was not wanted by any group and had to be sold. In such instances, the losses due to damage and deterioration of stocks and the added costs of warehouse space, care and handling, and administration seemed unjustified. The laws were repealed in order to speed up, simplify, and make less costly the task of surplus-property disposal.

In the case of real property, other considerations are involved. For various reasons dictated by national interests and programs, the United States owns a considerable amount of real property in certain areas and very little or none in others. Since surplus real property is not transportable, those States or political subdivisions in which little or no Federal real property is located are at a distinct disadvantage in obtaining an equal share of the benefits to be derived from disposals of property for which they have paid a share. We have opposed proposals to expand real-property donation programs except for reasons which are compelling in the national interest and which are not primarily local responsibilities. For these reasons, we would not recommend enactment of H. R. 5448. Sincerely yours,

MAURICE H. STANS,

Acting Director.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,

Washington, D.O., April 12, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for report on H. R. 5451, a bill to amend section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to permit the disposal of surplus property to municipalities.

We believe it inadvisable to enlarge the number of organizations or purposes for which surplus property may be donated. You may recall that the Government has had very unsatisfactory experience in the past under statutes authorizing donations for many different purposes. In 1949 those statutes were repealed because it had been found that the numerous claimants caused surplus property to remain in warehouses at Government expenses for long periods, sometimes even for years, while first one group and then another examined the lists of available surplus. In the end, most of the property was not wanted by any group and had to be sold. In such instances the losses due to damage and deterioration of stock and the added costs of warehouse space, care and handling, and administration seemed unjustified. The laws were repealed in order to speed up, simplify, and make less costly the task of surplus property disposal. We have therefore generally opposed bills proposing to expand the donation program to include such purposes and institutions as mosquito-control districts, municipal water and gas systems, 4-H Clubs and scientific and research organizations. For the same reasons we oppose extending the program to municipal governments as proposed in H. R. 5451.

We have not questioned the worthiness of these purposes but have recommended to your committee and to the Senate Committee on Government Operations that, in view of the serious administrative difficulties involved, any further expansion of the donation program should be supported only for major purposes which are compelling in the national interest, and which are not primarily local responsibilities. Sincerely yours,

PERCIVAL F. BRUNDAGE, Director.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,

Washington, D. C., March 17, 1958. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for a report on H. R. 5460, a bill 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.

« PreviousContinue »