H. R. 5460 would require the Administrator of General Services to provide that all surplus personal property not needed for purposes of education, public health, or civil defense be offered for sale to States and political subdivisions, including municipalities, at a fixed price before such property is offered for sale to the general public. The fixed price would not exceed that at which the property was available to Federal agencies before it became surplus. Internal accounting adjustments may be made against the appropriations of Federal agencies when they acquire excess property from other Federal agencies These charges are intended to assure, that appropriated funds are charged properly for such property and, that excess property is utilized to a maximum extent in lieu of making additional purchases of new property. Decisions on the amount of such accounting adjustments are not based on current market values of the property involved. We would be opposed to the use of these internal accounting charges as the basis for prices to be charged for surplus property sold to States and their political subdivisions. Since a very large portion of excess property is transferred within the Government without any accounting adjustment being required, the effect of H. R. 5460 would be to include States and their political subdivisions in a greatly expanded donation program. Such donations would depend on accounting and administrative decisions within the Federal Government rather than the purposes for which the property would be used. If the donation program is to be expanded, we believe it should be limited to specific purposes which are compelling in the national interest and which are not primarily local responsibilities. H. R. 5460 also would provide for sale or donations of surplus property to States and their political subdivisions only after it had been considered for educational, public-health, and civil-defense purposes. The result would be a priority system under which surplus property could not be sold until after listings had been referred to and considered by a series of claimants. The Government has had very unsatisfactory experience under statutes which have authorized various priorities in the donation and sale of surplus property. In 1949 those statutes were repealed because it had been found that the numerous claimants caused surplus property to remain in warehouses at Government expense for long periods, while first one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 disposed of by public sale. 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 disposal of surplus property. For these reasons we would not recommend enactment of H. R. 5460. Sincerely yours, PERCIVAL F. BRUNDAGE, Director. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D. C., September 3, 1957. Chairman, Government Operations Committee. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for a report on H. R. 5470, a bill to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to make municipalities 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) to municipalities for a variety of purposes. Real property may be so transferred for park and recreational purposes at a price equal to 50 percent of fair value, and for use as an historic monument without monetary consideration. Both real and personal property may be conveyed to municipalities for health and education purposes, including research, with a public benefit allowance up to 100 percent of the value of such property. Surplus personal property may be donated for civil-defense purposes. H. R. 5470 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, rehabilitation facilities, 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 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, 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. 5470. PERCIVAL F. BRUNDAGE, Director. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D. C., April 12, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for a report on H. R. 6316, 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. 6316. 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. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, September 18, 1957. Chairman, Committee on Government Operations. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1957, requesting our views on H. R. 6537, a bill to authorize the disposition of certain obsolete and excess property to the United States Volunteer Life Saving Corps. H. R. 6537 would authorize the Secretaries of the three military departments and the Commandant of the Coast Guard to dispose of property which is obsolete or excess to the needs of their respective agencies. Under the requirements of section 202 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, such property must be screened for further possible utilization by governmental agencies. That section provides more specifically for the economical and efficient management of Government property by requiring that maximum utilization of property be promoted and, as far as practicable, each executive agency transfer its excess property to other Federal agencies in lieu of purchasing new items. This is a sound policy which would be seriously impaired by any authorization for disposal of property by certain agencies without considering the needs of the Government as a whole. Only when no need for excess Government property is found in any Federal agency is it declared surplus and its disposal authorized. Under existing law, the United States Volunteer Life Saving Corps may purchase such property that has been declared surplus and made available for sale. The donation of personal surplus property, however, is limited by section 203 of the act to purposes of education, public health, and civil defense. We would be opposed to any legislation such as H. R. 6537 which would permit the sale or donation of Government property which is merely excess as that term is defined in section 3 of the act. We would also be opposed to expanding the present surplus property donation program to include the United States Volunteer Life Saving Corps, except to the extent that such authority may be provided under title 14, United States Code, section 641 (a), for the same reason that we have opposed extending the program to volunteer fire departments, rescue squads, and numerous other organizations. 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., June 3, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for a report on H. R. 7067, 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 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, 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 Government-owned 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 1944, 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, December 24, 1957. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request 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. 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 certain welfare agencies as proposed in H. R. 9522. 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, February 14, 1958. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your requests for reports on H. R. 10010 and H. R. 10118, identical bills 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. We believe it inadvisable to enlarge the number of organizations or purposes for which surplus property may be donated. The Government has had very unsatisfactory experience in the past under statutes authorizing donations for many different purposes. In 1949 most of these 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. For these reasons, we have opposed bills proposing to expand the donation program to include such purposes and institutions as welfare agencies, municipal water and gas systems, 4-H Clubs, municipal goverments, scientific and research organizations, rescue squads, local fire departments, and municipal corporations. For the same reasons we would oppose extending the donation program to include such additional purposes as land drainage, mosquito and insect control, and similar programs, as proposed in H. R. 10010 and H. R. 10118. Sincerely yours, MAURICE H. STANS, Acting Director. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D. C., April 3, 1958. Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will acknowledge your requests for reports on H. R. 10377, H. R. 11115, H. R. 11516, and H. R. 11324, 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. These bills are also identical with H. R. 7552, H. R. 3406, and H. R. 7929, about which we wrote you last year. As we explained, we believe that further expansion of the donation program should be supported only for major purposes which are compelling in the national interest and are not primarily local responsibilities. Accordingly, we recommend against favorable consideration of any of these bills. Sincerely yours, PHILLIP S. HUGHES, Acting Assistant Director for Legislative Reference. |