jurisdiction or control of a Federal agency and no longer required by such agency to States without reimbursement for the conservation of wildlife other than migratory birds, and to the Department of the Interior without transfer of funds for carrying out the national migratory bird management program, provided that such property can be utilized for wildlife conservation purposes, that it is chiefly valuable for such purposes, and that it is available for transfer. Such transfers to other than the United States are subject to the reservation by the United States of all oil, gas, and mineral rights, and in the event the property is no longer used for the purpose intended, or is needed for national defense purposes, title shall revert to the United States.

Now, our primary reason for the proposal to repeal Public Law 537 and incorporate its essential provisions in the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, is to bring disposals of property for wildlife purposes under the general disposal authority of the latter act. Such consolidation will permit the application of appropriate concomitant authority in the latter act, as well as the application of general agency relations issued thereunder, to wildlife property transfers. The result will be a more simplified, economical, and efficient disposal operation for this particular category of surplus real property.

We believe that Public Law 537 requires clarification in other respects-in the first place, the act does not specify who is to determine that a property can be utilized for wildlife conservation purposes. It is proposed that the Secretary of the Interior make this determination inasmuch as the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior is cognizant of the requirements in this area and has working relationships with the State agencies exercising administration over wildlife resources.

Secondly, the act does not specify who is to determine that a property is chiefly valuable for wildlife purposes. The Administrator of General Services, as the Government official charged with the responsibility and authority for disposal of surplus real property of all classification, is best qualified to determine the chief value of property for any particular purpose, including use for wildlife purposes.

In addition, Public Law 537 requires a determination by the Administrator of General Services, as successor to the War Assets Administrator, that the property is available for use for wildlife purposes. We believe that such determination is not necessary since property no longer required by a Federal agency having jurisdiction or control of that property is first screened as excess property by GSA, becomes surplus property if there is no requirement for it by another Federal agency and, therefore, is available for wildlife conservation and other purposes at the time disposal action is taken.

In the absence of a clear delineation of authority previously, past disposals of property, pursuant to Public Law 537, have been accomplished in accordance with the procedures which we herein recommend and have presented no problems.

Subsection (2) of section 203 (p), a part of the proposed amendment to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, includes all of the reservations and conditions appearing

in Public Law 537, together with appropriate amendments and additions thereto which permit a greater safeguard of the interests of the United States. For example, it is felt advisable to reserve to the United States oil, gas, and mineral rights in the transferred realty only when the Administrator of General Services determines that such reservations are in the interest of the Government. It is also felt advisable that such reservations should not be carried on Government records as assets when, in fact, their productive potential is negligible. Once disposal action has been taken by GSA, it is essential that the reservations or restrictions imposed on the transferee be policed to enforce compliance therewith. Public Law 537 is silent on who would accomplish this. Since the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior, for the reasons stated above, has the primary continuing interest in such wildlife property, our bill would amend subsection (C) of section 203 (k) (2) of the act to require that the Secretary of the Interior enforce compliance with, as well as refer, correct, or amend and grant releases from the terms, conditions, reservations, and restrictions contained in such transfers.

With the incorporation of the substantive provisions of the Public Law 537 into the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, efficient administration thereof requires that the publication requirement of section 2 of Public Law 537 be dispensed with and that the reporting requirements of section 3 of Public Law 537 be superseded by the GSA reporting requirements for all surplus property disposals.

That completes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions, if I can.

Senator GRUENING. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Roos.
Have you any questions, Senator?

Senator MUSKIE. As I understand it, basically what you are trying to clarify and simplify is the procedure for handling this problem. Mr. Roos. That is right, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. And you bring the Secretary of the Interior into the picture more substantially than he is under present law.

Mr. Roos. More substantially than he is. Not more substantially than we have previously operated, but more substantially than is stated in the present law, or provided for.

Senator MUSKIE. So that really this proposed amendment simply writes into law your current practices?

Mr. Roos. That is right, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. I would be interested, because of our previous preoccupation with the Des Plaines problem, to get a little more comment from you on the meaning of the words "chief value." I gathered from your agency's reaction to that problem that you tend to use dollar value as the chief measure of this language.

Mr. Roos. Well, sir, when Public Law 537 was enacted, the history of the law and the hearings mentions marginal lands. And it is our impression and feeling that the law was primarily meant to apply to marginal lands. However, the Department of the Interior has, on occasions, determined that property which is not marginal land, but which is useful, say, for agricultural purposes, in connection with feeding migratory birds, is also useful under the program. Frankly, I think each case has to be decided on its merits.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, as a practical matter, you couldn't very well use as a basis for measurement the market value for industrial purposes as against the market value for wildlife purposes, could you?

Mr. Roos. That is right.

Senator MUSKIE. Because there is no market value for wildlife purposes generally.

Mr. Roos. That is right.

Senator MUSKIE. So it is a little difficult to come up with a dollar evaluation?

Mr. Roos. The value of the property would be a factor which we would consider.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, I don't envy you the problem of making these evaluations, I assure you. We had one exposure to the problem in the Des Plaines matter, and I don't know that I want to repeat that experience in the early future.

I might ask this one question. Would you want to discuss, at the same time, Senator Bible's bill, S. 2103; althought I notice that deals with personal property rather than real estate.

Mr. Roos. I am not prepared to discuss that.

Senator GRUENING. Thank you very much, Mr. Roos.

Mr. Roos. Thank you, sir.

Senator GRUENING. I would like to change the order of the presentation here.

Mr. Callison, would you like to testify at this time?

STATEMENT OF CHARLES CALLISON, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. CALLISON. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say we endorse your bill, S. 2270, if it would simplify the procedures for the determination of surplus real property as being chiefly valuable for wildlife.

Senator MUSKIE. Is there any objection to Senator Gruening's bill, S. 2242?

Senator GRUENING. Well, that is another matter.

Senator MUSKIE. You simply want to become a State in all respects.

Senator GRUENING. That is correct. Our problem there is the difficulty of transporting some of the surplus property into the smaller States makes it much more practical that some of it be left there. While we have you, Mr. Callison, on the witness stand, there is another bill here, Senator Bible's bill, S. 2103. Would you like to speak on that?

Mr. CALLISON. Yes. There also very briefly to say that the National Wildlife Federation believes that conservation of wildlife resources is sufficiently important in the public interest to merit its consideration as a recipient of donable property.

As Senator Muskie has pointed out, wildlife conservation-and when I use the word "wildlife," I include fisheries also-is not in the main a commercial enterprise, and it is very difficult to place a value. on it in terms of dollars and cents. The users of wildlife are primarily hunters and fishermen, although not entirely. Other millions of peo

ple enjoy wildlife resources for their esthetic and recreational values without using a rod or gun. Those include the many millions who go camping, hiking, and so forth, in the national forests and national parks, and just into the surrounding countryside. A great many people enjoy wildlife in their backyard, watching birds come to a bird bath or a bird feeder. And those very birds are considered and protected under the migratory bird treaty with Canada and Mexico, which is the administrative responsibility of the Federal Government through the Fish and Wildlife Services and the Department of the Interior. They also are the recipient of protection by the warden staffs of the State game and fish departments. I am speaking of the songbird, the nongame wildlife.

Of course, most of the effort and work of the State game and fish departments go into protecting and conserving and producing fish and game for the recreational pursuits of hunters and fishermen. Those hunters and fishermen do not benefit commercially or financially or profitwise in any way from their pursuits. Actually, they spend a great deal more than their license fees which support these programs. There has been a large degree of cooperation between the Federal Government and the States in fish and wildlife conservation. There are many aspects of that cooperation. Much of the State work is done on Federal lands, for example, particularly in the Western States. And the States assist the Federal Government in the enforcement of waterfowl regulations and other regulations to protect migratory birds. The Federal Government assists the States in research. And then there are two very important programs, known as the Pittman-Robertson program of Federal aid for wildlife restoration, and the Dingell-Johnson program for fisheries restoration, that are financed by Federal excise taxes levied on the equipment used by hunters and fishermen, and then allocated under these laws to the States for fish and wildlife purposes.

In view of that community of interest and cooperation, "partnership" you might say, between the Federal Government and the State game and fish departments, we feel that it would be entirely in order for this additional assistance to be authorized, assuming that the surplus property is there, taking up warehouse space and should be put to use.

So we favor enactment of Senator Bible's bill, as we recommended the enactment of your bill, S. 2270, Senator Gruening.

Switching back again, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, to your bill, I should like to comment briefly, just for the opportunity of getting it into the record here, our feeling that the so-called marginal lands should not be considered as the only kind of land that is chiefly valuable for wildlife.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, don't you get into a reverse problem here, with the adjective "marginal," to that which you get into with the words "chiefly valuable"? Marginal for what? It might be marginal for industrial purposes, but far from that for wildlife purposes. Or it might be marginal for commercial purposes, and very valuable for other purposes. So I neglected to pursue this definition of the word "marginal" with the representatives from GSA. But I don't think the word "marginal" helps you much more than the words "chiefly valuable."

Mr. CALLISON. I don't think it does either. The fact is if you are considering "marginal" from the agricultural standpoint, a great many of the most essential wildlife refuges and wildlife production areas that we have, are by no means marginal in agriculture. Many of the marsh areas that are producing our waterfowl population would if drained be valuable farmland. But once drained, they are not available for wildlife, and you can eliminate the waterfowl populations by pursuing a drainage program to its possible economic end.

So I would question the use of the "marginal" determination as a means of deciding whether or not land is chiefly valuable for wildlife.

Senator GRUENING. I believe those are the two bills that you are chiefly interested in, are they not?

Mr. CALLISON. Yes. I do have a copy of a resolution adopted by the International Association of Game, Fish and Conservation Čommissioners, at their last annual meeting held in September 1958, in Philadelphia, which I should like to submit for the record. This resolution recommends the enactment of legislation such as proposed by Senator Bible in S. 2103.

Senator GRUENING. We would be glad to introduce it for the record at this point.

(The resolution referred to follows:)

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GAME, FISH AND CONSERVATION COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION No. 15

SURPLUS EQUIPMENT

Whereas the U.S. Government from time to time advertises as surplus to its needs certain types of equipment and supplies; and

Whereas State game and fish departments have not been privileged to apply for such items to use in developing and maintaining wildlife conservation, restoration, and educational projects due to legal prohibitions; and

Whereas the International Association of Game, Fish and Conservation Commissioners assembled at Philadelphia, Pa., in annual convention on September 12, 1958, holds that the fish and game conservation effort is equal in importance to presently approved uses of such equipment: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the International Association of Game, Fish and Conservation Commissioners support action to achieve this purpose and that this organization request legislation in the U.S. Congress or otherwise seek a solution whereby such equipment can be made available to State game and fish departments to use in furthering their wildlife conservation, restoration, and educational objectives.

Senator GRUENING. And I would also like to introduce a statement by Senator Bible on his bill, S. 2103. (The statement referred to follows:)

Hon. ERNEST GRUENING,

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, July 29, 1959.

Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Donable Property, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Attached is a statement I wish to submit in support of my bill S. 2103, to provide that surplus personal property of the United States may be donated to the States for the promotion of fish and wildlife management activities, which is now before your subcommittee.

Your favorable consideration of this legislation will be greatly appreciated.

Cordially,

ALAN BIBLE.