DISPOSAL OF SPECIALLY EQUIPPED CARS

Mr. ANDREWS. What disposition is made of police-type vehicles after they have reached the end of their normal useful life, and what recovery is made, if any, of the value of the heavy-duty or extra-quality equipment contained in them?

Mr. HANSON. The vehicles are normally disposed of in the same channels that we dispose of other vehicles. The 2-way radios are removed because that is an item that is readily removable from one vehicle to another. The engine is normally worn out and that stays with the vehicle. Generally that is true of the other equipment listed with the exception of the siren and spotlight. Those are sometimes removed because they have a relatively short life and are used for replacements on their other vehicles if needed.

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the siren wear out before the motor or the vehicle?

Mr. HANSON. Sometimes, and sometimes they are damaged in the course of the vehicle's operation. They have a relatively shorter life than the vehicle.

Mr. ANDREWS. How about the signal lights?

Mr. HANSON. The signal lights are standard equipment. They are not listed here. Of course, things happen to them.

Mr. ANDREWS. I mean the red flashing lights, the ones you list here as the red flasher lights.

Mr. HANSON. I do not know the answer to that.

Mr. ANDREWS. I wish you would find out the answer and insert it in the record.

(The following statement was supplied later:)

Generally, when law enforcement vehicles are disposed of to the public, all special items such as red flasher lights, sirens, radios, or equipment which might be unlawfully used, are removed. If usable, they are reused, generally for replacements of similar items on vehicles in the existing fleet, which have been damaged or worn out. In some instances, where quantity permits, items are installed on new purchases. However, this is expensive and usually presents difficulties and problems due to changes in models and other technical changes such as the recent change from 6- to 12-volt electrical systems.

Mr. ANDREWS. Do you not think that when you equip these cars especially for police work, with a red flashing light and a siren, and so forth, that you could take those items off the old cars and put them on the new ones when you are buying at the rate of a thousand or 1,100 a year?

Mr. HANSON. In some instances, possibly. If you take a red flasher light that cost you $22 and has been used for quite a while, and install it in a new car I doubt if you would save any money.

Mr. ANDREWS. There is nothing about it, is there, to wear out? Mr. HANSON. No; but it is a rather expensive item to change. There is quite a bit of work involved in changing a flasher light. When you have to pay $4.50 to $5 an hour for that type of work, it only takes 2 or 3 hours until you have equaled the cost of a new item.

Mr. ANDREWS. If this language is adopted as requested do you not think there will be a terrific increase in the number of requests for this type vehicle?

Mr. HANSON. No, sir; because this will just permit, with your approval, procurement of vehicles so equipped which up until last spring had been the practice under our interpretation of the GAO decision.

INSTALLATION IN GOVERNMENT GARAGES NOT ECONOMICAL

Mr. ANDREWS. Back to the flasher light again: You said that it would cost $4.50 an hour to get a man to install one of them on one of these vehicles. Could you not get that done in a Government garage cheaper than that?

Mr. HANSON. The Government has found it is often cheaper to do the work commercially than by force account. That is pretty generally the policy throughout the civilian agencies, so I think the answer is that generally you would not get it done any cheaper in a Government garage. We are paying our mechanics today the prevailing rate, or close to it, that they pay in commercial shops. And by the time that you figure the cost of annual leave and so on it all comes to about the same figure.

In connection with the motor pools, we get most of our work done commercially rather than in Government garages.

Mr. ANDREWS. Why continue to operate the garages?

Mr. HANSON. We do not. We close them up whenever we can. Mr. ANDREWS. How many do you have operating now?

Mr. HANSON. I do not know how many governmentwide, but I know they are closing them up rapidly every year. In the motor pools system we have only two operations that could be classified as a repair garage. We have several service station operations, but repair work is only being done in two places.

Mr. ANDREWS. You do it by contract?

Mr. HANSON. Yes, commercially.

Mr. GARY. How many specially equipped cars do you now have in the Government service?

Mr. HANSON. That is a question we cannot now answer.

Mr. ANDREWS. They are going to supply that information for the record.

Mr. GARY. You have a great many of them?

Mr. HANSON. I would not know how to answer the question. My guess is that it is a relatively small number compared with the size of the overall fleet.

FORMER AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE SPECIALLY EQUIPPED CARS

Mr. GARY. How did you get those without this provision? Mr. DUNKLE. As the record shows, and as this submission shows, we were purchasing cars with this special equipment, police type in nature, under an interpretation of a Comptroller General's decision which has since been subject of correspondence with the General Accounting Office. The General Accounting Office's position on the point now is such that we have presented the legislation to establish a legislative basis for continuing the purchase of the equipment with the police-type accessories.

Mr. GARY. In other words, the General Accounting Office has changed its position?

Mr. DUNKLE. Yes, in effect. It was a matter of interpretation of their decision.

Mr. GARY. Have you bought any since April 19, 1957, the date of the decision?

Mr. DUNKLE. Yes, under authority of their letter of May 28, which permits us to continue as we have in the past pending enactment of legislation such as is now being considered.

Mr. GARY. Do you have a copy of the letter?

Mr. DUNKLE. Yes.

Mr. GARY. I suggest that this letter be incorporated in the record at this point.

Mr. ANDREWS. Without objection it will be incorporated in the record at this point.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, May 28, 1957.

Mr. C. D. BEAN,

Commissioner, Federal Supply Service,

General Services Administration, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. BEAN: Your letter dated April 29, 1957, requests reconsideration of our decision of April 19, 1957, B-131418 (36 Comp. Gen.), which holds that the cost of certain high powered equipment on passenger motor vehicles used in police work is required to be included within the statutory purchase price limitation set out in title 5, United States Code, section 78 (c) (1) and the General Government Matters Appropriation Act, 1957, Public Law 578, approved June 13, 1956 (70 Stat. 279, 5 U. S. C. Supp. IV 78a-1).

That decision is premised on the conclusions that the high-powered equipment ordinarily becomes a permanent part of the vehicle and is essential to the comfort and convenience of the passengers and the efficient operation of the vehicle. However, your letter requesting reconsideration says that a six-cylinder engine would operate a vehicle for almost all purposes as efficiently as an eight-cylinder engine. You submit further that the difference between the two types of engines is no way essential to the efficient operation of the vehicle, but is essential to the speedy takeoff and ability to overtake another fleeing vehicle. This is suggested as a justification for considering the eight-cylinder engine and other high powered equipment as outside the long established "comfort-convenienceefficient operation" rule referred to in our prior decision.

On April 29, 1957, at a conference among representatives of the General Services Administration, Internal Revenue Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice and our Office, it was suggested that the "passenger motor vehicle" on which the Congress intended to impose the purchase price limitation is a vehicle whose main purpose is to carry passengers from one place to another rather than a police vehicle whose main purpose is to pursue and overtake criminals and vehicles in illegal operation, just as a weapon might be used to restrain a criminal act.

On May 14, 1957, at a second conference in the matter between representatives of the General Services Administration and our Office. reference was made to the testimony of John B. Hanson, the Director of the Motor Vehicles Division of the General Services Administration, at hearings before the Senate subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations on H. R. 6499, 84th Congress, which became the General Government Matters Appropriation Act, 1956 (69 Stat. 192). Mr. Hanson testified on June 14, 1955, in connection with the language on the dollar limitation for the procurement of automobiles and station wagons. The colloquy on the limitation, printed on pages 9 and 10 of the Senate hearings on H. R. 6499, is as follows:

"Mr. HANSON. $1,350, we think, is sufficient at this time for passenger cars, although, as a result of the recent labor agreements, it may be insufficient before the year is over

"Senator SALTONSTALL. So you would want this bill to read $1,350 for a passenger vehicle and $1,850 for a station wagon?

"Mr. HANSON. Yes, sir.

"Senator MAGNUSON. What about where you need a vehicle on which you put some extras not for the purpose of putting in some comforts and conveniences, but because they are needed in certain types of work; how are you going to get by with that limitation?

"Mr. HANSON. If an agency has a need for a vehicle which will require that type of extras, that agency would justifiy the requirement in its budget before the Appropriations Committees and ask for necessary money for that type of vehicle.

"Senator MAGNUSON. I am thinking of vehicles in the Forest Service where they need more gear, more space. So that you do not need that amendment. That amendment has been suggested to me, that that should not be included; it says:

""The amount charged by the contractor for the Government for the special feature or equipment on the vehicle which is not required for the convenience of the operator need not be included in said maximum amount.'

"Would that language aid you in any respect?

"Mr. HANSON. That would aid particularly with respect to certain uses for which we have to buy cars with special equipment such as for police work.

"Senator MAGNUSON. Then it has been suggested that we incorporate in the report additional language has been added so as to make clear that the amount so established does not include the amount of the manufacturer's regularly established charge to the public for transportation and delivery of the vehicle or the cost of any special feature or equipment not required for the convenience of the passengers to carry out official duties. It might be well to put this in the report rather than cover up the bill with language.

"Mr. HANSON. Yes, sir.

"Senator MAGNUSON. We will consider that.

"I have also been told by the factory representatives of 2 of the concerns that you mentioned, the General Motors and Ford, that they are a little afraid that this $1,350 would not last very long.

"Mr. HANSON. That is what I pointed out, sir.

"Senator MAGNUSON. Well, we will consider it. If you do need to come back, we are available most of the time."

At the second conference in our office, the representatives of the General Services Administration contended that Senator Magnuson's statement concerning the suggestion that additional language be incorporated in the Senate report to make "clear" that the limitation does not include special equipment indicates that the Congress already recognized that the limitation is inapplicable to vehicles used for law-enforcement work and the suggestion was intended only for clarification purposes. At the same conference, reference also was made to the testimony of L. L. Dunkle, Jr., Director of National Buying, General Services Administration, and Mr. Hanson at hearings on general Government matters appropriations, 1958, before the House subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. The colloquy at these hearings, printed on pages 101 and 102 of the House hearings on the 1958 appropriation, is as follows:

"Mr. ANDREWs. Are there any police agencies, such as the FBI or any other, that are not under this limitation today?

"Mr. DUNKLE. They are all under this limitation. There is a Comptroller General's decision that permits certain police-type activities to exclude the cost of special equipment peculiar to their mission from the limitation.

"Mr. ANDREWs. Then the FBI, if they want an 8-cylinder automobile with automatic transmission, they can get it?

"Mr. HANSON. Not if the base price, excluding radio, sirens, and specialized police equipment, exceeds the limitation.

"Mr. ANDREWs. Does not the FBI have 8-cylinder automobiles?

"Mr. HANSON. They have some. Right now I do not think they could get it in the market.

"Mr. ANDREWs. How did they get those they have had in the past?

"Mr. HANSON. Until last fall we had quite a bit of leeway, but when the new models came out the prices went up about $135.

"Mr. DUNKLE. I have a little information on that I think will be helpful. We have bought cars for the FBI this year. We have paid an average of $1,643.16 with the additional equipment they needed and could justify, and which was permissible under the terms of the Comptroller General's decision. I think the reference to the Comptroller General's decision is 18th Comptroller General Decisions, page 120."

It was contended that, notwithstanding the statements in the hearings that 8-cylinder engines cannot be purchased if the price will cause the automobile price to exceed the limitation, Mr. Dunkle's statement that FBI cars had been purchased with additional equipment at an average price of $1,643.16 under authority of 18th Comptroller General Decisions, page 120, with no further statement or objection made by any member of the House committee indicates that