which is the principal-again I am not completely sure of my ground in this respect, I think they should have to have something to say about it too.

Senator METCALF. I would hope, without refusing to consider the whole purpose of the legislation, that your agency would try to assist the committee in working out something that would take care of your basic and major problem, and at the same time give some priority to what apparently is the intention of Senator Stevens and some of the other sponsors of the legislation.

Mr. DWINELL. I would be glad to consider that, sir, and not take a completely arbitrary position.

Senator ALLEN. Senator Metcalf, Mr. James Kearns, Deputy Administrator, is here. And if you would like to ask him some questions, you may proceed.

Senator METCALF. I am delighted to see him again. He has been before the subcommittee before.

Do you have any comments to make?

Mr. KEARNS. No, sir; I have no additional comments to make on what the Assistant Administrator said.

Senator METCALF. I don't have any additional questions.

I am pleased to see you.

Senator ALLEN. I want to say that I think your grasp of the problems of your agency is certainly very thorough and very fine. I want to congratulate you on the testimony.

Mr. Coulter, please.

Mr. Melich also.

TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND C. COULTER, DEPUTY SOLICITOR, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY MITCHELL MELICH, SOLICITOR

Mr. MELICH. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Coulter will present our statement with respect to the bill sponsored by Senator Moss.

Mr. COULTER. It is a very short statement, Mr. Chairman.

I am happy to have the opportunity to testify today regarding S. 1366, a bill relating to release of certain conditions of a deed conveyed by the United States to the Salt Lake City Corp. As you are aware, the purpose of this proposed legislation is to authorize renovation and lighting of the large "U" located on property conveyed by the United States to the Salt Lake City Corp. for public park and recreational purposes. This "U" has been in existence for a considerable period of time-approximately 50 years and because it was built on a hillside, many of the alumni of the University of Utah as well as other citizens of Salt Lake City wish to erect lighting so it might be visible at night. Apparently, individuals in the Department had on previous occasions concluded that such lighting would not be consistent with the restrictions placed on the property at the time of its conveyance for public park and recreational purposes, but we have been unable to locate any formal opinions to this effect.

Mr. Chairman, we have not been able to locate any formal opinion of the Department to that effect. However, on March 27, 1969, Senator Wallace Bennett of Utah, by letter, asked the Solicitor to review the

entire matter to determine whether or not the recent lighting proposals of the University of Utah Alumni Association would violate the terms of the conveyance. After such a review it was concluded that inasmuch as the "U" was on the tract at the time of the grant, it cannot now be said that its existence is incompatible with the terms of the grant or that mere illumination of the "U" would change the use of the tract. Therefore, the proposal would be consistent with the terms of the conveyance. As a result, the Department now takes the position, as you have noted in the report, that this legislation is unnecessary because the problem it seeks to resolve has been eliminated.

I think the Solicitor may have something additional to say about this on the record as we have found it, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ALLEN. Mr. Melich.

COMMENT OF SOLICITOR

Mr. MELICH. Mr. Chairman, I should state I also am an alumnus of the University of Utah, like Senator Moss. We attended the university at the same time. Because of my personal interest in this matter I assigned it to my deputy, Mr. Coulter. He made a complete search of the record to find out if it had ever been referred to the Solicitor's office as Mr. Moss had requested. It is an interesting thing to me which is somewhat disturbing because of what we found in the record. I think the committee should have the facts. The regional office at San Francisco had examined this matter, and had concluded that there seemed to be no objection to the lighting of the university "U." In the files we found a note addressed to Crafts, who at that time was the Director of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. This note to Crafts reads:

We should be against an electrified, gaudy sign on the mountainside. "S"-That is for Stewart Udall.

It is interesting to note that at this point the whole thing stopped and the Director wrote a letter to Senator Moss that it couldn't be done. The legislation was then introduced.

When it was referred to my office by Senator Bennett we went into it, and our attorneys concluded that we could do it administratively rather than go through the legislative process.

Senator METCALF. Stewart Udall is one of my oldest friends. But hopefully, after 4 years, Mr. Hickel won't be there, and we might have another Stewart Udall who will make another arbitrary decision such as that. It seems to me that it is an arbitrary decision. I have enjoyed driving through Salt Lake City and seeing that "U" on there. I don't enjoy seeing the University of Utah beat the University of Montana all the time. And that is a reminder. But what would be the harm if we passed this legislation?

Mr. MELICH. I have no personal objection if the Senate in its wisdom decides that this is what should be done. We were doing what Senator Moss in 1968 had asked that the Department do.

Senator METCALF. I think it is quite appropriate that you do it. Nevertheless we have gone into this situation where somebody made a decision, and it was the other way, just nail it down. After all, we got the bill printed.

Mr. MELICH. We have no objection to the passage of the bill if that is what the Congress wants to do.

Mr. COULTER. Senator, if I might add something to the solicitor's remarks, we have a Solicitor's opinion now with regard to the "U," and the reversal of a Solicitor's opinion is a very serious thing in our office, and it isn't done lightly. And particularly when property rights have become vested-and in this example, lighting-and expenses have occurred in this use, one has some strong doubts that there would be a reversal of this opinion at any time.

Senator METCALF. Mr. Chairman, the Solicitor's opinion apparently has the same dignity as an opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, and can be reversed just about as quickly.

OPINION OF SOLICITOR NOT POLITICALLY INSPIRED

Mr. COULTER. It can be reversed, there is no question about that. Mr. MELICH. Mr. Chairman, the reason that I call this to the attention of the committee is that my office has been subjected to some criticism, in my State, because of this opinion. The criticism was directed to the fact that the opinion was inspired for political reasons and I wanted to establish a record to show what was done when the request came to us from Senator Bennett.

Senator METCALF. I am sure that had you had an opportunity to pass on it in Secretary Udall's administration, as a matter of law, you would have come up with the same opinion as you have now. am sure the committee realizes that.

Mr. MELICH. Yes. And incidentally, Mr. Coulter was serving as an Associate Solicitor in the Department when Secretary Udall was Secretary of the Interior.

Senator ALLEN. It would seem to me that the legislation would merely confirm and give full validity to the Solicitor's opinion. Actually, there doesn't seem to be any effort to belittle the opinion of the Solicitor, it merely confirms and validates it.

Mr. MELICH. The only other thing I can comment on is this. We, by our opinion, have put on the belt, and if Congress wants to put on the suspenders, it is all right with us.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis Tuttle.

TESTIMONY OF LEWIS TUTTLE, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY DISPOSAL, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM P. WOLF, ACTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF REAL PROPERTY DISPOSAL; AND HERMAN BARTH, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FOR PROPERTY DISPOSAL

Mr. TUTTLE. Mr. Chairman and Senator Metcalf, my name is Lewis C. Tuttle. My organizational position is Assistant Commissioner for Personal Property Disposal in the Property Management and Disposal Service of GSA.

I am accompanied by Mr. William Wolf, the Acting Assistant Commissioner for Real Property Disposal in the same service of GSA, and by Mr. Herman Barth, our Assistant General Counsel for Property Disposal. On behalf of the Administrator of General Services, Mr. Robert L. Kunzig, who asked me to represent him at this hearing, I wish to thank you for the opportunity of expressing the views of the General Services Administration on the bills being considered by the subcommittee.

We are at the subcommittee's disposal. Do you have any particular order in which you would like to receive our comments on the bills? We have a statement on four personal property bills. And then we have individual statements with respect to each of the real property

bills.

Senator ALLEN. If you will just put the statements in.
(The statements referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF LEWIS C. TUTTLE BEFORE A SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE OF
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I am Lewis C. Tuttle, Assistant Commissioner for Personal Property Disposal, of GSA's Property Management and Disposal Service.

On behalf of the Administrator of General Services, Robert L. Kunzig, who asked me to represent him at this hearing. I wish to thank you for the opportunity of expressing the views of the General Services Administration on the following bills: S. 406, S. 2210, S. 2170, and S. 1632.

With respect to S. 406, the principal objective of this bill is to provide authority for the rotation or other disposal of medical materials and supplies stored for national emergency purposes when the remaining storage or shelf life of such materials or supplies is of too short duration to justify their continued retention for national emergency purposes. As a result of the efforts of an interagency committee headed by GSA, some rotation of medical materials is being accomplished through agreements under which such materials move, while they aer still useful, to the Department of Defense or the Veterans' Administration, with replacement being made by DOD or VA. We believe, however, that the additional authority for rotation provided by S. 406 is desirable, and we therefore favor enactment.

The bill would authorize such medical materials and supplies to be determined excess property and, in accordance with regulations of the administrator of general services, to be transferred to any other Federal agency or exchanged with any other Federal agency for other medical materials or supplies. The proceeds from any such transfers may be credited to the current applicable appropriation or fund of the transferor agency and shall be available only for the purchase of medical materials or supplies to be held for national emergency purposes. Any materials or supplies not transferred to or exchanged with another Federal agency would become available for disposal as surplus property.

Subsection 2(b) of S. 406 would add new subsections (b) and (c) to section 402 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 512), which is part of title IV of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, covering the subject of foreign excess property. The new subsections would authorize the donation of foreign excess medical materials and supplies for use in any foreign country, to nonprofit medical or health organizations, including those qualified to receive assistance under sections 214(b) and 607 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and also, under such regulations as the administrator shall prescribe, the return of foreign excess property to the United States for handling as excess or surplus property under the provisions of section 202 and 203 (j) and (1) of the Property Act. GSA supports the purposes of the bill, and favors enactment of S. 406. A typographical error is noted in the bill. Line 10, page 3, should read: "(c) striking out in the first sentence thereof the clause".

S. 2210 would amend section 203(j) of the Federal Property Act to permit the donation of surplus personal property to public museums which serve all residents of a community, district, State, or region, and which receive their financial support in whole or in part from public funds.

We have no special information on which to make an evaluation or a recommendation as to whether tax-supported public museums should be eligible to receive such donations.

This amendment would have the effect, however, of increasing the number of eligible donees and, thereby, increase competition for available property and decrease the volume available for any particular authorized use. Surplus property available for donation is already restricted in volume by the fact that only limited types of property are usable for the authorized purposes and in condition for such use.

S. 2170 would amend the Federal Property Act with respect to the disposal of excess and surplus property and incorporate provisions of the Surplus Property Act of 1944 into the Federal Property Act. S. 2170 is extensive in nature, involving several proposed amendments to the Federal Property Act and other statutes. Therefore, with the indulgence of the committee, I will express the views of GSA as briefly as possible with respect to each section of S. 2170.

Section 2(a) of the bill would amend section 203 (j) (2) of the Property Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 484 (j) (2)), which pertains to the donation of surplus personal property of the Department of Defense to educational institutions of special interest to the armed services. Under existing law, the necessary determinations are made by the Secretary of Defense, but, under the proposed change, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare would be authorized to determine whether such property is usable and necessary for educational purposes and to allocate on the basis of needs and utilization to the appropriate State agency for distribution.

Section 2(a) would also specifically designate as eligible those national organizations already named by the Secretary of Defense as service educational activities, except for the Naval Sea Cadet Corps, which may have been inadvertently

omitted.

Neither the determination of need and use, nor the allocation function relative to service educational activities, is the direct responsibility of the administrator under the act. Moreover, GSA has no special qualifications or information concerning the educational needs of those institutions and organizations which are of special interest to the armed services. Accordingly, with respect to the propositions of section 2(a) of the bill, it would appear that the significant views in this regard would be those of the Department of Defense.

Section 2(b) of the bill would amend section 3(a) of the Property Act which contains the definition of the term “executive agency" as used in the act to specifically include the United States Military, Naval, Air Force, and Coast Guard Academies, and generally include any other educational institution established and operated by any executive agency of the government. Academies and other educational institutions established and operated by the executive agencies are components of such executive agencies and, therefore, come within the existing definition of that term. We see no useful purpose to be served by treating them as independent units.

Section 3 of S. 2170 would restrict the transfer and use of excess personal prop erty to federal agencies and those organizations named or described in section 109 (f) of the Federal Property Act. The enactment of this provision would appear to preclude the use of property and equipment, acquired from excess sources, by cost-reimbursable contractors and grantees of federal agencies. Inasmuch as the use of property for such purposes by government agencies under their statutory programs constitutes a federal utilization of excess property, enactment of section 3 of S. 2170 would have an adverse impact on one of the basic concepts and policies of the Federal Property Act, namely, that maximum federal utilization should be made of government-owned excess property.

Through the excess property utilization program, federal agencies reduce or eliminate the need for procuring new commodities in carrying out their program missions. General Services Administration's experience in managing the utilization program has clearly demonstrated that the use of excess property by federal cost-reimbursable contractors or grantees frequently reduces new procurement, and thereby has eliminated substantial expenditures for new items. In fiscal year 1968, we calculate that approximately $178 million of excess personal property,