Page images
PDF
EPUB

lower prices for goods. Again I think the Bureau of Federal Supply people can explain what that means in terms of savings to the Government and I should like to pass that only with a brief comment, that obviously if industry and private enterprise know what the Government wants, and they have a common understanding, the Government can get much closer bids. That is true whether it is construction or whether it is on purchases of supplies or anything else.

Mr. HARVEY. You have reference, I presume, to most of what you would call the consumer type of materials?

Mr. ELLIOTT. I would think so, by and large.

Mr. HARVEY. The standardization would refer to specifications as well as nomenclature?

Mr. ELLIOTT. That is correct; and it would refer to specifications and types of contracts.

Mr. HARVEY. I think that point is well worth emphasizing and it should effect a saving not only to Government but to industry.

Mr. ELLIOTT. A great deal, because if you do have common specifications then everybody who bids is on the same footing and you do not run into the problem of identifying articles. And furthermore you do not find some manufacturer faced with the possibility of having to do a custom job because someone sitting in an office in Washington has a fancy idea of what a spring should be as contrasted with what the automobile manufacturers are putting out, for example.

Mr. HARVEY. I think you will remember last year on the subcommittee that we ran into that indirectly in our investigations, and the same experience with respect to desks, you will remember, and chairs. I remember particularly the matter with reference to chairs and desks in that respect.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes; we will take that matter up more fully with the Federal Bureau of Supplies.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Yes. In that connection you may want us to tell you something about office furniture which our people in the Federal Works Agency have developed, which we hope will become standard and purchased through the Bureau of Supply. It is a new functional type of desk, which we think will not only save in cost to the Government but will save in the use of office space.

The executive agencies are required, by subsection (b) of this section, to use the Federal Supply catalog system and the standard purchase specifications, insofar as practicable, taking into consideration efficiency, economy, and other interests of the Government. It is expected that, by and large, all of them will use it, but there will be situations where it will be impractical, particularly at isolated field stations, where they need to buy small things. That is why there is a little out of the language reading "insofar as practicable."

It is also anticipated that in the event there is any dispute as to what is practicable, the Administrator will decide, but we really do not expect many disputes.

The next section deals with the applicability of the antitrust laws and it is substantially the same section as is now in the Surplus Property Act of 1944.

This was prepared by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and it has, I think, two relatively minor differences from the existing law.

Under the Surplus Property Act of 1944 it operates whenever, in the beginning, there is a negotiation for the disposal to private interests only. The section in this bill provides for disposal to nonFederal interests, public or private. The Antitrust Division feels that it should be broadened in this way, because while States and their political subdivisions are not subject to the antitrust laws, nevertheless there is an impact on them. The Justice Department has many violations and cases before them involving both public and property interests, although the private interest is the only one that can be charged under the antitrust laws. So, because of that inter relationship with public bodies, they felt the language should be broadened. The other change appears in lines 7 and 8 on page 21, where, as I recall, speaking from memory-and Mr. Joss can correct me if I am in error-the Surplus Property Act of 1944 provides that the proposed disposal would tend to create a violation of the antitrust laws. The provision in this bill is to tend to create or maintain a situation not consistent with the antitrust laws.

The Attorney General felt again that this ought to be a little broader and more flexible. It is not a matter in any event, for criminal prosecution; it is a matter of determining what are the interests of the United States in this disposal.

Section 109, which commences on page 22 of the bill, relates to the employment of personnel, and provides two things: First, the general employment of ersonnel subject to the civil service and classification laws; and second, the authority to appoint consultants on a temporary basis.

I might say that provision is geared into Public Law 600 and it is substantially the same provision. Under Public Law 600, as you gentlemen know, the highest rate which can be paid is the highest rate in the civil service classification, unless a higher rate is specifically authorized by an act of Congress or in an appropriation act. There is no specified higher rate authorized here, so that automatically the top classification act would apply to the hiring of consultants.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. In other words, this does not confer additional authority upon the Administrator to raise the compensation over and above that authorized in existing law?

Mr. ELLIOTT. None whatsoever, in order to raise the compensation rate, he would have to have specific authority from the Congress either in an authorization act or through an appropriation act. But this limits compensation to provisions of existing law and the rates provided therein.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. And that applies to temporary consultants as well as permanent?

Mr. ELLIOTT. Yes.

Mr. HARVEY. Right in that regard: Have you ever made any estimate as to the number of personnel that would likely be required to operate the agency?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Over and above the present personnel?

Mr. HARVEY. Of course, you will not only be consolidated, but you will have new duties imposed upon you, and I should think that would result in some enlargement to consolidation. I am thinking particularly of the total number of personnel as the result of addi

tional duties, should this act, or a similar one be passed by the Congress and other divisions be brought into one agency.

Mr. ELLIOTT. That is a very difficult thing to estimate, for this reason. I would think that

Mr. HARVEY. I can appreciate that, and I am not critical; I am just asking the question for information. You undoubtedly, in the consideration of this whole problem, have had some idea in your own mind.

Mr. ELLIOTT. I would like to answer the question in this way: There are approximately 20,000 people in the Federal Works Agency today, and a very considerable number of those people are custodial employees, principally here in Washington, related to such operations as management of public buildings.

There are, I believe, approximately 2,000 people in the Bureau of Federal Supply.

Mr. KURTH. Two thousands four hundred.

Mr. ELLIOTT. And War Assets estimates that as of June 30 they will have 2,100 people, of which the greater number will be custodial people. The reason it is difficult to estimate is the fact the greater bulk of the personnel will be custodial people. We most undoubtedly will make savings in brass and in overhead through consolidation. It may be, however, that as time goes along there will be perhaps an expansion in the custodial people, which will be a saving, however, to the Government. In other words, if this works out with respect to real property as we all expect it will, the Government is going to rent a lot less private space and will be using its own property far more. It is going to have to have people who will fire boilers, who will be guards, and do things of that kind.

Mr. HARVEY. You do have the thought that there would be, by the consolidated process alone, in the neighborhood of 25,000 then? Mr. ELLIOTT. That is correct.

Mr. HARVEY. I appreciate that this is not exactly a fair question, but would you estimate that the additional employees due to the additional duties devolved upon you is going to require another 25,000 people to operate the Agency?

Mr. ELLIOTT. Oh, no; and as a matter of fact, starting from scratch, over the next 6 months or a year, it would probably be less. But the fact that I wanted to point out was that if there is an expansion in the use of the Government's own property for the Government's business, and a withdrawal from private rental space, there will be, on the one hand, a great saving in rent, but at the same time there will be some expansion in the custodial service.

Mr. HARVEY. Yes; I think that is understandable, and I am not asking this question, as I said, in a critical sense at all.

Mr. ELLIOTT. I understand.

Mr. HARVEY. But I think if we are to consider the whole problem we ought to have some idea as to the number, in round numbers, of personnel that will be involved in the consolidation. And of course the thing that immediately comes to my mind is that assuming we have consolidation, would you estimate that immediately you would require about the same number as now, or double the number of people, or how many would you estimate? I think we should take into consideration all the factors of having to employ additional people when

we have constructed additional buildings that require custodial super

vision.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Immediately, we would require no more, and as the days and months go on there would be less.

Mr. HARVEY. Less. That is certainly a fine reflection.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. You are speaking now of Governmentwise rather than Agencywise. In your agency the number of personnel would increase as you take in other departments, but Governmentwise you think there would be reduction in personnel as well as savings in dollars?

Mr. ELLIOTT. Sir, I think that both Governmentwise and Agencywise immediately there would be approximately the same, and as the days and months go on that there would be less, not taking into account this additional factor of the expansion of service to the Government. An expansion of service would result normally from construction of new facilities, and from the utilization of existing warehouse and office space-space that is now vacant. To the extent that there would be such additional use of space and perhaps agency expansion, there would be a corresponding reduction in cost to the Government and a greater saving by reason of using custodial service instead of paying high rents for private space.

Mr. BURNSIDE. The Government would need less rented space, and you would have a greater turn-over, you would have a more rapid turn-over in your operation.

Mr. ELLIOTT. I think that Mr. Kurth can answer this question better than I, but as the standard catalog system is developed I would imagine that would be a factor that would cause a reduction in personnel, because that is one development that will keep things flowing along with less personnel. That in turn would be Government-wide.

The next section is 110, which contains the general civil remedies and penalties for violations. That is substantially as the present provisions in the Surplus Property Act of 1944. I do not think there is any real difference in them.

The last section of this title III requires the Administrator to submit annual reports to the Congress in January of each year and not only to report on the Administrator's activities, but also to make such recommendations for amendments required for administration of the act as he might deem appropriate. In other words, this is something new. We do not know and nobody can look into a crystal ball and predict with precision how it will work. As the operations develop we may find that modifications will be necessary in the law; it will be desirable in any event for the Administrator to come to the Congress and present any recommendations to the various sections which he finds, from operating experience, should be made.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. That provision also enables this particular congressional committee to fulfill its functions and to make checks, and to scrutinize the effect of the legislation which is passed.

Mr. ELLIOTT. That is very true.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. And outside of a tremendous office staff that would be the only way we could do the job.

Mr. ELLIOTT. I would imagine so.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I suppose you want to skip title II, so far as you are concerned, and leave that to the State Department?

89579-49- 4

Mr. ELLIOTT. If that is agreeable to the committee, yes.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. There is nothing in title II, so far as you know, that conflicts in any way with your idea. You have been studying the legislation?

Mr. ELLIOTT. Yes; we have been studying it, and we have worked this out with the State Department, and we are completely satisfied with it; but it is their baby and not ours, and it should be, because the disposal of Government property in foreign countries is necessarily tied in with foreign policy; it is an instrumentality of our foreign policy.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Where do you furnish service to the State Department in this matter, or do they have their own?

Mr. ELLIOTT. The title would contemplate that the State Department would work hand in hand with the so-called owning agencies; that is to say, as to property in the hands of the Army which is located, for instance, in India, they would look to the State Department to set up the policy, but the State Department would use the Army, as regards that property, to handle the operations for it.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Your agency actually has no function under this title II?

Mr. ELLIOTT. We have no function.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Either of supervision or service?

Mr. ELLIOTT. That is correct, and there is no reason why we should, because we do not have any offices in foreign countries and it would just involve an expense to the Government to set them up, whereas the State Department is already there and to the extent that Government property is located there their people can take care of it.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. If there is no question on that point we will take up title III. We will skip title II. Is that agreeable?

Mr. BURNSIDE. I think that is agreeable.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes.

Mr. ELLIOTT. I might say in passing, with respect to reports to the Congress, I would suggest that, in addition to requiring annual reports from the Administrator from time to time, he should submit reports to the Congress during the course of the year. I should imagine that he will also formally or informally be reporting to this committee from time to time under this section.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. It is my understanding, of course, that this formal report that you speak of here, or any report which this committee or any other committee of the Congress should desire, would be immediately forthcoming as a matter of ordinary procedure.

Mr. ELLIOTT. That would be true anyway, but I think in any undertaking of this kind the Administrator will come down here from time to time, particularly in the early years, without any request from the committee.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. In other words, with respect to the clause in this section which states the Administrator shall submit a report to the Congress in January of each year, your thought is that the Administrator will also provide additional reports from time to time?

Mr. ELLIOTT. At the Administrator's option.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes; additional reports at the Administrator's option; I agree with you that some such provision should be included, and you can work out the legal phraseology.

« PreviousContinue »