Special Message to the Congress on the Transfer or Sale of Surplus Military Property.

To the Congress of the United States:

On January sixth, I approved H.R. 9893, 81st Congress, an Act "To authorize certain construction at military and naval installations, and for other purposes".

The installations which will be provided under this Act are urgently needed by the military services. I approved H.R. 9893 for that reason. However, one provision of this legislation, section 407, will have unfortunate results, which may not have been foreseen by the Congress. I recommend that this section be repealed as soon as possible.

Section 407 reads as follows: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force may not grant or transfer to another Government department or agency other than a military department or to any other party any land or buildings of a permanent nature, or any interests in such property, except equipment no longer serviceable and except easements, leases, or permits deemed to be in the public interest, which shall have been acquired, constructed, or installed pursuant to the provisions of this or any previous Act except as authorized by an Act of Congress enacted subsequent to the date of enactment of this Act."

This section, if permitted to stand, may seriously impede our mobilization effort by causing unnecessary and unwarranted delay in the transfer for other governmental uses of property excess to the needs of the military departments. The Atomic Energy Commission, for example, is not a military department. In time of emergency, transfers of Army, Navy, or Air Force property to enable that Commission to carry out its responsibilities should not have to be handled by separate enactments of the Congress.

By the same token, the military departments should not be delayed, as this section would delay them, in effecting exchanges of property with private owners. To illustrate, section 407 would prevent the Air Force from extending a runway at an air base by exchanging a portion of the air base lands for private lands contiguous to it needed for the runway extension. I am sure no such restriction was intended by the Congress.

There are contained in the Federal Property and Services Act of 1949, provisions which were enacted for the specific purpose of making possible the most efficient utilization of excess military property, including fixtures. In my judgment, section 407 repeals these provisions by implication. Furthermore, this section would appear to circumvent the provisions of that same Act which charge the Administrator of General Services with the duties and responsibilities to promote maximum utilization of excess property among government agencies. I cannot believe that it was the intent of the Congress to bring about this effect, or that the Congress will wish section 407 to stand in the way of immediate administrative action for transfer of property vital to the conduct of programs assigned to defense agencies other than the military departments.

Finally, it seems to me unwise at a time when the Congress will be fully concerned with matters of greatest national importance, to go through the process of reviewing in detail, transaction by transaction, the sale or disposition to the general .public of such few pieces of property as may be determined to be surplus to the needs of the government as a whole. It seems to me inevitable that there would be delay in handling such matters with a resulting expensive administrative burden upon agencies of the Department of Defense for maintaining and protecting such property until Congressional action has been completed.

For these reasons, therefore, I urge the Congress to repeal section 407 of this Act at its earliest opportunity.

HARRY S. TRUMAN