<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:45292.wais]
H.R. 752, THE FEDERAL ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT DONATION ACT OF 2007
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
ORGANIZATION, AND PROCUREMENT
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 752
TO DIRECT FEDERAL AGENCIES TO DONATE EXCESS AND SURPLUS FEDERAL
ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING COMPUTERS, COMPUTER COMPONENTS,
PRINTERS, AND FAX MACHINES, TO QUALIFYING SMALL TOWNS, COUNTIES,
SCHOOLS, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, AND LIBRARIES
__________
FEBRUARY 13, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-94
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.oversight.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-292 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York TOM DAVIS, Virginia
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania DAN BURTON, Indiana
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRIS CANNON, Utah
DIANE E. WATSON, California JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York DARRELL E. ISSA, California
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
Columbia VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
JIM COOPER, Tennessee BILL SALI, Idaho
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JIM JORDAN, Ohio
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETER WELCH, Vermont
------ ------
Phil Schiliro, Chief of Staff
Phil Barnett, Staff Director
Earley Green, Chief Clerk
David Marin, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania,
PETER WELCH, Vermont JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
Michael McCarthy, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 13, 2008................................ 1
Text of H.R. 752................................................. 3
Statement of:
Rhodes, Becky, Deputy Associate Administrator, GSA
Government-wide Policy; and Bunny Sanders, mayor of Roper,
NC; Shane Bailey, director of surplus property, Division of
the State of Alabama, president of National State Agency
for Surplus Property....................................... 12
Bailey, Shane............................................ 31
Rhodes, Becky............................................ 12
Sanders, Bunny........................................... 21
Rosenthall, John A., president, Small Towns Alliance; and
Thomas L. Williams, co-founder Williams and Williams Real
Estate Auctions, and president of National Auctioneers
Association................................................ 45
Rosenthall, John A....................................... 45
Williams, Thomas L....................................... 54
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bailey, Shane, director of surplus property, Division of the
State of Alabama, president of National State Agency for
Surplus Property, prepared statement of.................... 33
Rhodes, Becky, Deputy Associate Administrator, GSA
Government-wide Policy, prepared statement of.............. 15
Rosenthall, John A., president, Small Towns Alliance,
prepared statement of...................................... 48
Sanders, Bunny, mayor of Roper, NC, prepared statement of.... 25
Williams, Thomas L., co-founder Williams and Williams Real
Estate Auctions, and president of National Auctioneers
Association, prepared statement of......................... 57
H.R. 752, THE FEDERAL ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT DONATION ACT OF 2007
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Management,
Organization, and Procurement,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Peter Welch
presiding.
Present: Representatives Welch, Butterfield, Platts, and
Bilbray.
Staff present: Michael McCarthy, staff director; William
Jusino, professional staff member; Teresa Coufal, assistant
clerk; A. Brooke Bennett, minority counsel; Janica Spector,
minority professional staff member; Christopher Bright,
minority senior professional staff member; Todd Greenwood,
minority legislative assistant; Mark Lavin, minority Army
fellow; and Jeanne Neal, minority intern, National Security and
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee.
Mr. Welch. Thank you and welcome. The subcommittee will
come to order, and I want to welcome everybody to today's
hearing, and it is a very important hearing about Surplus
Property Donation and Sales.
The Federal Government buys enormous amounts of equipment
that could be put to very good use in our communities, and the
question is how are we going to dispose of surplus property in
a way that makes sense, that makes the most benefit.
We are also going to consider a bill introduced by my
colleague, Representative Butterfield of North Carolina, who is
here with me, H.R. 752. This bill, which Representative
Butterfield will describe, is all about improving the Computers
for Learning program.
What I would like to do is just start with a brief opening
statement and turn it over to Representative Butterfield. First
of all, it was mentioned Chairman Towns is ill and is in New
York City and otherwise, obviously, would be here running this
important hearing.
Each year the Federal Government saves hundreds of millions
of taxpayer dollars by reusing excess equipment and supplies
from other Federal agencies. When property is no longer needed
by the Federal Government, as you all know, the surplus
property is donated to State and local governments, schools,
libraries, nonprofit organizations, and other eligible
recipients. It extends the life of the property and saves
additional tax dollars.
In 1996, the Clinton administration issued an Executive
order establishing the Computers for Learning program. This
order directs Federal agencies to transfer surplus computer
equipment to schools and nonprofit educational institutions.
GSA administers the program. H.R. 752, the Federal Electronic
Equipment Donation Act, would make the order law and direct the
GSA to prioritize recipients in enterprise communities and
empowerment zones when transferring surplus electronic
equipment. Useful surplus computer equipment from the Federal
Government is a vital national resource.
The rest of the surplus Federal property is also worth
hundreds of millions of dollars and may be useful for years to
come. The reason we are having a hearing today is to try to
figure out how best to make use of that and to make sure we are
efficient and effective. We want to look at how Government
handles surplus property and how it can be improved, and what
we are asking our witnesses to do is give us your input,
particularly on Representative Butterfield's bill.
And we have representatives today, as you know, from small
towns, and I am from a small town. My town of Hartland is
1,800, probably a lot bigger than where Representative
Butterfield is from--I do not know. We do not have a street
light in the town I am from, and we do have two stop signs. We
do not have a mayor, we have selectmen, and we got--I will tell
you what we have, we have property assessors who come out
checking if you have done any improvements. We are also going
to examine the rules that GSA has written, the standardized
sales around a single Web site, and get comments on that plan.
The goal is to look at the current structure in the new
proposals to determine what is working well and what can be
improved.
I will now yield to my colleague Mr. Butterfield for his
opening statement. Mr. Butterfield.
[The text of H.R. 752 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.034
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
allowing me to participate in this hearing today. I represent
North Carolina's 1st District. We have 23 counties and, I
believe, the largest city or town in my district is about
60,000 people, and so we are from a relatively rural district.
Thank you very much for allowing me to participate.
It is my understanding that my good friend, Ed Towns, is
not here today, he is back in New York recovering and will be
back with us in just a few days. But I appreciate the
chairman's willingness to hold this hearing on H.R. 752, which
is the Federal Electronic Equipment Donation [FEED] Act of
2007, and I look forward to hearing the testimony from the
witnesses today, all of whom have obviously dedicated much of
their professional lives to the issue of Federal excess and
surplus property. And if there is something that I do not
understand about this matter, I am sure that one or more of the
witnesses will call that to our attention.
In short, Mr. Chairman, in my bill H.R. 752 codifies
Executive Order 12999 making many of the provisions permanent
law, but it also adds provisions making this much-needed
equipment for more accessible to the poor and underserved
regions of our country. The FEED Act would streamline the
process for donating excess and surplus electronic equipment to
small cities, and towns and countries, and schools and
libraries, and community-based educational nonprofit
organizations.
The legislation gives preference to poorer communities
which often have the greatest needs and the most difficult time
navigating the process and acquiring property. The act would
direct Federal agencies to transfer excess equipment to the GSA
for transfer to the qualifying recipient at little or no cost.
The current system of acquiring Federal surplus equipment
is flawed. It is riddled with Government red tape. Many times
it can take months or even years or even years to receive
requested equipment. There was one such case in my district,
actually the impetus for my introduction of this bill, where
GSA only began working on fulfilling the request after direct
congressional intervention. Citizens in need of available
technology should be able to obtain it without bureaucratic red
tape which only serves to discourage the applicant from
pursuing their goals.
Mr. Chairman, I represent a very poor district. My district
is the 15th poorest district in the United States of America,
the 15th from the bottom. My constituents and other
disadvantaged citizens around the country do not have access to
the technology afforded to so many of us here today. Small
counties like Washington County in my district, which is the
5th poorest in our State, are home to towns like Roper and
Plymouth, NC, with the county unemployment rate reaching nearly
8 percent.
The visionary leadership of Mayor Sanders, who is with us
today, has transformed Roper into a technology oasis and with
noticed job creation and training. Roper houses a technology
center where citizens are put to work refurbishing, updating,
and repairing electronic equipment acquired through the current
process. They also receive training in A+ development, server
management, and computer maintenance.
Without the necessary Federal excess and surplus electronic
equipment with which to work, the technology center and its
trainees stand the risk of losing years of hard work. Mayor
Sanders has the patience and determination required to navigate
the murky waters of Federal excess and surplus equipment. Most
would not be this resilient.
The Federal Government spends an enormous amount of the
taxpayers' money on technology. Last year the USDA's budget
included about $110,000,000 in technology-related costs. That
figure, extrapolated to cover all 15 executive branch
departments, exposes a daunting number. Once equipment becomes
slightly outdated it should not sit idle when there are so many
needy small towns, cities, counties, schools, and libraries
that can still put this technology to good use. Throughout the
United States many of our small towns lack the very basic
technology that many of us take for granted.
This important legislation grants underprivileged
communities across America, access to Federal excess and
surplus computers, printers, audiovisual and other
technological equipment. The bill is particularly important to
communities in Eastern North Carolina, and will be an important
tool in building the electronic infrastructure for local
government, schools, libraries, and nonprofits. Many of the
communities that I represent need every bit of help they can
get and, hopefully, this will free up some of the resources
that can be used to address other needs.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses
today. I respect them and thank each one for coming forward
with their viewpoints.
I would particularly like to thank Mayor Sanders for her
hard work and dedication to improving the lives of her
constituents; and Mr. Rosenthall, John Rosenthall, who has
worked with my staff for nearly 2 years in trying to move this
bill forward. The current system is hurting the very people it
was set up to help. This is a good bill that will help not only
the people in Roper, or in my district, but people all across
America who will derive a tremendous benefit.
I would like to thank the 61 bipartisan cosponsors
currently supporting the bill. They see the value and immediate
need for this legislation to be enacted. I thank you for your
time and willingness to allow me to participate in this very
important hearing.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Welch. Thank you. Mr. Platts, do you care to make any
opening statement?
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just to say I look
forward to testimony. I apologize, I will not be able to stay
for the whole hearing, probably special to the second panel,
and I will look forward to the written testimony we will have,
and I appreciate the committee holding the hearing. Thank you.
Mr. Welch. OK, thank you.
Now we will turn to our first--the panel, and why don't the
panel members come on up. Do you know who that is? You don't
know? We are keeping you in the dark? All right.
Becky Rhodes, and Bunny Sanders, and Shane Bailey. And it
is the--thank you and welcome--it is the custom of this
committee to swear all witnesses, and I would like all of the
witnesses to stand as I administer the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Welch. Just a little bit of introduction here. First
the record will show the witnesses have answered in the
affirmative, and Becky Rhodes is currently the Deputy Associate
Administrator with GSA's office of Government-wide policy, and
has to develop policy in a number of areas, including personal
property management.
Bunny Sanders is the mayor of Roper, and we have been
hearing about the mayor, a small town in the northeastern part
of the State, has been a advocate for economic development and
environmental protection in that community and other small
towns, and sits on the University Governance Committee for the
University of North Carolina.
Shane Bailey's day job is director of surplus property
division of the State of Alabama, he is also president of the
National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property.
What we are going to do is ask each of the witnesses to
give a brief statement summarizing your views, and then we are
going to have an opportunity to ask each of you questions. And
again, we are really trying to get--you know the things we want
to learn, so we are trying to get the benefit of your
experience, hopefully so that we can fashion some legislation
that is going to allow us to be more effective, and the focus
of attention is the suggestions made in the legislation by Mr.
Butterfield.
So, Ms. Rhodes, do you want to start?
STATEMENTS OF BECKY RHODES, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, GSA
GOVERNMENT-WIDE POLICY; AND BUNNY SANDERS, MAYOR OF ROPER, NC;
SHANE BAILEY, DIRECTOR OF SURPLUS PROPERTY, DIVISION OF THE
STATE OF ALABAMA, PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL STATE AGENCY FOR
SURPLUS PROPERTY
STATEMENT OF BECKY RHODES
Ms. Rhodes. Yes, thank you Congressman Welch, and
Congressmen Platts and Butterfield. And thank you for the
opportunity to be present at this hearing today and discuss
these issues.
I am the Deputy Associate Administrator of the Office of
Travel, Transportation and Asset Management within GSA's Office
of Government-wide Policy. I am responsible for the policies
and regulations that govern how agencies manage seven
administrative functions. Personal property is one of my areas.
You asked me to come today and speak on two topics, H.R.
752 and the amendments that GSA has proposed to the Federal
Management Regulation 102-38, which governs the sale of
personal property. Before I get to the topics you asked about,
I think it might help if I outlined statutory process that
Federal agencies go through to dispose of property they no
longer need.
First, an agency declares a piece of property excess to
their needs and reports it to GSA.
Second, GSA offers the excess property to the Federal
agencies using GSA excess Web site. Then, if no agency claims
this within 21 days, the property is made available to the
State agencies for surplus property. Please note that the term
at this point changes from ``excess'' to ``surplus.'' If no
agency wants the surplus property, then the Government decides
whether to sell it or to declare it scrap.
With regard to H.R. 752, the Federal Electronic Equipment
Donation Act, I have been advised that GSA and the
administration are studying this bill. However, I would like to
mention that GSA is, as you mention, running the Computers for
Learning program which was established in accordance with
Executive Order 12999. The program allows Government agencies
to transfer excess computer equipment to schools and
educational nonprofit organizations; and I would like to
mention that GSA has made a number of improvements to this
program since taking over the management in 1999.
Please note that computer equipment transfers to schools
under this Executive order is excess and not surplus.
Then you asked me to discuss the Federal Management
Regulation which I will refer to as FMR and, specifically, the
proposed change to the FMR 102-38. I want to emphasize that
these are proposed provisions and have not yet been put into
effect. They are still in the regulation development process.
The proposed changes to the FMR are intended to bring the
Federal regulation in line with the existing policies of the
Federal Asset Sales e-GOV initiative, which I will refer to as
e-FAS. These policies have been developed in a collaborative
process with Federal agencies as well as OMB. The e-FAS
initiative seeks to provide citizens with efficient and easy-
to-use method of finding and buying assets for sale by the
Government and to assist agencies in selling their assets in an
effective manner with the maximum return to our taxpayers. GSA
is the managing partner for this initiative.
GSA and its partner agencies launched GovSales.gov Web site
on October 1, 2006. If you visit this Web site you will find a
searchable catalog of property available for sale by the
Government which links to the various sales sites that conduct
online and offline sales of personal property as well as real
property.
Regarding private sector participation in the e-FAS
initiative, any sale of Federal surplus property must, by law,
be approved by a Federal official. However, in addition to the
authorized Federal official, a sale center may use Federal
agencies as well as the private sector in their sales process.
We encourage our sales centers to seek participation and best
practices from the private sector. Currently, we have four
sales centers that are approved and operational three of which
are using private sector partners in their sales processes.
There is much confusion about the e-FAS waiver process, and
I would like to explain. If an agency wants to take exception
to anything within the entire FMR so long as it is not an
exception that would violate the law, the agency may request a
deviation. This deviation process already exists within the
FMR, and in the property arena, for example, we recently
granted a deviation to facilitate a donation of flu vaccines to
various State agencies.
With the e-FAS initiative has developed a separate process
under which an agency may request a waiver from the
requirements or milestones that are part of the e-GOV process.
Working with agencies, GSA has defined the waiver process and
established procedures for it. The proposed regulation would
incorporate those e-FAS waiver processes within FMR 102-38.
In conclusion, I would like to say the e-FAS initiative
have been very dynamic. Its progress toward its goals in
unifying and simplifying the sales process while being results-
oriented, adopting best practices, and maintaining its
transparency are moving along. We have learned a lot, and we
have solid plans for our future.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the
subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rhodes follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.006
Mr. Welch. Ms. Sanders.
STATEMENT OF BUNNY SANDERS
Ms. Sanders. I am Bunny Sanders, mayor of the town of
Roper, population 625. Roper is located in Washington County,
which has a population of only 14,000. Washington County is the
5th poorest county in the State of North Carolina.
There are an additional 16 counties in the northeast region
of which 11 are Tier 1s. This is the State's designation for
the most depressed counties in the State. There are
approximately 45 incorporated municipalities in the northeast
region that have less than 1,500 people. Many of these
communities do not have public access to computers and high
speed Internet, and in fact, some of them do not even have
public libraries.
Approximately 5 years ago, the town of Roper assisted with
the organization of the WOWe-Community Development Corp. It is
the only e-CDC in the State. The mission of the CDC includes
the preparation of the Washington County labor force for 21st
century employment and entrepreneurial opportunities, and to
ensure accessibility to computers and the Internet to the
citizens of the country and to Northeastern North Carolina.
The town of Roper received Federal grants for the
construction of the Windows on the World Technology Center
which is operated by the Community Development Corp. The
technology center houses a digital library with 20 computers
connected to high speed Internet, a digital literacy classroom
with an additional 25 computers, a video conference equipped
classroom for distance learning, and a 100-seat auditorium for
distance learning.
WOWe-CDC also operates e-Business Incubators where workers
can maintain and upgrade computers. For more information on the
Windows on the World Technology Center, you might visit WOWe-
CDC.org.
Pursuant to its mission, WOWe-CDC develops and promotes a
variety of computer and Internet-related enterprises that
creates some of those 20th century employment opportunities. To
date, it has provided training for indigent residents in
computer maintenance repairs, A+, the Network+ certification.
It is training in electronic health records; it operates a
computer repair maintenance enterprise; it is a vendor for
conversion of paper medical records to e-HR. It develops,
maintains, and hosts sites, and it has developed Web sites for
28 small towns with less than 1,500 in Eastern North Carolina
at no cost to the towns.
These Web sites would have been of no urgency for these
towns, just because they do not have the resources to do it,
but what we realize is that not having a Web site is like not
having a ZIP code. So it was important that these towns have
it, and we have been able to do that.
The North Carolina General Assembly, recognizing the
necessity to offer direct engagement for information technology
in remote rural communities, designated the WOWe-CDC as a
Technical Resource Center for the Northeast. It specifically
charged the CDC with development, maintenance, and hosting of
municipal Web sites for small towns, developing computer and
public access points for these communities, and operating a
wireless ISP to serve the more remote communities that
telecommunications companies cannot profitably reach.
The CDC uses municipal and county water towers which base
stations or access points or place, and then these antennas
project the signals out to the remote communities.
Incidentally, we believe that the only way to provide
affordable broadband to the more remote communities is
wirelessly and through non-profit Internet service providers.
Pursuant to its mission of ensuring access to computers and
the Internet to citizens and children in remove communities of
northeastern North Carolina, WOW has requested computers. We
get them from wherever we can manage, and there are never
enough. Necessary upgrades are done by graduates of our
computer maintenance repair program, thus creating technology-
related employment in communities where there is no technology-
related industry.
We regard information technology and computer and Internet-
related enterprises as our hope for growth and development
because IT is not limited to dependence on local markets, which
are always small in small communities, but rather offers us as
global market. But we cannot achieve this goal without the
infrastructure and the tools to participate in a knowledge-
based economy.
Specifically, we must have what most Americans consider
basic: computers and broadband. In both cases, State and
Federal Government initiatives that should reach our
communities often do not. The reasons have to do with the lack
of understanding of the culture and how small low-wealth
communities must operate. It is very important to understand
the nature of the small towns and rural communities that these
computers are intended to serve.
The day-to-day operations of many of the towns of less than
1,500 people are run by the town clerks with part-time
volunteer mayor, such as I am, I tend to be a full-time
volunteer mayor, but most of them have part-time mayors who
have other employment. The towns often do not have the human
resources or funds for shipping the computers, nor can they do
the necessary upgrades. More importantly, many towns do not
even know that the program exists. Efforts to access computers
to the State are all but impossible for a small to navigate.
In North Carolina, the process will require a trip to the
State capital on Fridays. Most communities in Eastern North
Carolina are at least 2 or 3 hours from Raleigh. You would be
permitted to inspect the items on which you would bid, but
computer cases may not be opened during the inspection time,
which is between 9 and 2. Item descriptions indicate internal
components and what the State knows about the item. Often the
condition of the item is unknown.
The process assumes that the bidder--and in our case small
towns--has someone who would know about internal components of
a computer doing their bidding, which is highly unlikely. Small
low-wealth communities cannot afford technology-savvy staff.
Unfortunately, the bidder must assume all the risk. Needless to
say, small, low-wealth communities cannot take the time nor
afford the trip, nor take the risk that the computers will
require extensive upgrades.
This process really eliminates Federal and/or State surplus
as an option for small low-wealth communities. Neither towns
nor regional centers such as Windows on the World Technology
Center can afford this process. The cost of purchasing,
shipping, and upgrades puts the computers out of reach of the
very communities that need them most.
When we were able to get computers from USDA in the past,
WOW distributed those computers to local schools, small towns,
and non-profits who paid only the cost of the organizational
expenses related to bulk shipping and upgrading. This process
did make the computers more affordable and more accessible to
low-wealth communities.
I would assume that there are other non-profit regional
centers like the Windows on the World Technology located in
rural communities throughout the United States that are charged
with addressing digital literacy and access to computers and
the Internet. These centers would have the documented capacity
to upgrade the computers and ensure distribution to communities
and low-income families throughout rural America.
In addition, these non-profit regional centers could also
use the surplus computers to establish public access to
computers and the Internet in remote communities, thus creating
a network of digital libraries in rural America. These digital
libraries could be established in churches, community centers,
and other non-profit facilities which is where we are now
establishing them.
Most of today's public libraries are run by librarians
whose orientation is books. That is fine, but the mistake is
that, that is also in many cases we are adding a few computers
and calling it public access. Many of our libraries in Eastern
North Carolina have five or six computers on which citizens are
given maybe a half hour. We must provide communities with
digital libraries in the 21st century for the same reason that
libraries, book libraries, were provided in the 20th century:
Books were not available in private homes.
Now in rural America, computers and affordable broadband
are not available in many private homes. Here we have really an
opportunity for the Federal Government to jump-start 21st
century libraries throughout rural America without having to
spend the money on bricks and mortar. The point is that in
rural America where remote communities often do not have access
to affordable broadband and computers at home, public access is
critical.
I serve on the Board of Governors of the UNC university
system. The system is increasingly utilizing online studies as
a means of reaching remote communities with higher education.
Without access to computers and the Internet, distance from the
community college and the university will continue to be a
deterrent to higher education.
Preparation for participation on a knowledge-based global
economy cannot stop at 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. We have
an obligation to ensure that young people all over this country
have equal access to the tools that enable and empower them to
be productive citizens. For this reason I urge you not to allow
Government red tape to prohibit thousands of communities
throughout the United States from accessing surplus computers
that could very well make the difference between citizens who
are self-sufficient and those who lack the necessary skills to
function in the 21st century.
The proposed bill would make Federal surplus computers
directly accessible to any entity that can document the
capability of upgrading and distribution of computers to
schools, non-profits, and libraries in rural low-wealth
municipalities and documented low-income families, or that
could establish public access points for computers and the
Internet.
Because technology is not only an opportunity for growth of
low-wealth communities but is central to the survival of rural
America in a knowledge-based global economy, it is imperative
that Congress recognizes that there are over 25 million people
living in 25,000 communities in this country whose lives could
be impacted by the digital divides simply because of where they
live, and you should pass legislation that would address the
issues unique to IT needs and be specific so as to earmark
types of communities that would be beneficiaries.
If this country expects to compete in a knowledge-based
global economy, it cannot afford for any citizen to be denied
access to the tools that would empower and enable them to
contribute. Therefore, the language of this bill should be
clear regarding direct availability of surplus computers for
non-profits whose mission is related to digital literacy,
public access to computers, computers for small towns, and IT
training. This will ensure that there will not be any
misinterpretation of the intent of the legislation by those who
administer the programs.
I have brought the procedures of the North Carolina State
Surplus Property Agency for your review and consideration.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sanders follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.012
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bailey.
STATEMENT OF SHANE BAILEY
Mr. Bailey. Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the
committee, first thank you for this opportunity. This is
something NASASP has looked forward to for years, and we
appreciate the opportunity.
NASASP is the National Association of State Agencies for
Surplus Property. We are represented in all 50 States, various
U.S. territories, District of Columbia. We represent 67,000
organizations across the United States. Those organizations
include villages, towns, townships, counties, 8(a) States,
SBAs, public educational institutions public health agencies,
public safety to include police and fire agencies, libraries
are included.
Certain not-for-profit organizations include private
schools, veterans homes, senior centers, homeless shelters, and
food banks. NASASP believes that once property has been deemed
excess or surplus to the Federal Government needs, the highest
and best secondary utilization of property is by the public and
private organizations of this nation dedicated to the
education, the training, and the health and civil protection
and other public benefits.
NASASP supports the Donation of Information Technology.
There are some very good contents of H.R. 752. All the
computers, copiers, fax machines, we believe that these do need
to be donated to the public and private organizations qualified
to assist the underserved areas of our States. These
organizations are currently served by our program.
Congress has passed several laws in the past establishing
policies and procedures designed to serve the best interests of
the taxpayers. These personal property management laws such as
Public Law 094-519, Public Law 105-50 require Federal agencies
to transfer excess personal property to other Federal agencies
as the highest utilization of such property. The next highest
priority is to transfer such property in the public use through
the State Agency for Surplus Property. This system has served
the public well for over 60 years and helps ensure 100 percent
of the usage of taxpayer property is fulfilled.
GSA-approved donations through NASASP are only made to very
specific organizations with clear missions of public goodwill,
public service and structure to aid all the Nation's citizens.
A centralized process such as the one overseen by GSA and
managed by the State Agency for Surplus Property ensures fair
and equitable distribution. H.R. 752 will provide computers and
other electronics to organizations.
NASASP can ensure that property is placed into the hands of
those who need it the most. We have been told over the years
that we serve the neediest of the needy, and that is what we
base our program on.
Mr. Butterfield mentioned in his opening remarks, serving
the neediest of the needy. NASASP has proven track record in
moving property across the United States. Several States have
to travel 100 miles to acquire Federal excess property. This is
one of the constraints that we are now facing at the State
level.
We urge the members to take steps to ensure that no
personal computer, server, external storage device, is
transferred to the general public that might contain sensitive
or confidential information. We also encourage the Federal
agencies to continue to provide access to grants and other
funding to States across the Nation designed to support state-
wide consumer-based electronic recycling policies to decrease
the potential PCs being thrown to the ground, dumped in
roadside ditches, or found in the back alleys.
There are two major issues that are depleting the amount of
property that is available through the Federal Donation
Program. The first issue is the DRMS downsizing. A-76 proposal
reduced property sites across the United States. I mentioned
some States have to travel hundreds of miles receive excess
property. Nevada, for instance, is a State that there is no
DRMO within--I think Stockton is the closest one. That is
hundreds of miles to go get a load of computers, so we share a
lot of the same concerns that the mayor has.
The second major issue that we feel is depleting the
Federal program as much or more than DRMS downsizing is the GSA
Exchange Sale Authority. We believe that a number of Federal
agencies are selling property for pennies on the dollar when
that property could be transferred to the neediest of the needy
mentioned earlier by the mayor, and NASASP has a resolution
that would require a 30 percent return on property sold. If
that property does not return 30 percent, then the sale is
void. This way the taxpayers receives the full utilization
possible for this Federal property.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bailey follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.014
Mr. Welch. Thank you all.
We are going to now ask questions, and what I want to do is
turn it over to Representative Bilbray, who was not here to
give his opening statement, but we will let you start the
questioning, and if you want to start out with any comments or
remarks, go ahead.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you. First of all, as a former mayor
myself, I apologize for the fact that Honorable is not in front
of your name.
Ms. Sanders. That is quite all right.
Mr. Bilbray. You have earned the right, and I apologize,
and staff just happens to inform me it was an oversight, so
from the committee I think all the members here would owe an
apology.
Mr. Welch. The Honorable Sanders looks like she has been
able to weather some more fierce storms than this, but----
Mr. Bilbray. I was a mayor of 27,000. They made a lot of
jokes about a thousand for each year, but the smaller
communities. So when I ask these questions, I am coming, at
least from the California point of view, from the smaller
communities, and it may seem huge to you but coming from
growing up in a working-class neighborhood, this kind of hits
home of the selective kind of access technology has had in our
society.
I guess I have to ask both of you first of all, the ability
to pool resources. And here is one of those issues that I know
the League of California Cities, the National League of Cities,
and, I assume, you have a League of North Carolinian Cities
that could possibly discuss the issue of having a pooled access
so that you, personally or your employees, would not have to
personally have to venture off to this.
And I guess, Mr. Bailey, you should engage in this, too.
What is the ability for us to work with the local government
agencies and the State agencies at trying to get more
cooperation so that the little guy does not get left out in
this process?
Ms. Sanders. Well, let me just speak to the idea of
resources. It is very difficult. One of the things that happens
to small towns is the definition. The Federal Government thinks
25,000 people is a small town. Some people think 10,000 people
is a small town, but I am mayor of a town of 625 people. That
is a small town.
Mr. Bilbray. The difference between a small city and a
small town.
Ms. Sanders. And it is very difficult, even when you are a
part of leagues, of municipalities, it hardly ever filters down
to the point where the uniqueness of really small communities
in corporate municipalities get the kind of attention it needs.
In terms of resources, we raised the taxes in my town by 12
percent on $100 of evaluation, and we raised $12,000. Twelve
percent. So that just gives you an idea of how difficult it is.
There is no tax base, and this whole idea of technology gives
such an opportunity to become a part of the global economy that
we just do not want to miss this opportunity. But what we have
found is that we just don't have the resources to go out and
buy computers, and neither do the people we serve.
We have three towns, for example, in Washington County. The
only library in that county is in the county seat. The other
two towns are ten and nine miles, respectively, from the county
seat. So, effectively, those other two towns do not have
computers. What we are trying to do, for example, is set up
public access points in those other two towns, and then make
arrangements for the county library to electronically browse
the card catalog in the county seat so that we can even get
libraries for those towns.
So it is really, really, a very, very poor area, and it is
very difficult to----
Mr. Bilbray. I want to get back to that direct service, but
let's talk about getting the hardware, getting the resources
out to these smaller communities.
Mr. Bailey, you would really be an essential part of that
network or some kind of coordination that there would be
certain underserved communities that we recognize either by
your organizational League of Cities. What is the ability to
create, basically, an agent for these smaller communities?
Because it comes down to the debate, do we break up the
distributing system, federally, and try to get it in every
little neighborhood?
Because I really believe that you are going to find that we
are not going to be able--somebody is going to fall into the
cracks--that it is better to try to have a medium going both
ways, somebody at the State or regional level being able to
identify those communities that qualify, and then be able to
move the assets into those communities for them as their
agents.
And your organization seems like it's absolutely made in
heaven to be able at least to address the issue of creating
those kind of vehicles.
Mr. Bailey. Yes, sir. We have been in existence 60 years,
and I have been at this job for 9 years. And every week we
average anywhere from five to ten new donees, recipients, in
Alabama alone. We are in all 67 counties of Alabama. We have
2,300 donees just in Alabama.
But there are so many people that come in every day that
say, I have been mayor for 20 something years, I have never
heard of this program. We just do not have the funding, we do
not have a marketing program. I go and speak to the League of
Municipalities in Alabama. Every year I am at the County
Commissioners Convention. We do the promotion as much as we can
on a regular basis, but it is one of those things.
The Governor had no idea that we existed until Hurricane
Katrina hit. We are now his new best friend. We have been able
to move trailers, we have been able to move bottled water,
things like that, that come from FEMA or other agencies that he
had no idea that we had access to. It is a shame that it took a
disaster like that to get the program to where it needs to be,
but it is an every-day challenge, not only in my State but all
the 56 States and U.S. territories that I am representing
today.
We just had our convention here last week in D.C. only 15
States showed up. They do not even have the money to come and
network us together. So to go back and carry a marketing
program back to the State and be sure that every town gets a
letter from Alabama Surplus Property, or NASASP, or whoever, is
extremely difficult.
Mr. Bilbray. And I will say this. I know that, as a former
chairman of a county, too, after I left the city, ma'am, was
the fact of trying to get a good manageable size that is not--
our county was 3,000,000, bigger than 20 States of the Union.
Obviously, there are some manageable sizes there.
Mayor, I have a question. In your State or in Alabama, is
the use of Internet cafes, they are called, really they are
just small, little operations where public has access to it, do
they exist at all in the rural areas that you know of?
Ms. Sanders. They do not exist, but--they do not exist
because most areas--many of the areas, the more remote
communities do not even have broadband. So it is very
difficult.
I mean, the WOWe-CDC that we operated, a wireless ISP that
tries to reach them, but to the point of how to possibly break
this down, there are seven regions in the State of North
Carolina, and we are a regional organization that has been
designated by the State of North Carolina to address issues of
public access.
And so we could conceivably, regional organizations like
ours, State organizations, could--I mean, we don't have a
problem, for example, with coming directly to Washington and
picking up loads of computers and then going back and using our
trainees to upgrade those computers, and then we are
responsible for the distribution. I mean, the State has funded
us for the operation, but what we don't have is the access to
the computers to set up the public access points.
And the truth is that we really do need to be considering
digital libraries, and this is an opportunity to jump start the
idea of digital libraries throughout rural America, because you
do not need--we are using churches and community centers, and
whatever building we can find to set up 10, 12 computers. And
all of a sudden you have a digital library in a community that
otherwise would have never had it.
Mr. Bilbray. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I
represent a very prosperous area, and the concept of the
Internet cafe in the United States tends to be the Starbucks
with upper class, very wealthy, very high educated. It may
shock somebody, but I spent a lot of time in Latin America, and
that shocks me that when I go out to rural America, you do not
see access for the general public into the computer.
But I can go to a small village on an isolated coastline in
Baha, CA, with no running water, no municipal electricity, but
I can go into an establishment with 10 computers that is hooked
up to the international system, and I can email my staff back
and get my stuff off. That kind of technology exists in the
Third World.
And it is shocking to me as I go round the rural parts of
my families from Monroeville, AL, and it shocks me that certain
parts of our country does not have half of the Internet
connections that you can find in Third World countries like El
Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Mexico. And I would really
kind of say that it shocks me that they figured out how to put
the Internet, using a lot of private sector involvement, but
that has become part of their culture, and it has not become a
part of our rural culture yet.
Ms. Sanders. Well, the telecoms will run lines to areas as
long as they are densely populated and they are not poor. But
that is where the line stopped in North Carolina.
Mr. Bilbray. Well, Mayor, I am telling you that the
technology--I worked on the Telecommunication Bill 96 over at
Energy and Commerce, and I can tell you from personal
experience in other countries they do not use hard lines; they
are using satellite connections. And it is sad that we still
have communities like yours that do not have access to the
network that a city like Turtle Bay, Baha, CA, would have with
their little bit.
And, frankly, they are responding to an opportunity, and it
just shocks me that we still have not. So I just want to raise
that. I think it is something just to sort of question
ourselves over why we are doing that.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chance to be able to ask
questions, and I yield back.
Mr. Welch. OK, Mr. Platts--thank you, Mr. Bilbray.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my thanks again to
all of our witnesses.
I have just two questions before I have to run, and, Ms.
Rhodes, could you walk me how you see what you do today under
the Computers for Learning program? And in your testimony
talking about giving special consideration to those with the
greatest need, and how your understanding of the legislation
that is part of the hearings today would impact that
application of who you give computers to, to the bill which
says, or gives highest preference to EZ and EC communities when
transferring--you know--how is that going to play out and
impact what you do?
Ms. Rhodes. The way the Computers for Learning program
works today is a supply and demand. The schools actually
register on the Computers for Program Web site their needs, and
then the agencies as they have computers that are excess, they
then match those computers that they have that are available up
with the needs of the school.
In terms of the bill, GSA has not commented on the bill
yet, so I really cannot say anything about that at this time,
but we can certainly give you comments.
Mr. Platts. Well, on the current process with Computers for
Learning, so the need you are talking about is what they say
they need in computers, not necessarily the financial ability
of the community. But is there an assessment of the poverty
level of the community or the school asking for the equipment,
or is it just what they are saying, ``Hey, we need these type
of computers,'' but no accounting for whether it is a wealthy
district looking just to get them for free, or if it is a very
poor----
Mr. Bilbray. No litmus test.
Mr. Platts. Yes.
Ms. Rhodes. Not to my knowledge, but I would like to
clarify that in writing.
Mr. Platts. OK. Yes, because I think that is one of the
keys here is trying to target where there is not the tax base,
perhaps that is as great to be able to purchase versus----
Ms. Rhodes. Can I ask a question back there?
Mr. Platts. Sure.
Ms. Rhodes. Dave, is there any----
Mr. Robbins. Excuse me, is there any school registration
where they have information if there are income empowerments on
that in place, medium empowerment zones, number of students
receiving federally assisted lunches, some general information
on how many ensured per student the school currently has?
Mr. Platts. Ms. Rhodes, you might just want to repeat that
so we have it in the record, the answer. Do you get it?
Mr. Bailey. Dave Robbins spoke. He is with Federal
Acquisition Service, and his answer was within the system,
within the Computers for Learning system, there are some
questions that schools respond to relative to whether they are
in the EZ zone, number of----
Mr. Platts. Free or subsidized lunches.
Ms. Rhodes. Subsidizes lunches--and I forget what the
other----
Mr. Robbins. Number of computers versus [remarks off
microphone].
Ms. Rhodes. Number of computers versus----
Mr. Platts. So there is some review of that, maybe not--it
doesn't appear as substantive as what the bill proposes as far
as trying a better target.
Ms. Rhodes. That is true.
Mr. Platts. OK. The other--and this is really to all, any
of the three witnesses--in the bill the requirement of
mandating the use of nonprofit reuse or recycling programs to
make sure the equipment is kind of up to speed and really
usable, do you have any worry that part of the bill could have
a negative impact in what is made available to begin with? And
that in the intent of making it more usable, less is made
available because of that being a mandate?
Ms. Sanders. Well, what we have done is where the computers
need upgrading, we have used the opportunity to operate a
training program. And we train young people to upgrade
computers and maintain them, maintain them and repair them.
And so very often, I mean what we find that we have to do
is train people for jobs that do not exist. And this kind of
helps us create a job because what we can do is give those kids
who are now graduates of our training program an opportunity to
upgrade these computers that we then put out into communities
for public access.
Mr. Platts. I am not sure--and I guess it is something to
be looked at--whether what you are doing, which sounds like a
good approach, would qualify under the bill's language of the
mandate.
Ms. Sanders. Well, if we are given, as a regional
technology center, were given direct access to the computers
from GSA, and we were able to come up and pick them up, we
would bring them to our community which is a very poor area,
and we would upgrade those computers, and then we would make
them available to schools, nonprofits, small municipalities,
people who are engaged in setting up public access and so
forth.
So you eliminate the need. There is not a need for us to
have a perfect computer, because we will use it for training.
Mr. Platts. Mr. Bailey.
Mr. Bailey. If I could go back on the CFL issue for just a
second, Executive Order 12999 when it was initially introduced,
it is my understanding that it provided transportation.
Some of the mayor's concerns that she has mentioned as
having to drive two to 3 hours to pick up computers that may or
may not have hard drives, that may or may not just be nothing
but a shell, so it is our concern, and the Congressman from
California mentioned, that having one central location to work
this through. I rarely take computers on the Federal side. I
also run the State/Federal Surplus Property program, and I will
get all the State surplus.
The only reasons I do not take them from the Federal side
is because you never know what you are getting. If we could
institute something to where the hard drives remain in, they
are just cleaned over and over, whatever it takes to get the
sensitive data removed, then that would be beneficial for
everyone.
Mr. Platts. So the mandate from your perspective would be a
positive one to make sure you are getting something usable,
workable.
Mr. Bailey. Yes.
Mr. Bilbray. Can I followup on a question you just asked?
Mr. Platts. Yes.
Mr. Bilbray. The gentleman yields. When they are doing this
closed-box auctioning to the nonprofits and the public
agencies, do they do the same closed-box auctioning with, once
it has been reviewed, when it goes out to bid for private
disposal?
Mr. Bailey. I am not sure I understand the question.
Mr. Bilbray. The question is this: It is right now, when
the non-profits in the cities, and the schools want to go
after--it is a closed box basically, take it or leave it.
Mr. Bailey. That's right.
Mr. Bilbray. My question is, let's just say it gets left,
and then it goes over for disposal under the fair market value
to the general public. Is it still a closed-box auction at that
time?
Mr. Bailey. Yes.
Mr. Bilbray. OK, so, Mr. Chairman--and I will just say
this. I have to think that assets and resources are being lost
to the taxpayer one way or the other by having the closed-box
process; that you will get more getting to the right place of
the private sector and to the public sector and the non-profit
with an open-box system. And what is sold and put on the open
market you will get a higher price for that.
And then a lot of this like the RTC, I find the procedure
does not lend itself to the consumer or the taxpayer getting
their fair share out of it just because, bureaucratically, it
is easier just to keep it locked up and just take it or leave
it. And I yield back.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back as
well and thank the witnesses again for their testimony.
Mr. Welch. I will ask a few questions. Thank you.
Ms. Rhodes, on the GSA rules for how Federal agencies sell
their surplus, it looks like everyone has to go through GSA
unless they get a waiver. In a letter that GSA wrote to the
chairman, GSA made it clear that waivers would be routine, but
other Federal agencies and private auctioneers seemed to be
getting a different message. It may be, from your perspective,
it is routine; from theirs it is kind of a big deal.
Is GSA sending a strong message to Federal agencies that
they cannot and should not seek private sector alternatives?
Ms. Rhodes. No, actually, we are sending the opposite. We
are encouraging agencies to find best practices whether that be
with private sector or their internal processes.
Mr. Welch. Are you seeing agencies take advantage of the
waiver process?
Ms. Rhodes. We currently have 13 agencies requesting
waivers, and--we have 10 agencies, I think, requesting 13
waivers, I said that wrong, incorrectly, I am sorry--that we
are currently reviewing. And I do not see that we are sending
any message that this is something they should not be doing.
Mr. Welch. What are your thoughts about providing
incentives to agencies to find the most efficient solution by
allowing them to keep the proceeds of their auctions. And, as
you know, that option is being considered for real property
sales. In fact, there is a bill by Mr. Duncan on that very
topic. Is this an option that, in your judgment, would make any
sense for personal property as well?
Ms. Rhodes. I think the only way an agency would,
certainly, be interested in being a sale center would be if
they could keep their profits.
Mr. Bilbray. So what do you think of that?
Ms. Rhodes. Personally, I think it is a good idea.
Mr. Bilbray. OK. Mayor, it is amazing what you have done I
mean you created jobs and everything with all this. When every
other community that I know of does not even know these
opportunities exist, how did you figure it out?
Ms. Sanders. Well, matter of necessity. We managed to get,
we managed to build with the grant the Technology Center, but
what we did not have was operating capital because we didn't
have a source of that. So we had to become very entrepreneurial
in how we dealt with this, and plus that, we had to create jobs
that did not exist in our community. Nobody is rushing to
small-town America to set up businesses. So if our people are
going to work in this field--and they need to--then we had to
entrepreneurial in our approach.
Mr. Welch. I want to talk about--you are probably the best
person to talk to about this--some of the practical issues that
you face. You had mentioned local schools in small towns and
nonprofits were able to pay for the organizational expenses of
shipment and upgrades.
What do you mean by organizational expenses and who paid
the remainder of those costs, because those can run into some
real money?
Ms. Sanders. I could give an example. We have a Work Force
Development Board that pays for us to train students in
upgrading computers. Well, part of the income from that then
will go to coming up here, for example, to get a shipment of
computers.
We will come back to our community with those, and those
students can now work, be paid for the upgrades and the
shipping, and we might charge a school or non-profit less than
$200 for a computer, the mouse, the keyboard, everything. And
that makes it affordable.
And when we go in to set up the public access points, there
is no cost to them relative to the networking because the State
has given us some operating capital. Now, since they made us
the regional technology resource, so they gave us money for the
operation. What they didn't give us money for was the
computers.
So we need free computers. We do not need to have to buy
them from anybody.
Mr. Welch. You were talking about this tremendous program,
the WOW program. Where do you get your funding for that?
Ms. Sanders. Well, the building itself came from a USDA
root of community facilities grant, and the operating capital
for the first 4 years came from about four different
foundations, grants, wherever we could find money. But we
recently got put into the State budget on a pilot project which
says the State wants to test the efficacy of having regional
technology centers that can become resources for 15, 16
counties each.
Mr. Welch. Yes.
Ms. Sanders. And that is what we have become as a kind of
pilot program for the States.
Mr. Welch. Well, thank you, and congratulations on all your
success.
Ms. Sanders. Thank you.
Mr. Welch. Mr. Bailey, Mayor Sanders has been telling us
that it is next to impossible for small towns far from their
State capitals to acquire surplus Federal property through
State agencies. And I come from a small town, as I mentioned
early on, and I don't know that anybody in the small towns I
represent as aware that this is a potential possibility.
What mechanisms do States have in place, if any, to get
this property to these areas?
Mr. Bailey. We institute a donee screening procedure in
Alabama where the donees, the recipients, the mayors of towns,
municipalities that I mentioned earlier can actually go on GSA
excess, just like I do and my guys that work for me to
everyday, and look for property anywhere in the world.
We have a minimal service charge. We do not turn a profit
in Alabama; we lose money every year administering this
program, as do most States in our Association.
The donees can get on GSA excess, they can screen property
and access it through there just like we do. When a donee does
that, then Alabama--I can only speak on Alabama, I cannot speak
for North Carolina--in Alabama when a donee does that, we
transfer that property at the very minimal cost, which is
usually 1 percent of the original acquisition, to handle
paperwork, overhead things, overhead expenses that occur from
day-to-day business.
Mr. Welch. Yes.
Ms. Sanders. Please, just let me ask you this. The problem
we have is digital literacy. As I told you, these towns are run
by clerks, and they do not have the digital literacy to even go
to that site and even find out what is available. And that
would be a problem for us in that respect.
Mr. Bailey. I understand. Mr. McCarthy mentioned last week,
we cannot sent them an e-mail notice because they do not have
the computers to receive the e-mail there to work the programs.
Ms. Sanders. Right.
Mr. Bailey. So we are with you on this. We would be glad
for a resolution some way, one way or another.
Mr. Welch. Yes. Mr. Rhodes had pointed out that the
Computers for Learning in H.R. 752 deal with computers at the
point when they are still considered excess property; not the
surplus property that the State agencies handle. Does that
create a redundant process?
Mr. Bailey. No, it is Federal statute that Federal agencies
have first access to it.
Mr. Welch. Yes.
Mr. Bailey. And we are fine with that.
Mr. Welch. Right.
Mr. Bailey. The best utilization possible is for it to stay
within the Federal Government. After that is when it trickles
down to the State surplus.
Mr. Welch. So you think we need State agencies to help
distribute the property?
Mr. Bailey. Yes, sir, most definitely. If nothing else, we
provide accountability. We have proven over the years that we
have the network in place.
Mr. Welch. Yes.
Mr. Bailey. We are already serving these people. Obviously,
we are not serving all of them. That would be a great goal to
set. But we are making strides in those efforts.
Mr. Welch. Great. Do you believe that all Government
surplus property is being made available to State agencies
before being offered for auction?
Mr. Bailey. Most definitely not.
Mr. Welch. It is not. What can we do to change that?
Mr. Bailey. I mentioned the Exchange Sale Authority that
GSA has in place. We feel like that a lot of properties being
sold for pennies on the dollar with no parameters set or not
accountability--FEMA trailers are a real good example. We
petitioned to get those brought out of the Exchange Sale to
where we could run them through the donation program. That
allowed other Federal agencies to receive trailers as well that
would not have if they would have all stayed to be sold.
So not all Federal agencies would be against some
parameters set on Exchange Sale.
Mr. Welch. Yes.
Mr. Bailey. The State agencies, this is our No. 1
congressional concern, has been since I became president 18
months ago, we are up here every two or 3 months meeting with
organizations and national associations trying to pursue this
to get some congressional help, to set some parameters set on
that. There is no doubt in our mind, and we have requested
reports to see how much of this property is going out the door
that nobody knows, and we have yet to receive any of those.
Mr. Welch. Well.
Mr. Bailey. And I think that would be something this
committee needs to look at.
Mr. Welch. Thank you.
Ms. Rhodes, so you have any followup comments on that, that
might be helpful to us?
Ms. Rhodes. We actually do have an Exchange Sale Report,
and if I am correct, I believe we are compiling that now that
we certainly could provide to you. I am not aware of any
exchange sale that goes for pennies on the dollar.
Exchange Sale was actually not a disposal tool, it is an
acquisition tool. The agencies have not determined their items
to be excess; they are determined that they still need these
items, so they are still in use needed by the Federal agencies.
A good example of an exchange sale would be equipment that,
say, NASA would have that they would turn back to their OEM;
the OEM would give them money, then, toward an update of that
particular item or piece of equipment. So it really has not
reached the disposal arena yet. It is still an in-use item, it
is an acquisition tool.
Mr. Welch. OK, thank you.
Ms. Rhodes. But we would be more than glad to share the
reports that we have.
Mr. Welch. Thank you. Mr. Bilbray, do you have any other
questions?
Mr. Bilbray. Ms. Rhodes, I have a question. I am looking at
the different type of property to dispose of. How do you know
when to sell surplus and when to scrap it?
Ms. Rhodes. That is a decision that is made by the agency
at the time. I do not know that I could answer that generally
at this time.
Mr. Bilbray. Which agency? Do you mean the agency that is
using the equipment?
Ms. Rhodes. The selling agency.
Mr. Bilbray. Is there any in our procedures, is there any
decommissioning inventory done for our equipment when we take
it off line where the user basically fills out an inventory of
the condition of the equipment? Because I know, like in law
enforcement, when you decommission a cruiser, they will get the
mileage, they will get basic condition, any references to any
problems, and that document is there.
Do we do any such thing, let's say, with computers when
they are decommissioned?
Ms. Rhodes. I cannot specifically say for computers. I do
know that we have condition codes that are assigned to every
item that goes to GSA excess, whether it is in a good
condition. Each of the codes have a description, and I am sure
that applies to computers as well.
Mr. Bilbray. I would turn it around, Mr. Bailey, if we had
a decommission inventory basically on the box so that there was
some, at least some review of what was there, what was the
deal, what was the general condition of it. Would that not at
least be a step out of the black box?
Mr. Bailey. That would be a huge step. There is a warehouse
within 20 miles of this building that has more computers than
anyone can ever imagine. I go there once a month, and I cannot
take them because I do not know what is in them. They are
shrink-wrapped on a pallet. We have no idea.
Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Rhodes, much like we do with
decommissioning our squad cars, the best people to really do
the inventory are the people who have been using it and now are
basically taking on new equipment. And I sure hope we can take
a look at, at least a procedure that does not seem like a big
deal at the time to the user, but means a huge deal later down.
And I have to, Mr. Chairman, almost--when you talk, Mr.
Bailey, I almost can picture the last scene in Raiders of the
Lost Ark, and the warehouse after warehouse of how the hell we
are ever going to find the right computer in this group. And I
would it at least show the common decency that before you close
the box up and sent it to the warehouse, somebody puts on two
angels carrying in a case and give some idea what is inside
that box.
Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Welch. Thank you.
Well, on behalf of the committee I want to thank you for
your very, very helpful testimony. Ms. Rhodes, thank you. Mayor
Sanders, thank you, it sounds like a great community. And Mr.
Bailey, thank you very much for your leadership. This panel is
now completed.
Now I would like to welcome our second panel, and the panel
members are John Rosenthall--come on up. Thomas Williams, Mr.
Williams. And as with the first panel it is the custom of this
committee to swear in the witnesses, and I would ask you to
stand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Welch. The record will reflect that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative and welcome.
Mr. Rosenthall, I understand you are the president of Small
Towns Alliance where you advocate for economic development
opportunities for small towns. A lot of us in Congress find
that work the Lord's work.
And Mr. Williams, co-founder of Williams and Williams Real
Estate Auctions, and the president of National Auctioneers
Association. Do not talk so fast, OK? And we are delighted to
have you here.
And we are going to be going in to vote, so what I would
like to do is have you give a summary of your statements, and
then we will be able to followup with some questions and get
the benefit of your experience. Thank you.
Mr. Rosenthall, do you want to start?
STATEMENTS OF JOHN A. ROSENTHALL, PRESIDENT, SMALL TOWNS
ALLIANCE; AND THOMAS L. WILLIAMS, CO-FOUNDER WILLIAMS AND
WILLIAMS REAL ESTATE AUCTIONS, AND PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL
AUCTIONEERS ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT OF JOHN A. ROSENTHALL
Mr. Rosenthall. Thank you, Mr. Welch.
My name is John Rosenthall. I am president of the National
Small Towns Alliance, and we are pleased that one of our
members, Mayor Bunny Sanders, is here today.
For the last 10 years, I have been working to get excess
surplus Government computers to small towns just like Roper,
NC. In my statement that I have submitted, there is a newspaper
article from Augusta, GA. Augusta is not a small town, but
Augusta has 15 elementary schools that have computer lists,
computer labs. And a computer list/computer lab is not a lab at
all.
Now, what we have been advocating is taking the excess and
surplus Government computers and distributing them through
these centers such as the one that's in Roper, NC. The
Executive Order 12999 is working, and it is working well. It is
working very well, but the question becomes, who is it working
well for, and from whose perspective?
From the Government's perspective, it works well because it
gets computers out there. For the small schools that come to
D.C. or to a Federal facility and pick up a computer, it works
well for them. But for a school that cannot afford the
transportation cost, it does not work for them at all. And the
value of the program should be measured, not necessarily by how
many people it serves, but it should be measured to some degree
by the number of people that it fails to serve, the people who
cannot participate at all.
I have seen estimates that the Government disposes off
nearly 500,000 computers a year. If we could take some of those
computers and set up the regional center such as the one that
Mayor Sanders was, that would be a very effective way of
disposing of those computers and making sure they get to the
people who need them more so than anybody else.
Now,I have taken a look at the Executive Order 12999, and,
frankly, it appears to me that the Government has the authority
right now to distribute computers to non-profit organization
that can establish these refurbishing and distribution centers.
The literal verbiage or language of 12999 states that the
Government can deliver these computers to schools, non-profits,
and educational non-profits.
Now, the Department of Agriculture has taken the position
that, yes, our policy limits the distribution to schools and
educational nonprofits. They have taken the position that their
policy is not inconsistent with the Executive order, but it
does not exercise the full authority of the Executive order.
And I find it a little bit ironic that the Department of
Agriculture would also agree that distribution of computers to
small towns and rural areas wold be beneficial to those small
towns and rural areas, yet and still they will not extend their
policy to the point that makes that particular distribution
possible.
Now, students. Let's go back to the 15 schools in Augusta,
Georgia. If you talk about a student having access to a
computer at school, that is one thing. If you can have it at
home, that is a whole different ball game. If you have access
to a computer at the library, that is another. I am familiar
with some of Congressman Butterfield's district, and there is a
small town called Ahoskie, NC, I have been to, occasionally,
and Ahoskie has five computers in the library. The library is
open some days from 10 to 6; other days from 2 to 6.
Kids get out of school at 4 o'clock, 3:30 to 4 o'clock. If
you are waiting to use the library, if you are on the way up
and somebody is waiting, you have 20 minutes. And it is closed
on Sundays. So the library option is not available to most
kids, and then if you have transportation, and you can get to
the library, our you can walk to the library, it is available.
But if you do not have transportation to get to the library,
that is not even an option.
What I would recommend to the Congress is that to get
surplus and excess computers to the most needy communities, the
most feasible way of doing it is through these regional
technology centers. In addition to getting the technology out
there, there is a possibility of creating an entire information
technology industry in small towns. The Government spends a
tremendous amount of money every year on information
technology. Some of that work can be done here, some can be
done anywhere.
The type work that can be done in these technology centers
could create an infinite information technology in rural
America and transfer some of the jobs from the Washington, DC,
Metropolitan Area to rural America. That would be what we would
recommend.
And thank you so much for this opportunity today, and I
look forward to any questions you may have.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, and I am thinking about my
own library in Hartland, and this is exactly right, you know.
It is a great place, kids use it, but the usable hours for
them,when you can factor in school is pretty limited. And we do
have a few areas where we have these regional technology
centers, so that is very practical, helpful advice. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenthall follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.020
Mr. Welch. Mr. Williams.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. WILLIAMS
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I am going to speak on a little
different issue than what we have been talking about on the
computers.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Tommy
Williams. I am president of the National Auctioneers
Association and co-founder of Williams and Williams Real Estate
Auction Co. in Tulsa, OK. I appreciate the opportunity to speak
before you today, in opposition to GSA's proposal, proposed
rule governing Federal asset sales.
The National Auctioneers Association represents the
interest of approximately 6,000 professional auctioneers who
conduct online and in-person auctions throughout the United
States and around the world If GSA's proposed rule is enacted,
agencies will no longer be able to choose the best option for
their individual needs, thereby eliminating the beneficial role
of many experienced, knowledgeable, private auctioneers.
Let me first provide you with an example from our
nationwide NAA membership to show how the Federal Government,
small business customers around the country, and Federal
taxpayers have been well served by our auctioneers. Before the
GSA told the U.S. Forest Service that private auctioneering
auctions were no longer allowed, Jerry King of Fletcher, NC,
and his family business managed the sales of heavy equipment
for the agency. Prior to Jerry's work for the Forest Service,
the agency's returns on their sales of surplus property were
only a fraction of the property's value. Thanks to Jerry's
expertise selling vehicles and equipment, Jerry was able to
double and even triple the returns for the agency.
Jerry like to tell the story of his first auction for the
Forest Service. When he was interrupted midway through the
auction by the agency's property manager, who enthusiastically
insisted that Jerry sign on as a permanent auctioneer, Jerry
and his employees had already doubled the returns of any
previous sale held by the agency.
Unfortunately, agencies will no longer be allowed to simply
choose Jerry and other private auctioneers across the country
if the proposed rule is enacted as it currently reads. Let me
briefly describe how that is so.
The GSA's proposed rule requires all Federal agencies to
conduct their surplus sales through a GSA-approved Government
Sales Center whether those agencies wish to use a Sale Center
or not. Private businesses such as auctioneers would be
excluded from continuing to service this market under their
current arrangements for the overwhelming bulk of Federal
surplus sales. In fact, the chilling of the marketplace has
already started.
As GSA representatives have told agency officials for 2
years, that the pending rule change is imminent, and agencies
have shied away from contracting with a private sector. As
written, agencies would have to cease managing their own
personal property sales or apply to become a Sale Center. A
GSA-chaired panel has sole discretion to decide whether an
agency can become a Sale Center.
The rule grants a GSA-effective monopoly rights to sell the
vast majority of Federal surplus personal property as GSA
currently operates the only full-service Sale Center. That is
the only Sale Center that the sales that sells all Government
surplus. The other Sale Centers GSA likes to talk about are
extremely limited in scope, ironically by the GSA itself, to a
tiny segment of Government surplus.
The NAA firmly believes this is a clear conflict of
interest. Many executive agencies have developed private
partnerships and solutions to serve their agencies' personal
property disposal requirements. The NAA and others have
requested that a provision be added to the rule allowing
agencies to opt out of the requirement of using an FAS Sale
Center and instead select the best option for their needs. The
GSA should make this change.
Let me also briefly rebut some of the arguments that the
GSA likes to make in support of its proposal: First, the GSA
says that only specially trained Federal agencies like the GSA
itself can handle the complex sales of selling Government
surplus. The GSA sold $130 million in goods and services in
2007, but the live auction industry sold $270.7 billion over
2,000 times that amount.
Second--and I think this is very important--the GSA says
that they do not run the only surplus Sale Center; however,
GSA's operations is the only full-service Sale Center. GSA's
$130 million in sales in 2007 represented some 90 percent of
all Federal civilian surplus sales. Moreover, 99 percent of all
civilian Federal property managers are now forced to use
GSAauctions.gov as part of the Federal asset sales initiative.
That sounds pretty close to a monopoly to me.
Third, the GSA will say that a Federal agency can waive out
of the Sale Center requirement in order to use a private sector
option; however, the devil is in the details as a so-called
waiver requirements are both temporary and unrealistic.
Let me quote from the letter received from GSA yesterday.
They did reply to a letter I wrote in November: ``Waivers are
expected to be of a limited duration such that the waive sale
solution either becomes a Sale Center or the agency identifies
and migrates to a better sale solution, which is an approved
Sale Center.''
Very few property managers will even attempt to jump
through the bureaucratic hoops needed to apply for a waiver.
That is especially true since the GSA, with a vested financial
interest in limiting competition, has a sole authority to
approve or reject the waiver request in the end.
Fourth, the GSA will tell you that consolidating all
auctions into one Web site is good for the public, but couldn't
GSA's Web site just be a portal listing all private and public
sector Web sites selling Federal surplus?
Fifth, the GSA will claim that its prices are competitive.
GSA charges a minimum commission of 20 to 25 percent for all
sales. The vast majority of private sector auctioneers selling
Government surplus charge just 5 to 10 percent for the exact
same service and realize better returns for their customers as
well.
Finally, I want to add that the NAA would strongly support
a policy change enabling individual agencies to keep the
Government's share of the surplus sales proceeds instead of
that share returning to the general U.S. Treasury. This change
would encourage agencies to choose the surplus sale solution
that best maximized their return.
Mr. Chairman, we do not oppose the GSA's overall goals for
e-Government; what we oppose is taking the sale of surplus
property completely away from the private sector and make it
solely a Government function. There is no justification for
this. All we ask is for the committee to ensure that each
Federal agency has the opportunity to choose a sale solution
for their private or GSA run that provides the best, most cost-
effective approach in their individual case. Without this
committee's intervention, the GSA will succeed in squeezing out
small businesses across the country.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and, of course, I
would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Welch. Well, thank you very much for your clear point
of view. We appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5292.027
Mr. Welch. I do not have questions at this point. I have to
go to another committee hearing, but I just want to thank you.
One of the things that we are doing here and have the benefit
of you all coming, both panels of witnesses, is focusing the
attention of Congress on what is a problem. And we have Roger
Clemens downstairs, but I actually think if we can make
progress on this issue of how do we utilize this surplus
property, how do we get it to people who need it, who can use
it and make it practical for some of these kids, do it in ways
that are fair to the taxpayers will maybe accomplish more than
what we will if we each come out with our own opinions about
did he, or didn't he?
Mr. Williams. I certainly agree.
Mr. Welch. So I just want to thank you. Congressman
Butterfield has been providing tremendous leadership here, and
what is interesting to me as I listened to each of you testify
is how this does cut across Small Town America. I mean it is an
issue that is important to taxpayers; it is an issue,
obviously, that is important to our own sensibility about using
things before their useful life is ended. And what it requires
us to do is find practical ways to get that piece of equipment
that has gone beyond its useful life in the original home into
the hands of one of those young kids, to do it in a way that is
going to be most beneficial to the taxpayers and most
beneficial to our future.
So this is very, very important, and you all are at Ground
Zero on address this, and I want to say on behalf of Chairman
Towns I appreciate his leadership on using his position as
chair of this subcommittee to give you an opportunity to
educate us. And our obligation to you is that we followup.
So I want to thank each and every one of you for being
here. Thank you.
Mr. Williams. And thank you very much.
Mr. Welch. This hearing will now come to close, without
objection.
[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
<all>