Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

The CHAIRMAN. Well, what is it?
How much? What do you classify a nominal fee?
Mr. RUTHERFORD. I would say $1.
Mr. BENNETT. Pretty nominal.
Mr. RUTHERFORD. That is pretty nominal.
The CHAIRMAN. That is certainly nominal.
Now, members, are there any questions?
Mr. BRAY. Yes; one question.

This land is in no way, direct or indirect, involved in the discussions of the President of the United States, in giving Mexico part of El Paso?

Mr. Price. In no way.
Mr. BRAY. OK; good.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the bill will be favorably reported

Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. And Mr. Rutherford
Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairman, I thought there was a conflict here in
what Mr. Rutherford says and the bill.

The bill says fair market value, didn't it?
Mr. PRICE. Yes.

Mr. BECKER. And Mr. Rutherford said the market value should be $1.

Mr. RUTHERFORD. That is the fair market value in my opinion. Mr. BECKER. In your opinion? Mr. RUTHERFORD. Yes. The ('HAIRMAN. That is just his opinion. Without objection, the bill will be favorably reported, and Mr. Rutherford on behalf of the committee will report the bill as amended.

And I think this bill can with propriety go on the Consent Calendar.

H.R. 12081

The CHAIRMAN. Now the next matter before the committee is H.R. 12081, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey certain land and easement interests at Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation for construction of the San Antonio Dam and Reservoir project in exchange for other property. This is out in California.

Now, Mr. Price?

Mr. Price. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey certain land and easement interests at Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation for the construction of the San Antonio Dam and Reservoir project in exchange for other property.

The Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District of the State of Casifornia, a public body elected by the voters of the county, has developed plans for the construction of a dam and reservoir in the vicinity of Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation and Camp Roberts.

The proposed project will be entirely financed by State funds and a supporting bond issue to be approved by the voters of the district.

Both public and private lands comprise the area required by the district for the flood control and water conservation project. In

[ocr errors]

cluded in this area are approximately 9,965 acres of land and easement interests in the Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation.

The Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District proposes in exchange for this property to

(1) Convey an exclusive right-of-way for road purposes by Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation and Camp Roberts;

(2) Construct a tank road and appurtenances in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the Secretary of the Army; and

(3) Relocate existing Army facilities now in the area (consisting principally of a communication line). The fair market value of the land required by the district is estimated to be $563,000. The estimated value of the privately owned land which the district will acquire for the tank road and right-ofway is $16,250. This road will extend approximately 8 miles and comprises about 125 acres of land. The cost of constructing that portion of the tank road which is not on the Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation, is estimated at $580,000, making a total cost of the offbase portion of the tank road $596,250.

Thus, the new facilities provided by the district will exceed in value the appraised value of the property to be conveyed by the Army. It must also be borne in mind that the district will incur other costs for replacement in kind of facilities now located on Hunter-Liggett Mili. tary Reservation.

These costs have not been determined, but will be borne by the district and include moving, constructing, and improving the portion of the tank road which will be located on existing Army property, and also relocating an existing Army communication line.

The official report of the Department of the Army supported the bill provided that language was added to relieve the Army of the responsibility of transferring to the U.S. Treasury that portion of moneys received from the district which were expended to defray preliminary expenses would be borne entirely by the district. Consequently, Army representatives withdrew their request that the bill be amended.

The subcommittee unanimously approved the bill without amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Members of the committee, this bill was introduced by our colleague from California, Mr. Teague.

I have studied the map. I have seen the map and have gone into the matter most carefully with the staff member handling this bill.

And I think the facts and circumstances warrant favorable consideration of it.

If there is no objection to the bill —
Mr. PIKE, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question about this.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. Pike. The bulk of the consideration which is being given for the transfer of this 8,707 acres is the construction of a new tank road.

The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. PRICE. That is right.

Mr. Pike. Would the new tank road be necessary if it were not for the transfer of this 8,700 acres?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Slatinshek?

Mr. SLATINSHEK. At the present time the Army is required to get together with county officials to obtain the use of public roads when they move tanks from one military reservation to the other.

Camp Roberts is at one end of the proposed reservoir site and Hunter-Liggett is on the other. When they move tanks and other equipment between these two sites, they must necessarily use county roads. This requires negotiation and that sort of thing.

This will provide them with an exclusive right-of-way which will not be a public road and give them a permanent access between the two military reservations.

Mr. PIKE. So this tank road, the construction of this tank road is if not necessary, at least desirable.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.
Mr. SLATINSHEK. That is correct.
Mr. PIKE. At the present time.
Mr. SLATINSHEK. That is correct.

Mr. PIKE. And it is not something which is made necessary by the transfer.

The CHAIRMAN. No.
Mr. RIVERS. This is an additional windfall to the Government?
Mr. SLATINSHEK. This is an advantage to the Army.
Mr. RIVERS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, without objection, the bill will be favorably reported, and Mr. Price on behalf of the committee-in view of the fact that there are about $500,000 worth of property involved, we will have to get a rule for it.

I would not put it on the consent calendar.

Then you go before the Rules Committee now, Mr. Price, and try to get your rule on all these bills.

Then when you get your rules, why then take it up with the leadership and try to get favorable consideration.

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 509 AND HOUSE RESOLUTION 12416

The CHAIRMAN. The next bill is very important: H.R. 12416, disposal of chestnut tannin extract. That is an extract which makes all the brown shoes that are manufactured in Massachusetts. [Laughter.]

Now, read the bill. I introduced the bill yesterday.
Read the bill.
Mr. SLATINSHEK. Mr. Chairman, there are two

The CHAIRMAN. I know. We will bring Mr. Bates' bill up in connection with that.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Shall we read the resolution, to begin with?
The CHAIRMAN. First-go ahead and read the resolution.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. In accordance with a request from the General Services Administration, a resolution has been introduced by the chairman and it has been referred to the committee, identified as House Concurrent Resolution 509.

It reads as follows:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress expressly approve, pursuant to section 3(e) of the Strategic and Critiral Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98b (e)), the disposal of 12,245 long tons of chestnut tannin extract from the national stockpile.

SEC. 2. All funds derived from the sale authorized by this concurrent resolution shall be deposited into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.

This resolution was made necessary by virtue of the fact that a determination had been made that this tannin extract, these 12,000 tons, were in excess to the national stockpile requirements.

However, they were not obsolete, and therefore in accordance with the law congressional approval is required before a disposition of this material can be effected.

In addition, the committee has pending before it a bill identified as H.R. 12416.

This bill, introduced by Mr. Bates, would authorize the sale, without regard to the 6 months' waiting period prescribed, of chestnut extract proposed to be disposed of pursuant to the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act.

The bill reads as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Administrator of General Services is hereby authorized to dispose of, by negotiation or otherwise, approximately four thousand tons of chestnut extract now held in the national stockpile. Such disposition may be made without regard to the provisions of section 3 of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act, relating to dispositions on the basis of a revised determination pursuant to section 2 of said Act, to the effect that no such disposition shall be made until six months after publication in the Federal Register and transmission to the Congress and to the Armed Services Committees thereof of a notice of the proposed disposition.

The effect of this bill is to permit the immediate disposition of this tannin extract as opposed to the other, which would require a 6 months waiting period.

They are not contradictory. Present law simply requires that before a disposition can be made of anything from the national stockpile, a notice to this effect must be published in the Federal Register, and 6 months after that period of time the disposition can begin, providing that ('ongress has provided its approval.

Now, we have The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, these resolutions Mr. HARDY. Wait a minute. Mr. ARENDS. You want to do it right away? Why don't you and Bill get together on this? Mr. Bates. Mr. Chairman, this year I spoke at the Tanners Council of America. And there was an importer from New York, incidentally, not Massachusetts, who advised me of this problem.

Most of this comes from Italy, and some from France.

This year there is going to be a tremendous shortage of it. And it exists as of now--the month of August.

It will continue for about another year.
Now, they are going to need this during that period.

And it seemed to me that if we could get this on the market now, the Government would get a better price for it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.
Mr. BATES. Because there is a shortage of it.
And in addition to that, it would satisfy the needs of the industry.

It was for that reason that I put in the 4,000 tons for immediate release, rather than to wait until next January, when 6 months is gone by and they haven't it, and therefore the bids for it would not be favorable.

Mr. ARENDS. Would the gentleman from Massachusetts yield?

Can you tell me what the position of Kennedy versus McCormack is on this? Mr. BATES. Well [laughter] The CHAIRMAN. Let's have the GSA here. Is GSA here?

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Mr. Casto is here representing the General Services Administration.

The CHAIRMAN. Come around, please.

Mr. BATEs. Incidentally, I have not heard from anybody from Massachusetts on this.

It is simply New York. Mr. Pike. The chestnut growers are in my district. The CHAIRMAN. May I ask, in respect to this resolution and this bill, 12416, that you give your name to the reporter!

Mr. Casto. I'am George Casto. I am Director of the Project Administration Division of Defense Materials Service, General Services Administration.

This is Mr. Henry Pike, on my left, who is Associate General Counsel of General Services Administration.

And Mr. Wickes on my right, who is a marketing analyst and specialist in chestnut extract.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.
Now, you may proceed, Mr. Casto.

Mr. Často. The General Services Administration supports both the resolution and the bill that has been introduced and would like to point out one slight technical correction in the bill, if we might.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Page 2, line 1.
The CHAIRMAN. Now wait 1 minute.

So the committee can get in their mind, tell exactly what the purpose of the resolution is.

Then tell exactly what the purpose of the bill is.

Mr. Casto. The purpose of the resolution is to authorize the disposal of 12,245 long tons of excess chestnut extract that we presently have in the stockpile.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.
Now we understand that.
Now, then, what is the purpose of the bill?

Mr. Casto. The purpose of the bill is to waive the 6 months' waiting period and to make immediately available for sale upon the passage of the bill, of 4,000 long tons.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now the committee has the purpose of the legislation.

Mr. BATES. And that 4,000 is a portion of the whole?
Mr. Casto. That is correct, it is a portion of the 12,245 tons.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, a portion of the 12,245 tons.
Now what technical error or correction should be made in the bill?

Mr. Casto. It is suggested that the reference to the second sentence of H.R. 12416 to section 5 of the Strategic and Critical Materials and Stockpiling Act be changed to section 2, since revised determinations relating to disposal are made pursuant to section 2.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »