Mr. MUDGE. No, sir. This bill was passed by the House. We have examined the hearings on that, and have discussed the bill with the witnesses from the Department of the Army, and are presenting it to the full committee on that basis. Senator BYRD. Who is to present the bill? Mr. MUDGE. I will. Senator BYRD. Who is to make an explanation? I thought you said someone was here to make an explanation. Mr. MUDGE. I can explain the bill. Senator BYRD. Go ahead. Mr. MUDGE. This camp, Camp Joseph T. Robinson, is located about 5 miles north of Little Rock. It is old Camp Pike, which was a World War I garrison. During World War I, Camp Pike consisted of about 6,600 acres. During World War II it was expanded to 48,000 acres, and was renamed Camp Joseph T. Robinson. After the war it became surplus to the military. Fifteen thousand acres have already been disposed of through the existing law; that is, through the Surplus Property Act of 1944 and through the amendment to the Surplus Property Act of 1944, which this committee approved last year. The remaining part of this reservation, which is 33,000 acres now, and the buildings which are all temporary buildings, that is now under a 5-year lease to the State of Arkansas for National Guard purposes. It has on it a number of temporary buildings, which can take care of about 6,500 troops. All the rest of the construction there, over 8,000 buildings, have already been sold through the War Assets Administration. The State of Arkansas desires to keep the property as a permanent National Guard training area. It desires that because the property is well located within the State and the terrain is suitable for National Guard training. The Department of the Army, to whom the property is surplus for their needs, interposes no objection to this procedure because it takes the position that this will keep the property on a sort of stand-by or mothball status until the Department of the Army should require it again in some future war. Now, special legislation in this case, Mr. Chairman, is necessary if the wishes of the State are to be met, for this reason: In 1948 Public Law 829 was passed, which permitted the Department of the Army actually to convey to States for National Guard purposes property of this kind. But that law, under which this disposal could have been made, has lapsed. It lapsed when the Surplus Property Act became inoperative, and when the new Surplus Property Act became effective in 1949. Therefore, the old general law in the case is no longer applicable and special legislation is required. The bill as it is drawn has three sections. Section 1 authorizes the transfer to the State of the property for the use of the National Guard and other military purposes. It reserves to the United States the mineral rights. Section 2 prescribes that the property must be used for military purposes and provides for its reversion to the United States Government if it should be used for other than military purposes. Such reversion to the United States would include any improvements which the State of Arkansas might make on this property during the time it is in the possession of the State. Senator SALTONSTALL. Is there not something about the airport, an airport going into the city, a public airport, which would be under the Surplus Act? That is as I read that here. Doesn't that come into this? Mr. MUDGE. NO. This area which is outlined here [indicating] is the area which is under lease. The proposal is to transfer this, excepting a block of about-right down here [indicating] in the lower right-hand corner, which is exempted from this transfer, and will be handled as an airport proposition separately. Senator SALTONSTALL. That is all part of the present reservation? Mr. MUDGE. That is correct, Senator. Senator SALTONSTALL. So the Government is going to make two transfers if this bill becomes law, one which would be the part for the National Guard to the State and the other which would be a conveyance under separate deed to the city for a public airport under the Federal airport surplus-property law; is that right? Mr. MUDGE. It saves this portion here from this transfer, so that a future conveyance may be made, but this bill does not do it. The right of the United States to reenter the property in case of emergency is provided for in the bill. That about completes it. Senator BYRD. You have not explained whether it comes within the general plan the committee adopted about transferring these properties. Mr. MUDGE. In my judgment, Mr. Chairman, it does for this reason: that general law heretofore has permitted transfers of these surplus military installations for certain purposes like National Guard or for airports or things of that kind. The committee objected a couple of years ago to conveyances to local communities for parks, recreation areas, and historic monuments. It opposed that; and, as a result, it amended the Surplus Property Act by adding another section, and that section is still operative, but this transaction in our judgment, Mr. Chairman, does not come within what the committee was thinking about. Senator BYRD. It must be used for the National Guard or otherwise it reverts to the Government? Mr. MUDGE. That is correct. Senator BYRD. What is the estimated value of the property? Mr. MUDGE. The real estate cost $700,000. It has some buildings on it. I talked with the commanding officer on the telephone yesterday, got a list of the buildings. They are all these temporary wooden structures, which are adequate in number and composition to take care of about 6,500 troops. Their value right now would be very difficult to determine. It would be rather meaningless because their value would not be anywhere near what they cost to build. Senator BYRD. Your idea is the National Guard is practically part of the armed services and would be getting nearly the same use as the Government? Mr. MUDGE. We feel that was the intent of Congress when it enacted Public Law 829, which was permitted to lapse through the lapse of the Surplus Property Act. Senator BYRD. It is provided in here they cannot use it for any other purpose? Mr. MUDGE. That is right. Senator BYRD. Except National Guard. Mr. MUDGE. That is right. Senator BYRD. I believe the staff recommends an amendment on page 4, cutting out beginning with line 3, deleting "but the Secretary of the Army may, if he deems it in the best interests of the United States, convey to the State of Arkansas all or any of the improvements made by the United States during its occupancy of the property, and if that is omitted, then the property could come under the Surplus Property Act. Mr. MUDGE. The objective is this. That last proviso on page 4 is speaking to this: That if the property is conveyed to the State of Arkansas, then a future war comes along, the Federal Government moves back there, this says it goes back to the State of Arkansas after the war, but then it goes on to say that the Secretary of the Army may transfer to the State any of the buildings that should be built during some future war. The That has been contrary to the policy of the committee. committee has felt that transfers of that type of property should be made under general law and not discretionary with the Secretary at the time; so we would suggest for the committee's consideration they might wish to omit that portion beginning on line 3, where it gives the Secretary of the Army at some future time the right to convey to the State of Arkansas any improvements that the Federal Government might put on this land at some future time. Senator CAIN. The bill as written says that the Federal Government can take it back any time it wants, in substance? Mr. MUDGE. Yes, sir; I believe so. Senator CAIN. Either the Secretary of Defense or the President, by declaring national emergency or Congress by declaring war, and between the three of them they have access to the property at all times. Senator HUNT. This seems to be all within the family, it is now being used for National Guard purposes. In the event of federalizing the National Guard in an emergency, it would continue to be used for the same purpose. I can myself see no reason but what we should approve this piece of legislation. Senator KEFAUVER. May I ask this? Is there any prohibition against the State of Arkansas or the National Guard of Arkansas removing or selling some of the personal property or buildings that might be on the land? Mr. MUDGE. Senator Kefauver, in answering that question, when I discussed this yesterday with the Commanding Officer down there, I said, "Are you people going to take what temporary buildings there are here and sell them off as junk?" He said, "No; all of the surplus buildings have already been sold off, 8,800 of them. What we have left here now is about equivalent to meet our needs." That is one part of the answer. The second is that should the State go in for a selling of this property, it could be regarded as not carrying out the bill, using it for miltary purposes. I believe they could be stopped. Senator KEFAUVER. I know you do not want to put a hard and fast rule about modifications, changes, or replacements, but I think an expression ought to be made in the committee's report as to what they expect to do, that they do not have in mind removing or selling any of the property there. Mr. MUDGE. Yes. Mr. POPE. I would like to put in the appearance of Senator McClellan, who asked me to appear and ask that the bill as amended be passed. I am very familiar with this tract of land, I have driven over and walked over most of it. The permanent buildings, everything practically has been sold that could be sold as surplus property. Central College took over most of the permanent buildings and has a large and thriving college on the grounds. The land itself is suitable practically for nothing else but an objective of this kind. It is foothills of the Ozards, poor land, and can never be used for any purpose except something like this. Its proximity to the city makes it attractive to the Army. Senator BYRD. It is probably worth about $20 or $25 per acre. Senator BYRD. Senator Hunt, what is your pleasure about the amendment on page 4, the middle of line 4, eliminating the words "but the Secretary of the Army may, if he deems it in the best interests of the United States, covey to the State of Arkansas all or any of the improvements made by the United States during its occupancy of the property"? That would put any transfers of property made under the general Surplus Property Act. Senator HUNT. I have no objection to deleting that. Senator BYRD. Do you move the bill be reported with such amend- ́ ment? Senator HUNT. Yes. Senator SALTONSTALL. I second the motion. Senator KEFAUVER. I would like for that expression to be included in the report, not that we think they might sell Senator BYRD. Do you have an amendment you would like to put in? Senator KEFAUVER. Just the committee report. Mr. MUDGE. I believe I understand the Senator's remark. (The committee voted unanimously to report favorably H. R. 3783.) BALBOA, C. Z., SHOPS Senator BYRD. The next is the Balboa, C. Z., shops. Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. Chairman, down at the Canal Zone on the Balboa side they have a shop where they can repair ships up to 300 feet in length, I believe. No, it takes care of them in excess of 300 feet. On the Cristobal side they have a smaller and a less adequate repair shop. The Panama Canal Administration has ordered the closing of the larger shop on the Balboa side. Sometime back Senator Johnson of Colorado visited the Canal Zone and went into the matter and wrote Senator Tydings that he was convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Balboa shop should not be closed. According to the representation, the Balboa shop itself is selfsupporting out of their custom work, from which they make enough to keep the shop going. The Navy Department would have to keep the Balboa shop on this basis anyway, which would be rather expensive. The matter has been brought to our attention also by Mr. Nelson of the machinists union, who has interested himself, along with a number of members of the International Association of Machinists. I believe Mr. Nelson is here. Now, the way it appears to me, Mr. Chairman, is that the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army are now studying the matter about whether the shop should be closed or not, but the present order of the Panama Canal Administration is they are scheduled to close on April 15. I think the committee should ask that they hold up the closing of the shop until a subcommittee of this committee has time to go into the matter and until the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army complete the study they are now making. because certainly good representations and good reasons can be put forward for continuing the operation of the shop on the Balboa side. Senator BYRD. Is that a part of the general plan of economy of Secretary Johnson? Senator KEFAUVER. Apparently it is, but I really do not see the economy in this, if they are going to keep the shop on the Balboa side in a stand-by condition, that will be expensive, it is now selfsustaining, and if they move all this work to the Cristobal side, it will require an enlargement. Senator BYRD. It occurred to me there are a lot of such conditions all over the country, I have a number of them in my State, where if we asked the Secretary of National Defense to hold these matters up, it would be—— Senator KEFAUVER. I would say a time limit ought to be set for the completion of the study and any action that will be taken by the committee. I would ask leave for Mr. Nelson to make a brief statement or perhaps Mr. Chambers, who has studied the matter in great detail. Senator CAIN. May I ask one question? What is the relationship between the Canal Zone Commission-I think you used that wordSenator KEFAUVER. Administration. Senator CAIN. And the Department of Defense? Senator KEFAUVER. Well, the Canal Zone Administration is a Government corporation. Senator CAIN. It is not within the Department of Defense? Senator CAIN. You say the Canal Zone Administration has decreed this Army installation will be closed? Senator KEFAUVER. Am I correct? Mr. CHAMBERS. Practically so, sir. The Panama Canal is a separate entity and the Secretary of the Army is actually the head of the Panama Canal Administration, but this reduction in the shops, Senator Byrd, is not a part of Secretary Johnson's economy program. It is, however, according to the Panama Canal Administration, a result of the decrease in workload within the Canal Zone. I would say that is a part of their effort to bring about economy within the Canal Zone, but it has no part in Secretary Johnson's program. There are very strong arguments advanced Senator BYRD. What appropriation pays for this expense? |