1702 Volume 35, Fifty-etghth Congress, first, second, and third sessions, including special session of the Senate convened on March 4, 1905. Volume 36, Fifty-ninth Congress, first ses- sion. Volume 37, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session. Volume 38, Sixtieth Congress, first session. Volume 39, Sixtieth Congress, second ses- sion, including the special session of the Senate convened on March 4, 1909. Volume 40, Sixty-first Congress, first ses- sion, Volume 41, Sixty-first Congress, second session. Volume 42, Sixty-first Congress, third session. Volume 43, Sixty-second Congress, first session. Volume 44, Sixty-second Congress, secoud session. Volume 45, Sixty-second Congress, third session Volume 46, Sixty-third Congress, first session, including special session of the Senate convened on March 4, J913. Volume 48, Sixty-third Congress, session. Volume 50, Sixty-fourth Congress, second session, Volume 52, Sixty-fifth Congress, second session, including separate index. Volume 53, Sixty-fifth Congress, session. Volume 55, Sixty-sixth Congress, second session. Volume 56, Sixty-sixth Congress, third ses- sion, including separate index. Volume 57, Sixty-seventh Congress, special session of the Senate convened March 4, 1921. Volume 69, Sixty-seventh Congress, second session, including separate index. Volume 60, Sixty-seventh Congress, third session. Volume 64, Sixty-ninth Congress, first session, including special session of the Senate convened March 4, 1925, including separate index. Volume 66, Seventieth Congress, first ses- sion, including separate index. Volume 68, Seventy-first Congress, first Session, including special session of Congress convened March 4, 1925, including separate index. Volume 70, Seventy-first Congress, special session of the Senate convened July 7, 1930. Volume 71, Seventy-first Congress, third session. Volume 174, Seventy-third Congress, first session, including special session of the Sen- ate convened March 4, 1933. Volume 75, Seventy-third Congress, second session, including separate index. Volume 76, Seventy-fourth Congress, first session. Volume 77, Seventy-fourth Congress, sec- ond session. Volume 178, Seventy-fifth Congress, first session. Volume 79, Seventy-fifth Congress, second session. Volume 80, Seventy-fifth Congress, third session. Volume 81, Seventy-sixth Congress, first session. Volume 82, Seventy-sixth Congress, third seesion, including separate index. Volume 83, Seventy-seventh Congress, first session. Volume 84, Seventy-seventh Congress, sec- ond session. Volume 85, Seventy-elghth Congress, first session. Volume 86, Seventy-eighth Congress, sec- ond session. Volume 87, Seventy-ninth Congress, first session. Volume 88, Seventy-ninth Congress, second session, including sepurate indox. Volume 8&9, Eightieth Congress, first session, including separate indexes. third third CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Volume 90, Eightieth Congress, second ses- sion, including separate indexes. SEc. 2. The Executive Journals of the Sen- ate (except the original and file copies), toe gether with indexes, for the following years, shall, when printed, be disposed of by the Secretary as provided in the first paragraph of this resolution; an.!|, when printed, the injunction of secrecy now in effect upon any of such documents is removed: Volume 47, Sixty-third Congress, second session, Volume 49, Sixty-fourth Congress, first ses- slon, including separate index. Volume 51, Sixty-fifth Congress, first ses- sion, including special session of the Senate convened On March 6, 1917. Volume 64, Sixty-sixth Congress, first ses- sion, including separate index. Volume 58, Sixty-seventh Congress, first session, including separate index. Volume 61, Sixty-seventh Congress, fourth session. Volume 62, Sixty-eighth Congress, first ses- sion, including separate index. Volume 63, Sixty-eighth Congress, second session. Volume 65, Sixty-ninth Congress, second session. Volume 67, Seventieth Congress, second session. Volume 69, Seventy-first Congress, second session, including separate index. Volume 72, Seventy-second Congress, first session, including separate index. Volume 73, Seventy-second Congress, sec- ond session. Volume 91, Eighty-first Congress, first ses- sion, with part of index. Sec. 3. Hereafter, not more than 50 copies of the Executive Journal for a session of the Congress, including the documents desig- nated in the foregoing section, shall be printed. ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL FOR COMMIT- TEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, from the Committee on Rules and Administra- tion, I report favorably, with amend- ments, Senate Resolution 215, sub- mitted on January 19, 1950, by the Sena- tor from Utah [Mr. Tuomas], and re- ported by the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and subsequently referred to the Committee on Rules and Adminis- tration, and I submit a report (No. 1264) thereon. I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the resolution. The VICE PRESIDENT. jection? There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution. The amendments of the Committee on Rules and Administration were, on page 1, line 2, after the word “authorized”, to Strike out “until otherwise provided by law” and insert “until Feiruary 15, 1951”; and in line 3, after the word “one”, to strike out “analyst” and insert “addi- tional professional staff member”, so as to make the resolution read: Resolved, That the Committce on Labor and Public Welfare is authorized until Feb- ruary 15, 1951, to employ one additional pro- fessional staff member and one additional clerical assistant to be paid from the contin- gent fund of the Senate at rates of compensa- tion to be fixed by the chairman tn accord- ance with section 202 (3) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 and the provisions of Public Law 4, Eightieth Congreas, ap- proved February 19, 1947. The amendments were agreed to. The resolution, as amended, was agreed to. Is there ob- FEBRUARY 9 CONTINUATION OF INVESTIGATION OF BANKING AND CREDIT LEGISLATION Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, from the Committee on Rules and Administra- tion, I report favorably, without amend- ment, Senate Resolution 218, and I sub- mit a report (No. 1265) thereon. I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the resolution. Let me say that of $60,000 allowed by the Senate a year ago to the Banking and Currency Committee for investigation of the problems relating to banking and credit legislation, small business, and economic stabilization, approximately $35,000 has not been expended. The resolution, if agreed to, will allow the Committee on Banking and Currency to use the unexpended balance for the same purposes for which the appropriation heretofore has been made. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the present consideration of the resolution? There being no objection, the resolu- tion (S. Res. 218) submitted by Mr. May- BANK on January 23, 1950, and reported by the Commiitee on Banking and Cur- rency, and subsequently referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration, was considered and agreed to, as follows: Resolved, That the authority of the Com- mittee on Banking and Currency, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, un- der Senate Resolution 101, Eighty-first Con- gress, agreed to May 6, 1949 (providing for an investigation of problems relating to banking and credit legislation, small busi- ness and economic stabilization), is hereby continued until February 15, 1951. ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION PRESENTED The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, February 9, 1950, he pre- sented to the President of the United States the following enrolled bills and Joint resolution: 8.570. An act for the relief of Donald Francis Wierda; 8.736. An act for the reimbursement of Puget Sound Bridge & Dredging Co; 8.763. An act for the relief of Sisters An- toinette Cometti, Mary Gibin, Angela Pelo- sin, Emma Ghisleni, Elisabetta De Caterin and Onorina Franzina; 8.777. An act for the relief of Calvin D. Lynch & Son; W. Thomas Lockerman; Sud- lersville Supply Co.; George C. Moore and H. A. Moore; J. McKenny Willis & Son, Inc.; Hobbs & Jarman; C. 5. Thomas; and Royse R. Spring; 8.1003. An act for the relief of Emory T. Wales; 8 1019. An act conferring jurisdiction upon the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to hear, determine, and render judgment upon any claim arising out of personal injuries sus- tained by Carl J. Freund and Pauline H. Freund, his wife, of Seattle, Wash.; 8.1048. An act for the relief of Saul Phillips; S. 1054. An act for the relief of Northwest Missour! Fair Association, of Bethany, Har- rison County, Mo; 8.1088. An act for the relief of Milton Bucchler; § 1096 An act for the relief of Abe Lin- coln and Elena B. Lincoln; 8.1166. An act for the relief of Toriko Tateuchi; 8.1353. An act for the relief of G. H. Lag- arus, Jr., and Jesse F. Bewley; 8.1446. An act for the relief of James Hung Loo;
1950 8.1584. An act far the relief of Harry Comber; 8.1702. An act for the relief of Riyoko Bato; 8.1801. An act for the relief of Mrs. Effie 8. Campbell; 8.1915. An act for the relief of Niktor A. Kravchenko; 8.1924. An act for the relief of the estate of William Walter See; §. 2031. An ect for the relief of the Willow River Power Co.; 8.2100. An act for the relief of Penelope Corolyn Cox; 8.2114. An act for the relief of Mitsue Shigeno; 8.2119. An act for the relief of the Alamo Irrigation Co.; and 8. J. Res. 105. Joint resolution to provide unrestricted entry privileges for Sister Eliza- beth Kenny. BILLS INTRODUCED Bills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows: By Mr. HENDRICKSON: 8.3015. A bill for the relief of Walter Tyson; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. DOUGLAS: 8 3016. A bill for the relief of Adele M. Steffensen; to the Committee on the Judi- ciary By Mr. HILL: 5.3017. A bill for the relief of Sgt James C. Hollon and Bessie L Hollon; and 6.8018. A bill for the relief of W. F. Steiner; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. CAIN: , S.3019. A bill to change the name of Ice Harbor Dam, Lower Monumental Dam, Little Goose Dam, and Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River to the Whitman lock and Dam, Lewis lock and Dam, Clark lock and Dam, and the Spalding lock and Dam, respec- tively, and for other purposes; to the Com- mittee on Public Works. By Mr. HOLLAND (for himself and Mr. PEPPER) : S. 3020. 4 bill to provide for the collection and publication of statistics concerning, and the establishment of standards, grades, and classifications for, naval stores; to provide an inspection service therefor; to prevent de- ception in transactions therein, to regulate traffic therein, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. EXTENSION OF FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND’ SURVIVORS INSURANCE SYSTEM— AMENDMENTS Mr. IVES submitted amendments in- tended to be proposed by him to the bill (H. R. 6000) to extend and improve the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insur- ance System, to amend the public as- sistance and child-welfare provisions of the Social Security Act, and for other purposes, which were referred to the Committee on Finance and ordered to be printed. STATEMENT BY SENATOR SMITH OF MAINE ON SOCIAL SECURITY AND OLD- AGE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM [Mrs. SMITH of Maine asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Reconp a state- ment made by hter before the Committee on Finance on the subject of social security and the old-age assistance program, which appears in the Appendix.] THE GREAT LAKES WATERWAY MUST BE COMPLETED—STATEMENT BY SENATOR WILEY [Mr. WILEY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recoxp a statement pre- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE pared by him on the subject of the vital necessity of completing the Great Lakes Waterway, which appears in the Appendix.] ADDFESS BY REPRESENTATIVE BOLTON BEFORE THE WOMEN’S CLUB OF RICH- MOND, VA. {Mr. ROBERTSON asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp the ad- dress delivered by Representative FRANCEs P. Botton of Ohio, before the Women’s Club of Richmond, Va., on January 9, 1950, together with a news item appearing in the Richmond Times Dispatch of January 5, 1960, announc- ing the address, which appear in the Ap- pendix.] PROPOSED EXTENSION OF FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY ACT [Mr. HENDRICKSON asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp the statement by John J. Goff, chairman, Com- mittee of Associated Pension Funds of New Jersey, in opposition to the enactment of House bill 6000, in its present form, and a resolution adopted by the Legisiature of New Jersey on March 23, 1942, dealing with the same subject, which appear in the Appen- dix.) BLUEPRINT FOR A BETTER AMERICA— POLICY STATEMENT BY NEW YORK YOUNG REPUBLICAN CLUB (Mr. IVEE asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp the conclusion from a policy statement entitled ‘Blueprint for a Better America,” by the New York Young Republican Club, which appears in the Appendix. ] NATION WAS ECONOMICAL WHEN THE PEOPLE INSISTED—ARTICLE BY HER- MAN A. LOWE {[Mr. MARTIN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article en- titled “Nation Was Economical When the Peuple Insisted,” written by Herman A. Lowe, and published in the Philadelphia Inquirer of January 21, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.) SUPERSONIC RAM-JET ENGINES—ARTI- CLE BY ANSEL E, TOLBERT (Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina asked and obtained leave to have printed in the RecorpD an article with regard to supersonic ram-jet engines, written by Ansel E. Tolbert, and published in the New York Herald Trib- une of February 2, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] GORDON GRAY, AN ENLIGHTENED PUB- LIC SERVANT—EDITORIAL FROM THE WASHINGTON POST (Mr. KEFAUVER asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial entitled “North Carolina’s Gain,” from the Washington Post of February 9, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] NOTICE OF HEARING ON 8. 2912, TO PRO- TECT TRADE AND COMMERCE AGAINST UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS BY LABOR ORGANIZATIONS Mr. O’'CONOR. Mr. President, on be- half of the Committee on the Judiciary, I desire to give notice that a public hear- ing has been scheduled for Thursday, February 16, 1950, at 10 a. m., in room 424, Senate Office Building, on 8S. 2912, to protect trade and commerce against unreasonable restraints by labor organi- zations, At the indicated time and place all persons interested in this legislation may appear and make such representa- tions a8 may be pertinent. The subcom- mittee consists of the Senator from Mis- sissippi {Mr. Eastranp], chairman, the 1703 Senator from Maryland {Mr. O’Conon}, and the Senator from Missouri [(Mr. DONNELL]. LEAVES OF ABSENCE On his own request, and by unani- mous consent, Mr. YOUNG was excused from attendance on the sessions of the Senate on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of next week. On his own request, and by unanimous consent, Mr. SALTONSTALL was excused from attendance on the sessions of the Senate from tomorrow through Tuesday of next week. On his own request, and by unanimous consent, Mr. IvEs was excused from at- tendance on the sessions of the Senate on Monday and Tuesday of next week. On his own request, and by unanimous consent, Mr. HENDRICKSON was excused from attendance on the session of the Senate on Monday next, On his own request, and by unanimous consent, Mr. SCHOEPPEL was excused from attendance on the sessions of the Senate from tomorrow noon until noon of Thursday next. At his own request, and by unanimous consent, Mr. MILLIKIN was excused from attendance on the sessions of the Senate beginning today and continuing through February 21. On request of Mr. SALTONSTALL, and by unanimous consent, Mr. TOBEY was ex- cused from attendance on the sessions of the Senate from today until Monday, February 20, 1950. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, there seems to be an unusual number of unanimous-consent requests on the part of our friends on the other side of the aisle, to be absent from the sessions of the Senate for a while. Mr. WILEY. The Senator is not sur- prised, is he? Mr. LUCAS. Iam a little bit surprised. It must be that fences are down in some sections of the country. I presume they need mending, and I am not going to ob- ject to any of the requests. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I am confident that the Members of the Senate on this side of the aisle will feel the same way toward Members of the Senate on the other side of the aisle who have their fences down, and who will make requests to be absent to attend Jackson-Jeffcr- son Day dinners. Mr. LUCAS. Iappreciate the coopera- tive spirit shown by the Senator from Massachusetts. I wish to say to him and to my other good friends on the other side of the aisle, that we believe our fences are in pretty good shape, and we are not in the least going to try to mend them in a week’s time, as Senators on the Republican side seem to be attempting to do. Mr, WILEY. The Senator is not bragging, is he? Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin for a question. Mr. WILEY. The Senator is not bragging, is he? Mr. LUCAS. I do not know whether that is a question or not, but if we are
1704 bragging, I do not believe I would col- laborate with the Senator from Wis- consin. F. DUWAYNE BLANKLEY The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (8. 1604) con- ferring jurisdiction upon the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to hear, determine, and render Judgment upon the claim of F. DuWayne Blankley, which was, on page 1, line 6. after “Mexico”, to insert “((1) on the question of liability of the Government and (2) on the question of the amount of the recovery).” Mr. McCARRAN. I move that the Senate concur in the House amendment. Mr. SALTONSTALL, Mr. President, will the Senator state for the benefit of the Recorp briefly what the amendment proposes? Mr. McCARRAN. The amendment is, on page 1, line 6, after the word “Mex- ico”, to insert “((1) on the question of Hability of the Government and (2) on the question of the amount of the re- covery).” The effect of the amendment is that the court may make a decision respecting the two questions. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Nevada. The motion was agreed to. JOYCE VIOLET ANGEL The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 485) for the rehef of Joyce Violet Angel, which was, to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: That, in the administration of the immi- gration and naturalization laws, Miss Joyce Violet Angel, of Zephyrhills, Fla., shall be held and considered to have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on November 5, 1949, the date of her lawful entry into the United States upon the payment by her of a visa fee of $10 and a head tax of $8. Src. 2 Upon the enactment of this act, the Secretary of State is authorized and directed to instruct the proper quota-control officer to deduct one number from the nonpreference category from the first available immigration quota for Egypt. Mr. McCARRAN. I move that the Senate concur in the amendment of the T’ouse. The motion was agreed to. CALL OF THE ROLL Mr. LUCAS. I suggest the absence of ® quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Benton George Johnston,8 C. Bricker Gillette Kefauver Byrd Creen Kem Cain Gurney Kerr Chapman Hayden Kilgore Chavez Hendrickson Knowland Connally Hickenlooper Leshy Cordon Hill Lohman Darby Hoey Lodge Dougias Holland Lucas Downey Humphrey McCarran Ecton Hunt McClellan Ellender Ives McFarland Flanders Jenner McKellar Frear Johnson, Colo, McMahon Fulbright Johnson, Tex. Megnuson CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Martin Roberteon Thomas, Okla. Maybank Russell Thomas, Utah Millikin Saltonstall Tobey Mundt Schoeppel Tydings Murray Smith, Maine Watkins Neely Sith, N.J. Wiley O'Conor Sparkman Withers O'Mahoney Stennis Young Pepper Taylor Mr. LUCAS. Lannounce that the Sen- ator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Lone], and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Myers!) are absent on public business. The Senator from Mississippi (Mr. EasTLanb! is absent on official business. The Senator from North Carolina | Mr. GraHam] is absent by leave of the Senate on official business. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. AIKEN], the Senator from Indiana |Mr. CapE- HaRTJ, the Senator from Missouri | Mr. DONNELL) the Senator from Idaho | Mr. DworsnHak], the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Fercuson], the Senator from North Dakota {Mr. LANGER!I, and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr, THye! are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Maine {Mr. Brew- ster], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Tarr], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Van- DENBcRG], and the Senator from Nebras- ka [Mr. WHERRY! are necessarily absent. The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. But- LER], the Senator from Nevada [Mr, Ma- LONE], the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. McCartuy] the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morse], and the Senator from Delaware |[Mr. WILLIAMS] are absent on Official business. The Senator from New Hampshire {Mr. Bripcrs] is absent because of ill- ness. The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is present, NOMINATIONS REPORTED AND CONFIRMED Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, from the Armed Services Committee, I report sundry routine nominations in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. They are reported unanimously by the Armed Services Committee. I ask unanimous consent for their immediate consideration. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say that as a member of the committee, I know that the action of the committee on these nominations was unanimous The nominations are promotions, and they have laid on the table the required length of time. Is not that correct? Mr. TYDINGS. That is correct. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I have no ob- jection. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the present consideration of the nominations? The Chair hears none and the nominations are consid- ered and confirmed and, without objec- tion, the President will be immediately notified of the confirmations. CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN MILITARY AND NAVAL INSTALLATIONS The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S, 2440) to authorize certain construction at military and naval in- stallations, and for other purposes, FEBRUARY 9 Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, when Senate bill 2440 came before the Senate for consideration a few days ago, numer- ous Senators asked questions about cer- tain phases of the bill. Because the bill had been acted on in committee almost 8 months ago, the Senator from Mary- land, in charge of the bill, had become a little rusty on some of the testimony. Obviously, a multitude of items have been handled over that period of time. This bill is rather comprehensive, and contains scores of items of various kinds. I should like to tell the Senate that the subcommittee which considered the bill sat for about a month and went into each one of the projects very, very care- fully. When the subcommittee con- cluded its hearings, the full committee considered the bill; and so it comes to the Senate, Botween the time of the colloquy be- tween myself and other Senators and to- day, I have had an opportunity, in line with the questions then askcd, to develop and bring to the Senate the iniormation which I was at a loss to furnish accu- ratcly the other day because of the long time which had elapsed and because some of the questions were not immediately answerable at that time. So today I wish to read a statement which in a general way will clear up some of the thins about which ques- tions were asked the other day; and then, of course, I shall be glad to submit to additional interrogation, if I have not fully cleared up the matters in dispute. At the time when Senate bill 2440, the military construction authorization bill, was considered by the Senate late one afternoon last week, I made a brief state- ment in explanavion of the bill. Since relatively few Senators were present and heard that explanation, I shall review very briefly the main provisions of the bill. In addition, I have reread the Con- GRESSIONAL ReEcorD of the previous dis- cussion on this bill, and I shall attempt to answer more fully the questions that were asked at that time. I hope Sena- tors who are interested in this bill will remain, 1n order that it may be disposcd of without undue delay. This bill was reported unanimously by the Senate Armed Services Committee on August 15, 1949, after complete hear- ings betore the full commitice. In my opinion, this is one of the most important bills which the Department of Defense will ask the Congress to pass on during this session, because this bill authorizes the construction of additions to the phys- ical plant which will enable the military to meet their responsibility at a time when world conditions are far from tran- quil and serene. This bill authorizes the construction of specific public works facilities re- quired by the Department of Defense at military installations in the continental United istates and at overseas locations, and the appropriation of funds to carry out these projects. This bill, which includes projects for the three services, represents the first unified construction legislation developed and presented by the Department of De- fense. Heretofore the Army, which then included the Army Air Corps ard the Navy have submitted separate public-
1950 works bills, each—that is, the Army and the Navy, including the Army Air Corps—developed without 1egard to the other. The various projects in tae bill were carefully screened in the office of the Secretary of Defense before submis- sion to thc Congress. The paragraph I am now reading is important, to show the screening this matter had before it came to the committee. The Research and Development Board reviewed all re- search and development facilities proj- ect to insure that each is critically re- quired, that there is no duplication, and that full use can be made of each facility projected. The Joint Chief of Staffs re- viewed the projects to determine their strategic and operational necessity, and the Chairman of the Munitions Board, as the personal representative of the Sec- retary of Defense, integrated the highest priority projects into a facilities-con- struction program, which was submitted to the Congress. As reported to the Senate, the bill pro- vided a total monetary authorization of $635,000,000. It will be recalled that near the end of the first session of the present Congress in 1949, when it was apparent that S. 2440 would not be enacted prior to adjournment, at the urgent request of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, some of the authorizations pro- vided in this bill for Alaska and Okinawa were submitted in a new bill, which was promptly enacted by the Congress and became Public Law 420. Thus, author- izations amounting to $115,000,000 for Alaska and Okinawa, included in this bill, have already been provided. In addition, the Secretary of Defense has recently reviewed 8S. 2440, and he recom- mends reductions and deletions in the amount of $20,000,000. The Armed Services Committee recently considered the Secretary’s recommendations, and reported to the Senate an amendment fn the nature of a substitute, which eliminates the authorizations already provided for Alaska and Okinawa, and, in addition, the reductions recommended by the Secretary of Defense. There are no new projects added to the bill. I em- phasize that statement. The total mone- tary authorization as provided in the amended bill is slightly less than $500,- 000,000. It is not the intent of the De- partment of Defense to request the appropriation of this total amount for the next fiscal year. Funds will be re- quested for those most urgently needed, and the balance will be requested in future years, allowing the services to plan their permanent construction in an orderly manner. Of the total $500,000,000 authorization, approximately $90,000,000 is recom- mended for research and development facilities, which, in addition to the build- ings, includes the required power and the highly technical machines and de- vices required by our scientists to con- tinue their progress. Their accomplish- ments will determine the weapons of any future conflict, and the amount re- quested in this bill may be small in con- sideration of the amount that might have to be spent for weapons should we have delay. We all know what the exigent production of new weapons costs in time of great emergency; therefore CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE I feel that every dollar we are spending for research and development now, in order that we may get the latest weapons before any conflict—and I hope none will ever come—and provide an orderly pro- gram for their production, will to any business mind, prove to be an economical and saving way to proceed. Housing for military personnel is still the most criti- cal need of all the services. Recently, the Washington Post carried pictures of housing conditions of Marines and their families in nearby Quantico, and I have a@ group of pictures on my desk depict- ing military personnel and their families existing in hovels that in many places would not pass for squatters’ shacks. I hope Senators who are interested in the program will come by my desk, where Colonel Galusha has probably 50 or 60 photographs, and see some of the con- ditions under which the men of the armed services even close to Washington are now living, to say nothing of the conditions elsewhere, which in my judg- ment are much worse. I recently asked the services for a re- port on housing being constructed under the Wherry bill enacted during the first session, which I joined in sponsoring. The report indicates that to date the services have certified to the FHA a total of 11,792 units. Proposals have been received and are now under considera- tion, or are being received, for an addi- tional 51,806 units. Additionally, there are 65 projects of varying sizes under consideration. The housing for which authorization is provided in the bill is to fill part of requirements of the services which can- not be provided under the Wherry bill. This unsatisfied requirement is in the non-commissioned officer and junior officer group with large families. Hous- ing in this bill will help to fill the gaps left where Wherry-Tydings housing is constructed, at isolated stations, at over- seas stations, and at stations with only a small requirement. Approximately $113,858,400 is proposed for authoriza- tion for family housing; $20,056,600 for the construction of barracks for unmar- ried personnel. Section 404 provides that family quar- ters constructed under the authority of the bill shall not exceed 1,080 square feet per unit. This is the smallest unit nor- mally provided for mulitary personnel, and is ordinarily assigned to non-com- missioned officers or civilian employees. This provision is included in the bill in order to provide the maximum number of units for the money authorized. When military housing becomes less critical and less costly, it is anticipated that funds will be requested for a limited number of larger type quarters. Section 405 provides that the cost per family unit shall not exceed $14,000 which cost will include a kitchen range, refrigerator, telephone, architectural and engineering services and all con- tingencies, and further that the cost per family unit shall not exceed $2,500 for site development and outside utilities, including architectural and engineering services and all contingencies. Outside of the United States the above limita- tions may be increased not to exceed 100 percent. 1705 I am informed by the responsible of- ficers of the three services that these figures were arrived at from a careful study of cost figures on housing con- structed under similar authorization passed by the Eightieth Congress, but which did not contain a monetary limi- tation on the cost of the unit, I have brought into the Senate Chamber some architectural drawings and floor plans of the housing it is proposed to con- struct under this bill. These buildings are two-story, with a basement, and or- dinarily each building will contain eight units. Each unit generally consists of a full basement, a living room, a dining alcove and kitchen on the first floor, with three bedrooms and bath on the second floor. Plans have been prepared in colonial, Spanish, and modern archi- tecture to permit selection of a type most suitable to individual stations. Al- though the space providec in various locations will be the same, the wall con- struction will vary in order to blend with surrounding architecture and to take advantage of savings due to geographi- cal locations and local materials. As will be noted from the drawings, these multiple units are of simple de- sign, and I am assured that costly mate- rials and embellishments are being avoided. Heating plants are located in individual units or are central for each building, depending upon which method is most economical. Inexpensive laun- dry tubs are provided in the basement of individual units. The estimated cost of the house con- sists of the basic contract price with utility lines extending to 5 feet from the exterior wall. It also includes a cook- ing range, refrigerator, and the propor- tionate share of the area telephone sys- tem to be installed, which normally amounts to $300, The cost also includes the individual hot-water heater, where applicable, and the proportionate cost of the heating plant where such plant is an integral part of the eight-family row house. The components of the estimate of $2,500 unit cost for site development and outside utilities are extensions of gas, or steam, where applicable; water, sanitary sewerage, storm drains, and electric sys- tems into housing areas, and distribu- tion lines from mains to a distance of 5 feet from each structure; clearing of the site where necessary; grading and drain- age; sodding, seeding, or sprigging where necessary; and roads and walks. Thus, there may be a wide variation in this cost, depending on the distance utility lines, roads, and so forth, have to be ex- tended. The cost of land acquisition is not in- cluded in this limitation. Generally mil- itary housing is placed on land already a part of the military reservation. In those rare cases where additional land is re- quired, a separate item is included in the justification furnished to the committee, and detailed explanation is given. In the cost of the house and the cost of site preparation and utilities there is included the item of Government costs. The components of this latter item in- clude design, preparation of plans and specifications, advertising, administra- tion and inspection of the contract work,
1706 and fiscal and cost accounting as required by laws and regulations. During fiscal year 1949 the Army and the Air Force requested bids on 1,530 units which are similar in size and design with units which it is proposed to build under the authority of this bill. I have an analysis of the cost of the construction of these 1.530 units. These units were constructed in all parts of the country, Army and Air Force family housing consthuction program, continental United States, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE contracts being awarded as a result of bids received from 4 to 23 bidders. The avcrage number of bidders for each proj- ect was 10. The contract price for the construction of the house alone, includ- ing range, refrigerator, and telephone connections, varies from $16,580 to $9,684, and the costs for site development and outside utilities vary from $6,125 to $672 per unit. The total cost for the FEBRUARY 9 completed unit varics from $24,650 per unit to $12,114, and the average total cost of the entire country is $15,036 I ask unanimous consent that ithe com- plete table from which I have read ex- tracts may be placed in the Recorp at this point. There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the ReEcorp, as follows: standaid row houses, fiscal year 1949 House onty, Percent | oie e tase Une ne outside Date awarded | Number | Number ineludinys” | °° de OF etn utilities por | Total proicet Location ol of of House only | range, vetnie- | UGG aan, | fe lephone , leontingencies,| cost pet opened units bidders erator, and ment contingencies,| and Govern amit telephone estimate Government | ment costs costs West Point, NOY lie--22 0-2 ------2- eee eee ee Nov th 1dts 56 4 $15 980 $1G S80 -10 $15, 525 46, 126 $24,690 Fout MePher son, Gale. Mar 1, 1449 ot 10 12, $73 12,975 -10 14, 4 J, Wb 15, 628 Camp Detnek, Md_ oe. Mir 21, L040 os A) 12,050 Te, best -i4 14, 168 2,014 16, 786, Fort Brayg, No Cll wee eee Apr 19, 1a v2 15 10, $37 10,937 = 12, 218 1, 596 13,808 Fort Knox Wy - At 22,1010 1 8 Volo 11, 456 20 14,062 1, 306 15, 008 kort Googe G Meade, X _-| May 10,1949 As Mt Lots 1,1) 7 12, 757 2,619 15, 376 Anny Chenileal CO enter, Md - ..| May to, 1919 “4 & I, wt 11,719 -11 13,127 3" 14, 560 Vint Hill Farms, Va- May 27, Wo 40 b 10, 705 11,310 —tL 12,070 14, 860. Fort Benning, Gu oe. May 31,1040 ») 4 YO Ost Q ORF 22 10, 819 32, 660 Fout Sheridan, Fo. 20 Le-e----e eee wee ee eee Muy 11,1040 & o 14, 642 14, 342 -3 17,140 19,556 Fort Hanmaiten, N Yo we eee ee ee eee - June 1, 1049 a 1 V3, Mu 13, 404 2 VM, 975 Vo 651 Fort Sill Okla, 20 222-222-222 0 -- eee eee .| May 31, 1019 3 1s 1,719 12,019 -1b 1G, 120 1, 336 Camp Lee, Va Lee eee. oe eee ee eee ce eee ee eee June « x 11009 11,609 -7 11107 16, 470 Fort Lewas, Wash. . June 29, id 10 10, 84S 11, O58 —3! 12,018 14, 727 Firzsuuons Gener al Mospita Color June ct & W745 Thole -Y 1b, 218 1d, 887 Camp Hood, Tex. - June Iah ny) 10,044 10, 710 -2) 11,996 12, 749 Two Rock Ranch, ‘Calif. 1 s 1,04 Ja, 439 -16 18, 402 17,016 Presidio of San Franeisco, Calif. Ib 4 12, 954 1365p —10 14, 267 1b, 137 Fort Riles, Kans. 220 2 Llane eee eee ---- s) 10 12 4° 13 07 +15 14,543 18, 081 Andrews A Force Base, Md. o_o 120 bh 12,470 1, 140 —2 14, 698 16, 950 Chanute Att Foree Base, TE 22 db 4 15,125 18, 790 -—5 17,650 25, 000 Selfridge Aw Force Base, Mh 40 v 18, O44 13, OW -1 15, 160 Jb, SOL Tachland Air boree Base O41 1 1 RRS W509 27 12, 849 14, 132 Carswell, Air Force By 136 10 Y, 725 10,337 aa oo) 11,540 1 coo 12, 449 Beestiom Aa Poree Bas wy ---dOl.2 2. 2 23 nS yy, na —Ih 11,171 vas 12,114 Randolph An bore Base, Tey. o.22-2-2- - 0 ------ doo... 2. 0) 10 10, 757 VW 330 —Ib 12,658 1,763 14, 121 Averave of projects awarded ...2.-------.------| ------------- 1, 580 10 11, 225 VW, 8OS {i.e Ll lle 13, 271 J, 765 1h, 036 Mr. TYDINGS. The chart on the easel lists six typical locations at which during this previous year, each service has constructed iamily housing of the same type and size which is proposed to be built under this bill. The prices are shown for each location. They are not the highest, nor are they the lowest costs encountered in building these quar- ters in various sections of the country. It is a very interesting chart, showing buildings for the Army, for the Navy, and for the Air Force, the number of units built for each one of the thrce services which are encompassed in the chart, how many bidders there were for each of the jobs encompassed in the chart, the average cost of the housing to be built at the respective and desig- nated Jocations, the average cost of the utilities installed in each of the locations, and the average cost of the completed house for each of the locations se- lected by the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. It is very interesting to note that at Fort Bragg, N. C., where 32 units were built, there were 15 bidders, the average cost of building the 32 houses was $12,219, and the average cost of bringing the utilities and connecting them with the newly built houses was $1,596 for each house. The units which are pictured are typical units, and the chart to which I am referring shows a row of two-story houscs of quite mod- est character. The average cost of build- ing these 32 houses was $13,815, com- plete. Going all the way across the country, 16 units were built at the Presidio, San Francisco, Calif, There were only four bidders on these houses. The average cost for each house was $15,257. The average cosv of installing the utilities was $880, and the total average cost of the completed houses at the Presidio, in San Francisco, as a result of open bidding for modest three-story row houses, was $16,137. I have referred to the houses built for the Army at Fort Bragg, N. C., and at the Presidio, in San Francisco, Let us now look at the housing for the Navy and see how the program worked out. There were 16 units built at Dahlgren, in Virginia, close to Washington. There were only two bidders on the contract. When the job was completed the aver- age cost was $14,158. The average cost of bringing utilities, such as water, sew- erage, electricity, and the like, to each of the houses, and connecting them, clearing the site, grading, and so forth, was $2,636, making a total cost of build- ing those modest houses, having only two stories and only 1,080 feet of floor space, of $16,794. Now let us go across the country again to where the Navy had another building project, at White Sands, N. Mex. At that place 55 houses were built, and there were 14 bidders, quite a substantial competi- tion. The cost of building those houses at White Sands, N. Mex., where I imagine the climate would lend itself somewhat to economy, although transportation might defeat that to some extent, Was $11,908 for the house alone, and $2,212 the cost of grading, site clearance, water. gas, Sewerage, or whatever was necessary to make those properties habitable. The combined cost of the house and the utalities in White Sands, N. ‘Mex, as de- scribed, was $14,120 for the completed construction. Now let us see what the Air Force ex- perience was. The Air Force needed rather a large operation at a place called Carswell, in the State of Texas. There the Alr Force desired to build 136 units, and there were ten bidders on the job, quite a substantial number. The average cost of the houses built at Carswell, Tex , for the Air Force was $11,549. The average cost for the utilities hereinbefore referred to in my remarks was $1,000. So that the combined cost of building these 136 houses in Texas for the Air Force was $12,549 per unit. That figure is a little lower than in the case of some of the other illustrations referred to. I think some of the saving there probably resulted from the fact that there were 136 units, many times the number built in the other places, and of course moving the equipment, and other things of a like character, on the ground for a large operation, somewhat diminishes the cost per unit. Now, to take another Air Force illus- tration, let us go from Texas straight north to Michigan. In Michigan, at Selfridge Field, the Air Force wanted 40 units built. There were nine bidders, quite a substantial number. The bids were advertised, and, as a result, the suc- cessful bidder got the contract for $15,160, in competition with eight other bidders. That was the average cost for building the 40 houses at Selfridge Ficld, Mich. Then, when it became necessary, as is obvious, to connect the houses with the
1950 utilities, for gas, sewerage, water, and 50 on, it was found that the cost was $1,731 per unit, making a total unit cost of $16,891 for the 40 houses for the Air Force at Selfridge Field, Mich., a rather Jarge number, I might say, by com- parison. Of course, these average costs of the houses include stoves, refrigerators, tele- phone installation, engineering, archi- tecture, and inspection. The average cost of utilities, to which I have referred with specific figures, includes water, sewer, gas, electric power, sidewalks, and streets. Streets are always, with curbs or without them, macadam, concrete, or whatever may be necessary, rather ex- pensive, and if grading is an essential part of the building of the streets, as it is in many of the localities, the cost cor- respondingly rises. Mr. President, some of what I am say- ing may be slightly repetitious, but I am making these statements so that I may more fully, rather than inadequately, describe what the experience has been. The cost indexes developed by the En- gineering News-Record—a weekly maga- zine covering the engineering and con- struction fields—show that, between the time the estimates for the construction were defended before the Bureau of the Budget and January 1950, the building costs have increased 1.35 percent. In other words, since these estimates were submitted to the Senate, building costs have risen about 11; percent, but we have not allowed any increase because of this fact since we believe that the houses can be built within the hmits heretofore designated. In fact, the present building costs are shown by these indexes to be almost the same level aS in October 1948 when an all-time high was reached. Bidding ex- perience and other cost studies indicate that building costs vary widely in dif- ferent sections of the country as a result of climatic conditions, locations of in- stallations with reference to sources of material and labor, and variation in the cost of labor and material. For example, it is estimated that in northern Maine building costs exceed the national average by 30 percent; in the New York City area by 15 percent; and in the San Fran- cisco area by 14 percent. During our previous discussion on the bill the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douc- Las] spoke of the high cost of construc- tion at Chanute and Scott Air Force bases in Illinois. I have since been in- formed by the Department of the Air Force, on inquiry, that their highest cost experiences occurred at these locations. At Chanute Fleld awards were made for 48 units—the houses at a cost of $17,650 each and the utilities at a cost of $2,350 each, or a total of $20,000. These units are the same as those constructed at the locations named on the chart. At Scott Air Force Base the Air Force has attempt- ed unsuccessfully twice to secure satis- factory bids. The first attempt last June resulted in a total bid of $19,031 for the house and $6,834 for utilities or a total cost of $25,865. The houses were read- vertised for bids after eliminating the basements, in the hope, of course, of re-~ ducing the cost. This time the low bid CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE was $18,128 for the house and $6,379 for utilities or a total of $24,507. The Air Force did not accept either bid as the cost was considered prohibitive. The Air Force still wants to construct these units at the two places mentioned, and I am sure they would be delighted to have the assistance of the able and genial Senator from Illinois in getting lower bids on these units. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President-—— The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. STENNIs in the chair). Does the Sena- tor from Maryland yield to the Senator from Illinois? Mr. TYDIIGS. I yicld to the Senator. Mr. DOUGLAS. To the best of my poor abilities I should be very glad to cooperate with the Air Force in getting lower bids, and if there are contractor rings 1n Ilinois who are holding up the Government for excessive prices, I do not want them to exist and flourish. Mr. TYDINGS. I agree with the Sen- ator from Illinois, and the Air Force takes the same view, because twice they have submitted this proposal and twice the bids have been so high that they have been rejected, so we are all in agree- ment that somcthing better than what has so far been offered is obtainable. I am sure that this matter will be pur- sued, and whencver there come for- ward some builders who can meet the the requirements of the Government within the money that is available, we will have action, but until they do come forward, obviously there is not going to be any action, and I am sure that action is what the Scnator from Illinois and I both desire. Going back to the two Air Force cases, the cost of the land was not considered in either case The authorization in this bill contains an item for the pro- curement of land. This land 1s for addi- tional base expansion, of which only a portion will be occupied for housing. There is no intent to procure 14 acres per house as the Senator from Illinois indicated, in our previous discussion, he had heard. The cost of $500 per acre for the additional land required was based upon the best available informa- tion at the time estimates were prepared. The Air Force will procure this land at the lowest possible cost 1f this authori- gation is granted, and here again I am sure the Air Force will be delighted to have the Senator from Illinois assist. If the authorization is granted, the Air Force will procure this land at the lowest possible cost. Here, again, I am sure the Air Force will be delighted to have the advice and counsel and the help of the able and distinguished Senator from Illinois. In other words, if we allow $500 an acre to procure this land, the Air Force is not going to pay $500 an acre for the land if it can procure it for less. That is a certainty. They tell me they had that in mind all the time, but they did not want an appropriation which would defeat the acquisition of the land. They thought a lower figure might possibly do so. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Witey in the chair), Does the Senator 1707 from Maryland yield further to the Sen- ator from Wlinois? Mr, TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. Is it not true that an authorization of $500 an acre would create a lively expectation on the part of present owners that they might hold out for $500, and that in due course of time that amount would be forthcoming? It would whet the appetite, so to speak. Mr. TYDINGS. That is persuasive. I do not think that can be demed. But Iam advised that the Air Force received proposals from substantial and, I might say, experienced real estate men, and it was upon their advice that this appro- priation was asked, as being what might have to be paid, although there is no disposition on the part of the Air Force to pay it, for the simple reason that every dollar it can save in any place in the bill, will permit additional housing and many other things the Air Force would like to have. The Armed Services Committee is in complete accord with the principle of economy. We have written cost and space limitations into the bill. I think it would only be fair, however, to warn against going too far in this respect, as it might altogether preclude the con- struction of adequate quarters, or make it possible to build quarters only in loca- tions where building costs are low. After discussing this matter for a long while in the hght of experience, samples of which I have read, and in view of the reports I have placed in the Recorp of our experience on a Nation-wide basis, the Armed Services Committee feel that we have placed pretty much all the re- strictions which we thought we could place in the bill without making them so tight as to defeat the purpose of the bill. Mr. President, I regret that the other day I did not have all this information readily available. We did have it before the committee last June. Much of it had been taken from the committee files and sent back to the Department. We not only had the charts which I have men- tioned here today, but we had small cardboard models from which the roofs could be removed and everything that went into the houses could be seen. There was considerable questioning of both General Pick, who is head of the Engineer Corps of the Army, and Ad- miral Jelley, head of the Engineer Corps of the Navy, together with certain architects who worked with us, about trying to secure an adequate type of housing at the least possible expense to fulfill this need. Obviously, I had no idea that we would go so far into the matter. I am glad we have gone into it again so we may all understand and be able to tell the people of America exactly what the program involves. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Presi- dent, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. SMITH of New Jerscy. I recall to the Senator’s recollection that a few days ago, when this matter came up for con- sideration, the junior Senator from New Jersey {[Mr. Henprickson! and I both raised the question of the removal of the ‘Watson Laboratories from Eatontown, Monmouth County, N. J., to Rome, N. Y.
1708 We raised the question whether that matter could not be postponed pending a further investigation of the whole subject. I have just been advised by Members of the House that the House Armed Serv- ices Committee met this morning with Secretary Symington, and that Secre- tary Symington agreed that there would be no further removal of personnel from the Watson Laboratories, and that fur- ther determination of the matter would be suspended until members of the House Armed Services Committee had had the opportunity to visit the laboratories, which they plan to do in the near future. In view of that situation, the junior Senator from New Jersey and I wish to suggest that the paragraph dealing with the Watson Laboratories be stricken from the bill, and that the matter be subject to future determination, with the con- sent of the Department of the Air Force. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. Permit me to answer the Senator from New Jersey, and then I shall be glad to yield to the Senator from New York. . I will say I do not think that would be advisable, on the basis of the Senator’s own remarks, In view of the fact that the bill is a Senate bill, and that it must go to the Armed Services Committee of the House, which has already taken the action to which the Senator has referred, if there is any reason why the item should be eliminated from the bill, after mem- bers of the House Armed Services Com- mittee have visited the site of the labo- ratory and gone into the matter, it is quite obvious it will be done. If we take the other course and remove the item from the bill, and it should be found advisable to have it in the bill, and the bill should go to the House without the item, then we would be in somewhat of a difficulty. So, the Senator, as I told him the other day, and his colleague and the Senators from New York will have adequate chance, this being a Senate bill, to bring the matter to the attention of the House Committee on Armed Serv- ices, where it can be restudied. But to take the item out now, with no restudy, would not, in my opinion, be serving the best interests of the Government, for I have received no word from the Depart- ment of Defense that it is advisable to remove the item at this time. I now yield to the Senator from New York. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I fully agree with the statement made by the distinguished Senator from Maryland. I understand that under the circum- stances described by him this item in the bill will not be stricken from the Senate bill unless it is so voted by the Members of the Senate. Mr. TYDINGS. I could not say that, because the bill comes to me after screening by the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chairman of the Munitions Board, the head of the Development and Research Division Board, and several other agencies at Washington which have screened it and rescreened it, and rescreened it, and have cut out overlappings. So I feel I would CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE be assuming to presume on their judg- ment were I to consent to remove the item, in the light of some further facts. But in view of what the House has just done, to wit, decided that no action will be taken dealing with this matter until the House has more information, and makes up its mind, it will be perfectly safe to leave it in the bill, and let it go to the House, where, if a contrary opin- ion is held, it can be removed, in which event, of course, if it should meet with the approval of the Defense Establish- ment, I say very frankly to the Senator from New York I would feel like keep- ing it out, but in the absence of the ap- proval of the Defense Establishment I do not very well feel I could agree to remove the item. Mr, LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. LEHMAN. I want to make it very clear that the position which the Sen- ator from Maryland has just now an- nounced, is exactly the position I took when I appeared before a subcommit- tee of the House Committee on Armed Services 2 or 3 days ago. I there made it very clear that I appeared in support of the item under the very deep convic- tion that the item was placed in the bill on recommendation of the Air Force, and only after scrutiny of the committee which the distinguished Senator from Maryland heads. I have certainly based my support of the item purely on the ground of national defense. If I were convinced that the transfer of the lab- oratories was not in the national defense interest I would be the first to agree to the elimination of the item. Mr. TYDINGS. That would be my position. Mr. HENDRICKSON and Mr. IVES rose. Mr. TYDINGS. I will yield first to the junior Senator from New Jersey, after which I will yield to the senior Senator from New York. Mr. HENDRICKSON. I should like to say that I base my opposition to this item on the same grounds on which the Sena- tor from New York |LMr,. LEHMAN] bases his support of the item. Iam interested, first, in the national defense. However, so far as I have studied this problem, I am firmly convinced that this transfer will not be in the interest of economy and that it will not be in the interest of our national defense. I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Maryland is aware of the fact that at the subcommit- tee hearing the other day a distinguished Member of the House of Representatives from Virginia {Mr. Harpy] said to the Air Force generals present that they were completely unequipped to show the necessity of any such change. That was as a result of hearing much testimony. Mr. TYDINGS. If that is the case, I should like to ask my genial and able colleague from New Jersey, what is the fear, then, of letting the item go over to the House? If that be the case, the House will take it out of the bill. The Senator from Maryland has said that if the defense authorities say it should come out of the bill, he will interpose no objection. I understand that that posi- FEBRUARY 9 tion meets with the approval of the Senator from New York [Mr. LeHman]. Mr. HENDRICKSON. My fear is that if the same situation were reflected in all the other items of the bill which we find in respect to what I shall call the Watson Laboratories item, then I would look askance upon the whole bill. I do not like to do that, because I know it is an important bill. I should like to sup- port the bill, but I do not wish to be in the position of supporting the bill when questions are raised in my mind about some of these large and extravagant ap- propriations. I am convinced beyond any question of doubt, as I said, that this is an extravagant move, and I can sup- port that position with a brief, which I could place in the Recorp; but I do not wish to clutter the Recorp. I am sin- cerely of the opinion that this change would not be for the good of the national defense. That opinion is based on the testimony taken before the House sub- committee on Tuesday last. I feel that there is no question that we should leave the item out of the bill and then let the subject be taken up in conference after the House has investigated the matter through its subcommittee in the field. Mr. IVES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield to the senior Senator from New York. Mr. IVES. The senior Senator from New York thanks the distinguished Sen- ator from Maryland. I have very little to say on this subject. I should like to point out that the Senators from New York stand together on this question. I fully concur in the statement made by my colleague {[Mr. LEHMAN]. We defi- nitely desire to let this question rest on its merits. The recommendation has been made that this transfer be effected. If subsequent events indicate that that recommendation is ill-founded, and it is ascertained to be desirable that other action be taken, I know that my col- league and I again will agree, as he in- dicated in his remarks, that that be done. However, I should like to point out, in connection with the remarks of my able colleague from New Jersey [Mr. HEn- DRICKSON] that if the situation is as he indicates, no damage can result from passing the bill in the Senate as it now stands. However, as I recall the record, it does not show the situation to be exactly as stated. I seem to remember that in 1948 the Air Force was urging that this transfer be made for reasons of econ- omy, efficiency, and defense purposes. But if the situation be as my distin- guished colleague from New Jersey has indicated, no damage whatever can re- sult from passing the bill in the Senate as it now stands. The action taken by the House com- mittee this morning has been brought out. Obviously, the House is waiting for action on the bill by the Senate be- fore it reaches a final conclusion. Mr. TYDINGS, The chairman of the Armed Services Committee and other members of the committee are frequently embarrassed in attempting to explain certain matters without at the same time divulging classified information, I hold
1950 in my hand a highly classified and con- fidential document which reasons out the whole process. I do not feel at liberty to read it on the floor of the Senate, but I can assure my good friends from New Jersey that when this item was put in the bill it was not put in on any “pork” or geographical basis. Mr. IVES. Nor at the request of New York. Mr. TYDINGS. Let me finish—— Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. HENDRICKSON. I should like to make it perfectly clear that I have no interest in this bill on a “pork barrel” basis. Mr. TYDINGS. I understand. I do not mean to convey that connotation. I have no objection to permitting the Sen- ator to read this confidential report, pro- vided he will not divulge it. I do not feel that I can read it on the floor. The report substantiates the reasons for this undertaking. They are very important. I sympathize very greatly with the sit- uation in New Jersey. I believe that when we begin to move a plant from one State to another, as the able Senator from New Jersey pointed out, there are many considerations which ought to weigh in favor of keeping it where it is. I should like him to have the opportunity of presenting all those reasons. How- ever, this report, which was read to the Committee on Armed Services, was so compelling that we felt as of that time that there was nothing else for us to do, in the light of the recommendation con- tained in it, but to place the item in the bill and act on it. I pledge my word to the four Senators who are interested that I will personally see the chairman of the Armed Services Committee of the House—although that may not be neces- sary—and tell him of the colloquy among the five of us, and I shall ask him, when this item comes up for discussion, to hear the Senators from New Jersey and the Senators from New York, who have di- vergent opinions on this subject, so that no final action will be taken until this subject can be threshed out in the proper forum. If the House committee, after consultation with the military author- ities, sees fit to take the item out of the bill, I serve notice on my distinguished colleagues from New York that I shall nol feel compelled to seek to have it put back in the bill unless the military au- thorities ask me to do it. I do not be- lieve that I can be any fairer than that under the circumstances. I shall be very happy to have Senators read this memo- randum, but I ask them particularly not to communicate it to any one who might want to have it, because in my judgment that would not be in the best interests of national defense. Mr. IVES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. IVES. The senior Senator from New York had not quite concluded his re- marks, but the Senator from Maryland has done a very fine job of it for him. However, the senior Senator from New York agrees to the proposal which has XCVI——108 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE been submitted by the distinguished Sen- ator from Maryland. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would like to ask the Senator from Maryland to identify the particular item which is now under discussion. Mr. TYDINGS. It is on page 18, line 4, of the bill. It reads as follows: Griffiss Air Force Base, Rome, N. Y.: Shelter and laboratories for automatic radio grid direction finder, alterations of buildings for Watson laboratories, development of instru- ment landing system, NAVA globe system building, $3,114,500. I believe it is clear that this is not a fly-by-night experiment, but one which goes directly to the defense of the Nation. I should like to say again to the Sen- ators from New Jersey and the Senators from New York that if the military au- thorities do not back up the position which they have given me under seal, namely, that they are satisfied to have this item eliminated from the bill, and the House eliminates it, I will not ask that it be reinserted in the bill. I will guarantee to the four Senators who are primarily interested and who have very understandable reasons for the positions which they take, including reasons based on what is best for the national defense, that so far as I am concerned—although it is not necessary—I shall carry this whole matter to the House Armed Serv- ices Committee and see to it that a forum is provided so that the entire question may be threshed out. Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. HENDRICKSON. I should like to say that the distinguished Senator from Maryland is manifestly fair. I appre- ciate very much his cooperative attitude, and I am sure that I speak for my col- league the senior Senator from New Jersey |Mr. SMITH] when I say that we gladly join in that agreement. Mr. TYDINGS. I thank both Sena- tors from New Jersey. I advise them not to give up the point of view which they now hold until they have had the opportunity to find out whether the item should go out or not. My fear is, how- ever, that if we take it out now it might be very difficult to get it back in. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Presi- dent, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I concur in what my distinguished colleague has said. The distinguished Senator from Maryland has been very fair. I can as- sure him that we shall continue to pre- sent our case, as he has suggested we should do, until the members of the sub- committee of the House of Representa- tives have visited the site and until the Department of Defense and the Air Force are entirely satisfied with the com- mittee’s conclusion. We are thinking in terms of the best defense of the United States. Mr. TYDINGS. The proposal I offered will not prejudice the case of the two Senators from New Jersey or the case of the two Senators from New York, or the merits of the program itself. The whole subject will be entirely reopened, 1709 and every right and privilege which the Senators now have will be accorded to them, I am sure, in a further survey of the subject. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield to the Sena- tor from New York. Mr. LEHMAN. I merely wish to say that I appreciate very much the position taken by the Senator from Maryland, and of course I concur fully in what my colleague from New York has said. Let me ask the Senator whether he will feel free to show this letter confi- dentially to the House Armed Services Committee. Mr. TYDINGS. Let me say to the Senator from New York that the House committee will have that letter before them without my doing so, when the proposition comes up. Mr. LEHMAN. I thank the Senator. Mr. TYDINGS. But either Senator can ask for it. Mr. LEHMAN. May I show this to the—— Mr. TYDINGS. Ihave no objection to having either Senator examine it. It is something which I should prefer not to have to show; but every once in awhile I am driven to the ramparts, and have to do it. Mr. President, let me inquire if there are other questions to be asked. If not, I think I have cleared up the doubts which arose the other day. It was most helpful to have the questions asked, and I hope I have been able to satisfy Sena- tors and to answer the questions which arose in their minds. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the original objections which I had to the Tydings substitute for Senate bill 2440 were directed to the absence of limita- tions on average costs in tre section dealing with the housing of military personnel. As all of us know, the provision, in section 405 is that there shall be a top of $14,000 on construction costs per family unit, and a top of $2,500 per family unit for site development and utilities, or a total authorized maximum of $16,500 for each family unit. The very able and distinguished Sen- ator from Maryland in his discussion in- sisted that those were maximum costs, top costs, and that in all probability the actual costs would Le appreciably less than that, in most localities of the coun- try. And in perfectly good faith, he re- ferred back in his mind, I am sure, to the testimony of the Chief of Army Engi- neers, General Pick, when he appeared before his committee, at which time General Pick gave figures on differing costs of contracts which had been let in the past. I take it that it is to those dif- ferences in past costs that the very able and distinguished Senator from Mary- land has referred today in the tables he has put before us and in the matter he has placed in the REcorp. ACTUAL PER-UNIT AUTHORIZATIONS PROVIDED IN THE BILL But those are not the costs which would be authorized under this bill.
1710 The bill itself is somewhat defective in failing to indicate what the housing and outside utility costs would be for each of these various projects, as distinguished from the other items which are to be authorized, because the authorizations are stated in round figures, aggregate sums for each installation. The number of housing units is not stated in the bill; and it is difficult, indeed impossible, from the bill itself and from the accompany- ing committee report to determine what the precise per-unit authorizations are. But I have gone back to the three vol- umes of justifications submitted by the Chief of Engineers for the Army and by the appropriate engineering units for the Air Force and the Navy, which I may say were kindly placed at my disposal by the Committee on Armed Services. We have isolated what the suthorizations would be for the construction of family quarters and for outside utilities in the case of each and every project for which requests were submitted in this legisla- tion. We have found that in the new Dill, as proposed, certain projects have been dropped. As the Senator from Mary- land has said, no new projects are added. Indeed, the figures on the housing pro§J- ects retained have not been altered. So the detailed break-down of these justifications enables us to find out what the authorized cost under this bill would be for each and every specific project which is proposed in the bill. I have before me a table, which I shall be very glad to submit to the committee or to any Senator, and which I shall later request to have printed in the Recorp, which gives what these authorized per unit costs will be at each location. I should like to read a few, first for the Army: The Army receiving station, at La Plata, Md.: six family units; authorized construction cost per unit, $14,000; utili- ties, $2,500. Total construction and utili- ties, $16,500 per unit. Army Transmitting Station, in the Virginia-District of Columbia area: Six family units; construction cost per unit, $14,000; utilities, $2,500; total construc- tion and utilities, $16,500 per unit. Fort Benning, Ga.: 376 family units: construction cost per unit, $14,000; utili- ties, $2,500; total, $16,500 per unit. Black Hills Ordnance Depot, 8. Dak.: six units; construction cost per unit, $14,000; utilities, $2,500; total, $16,500 per unit. Fort Bliss, Tex.: 28 units; construction cost per unit, $14,000; utilities, $2,500; total, $16,500 per unit. Mr. President, instead of wasting the time of the Senate by reading the figures for each project, I ask unanimous con- sent to have inserted in the Recorp at this point a tabular summary of the costs of the family quarters to be authorized in the amendment in the nature of a sub- stitute to 8. 2440. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Summary of family housing items in S. 2440, amendment (2/2/50A) tn the nature of @ eubstitute {Taken from: (1) The justification for military construe- tion authorizing legislation, 1050, from the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, May 1949 & dustifications supporting H. R. 4786, dated June 17, 949, submitted June 28, 1049, by Rear Adm, J. J. Manning, Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks; and (3) Fastification briefs in support of construction authorization, fiscal yoar 1960, revised July 15, 1949, Department of the Alr Force] I. Insme ConTINENTAL Untren STATEs A. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Average costs per unit 5 i} gee) 4 Location of project Pet gk £ | 83) = (seu 3 ls84 & Dp |e 4 Dol- | Dol- Dol- Army station, La lara | lara lars a, Md_._..... 2, 500/16, 500) 99, 000 Army transmitting station, Virginia (District of Co- lumbia aren). ..... 2, 500}16, 500} 80, 000 Fort Benning, Ga... 14,000) 2, 500/16, 500/6, 204, 000 Black Hills Ord- 6/14, 000) 2, 500/16, 500} 99, 000 28114, 000} 2, 500/16, 800} 482, 000 Fort Bragg, N -| 404/14, 000} 2, 500/16, 500/6, 686, 00U Deseret Chenilcal Depot, Utah... __- 14]14, 000} 2, 500/18, 500) +231, 000 Camp Detrick, Md...) 22/14, 000} 2, 500/16, 500} 363, 000 Fort Dix, N.J......] 56/14; 000) 2 500/16, 500/924, 000 Camp Hood, Tex...] 608/14, 2, 500/16, 50018, 382, 000 Fort Knox, Ky.....-] _56/14,000] 2, 500/16, 600} 924,000 Camp Lee, Va..-... 190/14, 000) 2, 600/16, 5600/3, 185, 000 Fort Lewis, Wash...] 274/14, 000] 2, 500/16, 500/4, 521,000 Fort Monmouth, N. fe 186/14, 000} 2, 800/16, 5600/3, 069, 000 Murphy — General Hospital, Massa- Chusetts) ..--.---. 12/14, 000} 2, 500/16, 500] 108, 000 Oliver General Hos- pital, Georgia. __.. 24114, 000} 2, 500/16, 500} 306, 000 Fort Riley, Kans... 6/14, 000] 2, 500/16, 600} 99, 000 Sicrra rdnance Depot, Catif.....--| 10/14, 000} 2, 500116, 500} 165, 000 Fort Bill, OKla_...-- 88 627, 000 Sioux Ordnance Depot, Nebr._._.. 99, 000 Tootle Ordnance Depot, Utah...... 132, 000 Two Rock Research Station, Calif... 231, 000 Valley Forge Cen- eral ospital, Pennsvivania .... 306, 000 Vint Hill Farms, Va- 789, 000 White Sands Prov- B, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ? Marine Corps Air tation ‘herry Point, N. ©... Naval aviation ord- nance test station, Chincoteague, Va. Naval ordnance test station, Inyokern, Calif... 222222 2-- Marino barracks camp, Lejeune, N. ©... Naval Alr Test Center, Patuxent, 16, 500}1, 765, 500 Naval communica- tion station, Skages Island, 8onora, Calif..__.. Navy communica- tion station, Winter Tarbor, Maine 1 Break-down between house construction and utilities costs not shown in Navy justifications, FEBRUARY 9 I. Insipwp ContTinentraL Uniren Srares—Con. ©. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE * Average costs per unit : 3/4 ges| 8 ess Location of project | «| °8 3 Ee 38 23 oS} 8 . 5 #5) E| 3 le ag sp jou) g [38 Zz | PD le < Bergstrom Air Dol- | Dol- | Dol-| Dol- Force Base, Aus- lars | lars | lara lars tin, Tex......--... Cf) a 16, 60011, 851, 000 Biggs Air Force Base, El] Paso, ) | a Se 16, 8001, 584, 000 Campbell Air Force Pie eyes | og 16, 500 ville, Ry... 2-22] 24) ceceefeeneee Castle AG Force 5 396, 000 Base, Merced, EN} | a ee 16, 500)1, 584, 000 Davis-Monthan Air Force Buse, ‘T'uc- Ariz_......... 136]......}--...- 16, 5800/2, 244, 000 Age, 96}....-.}.....-/16, 500/1, 584, 000 Fairfield - Suisun Air Force Base, California......... 06).....-]--.2.. 16, 500/1, 584, 000 Great Falls Air Fores Base, Great 40 6, 500 ‘alls, Mont_.-._.. 240] .nnno-|-oee-- 16, 500/3 000 Hamilton Air Force , +060, | eee cee e eee 48)......].--...{16, 500] 792, 000 Holloman Air Force Base, Alamogordo, 140 6, 500 OX..-------.-| 240)......1-....- 1 3, 960, 000 Hood Air Force ase, Temple, PY 7 | ae a 16, 500} 396, 000 Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquer- aque, N. Mex... 48)......[---..- 16, 500} 792, 000 Limestone Air Force asc, Limestone, ane... wee. |) a 16, 500)3, 168, 000 MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa, Fla.} 96)......].-.... 16, 500)1, 884, 000 March Atr Force Base, Riverside, Calif. ..-..2..----. 7] a Pare 16, 500} 528, 000 Moses Lake Air Force Base, Moses Lake, Wash....... 240]... ]------ 16, 50013, 860, 000 Murov Air Force Buse, Muroe,Calif.| 96]......].....- 16, 500}1, 884, 000 Rapid City_ Air Force Base, Rapid City, 8, Dak...... 144) pe 16, 500|2, 376, 000 Scott Air Force Base, Relleville, | re 48}.-...-]--.--- 18, 600) 792, 000 Walker Air Force Base, Roswell, N. Mox,......--2----- 192]. .....]--.-.- 16, 500/3, 108, 000 Wertover Air Forco aso, Chicopee Falls, Mass......- 96)]--..--]--...- 16, 500}1, 884, 000 Williams Atr Force Base, Ohandler, Ariz..-ccceeee ee ee 96). --.--f-..--. 16, 500}1, 884, 000 Total......... 2, 470)... |e nene-|-eeee- 40,755,000 * Break-lown between house construction and utilities costs not shown in Air Force justifications, II. Oursmpr UNITED STATES A. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Average costs per unit (house Agerorate construec- ste tion and Gos utilities) Dollars 435, 459 § House construction only. Separate unit utilities costs not shown. Outside utilities serving family quar- ters, barracks, etc., in whole installation, $8,200,000.
1950 II. Outsipe UNiTep Srates—Continued C. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE Averago costs per A Rpregate Units JUnit (house | “vonsing construc: costs tion and mee utilities) Erelson Air Force Dollars Dollars Base, Alaska. -..--- 46, 200 10, 164, 000 Ladd Air Force Base, Fairbanks, Alasku.. 120 46, 750 5, 610, OUD Total......-.--- 1!) oe 27, 904, 000 SUMMARY (1) Inside United States, aggrepgate cost: AIMY. -2.-- een meee ne cece ewe eee $40, 161, 000 ’ -- 10, 840, 000 40, 755, 000 01, R36, OO) 16, 600 2, 434 684 2,470 5, 567 (8) Outside United States. -units..} 601 ARETeEME COSL.. 2... eee enn ee ee eee ee eee $27, 094, 000 Average cost per unit... 40, 512 Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I ca say that in the casc of every project, re- gardless of where located, or regardless of what the local costs may be, there is proposed to be authorized a total expend- jture of $14,000 a unit for construction, and $2,500 a unit for outside utilities, or where the break-down is not shown, $16,500 for construction and _ utilities, whcther the units be located in the mild climate of Virginia or ix the sands of Texas or close to the rock-bound shores of Massachusetts or in the Black Hills or in the equable climate of Puget Sound, or wherever the units may be located. Wherever they are and whatever the local cost situation may be, the authori- zation proposed is precisely the same. COST LIMITATION CAN BECOME AVERAGE So what we have here, according to the plans of the engineers of the various services, is not merely a maximum fig- ure; it is not merely a total of $16,500. It is a minimum figure, it is a uniform figure, it is an average figure. Unless we introduce into this bill safe- guards fixing a maximum on the average which can be spent, this proposed maxi- mum authorization under the plans which have been submitted will in all likelihood become the uniform and the universal standard of costs since it is pro- posed that the same figure is authorized for all units, regardless of location. (At this point a message from the House was received and Mr. Dovctas yielded to Mr. SaLToNsTALL, who moved concurrence in House amendments to Senate bill 2681, all of which appears at the conclusion of the speech of Mr. Dovc tas.) MAXIMUM FIGURE DOES NOT INCLUDE COST OF LAND Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the figure $16,500 does not include an allow- ance for land. The buildings are to be placed on existing military reservations, and as the Senator from Maryland has stated correctly, no additional expense CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE will be incurred by reason of acquiring further amounts of land, except in the one possible case of Scott Field, in my State, and possibly in the case of one air force base in California. Therefore, the actual costs are higher than we might think, because in the cost of an ordinary private building the purchaser must pay for the land which is bought. We there- fore should add to the average, mini- mum, uniform cost of $16,500 a further allowance for the value of the land; and I suppose it would be most conservative to say this possibly would be an addi- tional $500 or $1,000 per unit, thus bring- ing the real cost of the enterprise, put on a comparable basis with private building. to $17,000 or $17,500. Furthermore, the master architectural plans have already been prepared by the engineering units, or at least some draw- ings are furnished by the engineering units of the various services, because they have been submitted to them. As- suming that architect’s fees approximate 3 percent, it would mean a further $500 advantage which is given in the case of this military housing as compared with private housing; thus indicating that the real cost of such a venture is probably between $17,500 and $18,000, for a six-room house with 1,080 square feet. I say 1,080 square feet because section 404 of the bill provides that there shall not be more than 1,080 square feet, and I have not had sufficient time to analyze the plans and ascertain what the total number of square feet actually is in the buildings proposed. COSTS ARE TOO HIGH COMPARED WITH PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION Mr. President, let us now compare these costs with the costs of private con- 1711 struction. I hold in my hand the Second Annual Report of the Housing and Home Finance Agency for the calendar year 1948. Iam referring to page 214 of the report. I shall later ask permission to have the table as a whole included in the ReEcorp. Let me take the cost of con- structing houses with an average of 5.2 rooms and with an average floor space of 1,048 square feet. These are roughly, though not completely, comparable with the six-room house having 1,080 square feet proposed in the pending bill. I ask the Senate to listen very carefully when I give the average cost of these new homes constructed under FHA in 1948. The average cost was $9,351, and this in- cludes land. It does not include all out- side utilities, except in those cases where there is a private subdivision, and where the cost of the utilities furnished by the subdivider is charged into the price of the lots sold. But here is an average cost of $9,351, including land, compared with a cost of $14,000 excluding land, under the proposal now before the Senate. To my mind this indicates greatly swollen estimates, greatly swollen figures of cost; and there are tens of millions of dollars at stake in this matter. If the figures are $5,000 per unit above what the cost should be, for nearly 5,600 units provided inside continental United States, there is an excess cost of $28,000,000 in that item alone. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have printed in the Recorp at this point the table from the Second An- nual Report of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, for the year 1948, to which I have just referred. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. TABLE 28.—Average characteristics by calculated floor area based on FHA-tnsured morte gages secured by new and extsting single-family homes, sec. 203, 1948 A New homes, average Existing homes, average lee . Calon Caleu Calculated our ales (square Por- lated PHA Per: lnted rH centage floor valua Number centage floor ml A Number distr l- area on? [of tooms§) distri nrea ‘I Un of rooms 3 bution | (squme bution | (square an feet) feet) Lens than 600. 09 24 $6, 624 36 09 $26 $5, 704 3.9 600 to 690_... 4 6 668 6, 481 4.0 47 663 6, 1838 4.1 700 to 7H) ..-- 20 6 TH 7,821 4.2 16 3 751 6, 865 4.3 Un 22 0 844 1 966 45 18.5 845 7, 280 46 HOU to 990. _. We et 8, 553 49 133 045 7, 834 49 1,000 to 1,099 112 1, 048 9, 351 5.2 wy 1,045 8, 347 52 1,100 to J, 180. 8. 7 1, 142 10, O88 55 #.0 1, 146 &, 826 55 3,200 to 1,290. G4 1, 242 10, O53 57 68 1,244 9, 082 57 3,800 to 1399)... 34 1, 345 11, 239 50 Al 1, 345 9, 404 60 1,400 to 1,400 2.222222 ---e ee eee 22 1, 443 12, 020 59 37 1,444 , BBQ 6.2 1,500 to 1,680 __. --- 23 1, 676 12, 854 6.1 6.0 1, 587 10, 531 65 1,700 to 1,990.02. a 10 1, 804 14, [68 6% 34 1,825 11, a35 68 2,000 or more... az) 2, 705 14, 316 6.3 3.0 2, 457 14, 201 76 Total........-2---------- 100 0 972 8, 774 4.8 10) 0 1, 075 &, 281 5.2 1 Area of spaces in the main building above basement or foundations measured at the outside surfaces of exterior walls Qarage space and finished spaces in attic are excluded. 2 FILA property valuation cludes valuation of the house, all other physical {mprovements, and land 3 Excludes bathrooms, toet compartments, closets, halls, and simlar spaces. COST ESTIMATE BY RETAIL LUMBER DEALERS’ ASSOCIATION Mr. DOUC:LAS. Mr. President, we have had other estimates which have been made informally in the short period of time I have had to prepare the mate- rial. We have had a report from the National Retail Lumber Dealers’ Asso- ciation, and we have here the tabula- tions taken from the questionnaires which have been returned to the Retail Lumber Dealers’ Association showing costs of construction in 1948. We have interviewed Mr. Joseph T. King, who represents that organization. He esti- mates that the Nation-wide average price of houses built by members of the asso- ciation is from $8 to $10 a square foot, which includes land cost, and that the higher figure, $10, usually prevails in
1712 urban areas, while the lower figure ts more common in suburbs and rural areas. The estimate is based upon ques- tionnaires filled out by hundreds of builders who had constructed more than 14,000 houses within the period under consideration. I shali be very glad to submit those questionnaires for exam- ination. From $8 to $10 a square foot would represent a cost of from $8,640 to $10,800 for the floor area called for in the present bill, and a rough average be- tween those two figures would approxi- mate the $9,350 indicated by the FHA figures. I submit, therefore, that all the evi- dence we can get indicates that approxi- mately comparable quarters can be con- structed under private contract for somewhere around $9,350, or, on the con- struction costs alone, over $4,500 less than is provided in the authorization of the pending bill. OUTSIDE UTILITIES I think we should also go into this question of outside utilities. There is a maximum, a minimum, a uniform, and an average allowance of $2,500 in each one of the projects inside continental United States. But in the actual expe- rience of the Army in providing housing during the fiscal year 1949, consisting of standard row houses, the average cost for outside utilities was fixed at $1,914. This figure comes from a table substan- tially similar to, although I think not identical with, that read into the Recorp by the chairman of the committee. I am informed, Mr. President, that this table is for the Army, and does not include the Air Force and the Navy and their justification figures do not isolate the utilities item as the Army does. But it indicates that the average cost for the Army—and that, I should think, would be fairly typical—would be only a little more than $1,900, as compared with the maximum, minimum, uniform, and average cost of $2,500 provided for in the bill. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. I think that is rather @ misstatement on the part of the Sen- ator from Illinois. There is no uniform cost of $2,500 for outside utilities. That is the maximum cost. Mr. DOUGLAS. I may say to the Sen- ator from Maryland that I have pre- viously made reference to a table show- ing the per unit cost of each one of the projects provided for in the bill. In each and every case the table indicates that the authorization for a given project is, as I have said, $14,000 for construc- tion and $2,500 for utilities, or $16,500 for both where the break-down was not shown. That is true trrespective of where the construction is to take place and is the same for the Navy as for the Army and for the Air Force. In each case the cost of the utilities Is $2,500. There is no geographical variation. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. I agree that that ts the formula which is used here, because we cannot tell which one will use the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE maximum. Certainly there will be many that will not use it. I have only to refer to the table before us for the fiscal year 1949 to show that the cost at San Fran- cisco was only $880 for the utilities. Therefore, in that instance, if an au- thorization of $2,500 were made, the remainder of it would go into the Treas- ury. They cannot spend more than they need to install the utilities. The same is true of housing at White Sands, N. Mex. The houses cost $11,908. That is a long way from $17,000 or $21,000 if all the maximum obstacles existed. The bill does not compel them to spend the money; it simply puts them in position to build houses of a particular character, of limited design and limited floor space, with certain equipment, and says that the size cannot be more than 1,080 square feet, and cannot cost more than $14,000. If it can be built for $8,000 or $10,000 or $12,000, that is what it will cost. It is all done by competitive bidding. Com- petitive bidding, I think, will pretty well take care of a great deal of the Senator’s fear in this matter. I do not dispute his point that the authorization is for the maximum, but I do dispute the statement that that amount of money Will be spent. I do not know what formula the Senator has in mind; but if he has any reasonable formula that will stand the test of analysis, I should like to consider it. I do not say I will accept it, but I am as anxious as he is to save every dollar that can possibly be saved. I know the Senator will appreciate the fact that if we are building 10, 20, or 25 units as against 50 or 75 units at some location, there is a great deal of difference in the unit cost, all other things being equal. I should like to inquire if the Sen- ator has a proposal that would tackle the proposition to which he has been addressing himself. Mr. DOUGLAS, In due course of time I shall make a proposal. Mr. TYDINGS. I should like to be studying it so that I might be able to agree to it. I cannot agree to it within a couple of minutes. I feel that now we have ample time. I am in a little differ- ent position from that in which I found myself a few days ago, because we now have time for discussion. Mr. DOUGLAS. The junior Senator from Illinois is in favor of retaining the maximum figure proposed in this bill. I do not object to saying that none of the houses provided for by the bill should cost more than $14,000. I do not object to saying that the outside utilities should not cost more than $2,500. It may well be that in certain extraordinary circum- stances—the junior Senator from Flor- ida ([Mr. Ho.zanp] mentioned one in connection with his State—situations of an extraordinary nature may arise; but I think they would have to be quite extraordinary to justify a cost of $16,500 for houses of this character. What the junior Senator from Mlinois has been trying to say is, that we should throw around it a further safeguard to provide that the average cost for each house should not exceed a given figure very much below $14,000, and that the average cost of outside utilities should not exceed a given figure considerably FEBRUARY 9 below $2,500. If we put those provisions into the bill, we shall be able to provide for local variations in cost, and, in my judgment, we can save $30,000,000. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I shall be glad to yield for a question. Mr. TYDINGS. I think we are going to be fully safeguarded, but I have no objection to putting reasonable precau- tions in the bill. I was just thinking in my own mind, without being profound about it, that we might say that wher- ever, as the result of competitive bidding, the cost of building any house an” the cost of installing utilities in any house shall fall below the maximum set forth in the bill, and sums appropriated for the building of the house, not required above that which is actually expended, shall be recovered into the Treasury and may be used for another purpose. Mr. DOUGLAS. I appreciate the sug- gestion of the Senator from Maryland, but, in my judgment, that would not be adequate, because what we may face is that what is alleged to be competitive bidding very frequently is not competi- tive bidding. I was shocked as I said last Friday, at the costs at Scott Field, in my State, where the lowest bid was about $24,000, and at Chanute Field, outside Champaign Ill. In my judgment those bids at Scott Field indicate a pos- sible absence of competitive bidding, and the bids should have been rejected. I am very glad they were rejected. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. May I finish, please? Mr. TYDINGS. But before the Sena- tor leaves the reference to the Senator from Maryland, I should like to say that I do not want anyone to draw the con- clusion that the Senator from Maryland thinks those bids should have been ac- cepted. I agree that they were prohibi- tive bids and should have been rejected and were rejected. I think the Air Force is to be complimented on that action. Mr, DOUGLAS, I would further say, however, that if there is passed a bill which authorizes $14,000 for construction plus $2,500 for utilities, every contractor in the country will know what that au- thorization will be. He will know that if he does not exceed that figure, or if con- tractors as a group do not exceed it, the contracts will be awarded. But if we set up an average figure to which housing costs must conform, contractors will realize that merely staying under the maximum will not be sufficient. In fact, there is a provision in section 407 which sounds as though contracts could be awarded even in advance of a specific appropriation which might mean that contracts will be negotiated on the basis of the maximum figure, in virtually every case. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield for a question. Mr. TYDINGS. I wonder if the Senator, as a result of his research, has in mind any figure which he thinks would be fair both to the Government and all other parties concerned, which would cover the average cost of a house in continental United States and the
1950 average cost of utilities in continental United States. Has the Senator arrived ata figure? If so, if he will tell us what the figure is and who supports it, I should be very much interested in hearing it. Mr. DOUGLAS. Ihave a figure which I should like to propose. I wish to say that I am not an expert in this matter. I suppose the statistical bases can be shot at in individual cases, but I should like to propose an amendment in due time, which I shall read, and then submit to the Senator from Maryland for exami- nation. It would read: Provided, that the average cost— And I emphasize the word “aver- age”’— Provided, that the average cost of all the family quarters to be constructed under the authority of this act shall not exceed (1) 69,000 per family unit for construction, in- cluding kitchen range, refrigerator, tele- phone, architectural and engineering serv- ices, and all contingencies and (2) 61,750 per family unit for site development and out- side utilities, including architectural and engineering services therefor, and all con- tingenciles. Myr. President, that would give a total cost of $10,750, compared with the $16,- 500 provided by the pending measure, and would save $5,750 on each house, or an aggregate in excess of $30,000,000 on construction inside the United States. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield for a question. Mr. TYDINGS. Without binding my- self, at first blush I think the figure of $1,750 for utilities pretty well conforms with what appears to be the general average for the cost of utilities as a re- sult of competitive bidding shown on the chart. But I am reluctant to take it without more supporting testimony, in view of the experiences indicated by the figures onthe chart. For instance, there were 15 competitive bidders at Fort Bragg, N. C., and the average cost was $12,202, including stove, refrigerator, and so forth, Likewise, in New Mexico, where there were 14 competitive bidders, the price was nearly $12,000. Likewise, in Texas, where there were 10 competi- tive bidders, the price was $11,500; these illustrations being in different parts of the country, and taken at random. So, if I were to accept the figure the Senator from Illinois suggests, $9,000, while it is appealing, and while I should like to em- brace it, while I should like to have money saved, I feel I would be accepting an amendment which would not be susceptible of translation into action, in light of the experlence which has already been had. If I am wrong about that, and if the Senator can support his contention by more widespread figures than the few he has mentioned, the situation would be different. Let me also point out to the Senator that the square feet of floor space which he gave in saying that a house could be built for so much money was less floor space than we are providing for in the bill, in one case about 40 feet, as I recall. Mr. DOUGLAS. It would involve a difference in cost of not more than $400. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. TYDINGS. All those things add up, and when we have four hundred more dollars, taking the matter on a square- foot basis, we may have more piping utility to install, we may need more radiation, we may need a larger furnace, we may need a longer water line. There may be many things to be taken into consideration. So it is not fair to use a 35-inch yardstick to measure a 36-inch yard. Mr. HUNT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. Let me first reply to the Senator from Maryland. I had bet- ter take Senators on one at a time, or I shall have an accumulation of arrears. The FHA estimate was $9,350. Mr. TYDINGS. For a house of what size? Mr. DOUGLAS. For a house with 1,048 square feet. But that included land costs, which probably would be close to $1,000, whereas the figures sub- mitted by the Army engineers, and by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, do not include land costs. So, the actual construction costs in each case would be less. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I am glad to yield. Mr. TYDINGS. What size lots were these the FHA was using? Mr. DOUGLAS. I cannot tell since the report did not go into the size of the lots. I merely say that the cost of land is included. The Senator said I was using a 35-inch ruler to measure a 36- inch space. He may discover that I was using a 37-inch ruler, and while there were about 40 less square feet, there was the cost of land, which was not in- cluded in the estimates of the dis- tinguished Senator from Maryland. Mr. TYDINGS. I think the Senator used a 35-inch ruler in one part of his argument and a 37-inch ruler in another part. Mr. DOUGLAS. An average of not far from 36 inches. Mr. TYDINGS. I am not interested in averages so much as I am in accuracy. I doubt if any, or at least, many of the FHA houses to which the Senator has referred, were bullt on lots which would cost $500. I think that is an exaggera- tion, and not substantiated by anything in the Senator’s portfolio, but is taken right out of the blue to support his argu- ment, and is not based on any fact to support it. Mr. DOUGLAS. Let me say, in reply, that the land cost would be somewhere between $500 and $1,000. I have not tried to substantiate the cost of lots, be- cause I thought it was common knowl- edge that they ran from $500 to $1,000 and often much higher. Mr. TYDINGS. The Senator is guess- ing. We cannot afford to base the law on guessing. That is what the Senator is complaining about, and he certainly does not want to fall into the very error which he is criticizing. Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator from Maryland is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, swallowing the cam- el of $5,000 padded costs in the estimates of the engineers. I suggest to the Sena- 1713 tor from Maryland that he observe a due sense of balance in these matters, Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President— - Mr. DOUGLAS, If the Senator from Maryland feels that his honor has been affected, I yield to him. Mr. TYDINGS. I do not feel that my honor has been affected, but I think the argument of the Senator from Illinois is much in the nature of the Senator trying to swallow a camel, while the sub- stance of the argument is about the size of a gnat. Mr. DOUGLAS. I think the Senator from Maryland is swallowing an ele- phant, which is even larger than a camel. Mr. HUNT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield to the Senator from Wyoming. Mr. HUNT. I listened to the reading of the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois, and of course we are all in harmony with his objective to save as much money as possible in the construc- tion of the contemplated houses. The Senator from Illinois makes ref- erence to the average cost. I am won- dering if his amendment shoulu not fur- ther state something to the effect that the plans and specifications, the designs, and the materials to be used in the aver- age cost house of which he speaks, should not be the same as anticipated and contemplated in the houses the Army is going to build. Mr. DOUGLAS. With the Senator’s very seductive manner, unconsciously, I am sure, he may have spread a trap for my unwary feet to fall into, because sometimes one can so name materials and specifications that the costs are un- duly loaded. Upon occasion IJ have sus- pected that that occurred in the city of Chicago, where for a time I served as an alderman. Upon occasion I suspect that it occurs in connection with the houses under consideration. I think we may find that the materials are often more costly than is necessary, that the specifications may be excessive, and that simpler designing and simpler materials would result in appreciably lower costs. So I do not care to tie my hands behind me in that respect. I know the Senator from Wyoming had no such design, but I thought that unwittingly, with the best of intentions in the world, a yawning chasm was being opened up before me, and, if I put my foot forward, it would be disastrous to me. Mr. HUNT. Let me say to the Senator from Illinois that I had in mind only making his amendment more tightly own. perhaps, than he had prepared Mr. DOUGLAS. It certainly would have been more tightly drawn, I agree with the Senator. Mr. HUNT. I did not intend at all to lay any trap for the distinguished Sen- ator from Illinois. The junior Senator from Wyoming knows a good deal better than to attempt to do that. Mr. DOUGLAS. I am sure the Sen- ator from Wyoming had no such inten- jon. Mr. HUNT. I still contend, Mr. Presi- dent, that merely lowering the average
1714 price will not be effective and will not accomplish what the junior Senator from Illinois has in mind, if he does not at the same time make some reference to the fact that the average cost of the pro- posed building shall be for exactly the same type of building as is contemplated in the higher cost. Mr. DOUGLAS. I would be prepared to consider that, but my first disposi- tion——. Mr. TYDINGS. I am trying to find an area in which I can agree with the Sen- ator from Illinois in his very worthy en- deavor to try to save the taxpayers’ money. I was wondering whether the houses which cost, I think, $9,350—was that the figure to which the Senator re- ferred a while ago? Mr. DOUGLAS. The average under FHA; yes. Mr. TYDINGS. I was wondering whether they were built with basements, I was wondering whether they had heat- ing piants, I was wondering what kind of heating plants they had, I was won- dering whether they had laundry tubs and refrigerators; I was also wondering whether they had electric lights, whether they were built with brick, grade A, or 1, 2, or 3 class of lumber. Mr. DOUGLAS. Would the Senator like to know whether they have asbestos in the houses? Mr. TYDINGS. Since the end of the war I have seen a good bit of housing which many unfortunate people, who have been desperate for homes, have had to buy. Those houses have looked pretty good until one begins to live in them. Those who bought them would have been better off had they paid a little more money and gotten houses which would have stood up; some of them looked as if they were built to last only until the dealer could dispose of them to some un- suspecting purchaser. One thing I do not want to do is to build such a cheap house that we will spend three times as much as we save keeping it in repair. I am interested in knowing whether the houses provided for by the pending bill, being brick houses in the main, and also stucco houses, which are durable and less expensive to keep up, compare favorably in a general] way with the houses the Senator has referred to. Mr. DOUGLAS. I will say to the Sen- ator from Maryland that FHA has greatly improved the building situation in the country by laying down certain specific standings which the builder must meet before he can obtain the FHA- insured loan, and that therefore we can be pretty certain these are not jerry- built houses, because jerry-built houses would not be insured. Mr. TYDINGS. I hope that is so, and I have no evidence to the contrary, but it does not answer my point as to whether the figures the Senator has given are based on frame dwellings or brick dwellings. As we all know, brick dwell- ings cost more than frame dwellings. The cost would also depend on the type of plaster used, and so on. The FHA has been interested in having pretty good houses built, as fast as they could be built, in order to relieve the housing shortage. I am interested in that, too. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE But I am interested in building the kind of house which will not eat itself up with repairs. The Senator from Maryland has had quite a little experience in that line on military reservations. For example, the Aberdeen Proving Ground, which em- ploys many thousands of persons nor- mally, is just about 5 miles from where the chairman of the Armed Services Committee lives. It is only about a mile and a half away as the crow flies. When I came to Congress, a long while ago, those in control of the Aberdeen Prov- ing Ground, which had been built dur- ing World War I, and the housing was of that date, came to me and asked if they could not get a more permanent type of construction. In the course of that consideration I went into the repair bills at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. As the years went on the repair bilis were beginning to mount to such a figure that it seemed to me, in the interest of ultimate economy, more durable con- struction should be provided. I was able, gradually, to have that done. But let me say it was not all done at one time. It was done gradually over a period of 10 or 15 years. The same thing is true respecting the veterans’ hospital at Perry Point, Md., & couple of miles across the river, where all the houses erected were of wood. Men who had lost their minds, and who were locked up, lived in wooden buildings there. The American Legion, as well as I, who am a veteran, became interested in the matter, and gradually we had all those fire traps torn down and durable buildings erected. I wish to say that anyone who looks at the drawing which stands on the easel in front of the Senate will see the size of one house with a doorway. He will see that there is nothing extravagant or grandiose about it. We have tried to provide sufficient money to build it prop- erly while it is being built, and not on the modern American plan of putting up something for 5 or 6 or 8 years and then having to tear it down or having to ask for a large appropriation with which to repair it. I am afraid that many of the houses— and I say this in no way of criticism— to which the Senator from Illinois has referred are not of the durable kind of construction which we have insisted on, along with economy, in the building of these permanent installations. Mr, DOUGLAS. I may say to the Sen- ator from Maryland, who has asked me to submit the evidence as to why I think the cost of $9,000 would be approximately accurate, that the FHA houses, which cost $9,350 for 1,040 square feet, while they contain 40 fewer square feet than provided in the plan submitted by the chairman of the Armed Services Com- mittee, nevertheless, have included in that figure land costs, which are not in- cluded in the item under consideration. Therefore, the figures seem to be roughly comparable. Second, the National Retail Lumber Dealers Association, on the basis of a study of 14,000 houses, reaches the fig- ure of from cight to ten dollars a square foot, including land cost, which amounts to from $8,640 to $10,800 for a 1,080- FEBRUARY 9 square-foot house; so probably the aver- age would be not far from $9,500, let us say. Furthermore—and this is very im- portant—Public Law 21, which, as the Senator from Maryland stated, he helped to sponsor, provided for con- struction off military reservations of military housing under FHA, and I ask the Senator to notice that it provided for an average construction cost of $9,000 per unit for row-type units, or $10,000 for detached dwellings. The Senator from Maryland himself sponsored a bill providing $9,000 for housing off military reservations, and now he wants legislation providing for $14,000, plus $2,500 on military reserva- tions. I submit there is such a disparity in cost unaccounted for by comparable differences in quality and extent of housing, that it is very difficult to justify the differential. Mr. TYDINGS. How many bedrooms did the houses have under the Wherry- Tydings bill? Mr. DOUGLAS. I should like to ask the Senator from Maryland how many? As I remember, the law provided for houses of all sizes. Mr. TYDINGS. I thought the Sena- tor said they were smaller houses. Mr. DOUGLAS. No; I said that the difference between them was greater than could be accounted for by differ- ences in accommodations. I grant that there are differences, but the question is whether those differences are sufficient to justify $5,000 difference in cost. Mr. TYDINGS. Allow me to answer the Senator now. Mr. DOUGLAS. Perhaps the Senator can answer his own question. Mr. TYDINGS. Many of the houses built under the Wherry-Tydings bill have no bedrooms; many of the houses built under that bill have one bedroon. They are not uniform houses. They are houses built to cover a wide variety of needs. So, the yardstick there, with all due respect to the Senator, again, is not the same one that should be used to measure this proposal. Many of these houses built under the Wherry-Tydings bill have no basements. Many of them are without bedrooms. Many of them have one room, and some of them have two and three rooms. So no compari- son could be made. But may I ask the Senator whether in his illustration of what the Lumber- men’s Association said these houses could be built for, if they gave the inside floor space or the outside floor space, there being a considerable difference in floor space if we consider the thickness of the walls? There are two ways of calculat- ing floor space. I do not know from the remarks of the Senator from Illinois whether he is considering inside floor space, which is what we are considering. If we were to use the total floor space, including the foundation of the building, the cost per square foot would be much less than the chart shows. The chart Is based on inside floor space. I do not know whether his yardstick is accurate. I do not know whether it is based on in- side or Outside floor space. Mr. DOUGLAS. I shall have to check up on that,
1950 Mr. TYDINGS. It may be that the Senator is using the same yardstick I am using. In the event the calculation were based on the outside or the over-all foun- dational floor space, it would make a great deal of difference. I believe the Senator from Illinois will find that when square feet or cubic feet are used as & basis for calculating building costs, the outside length and width of the building are used, and not the interior floor space. Mr. DOUGLAS. May I ask the Sena- tor from Maryland what figure he would submit as an average cost figure? Does he intend to stand solely on the maxi- mum of $14,000? If the Senator from Maryland will make an estimate, per- haps we can get our heads together on it. Mr. TYDINGS. Iam interested in sav- ing every dollar we can possibly save. All I want to do is to be convinced that any proposal which is offered will result in a saving without deteriorating the sub- stantial qualities of the buildings which we authorize. In trying to meet the point of view of the Senator from illinois I would be will- ing to do a number of things which I believe would safeguard the interests and the point of view which he has so ably expressed. For example, I would be will- ing to insert a provision to the effect that no bid could be accepted unless it were approved by the Secretary of De- fense if less than five or six bidders were to submit bids, so as to assure a wide range of competition. I do not wish to imply that such a provision would insure an airtight rule in every case. There may be some isolated place where it would not be possible to get five bidders, in which case there would have to be suf- ficient elasticity to get the work done. But I would be willing to provide in the bill that no bid shall be accepted unless investigation shows that there are at least so many good-faith bidders. That suggestion is oper to some question, of course, because some bidders might sub- mit phony bids which would be higher than the bid of the real bidder, and which would be submitted solely for the purpose of shutting off competition. However, I assume that when five or six bids are submitted the supervising au- thority is in a position to ascertain whether or not the bids are good-faith bids or phony bids. That is one thing. Mr, DOUGLAS. May I deal with that? I think it is better if we deal with these issues one at a time. Mr. TYDINGS. Very well. Mr. DOUGLAS. There would be some protection if we had more bidders, but the Senator from Maryland is perfectly aware of the fact that this system can be abused by contractors’ rings. For ex- ample, there might be five bidders, from A to E, and A could be low man at $16,500. Mr. TYDINGS. I have just said that the bidders’ market could be rigged. Mr. DOUGLAS. And E could be high man at $20,000. Mr. TYDINGS. That is correct. Mr. DOUGLAS. And the bid could be sclemnly awarded to A. On the next bid B could be low man and A could be high man. The awarding of bids could be rotated, and in each case the bid could be awarded to the low bidder at $16,500, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE and the cost would still be that figure. The building industry is subject to col- lusion, I am sorry to say, to a far greater extent than we have ever dreamed. It is not always possible to protect the tax- payers against this type of collusive bid- ding. Mr, TYDINGS. Let me say to the Senator from Illinois that I myself pointed out that this would not be an airtight way of getting honest bids, but I assume the more bidders that are re- quired on a project the more difficult it is to make combinations. I notice that in some of these cases there were only two bidders, and in others there were four bidders. In most cases there were 9, 10, 14, or 15 bidders. It is interesting to note that when there are more bidders the price is lower than when there are fewer bidders. Perhaps that is not a justifiable conclusion to be drawn. Nevertheless, it is shown on the chart. Therefore, it seems to me that that would be one approach. We might couple with that suggestion the provision that they must be bidders in good faith and that the supervising authority shall make some examination to insure that result. Leaving that question for the moment, I should be glad to accept an amendment providing that the maximum amounts provided for in this bill are not amounts which, when appropriated, must neces- sarily be expended, and that when a project is built for less than the amount provided, any sums appropriated which are not used for the actual building shall not be spent for any other purpose but shall be covered back into the Treasury. My reason for making the suggestion is that the Senator from Illinois fears— and perhaps I share the fear—that if money appropriated by the Government is not spent for one purpose, and a part of it is saved by a Government agency, an easy way is usually found to spend it for another purpose. So an amend- ment of that kind would be a safeguard and, in my opinion, would make certain that any savings resulting from competi- tive bidding would be covered back into the Treasury. Mr, DOUGLAS. Is that all the Sena- tor from Maryland has to offer? Mr. TYDINGS. No. I conclude by saying to the Senator from Illinois that Iam not willing to accept his figures, be- cause J do not know that they embrace the same character of substantial build- ing which we propose. I do not know whether they cmbrace the over-all floor space or the inside floor space. I do not know what yardstick he is using. He mentioned the cost of the lots as an average of a thousand dollars. I doubt very much if that is correct. However, Iam willing to accept the figure of $1,750, which he has suggested as an average cost, as a ceiling on the utilities. That is the average which the experience sho vn on the chart seems to indicate may be accepted without weakening the durability of the building program. Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not believe that the proposals of the Senator from Mary- land go very far toward meeting this difficulty. It would be generally known that an authorization of $14,000 per unit had been made. I believe there would be very few bids submitted much below 1715 that figure. Therefore no appreciable amount of money would be returned to the taxpayers. We would be paying $14,000 for each of the buildings, I have made a computation in my head as to the cost if we were to house every nonfarm family in the United States on the expensive scale proposed by the Committee on Armed Services. The committee proposes a cost of $16,500, for building and utilities. To that, as I pointed out, must be added at least $1,000 or $1,500 for land and architec- tual fees. So in reality we are providing $17,500 or $18,000 for each housing unit. As I rem-mber the figures, there are 36,000,000 nonfarm dwellings in the United States. At a cost of $17,000 per unit, we would have a total cost of ap- proximately $570,000,000,000, which is more than the total wealth of the United States. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield to the Senator. Mr. TYDINGS. The Senator from Illinois might have used the cost of building houses for generals, admirals, and colonels. Mr. DOUGLAS. That would cost much more. If they were to be included, there would be no limit. If we were to provide a $17,500 house for an enlisted man, how much more would it cost to provide a house for a field officer or for a general officer? The cost would really run into astronomical figures. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield for a question. Mr. TYDINGS. I should like to point out also to the able Senator from Illinois that the figures of the retail lumber dealers as to what these houses can be built for are rather startling. I buy a good deal] of lumber and sell a good deal of it, and I uperate a rather big enter- prise at home. The prices I pay for lumber are different from the prices which have been quoted on the Senate floor, If anyone would like to get rid of some big money fast, let him go out and buy some lumber. Most of the lumber he will buy will be freshly cut and unseasoned. It will warp and bend cut of shape as soon as it is installed. I am inclincd to take with a great deal of salt the figures which have been quoted here, because there is as much difference between the various kinds of lumber which can be used for building as there is, let us say, between the average Rus- sian and a Member of the Senate. Mr. DOUGLAS. Let me say to my dis- tinguished and genial friend, the Sena- tor from Maryland, that I shall offer him @ volume containing the raw data upon which these estimates are made, He may sprinkle this volume with salt, if he will. It weighs some three pounds. I do not know how much salt he will need to sprinkle on it in order to season it properly. |Laughter. | These estimates are rough, it fs true; but they are based upon 14,000 houses. The Senator has the cstimates, and he can look them over, Mr. TYDINGS. Th.re again, I do not know. As I look them over, in the case of nearly every one of them I see that no basement is provided for. However,
1716 every one of the houses to be authorized by the measure now pending will have a basement. So there is a difference, on the face of the record. As I further examine the record the Senator has given me, I find that, in answer to the question as to whether the house has a basement, the answer is “No,” “No,” “No,” “No,” “No”—indicating in each case no basement. Mr. DOUGLAS. These are rough es- timates and you are looking at only one sheet of California figures. I do not say that $9,000 is the precise average which should be fixed. The proper average may be larger. But I do say that $14,000 is an excessive average, and I stand on that statement. Let us get this debate in its true pro- portions. Instead of having the Senator from Maryland discuss types of plaster and types of lumber and basements, and so forth, let us go into the question of whether $14,000 plus $2,600 for outside utilities is an excessive average for the proposed housing. That is the whole issue. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hunt in the chair). Does the Senator from Illinois yield to the Senator from Mary- Jand? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. The reason I started at the basement level is that we have to build proper debate on a firm founda- tion, and the basement is the foundation of the House. Mr. DOUGLAS. I would say the Sen- ator has constructed his case on castles in the air, not on a firm foundation. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will Senator yield further? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. I wish to read from the exhibit the Senator has submitted to me. I cannot make out the names of all the companies involved, but one of the lumber companies, in answer to the question, “Does your estimate in- clude a basement?” replied, “No.” The Star Lumber Co., in answer to the question, ‘“‘Does your estimate include a basement?” replied, “No.” The San Carlos Lumber Co., in reply to the question, “Does your estimate in- clude a basement?” replied, “No.” San Carlos is in California, and the houses there, without a basement, will cost $9,750. Mr. DOUGLAS, Mr, President, base- monts are not as prevalent in California as in other sections of the country. Would the Senator from Maryland state what he finds in the column which indicates whether the estimates include land or do not include land? Mr. TYDINGS. Yes; I shall be glad to do so. I find that the lowest amount for land is $500, at Moorehead, Calif., and at first blush it would appear that the highest amount for land is $1,200, at Hayward, Calif. Mr. DOUGLAS. That was the state- ment of the Senator from Illinois, name- ly, that land costs would range from $500 to $1,000. The Senator from Maryland said that statement was made on the basis of unsubstantiated guesses. I con- sidered the cost of lots to be common CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE knowledge and these figures will back this up. While it is true that all the houses referred to in the estimates may not have basements and may not have all the appurtenances which the genial Senator from Maryland would destre, nevertheless, the estimates do ‘nclude land, and the houses and the land cost only about $9,500 each, per unit, whereas the Senator from Maryland is advocat- ing a $14,000 house; and the difference between the two runs into millions of dollars, in the total amounts. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS, I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. Again I am reading from the Senator’s own witness, sitting on the witness stand, so to speak, al- though invisible, of course; in other words, I am reading from the exhibit the Senator has handed to me, and here is the recorded testimony: How many bedrooms will there be in a house costing $9,750? The answer is “one.” How many bedrooms will there be in the houses which are to be authorized by the pending measure? Mr. DOUGLAS. I believe that nomi- nally there are to be three; but I believe that one of them might more appropri- ately be termed an alcove. Mr. TYDINGS. Nevertheless, it is a room. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the word “room” can cover a multitude of sins. ’ Mr. TYDINGS. But there are only one or two bedrooms in the case of the houses referred to in the exhibit the Senator from Illinois has handed to me. The first estimate shows two bedrooms; the second one, two; the next, two; the next, two; the next, three; and the next several ones show two, two, two, two, two, three, two, two, two, and two. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the avenging angel turn the page? If he will, I hope he will find further evidence. Mr. TYDINGS. I do turn the page. I find there, listed as the number of bedrooms, two, two, two, two—— Mr. DOUGLAS. If the Senator will look at the other page—he is reading from a page showing houses costing under $5,000. Mr. TYDINGS. I ask the Senator from Illinois to wait a minute, please. He has turned the page for me, and I wish to read it. Mr. DOUGLAS. Very well. Mr. TYDINGS. I am reading from his own evidence, not mine. Let us see what is said for the next State: The number of bedrooms shown {fs two, two, two, two, one, two, two, one, two, two. But in the pending measure we ask authorization for three-bedroom houses. The Senator from Illinois handed me this book; and I assume that when he turned the page, he turned it at the proper place. I do not know; this book is the Senator's witness, so to speak, not mine. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, we have no desire to misrepresent. We are Blad the evidence isin. We shall simply submit other pages, that is all. FEBRUARY 9 I may say that I am informed that some of the houses which have been re- ferred to by the Senator from Maryland are those costing under $5,000. Mr. TYDINGS. Oh, no; the Senator is mistaken there. The one about which I am reading now is a house costing $9,750, and it has only two bedrooms, and no cellar. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the Senator from Maryland is correct; the Senator from Illinois is in error on that point. Mr. TYDINGS. Good; now we are getting somewhere. Mr. President, in the pending measure we propose authorizations for houses, each of which will have a cellar under it, and each of which will have three bedrooms and a bath. What is the yardstick, by way of com- parison? It is a house with no cellar, with two bedrooms, and so far as I know it will not have a bath. That house costs nearly $10,000, without those things. I have read from the record the Senator from Tllinois has submitted to me, which may be regarded as the Senator’s own witness, not mine. Mr. DOUGLAS. I would say that on the whole the houses for which the esti- mates are submitted are two-bedroom houses. Mr, TYDINGS. But without base- ments. Mr. DOUGLAS. That is correct in many instances, but land costs are in- cluded. Mr. TYDINGS. Yes. Mr. DOUGLAS. But someof them have three bedrooms, and in all cases the costs are below $10,000. What I am trying to say is that I do not insist that $9,000 is the precise figure in the case of the houses for which authorization is requested in the pend- ing measure, but I do insist that $14,000 is an excessive figure for them. I wish the Senator from Maryland would devote his great legal talents and his great public ability, not to shooting holes in the $9,000 figure, but in joining me in the effort to save $30,000,000. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I should like to read further from the same evidence, if the Senator will again yield to me. Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS, In the pending meas- ure, we request authorization for a two- story house with a basement. On the other hand, all the houses covered by the estimates submitted to me by the Senator from [Illinois are one-story houses. All of them are. For instance, in referring to the estimates, I find the number of stories listed as follows: One, one, one, one, one-and-one-half, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, So, although in the pending measure we request authorization for a two-and- one-half story house, we find that in the estimates submited by the Senator from Tllinois, one-story houses are covered. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I have never known the advantage of a two- story house in itself, as compared to a one-story house. One-story houses re- quire more land. 'Two-story houses are often built because it iseconomical. Ido not know why the two-story house should
1950 be made a fetish. I think the test is the number of square feet provided. Am I correct in stating that one of the rooms the Senator from Maryland is trotting out as a magnificent bedroom contains less than 100 square feet? Mr. TYDINGS. Let me tell the Sen- ator. As to the size of the bedrooms, one is 14 feet, 5 inches by 10 feet, 5 inches; one is 10 feet, 9 inches by 10 feet, 5 inches; and one is 9 feet, 5 inches by 8 feet, 5 inches. Mr. DOUGLAS. That is the one to which I wish to refer—in other words, 80 square feet. That is not a bedroom; it is an alcove. [Laughter.] Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I think a@ bedroom with 80 square feet in it is sufficient for many purposes. When I was a boy, I slept in a small bedroom of about that size, and I grew to manhood without being stunted. But how big are the bedrooms in the two-bedroom houses the Senator from Illinois is using as his illustration? Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, all I wish to say is that the Senator from Maryland should not be too proud about the three bedrooms to which he refers in order to justify a cost of $14,000. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, there are many enlisted men and many junior officers in the Army who will be very glad to get that extra bedroom, believe me Mr. DOUGLAS. Now the Senator from Maryland has shifted the empha- sis. I do not object to three bedrooms; it is fine to have that number of bed- rooms in a house. What I object to is the cost of the three-bedroom houses covered by the requested authorization before us. It is not a question of authorizing houses with inferior accommodations; it is a question of getting them built for less money. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, the document the Senator from Ilinois has placed in my hand is a rather interest- ing one. I enjoy reading it almost as much as I enjoy reading some of our great magazines. For example, here is one house with an area of only 1,000 square feet, a house without a basement, only one story in height, and probably with two bedrooms. It docs not say clearly. It says two or three. I do not know whether the floor area is outside or inside, but it has 80 square feet less than the houses contemplated by the bill as set forth on the chart, and it costs $9,750 without a basement, without any equipment. Mr. DOUGLAS. But with land. Mr. TYDINGS. I do not believe I could take the information and evidence supplied by the Senator from Illinois much as I respect and admire his effort to throw safeguards around the appro- priation. I do not believe we have the kind of substantial facts, judging by those I have read, upon which to base an argument, because we are talking about one horse that is black and an- other horse that is white, and I think our comparisons should be based on horses of like color. Mr. DOUGLAS. Whatever may be the case with respect to this $9,000 esti- mate, certainly the overwhelming CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE weight of the evidence indicates that the $14,000 figure is excessive. I might even consider raising the average from $9,000 to $10,000, with $1,750 for utili- ties. That would provide $11,750 for the house, plus land. Incidentally, if the entire population of the country were housed on that standard, the housing bill alone for the nonfarm population would be around $450,000,000,000, or approxi- mately equivalent to the total national wealth. I desire to make clear that I want good housing for military personnel, and I am glad we are providing housing for the three upper pay grades, because it will permit the sergeant majors, the first sergeants, the technical sergeants, and the staff sergeants to have their families about them, and it will result in a much better family life and much better morals throughout the whole Military Estab- lishment. I am for that. I recognize that there are peculiar conditions in Alaska which may justify higher cost limits there, though I have not said anything about that. But what I am saying is that we should economize on the cost per house, so that we may (a) construct more houses and (b) save money for the taxpayers. Mr, TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield for a question. Mr. TYDINGS. I should like to point out to the Senator that I just now went to the chart. I took the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and I took North Carolina and San Francisco, Virginia and New Mexico, Texas and Michigan. Using this column, which I counted up very quickly in my head, it comes to a few more dollars than $75,000 for the six localities, or $12,500 on an average. That represents North and South, East and West; and it represents North and South in the central part of the country. There, the average is $12,500 by actual experience. In the first case there were 15 bidders. In four of the six examples set forth on the chart, there were nine or more bidders on each project. I could not go lower than $12,500 as an average, in view of those figures, in the light of the present information I have available. Mr. DOUGLAS. I started at $9,000. Under great duress, I would go up to $10,000. The Senator from Maryland has come down to $12,500. There is a zone of “indetermincy” between us. I think there will be further debate on this issue, and perhaps it can be resolved. But I believe the proper figure lies very much closer to $9,000 than it does to $12,500. Mr. TYDINGS. If the Senator from Tilinois will allow me to correct him in one statement he makes, when he says the Senator from Maryland has come down, the Senator from Maryland has not come down; he is still in favor of the $14,000 top. What I have done is to try to set an average. Mr. DOUGLAS. That ts all the Sen- ator from Mlinois has been trying to do. Mr. TYDINGS. Yes; but do not say I have come down. I am still for the $14,000 top. Mr. DOUGLAS. My proposal is for an average. The Army, Navy, and Air Force figures represent an average of $14,000. 1717 I may say there is a further element which needs to be considered. The elo- quent, ingenious, and congenial Senator from Maryland has thrown a bewilder- ing smoke screen of basements, sizes of rooms, types of various kinds of lumber, so that it is very hard to get at the solid body of this argument. Mr. TYDINGS. They are not smoke screens; they are blockbusters. Mr. DOUGLAS. But there is another point which should be borne in mind, and it is somewhat different from that which the Senator from Maryland has advanced. It is that building costs, con- trary to what the Senator—I am sure in perfectly good faith—says, have been slightly reduced during the past year. For instance, I read from the Index of Building Costs, compiled by E. H. Boechk and Associates, published in Construction and Construction Materials Reports by the Construction Division, Office of Do- mestic Commerce, in the Department of Commerce. They give an index figure of costs for October 1948 (based on 1939-100) of 216, and a figure of 204 for October 1949, a reduction of 12 points, approximately 5 percent. If we com- pare December 1949 with December 1948 the reduction is less by about 7 points, or 3 percent. In the verbal estimate made by the representative of the Na- tional Retail Lumber Dealers’ Associa- tion, whose rough tabulations I produced and which the Senator from Maryland smote hip and thigh, they make an esti- mate of a reduction in cost from last year of approximately 10 percent. Therefore, I submit the figures on costs for previous years, which I presented, should be scaled down in terms of present figures. So, when the Senator says I measure with a 35-inch ruler on the type of house, though conceding that I meas- ure with a 37-inch ruler on land value, let me assure the Senator I probably measure with a 38-inch ruler in terms of construction cost, and that if we should go to current construction costs, the Sen- ator would find that the average general ruler was not so far from 36 inches. I have no desire to prolong the argument. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. I want to try to ac- commodate in every way I can the very worthy aim of the Senator from Illinois in throwing safeguards around the bill. I should like to say before I make this statement that the figures on the black- board show that his estimate of $1,750 for utilities, as an average, is well taken. Mr. DOUGLAS. Iam delighted at this tribute from the somewhat critical Sena- tor from Maryland. Mr. TYDINGS. That would in no way interfere with the ceiling. It would sim- ply provide that in the doing of all these things the cost shall not exceed an aver- age. In equal good faith, by actual ex- perience, as shown on the table, the average of those units would be $12,500. I think that is correct. I understand I am out of line, for I am now advised it is closer to $13,000. But as I added it In my head very quickly, I made it
1718 $12,500. I should be very glad to estab- lish an average which the facts them- selves, based on experience with pre- cisely like and identical houses, show can be used. The Senator from Illinois has left me in a position where I am not certain in my own mind. I say this without any desire to belittle the splendid argument and the philosophy he has maintained; but he has left some doubt in my mind as to whether the figures he used are applicable in judging a house of a differ- ent type and in, some cases, of a more expensive type. I am advised that the average of the figures on the chart is $13,200, including, of course, the equip- ment. I should be glad to keep the top limit of $14,000 for a house, and an aver- age of $1,750 for utilities for a house, and provide that the average of all houses shall not be greater than the $13,000 fig- ure which the chart indicates, or what the experience of other building projects not listed on the chart would indicate. But I do not believe I would be as sound as I should like to be, in accepting the Senator’s figure, predicated, as he him- self has so frankly stated, upon houses of a different kind of construction and containment from the houses we are here proposing to build. If I were to accept the figure which the Senator offers in the best of faith, I am afraid that until further testimony could be adduced I would find that I had inad- vertently defeated Army, Navy, and Air Force housing. The Senator from Ilinois has done splendid work, this debate has developed a good many facts, and I think some little misunderstanding has been wiped away as we have discussed matters back and forth in good faith. We have all profited by the debate, it has been in the best interests of the country, and that is a good thing. I shall be willing to accept any reasonable average. I have been willing to accept it from the minute I came on the floor with the bill. As the Senator will realize, I do not want to accept an average which will defeat the purpose of the bill or re- sult in the building of shacks of which we have too many in America to house the junior officers of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and also the noncommissioned Officers in those services. I should also like to point out to the Senator that the debate has had a great influence on the course of the proposed legislation. Whatever we do here will have wide consideration in the House be- cause of the debate in the Senate, and, as the bill must be considered by the House of Representatives after it leaves the Senate, if there shall come a reasonable figure based on Army, Navy, and Air Force actual experience, which I think will stand the test of hard analysis, I shall be delighted to put that figure in as an average, but under no circum- stances do I want to remove the ceiling except as I have heretofore indicated. Mr. DOUGLAS. I may say to the Sen- ator that I, too, do not want to remove the ceiling, but I am reluctant to accept past costs as an indication of what we should authorize in the future, because it is not at all certain that we shall have CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE this type of house, and it is not at all certain that in the past the military forces have exercised due care in getting costs down toa minimum. We may find . that the costs in the past have been ex- cessive, and that, therefore, we should not take past costs as an indication of what future costs should be. Mr. WITHERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield. Mr. WITHERS. Is there any way at all whereby we can receive fair bids on these contracts? Can the Senator devise a plan by which fair bidding can be ob- tained? Mr. DOUGLAS, I am fearful that a mere provision in the law that all bids shall be fair will not assure our actually receiving fair bids. Mr. WITHERS. I am not proposing that such a provision be put into the bill. We are not bound to accept any bid as it is made, are we? Mr. DOUGLAS. No. Mr. WITHERS, We have a right to reject bids, have we not? Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes. Mr. WITHERS. We have a right to make our own estimates on each house which is to be constructed, have we not? Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes. Mr. WITHERS. We have a right to reject any bid. Mr. DOUGLAS. That is correct. Mr. WITHERS. If the bids were re- jected, the bidders would know that they were out of line with our own estimates. Mr. DOUGLAS. That is correct. Mr. WITHERS. We have a right to make our own estimates, to determine costs of materials, and to ascertain from our own figures whether the bidder’s fig- ures are out of line. What would be the danger in opening these projects to bids? How would the taxpayers suffer? The taxpayers’ sons might suffer while wait- ing for the housing. If we find out that the contractors are crooks and none of them wants to submit a fair bid, we might bid on the projects ourselves. Might not that be done? Mr. DOUGLAS. I hope so. Mr. WITHERS. We would not be bound to accept a bid which was entirely out of line. We might want to accept a bid which was below the low estimate. Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes. Mr. WITHERS. Could that be done? Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes. Mr. WITHERS. While we are looking out for the taxpayers, I am a, little bit more interested in the taxpayers’ sons, and I should not be surprised if other taxpayers are interested in the taxpay- ers’ sons. They are all America's sons, and if we err I want my error to be on the side of the taxpayers’ sons. Mr. DOUGLAS, I thoroughly agree with the Senator. Mr. WITHERS, I have had a good deal of experience in letting contracts, and I found that most of the persons with whom I dealt were honest. We have not had much difficulty in catching the crooks. We have had to reject very few bids because we thought they were padded and stuffed. I have a great deal of confidence in American bidders. If we are going to err, let us try to err on the side of the taxpayers’ sons. FEBRUARY 9 Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his statement, which is very sincere and is intended in the public interest. Our aims are the same. What I have been contending for is that unless we have an average figure in- cluded in the bill—— Mr. WITHERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield. Mr. WITHERS. The Senator from Illinois knows that prices vary from time to time, and what we might put into the bill might be a meaningless thing. Is not that correct? Mr. DOUGLAS. No; I do not think it is correct. Mr. WITHERS. I myself let a con- tract for a house, and 2 months later there was a 20-percent variance in the prices. That is a wide variance. There is likely to be depreciation in costs, and if we establish a floor, bidders will cer- tainly feel inclined to go to that floor. I want the services to have the benefit of the best prices obtainable. There is no other way I know of to obtain a fair public bid except to have the project wide open to every bidder, with every card on the table, and with the knowledge that we have men capable of determining fair estimates. I donot believe the taxpayers will suffer as much as the Senator thinks they will. Iam interested in seeing that the taxpayers’ sons do not suffer. Mr. DOUGLAS. I may say to the Senator from Kentucky that it is my feeling that unless we put in an aver- age figure appreciably below the maxi- mum proposed, rather than merely re- taining the maximum figure which is now in the bill, there is likely to be dif- ficulty. The so-called maximum figure, as I developed it from a study of the jus- tifications, is the uniform figure which the engineering authorities use for every locality in the United States—a uniform figure of $14,000 plus $2,500. If that merely stood by itself, the contractors would know that if they should go up to that point, their bids, in all probability, would not be rejected. Unfortunately, while there is competi- tion in the construction industry, we know there is often far less competition than many persons claim. We know there is sometimes collusive bidding and rotated bidding. What I have been try- ing to do was to place legislative pro- tection in the bill so that we might get @ greater degree of competitive bidding and force bids down. I assure the Sen- ator that my purpose is not to defeat housing. The purpose is to save money. If we save money, we can get still more housing. Waste does not help anyone. Mr. President, I think I have discussed this subject long enough. I want to re- serve one or two matters for discussion at the end. I should like to call the attention of the Senator from Maryland to page 5, lines 18 and 14, of his bill, containing an authorization for Murphy General Hospital, Massachusetts, for ‘family quarters and utilities, land acquisition, $241,000.” Mr. TYDINGS. Will the Senator give that reference again? Mr. DOUGLAS. Page 5, lines 13 and 14, of the bill.
1720 Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator will state it. Mr. TOBEY. We have all heard about the men who marched up hill and marched down again. This is a little exemplification of it. The legislative clerk resumed and con- cluded calling the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Bricker Humphrey Mundt Byrd Hunt Murray Cain Ives Neely Chapman Jenner O'Conor Chavez Johnson, Colo, O'Mahoney Connally Johnson, Tex Pepper Cordon Johnston, 8.C. Robertson Darby Kefauver Russell Douglas Kem Baltonstall Downey Kerr Schoeppel Ecton Kilgore Smith, Maine Ellender Knowlend Smith, N. J, Flanders Leahy Sparkman Frear Lehman Stennis Fulbright Lodge Taylor George Lucas Thomas, Okla, Gulette McCarran Thomas, Utah Green McClellan Tobey Gurney McFarland Tydings Hayden McKellar Watkins Hendrickson McMahon Wiley Hickenlooper Magnuson Withers Hill Martin Young Hoey Maybank Holland Mulikin The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is present. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed the bill (S. 2681) to authorize the attendance of the United States Ma- rine Band at a celebration commemo- rating the one hundred and seventy-fifth anniversary of the Battle of Lexington, to be held at Lexington, Mass., April 16 through 19, inclusive, 1950, with amend- ments, in which it requested the con- currence of the Senate. ATTENDANCE OF MARINE BAND AT CEL- EBRATION COMMEMORATING ANNIVER- SARY OF BATTLE OF LEXINGTON During Mr. Douctas’ speech, Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Witey in the chair). Does the Sena- tor from Illinois yield to the Senator from Massachusetts? Mr. DOUGLAS. I should be very glad to yield for one question. Mr. SALTONSTALL. My purpose in asking the Senator to yield is simply this. Yesterday the Senate passed unan- imously a bill reported from the Commit- tee on Armed Services to permit the Marine Band to play at the one hun- dred and seventy-fifth anniversary of the Battle of Lexington. The House has passed the bill with amendments so as to include “Concord.” I shall appreciate it if the Senator will yield to permit consideration of the amendments of the House. Mr. DOUGLAS. I am very glad to yield for that purpose. I may say to my distinguished friend from Massachu- setts that the people of the Bay State will be greatly edified by listening to the Marine Band. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I appreciate the sentiments of the Senator from Illinois, who was born in the S.ate of Maine. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The PRESIDING OFFICER laid be- fore the Senate the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (8. 2681) to authorize the attendance of the United States Marine Band at a cele- bration commemorating the one hun- dred and seventy-fifth anniversary of the Battle of Lexington, to be held at Lexington, Mass., April 16 through 19, in- clusive, 1950, which were, on page 1, line 6, after “Lexington”, insert “and Con- cord”; on page 1, line 8, after ‘“Lexing- ton”, insert “and Concord”, and amend the title so as toread: “An act to author- ize the attendance of the United States Marine Band at a celebration commemo- rating the one hundred and seventy-fifth anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord, to be held at Lexington and Concord, Mass., April 16 through 19, inclusive, 1950.” Mr. SALTONSTALL. I move that the Senate concur in the amendments of the House. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Massachusetts. The motion was agreed to. Mr. SALTONSTALL, I thank the Senator from Illinois. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Swanson, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed a bill (H. R. 2945) to readjust postal rates, in which it re- quested the concurrence of the Senate, HOUSE BILL REFERRED The bill (H. R. 2945) to readjust postal rates, was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN MILITARY AND NAVAL INSTALLATIONS The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S, 2440) to authorize certain construction at military and naval in- stallations, and for other purposes. Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, this bill is very important and imperative to our national defense. There are in the bill several provisions which will be of great benefit to the Navy, the Air Force, and to the State of Florida. In particular, I call attention of the Senate to the following items: Mayport aircraft carrier basin, Amount Jacksonville, Fla-..--_-------- @4, 920, 000 Acquisition and expansion of oil terminal facilities, Navy, Jack- sonville, Fla_.--.----.-------. 8, 175, 000 Dredging submarine basin, Key West, Fla____.---------------- 789, 000 Establishment of advanced war- fare school, Fort Lauderdale, Fla ....-.-.-----------------+ 275, 000 Family quarters, utilities, and armament-testing facilities, Air Force Base, Eglin Field, Valparaiso....------------ ee 3, 459, 000 Family quarters, utilities, fuel storage facilities, and airfield pavements, MacDill Field, Tam- pa, Fla...-.--------------.--- 4, 412, 000 Bulk storage for oil, Air Force, Panama City, Fla...---.-...-= 537,339 Mr. President, in 1939 the Hepburn Board recommended the establishment of a major air base at Jacksonville, Fla., to provide facilities for several carrier groups and for the berthing of carriers, FEBRUARY 9 Later, Congress approved these recom- mendations, There is only one harbor on the At- lantic coast which is capable of han- dling large aircraft carriers. However, there are certain conditions, such as air space limitations, which preclude any expansion in that area. In view of our military requirements, it is absolutely necessary that a harbor capable of sup- porting large aircraft carrier operations be developed on the southeastern coast. The Navy has selected the Mayport Basin in the Ribault Bay area for this project. The site is adjacent to major air and repair industrial facilities located at the Jacksonville Naval Air Station which now is in active operating status. This station provides for overhaul and repairs of carriers and for training of technicians and reserves for our naval air arm. Under the provisions of this bill, the project would include the dredg- ing of the St. Johns River to 42 feet and widening to 600 feet and deepen- ing to 42 feet the entrance channel to the bay, as well as the construction of necessary piers, roads, and similar fa- cilities, and dredging the turning basin to permit it to handle large carriers. Mr. President, it is most urgent that adequate Navy-owned fuel-storage fa- cilities be provided on the Florida east coast area. The Navy lacks fuel stor- age facilities in the southeastern part of the United States, and there is a great need to guarantee a continuous supply of fuels, particularly aviation gasoline for existing naval aviation facilities. At the present time the Navy has contracts for providing aviation gasoline at three locations in Florida, but this requires the trucking of the gasoline to the va- rious naval air stations in Florida and southern Georgia. In my judgment, this is a very precarious situation, because an interrupted delivery of gasoline would curtail flight operations and would greatly hinder our naval air operations in the interest of national defense. If the Congress authorizes this project, it will enable the Navy to acquire and expand residual ofl terminal facilities, tankage, pipe lines, and to expand the existing oil-storage facility at Jackson- ville which has been declared surplus by War Assets Administration. The bill also proposes the dredging of the submarine basin at the naval station at Key West, Fla. This work would in- crease the existing depth in the basin to 80 feet, which would permit the opera- tion and testing of submarines and other vessels without damage to their pro- pellers.. The Navy plans also, if authorized to do so, to locate at Fort Lauderdale, Fla., the only school in the country which will give coordinated underseas-warfare in- struction, including antisubmarine war- fare in surface, air, and submarine as- pects, to senior naval officers who will be responsible for the conduct of underseas war operations. This project will pro- vide facilities for the training of about 50 officers in a class. Therefore, Mr. President, I believe that Congress should approve this project in the interest of our national security. Mr. President, family housing and utilities for the use of service families
1950 at our air bases in Florida are not suffi- cient to meet their needs and require- ments. In the Valparaiso area, near the Eglin Field Air Force Base, in west Florida, the family housing situation is extremely critical. Based upon the pres- ent plans of the Air Force for using this base, there is an indicated deficiency of 64 percent. It is estimated that if Con- gress authorizes $1,584,000 for Eglin Field it will permit the Air Force to construct 96 units of housing. In the Tampa area, around the MacDill Air Force Base, the situation is just as desperate. The indi- cated deficiency is 71 percent, and $1,- 584,000 proposed in the bill would permit the construction of 96 housing units. The additional family quarters which will be provided by the bill will only par- tially relieve conditions at both air bases, The bill would also authorize $1,875,- 000 for the construction of armament engineering test facilities at Eglin Air Force Base to insure the adequate exe- cution of the current program. In addi- tion, if the bill is passed by Congress, it will permit the MacDill Air Force Base to acquire additional fuel-storage facili- ties and to widen taxiways and construct an additional parking apron at an esti- mated cost of $2,828,000. MacDill Field is now a base for a medium-bomber group and also has a squadron of air- sea-rescue aircraft. The purchase and rehabilitation of an oil plant at Pan- ama City will enable the Air Force to drop the leasing of bulk storage of fuel in this area. At present these facilities are obtained by lease from commercial companies. The bill would permit the Air Force to acquire a former Navy resid- ual oil terminal at Panama City as soon as funds for such acquisition become available. Of course, at the present time the terminal still belongs to the Navy. Mr. President, we can no longer post- pone consideration of this important bill. I very much hope the Senate will pass this bill, significant as it is to our entire national security, before the end of this day Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I in- quire what is the pending question? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ho.ianp in the chair). The pending question is on agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substi- tute, which is open to amendment from the floor. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, I offer the amendment which I send to the desk and ask to have stated. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment to the committee amend- ment will be stated. The Cuier CierK. In the committee amendment in the nature of a substi- tute, on page 23, in line 14, after the word “contingencies”, it is proposed to insert the following: Provided, That the average cost of all the family quarters to be constructed under the authority of this Act shall not exceed (1) 811,000 per family unit for construction, in- cluding kitchen range, refrigerators, tele- phone, architectural and engineering serv- ices and all contingencies and (2) $1,750 per family unit for site development and out- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE side utilities, including architectural and en- gineering services therefor and all contin- gencies. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, a par- Mamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. TYDINGS. The amendment I offered is in the nature of a substitute. The Senator from Illinois has now offered an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. I take it that perfecting amendments to the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois to the amendment in the nature of a substitute are in order. Is that cor- rect? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Perfect- ing amendments to the amendment of- fered by the junior Senator from Illinois to the committee amendment, which in itself is in the nature of a substitute for the entire bill, are in order. Mr. TYDINGS. Then I should like to offer an amendment to the amendment of the Senator from Illinois to the com- mittee amendment, namely, to strike out the figure “$11,000” and insert in lieu thereof ‘‘$13,000.” I shall discuss that amendment after the Senator from Illinois speaks; I as- sume that perhaps he may wish to make a short statement in regard to his own amendment to the committee amend- ment. Or would the Senator prefer that I discuss at this time my amendment to his amendment? Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, a par- liamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. DOUGLAS. Suppose the amend- ment of the Senator from Maryland should be agreed to; would it then be in order to offer an amendment to the section as amended? The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would be in order to offer amendments to other portions of the section, but not to that portion. It would, however, be in order to offer a new substitute amendment in its entirety. Mr. DOUGLAS. Do I correctly under- stand the situation then that if the last amendment of the Senator from Mary- land is adopted fixing a $13,000 average, we shall then be stopped from proposing a lower figure as a subsequent amend- ment to the proposals of the Senator from Maryland, therefore, and, that the figure will be frozen at $13,000? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Illinois that if the Tydings amendment should be agreed to, the question would then be on the amendment offered by the Sen- ator from Illinois, as amended, by sub- stituting the numerals “$13,000”, for the numerals ‘$1,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator from Illinois is aware of that fact. But sup- pose it should be adopted; would there then be any possibility of offering an amendment which would reduce the average below the $13,000 figure? We are going through an elaborate game of cards, here; the Senator from Maryland has just trumped my trick, and I want to find out whether there is any possi- bility of overtrumping, . 1721 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise the Senator from Illi- nois that his suspicion is well founded, and that if the $13,000 figure is substi- tuted for the $11,000 figure, the $13,000 figure will stand, and the only way to replace it after that time would be to withdraw his entire amendment and offer another in place of it. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I want to try to take no undue advantage of the legislative situation, and I shall try to state what is involved here in about two or three sentences. We have debated the subject all afternoon, and I do not want to prolong debate. The reason I have proposed $13,000 as an average of what the houses will cost, keeping the ceiling of $14,000, beyond which none of them can go, and an over-all average of not to exceed $13,000, is that the actual table of experience in building houses in many States all over the country shows the average cost to be $13,271. I have taken off $271 already from the average in an effort to force it to what I believe to be the greatest possible extent without harming the proposal. The amendment of the Senator from Illinois provides that the average shall not exceed $11,000 all over the country. There is no experience that I know of, or at least I may say it seems so, in my judgment, which would justify such an average. The figures I have represent the average from California to Maine, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific, of houses identical with those to be built under the pending bill. I do not believe I could go further in reducing it in the face of the table. The Senator from Illinois feels otherwise. He feels it could safely be reduced to $11,000 as an aver- age, keeping the $14,000 top, as provided. My fear is that if his amendment is adopted it will result in the building of houses only in places where they can be built cheaply, and in none being built in places where it is not possible to hit the average which he so admirably desires to obtain. In the event my amendment is adopted, of course, his amendment would be out of order, as the matter now stands. In the event my amendment is voted down, his amendment would then be in order. I think I have stated the matter with reasonable accuracy and fairness. I am compelled to take this legislative process, and to offer my amendment, in order to bring the issue clearly before the Senate. The matter will have to be reviewed by the Appropriations Committee, even after the authorization is made. That committee may find it possible to go lower in the light of the facts, but we ought to go lower on facts and not on supposition, which, in my opinion, would defeat the program. Furthermore, it is a Senate bill. It must go to the House Armed Services Committee for review and reexamination. We, therefore, have two more procedures through which it must pass; first, the Senate Appropria- tions Committee, if the bill passes both Houses, which committee will appropri- ate only such money as is deemed wise for the purpose; and secondly, the House Armed Services Committee. As has been suggested, the House Appropriations Committee would also have to act on it.
1722 I may now point out that there is in- sufficient money in the President's budg- et to cover all these projects. The pres- sure, therefore, is already on the Military Establishment to get the utmost they can within the money the President has asked the Congress to appropriate. I ask for the question, Mr. President. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I shall be very brief, because there has already been a long discussion of the subject. The amendment of the Senator from Maryland to my amendment, instead of fixing an $11,000 average, would, as he stated, fix a $13,000 average. The total savings which would be effected by the amendment of the Senator from Mary- land would amount to only $9,000,000 in- side continental United States, whereas the amendment I propose would save $21,000,000 inside continental United States. If the provisions now in the bill concerning Alaska and regions outside continental United States are to remain in it, the further saving under my amendment would be approximately $10,000,000, making a total saving of $31,000,000, as compared to the saving under the proposal of the Senator from Maryland of approximately $12,000,000. That is the financial stake involved. I do not want to prolong the discussion further. The Rrcorp can be read. I ask Senators to vote “no” on the amendment of the Senator from Maryland to my amendment, and to strive to fix $11,000 as the average. I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were not ordered. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, before we reach a vote, I think I should be recreant in my obligation as a Senator to all the people of America if I did not take this occasion to praise the able and eminent Senator from Illinois for his great desire to effect economy, and for the part he has played in the discussion which has taken place, which I think will have a wholesome effect on all those who administer the act. The Senator from Illinois has rendered a fine public service in debating the whole matter, and I am sorry I cannot accept his point of view. only because I believe, while he and I want the same thing, that his amendment would defeat the program. But nevertheless, he has shown himself to be alive to the interest of the taxpay- ers, and I share that interest. While I can go with him on this question, be- cause I do not believe it would be whole- some, the Senator has shown himself to be an outstanding Member of this body, and comprehensive of all the implica- tions involved in any appropriation. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President—— The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia. Mr. DOUGLAS. I want to thank the most gracious Senator from Maryland for his kind words. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognized the Senator from Vir- ginia. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I do not wish to interfere with the state- ment the Senator from Illinois is mak- ing. He wanted to thank the Senator from Maryland. I did not realize that. I yield, then, to enable him to finish his statement. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized. Mr. DOUGLAS. I merely wanted to thank the Senator from Maryland for his very kind words, which are unde- served, and to say that he is a most gracious Member of a most gracious club. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I wish to propound a question to the dis- tinguished Senator from Maryland; if I may. Mr. TYDINGS. I shall be glad to have the Senator from Virginia do so. Mr. ROBERTSON. Naturally, I want to vote to save public funds. I should like to ask, first, if there was any divi- sion at all in the committee on this is- sue, and did the committee consider, be- fore the bill was reported, the plan now proposed by the distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douaias! ? Mr. TYDINGS. I shall answer the questions in order. First of all, the bill came from the committee with a unani- mous report, after—I am guessing, but I think I am substantially accurate— approximately 6 weeks of hearings. The suggestion of the Senator from Tllinois was discussed. It was not discussed in exact terms, but the principle was at- tempted to be obtained, and we agreed upon a limitation of floor space, upon a uniform building, and upon a ceiling, so as to keep the cost down to an irreduci- ble minimum. Mr. ROBERTSON. Over what period of time will the program probably ex- tend? Mr. TYDINGS. According to advices received yesterday and today—and we had received other advices prior to that time—it will probably take 2 or 3 years to complete. It will depend somewhat upon how much money the Appropria- tions Committee makes available an- nually. The President's budget this year calls, I think, for approximately $400,- 000,000 to do a job amounting to ap- proximately $500,000,000. That is my recollection. Mr. ROBERTSON. As the junior Sen- ator from Virginia understands, there is @ program which will cover two or more years, and the Senator specifies a top limit. Mr. TYDINGS. That is correct. Mr. ROBERTSON. Am I to under- stand that as the military authorities come before the committee to get funds from time to time the members of the Appropriations Committee may inquire into the then existing construction costs and ascertain to what extent the military authorities are planning to go, and may use their own best judgment at that time as to how much to appropriate? Mr. TYDINGS. The Senator is cor- rect in his understanding. I not only hope the Appropriations Committee will do that, but, as the Senator from Vir- ginia is an eminent member of that com- mittee, I request that he and his col- leagues inquire into it, as I know they will, and reduce the expense by every dollar it can be reduced, without destroy- ing the essentials of the program. Mr. ROBERTSON. With that assur- ance from my distinguished friend, I am going along with the bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- FEBRUARY 9 ment offered by the Senator from Mary- land to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Illinois. Mr. DOUGLAS and Mr. HUMPHREY asked for the yeas and nays. Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President, may we have the amendment explained for the benefit of those Senators who were not present during the discussion? Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I shall be glad to do so with the permission of the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland. Mr. TYDINGS. The Senator from Illinois has offered an amendment pro- viding that the housing shall in no case cost more than $14,500 a house and that the average cost shall not be more than $11,000 a house. The Senator from Maryland offered a perfecting amend- ment which provides the same ceiling of $14,500 a house, but fixes an average of $13,000 a house, rather than $11,000; the reason being that I took the figure from the actual experience of the mili- tary department in some twenty or thirty States in building houses, exactly like those which have been discussed. As houses built in the North cost more than those which are built in the South, if we make the average too low, we shall have houses only in places in which they can be built at a minimum cost rather than where they are actually needed. There- fore, I have offered an amendment cov- ering what actual experience shows to be the average and reducing it a little in or- der to get a little more economy into the program. Mr. FLANDERS. I thank the Senator from Maryland. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Bricker Humphrey Mundt Byrd Hunt Murray Cain Ives Neely Chapman Jenner O'Conor Chavez Johnson, Colo. O'Mahoney Connally Johnson, Tex Pepper Cordon Johnston, 8.C. Robertson Darby Kefauver Russell Douglas Kem Saltonstall Downey Kerr Schoeppel Ecton Kilgore Smith, Maine Ellender Knowland Smith, N.J, Flanders Leahy Sparkman Frear Lehman Stennis Fulbright Lodge Taylor George Lucas Thomas, Okla. Gillette McCarran Thomas, Utah Green McClellan Tobey Gurney McFarland Tydings Hayden McKellar Watkins Hendrickson McMahon Wiley Hickenlooper Magnuson Withers Hill Martin Young Hoey Maybank Holland Millikin The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is present. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Sen- ator from Maryland [Mr. TypIncs] to the amendment of the Senator from IIli- nois [Mr. Douazas]. Mr. DOUGLAS, I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were not ordered. Mr, DOUGLAS. I ask for a division. On a division, the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
1950 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois {Mr, Dovctas], as amended by the amendment offered by the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Typinecs]. The amendment, as amended, was agreed to. Mr. HOEY rose. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, before the Senator from North Carolina offers his amendment, I should like to offer a number of amendments relating to the inactivation of certain hospitals to which reference has been made. I shall appre- ciate it if we can dispose of those amend- ments. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments will be stated. The legislative clerk read the amend- ments, as follows: On page 5, delete all of lines 13 and 14. On page 5, delete all of lines 17 and 18. On page 6, line 17, delete ‘Farmily” and substitute tn Heu thereof “Family.” On page 7, delete all of lines 3-5, inclu- sive. On page 12, line 7, delete ‘‘Heuneme” and insert in lieu thereof “Hueneme.” On page 13, delete “Naval Auxillary Air Station, Charleston, Rhode Island.” On page 13, delete all of lines 23 and 24. On page 15, line 4, delete ‘one hundred thousand barrels” and insert in lieu thereof “one hundred ninety thousand barrels.” On page 17, line 2, delete ‘devise’ and insert in leu thereof “device.” On page 20, line 16, delete “refrigeration puilding ” On page 21, line 11, delete "$216,849" and insert in Meu thereof “$261,849.” On page 22, line 9, delete “$65,159,300” and insert in lieu thereof “$64,087,300.” The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maryland wish to have the amendments acted upon en bloc? Mr. TYDINGS. Yes, Mr. President. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendments offered by the Senator from Maryland. The amendments were agreed to. Mr. HOEY. Mr. President, I send forward an amendment which I offer and ask to have stated. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 11, after line 9, it is proposed to insert the following: Camp Lejeune, N. C.: Construction of ratl- road spur from Camp Lejeune to Cherry Point, N. C., $3,000,000. Mr. HOEY. Mr. President, that is an amendment which is already in the House bill, and is very strongly recom- mended. The amendment would au- thorize expenditure, but it would not cost anything, since a profit would be realized by the Government as a result of the amendment in the cost of transporta- tion of freight between the two points the Government would save. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I am reasonably familiar with the amend- ment. I believe the House has it under consideration now. It would appear from a cursory examination of it that there is a probability it would result in a saving. I do not want to commit my- self, but will take the amendment to con- ference if the Senator will let me accept it in that vein, and will look into it again. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE If it is not an economically sound pro- posal, we will have to drop it in the con- ference, but I think it is worthy to be taken to conference for further consid- eration. Mr. HOEY. That is entirely satis- factory. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment offered by the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Hoey]. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I de- sire to call up my amendment lettered “A,” which I now offer and ask to have stated. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 16, after line 4, it is proposed to insert the following: Air Force base, Savannah, Ga.: Facilities, barracks, quarters and utilities, pavements and storage, $1,275,000. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, if Members of the Senate will look at page 17 of the original bill they will find in lines 15 and 16 an item for the Chatham Air Force Base, Savannah, Ga., in the same amount of $1,275,000. In the sub- stitute that item was considered by the committee and reported. It does not appear in the substitute proposed by the Senator from Maryland. That is due to the fact that the Air Force is now in process of moving the heavy bombardment group which is sta- tioned at Chatham Field to Hunter Field, which is some 7 miles away. There is no doubt of the need for the improve- ment of the facilities at Hunter Field. The need is perhaps not quite so great as it was in the case of Chatham Field, but there is a great need, particularly for the housing of the personnel at that base. I called up the Department of Defense to find out why a request for this item had not been sent to the Congress, and was told it was due to the fact they had not yet moved. They are planning to move on the Ist day of June, I believe, to make the actual transfer from Chat- ham Field to Hunter Field. For that reason the Secretary of Defense has not cleared any request for an authorization for that field. I was assured that the Air Force was preparing an authoriza- tion which they would submit in a second public-works bill. In my opinion the Congress will not pass, or is not very likely to pass, any other military public- works bill at this session. Some 1,800 airmen are located at that base, and the housing and other facilities are com- pletely inadequate. In my opinion, this item should go back into the bill. The mere fact that there has been a technical transfer should not deny the men who are stationed at the fleld improved quar- ters and a place to live, and proper facilities. I hope the amendment will be agreed to. It seems to me to be emi- nently fair under the circumstances in this case, when, merely due to the techni- cality that they have not moved from one field to the other, there is no pro- posal before the Senate to take care of the men of this heavy-bombardment group. 1723 Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, will my colleague yield? Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. GEORGE. I merely wish to re- mind my colleague that in the transfer from the one field to the other, there was a present lack of money to remove the heavy installations to Hunter Field. That has been arranged, and the Civil Aeronautics officials themselves are now engaged in the actual removal of those facilities to Hunter Field. So that at a very early date it will be possible to move to the new field, or rather, to the old field, Hunter Field. Everything will be ready then for these quarters and these other utilities that were provided for in the original bill. Mr. RUSSEI.L. My colleague is emi- nently correct. Not only that, Mr. Presi- dent, but the city of Savannah has con- tributed substantial sums for the pur- poses of improving these fields and for their construction—I have forgotten the exact amount, but it runs into several hundred thousand dollars—as well as having made contribution toward mov- ing the facilities for the commercial field, which is now Hunter Field, over to Chatham Field. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, there is a great deal in what the Senator from Georgia has said. Of course, he is cor- rect in saying that the field has been moved from Chatham to Hunter. I should like to go along with him on the amendment. I cannot do so personally because I asked the Defense Depart- ment whether they wanted this appro- priation, and I was advised they did not need it at this time. I would not be sur- prised to find them asking for it later, but at the present time I tell my col- leagues of the Senate that the Defense Department does not favor the appropri- ation. Mr. RUSSELL. I should like to ask the Senator from Maryland if he does not refer to the Secretary of Defense rather than the Secretary of the Air Force in making that statement? Mr. TYDINGS. I should like to say that our communication, I believe, does come from the Secretary of Defense. I was under the impression we had re- ceived it from both, but I think that is erroneous. I think it is only from the Secretary of Defense who did not ques- tion the merit of the proposition, but said that he did not feel he should recom- mend it at this time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment offerec by the Senator from Geor- gia |Mr. RussE.ul. The amendment was agreed to. Mr, RUSSELL. Mr. President, I offer the amendment which I send to the desk and ask to have stated. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment offered by the Senator from Georgia will be stated. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. At the proper place in the bill it is proposed to insert the following: Marine Corps depot of supplies, eastern United States: Depot facilities at location to be determined, $25,000,000. Increase the total authorization of scction 402 by $25,000,000.
1724 Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, it came to my attention that the Marine Corps was in dire need of a depot on the east coast. At the present time the Marine Corps has no depot which ts at all ade- quate to provide for its operational fa- cilities on the east coast. The only large storage facility which it has at the pres- ent time is on the west coast, and it is grossly inadequate. The Navy Department has approved the request for this item but it has not cleared the office of the Secretary of Defense. At my request the Quarter- master General of the Marine Corps came before the committee. His testi- mony was to the effect that there was three or four million dollars’ worth of valuable equipment, consisting of ord- nance, electronic equipment, general supplies, motor transport, and engineer- ing equipment, for which there were no storage facilities. He further testified that the Marine Corps had examined every storage place which had been made available by the Army, that only four or five small spaces were available, which were not sufficient to provide for this ma- terial, and that the places were so widely scattered that it would be very expensive to undertake to use them rather than to have a general storage depot. Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Is the Senator ina position to indicate whether the mate- ria] involved is obsolete or an up-to-date usable type of material which is needed? Mr. RUSSELL. The testimony before the committee was to the effect that this was all the most modern type of equip- ment, which would be put into use imme- diately by the Marine Corps in the event of war. I shall read briefly from pro- gram 7, priority No. 101, which was sub- mitted by the Marine Corps to the Sec- retary of Defense: The Marine Corps does not have supply facilities in the eastern United States capa- ble of supporting even iimited operations in the Atlantic area. Supporting facilities to meet the logistic requirements of any future operations are largely concentrated on the west coast. This is a result of the main effort of the Marine Corps in the last war being in the Pacific; the erst-coast depots were merely required to support training activities in the East. Consequently, the majority of the war-reserve stocks are now located in western United States, and must remain there until eastern facilities are es- tablished to allow redistribution. Concen- tration of stocks on the west coast for sup- port of a main effort across the Atlantic is neither efficient nor logical and may well invite defeat of forces initially committed. War-reserve stocks, to be worth having at all, must be located in approximate geo- graphical areas corzcsponding to foreseeable troop deployment. Further, the stocks should be 80 located as to permit imme- Gate distribution and not subject to delays end disruptions of transportation systems attendant to the outbreak of hostilities. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp at this point the entire statement from which I have been reading. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Locations to be determined Development of a Marine Corps depot of supplies in the east- ern United States, including buildings, utilities, collateral equipment, and accessory con- struction__._-_.-.----.------ $25, 000, 000 The mission of the Marine Corps depot of supplies, eastern United States, is to func- tion as the general storage and supply depot in receiving, storing, and issuing all material necessary to support Marine Corps forces and establishments east of the Mississippi River and Marine Corpse forces overseas in the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent areas. The Marine Corps does not have supply facilities in the eastern United States capa- ble of supporting even limited operations in the Atlantic area. Supporting facilities to meet the logistic requirements of any future operations are Jargely concentrated on the west coast. This is a result of the main effort of the Marine Corps in the last war being in the Pacific; the east coast depots were merely required to support training activities in the East. Consequently, the majority of the war-reserve stocks are now located in western United States, and must remain there until eastern facilities are es- tablished to allow redistribution. Concen- tration of stocks on the west coast for support of a main effort across the Atlantic is neither efficient nor logical and may well invite defeat of forces initially committed. War-reserve stocks, to be worth having at all, must be located in approximate geographical areas corresponding to foreseeable troop deploy- ment. Further, the stocks should be so located as to permit immediate distribution and not subject to delays and disruptions of transportation systems attendant to the out- break of hostilities. The status of existing supply facilities on the Atlantic seaboard is: Depot of supplies, Philadelphia: Manufac- turing facilities, publications stock and issue, limited general storage. Depot of supplies, Norfolk: Engineer stor- age (limited) and distribution, mounting-out area for a peacetime division, forwarding depot for forces in the Atlantic but not capable of storing supplies to be shipped. Supply depot, Camp Lejeune, N. C.: Sup- port training activities and Marine Division at Camp Lejeune, stock mounting-out sup- plies and two monthly resupply shipments for a peacetime division. The afore-mentioned supply activities are not capable of expansion to provide logistic support to an operation in the Atlan- tic area, other than the use of Norfolk as a shipping depot. Even if it were possible to expand these activities, it 1s not desirable, from a strategic viewpoint, to make large concentrations of vital installations directly on the Atlantic seaboard. It 1s essential that redistribution of war- reserve stocks commence as soon as possible, and this cannot be initiated until a depot has been established to receive these stocks. Upon establishment of the proposed depot, it is planned to place material there in the most economical manner possible by: (1) Shipping stocks from the west coast, mainly by water shipment, as funds and shipping become available, and (2) when new pro- curement is required to replace issues made from west coast stocks, to schedule ship- ment of such new material to the proposed eastern United States depot. Location: To be determined after further study and inspection of sites by a committee appointed by the Marine Corps Station De- velopment Board. Considerations dictating the general location are: FEBRUARY 9 1. Should be inland, approximately 800 to 400 miles from the Atlantic seaboard. 2. Should be on a well-established rail and highway net, offering access to manu- facturing centers, shipping ports, and air- transport facilities. 8. Should provide space for 5,000,000 square feet of open storage. 4. Should be near a reasonably good labor pool, but not located near a war industry which would compete for that labor. 5. Should have access to good power sources. 6. Should be adjacent to housing, or space for operating personnel. The specific siting of the proposed depot will be dictated by— 1. Adaptability of ground for construction of installations. 2, Cost of land. 3. Proximity to other probable targets for strategic bombing or sabotage. 4 Location of existing roads, railroads, and commercial power and communications systema, Size: 2,500 acres. Covered storage, 2,000,000 square feet. Barracks, housing, administration, utill- ties, and other necessary features: to be designed after selection of site. Estimated cost of the project ts as follows: peacetime increment: Site acquisition._.....---_--.-. €500, 000 Architectural and engineering fees.__---..--------~--------. 2, 000, 000 Site preparation_-_..-..-----._. 200, 000 Barracks, bachelor officers’ quar- ters, mess hall, and administra- tion ....-2. 2-22 900, 000 Utilities: Sewage system and treat- ment plant... .-_-._-_.. 1, 000, 000 Water-supply system..._._. 500, 000 Electric-distribution system_ 50, 000 Communication system...__ 100, 000 Dispensary____--__--.-----_.---. 150, 000 Housing, officer and enlisted._.. 1, 468, 000 Covered storage, 2,000,000 sq. ft__ 14, 000, 000 Roads, interior..-_---.---_-_-- 600, 000 Railroad, interior roads and sid- ings -..---2----- ee 500, 000 Fence, gatehouses, security de- vices... 259, 000 Garage and industrial truck serv- fee pullding-....-22-22-2 225, 000 Depot administration building... 175, 000 Recreation, post exchange, the- ater -22 2. ee 175, 000 Contingencies_____.--.---. ee -- 2,207, 000 Total estimated cost._.___ 25, 000, 000 Mr. RUSSELL. Through some inad- vertence the testimony of General Hull at the hearing was not printed in the Recorp. I regret that was not done, be- cause it seems to me that he makes out @ very compelling case for this item. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the distinguished Senator from Maryland {Mr. Typrnos], asked General Hill this question: The CrareMaNn. Is this material that is affected adversely by the weather? General Hr. It is, sir. Mr. Russe... What steps, if any, have you taken to try to get storage facilities? General Hutu. For about 4 years, sir, we have been trying to get one in the program, It has been approved by the Navy Depart- ment, and last year it went to the National Military Defense Establishment, but was not considered operational, so was not put in the President’s budget and at the present time it 1s not in the President’s plan. I do not wish to belabor this point, but the testimony at the hearing shows the great efforts which the Marine Corps has