PUBLIC BUILDINGS AMENDMENT OF 1972

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86-00244R000100080037-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 32
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 19, 1999
• Sequence Number: 37
• Publication Date: April 19, 1972
• Content Type: OPEN

I
19 1972LLEGIB
CONGRESSI 113273
DERWI
WA G G OMPOOPtoCTigrAVVEIle s
Mien expressing the sense of the Con-
gress in a manner consistent with these
remarks. I intend to cosponsor that reso-
lution and to use my influence in what
I truly believe to be the most direct and
promising path to peace for this and fu-
ture generations.
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF BILL FOR SUPPLEMENTAL AP-
PROPRIATIONS, 1972
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I have two
unanimous-consent requests to make.
The House Appropriations Committee
will report on Monday two bill.
First, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that it may be in order on any
day after Tuesday of next week?and
that would be Wednesday or thereafter?
to consider a general appropriation bill
making supplemental appropriations for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and
for other purposes.
? The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
__the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, may I ask the gentle-
man how it is proposed to handle these
bills, in the absence of a rule?
. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, if the gen-
tleman from Iowa will yield, this is a
general supplemental appropriation bill
which would supply funds to many agen-
cies of the Government:
? Mr. GROSS. Yes, I understand that.
Mr. MAHON. I understand, but per-
Mit me to explain further. It covers
many agencies of Government. Most of
the additional money is the result of pay
increases which have been accorded by
or pursuant to law. It voil be the plan of
the committee to call the bill up for gen-
eral debate with 2 hours of debate, to
be divided equally, and then under the
5-minute rule, as we usually do on appro-
priation bills.
? This request is for the purpose of
bringing the bill up on Wednesday, if
possible.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw
my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, would the distinguished
chairman of the Appropriations Com-
mittee inform us as to whether or not it-
is contemplated that the supplemental
appropriation bill will include any money
for the military?
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, if the gen-
tleman will yield, the bill will include
several hundreds of millions of dollars
for pay increases for civilian and hnlitry
personnel, based on laws heretofore en-
acted.
It is now a matter of providing the ad-
ditional funds with which to make the
payments so authorized.
Mr. RYAN. For personnel?
Mr. MAHON. Yes. -
Mr. RYAN. Will it include any money y
Southeast Asia?
09/4Y: eykaRDP8640244 40008003t7ie& objection to
ou east Asia anc areas all over the the lequest of the gentleman from Texas
world. But the supplemental amounts (Mr. Manoita ?
are not related directly to Southeast There was no objection.
Asia.
It does provide for pay of military per-
sonnel, of course.
Mr. RYAN. Does the bill itself, in addi-
tion to pay increases for civilian and
military personnel, contain any money
for military operations in Southeast
Asia?
Mr. MAHON. Not as such at all; no.
The whole objective here is to bring
the bill up on Wednesday rather than
Thursday in order to expedite the busi-
ness of the House.
Mr. RYAN. But there is no military
money involved, except for pay increases?
Mr. MAHON. Generally speaking, that
is correct. I would be perfectly happy for
the gentleman to look at the report
which is not in final form, but which is
available in. draft form.
Mr. RYAN. I am concerned about the
chairman's statement "generally speak-
ing." Is there some other money, other
than for pay. increases?
Mr. MAHON. No; not at all.
Of course, the House can work its will
on whatever it wishes to do with the bill
which will be before us next week.
I would say to the gentleman from New
York that it provides for the Depart-
ment of Defense?military, retirement
pay, and increased pay and retirement.
In respect to the Defense Department
and to a large extent otherwise, it is a
routine appropriation to supply supple-
mental funds for pay cost increases here-
tofore put into effect.
Mr. RYAN. In other words, the only
military funding is for the payment of
personnel, either pay increases or in-
creases in reiirement y?
Mr. MAHON. The gentleman is cor-
rect.
Mr. RYAN. And there is no money for
procurement of weapons, or for conduct-
ing military operations?
Mr. M..tHON. This did not provide
for the procurement of weapons or am-
munition.
Mr. RYAN. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw by reserva-
tion of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from TeX-
as?
Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, do I understand the
chairman to say that there will be a re-
port available on this supplemental?
Mr. 'MAHON. Yes, when the bill is re-
ported. It will be reported on Monday.
Mr. PICKLE. Would we be able to have
a copy of the report by Monday?
Mr. MAHON. Yes; just as soon as the
cs,rimuttce reports it Monday of ternoon. coh,mue not to exceed one
7,1r, Piel_cf__,E. Ariti n'_it before.? eoitally divided .,f.td conr(;Lle,1
rkaii and
M AH ran.-.;
Mr. ON. Not before, bee arise the -
Committee on PuOlic S!
bill Will no 'inputs cc'born . Ts. ? be read for amendment at..tt.:r te
port, in fact, is not yet finalized. If the oar role. It shall be in order to considyr the
gentleman needs to know what is tenta- amendment in the nature_ of a substitute
ively in the bill, it can be providsd; we recti,mmended by the Committee On Iiie
have a draft of the bill and report, but Wats now printed in tile bLit as an er:i?al
-he Point is the athole committee has not MEE for the purpose of ameutimei:
tlif five-minute rule. and ail poi') orrer
et consicierid and voted on it. -There agtinst said substitute for failure to ccan.,!3;
oulci be changes next Monday. witat the provisions of clause 7, rule XVI,
Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Speaker, I with- apt clause 4, rule XXI, are heri4iy v;aivt.d.
draw my reservation of objection. At the conclusion of such consideration, the
2000/09/14: CIA-RDP86-00244R000100080037-8
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF A JOINT RESOLUTION MAKING
A SPECIAL APPROPRIATION IN
RESPECT TO DOLLAR DEVALUA-
TION
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous consent that it may be in cider on
any day after Tuesday of next week to
consider a House joint resolution making
a special appropriation for the purpose
of carrying out the Par Value Modifica-
tion Act (Public Law 92-263) the dollar
devaluation bill.
This is a bill to provide for funds nee-
mazy as the result of the devaluation of
the dollar.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, I assume this is com-
monly known as the maintenance of
value bill?
Mr. MAHON. That is correct.
Mr. GROSS. And will the same provi-
sion for debate and consideration of this
bill apply as to the previous bill, with 2
hours of general debate?
Mr. MAHON. This would be a speelal
measure, but we would ask tor amole
time?an hour to each side, and then the
5-minute rule.
Mr. GROSS. With that understand-
ing, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my-
vation of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there obeetion to
the request of the gentleman from 'Isstas
(Mr. MAnotz) ?
There was no objection.
PUBLIC B UILDIN GS AM EN DrIE S
OF 1972
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Si)efier. by direc",-
ton of the Committee on Rules. 1 soil
House Resolution 931 and itek for its
_ mediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resoiution, as fol-
H. REs. 931
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
rEsolution it shall be in order zo
ravuse 27(d) (4) of rule XI to the contrary
nal^,vithstandit g. that the I.escive
--
self into the Comittee of the kN,ide
on the State of the Union for c.,,
eziltion of the bill (H.R. 10488) to amend
tbz Public Buildings Act of .1:59. as amt,nded.
toprovide for rinaricing the acquisition. e.,.?,n-
stravtion, alt,r,ration, maintenance. opera-
ticte, and protection of public I- 'ii'.'. and
for other purpo:-.e,i. After go.n.ei..d
which shall be confined to the aln?, ;i111
Mr. MAHON. No; this is not related to
Southeast Asia. Of course, in a sense the
Approved For Release
IT 3274 ,,CONcRESSIONAL RECORD ? HC.?SE April 19, 197;
pphr9ved For lele,q 20o0/09/14 : CIA-RDP86-0020R000100080037-8
Comm 'L a rise and repor t le i 0 (Mr. LATTA asked and was given per- 'The SPEAKER. The question is on the
the House with such amendments as may mission .to revise and extend his re- motion offered by the gentleman from
have been adopted, and any Member may marks.) Illinois. .
demand a separate vote in the House on
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I agree with Tne motion was agreed to.
any amendment adopted in the Committee
of the Whole to the bill or to the commit- the statement just made by the gentle- IN TI1E COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
tee amendment in the nature of a subsii- man from Missouri (Mr. BOLLING) con.- Accordingly the House resolved itself
tute. The previous question shall be con- cerning the rule. I think it is a good rule.
sidered as ordered on the bill and amend- I think it is the only thing the Committee into the Committee of the Whole House
eon-
meats thereto to final passage without in- on Rules could do in this case. on the State of the Union for the tervening motion except one motion to re- FIR. 10188 amends both the ? Public sideration of the bill H.R, 10183. with
?
commit with or without instructions. After 'Mr. ASPINALI, in the chair.
Buildings Act of 1959 and the Federal
the passage of H.R. 10488, the Committee The Clerk read the title of the oill.
Property and Administrative Serviees Act
on Public Works shall be di7charged from By unimitnOUS consent, He rust read-
the further consideration of the bill, S. of 1949 in numerous respects. thg of the bill was dispensed with.
1736, and it .shall then be in order in the A major purpose of the bill is to require
House to move to strike out all after the Government agencies using public build- The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule. the
will
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. GP,
enacting clause of the said Senate bill and ings to budget and pay for the use of the AY ,
space they occupy. The receipts would be recognized for - 30 minutes, and the
Insert in lieu thereof the provisions con-
tained in H.R. 10483 as pas3ed by the House.
'
then be used by the General Services Ad- gentleman from Ohio (Mr. HARsitA) will
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from ministration to finance its public build- be recognized for 30 minutes. The gen-
Missouri (Mr. BOLLING) is recognized for ings construction and operations, but tleman from Illinois (Mr. Gamin is
recognized.
1 hour. only after these funds have been appro-
Mr. BOLLING. Mr, Speaker, I yield propriated by Congress. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield my-
30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio A second major purpose of the bill is- self 10 minutes.
(Mr. LATTA), pending which I yield my- to authorize the Administrator to enter Mr. Chairman, members of the com-
self such time as I may consume, into purchase contracts with independ- mittee, your House Committee on Public
Mr. Speaker, this is a rule that proves ent contractors for the purchase of build- Works is privileged to bring before nett
how complicated a simole oisen rule pro- ings, with payments to be mode over a today for consideration the bin H.R.
viding for 1 hour of general debate can period of from 10 to 30 years. This au- 10483 that would (=lend the r iibilo
Buildin Ac
be. It makes in order the committee sub- thority -would be valid for 3 years, and gs t of 1959 -
i o eecciiin? for fi
stitute for consideration as an original would nuke it possible to construct some nancing the acquisition, min ;'1.:.C't0II, al-
, bill for the purpose of amendment. It of the 63 public buildings already author- teration. maintenance, operiti.in arid
waives points of order for failure to corn- ized by the House and Senate Commit- protection of public buiniii17-S in tile
Vie-
ply with the 3-day rule, but copies of the tees on Public Works, but not yet funded. United States, Puerto Rico, and the Vie-
report are available. The committee report refers to this pro- gin Islands.
There are three sections of the laill vision as a "stop -gap expedient, an at- Mr. Chaieman, I can assure you that
this l slation is in the i est
which are, in effect, rearpropriations Of tempt i o reconcile the urgent need for egi ptiblic nter
funds and, therefore, points of order had new Federal facilities with present eco- and in the long run will save'eny eel:-
to be waived against them for failure `to nomic conditions." The bill would also, in lions of dol.lars of the taxpayme feeds.
comply with clause 4 of rule = which limited situations, permit the lease-con- There are nye main orovisions of the bill
makes it against the rules to have ar struction of Federal buildings authorized before you.
propriations in authorizing bills, but not funded. The committee renort First, H R. 10468 would Sliiffi a
describes lease construction as a "remote private entreOrCilellr method o. !-I: i
Sections 7 and 9 of the substitute whi h
we make in order for consideration as n alternative, avMetble only when direr!: ing public buildinos known as sr.
.s
-original bill were not in the original bill Federal construction and purchase con- contracta fee a sits st pseicie en
and there is some question of germane- tracting are not feasible." only in place or dirset Fele s
ness. Therefore, points of order are A third provision in the bill authorizes in order to inaileentiele cc,. s
waived against that in order to comply $1,500,000 in fiscal year 1972 for pay- much 'needed Fedora', jeilicile e in '' 7
with clause 7 of rule XVI. meat of costs of the ?publicly related StateS. Ptierto Rico, ond
Then less Unusual, we provide that functions of the niemorial aspects of the lands. Mr. Cl ii Ines ti.lici- "Ss
after the passage of the House bill, the John F. Kennedy Center for the Per- ings have been autnorisied fer iiio s
-Committee on Public Works shall be dis- forming Ares. I oppose the inclusion of with no funds to censtruct (-nein. -Vinle
charged from further consideration Of this section to tins bill. these much needed le cenies 1: -e? e ?isen
Senate 1736 and it shall be in order to In addition to the $1,500,000 for the on the shelf, inflation has increased their
move to strike out all after the enacting Kennedy Center, the committee report aggregate cost by .9,1.)7,1'07';M:,: 'I;
clause of the Senate bill and amend it shows the cost of this bill over, the next million per year. In !?-n.l.il.t.ifii. (h. li,'eles-,:11.
with the House passed language. , 6 years as $1,430,800,000. However, the Government 'has been leasing nes oo s
I believe that describes all the unustial cost figures in the committee report do private individuals with no earthy ac-
cruing. to the taxpayers other than the
features of the rule. '
. i not take into consideration the fact that
I will say. that there was no oppositien the purchase contract arrangement, as- space used. The Genetol Services .Acimin-
istration estimates that by owiense these
to the rule among witnesses before -the suming .30-year contracts, will continue o,th en
iuings and payin- inlo eflU,I:,' Cl ii? o n
committee. Ida understand there is soeue to cost the taxpayers approximately save a minimum of $71 millions per year.
controversy in the matter that will be $100.000,000 per year until the contract
Mr. Cleairman, the second psenision I
made in order by the rule and if Ty expires. These a.dditional cost estimates would like to explain v ll also anent great
friend from Iowa would like me to yie d, were provided by the GSA Office of the i
savings to the taxpayers. IL (omen au-
I will attempt to answer his questio s. Budget.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, I move thorize establishment of a jinlbi!. build-
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank ?
ings fund into which will to siceosieel
gentleman for yielding the previous question on the resolution.
I a not at all surprised that there The preVicus miestion was ordered. user chaeres or toms oesleem l ,]?1
m
Federal depl irm!n-,L,; a
was no opposition to this rule from r,ien-i- The resolution was agreed to.
bers of the committee because this cer- A !noti on to reconsider was laid on space ill &A ookseae.
from anion wilt te
tainly accommodates them. I do not See the table. drieen 1 esi f,
finance the construction and men tition
how they could ask for more--they got - Mr. GRAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that of the new Government Innen nes. Under
all outdoors right along with the protqc- the House resolve itself into the Commit- present law, any agency ot Cio.:mrnenr
tive provisions they have in the bill, tee of the Whole House on the State of can request as much space as t,:y ,..rarit
Mr. BOLLING :The only thing I can tne Union for the consideratiod of the without having to request 1 cesta in their
say to the gentleman is that we conld bill ( H.R. 10488) to amend the Public budget.
have waived all points of order witheut Buildings Act of 1959, as amended, to We know for a fact thot?indiecritninate
painting out what they were in detail; provide for financing the acquisition, requests have been made for space that
Dille GROSS. I understand that. . construction, alteration, maintenance, is now costing the taxpayers millions of
T"eardirdie4
Ohio . . . legaffafft129110 /141"VffMr86Q00-244RG001,000909117-8quiri,
useven'
f r all i 1 3 '. agency to pay or he space they e iii
April -19, 1972 CO-r;RESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 11 3275
all GovernmeAPPEQMOCileft9rIBRIA44900444POngACAPPan-00001gaillM914QPinfale gen-
ings for the first time in our history we taining all monuments in the Nation's tleman from Illinois has expired.
Will know exactly what It is costing us Capital. This is where this responsibility Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield my-
to provide this space. Second, we know rightfully belongs. I am sure the Mem- self 2 additional minutes.
that agencies will be prone to consolidate hers of the House and the other body Putting it very simply, what we could
some of their far-flung operations and to do not want to be saddled with this build today for $1.4 billion, if we waited
save millions of dollars by requesting obligation as the years go by. The Park another year, would have a cost of $1.5
smaller amounts of money in their budg- Service has agreed to accept the respon- billion, and, at the present rate of infia-
ets. The Appropriations Committees of sibility and I again want to reiterate it tion, would have a cost of $1.7 billion
the House and Senate will approve these is only the responsibility and expense 2 years from now, and so on.
appropriations which will continue to connected with the daytime operation Mr. GROSS. Is the total, as set forth
give Congress full control over this new of the nonperforming arts functions of in tile report, $1,430,800,000? Is that the
revolving fund. The moneys collected in the Kennedy Memorial. total cost of the bill, and does that take
the revolving fund :then can go to pay Mr. Chairman, at the present time, into account the cost of the 61 buntlines?
the purchase contract payments for the there is an average of 8,000 to 10,000 Mr. GRAY. The 63 buildings. That es
63 new buildings and others that may be persons per day visiting the Kennedy not the total cost.
approved later. Center, some holidays produce even We must remember that many of these
Third, this legislation would preserve more. It is the second highest visitation projects were approved as long as 9 years
basic congressional controls over the point at the present time of any monu- ago. This is the best figure we could get
building authorization and spending. ment or facility in Washington. It is now from the General Services Adminis-
process while permitting necessary ad- second only to the Capitol Building. The tration.
ministrative flexibility. The bill contem- monument was closed for more than 3 / certainly want to be fair and candid
plates no change in the past requirement months which brought public clamor for the Members, as I have always tried
that the House and Senate Public Works from all over the United States. It was to be. I believe we can say by going the
Committees approve building prospec- reopened recently and if the authoriza- private entrepreneur route, a. e i) nulhcn
tuses. In addition, the General Services tion you are being asked to support is building over a period of 30 years would
Administration would be required, as at not adopted, the Board of Trustees will cost approximately double that, or $20
present, to submit annual budget re- have no alternative but to once again million. So we are really talking about a
quests to the Home and Senate Appro- close the Center during daylight hours. cost of close to $2 billion over the next 10
pria dons Committees and such requests To me, Mr. Chairman, this would be a years to 30 years.
would have to be approved by both national disgrace. Since the bill before There is a $71 million per year saving
- Houses before GSA could make any ex- you will save the taxpayers many mil- by moving out of rented space, where
pendittires from the fund. Thus, the Con- lions of dollars, I am sure every Mem- the taxpayer is getting no return for his
gress would continue to approve con- ber can justify voting for the entire bill investment, and by going into Govern-
struction on a building-by-building basis including this Kennedy Center amend- ment-owned buildings.
and to impose spending limitations. ment, since the $1.5 million will be offset Add that up, and subtract it from the
Fourth, the bill would require the Ad- by savings affected in other sections of $2 billion.
ministrator of GSA to submit a prospee- the bill. The best estimate I can give my friend
tus for approval by the House and Sen- Mr. Chairman, in closing let me tell is to look at page 30, and to say that
ate Public Works Committees wherever you that the American public deserves when those buildings are finally owned
he proposes to secure leased space for good service from their Government by the taxpayer they will cost us double.
which he pays an average annual rental whether it be in the adjudication of a Mr. GROSS. Is the figure of $1.430 mil-
in excess of $500,000. This is a tightening social security claim or help from the lion limited to the 63 buildings?
of congressional control over present many other Federal agencies. This bill Mr. GRAY. Yes, this is limited to the
leasing laws. At the present time, Con- will bring together all of these dispersed 63 buildings.
grass has no control oaer leasing of pub- offices under one roof in 63 communities, The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
lin buildings. We feel this should be catch up the 10-year backlog of public gentleman has again ey.pired.
brought under control so we can monitor building construction and make in order Mr. GRAY. Mr, Chairman, I yield
the amount spent for leased space where the consideration of other projects in myself 2 additional minutes.
it is not feasible to construct a new other congressional districts as the need In some cases it may be advantageous
arises. If we are to maintain a good court to the Government to take as short as
Fifth, lastly, the bill . would authorize 'system and provide good public service, a 10-year contract. We allow an eseala-
$1.5 million for the nonperforming arts we can do no less than send this bill on tion of between 10 and 30 years for con-
:functions at the John F. Kennedy Cen- to the White House immediately in its tracts.
ter, Mr. Chairman, I want to make it present form since it has already passed Putting it very simply, the figures are
crystal clear that these funds ? are for the other body overwhelmingly, what the building will cost. You have to
In closing, I have been asked by the add what the costs of other goods and
the security, maintenance, and other gentleman from California (Mr. BUR- services are, such a.8 architectural and
necessary expenses in connection with 'marl whether or not the Social Security engineering costs, and so forth. That is
the memorial and not the performing Building in San Francisco could be why I am being candid in saying that it
arts functions of the Center. Your corn- moved from that city under the terms will cost double.
mittee on public works was requested to of this bill; the answer is "No." The General Services Administration
provide several million dollars to pay I shall be delighted now to yield to any is spending Millions a year now for
for cost overruns due to labor disputes, Member who might have any questions leased space, and I think you have to add
Inflation, and other factors. Those funds concerning this measure, that in, with nothing in return to the
are not in this bill. The $1.5 million is Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the taxpayer.
to pay the National Park Service for
guard protection, to pay for electrical gentleman yield? Mr. GROSS. Are there no other costs
and air-conditioning bills and other ex- Mr. GRAY. I am delighted to yield to expenditures other than $1.5 million for
pensea in connection with keeping the my friend from Iowa. that monstrosity down on the Potomac?
Kennedy Center open to the general. Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman Mr. GRAY. That Ls the enLire
public during daytime hours when the for yielding. I understand the gentleman now. '1 here
performing arts part of the Center is What is the total cost of this hill? is no cost in here except the cost for tile
not in operation. This authorization ex- Mr. GRAY. In the present estimate of 63 buildings plus the $1.5 million for the
Kennedy Center. I am sorry I did not
plies at the end of this fiscal year with the cost of the 63 buildings, it aggregates
no continuing authorization and it will approximately $1.4 billion. As I pointed understand the gentleman's question be-
be our intention under the 5-minute rule out in my statement earlier, many of fore.
to offer an amendment giving the these projects have been authorized for Mr. LENNON. Will the gentleman
responsibility of providing security and many years, and it has cost the Amen-
yield?
Maintenance at the Kennedy Center to can taxpayer about $100 million per year Mr. GRAY. I yield to the gentleman,
the National Park Service which is in inflation for these 63 projects. Mr. LENNON. On page 25 of the cam-
Approved For Release 2000/09/14: CIA-RDP86-00244R000100080037-8
H 32VOproved For ReleWiceMiting4IsTCPRIRM15-110A4490010008003y/i/ 19, 1974
mittee report, as you describe the term
"public buildings," beginning on line
13, where it describes it as "any other
building or construction project, the in-
clusion of which the President may
deem, from time to time hereafter, to be
justified in the public interest." For the
purpose of precedent, is the annual
authorization bill or such authorization
bill as has been brought out by the Com-
mittee on Public Works relating to pub-
lic buildings giving the President of the
United States the authority to make the
selection of the site and then Congress
will fund whatever he says should be
built, whether it is a center in the Dis-
trict of Columbia for a sports arena or
, not? Have we done this before?
Mr. GRAY. The gentleman has raised
a very important question. If you will
- refer to the report, you will see the bill
you are being asked to vote on here today
does not authorize a single project be-
yond the 63 line items put in this re-
port on page 30.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has again expired.
Mr. GRAY, Mr. Chairman, I yield my-
self 5 additional minutes in order to
answer questions.
It does not authorize one single
project beyond the 63 enumerated in the
report. If any additional buildings are
required any place in the country,
whether in the gentleman's congres-
sional district or mine or anyone else,
you would have to go through the regu-
lar procedure of the General Services
Administration making a survey of the
space needs and working up what is
known as a prospectus and submitting
this prospectus to the House Committee
, on Public Works. It would then have to
be approved by the Senate Committee on
Public Works before any money could
be spent from the revolving fund for
any purpose for any type of building.
Mr, LENNON. I very much appreciate
the gentleman's explicit and definitive
explanation, but I am concerned as to
why in your report you state as it is
used this term: "Public buildings," and
then it goes on to say that a public
building is any building or construction
project the inclusion of which the Presi-
dent may deem from time to time here-
afterto be in public interest.
Why is that language used if you get
to stand in the well of the House and
say you are now authorized to build any
building the President may decide he
wants to build?
Mr. GRAY. Let me say, you may have.
a parking facility or a warehouse or
something that does not fit into the gen-
eral category of a Federal office build-
ing. Therefore we have given him that,
flexibility. But let me remind you it only
allows the President the authority to
request the Congress to do this. We will
still have to approve it by line item, as
any project that he deems to be in the
public interest.
Mr. LENNON. Let me call my dis-
tinguished friend's attention in the
same paragraph to the place where you
define a public building as record cen-
ters, appraiser's stores, courthouses, wa- constructed. 1.1 this is done, a building n'c
difdal reflected in the
taellr oifflaggataiiqt,AVI914Matited2
'
Then, you conclude the definition of
a public building as any building that
the President decides should be built
in the public interest.
Are you saying to this House today,
sir, that there is nothing in here that
would authorize the construction of a
sports center or recreational center here
in the District of Columbia?
Mr. GRAY. I am stating emphatically
that any such request by the President
would have to be submitted to the House
and Senate Committees on Public
Works and approved by it on a line item
request.
Mr. LENNON. I say this because some
members of the Public Works Commit-
tee, although I am not a member of
that committee, are concerned about this
language.
Mr. GRAY. I am sure that any re-
quest would have to be approved by the
House and Senate Committees on Pub-
lic Works on a line item basis.
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRAY. I yield to the gentleman
from West Virginia.
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. I no-
tice on page 30 there is included some 30
States and 54,000 square feet of build-
ings in the Virgin Islands.
Am I to assume that there are no ap-
proved projects in the State of West
Virginia contained in this bill?
Mr. GRAY. I would remind my friend
from West Virginia that the projects
that are contained in this bill are proj-
ects that have been authorized by the
House and Senate Committees on Pub-
lic Works for as long as 9 years ago.
The purpose of getting this bill passed
and getting these 63 projects out of the
way is in order that we can build add t-
tional facilities in West Virginia and
other places instead of renting that
space for the use of social security of-
fices, draft boards and others which are
now operating in rented space where the
private investigator gets the equity and
it never accrues to the benefit of the
taxpayers.
I think it is time that we consolidated
these operations in West Virginia and
in other States in Federal buildings.
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. Mr.
Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, I certainly hope that the gen-
tleman and his committee would be sym-
pathetic next year toward the space
needs of our State.
Mr. GRAY. We are always sympa-
thetic.
ate more efficiently and effectively in the
public interest.
Unfortunately. the Federal building
program in recent years has not kept
abreast of agency requirements. Because
of funding limitations, much-needed
buildings located in 37 States through-
out the Nation, although authorized as
long as 9 years ago, have not been built.
This is not to be critical of anyone or
any committee because we have had pri-
ority problems and only so much money
with which to meet those problems.
However, this has posed a severe hard-
ship on those agencies whose space
needs have net been met. And it has
proven extremely costly to American
taxpayers. The inflation toll alone caused
by construction delays amounts to over
$100 million annually.
Presently, there is a backlog of 63
public buildings which have been au-
thorized but not built. Clearly, the time
has come to eliminate the backlog and
to put the Federal building program on
a sound budgetary basis.
H.R. 10488 is feel-do:led with this ob-
jective in mind. First. it. would aueneeiee
GSA to contract, over a 3-year ndeed,
for the construction of the Cri l):w!krg
buildings. The device used would be pur-
chase contract authority, Such authority
would enable GSA to enter into agree-
ments with independent contractors for
the purchase of buildings through pay-
ments spaced over a period of tune up
to 30 years. At the conclusion of the con-
tract term, title would vest in the Unired
States. Throughout the cornrat':.t tenn,
however, the buildings in queetion would
remain in priVate p WI: to
State and local taxation. This would
mean that the Feclerel preeetaee in en
area would constitute a tax bene-lit ro
than a tax burdea.
But I wish to stress that the lease
purchase authorieation is a stcenean
measure. It is not our intention that ties
type . of funding arrangement b:yrie
permanent, What we are simely diene
is providing a mechanism which wiil
enable us to place the Federal building
program on a sound and finencially re-
sponsible, basis in the future.
A logical first step is the elimination of e
the backlog which the lease-purcien.e or
contract purchase authorization over the
next 3 years would accomplish. Addi-
tionally this legislation establishes a Fed-
eral building fund into whicia user
charges would be paid by agencies oc-
cupying Federal ?ince space. Facts Fee-
eral agency would be required to pay into
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance the fund user charges equivalent to corn-
of my time, mercial rates for the space and related
services received.
Since the user charges made would, ha
set at comniercri
funds would. he *,:,nerr:n:en to nuance fu-
ture construction needs.
The General Services Administration
strongly endorses establishment of- the
building fund. In a letter to the Speaker,
Assistant Administrator Harold S. Tim-
mer, Jr., declared:
Requiring all agencies -to finance the cos:
of the space they occupy is consistent with
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 10 minutes.
(Mr. HARSHA asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, the
principal aim of any sound Government
building program is to assure that space
authorizations are attuned to space
needs. Thus, when the appropriate com-
mittees of Congress find that a Govern-
ment building is needed it should be
itkaRDP8640244h4J 0:1 re agency. Review
'Government can oper- of agency budgets internally by review au-
April 1Pps9yed For Rele*MftglaglAlt: Ei&W...8_66540k000100080037-8ii 3:77
thorlties in the Executive Branch and by
the Congress would be more realistic. This
would be a significant change in the method
of funding building operating and capital
costs, but would be both practical and busi-
nesslike.
The new budgeting approach would en-
hance the ability of General Services Admin-
istration to provide faster and better serv-
ice with respect to space needs of agencies,
both by new construction and lease. Pro-
vision of funds for space would be directly
related to the programs involved. Authoriza-
tion would be based on .better Information
and costs estimates. Funds for specific proj-
ects would be provided at one time in lieu
of the present two or more budget requests
for the same project, each involving a full
cycle.
Let me make,, this clear, however. In
authorizing the establishment of a public
building fund, the Congress would not be
surrendering congressional control over
the building authorization and spending
process. The Committees on Public Works
of both Rouse and Senate would still
approve individual building prospectuses.
What is more, GSA would continue to
,submit annual budget requests to the
Appropriations Committees. Such re-
questa would have to be approved by both
Houses before any expenditures could be
made by GSA from the building fund.
Thus, Congress would maintain present
authorization and spending control over
Federal construction.
As an additional safeguard, H.R. 10488
would require the submission of a pro-
spectus to the Public Works Committees
whenever annual rentals for leased space
exceed $500,000.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HARSHA, I yield to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I
support this legislation.
eMr. STRATTON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of H.R. 10488, the Public
Buildings and Grounds amendments.
This bill allows the Federal Govern-
ment to authorize construction of Fed-
eral office buildings by private contrac-
tor, with the General Services Admin-
istration leasing the building for a spe-
cified period and applying the rent
toward the final purchase price. The
effect would be to allow the construction
of at least 63 public buildings already
authorized by the House and Senate
Committee on Public Works, but which
have been thus far unfunded and hence
=constructed.
Included among these 63 proposals is
a new Federal Office Building for the
city of Albany in my congressional dis-
trict, the capital of New Solos State.
The design of this building was com-
pleted some time ago and site acquisition
will be completed as soon as this legisla-
tion is enacted. Although the prospectus
for this new Albany Federal Building was
approved by both Public Works Commit-
tees as far back as 1964, it is estimated
that by following present procedures it
could be another 10 years before the
Capital offalaggialSeileckb
Federal oIerS
The Administrator of the GSA informs
me, however, that when the bill before us
today is enacted into law, the GSA is pre-
pared to begin immediately the contract
award process for Albany with the build-
ing itself to be completed within 2 years.
The purchase contract arrangement
provided for in the committee bill Is, it
appears to me, a far superior method of
having Federal buildings constructed
than the present piecemeal method of
annual appropriations. By funding al-
ready authorized buildings on a one-shot
basis, the GSA could have the buildings
constructed over a relatively short term,
and then gradually purchased them by
means of the rents collected from the
tenant agencies. Until the Federal Gov-
ernment had paid the final purchase
price the buildings would be subject to
real estate taxes. At the same time a spe-
cial public building fund would be set
up, into which user charges, collected
from all Federal agencies using space in
GSA buildings, would be deposited.
Money from that fund could go toward
financing the construction and opera-
tion of still other Government buildings.
I uree my colleagues to support this
bill so that we will at last have a real-
istic and financially workable means of
constructing new and much needed Fed-
eral office buildings, and so we can get
going at once on the construction of the
new Albany Federal Office Building.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such
time as he may desire to the gentleman
from California (Mr. BURTON).
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the distinguished gentleman.
In our city of San Francisco, we have
a payment center for the Social Security
Administration. They employ some 1,700
people. A number of them are very highly
skilled, of course, but there are also a
great number of jobs that require some-
what less skill. This employment is very
vital to our city. I understand from the
remarks of the gentleman from Illinois
that there is nothing in this bill that
authorizes or encourages the removal of
that payment center from San Fran-
cisco; is that correct?
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GRAY. Absoultely nothing?there
Is absolutely nothing in this bill that
would cause the removal of the facility in
San Francisco.
Mr. BURTON. I would hope the gen-
tleman from Illinois would agree with me
in view of the difficulty of employment in
the core cities?that a move of that sort
should not be taken without an over-
whelming case being made for the re-
moval of this kind of job opportunity
for the residents in our central city.
Mr. GRAY. I agree with the gentle-
man completely.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to
my friend, the gentleman from Cali-
fornia (Mr. WALDIE).
Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, I appre-
ciate the gentleman yielding.
I just want to state to the gentleman,
he has my full support for this bill. The
0. :NIP Ottl MYKRIM-R0
cation of a Federal social security pay-
ments facility for many of the seine rea-
sons that my good friend and colleague
from San Francisco, the gentleman from
California (Mr. BURTON) has suggested.
We need to alleviate the =employment
problems in the Richmond area. We see
this bill as a major help in that direction
and we commend the gentleman and the
committee for moving in that direction.
Mr. GRAY. I thank the gentleman
from California and I assure the gem IC-
man the committee will be sympathetic
to any request that is received.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he
may require to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. GONZALEZ).
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I also
rise, to say I support fully the gentleman
in this legislation.
I just have one question along the line
that the first gentleman from California
(Mr. BURTON) inquired about, and it hes
to do with the net impact of this legis-
lation.
My question is simply this. In my home
district of San Antonio, we have had a ii-
thorized and appropriated for a
facility for several years. This legislation
in no way would detrimentally affect
those plans; would it?
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
M:.. GONZALEZ. I yield to the gentle
ma -
Mr. GRAY. I want to make it perfectly
clear that there is nothing in this bill
that would preclude an ongoing pro e'
from continuing whether it is the GSA
or the Postal Service.
Mr. GONZALEZ. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman. I 'eel a
3 minutes to the distingtfrhed genit
man from New Yock ir.C;ioL op) ,to
ranking minority member on the sub-
committee who has done such outstand-
ing work on this logislatton.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROVER. I yield to the gen 'e-
ma(Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairmen,
I rise in support of this legislation and
compliment the committee for the work
that they have done.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to express ray
strong support for H.R. 10488. a bill to
eliminate the backlog in the construc-
tion of public buildings authorized by
Congress.
As a member of the Committee on Pub-
lic Works, I can assure this body that
it is generally the position of our com-
mittee to fund the piaounna tad
struction of Feolcrial
through appropriations and that by
means is the committee attempting to
create a precedent for fundings these
projects.
However, flexibility of policy is urgent-
ly required in this instance if the Con-
gress is to be able to meet its commitment
to a backlog of over $1 billion in des-
perately needed Federal buildings. To do
nagm,c1A most cer-
76011M-Immanicis This
H 3278 Approved For ReleasAMIX' 1014 :kfikikbP8131SMISIIR00010006triliie 1973
borrowing would add to an already mi- - It was to get the Federal building pro- such time as he may consume to the gen-
mense deficit and seriously strain the gram back on the track again that the tleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tricnesoe) .
competition for moneys In the lending purchase contract program was devised. Mr. THOMSON of Wisconsin. Mr.
markets. In fashioning it, we have attempted to Chairman, I rise in enthusiastic support
By adopting the course indicated by overcome the weaknesses that plagued of this legislation. It is badly needed, not
this legislation, we can move rapidly to its predecessor?the Lease-Purchase Act only in the 63 areas that have been men-
complete the construction of these build- of the 1950's. Interest rates determined tioned, but in the removal of a backlog.
Ings in away that will provide a strong by market conditions assure that rates Removal of this backlog will facilitate
shot-in-the-arm for the economy at a will be reasonable. And present finan- the orderly development of needed Fed-
time when the trend toward economic cial conditions assure healthy competi- eral facilities throughout the country.
strength is becoming clearer with each tion in the financing construction of Mr. Chairman, this bill is badly needed
Passing day. these 63 buildings, and past overdue. If the other 61 cities
In addition, a key feature of the meas- Finally, the legislative authorization besides the one in my district which will
ure before us is that it provides a means will be for a period of only 3 years. have their promised construction pro-
to construct Federal facilities without Thereafter, the new revolving fund con- ceed under terms of this bill are in the
depriving local government of vital por- cept will become operative, making same situation as La Crosse, Wis., I can
tions of its tax base. Traditionally, Fed- lease-purchase types of contracts no only say that the Federal Government
eral installations do not pay property longer necessary. has done a disservice to the residents of
taxes but H.R. 10488 leaves the property Insofar as the new public building - these cities,
in private hands under the purchase- fund is concerned, this new device holds The La Crosse Post Office-Federal
contract concept. Thus the property will great promise. By imposing user charges Building was authorized in 1966, 6 years
melte the Federal presence in the corn- on Government agenbies for the space ago. It is to be the central edifice in an
ramity much easier to accept. they occupy in GSA buildings, each Gov- imposing, modern civic center in the .
And finally, one of the most important ernment agency will have an incentive heart of downtown La Crosse. To prepare
provisions in this bill is the assessment to make space demands equal space re- for this civic center, the city of La Crosse
of user charges against the budget of quirements. The tendency would, there- razed the existing city hall and built a
those individual Federal agencies who oc- fore, be to promote the most efficient beautiful new structure. Similarly, the
cupy these buildings. The user fee as- and economical use of all -Government county government tore down the old
sessments will require each agency tocourthouse building and erected a mod-
have to justify its space needs which will offi andThe lack of sound business procedures ern courthouse, architecturally blending
permit better congressional oversight in the operation of Government has long with the new city hall.
both for the authorizing and appropria-Amid this well-planned civic center
thorization of a public building fund in
tion, committees. These fees will also in- been a bitter refrain among critics. Au-
stands the city's worst eyesore, the ar-
vite the various agencies to reduce their
which each agency would be charged the chaic Post Office Building and an acne,
space needs to the minimum thereby equivalent of rent for the space occu- cent vacant lot. This space has been ac-
saving tax moneys. pied makes sense, particularly since quired for the construction of, the new
On a national scale this bill will do commercial rates will be charged. Post Office-Federal Building promised 6
the job. On the local level it is also ex-.years ago. The architect assures tlee,
cellent legislation as I am aware from Moneys generated should be sufficient,
not only to operate the Federal Estab- planning for the building is complete.
the fact that one of the authorized build- lishment, but also to provide funds for But the vacant lot remains, a daily re-
'rigs is in Santa Rosa, Calif., in my eon- future building needs. In the process, minder to the citizens of La Crosse of
gressional district, substantial savings in space require- the broken promise made to them by `i,..i
The bill will escalate the timetable for meats and the funds needed to provide Federal Government.
the construction of the Santa Rosa La-themI cannot believe that anyone in is
cility which is already long overdue. This will be realized. If for no other
Chamber can justify keeping
building will effectively meet a need for reason. the consequent savings to the
waiting 6 to 10 years before the Fe-.d
part of the program of designing the city American taxpayer will, I believe, more
than justify passage of this bill. Government gets around to keeping its
designed for living.
1, therefore, urge approval of HR. promises. For La Crosse and st other
Mr. GROVER. Mr. Chairman, I wish 10488. cities, the bill we are debating today is
support for this important bill. Over the Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, will the the answer. Let us resolve to start
past decade; the Committee on Public g
delivering on these promises made so
to join with my colleagues in expressing
entleman yield? many years ago, promises which have
Works, acting under the Public Build- Mr. GROVER,. I yield to the gentle,
triggered enormous local investments,
lags Act of 1959, has considered and man from New York. and promises which have buoyed the
approved buildings for ? construction Mr. WYDLER, I rise in support of this hope of local ciitzens for years. 'kids y.,,..r,
which it felt were vitally needed in the legislation, and I want to commend theas political commentators tell us that tae
public interest. Because of financial gentleman for the work that he has done people are losing faith in the effective-
constraints on the appropriation's proc- as a member of the committee consider- ness of their Government and as his-
ess, the level of funding necessary to ing this legislation. The largest single torians tell us that our social problems
construct all of these much-needed fa- project in the bill before us is located on are rooted in the unfulfilled promises of
cilities has not been provided. Long Island, which the gentleman and the decade oe the 1960's, let us resc've
Although appropriations averaged myself both represent here in the Con- to move forward to fulfill our promises
approximately $115 million per year, a gress. It is a Federal office building of a and demonstrate our resolve to assist
backlog of 63 buildings has- been built large size, but one which is desperately these needy and long-postponed proj-
- up. It is to accelerate construction of needed by the Federal Government and ects. Let us pass this bill,
these facilities that the purchase con- by the citizens of that area. I know that The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from
' tract authority contained in HR. 10488 the gentleman in the well provided the
Illinois 4 Mr. GRAY) 15 recognized.
is directed. - leadership in the committee which was Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, I intended
-Members of the committee are agreed necessary to see that this particular to ask the gentleman from N,:-.?;
that direct Federal construction is de- building was proven necessary for the,,,.
,.,,,, ,-,
...,-
,r. RovEai to yield, but he le '
sirable. But we are facing a condition people in that area and to make it a well before I had an opportunity 1,1 (11)
here, a state of facts, and not a theory, reality. so. I wish to state publicly for the record
Approximately a billion dollars in Fed- Mr. GROVER. If I may return the that he, as the ranking minority member
eral funding would be required to elim- compliment to the gentleman from New of the Subcommittee on Public Buildings
Mate the construction backlog with York, I should like to point out that he, and Grounds, was of great help in writ-
which we are now faced. That kind of himself, was the driving force on Long lag this bill over the past several inentlie,
money is simply not available at the Island which brought to the committee as were also the distinguished gentleman
present time. Other spending Priorities and to the Congress the desperate need from Ohio (Mr. HARSHA) and the distin-
will not permit the immediate Federal for a center on Mitchell, Field on Long guished gentleman from Wisconsin who
investmeApproved PoreRdteatv 2 ?4,& '3 4. '4.1ilie.I.TINA.rniY0 -A9d2 4.101 1 1
i, 6.i, ..iiiiowhey have all
etV, and I want
done.
April AN Rimed For Rele
publicly to thank them for their support,
along with that of all Members on our
side of the aisle.
I yield such time as he may consume to
the very distinguished gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. ? KLUCZYNSKI) .
Mr. KLUCZYNSKL Mr.- Chairman, I
thank the gentleman.- I wish to compli-
ment the gentleman from Illinois for
bringing this much needed legislation to
the floor today so that we will be able to
vote on projects which have been pend-
ing for 3 or 9 years. Members know as
well as I do that erecting public build-
ings is like the construction of highways.'
If you do not build them this year, they
will cost you 10 or 11 percent more next
year. I want to thank the gentleman
from Illinois for bringing this legislation
to the floor today, legislation which will
save the taxpayers of this country mil-
lions and millions of dollars.
We have already heard a great deal
about the staggering backlog of congres-
sionally approved but unfunded Federal
building projects. Throughout the Na-
tion, the needs of our health, law en-
forcement, environmental, and other
Federal agencies for efficient, modern
facilities, are going unmet. Agencies con-
tinue to operate in inefficient and, in
- some cases, obsolete buildings. TO the
extent that they do, the taxpayer is
penalized many millions Of dollars in
wasted employee time. He is also short-
changed in the delivery tc him of the
Government services he wants, needs,
and pays dearly for. In addition, each
passing day erodes the value of $13.6 mil-
lion he has invested in the purchase of
sites and $12.4 million he has invested in
designs for 50 buildings already approved
by the committee.
No city on earth knows the costs of
delay in Federal construction like Chi-
cago. At long last, the new Federal build-
ing, for years just a big hole in the
ground, is underway. Now the delay falls
heavily upon the GSA Federal Records
Center, which was first approved in 1966.
The GSA ,Records Center is currently
located in a leased building which is
filled to capacity and does not comply
with GSA's fire safety standards. It is
necessary to utilize temporary storage
space with inadequate cubic footage ca-
pacity at another Government-owned
location and to ship a considerable vol-
ume of records for processing and stor-
age to record centers in other States..
These deficiencies result in. delay, in-
creased costs, and reduced operating
efficiency?to say nothing of inconveni-
ence to Chicagoans and other mid-
westerners.
The building will be 185,600 square
feet. GSA is now 'leasing more than
102,000 square feet to house Federal rec-
ords in Chicago alone. So, there will be
a healthy saving in rents as soon as the
new center is completed. To get the
center completed, we need HR. 10488:
Without this bill, that building could
wait another 6 years.
The history of GSA's construction ap-
propriations since fiscal year 1959 shows
that GSA has been able to average only
$115 million per year for new construe-
exclusively
tion. At thUtstsMittmg tells
MAL Vb?g867.988t#R000100080037-8 11 3279
backlog?giving no attention to new re- may consume to the gentleman from
quirernents as they arose?it Would take New York (Mr. HANLEY) .
10 years to construct buildings we have Mr. HANLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
already authorized, support of this legislation and commend
We need those buildings now. On the the chairman and the fine committee
other hand, we are in a period when for their efforts in regard to this legis-
fiscal restraint is the order of the day, lation.
and hope for appropriations in this Of Mr. Chairman, I am quite pleased that
the next few fiscal years would indeed H.R. 10488 is under consideration ?0-
be wishful thinking.
day. I earnestly urge its adoption ivleash
The purchase-contract provisions of will provide a procedure through svnii
Ha. 10488 are an attempt to reconcile a backlog of 63 Federal buildings von
the urgent need- for new Federal facili- be constructed. Most of these projeots
ties with today's economic conditions, have been on the back burner for qui te
We are being asked for purchase-con- some time. Their need is great to provide
tracting of Federal buildings as a stop- the necessary accommodations to our
gap expedient. GSA is so convinced that citizens and the agencies which will
purchase-contracting will help eliminate occupy them.
the backlogin a very short time that we My home community Syr :tease, N.Y.. is
are asking for this authority for only 3 the site for one of the projects. A arive
years. GSA has, in fact, pledged that it need exists in that community as it does
can and will beat the backlog in that in the 62 other locales. ?
move to full implementation of the pub- The long run effect will be the con-
lie buildings fund. veniance of the accommodation as well
The purchase-contract authority Pro- RS the millions of dollars in savings to
posed in H.R. 10488 would permit GSA be enjoyed by the taxpayers.
to make regular payments over a period Again I urge adoption of H.R. 104.2$.
of from 10 to 30 years to entrepreneurs Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, I
who would finance and construct build- the gentleman from Ohio for yielinior.
lags that meet GSA specifications. At the - I take this time tor the purpose of
end of the contract term, title to the ing a question. 'The city of San Jose in
building would vest in the United States, my congressional district is very mu.on ?.
During the contract term, a purchase-- need of a Federal office building. Toe
contract building would remain on the General Services Administration has sur-
local tax rolls, helping to ease the bur- veyed it. However, the priority is not stiO-
dens of the Federal presence upon the ficiently high at this time for it to be in-
local community, eluded in this list of 63 cities. My question
There can be no doubt that purchase- is, if San Jose achieves priority at some
contracting for Federal construction time subsequent to the passage of Tins
projects will increase the total dollars bill, can the list of 63 cities be exipc-ndeti'?
GSA pays out for any specific building. Mr. HARSHA. First, let me em tt.ht
Nevertheless, an analysis of purchase- this period of contract r)In:c-n.-1.se is
contracting that that takes into account the thorized for 3 years. At any time
present value of dollars expended, na?that 3 years, any city whih es'
tonal spending priorities, mid the ur- the necessary priority w lin the C0000.-
gency of the need for these facilities con- Services Administration can be inel
vinces me that any additional costs to in this method of obtaining a Fedeeel
the Government, spread over a 10- to 30- building for its community%
year period, would be reasonable and In addition, I would add for the gen-
warranted. tleman's information that the new re-
In weighing the total cost of home- volving fund, if this bill becomes Tao:. , '
ownership under a mortgage, the pro- even after the 3-year period,. enable GSA
spective home buyer considers many fac- to go about its program of providing
tors, including the amount of capital needed office space on a much quicker
available to him, alternative uses for his basis than in the past.
capital?including the education of his Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, I Lanni:
children, the purchase of health care, the gentleman. I think this is excellent
transportation and other services, for his legislation. I shall support it.
family?and the urgency of his housing - Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield
needs. In the same way, I believe that such time as he may consume to the gen-
it is appropriate for the Federal Gov- tleman from Idaho (Mr. 11/4,1cCcone)
ernment to consider its overall needs in Mr. McCLURE. Mr. Chairman, as a co-
finding a way to get our public buildingsponsor of this legislation, thank the
projects underway now. I strongly sup gentleman from Illinois and the gentle-
port Hirt. 10488 and hope that other man from Ohio for - their very yejc
Members will join me in voting for this courtesy to me over the months tins
sound approach to getting the job done legislation has been under run
now, and publicly express my .on
(Mr. KLUCZYNSKI asked and was at last we are getting some Innise
given permission to revise and extend his proval on a matter critical to eye ry er
remarks. ) ber of the Congress?not just to those -
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield my- who happen to have buildings in their
self 1 minute. districts. As has been pointed out, this to-
Mr. Chairman, I take this time in order moves the backlog and allows an orderly
to have the REcotte show that we thank consideration of those construction Pipj-
my distinguished friend, the gentleman cots which are not included in the list
from Illinois (Mr. KLUCZYNSKI) who has included in this bill.
just spoken, who has rendered an in-
ociouti gpa (Mr. McCLUlitiog e. eetesd was given
ad his
time as nattNtri,-f S7ijrct such' Inn as he marks.) ....ut,, ree
II 32Approved For RelNeteoWzmApmpit,
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the distinguished gentleman from Idaho
for his interest in this matter. He has
very effectively pursued the interest of
the people of his congressional district.
He appeared before the committee in
support of this legislation and he has
conferred with me on several occasions on
this matter. He has most urgently acted
In pursuit of this legislation so that the
citizens of his district can finally realize
the benefits of a Federal office building
in his district.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. TnoNE),
a member of the committee, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
(Mr. THONE asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. THONE. Mr. Chairman, I share
the interest of many of my colleagues
that the design of our public buildings
should be the finest examples of Ameri-
can architecture. I am very pleased that
the committee has adopted my amend-
ment requiring the Administrator of the
General Services Administration to give
thorough consideration to the excellence
of architecture and design during the de-
velopment of plans for all public build-
ings.
In this regard, I am hopeful that the
pending legislation will enable architects
and engineers to continue to work ef-
fectively on public building projects
without the possibility that their al-
legiance might be transferred away from
their true client, the General Services
Administration and the people of this
country. I believe the design professions
share this hope. It would be helpful if the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. GRAY), the subcommittee chair-
man, would clarify a few points relating
to the pending bill.
Under the purchase contract author-
ity of H.R. 10488, will GSA retain title
to the drawings and specifications al-
ready prepared by the original design
architect for the 63 authorized but un-
funded projects?
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the dis-
tinguished gentleman yield?
Mr. THONE. I yield to the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. GRAY. I am delighted to answer.
I have been informed by the acting GSA
Administrator, Mr. Rod Kreger, that the
answer is yes, they will retain title to the
architect's drawings and specifications.
Mr. THONE. I thank the gentleman.
Will the original design architect be
retained for the administration and su-
pervision of construction of projects un-
der the purchase contract authority?
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. THONE. I yield further.
Mr. GRAY. The General Services Ad-
ministration has stated categorically that
It will establish procedures to have the
original architect provide inspection
services wherever possible. Although
GSA does not anticipate this occurring
frequently there inny be cases where the
architect and the successful offeror are
19?:sakkeoom000so97.1
pi 19, 197.2
costs of buildings will come out of this
'fund. As time goes by, the fund will-have
in it sufficient moneys to pay for new
Federal buildings as they are needed.
Thu.s,we hope to end the position it is
now in, with 63 new Federal buildings
authorized without funds being provided
for construction.
That brings me to the second impor-
tant aspect of this proposed legislation.
It will alliew Congress to keep the prom-
ises this body has made to communities
all over America. Through authorization
acts of Congress, these cities have been
promised new Federal buildings. Citizens
in these areas are beginning to wonder if
Congress will ever keep these promises.
Some of the Federal buildings were au-
thorized 9 years ago and still have not
been funded for construction.
At the rate appropriations for Federal
buildings have been made over the past
dozen years, it would take at least until
1982 to fund the 63 buildings authorized
in 1969 and earlier.
In this bill, we have our solution.
Through purchase contracts the Federal
buildings already authorized by Congress
would be built. Entrepreneurs would pro-
vide the capital to build the buntlines to
Government-approved plans and speci-
fications. At the end of the contracts,
the Government would own all these
buildings. Bear in mind that the pur-
chase contract phase of this legislation
would only be in effect for 3 years, After
that, the user charge fund should contain
money to Pay for Federal buildings as
needed.
The effect of Federal building author-
ization without construction funding C,)11
be devastating for a communny. I can
speak first hand for a clty in 1117," dierJ!iin,
Lincoln, Nebr. The Senate a ;lave vett
prospectus for a new Federal building in
Lincoln in 1965 and the House or Repre-
sentatives gave approval in 1966, The
land involved consists of two square
blocks in the heart of the central city
district of this community of 150,000. For
6 years, the buildings on this land have
been allowed to deteriorate. Some of this
land, which is valuable enough for much
higher use, has been used only for un-
paved parking lots.
PrIuch development by private enter-
prise has not taken place because this
land has laid idle. If the Federal build inc
is begun in the near future. I am cert nn
that it will trigger much private develop-
ment nearby.
The community of Lincoln, Nebr., il-
lustrates another important factor that
this body should consider. The Federal
Government is now paying' aboet 3 mad-
lion annually for rental space scattered
all over Lincoln. Scene aeencies are
hug to conduct business in at le=t 3
buildings; This payment of rent by the
Federal Government in Lincoln will be
ended, this scattering of agencies will be
ended, if the Lincoln Federal building is
constructed.
In .Lincoln and in 62 other American
cities, we can stimulate employment and
business by passing this act. We can end
rental. payments by constructing build-
ings that Will be federallLowned. We can
lironcSinMean make1Rovernment agen-
qqa& all over the
upon approving the architect to inspect
the project.
I am sure the gentleman will agree
with this. Wherever possible it will be
done, but if someone wants to charge an
exorbitant fee on a project the GSA is
bound by law to seek out and find some-
one with a more acceptable fee.
Mr. THONE. I understand that, and
that is as it should be.
Under this legislation, would GSA be
prevented first, from maintaining a di-
rect contractural relationship with and
directly compensating the original de-
sign architect for any additional design
services and supervision services, or sec-
ond, from being reimbursed for that
compensation through a provision in the
agency's contract with the successful
offeror.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. THONE. I yield further.
Mr. GRAY. No. H.R. 10488 would not
prohibit GSA from taking either action
the gentleman has enumerated.
Mr. THONE. One final question. It is
my understanding that GSA has re-
quested the purchase contract authority
clue to the emergency need to pro-
vide long-required Federal office space
throughout the country. It is correct that
this is an emergency authority only and
will automatically go out of existence at
the end of 3 years when the Federal
buildings fund goes into effect?
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. THONE. I yield further.
Mr. GRAY. The answer is emphatically
"yes." The law provides for the expira-
tion of the purchase contract authority
after the 3-year period and reverting
back to direct fund appropriations.
Mr. THONE. I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. Chairman, accountability is the
most important aspect of the legislation
we are considering.
At present, various Federal depart-
ments and agencies are not held fiscally
responsible for the space they occupy.
Instead, money to pay for building ren-
tals, maintenance, and service is nearly
all appropriated to the General Services
Administration. In fiscal 1971, GSA was
appropriated $660 million to provide
more than 220 million square feet and
necessary services for 820,000 Federal
employes.
This proposed legislation, of which I
am a cosponsor, will change this situa-
tion, It will provide that each agency
will be accountable for the space it uses.
Each agency will pay user charges for
space. Governmental bureaus now may
insist to GSA that they need more space
than actually necessary. Each agency
will be less likely to ask for more space
than needed, when the cost of that space
will be reflected each year in its annual
appropriations request to Congress. Al-
location of these costs will also give Con-
gress, the President, and the general pub-
lic a truer picture of the cost of each
function of the Federal Government.
The user charges will provide a solu-
incompatible for some reason; for ex- tion to a problem that has long troubled
ample, tW.
a fee. Ir" AttnikAlia?P PRIM f,MITM?Mi
III ? I
?a ? ?
April 19Apinoved For Re
emtwAripmkopponpiekoom0008003711 32s1
des accountable for the office space they bill requires that type of accountability,
nie. We can provide a permanent solution and we will take these savings in order to
to the persistent and troublesome prob- build much-needed facilities in con-
loin of funding Federal buildings for con- gressional districts all over the Nation,
fitruction. I urgently solicit your votes I want to thank the members a the
in favor of H.R. 10488, which is a coin- House Committee on Public Works on
minion bill of one that I introduced in both sides of the aisle, because this is a
this regard, bipartisan measure which was reported
Mr. HARSHA, Mr. Chairman, I yield out unanimously. I want to single out
2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman especially our very distinguished and able
from Ohio (Mr.- WHALEN) . chairman, the gentleman from Mimic-
Mr. WHALEN. I thank the gentleman sota (Mr. BLATNIK) who is always sym-
for yielding, pathetic and helpful, a man of compas-
1 rise in support of this measure. I can sion. This kind of critical legislation that
testify from personal experience as to comes from the Committee on Public
the need for the new Federal building for Works unanimously could not have been
Dayton, Ohio, which is contained in this brought here without his able assistance.
I also want to thank our chief counsel,
Mr. Sullivan, my able assistant, Mrs.
Nancy Vitali, and the staff for their help.
Mr. BLATNIK. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. GRAY. Of course I yield to the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. BLATNIK. I appreciate the very
generous and certainly thoughtful cornments and references to the chairman
of the committee.
I would like to make a comment about
the work of the subcommittee chair-
man, Mr. GRAY, and the cooperation re-
ceived from the minority side in tote
and the excellent staff work that has been
done there.
Let me say each one of these projects
represented a crying need in a given area.
Yet it would seem that each one of these
Projects has some element of justifiable
and understandable difference of opin-
ion or judgment in it which could lead
to divisiveness. It could either be so be-
cause the needs of the local community
were opposed to the needs of a State
agency or because of a conflict between
one or more Federal agencies or because
there was a difference of opinion between
the members of the subeommittee. Each
one of these projects was systematically,
patiently, and considerately considered,
and each problem was constructively
worked out.
I want to commend the chairman of
the subcommittee and all of the mem-
bers of the subcommittee and the staff
for the thorough and responsible manner
in which they worked out this piece of
legislation. It enables us to come out
with a-good solution to meet the needs of
many areas.
I urge that the bill be approved by this
full body as presented.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MeMILLAN, Mr._ Chairman, I rise
in support of the pending bill and would
like to state that in my opiuion, it is one
of the most important bilis that has been
considered in the Congress since the
Christmas holidays.
I am certain the chairman of the Ap-
propriations Committee and the chair-
man of the Independent Offices Subcom-
mittee of Appropriations will remember
that in 1968. approximately $5 million
was allocated for a Federal building in
my hometown of Florence. S.C. The Gen-
aaencies-all over the Nation and we can eral Services Administration, the Post
see them sprawling out in all kinds of Office Department officials, and the U.S.
ways in rented facilities. We think it is district jud_qes in out car'
timehlit
e that thaliklpriDA/OCW4DP N)0READEVSMadi414109144Fell
and that they be eld accountable. This wanted at Florence. The Congress passed
measure.
At the present time the Federal of-
fices are located in a building which was
constructed in 1915. Architecturally, this
57-year-old building is very beautiful.
however, it is extremely inefficient, inas-
much as it was built to house a post of-
fice rather than Federal offices. Too,
maintenance costs are extremely high.
Further, at the present time in the
Payton area the Federal Government
relate; approximately 41,000 square feet
at an annual rental of $205,000. All of
the ee offices will be consolidated in the
new Federal building once it is con-
etructed. The land is available. The
architectural plans have been completed.
We are ready to go..
Passage of this bill certainly will save
at least 10 years in respect to correcting
the costly, wasteful Federal office op-
eration which presently exists in the
Dayton area. Therefore, I hope my col-
leagues will support this measure. -
Mr. -HAREHA. Mr. Chairman, I have
Ho further requests for time, and I re-
serve the remainder of my time.
Mr. GRAY, Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Wyoming (Mr. RON-
CALT0),
Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Chairman, I
eball use but a minute.
want to observe that over the past
decade I have waited for the day when
I could look at a public works authoriza-
tion bill and find not 1 cent spent for
Public office buildings in the District of
Columbia. I believe that is a great pre-
cedent and a move in the right direction.
And lest some of my colleagues are
looking In the direction of the Rocky
Mountain States, there is not any item
for the great State of Wyoming, either,
or for the State of Colorado or Utah.
There must be an end to District of Co-
lumbia Federal construction?a breath-
inn spell.
I hope this is a landmark and a be-
ginning, to that end.
GRAY'. Mr. Chairman, I yield my-
he remaining time.
I stated in My previous remarks,
this is an historic bill in many ways, be-
canse I think it will save millions of dol-
hire of the taxpayers' money in the long
run by requiring Federal agencies to pay
for the space they use. We can look at
the bill and the President added his sig-
nature; however, after the Federal Gov-
ernment had the plans for the new build-
ing drawn up, and the structures cleared
from the lot which had been purchased
for the new building; the President issued
a freeze on all Federal buildings that had
not actually begun.
I am delighted that the Public Works
Committee has authorized this builcinig
in the pending bill and I hope the Mem-
bers of Congress will understand just how
badly we need this building since there
are approximately 200 postal ethployees
working in a temporary, abandoned, au-
tomobile salesroom. There are also ani
-
proximately 75 social security employees
in addition to the Labor Department in-
illectors and FBI agents who are waiting
to use this new building. Tile court offi-
cials tell me that they are in dire need
of a new courtroom as the one in the old
building is completely outmoded.
I sincerely hope the Members of Con-
gress - will understand that this is, in
ray opinion, emergency legislation which
should be enacted into law without fun-
tiler delay.
Mr. MIZELL. Mr. Chairman, I want
to express my strong supeort for teis
legislation to provide for financing the
acquisition, construction, alteration,
maintenance operation, and proteetion
of public buildings.
This legislation, which was reported
out of the Public Works Subcommiiteg
on Public Buildings mid Ge'odnels. in
which I am a rii4miy?r, is a b,-Z7vi netA.te.d
bill and a very sensible one as well.
Under provisions of this legielatien,
the Federal Government could avitheri.:c
construction of Federal buildings try. o?:?-?
vase contractors, and taco
buildings for a
mit payments being- appiica toward finai
poi-chase of the buildings by the Govern-
mint.
When the lease expires. the Govern-
ment assumes full ownership, but, until
tliat date, the property and the building
would be subject to local taxation.
There are currently 63- Federal build-
ing projects throughout the country
which have -been delayed for lack- of
Government funds. The General Serv-
ices Administration is now required to
provide direct Federal funding for new
ccastruction projects. The lack of stiff,-
drat funds has resulted in an estimated
11-year backlog of projects,
Of particular interest to the peorn"
Of North Carolina's Fifth Congressior
District, which I represent, is the ttfutt
tins legislation would have on a propeeed
new Federal building to be cons7,ruce-
-7;Vinstori-Salem.
The Winston-Salem pro eeit wae
preyed for construction 3 years eqe+, cat
pr.:egress beyond the designing sat has
been stalled because of insufficient Fed-
eral funds. Estimated construction. cost
for the 287,000-square-foot building is
$12.1 million. -
The legislation we offer today a el
sigenficantly accelerate work on the pro- .
po6ed Federal building in Winston-
41 t.cinApleti
4r accelerated construction sched-
vtate on
eP
H 328Approved For Relette 2000/09/1CONGRESSIONAL4 : citmg-o9m000l000soog* 19, 1972
ules for other projects throughout the
Nation.
I strongly recommend that my col-
leagues join me in voting for passage
of this legislation.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I have
no further requests for time.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, I have no
further requests for time.
The CHAIRMAN. In accordance with
the rule, the committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute printed in the
bill will be read by the Clerk as an origi-
nal bill for the purpose of amendment.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unani-
mous consent that the bill be considered
as read, printed in the RECORD, and open
to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I would
suggest to the gentleman that the bill be
read by sections. This would require some
eight unanimous-consent requests for
the reading of the sections, and I realize
this.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw
my unanimous-consent request.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the "Public Buildings
Amendments of 1972".
SEC. 2. The Public Buildings Act of 1959
(73 Stat. 479), as amended (40 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), is amended as follows:
(1) strike out in subsection (b) of section
4 the figure "6200,000" and insert the figure
"$500,000" in lieu thereof;
(2) strike out in subsection (a) of section
12 the following: "as he determines neces-
sary,";
. (3) insert at the end of section 12(c) the
following sentence: "In developing plans
for such new buildings, the Administrator
shall give due consideration to excellence of
architecture and, design."; and
(4) section 7 is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 7. (a) In order to insure the equita-
ble distribution of public buildings through-
out the United States with clue regard for
the comparative urgency of need for such
buildings, except as provided in section 4,
no appropriation shall be made to construct,
alter, purchase, or to acquire any building
to be used as a public building which in-
volves a total expenditure in excess of $500,-
000 if such construction, alteration, pur-
chase, or acquisition has not been approved
by resolutions adopted by the Committee on
Public Works of the Senate and House of
Representatives, respectively. No appropria-
tion shall be made to lease any space at an
average annual rental in excess of $500,000
for use for public purposes if such lease has
not been approved by resolutions adopted by
the Committee on Public Works of the Sen-
ate and House of Representatives, respec-
tively. For the purpose of securing consider-
ation for such approval, the Administrator
shall transmit to the Congress a prospectus
of the proposed facility, including but not
limited to)?
"(1) a brief description of the building
to be constructed, altered, purchased, ac-
quired, or the space to be leased under this
Act;
"(2) the location of the building or space
to be leased and an estimate of the maxi- "(3) There are hereby merged with the
mum cost to the United States of the facility fund established under this subsection, un-
to be constructed, altered. Aurchased, ac- ? endedibitantiA464e Bo=
"(3) a comprehensive plan for providing therein), established pursuant to tht7, ft 77
ployees in the locality of the proposed facils
ity or the space to be leased, having due re-
gard for suitable space which may continue
to be available in existing Government-owned
or occupied buildings;
"(4) with respect to any project for the
construction, alteration, purchase, or acqui-
sition of any building, a statement by the
Administrator that suitable space owned by
the Government is not available and that
suitable rental space is not available at a
price commensurate with that to be afforded
through the proposed action; and -
"(5) a statement of rents and other hous-
ing costs currently being paid by the Gov-
ernment for Federal agencies to be housed
in the building to be constructed, altered,
purchased, acquired, or the space to be leased.
"(b) The estimated maximum cost of any
project approved under this section as set
forth in any prospectus may be increased
by an amount equal to the percentage in-
crease, if any, as determined by the Admin-
istrator, in construction or alteration costs,
as the case may be, from the date of trans-
mittal of such prospectus to Congress, but
in no event shall the increase authorized by
this subsection exceed 10 per centum of such
estimated maximum cost.
"(c) In the case of any project approved
for construction, altesation, or acquisition by
the Committees an Public Works of the Sen-
ate and of the House of Representatives, re-
spectively, in accordance with subsection (a)
of this section, for which an appropriation
has not been made v;ithln one year after
the date of such approval, either the Com-
mittee on Public Works of the Senate or the
Committee on Public Works of the House
of Representatives, may rescind, by resolu-
tion, its approval of such project at any
time thereafter before such an appropriation
has been made."
Mr. GRAY (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
section 2 be considered as read, printed
in the REcosp, and open to amendment
at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any
amendments to be proposed to section
2? If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEC. 3. Subsection (f) of section 210 of the
Federal Property and Administrative Serv-
ices Act of 1919, as amended (4fe U.S.C.
490(f)), is amended to read as follows:
"(f) (1) There is hereby established in the
Treasury of the United States on such date
as may be determined by the Administrator,
a fund into which there shall be deposited
the following revenues and collections: '
"(A) User charges made pursuant to sub-
section (3) of this section payable in advance
or otherwise.
"(B) Proceeds with respect to building
sites authorized to he leased pursuant to
subsection (a) of this section, and proceeds
with respect to building sites, plans, and
specifications authorized to be sold pursuant
to sub-;ection ih) of Ibis section.
'(0) Receipts for carriers and others for
loss of, or damage to, property belonging to
the fund.
"(2) Moneys deposited into the fund shall
be available for expenditure for real property
management and related activities in such
amounts as are specified in annual appro-
priations Acts without regard to fiscal year
limitations.
quireApprovedo elease 20 F I r 640
space for all Government officers Tend em- section prior to its amendment by the Public
Buildings Amendments of 1972; (B) the
Construction Services Fund, created by sec-
tion 0 of the Act of June 11, 1940 (CO Stat.
259), as amended; and (C) any funds appro-
priated to General Services Administration
under the headings 'Repair and Improve-
ment of Public Buildings', 'Construction,
Public Buildings Projects', 'Sites and Ex-
penses, Public Buildings Projects', 'Con-
struction, Pectoral Office Building /Cumbered
7, Washington, District of Columbia', end
'Additional Court Facilities', in. any aprro-
priation Acts for the years prior to the
year in which the fund becomes operionnal.
The fund shall assume all the liabilities,
obligations, and commitments of the said
(1) Buildings Management Fund, (2) Con-
struction Services Fund, and (3) the appro-
priations specified in (C) hereof.
"(4) In. any fiscal year there may be de-
posited to miscellaneous receipts in the
Treasury of the United ;States such amount
as may be specified in. appropriation Acts.
"(5) Nothing in this section slain precisde
the Administrator from providine
services not included in the standard level
user charge on a reimbursable basis and
such reimbursements may he credited to the
fund established under this subsection."
Mr. GROSS (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous conserv. that
the remainder of the section be con-
sidered as read, printed M the REcolui?
and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are. -there any
amendments to be proposed to section 3? ty
Mr. GROSS, Mr. Chairman, I mot e to 1.
strike the necessary number of words.
(Mr. GROSS asked al:A was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re- r
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I telt.s this
time to ask the gentleman ti?oni
Or some other member of the cone.. ..en
what is proposed to be done
in this bill with respect to a spans cen-
ter in the District of Columbia?
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I am glad to yield to the
gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. GRAY. I would be happy and de-
lighted to answer that question for my
friend.
If you will refer. to page 30 of the re-
port, you will find a listing of all of the
buildings authorized by line item in this
bill.- Then if you will refer to----
Mr. GROSS. Where on page 30 will I
find them?
Mr. GRAY. If the gentleman will bear
with me, I shall be glad to answer his t
question. I know this is an important
matter.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield to me?
Mr. GROSS. Yes: I yield to the gen-
tleman from Ohio.
Mr. HARSHA. There is noth con-
tained in the provisions of this bill that
actually authorizes a building known as
a sports arena or convention center.
Under the Purchase contract author-
ity, conceivably such a building could be
built. However, first, it would have to
meet certain requirements; that is, the
President of the United States would
have to declare that that building is a
FtPoePjp!'eg,;3 C?ATIA he would have
use and Senate
Public Works Committees, and have the
Apr-IN:0MM! For RelalliseCROGOACESAMALIA-RDIetirer-006441T0001 00080037-8
Prospectus approved by those commit- financing that thing, and the gentleman
Lees for the construction of the building.
Mr. GROSS. The President would have
to come before the committee? .
Mr. HARSHA. No.
Mr. GROSS. Who would come before
the committee?
Mr. HARSHA. Representatives of the
General .Services Administration would
come before the committee after the
President made a finding that that was
a public building and in the public in-
terest. Then, there would be an amend-
ment offered?and if it is not offered by
anyone else, I shall offer it?that no
building under this purchase contract
authority can be approved until it, first,
has been approved by both the Senate
and House Appropriation Committees,
,So, you would have to get the authoriza-
tion from the Senate and House Thine
Works Committees and then you would
have to get the funding by resolution
from the House and Senate Appropria-
tion Committees. So, there would be
three steps that would have to be fol-
lowed in order to build such a building.
Mr. GROSS. In the matter of the
construction of public buildings the
gentleman's amendment would make a
lot of sense, and restore some degree of
responsibility to the Congress that it has
not had in the matter of authorizing
buildings. Here, today, we are asked to
vote for 63 buildings.
What do we know about the need and
the necessity for them? They do not have
to be justified on an individual basis.
Complete authority has been delegated
to this committee.
- Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. In just a minute.
And as was explained to me earlier in
the day in the matter of the E3 build-
hies, the Committee on Appropriations
will look these things over. And then
I heard from - a veteran member of
the Committee on Appropriations, who
said, We have already taken care of the
funds for these buildings. You can start
shoveling dirt almost the minute this
bill passes, because we have already
given our blessing to these 63 buildings."
Now I yield to the gentleman from
Illinois.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, first, if I
could. I now have the precise language,
. and I will read it to the gentleman, con-
cerning the sports arena and conven-
tion center.
On page 18 of the report it says:
Except for previously approved
prospecf:uses?
Meaning these 63 buildings?
referred to in (e) above, no purchase con-
trmL nt be entered into pursuant to the
aufhoxtv of this section until a prospectus
therefor has been submitted and approved
in aecordance with section 5 of this Act.
SO. I want to lay this perfectly clearly
On the table where you can all see it;
that, as far as the building of the sports
must admit?
Mr. GRAY. If the gentleman will yield
further, we are through financing it.
Mr. GROSS. What do you mean we are
through financing it? You have $1.5 mil-
lion for it in this bill.
Mr. GRAY. For security.
Mr. GROSS. We have been told that
before; that we had appropriated the last
of the money for the Kennedy Cultural
Center.
Mr. GRAY. For the construction. There
is nothing in here for the further con-
struction of the Kennedy Center, and
there is nothing in. this bill for the per-
forming arts function of the Cultural
Center. But if you go down to the George
Washington Monument you can see that
that facility was started, and it went up
about 50 feet, and then for 60 years it
was allowed to lie dormant. Finally Con-
gress had to go in and finish it. You can
see that that is so because of the different
color in the stonework, and we have con-
tinued to maintain the security of that
movement, and that is all we are doing to
the monument for our deceased Presi-
dent, is to maintain the monument.
Mr. GROSS. Let me tell you something
else about the Washington Monument. It
took about 40 years to complete it. That
was back in the days when they gave
consideration to balanced budgets, and
had some consideration for financial san-
ity in the Federal Government.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Iowa has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Gaoss
was allowed to proceed for 5 additional,
minutes.)
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. GROSS. In Just a minute: Yes, it
took about 40 years to finish the mon-
ment to George Washington. and yet
today it has to be instant salvation?
we have to have these 63 buildings right
now to take care of two things, meire
bureaucrats and forced-draft spending
for employment. That is the story. In-
stead of doing what we ought to do, and
that is to cut down on this bureaucracy
so that we do not have to go out and
put up 63 more buildings. Instead of do-
ing the things that are sane and right
and reasonable, we are going to spend
money that we do not have for 63 more
buildings.
Mr. GRAY. If the gentleman will yield
further, I just want to say that when we
wrote this bill we had the distinguished
gentleman from Iowa in mind.
Mr. GROSS. If you really had me in
mind you would not have put $1.5 million
in this bill for that cultural palace in
Foggy Bottom,
Mr. GRAY. I am talking about the gen-
eral provisiins of the bill. That ainern-
ment was added aiterwards, but- in sue
bill itself we did have the gentleman tram
Iowa in mind. Because this was tighten-
ing up of our procedure. But if the gentle-
man wants to know where the money- is
arena and convention center, there is coming from, it is out of the money that
nothing in this bill to build the sports we are now paying in rents. We think it
arena and convention.center. is time that we should stop paying rents,
Mr. GROSS. We have been duped and build some government-owned build-
around here all too often with regard to ings so we will save money. .
Mrattlyen'higiitelMIRTP
center. -1115F) - were Cold we were qrSefga?
the sAopprovt OW ercRei
0
Ply CA:A
II 3`)"'
see one of these buildings built in the
gentleman from Iowa's district, and see
the name put on it, the H. R. Gross Build-
ing.
Mr. GROSS. Just spare me that, if you
will, please; jpst spare me in that.
Mr. JACOnS. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have of course tre-
mendous affection for the members of
the committee. But, I disagree with this
bill as deeply as I can ciLtagree with any-
thing. There is a provision in it?you
can go and get your chart out?yes, young
lady, get the chart out and show them
that in Indianapolis. Ind., there is a
new Federal building proposed. Ilia save
the time of telling me about it I
already know it. I want the buntline. hut
I do not waist Indisuasposts Feeiteai tax-
payers to have to pay for it three or four
times.
I would like to have it built ann.' some
kind of what they used to con ti. eal
responsibility.
It has already been acknowledged Lime
by one Member that direct finencent is
the less expensive way to build, net we
cannot afford to do tliet.?thete deo nig
a deficit in the Feder,ii budget.
That is the same kind of silas I.hen a
bum is in when he goes to a tmh to
borrow money anti they tell Lim--"You
already owe us ,S-U) not
going to lend you any monee;"
out in the street and deals with eed
"How much interest?" "Oh, 25 et:tenet
or 30 percent?do not worry aten.it ?
Someone else will pay ally wee .
can pay 25-percent or 30-percent
and we will let you have $5 to eo otit
eat and have a good Lime this di
Well, I dub this approach in tipsa.
'hide the ciet`dsit V.'list -oi,
going to de under this hiS i.;
rowed money and use it to
private contractors who borrowed ati,nt,y?
and put that borrowing in the structure
of the rent that they charge.
So what you end an doing is hosrcov-
ing twice and payitet interest nteni.
We have a truttnienendine lone Why
do we not have a teuth-in-boreownag
law for the American people aro make
it apply to the Congress and zneke it
apply. to the Federal Got/elan-neat? Un-
der this bill which pretends we use not
borrowing to put up the buildings, we
end up borrowing more .and paying
more in interest.
What happens atter these private
people put up the building .and each
agency pays its own rent? We stt:;:3 pay-
ing rent to the private facilities in the
COMrfilinity that we are ocettLI,yin
The only tiling I can, tell yea is. t.t:o Lat
connection with this new iutraaty oyes'
here. the 7:liaison Lintady, t1.7.
$3 million rent now
private oboes, anti the uncut
bonds or the in leriet: on the .
or-
rowed to put up that ? betiding is tootle;
to be $5 million a.year..That is how you
save the taxpayers' money. It is costing
them a net increase of $2 million per
year. And "them" includes Aelericans
yet unborn.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
RCopt 4114* to the gentleman.
1/4f2iCAATIMem an is exactly
F
113284 ? ?D r
AD oved For RgilileiteRNM9A4R:Ead3p_PA61904iR000100R59f13.7op 1972
- right. The lease-purchase building ar-
rangement certainly passes on to the
generation to come the mortgage debt
for these buildings. That is what we
are doing; handing on to the children
of today and tomorrow the obligations
this Government ought to assume today.
Mr. JACOBS. Yes.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GRAY. I know that the gentleman
Is honest and sincere and I have great
respect for him. But let us look at the
hard, cold facts of this proposed Federal
building in Indianapolis, Ind.
Mr. JACOBS. That is what I was hop-
ing you would do.
Mr. GRAY. Would the gentleman ad-
vocate that we eliminate the Federal So-
cial Security Administration and the De-
partment of Agriculture and the
Department of the Interior and all of
the other agencies in Indianapolis?
Mr. JACOBS. That is irrelevant to
what I am talking about. What I am
talking about is that if there are needs
in this country, I am talking about meet-
ing them responsibly.
Mr. GRAY. All right. I asked the gen-
tleman a question?Do you see any pos-
sibility of eliminating them?
Mr. JACOBS. Why do not you ask me
what I am going to have for dinner to-
night? It is irrelevant. Of course, I do
not advocate the elimination of legiti-
mate needs of government in this coun-
try.
Mr. GRAY. That is the first part of
the question and if the gentleman will
yield further, I will answer the question
propounded by him.
Mr. JACOBS. I yield further to the
gentleman.
Mr. GRAY. This method is not going
to cost the taxpayers more money. No.
1, we approved that building for
your city in 1964, 8 years ago. There has
been a 10-percent, and in some cases a
12-percent, escalation cost per year, That
building now is going to cost the tax-
payers double.
You will not have to pay an entrepre-
neur 100-percent interest when you bor-
row from him. If you wait any longer it
will cost your taxpayers much more than
the method provided in this bill.
By waiting the taxpayers of Indianap-
olis have already paid twjce for that
building and they still do not have it.
That is being pennywise and dollar
foolish. Every year that these 63 projects
remain on the shelf results in another
$100 million extra cost to the taxpayers.
So we either eliminate the need for the
buildings or we build them now.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman front Indiana has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. JACOBS
was allowed to proceed for 5 additional
minutes.)
Mr. JACOBS. I thank the gentleman
for what he said just now, for it leads
me into my next paint: The escalation
in the cost of building in Indianapolis.
That is precisely why the building was
not put up in 1965. The war in Vietnam
was escalated, and $30 billion was piled
on top of the
penny of ad
or any fiscal responsibility shown?$30
billion was piled on top of the Federal
budget with no additional taxes at all.
After all, we were on a holy crusade and
the Lord would provide us with some
sort of alchemy through which we would
produce that $30 billion. We would not
have to tax for it.
I remember my father said at the time
that if they raised the taxes to pay for
this venture in the quicksands of Asia,
the war in Vietnam, it would stop two
things: It would stop the inflation and it
would stop the intervention.
Now, there are direct funds available
to back up the Penn Central loan and the
Lockheed business. There are plenty of
direct funds to pay wealthy farmers not
to farm. And I have filed a discharge pe-
tition here to get rid of the "big shot"
limousines the Federal Government pays
for. Why, you cannot even walk across
the street around the Capitol Building
because chauffeurs with their fancy uni-
forms are leaning up against these lim-
ousines after hauling bureaucrats down
here to tell us how to run the Govern-
ment.
There are two signatures on that dis-
charge petition, that of the gentleman
from California (Mr. ROUSSELOT) and
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. JA-
cons). That is an interesting combina-
tion. There are direct funds available
for that purpose, but there are not direct
funds available for buildings that the
gentleman says we need, and in effect
must borrow two or three times to buy.
I say again, and I emphasize it: You
are passing here a new scheme to hide
the deficit, to borrow money twice, to pay
two interest rates on it, and to allow the
fellow who puts up the building to use a
little thing called depreciation that puts
him on easy street for the rest of his life,
and maybe for his descendants, too. So
some descendants are getting something
out of this.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to men-
tion the pork barrel end of the proposal.
Wonderful. Why, if you talk against this
approach, we will go out and tell them
you are against a new Federal building.
Go ahead and tell them. It is not true.
I am in favor of a Federal building of
some kind?with fiscal responsibility.
Tell the American people how you are
going to give them something they need.
But remember that line in the show tune
that "If you can give the baby a locket
from her daddy's pocket you are a natu-
ral in politics."
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. GRAY. I am sure the gentleman
would not want to leave the impression
that the Congress is losing control and
that there will be clever manipulations
downtown in this program.
Mr. JACOBS. What do you 'mean? I
just spent 8 minutes trying to leave that
impression. I am not implying it; I am
saying it directly.
Mr. GRAY. Then the gentleman does
not understand the bill. The bill charges
spent through the actions of the House
and the Senate Committees on Appro-
priation, and if they approve it, as we
approve direct appropriations, the money
goes to Pay the developer of the building.
Tell me where there are any hidden
charges.
Mr. JACOBS. That revolving fund is
being held at the-head of every taxpayer
and his descendants in this country.
That is where the hidden charges are.
If you want to find another place where
they are trying to do something about
inflation I suggest that you will find that
by going to a grocery store; they de not
even wait until the new stock comes in.
They put higher price tags on top of the
price tags. They change the prices before
they even sell their existing stock. If you
do not believe that, go and find out.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentleman
from Ohio.
Mr. HARSHA. You talk about irrele-
vant arguments. The gentleman is now
stating an irrelevancy.
Mr. JACOBS. Does the gentleman
think the actions of the Federal Govern-
ment in this particular instance are ir-
relevant to the inflation that is killing
this country?
Mr. HARSHA. If the gentleman wants
a compromise, we will accommodate him.
The Indianapolis building is included
at $28 million. We will take it eut of
there.
Mr. JACOBS. Oh. sure, so your farm
subsidies can take its place and youe
limousines can take its place, Throw out
the waste in the budget and you can
build the Indianapolis facility and still
give the American public a tax cut.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words,
Mr. Chairman, let me point out here
that if we went the direct appropriation
route, this $760 million would be added
to the national deficit. Recently the Fed-
eral Government borrowed money to
take care of the burden of the interest
rate and other operating costs on long-
term notes, and it paid 5.9 percent in-
terest. So any addition to nat
deficit?and the addition Of
if we went the direct aP pro pri!
route, at an interest rate of 5.9 pe.-:!,,nr,
would be to add to that deficit until
time as the national deficit is paid on--
and apparently it will not be paid off.
So we are not going out and incurring
a great deal of hidden charges. Rather,
in the most expeditious way and at the
least expense to the Government. we are
trying to get Government facilities for
needed services winch people are de-
manding, which we are not sale to
ride under under the direct appropriation proc-
ess. It will cost us only the (ilierential
between what we have to pay to borrow
money at 5.9 percent and What we . are
going to have to pay for these purchase
contracts. It has been estimated at 7,5
percent. So the true differentiae in cost
that is going to have to be assumed by
the taxpayers is the difference between
Federal agencies in your city for using 7.5 percent and 5.9 percent.
OttikMaltk2PCPAS ?NAgx-11M-09NEMPNIMPLInblerg;
:
April ITPT9yyd For IReleilCalginRaCheW81-14014R000100080037-8 II 3285
consolidation of office space throughout
the Government, we will save millions
of dollars annually. If each agency is
charged with the responsibility of financ-
ing, funding and defending its budget
requests f6r space before the Appropria-
tions Committee, it will, be inclined to
conserve space, and that conservation of
space will save dollars for the American
taxpayer.
In addition to that, the space we are
presently renting all over the United
States to provide adequate space for Fed-
eral agencies, will no longer be needed.
We will no longer have to pay for the
cost of that space. In addition, the con-
solidation .of agencies into one building
will save a great deal of time and lost ef-
fort of people going to and from the
various buildings and the cost of the
transportation of those individuals. That
will result in more efficient and effective
service to the taxpayer.
So. in the final analysis, this process
will in effect save money for the tax-
payers. contrary to what the gentleman
asserts.
Mr, GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HARSHA. I yield to the gentleman
from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman. I will say
to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio,
that the construction startup costs of a
billion dollars in this bill will have to
come from somewhere. Does not the gen-
tleman think we ought to reserve some-
thing for the day of financial collapse in
this country, because it is inevitable the
way we are going?
Mr. HARSHA. The startup costs will
not be a billion dollars to the Federal
Government. It will be considerably
less. In tile committee's report we showed
the startup costs and continuation costs
for a number of years.
I would hope the gentleman will still
feel we will have a balanced budget at
some time.
Mr. GROSS. Not with bills such as this
will we have balanced budgets.
Mr. HARSHA. I would hazard the
observation that if the gentleman con-
tinues his fine work of watchdogging the
Treasury, we will have a balanced budget.
Mr. GROSS. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEC. 4. Section 210 of the Federal Properly
and -Administrative Services Act of 1949, as
amended (40 U.S.C. 490), is amended by
adding two new subsections reading as fol-
lows:.
"(j) The Administrator is: authorized and
directed to charge anyone furnished services,
space, qtlarters maintenance, repair, or other
factlities (hereinafrer referred to as space
al Hrvires), at roes to he de'orralett by
the Admistr(?pr from time to time sad
,ideci for in regidatlorer t,.etted by him.
Seen re,ies and char,?,es snail approximate
commercial charges for comparable space
and services, except that with respect to
those buildings for which the Administrator
of General Services is responsible for alter-
ation() only (as the term is defined in
see-teen 13(3) of the Public Buildings Act of
1059 (73 Stat. 470), as amended (40 U.S.0
612(5)), the rates charged the occupant for
such serviees shall be fixed by the Adminis-
tarpaptioircasyip)i cregviaerd Rigalterneraia
/Marl% lutriat
log such alterations. The Administrator may limited to) payment of taxes, costs of carry-
exenspt anyone from the charges required lug appropriate insurance, and costs of
by this subsection. To the extent any such pair and maintenance if so required of the
exemption is granted, appropriations to the contractor.
General Services Administration are author- (c) Funds available on the date- of en-
ized to reimburse the fund for any loss of actment of this subsection for the payment
revenue. of rent aetd related. charges for premises,
"(k) Any executive agency, other than the whether appropriated directly to the General
General Services Administration, which pro- Services Administration or to any other
vides to anyone space and services set forth agency of the Government and rec.ived by
in subsection (j) of this section, is author- said A?dministration for such purpose, mey
ized to charge the occupant for such space be utilized by the Administrator of G.nez..al.
and services at YStOS approved by the Admiti- Services th make payments bec...',,min7: (U-,e
istrator and the Director of the Office of from time to rune irom the United Stetes as
Management and Budget. Moneys derived current charges in connectien with terree-
by such executive agency from such rates or ments entered into under authority of tiae
fees shall be credited to the appropriation section.
or fund initially charged for providing tie.4 (d) With respect to any interest in real
service, except that amounts which are la, property acquired under the provisiens of
excess of actual operating and inaintenanee this section, the same shall be subje,r!t
costs of providing the service shall he State and local taxes is.. title to the setee
credited to miscellaneous receipts unlese shall pass to the Goverement of the tiniied
otherwise authorized by law." States.
(e) For the purpose of purchase cor..,racts
provided for in this 'or' 'ii tor tae
by the contractor of bui:Jttigs and
for the use of the Tjeited Stesee tee
Administrator is autlized to lea)
agreements with any per.;cn, coparner,i,ip,
corporation, or other puhlic or privatc ern,
to effectetate any i.",f the pinposes tiu-$
section; and is further T.o
about the development and inio-:oveiIt.,..
any land owned by the Unthed :t:;tares aed
under the" control of tile
Administration ineluding the
obsolete and outmecled
thereon, by providing for tiui conde ere:, e),
thereon by othees of such etriee?:.ures
facilities as shall be the subject of the ep-
plicable purchase contracts, and be meld ar
available such plans and srp,ner:.,rs
the contruction of a public blnk:1,n,r. tilerec.n
CC tic 0,:e.'erinneni:, may 7)c.,.;;:.e;.
heretonire approved pursuant to the i)rovi-
sions of the c' 1,10 L.' as or
amended (40 tf.S.C. COL e , n
construceed under au,aotlt
"0 IV, suttied to oi..)tain s;.ich -
fee all e?r?ee,o?e. be
t uses for 1.1,e purchae of sp.tce, !
a.ny such oroject sh.o.11 suO?t to Ihe 1,?
quire.meurs of sec.ti)n. '7(b) of
Buildings Act of 195C.), amen,ied,
upon an erinn.ated maximum
by not more than an ave.a. e of 10
C.,11t1I0' yef,r e:clusire et
other cc.si attributable to tile u..;e
method of construction authorized by tills
section.
(T) 'Except for previously approved peoE-
pectui..?es referred to in ( c> a Oo ve, no p
chase contract shall be entered pu
to the authority of this section until a tilos-
pectus therefor has been s-ebmitted and ap-
proved in accordarice wi.th section 7 of tine
Public 5'. ','i Act of 195e, ae airened,
and each such prospectus shall he limited to
public buildings generally suitable for ofTho
or stonu4e 's i.e or Lich and any- r:,t11,1-
of public building that is
proved by resolutinn adopted by
tee on V.'orlcs
House of 1..epre.:Onr.a.!:1,:es for a pt.1.7.".:13..e
tract seation.
into uncftr the authority ;7-r
(g) ourclase
section or the end of. t;Ite
which bejnis airer the daze
this section.
Mr. GRAY (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
section 5 be considered' es ,
in the RECORD, and open to aniondmont
Mr. GRAY (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
section 4 be considered as read, printed
In the RECORD, and open to amendment
at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Illi-
nois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any
amendments to be proposed? If not, the
Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEC. 5 (a) Whenever the Administrator of
General Services determines that the best
interests of the United States will be served
by taking action hereunder, he is authorized
to provide space by entering into purcheee
contracts, the terms of which shall not be
more than thirty years and which shall pro-
vide in each case that title to the property
shall vest in the United States at or before
the expiration of tte coatrac.t tcrin and upon
fulfillment of the terms and conditions stipu-
lated in each of ettail purclia;e conT:ract..
Such terms and c-onchtons shah include pro-
vision for the appiicaLion to the purchase
price agreed upon therein of installment pay-
ments made thereunder. Each purchase con--
tract authorized by this section shall be en-
tered into pursuant to the provisions of title
III of the Federal Property and Administra-
tive Services Act of 1949, as amended. If any
such contract is negotiated, the 'determina-
tion and findings supporting such negotia-
tion shall be promptly reported in writing to
the Committees ma Public Wores of the Sen-
ate and House of Representatives. Proposals
for purchase contracts shall be solicited from'
the maximum number of qualified sources
consistent with the nature and requirements
of the facility to be procured.
(b) Each such purchase contract shall in-
clude such provisions as the Administrator
of General Services, in his discretion, shall
deem to be in the best interesw, of the United
States and appropriate to secure the perform-
ance of the oblieations imposed upon cae
parry or pail_,eiI,,aC shall enter into such
agreement with tin United States. No socn.
purcnse COUT any otI -
nlents to be m-ido. 1.:;11ed. Etare.; 1.1
excess of -the amount riecsary, as (Ieter..
mined by the v;--
(1) amortize the cost of construction of
Improvements to be constructed plus the fair
market value, on the date of the aereement,.
of the site, if not owiled by the 'United States;
and
(2) provide a reasonable rale of interest on
the outstanding principal as determined at any point.
paragraphunder 1 above; d
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
(3) reimburse the contractor for the cost
291! Iamoibttiai mcgomp attztippecols0 etmeosritman from Illi-
II 3286 Approved For Rel
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. STEED
Mr. STEED. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. STEED: Page 24,
after line 13, insert the following: '
"(h) No purchase contract shall be en-
tered into under this section until it has
been authorized by resolutions adopted by
the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and House of Representatives, respec-
tively."
Mr. STEED. Mr. Chairman, the reason
Why I offer this amendment is that I
believe it is an improvement in the bill
and it answers some of the concern which
some of the Members have had.
I believe it is fair to point out that
there are several stages we go through
In the process of construction of Federal
buildings. Since our subcommittee is
deeply involved in this whole process, it
Is important that we have this amend-
ment to keep this whole program in an
orderly balance.
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. STEED. I am happy to yield to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOW. I should like to say to the
gentleman that I wholeheartedly sup-
port the amendment he has offered. I be-
lieve it is a great improvement in the
bill and will give us some oversight in
the Appropriations Committee.
Mr, STEED. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. STEED. I am happy to yield to
the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. GRAY. Certainly the Committee
on Public Works wants to continue its
cooperation with the Appropriations
Committee on the funding of public
buildings. This is one additional over-
sight provision the Appropriations Com-
mittee would have, and we on this side
are prepared to accept the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. STEED. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HAR,SHA, Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. STEED. I yield to the gentleman
from Ohio.
Mr. HARSHA. I thank the gentleman
for yielding. This is precisely the amend-
ment I had at the desk, and I believe it
more properly comes from the distin-
guished chairman of the subcommittee
of the Appropriations Committee. I be-
lieve it is proper to include oversight for
the Appropriations Committee, and we
are happy to accept it on this side of
the aisle.
Mr. STEED. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. WRIGHT'. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. STEED. I am happy to yield to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. WRIGHT, As I heard the gentle-
man's amendment read, I believe it did
not have the same caveat that applies
in subsection (f) with respect to Public
Works Committee approvals, wherein it
says:
Except for previously approved pro-
spectuses referred to in (e) above, no pur-
chase contrAitifichlef dcirReI ease CiAIRDP136120'0244ROVECTIVEMOOSIg8us
mkt .,fiampsmegek0001000w/77%, 1972
I wonder if the gentleman would agree
to that same sort of arrangement with
regard to his committee?
Mr. STEED. As I understand it, the
gentleman's committee has to act first.
They work up a project, and then they
bring it to us in final form and we have
to act on it. This keeps it in balance with
other work in this field our committee
has to do.
I believe there would be no delay in
the program, and that this ought to be
approved.
I shall call attention to the fact that
In our bill our subcommittee handles we
are charged with the responsibility of
enabling the General Services Adminis-
tration to provide space throughout the
country which the Government has to
have to carry on its work. Our rent ac-
count is quite heavy. It is nearing the
half-billion dollar mark. A large part of
that rent account is dedicated to getting
space in these areas where these build-
ings are so badly needed. There is a very
high criteria on the justification for
erecting Federal buildings.
This bill provides a new tool, added to
what we have already, to proceed to get
the Government in the most economical
housing possible to be provided. With
this amendment in here I believe any ob-
jection I would have to the bill would be
eliminated, and I would support the bill
wholeheartedly.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. STEED. I yield further,
Mr. WRIGHT. In order to achieve an
understanding between the two commit-
tees, I believe the gentleman's amend-
ment by its terms would require these
projects already authorized by the Pub-
lic Works Committee to come to the Ap-
propriations Committee before they
could be constructed, for specific author-
izing resolutions from the Appropriations
Committee. I assume that the gentleman
from Oklahoma would be in a position to
say that the Appropriations Committee
would expect to act with some expedi-
tion upon those already approved proj-
ects which have been waiting so long.
Mr. STEED. Of course, as the gentle-
man knows, under the old system the
Public Works Committee had to author-
ize prospectuses before we had any au-
thority over it anyway. Having the rent
account and being under this pressure, I
can assure the gentleman that my sub-
committee is more concerned about get-
ting adequate space for Government
agencies, perhaps, than even his commit-
tee, because this is something we live
with, and it is getting to be a very siza-
ble burden, and we know a large part of
this rent is money that oudit to be going
into paying for these buildings.
Mr. WRIGHT. I thank the gentleman
for his comments.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. STEED).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. I move to strike
the last word, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time to
address a request to the chairman of the Mr. VAN DEERLIN. We have many
that our judges have encountered out in
San Diego.
San Diego, as you know, Mr. Chair-
man, is using a Federal building that was
built a year before I was born, which
gives you an idea of how very old and
used up it is at this point. We enjoy
high priority for a new building under
the terms of this legislation. As a Matter
of fact, the last a years have been sne.nt
by a leading firm of San Diego archi-
tects, preparing plans for a $43 million
building in which to house the court-
house complex and some 44 Federal agen-
cies at San Diego.
After completion of these plans, Mr.
Chairman, the National Judicial Confer-
ence ordered a new size courtroom to be
the standard courtroom throughout the
United States?a smaller, scmidepressed
courtroom of a size 28 by 40 feet. Com-
pleted plans in San Diego provide court-
rooms 48 by 40 feet.
The ordered change is going to re-
quire redesigning the buildin.g?whiali
the architects say must be done With so
fundamental a change. This will result
in a delay of at least 6 months. That
redesign will increase the cost of the
building by the amount of architects'
fees in a sum of approximately $200.010.
The five judges of our Southern Dis-
trict Court in California?one Democrat,
the presiding judge, and foto: Republaan
appointees?all feel strongly about this
matter. They told me if they are coin-
pelled to take these new, smaller cent-
rooms, they would prefer to stay naht
where they are in the old, dilapidaa.cal
courthouse on F Street.
It seems to me that this could 'a:. a
very 'embarrassing- thing to the Caaa -
a-aess, and to me persen.Uy, ss waal ?
to the GSA and the - :National Juan.
-Conference.
May I inotare of the subcommittee
chairman what advice me can give i.17
this regard? ?
Mr. GRAY. Will the gentleman yield
to me?
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Of course.
Mr. GRAY. I say to my good friend
from California that this is a problem
attendant on almost all of these buildinas
where it is a combination Federal build-
ing including- the courts. Baltimore, Md.,
is one, and I could name many others in
the different cities that have. this same
problem.
We haveauthorized a larger build
to which the gentleman alluded, but the
Judicial Conference met at the request
of Chief Justice Burger, and for Some
reason they asked them to consider re-
euesting the GSA to have a smaller court
facility.
My own personal opinion is th.o.t t17
is a case of being penny vise sat a..'
foolish and that it will co:,t, a lo;
money to redraw these p!s:is and
up with this smaller size than it WOUIC1
be to go ahead and build the larger court-
room in the first place. As the judges
point out, they need the larger space.
Many of the trials are of national inter-
cat, and they need a larger courtroom
hold them.
'ARM 414 e e of our
April Ai? RR? d For Rel egqqa(N1i4jy&w:??.?. piggtrithoom 00080037-8 H 3287
proximity to the international border
with its immigration and narcotics prob-
lems.
Mr. GRAY. But in direct answer to
your question, the project as presently
authorized could be built exactly as the
judges want it. The judges should work
on the Judicial Conference and get them
to request the GSA not to scale down the
size because it requires no further legis-
lative action in this bill to build the
larger courtroom. So the problem is with
the Judicial Conference and the admin-
istrative office of the courts, because I
understand GSA, being the so-called real
estate agent for the Government, only
builds space at the request of an agency,
In this case the judiciary. So it is the ju-
diciary itself that has asked that it be
cut down. We are powerless to say here
that you should build the bigger one. The
problem rests with the juiciary.
I will be delighted to hold hearings
and bring in .the people from the Gen-
eral Services Administration as well as
the people from the Judicial Conference,
if the gentleman requested it, but I think
time is of the essence and ;eel that the
judges should be doing their homework
on the Judicial Conference.
? Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Does the gentle-
man not agree that the interest of the
local community in this matter is very
Important, and in line with the senti-
ments expressed by the President in his
state of the Union - message last year?
Mr. Nixon emphasized that, where pos-
sible and appropriate, we should leave
decisionmaking to people at the local
level.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from California has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. VAN Dente-
LIN was allowed to proceed for 1 addi-
tional minute.)
ivir. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, if the gen-
Aleman will yield, the answer is "Yes."
I agree with the gentleman implicitly,
but I was trying to get the mechanics of
the prOblem of the Judiciary asking the
GSA to go ahead with the building plans
as authorized in the bill.
-Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Hawaii.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. I am glad that the
gentleman from California has brought
this problem up because in Honolulu we
are suffering from the same bungling.
Plans for our new Federal building had
been drawn up -at-id construction ready
to begin, pending appropriation of nec-
essary funds. Suddenly the postal depart-
ment altered its plans and the entire
building plans had to be redrawn at more
expense to the taxpayer. When the new
plans had been drawn and approved. and
construction once again ready to com-
mence, pending the appropriation of
funds, comes now the Judicial Confer-
ence, with its recommendation for a de-
crease in the size of the courtrooms pre-
sumably for economy reasons, and
threatens to require the redrawing of
plans again, at even greater cost to the
taxpayer.
mean. higher costs. Plans which have The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
been drawn and approved should be al- the request of the gentleman from 1111-
lowed to proceed without alteration. nois?
If the chairman of the subcommittee There was no objection.
will lend his ear, I would like to say that
as a representative of one of the cities
being affected, I join with the gentleman.
from California in begging him if beg-
ging there must be to exert the influence
of his office, as chairman of the Sub-
committee on Public Buildings, to cut oat
the foolislmess of costly replanning and
delays.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. I thank the gen-
tleman.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
(Mr. GRAY asked and was given per--
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, let me say
to my distinguished friend from Hawaii
that he never has to beg me for any-
thing. We will hold a hearing and tra
to help all of the cities to correct similar.
situations as exists in Honolulu.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will reatE
The Clerk read as follows:
SEC. 6. Section 210 of the Federal Properly
mid Administrative Services Act of 1949, la
amended (40 U.S.C. 490), is further amende0
by renumbering section 210(h) (2) as set,-
lion 210?11) (.31, and adding a new paragraph
(2) immediately after section 210(h) (1.), as
follows:
"(2) In the case of lease agreements pro-
viding for the erection by the lessor of build-
ines and improvements for the use of the
United States, the Administrator may enter
into any such lease for a period not to exceed
thirty years and make the property of the
United States to be used as a site for a
public building (as defined in section 14(e)
of the Public Built:tinge Act of 1959, as
amended) ea-enable by sale to the lessor 121
such matmer and upon such terms as the
Administraior deems appropriate to the best
interest or the United States, together with
such plans and specifications for the Con-
struction of a public building thereon as
the Government may possess. Projects here-
tofore approved pursuant to the provisions
of the Public Buildings Act of 1959, as
amended (40 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), may be con-
structed under the authority of this section
210(h) without further approval, and the
prospectuses submited to obtain such ap-
proval shall, for all purposes, be considered
as prospectuses for the lease construction
of space, except that any such project shall
be subject to the requirements of section
7(b) of the Public Buildings Act of 1959,
as amended, based upon an estimated max-
imum cost exclusive of financing or other
costs attributable to the use of the method
of construction authorized by this section. In
order to utilize the authority.granted under
this paragraph (2) with respect to such pre-
viously approved projects, the Administrator
must find that direct Federal construction
and a purchase contract as provided for in
eectiou 5 of the Public Buildinge Amend-
of 1.972 13 not a feasible means of
providing tile required apace. Sections 202
tied 203 of the Federal Property and Ad-
minietrative Services Act of 1049, as amended
(40 U.S.C. 483 and. 484), shall not be appli-
cable to property made available under this
subsection. The authority granted under this
paragraph (2) shall be in effect for a period
of three full fiscal years from enactment and
not thereafter.'
Mr. GRAY (during the reading). Mr.
The city of Honolulu, with its ill- Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that ? 0
housed Fad titoturourtat to in sub-
r-latimated fmr
dire need bra clew edlrif beurfr;g. tna ehs 1 tneotto, and open o ameMR2 market value.
ther delays in its construction can only at any point. (e) The Postmaster General of the United
AMENDMENT OFITRED BY Ma. HARSHA
Mr. HARSHA, Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered. by Mr. HARSHA: On
page 24, strike out line 14 and all that fol-
lows down through and. including line 2 on
page 26. Renumber succeeding sectiona
accordingly.
(Mr. HARSHA asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, this is a
very simple amendment. It strikes out
section 6. That section authorizes GSA to
go out and lease public buildings for
periods of occupancy up to 30 years.
My objection to this section is neat
at the end of the lease term. after payna
this lease fee, the entrepreneur or ai-
vate developers will still own the build-
ing. In other words. the Federal Govern-
ment is not obtaining anv equity in the
building during this 30-year tiered.
I would hope that the chairman would
accept this amendment. It think it tin it-
ens up the bill and strengthens it eon-
siderably and strengthens conetcesortal
oversight on the balance of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, if I might have the at-
tention of the chairman of the eulaena-
mittee, the gentleman from Illinois Cane
GRAY ) , I would like to ask the
man if if he is willing to aecept the a eesse a-
ment.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. H A RS II A. I yield to the gen
man from Illinois. ?
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Cantsmei. I eJenee
delighted to accept the amencloicen en
this side.
The CHAIRMAN. The questioa is t.,,a
the amendment offered by the gee:ale:II:all
from Ohio (Mr. liansraa)
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEC. 7. (a) The following real property, and
any improvements located thereon, when
no longer required for occupancy by the
United States Postal Service, shall be trans-
ferred, without cost, to the General Services
Administration for disposal pursuant to the
provisions of the Federal Property and Ad-
ministrative Services Act of 191, as
amended:
(1) Post Office?South Main and East Port
Street. Saint Martinville, Louisiana.
(2) Post Office-1210 Park Street, Com-
merce. Texas.
(3) Post Office-34 West Street, Keene, New
Hampshire.
(4) Poet Office-230 W. Main Street, Vele
Platte,
(3) Post Oifica-100 Smith Olive A-.cei.e.
West Palm BeeM.
(6) Post 0:fice-e.l,e W. Fourth Street, Si.;'.
field, Ohio.
(7) Post Office-114 N. Loraine Street, Mid-
land, Texas,
(8) Post Office?Court House?East Ford
Street, Augusta, Georgia.
(b) The provisions of section 204(e) of
the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 shall not preclude dis-
) Qt. ?
Approved For Reletee 2000/09/14: CIA-RDP86-002 000100082037-8
H 3288 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE pnt /9, 1972
States Postal Service 'shall canvey to- the
city of Carbondale, Illinois, all right, title,
and interest of the United States and such
Postal Service, and in and to the real prop-
erty (including any improvements thereon)
in Carbondale, Illinois, bounded by old West
Main Street on the south, Glenview Drive on
the west, Illinois Route 13 and access road
to Murdale Elhopping Center on the north,
and by Texaco Service Station and residences
on the north, approximately 308 feet on the
east, 525 feet on the south, 420 feet on the
west and with an irregular boundary oa the
north, a total area of approximately 191,300
square feet. The exact legal description, of
the property shall be determined by the
Postmaeter General, without cost to the city
of Carbondale, Illinois. Such conveyance
shall be made without payment of monetary
consideration and on condition that such
property shall be used solely for public park
purposes, and if it ever ceases to be used
for such purpose. the title thereto shall revert
to the United States which shall have the
right of imniediate reentry thereon.
(d) The Postmaster General of the United
States Postal Service shall convey to the city
of New York. New York. all right, title, and
Interest of the United States and such Postal
Service, in and to the real property (Inc/tid-
ing all improvements thereon) generally re-
ferred to as the Morgan Annex, one block
square between Ninth and Tenth Avenues.
anti Twenty-eighth and Twenty-ninth
Streets, New York, New York. Such eon-
veytmce shall be made without payment of
monetary consideration and on condition
that such property shall be used solely for
publicly assisted housing and related pur-
poses, and if it ever ceases to be used. for
Such purposes, title thereto shall revert to
the United States which shall have the right
of immediate reentry thereon_
Mr. GRAY (during the reading) . Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
section 7 be considered as read, printed
in the RECORD, and open to amendment
at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection,
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. CLEVELAND
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. CLEVELAND:
Page 26, line 3, after "Sc. 7." strike subsec-
tions (a) and (b) through and including 11ne
4 .on page 27.
Renumber succeeding subsections accord-
ingly.
(Mr. CLEVELAND asked and was giv-
en permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, I of-
fer an amendment to H.R. 10488, as re-
ported which would strike from the bill
language which is no longer necessary.
The subsections I propose to strike calls
for a transfer of e:zcess Festal Service
properties to the GA for disposal pur-
suant to the Federal Property and Ad-
ministrative Services Act of 149, as
amended.
Late last year, when the committee was
considering this bill, I brought to the
committee's attention what I considered
, be a very inequitable situation.
Through its Reorganization Act, the Pos-
tal Service had become a Government
1,200 buildings from GSA. In addition to
these buildings, new ones were under
construction by GSA which were de-
signed to replace some of the older build-
ings of the 1,200 transferred. Further,
the Postal Service was to receive these
new buildings at no cost, all the while
retaining the buildings which were pro-
grammed to be replaced. Such buildings
could then have been sold to the highest
bidder with all proceeds going to the
Postal Service.
This represented to me a windfall to
the Postal Service at the taxpayers' ex-
pense and one which was not intended
under the Reorganization Act. I was par-
ticularly concerned about this practice
since one community in my own district,
long desirous of obtaining for school or
library purposes a postal building about
to be abandoned for new quarters, sud-
denly found they were no longer dealing
with GSA, but with a government cor-
poration more concerned with the sound
management of assets than disposition
of some Government property which had
been paid for by the taxpayer in the first
place.
A survey of similar new postal build-
ings underway produced those you lind
in section 7(a) of the bill before you. I
Introduced legislation to correct this in-
equity and the committee modified and
adopted it.
Subsequently, the Postal Service saw
the light and agreed with my position
and administratively offered these build-
ings to GSA, who in turn accepted, for
disposal as surplus under the Federal
Property and Administrative Services
Act of 949, as amended. With the ad-
ministrative transfer of these bulletin qs,
sections 7 (a) and (b) of this bill become
unnecessary and so I offer an amend-
ment to strike them.
By consent obtained after we have re-
turned to full session of the House. I oi-
fer correspondence betv,,een the iti
Service and the General Services Admin-
istration in support of the fact that these
subsections are no longer needed.
(The material referred to follows:)
BUILDINGS DESCRIBED IN H.R. 10488 AS REPORTED
Bilt identity and location
Estimatet
cost
Status of new building
Funded,
Under contract to
construction be awarded Notes
(Saint Martinville, La .... (') 7
(2) Commerce, Tex (a) Occumed.
(3) Keene, N.H $1,60a.000 X Open May 1972.
(4) Ville Platte, La 408,000 Nor/ OCCUDieti.
(5) West Palm Beach, Fla 8400, 000 X Open July 1972,
(6) hlansfield, Ohio 7,305,400 X fa,- 0e,,.rmAr 1972,
(7) Midland, Tex 4, 8(4.000 X Open August I$m.
(8) Augusta, Ga 5,000,000 X ?
I Will be acquired by Post Office, and constructed by Corps of Ergineers.
a Acquired by Post Office, and constructed by Corps of Engineers,
SEN/OR ASSISTANT POSTIVIASTER
GENERAL,
MAIL PROCESSING GROUP,
Washington, D.C., November 8, 1972.
Hon. ROBERT L. KUNZIG,
Administrator, General Services Administra-
tion, !Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. KUNZIG :- Some of the buildings
transferred to the Postal Service on July 1,,
1971 had been programmed, since before en-
actment of the Posral Reorganization Act,
for donation upon completion of planned and
approved new multi-occupancy Federal of-
fice buildings and Post Office buildings for
use in the States wherein they are located
for purposes of education, public health, park
and recreation, historic monument, or other
purposes, pursuant to the provisions of the
Federal Property and Administrative Serv-
ices Act of 1949, as amended, and related stat-
utes. Such buildings were not required by
the Postal Service except as temporary quar-
ters pending completion and occupancy of
planned new space. In addition, the Postal
Service has a postal f;:cility site which has
become exce,s to the Postal Service needs
dna ro the acquisition of a pl'e,er.dne
Accordingly, the Po:;l Service has deter-
mined that the follo.,ving propertc, are ex.-
CkS5 tO the needs of the Postal Service:
Carbondale, Illinois, poetal facility site,
Northeast corner of Old West Main Street
and Gienview Drive, Carbondale, Illinois,
consisting of approximately 191,900 aquare
feet.
Commerce, Texas, Post Office, 1210 Park
Street, Commerce, Texas.
? ai and had 1 ady i ed Iri.eene. New Hampshire, Poet Office, 31 West
11.1s,nsf.eld. Pct Office, 53 West Pcilrt
Street, Man ii. Ohio.
Midland, Teass. Post Office, 114 North
,Loraine Street, Midland, Te.
Saint Martinville, Post Orqce.
South Main and It Port Sit'eet. Saint Mar-
tinville, Louisiana,
Ville Platte, Louisiana, Post Office,- 2:30
West Main S tree,:, Platte, Lounfina..
West Palm Beach, Florida, Post Office, 400
South Olive Avenue, 15,Te5t Palm Beach, Flor-
ida.
These 17:70:7,v.-1,;.i,,,.; are offered
to
Administrn,...,:l fir 15 111?1- ? 1:,..7:)p-
erty rv.:.:,..,r0i:Infcre wich of
the Fed.:.:-;i1 Ajrnf3.: : ?:e
Services Act of ii49 andre
General Services Administration agrees to
permit the Po.stal Service to continue to
occupy the space the Postal Service pre .iv
occupies in each building until
as the Postal Service rnov..; into renlacom,.n.,..
.?.;:a,ce eh re.,pective,
na.11.
Service s bear ail co; s wad e,..1ses
these pr r'1?'- s:o long a:3 thev a:*e
al
t'urther
the Servi,:e tlie net
received trcni the di.,-;pol c6.: these
ties.
If this transfer is acceptable to you, please
so indicate by signing at the foot of this
letter,
Respectfully,
Accepted: H. F. PAuGitr.
ROBERT L. KUNZIG,
Administrator, Genercd Services Ad-
V?ctiLtnkppromeattor &lease Q000/60/14 POIAADP86-00244R000400080037-8
April Appal:Wed For RelYse2a00/902114.41000100080037-8 11 3289
SENIOR ASSISTANT POSTMASTER
GENERAL, Man. PROCESSING Gnome,
Washington, D.C., November 8, 1971.
Hon. Roamer L. RONZIG,
Administrator, General Services Administra-
tion, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. Kingrac: This refers to your
October 28 letter to Mr. Blount concerning
the Postal Service's request for the transfer
to the Postal Service, without reimburse-
ment, Of a portion of the Federal Center In
Bell, California, and also to the several
earlier letters written to the Postal Service
by the Public Buildings Service requesting
the transfer to GSA, without reimbursement,
of buildings destined to be vacated by the
Postal Service upon completion of new
postal facilities in specified locations.
In your October 28 letter, you indicated
that you would recommend the reimburse-
ment-free transfer of the Bell property to
the Postal Service if a mutual understanding
were reached that, in return for transfer of
the Bell property, the Postal Service would
transfer to GSA excess properties in the
Postal Service inventory which would be
equal in value to that of the Bell property.
You stated that GSA has continuing needs
for these properties, either for dirct assign-
ment to Federal agencies or as a medium of
exchange for other properties.
The Postal Service has determined that
the following properties are excess to the
needs of the Postal Service:
Augusta, Georgia, Pest Office?court
House, East Ford Street, Augusta, Georgia.
Miami, Florida, Post Office?Court House,
_200 N.E. First Avenue, Miami, Florida.
Rock Hill, South Carolina., Post Office?
Customs House, 201 East Main Street, Rock
Hill. South Carolina.
These properties are hereby offered for im-
mediate transfer to the General Services Ad-
ministration. The Genet.al Services Admin-
istration agrees to permit the Postal Service
to continue to occupy the space the Postal
Service presently occupies in each building
until such time as the Postal Service moves
Into replacement space in eaci resp,z,ctive
location. The Postal Service snail bear all
costs and expenses of these p.roperties s long
as they are occupied by the Postal Service.
The General Services Administration further
agrees to recommend to the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget that the appraised fair
market value at the time of transfer of the
properties transferred pursuant to this agree-
ment be allowed as a credit to the Postal
Service against any reimbursement that, may
be required from the Postal Service in return
for any lands or buildings transferred to the
Postal Service under 39 U.S.C. ?, 2002(d).
If this transfer is acceptable to you, please
so indicate by signing at the foot of this
letter.
Respectfully,
Accepted:
ROBERT L. RIINZIG,
Administrator, General
Services Administration.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CLEVELAND. I yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois.
Mr. GRAY, Mr. Chairman, what we
were doing legislatively here has been
handled administratively, and we accept
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New Hampshire (Mr. CLEVE-
LAND) on this side.
Mr. CLEVELAND. -I thank the gentle-
man.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New -Hampshire (Mr. CLEVELAND).
H. F. PAUGHT.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. 1CITIALL
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. 'UDALL: on page
27, beginning with line 24, strike out all of
subsection (d) of section 7 down -through
line 11 on page 28 and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
"(di (1) The United States Postal Seteice
shall grant to the City of New York. without
reimbursement, air rights for public housing
purposes above the postal facility to be con-
structed on the real property bounded by
Twenty-eighth and Twenty-ninth Streets,
Ninth and Tenth Avenues, in the City of New
York i the Morgan Annex site), such fatality
-
to be designed and constructed In such man-
ner as to permit the building by the City
of New York of a high-rise residential Dryer
thereon, provided that?
"(Ai The City of New York shall grant-
to the Postal Service without reimbursement
exclusive use of Twenty-ninth Street be- ?
tween Ninth and Tenth Avenues in the City
of New Torii. such use to be irrevocable un-
less the Postai Service sells, leases, or other-
wise disposes of the Morgan Annex site; and
?(B) The City of New York shall wee
to reimburse the Postal Service for the seine
tional cost of designing and constructing
foundations of its Facility so as to render
them capable of supporting a residential
tower above the facility. and shall issue arty
permits, licenses, easements and other au-
thorizations which may be necessary Or In-
cident to the construction of the postal
"(2) If within 24 months after the City
of New York has compiled with the provi-
sions of paragraphs (A) and (B) of subsea-
tion (d) (1) of this section, the United States
Postal Service has not awarded a contract
for the construction of its facility, the Postai
Service shall convey to the City of New York,
without reimbursement, all right, title and
interest in and to the above-described real
property. Such conveyance shall be made on
the condition tluit such property shalt h?,.
used solely for public 1.10ttlilg purposes. and
if public houiag is not consrructed on the
property within five years after tit/e is con-
veyed to the City of New York or if there-
after the property ever ceases to be used
for such purposes. title thereto shall revert
to the Postal Service, which shall have the
right of inunediate reentry thereon."
Mr. UDALL (during the reading). W.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent thAt
the amendment be considered as read
and printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
There was no objection.
(Mx'. UDALL asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, the 'U.S.
Postal Service owns a square block in
Manhattan called the Morgan Annex
site. This property was acquired in 1.563
for the purpose of building a major nev
pc,\Aai iteilny. There has been a geed
deal Of controversy about the use of this
site. The city of New York now wants it
foe a low-income public housing develop-
ment.
In the bill as reported by the commit-
tee this square block of very expensive
land is given to the city of New York,
without any reimbursement, for use as a
public housing facility.
The Postal Service still Wants to buDil
for a four-story major vehicle mainte-
nance facility.
So that we have this conflict: The
Postal Department wants to use it for
postal facilities, and the committee has
.said to give the land to the city of New
York, and have a public housing project
erected.
The amendment I am offering is a com-
promise. It would permit the Postal Serv-
ice to build on the lower four stories a
major vehicle maintenance facility. Ent
it would give air rights to the city of
New York so that a high-rise public hous-
ing project could be built on top of the
postal facility.
There would be no reimbursement
whatever by the city of New York except
that the amendment would require
city to pay the cost of the additional
foundations because it would need larger
and heavier foundations if the i7? ir 7:lns
were to be used for a housing- facility on
top of the piist office faciihv it is esti-
mated the extra expense would be stout
$2.7 million in cosi4i to the city M e?
York. Other than that, they would get
for nothing these very expensive air
rights for this housing pYO:ft,.t.;.
SO, as I say, this is a compromize wIch
would permit substantial nein to the city
of New York in this public housloo, i.e ee...
ect, and still permit the Post ()Mee De-
partment to build their facility on the
land it now owns.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I am happy to yield is the
gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. HENDERSON-. Mr. Chairman, t
want to commend the a-enr-li7-nian Irai
Arizona for offering the anneicen
which, as the gentleman 55 Vi, is a
promise between the twe
hove this is fair and
the city ot New Yorx to lie
and to protect the intent of the Cone,
in the creation of the Postai Servi,:e he
giving them the proper ownership
of the property, and yet at Sa;11e
accommodating the needs of the cite of
New York.
I am indeed happy to join with my col-
league, the gentleman. front Arizona, in
urging support for his amendment.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for his remarks.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am always reluctant
to oppose the ranking member of tile
great House Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service, my friend Mr. LeAtie
in offering this amendment. rdts if I
were to coin an old phrase. I would have
to say that the chickens are now 7:4-rit-
ing ho-me to roost. How of -its
stood here in the 's oIl
against giving away coog
thority for this so-called
to run tile Post Office Department
see fit?
Let me tell you what happened in
New York in the district of the gentle-
women from New York ; Mre.
We took our subcommittee up lliere :ntd
held public hearings on this matter so
I am completely familiar with it. What
The mcitteAaatargeTease 2 tiAltbistr-teruttitelottesEibbW-Pc'ep"'
11 3290 Approved For Rele
ment said to over 300 citizens in Man-
hattan, "We are going to displace you
from your homes. We are going to get
rid of 33 business establishments in or-
der to build an annex to the Morgan
Street Station project in New York
City."
After putting these low-income people
out of their homes?over 300 of them?
and after displacing over 30 business en-
terprises, they then abandoned the pros-
cot and went over to Secaucus, N.J.?
and the gentleman from Iowa who is
sitting here knows about that project.
If you want to talk about boondog-
gling?that, is it. They now have esca-
lated that project up to approximately
$200 million. They could have built a
postal facility handling all foreign mail
and other pcstal operations in New York
City for about $50 million. But no?they
did not want to do that. They went to
New Jersey, as I said, and spent about
a quarter of a billion dollars of the tax-
payers' money in a swamp.
Now they want to hang on to the old
site.
The committee bill before you says that,
since we displaced the low income peo-
ple, we ought now to give them the land
back for public housing. That is what the
bill does.
But the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from Arizona says no, we do not
want to do that. We want to go ahead
and build another garage for the post
office and then allow the public housing
to be used over the air rights so they will
have all the fumes coming from those
trucks that will be so bad and with all
the noise from the garage.
My friends, we had people testify that
some of these people have been displaced
in Manhattan in New York City-16 to
18 of them are living in one and two room
apartments because they cannot find de-
cent housing.
That is what we did when we gave
away the congressional control of the
Postal Service.
Now here I find my very good friend,
the distinguished gentleman from Ari-
zona, offering the last straw trying to
break the back of the low income people
in New York, and saying OK we took
this away from you, but we are not going
to give it back. For God's sake and for
humanities' sake, I ask you to vote down
this amendment. Give these low income
people of New York City their land back
that we took from them and which we
did not use.
Mrs. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
The Morgan Annex property was ad-
quired to build the Morgan Annex Post
Office nearly 9 years ago. The gentle-
man from Illinois {Mr. Gaiky) has indi-
cated what the extensive hearings re-
vealed?dislocation for tenants and for
bitziaesses, and loss of income to the
city of New York.
There were statements made time and-
time again?not only before the Com-
mittees on Public Works and Post Office,
before and daring the time I have been
a Member of Congress?but to officials of
the New York City Housing and De-
e lif",
0106414 AtIMIDP-811402044k000100081/7 4, 1972
facility had been constructed in Secau-
cus, N.J.
Two hundred million dollars of the
taxpayers' money has been spent to build
this New Jersey Post Office bulk facility.
All this time, the Post Office authorities
were saying that as soon as the New Jer-
sey facility was built the Morgan Annex
land, where they originally intended to
have the facility, would become excess
and would be returned to the city of New
York as a site for much-needed housing.
Before the Post Office took over this
land, there was housing on it. That
homing was torn down by them, and
many poor and working people were
compelled to relocate.
When the Post Office became an in-
dependent corporation, it decided that
the Morgan Annex site was valuable land
which would be able to produce a profit.
So, postal officials suddenly decided that
they had to park trucks there. They
are asking to park trucks instead of al-
lowing the land to be used for desper-
ately needed housing. One thousand
units of low and moderate income hous-
ing can be built on this site, but, no,
the Post Office needs it to park trucks.
The Postal Service proposed a four-
story VMF, two floors above ground and
two below, with walls and foundations
sufficiently reinforced to allow construc-
tion of 20 stories of housing above the
garage. For the reinforcement, the Postal
Service would require $2.7 million from
the city of New York.
This proposal was met with virtu-
ally unanimous disapproval from city
officials. The Economic Development
Administration, the Housing and De-
velopment Administration, the City
Planning Commission and the Depart-
ment of Air Pesources.
Senator Jscon JAVITS expressed con-
cern and telegrams from Borough Pres-
ident Percy E. Sutton and from Com-
munity Planning Board No. 4, located
in the Chelsea neighborhood, were also
sent.
These individuals and organizations
gave the following reasons for concern:
The site was promised repeatedly for
housing.
The area Is residential and so zoned
as to forbid such a facility as the Postal
Service proposes. It is, however, zoned
for housing.
No explanation has been given as to
why the Secaucus facility will not re-
move the trucks from Manhattan as
promised.
- Trucks of such number and size are
a health and safety hazard to residents
of the surrounding neighborhood.
Pollution from the trucks will severely
damage air quality levels in. mid-Man-
hattan, acoordizig to deputy tilnti,etor of
the department of air resources of the
city of New York.
Traffic patterns in the area would be
disrupted and gross congestion would
increase in the already crowded garment
district. -
In response to these objections, Senior
Assistant Postmaster General H. F.
Faught, testifying before the Subcom-
velopment Administration and the mayor xnittee on Postal Facilities and Mail on
of New Yor ? enclACIR
declared exklfttwiToirmosrmoo/Poolfstal-FeevictiMPRer?
June of 1970 and July of 1971 were "un-
fortunate" since they did not tally with
the results of a subsequent study of
Postal Service future needs. No further
defense of the shattered agreements was
made.
Mr. Faught further declared that the
Army Corps of Engineers feasibility
study of the Morgan Annex site as pro-
jected by the Postal Service?with hous-
ing over the truck facility?would deal
more fully with the questions of ti attic
hazard and congestion, zoning, and rein-
forcement and insulation costs. ds
planned, he said, traffic danger would be
reduced by provision of separate en-
trances for people and for trucks on op-
posite sides of the building.
Mr. Faught stated that in his own per-
sonal experience, the sentiment of Chel-
sea community residents was favorable
to the proposal. This was desaite the esct
that community opposition to anytiang
hut housing on the site was expressed in
strong terms earlier in the year in tele-
grams, letters, and public demonstrations
at the May 14 hearing.
The most telling objection to the pres-
ence of the ro:1: al -Service at Mot;:,i.an
Annex, however, is that an eminently
satisfactory alternative site for the
needed truck facility is available nearby.
It is a full block, half owned by the city
and half by the Sharp Development
Corp., at 30th Street and 12th Avenue. It
possesses all the advantages the Postal
Service cites for Morgan Annex: A lower
Manhattan location. available space. and
reasonable fmancing? In atation, thr szfe
would not interfere with exciting traffic
patterns, would not disrupt a residen-
tial area and would aid in revitalleing
the 12th Avenue area for eosimerce. -
However, the Pcs:t Orilco
the Sharp site arty cur iery-aitention
dstnissed isa iThanciaily urn iorkabie on
grounds a- Vii!v1IF there would cost 735
million while the same facility at the
Morgan site would cost only S5.1 mil-
hon?a $28 million difference. The Sharp
site was not even included in the feasi-
bility study the Postal Service commis-
sioned from the Army Corps of Engi-
neers.
However, a General Accounting OfSee
report commissioned by ecrigressworn
Asztio revealed that the Postal Service's
cost analysis had been prepared from
preliminary data in 1 day. It fht?tl-ier
showed that according to standard C: AO
accounting methods, the cost differential
between the two sites was not $88 million
but only $2.1 million.
The Sharp Development Corp., work-
ing with the New York Economic Devel-
onent Acinistration. has sauce made
another off. to the Pastel ,..7,21?vice tact
,7'?:;t1A 1:11:07L, ?hf': bir.;Ck
e,.-?n less away, tons
nr-aaie balance in favor of ice
site.
Senator Jinars and Senator BUCKLFY,
my friends on the other side of the aisle,
have been working with me in proving to
the Post Office that this alternate
a place wile:E.' trucks can be parked with-
out creating traffic congestion, without
creating noise pollution, without depriv-
0114V0010001907-8
he arp proposal as been drawn 1111
eC0- .
Aprieppr9y0 For Rel 91WAcliklappW_OfigAgt000100080037-8 3291
ek4ARQR
by the city and includes concessions
which would make it a cheaper facility
than the one they now seek to build in
the Morgan area. At Morgan, the Post
Office would not only have to pay more
but would be depriving people of decent
low- and moderate-income housing. -
There is no justification for the Post
Office to take the Morgan Annex land for
the parking of trucks when there is an
alternate site available at a lower cost.
Has the Post Office something else in
mind? This is a square city block which
might be a very valuable piece of prop-
erty and which could make it appear that
the Post Office is in the black instead of
in the red. Is it going to be utilised for
the purpose of being sold rather than for
the purpose they claim here?
There is unanimous disapproval from
the people and authorities of the city of
New York for the Postal Service proposal.
Additionally, it seems incredible that the
city is now being asked to pay $3 million
for the site. That is, the Postal Service
says it must have $2.7 million from the
city in order to strengthen the founda-
tions of its truck facility so that they
will support housing. From the city's
point of view this is the same as being
asked to pay the Postal Service that
money for the land. And if that were to
happen, the cost of each apartment
would increase by at least 33,000. That is
not the land cost for low- or moderate-
income housing; that much money goes
for luxury housing ? sites, It means the
city could never build low- and moder-
ate-income housing on the facility. We
have a crying need for housing in that
area, anti for low- and moderate-income
housing - especially. We have been de-
prived of this housing by the Pest, Office
for no reason.
Postai authorities now tell us they trust
have millions of dollars in compensation
--for the land. First, they ignore the com-
mitment they made to provide the land
at no cost, during the time that that sort
of action was commonplace. The Postal
Service should have fulfilled its commit-
ments when those commitments were
made. It is unthinkable that now the
city -should reward them for breaking
those Promises. In addition, the Post Of-
fice has been incredibly compensated al-
ready by being granted the Secaucus,
N.J., facility?where it has spent $200
million in public money. What has the
city received in return? Nothing?no
land, no revenues, just hardship and
broken promises.
It goes against any human logic to pay
the Post Office for its shattered com-
mitments, for the suffering of those peo-
ple who were displaced a thout cause and
for the continual uncertainty the city has
expered becaue of the Pcsnii Serv-
ice's has faith.
There are those who will say that we
must be practical, that money is money,
that the city has no right to get some-
thing for nothing. But let us also con-
Sider the precedent such an action would
set. If we now reward the Postal Service
for breaking its word, what faith can we
have in future Postal Service promises?
Is not the strength of an agreement the
sciadredrin rule f oditrarmiliAt
-
W- 2 CANOtOadet =1"tkrOS1054,044401010140140V4sVnTle.
sider the human consequences, eluded, any part of a rate Inc-romp to So I simply suggest we vote clown tile
We understand the need for the malls
to continue. We are prepared to see that
the trucks deliver the mail. We have gone
out of our way, working with Senator
JAM'S aild Senator BUCKLEY, to create
a facility where these trucks can be
housed. A letter has been sent by both
Senator jAVILS and Senator BUCKLEY
and my office to the Board of Governors
of the Postal Service, which has not yet
acted on the truck facility proposal for
the Moroan site.
I make a fervent, plea to the House that
there be an opportunity for us to have
this housing, of which the people of the
city of New York have Ion gbeen deprived,
and I urge that this amendment be de-
feated.
AMENDMENT OFFERED WE MR. GROSS TO TB=
AMENDMENT OFFEIW..D BY MR. 'UDALL
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I oiler an
amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. GROSS to the
amendment offered by Mr. 'UDALL: on page 2,
line 6, strike out the words "without reim-
bursement" and iniett in lieu thereof the fa-
lowing ''at the fair market value".
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, let me
read the second paragraph of the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. UDALL). It states:
If within 24 months after the City of New
York has complied with the provisions of
/.re,c,raplis at and in ofsubs:?ction ((WI)
of this section, the United States Posat
Service has not awarded a contract for the
construction of its facility, the Postal Serv-
ice shall convey to the City of New
oui reiniOr irse rn e
Without reimbursement?
of the rrrhi, tide and interest to the abtr-
desoribed real property,
And so forth. My amendment wollId
merely strike out "without reimburre-
ment" and insert the words "at the
market value."
Members of the House, we are dealing
with a fair market value, I am told, of
approximately $7 million. This is mat
exactly chicken feed. It may be ecam
higher than $7 million, but it is at lexist
that much.
If the Udall amendment is adopied
and for some reason the Post Office De-
partment does not come to terms with
the city of New York in 24 months or the
city does not perform in 5 years. this
property could go as a gift to the city of
New York.
I have always contended in the Howe
of Representatives that there should be
the fair market value for any land that
is dimosed of by time :Federal Govern-
ment unless that laud was a gnt to tile,
Government in the first place.
Moreover, the Postal Service in this
instance, if and when it should turn this
property over to the city of New Yenk
as a gift, would be relinquishing Si mil-
lion in capital assets. Let me point est
that to replace those capital assets would
contribute to the necessity for an ba-
crease in postal rates, and I am mot
give New York $7 million worth of
property.
Mr. BOW. Mr, Chairman, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman
from Ohio.
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I under.' and
that on this property there would be
built a 1,000-unit, high-rise apartment.
Does the gentleman know who is going
to pay for it? ?
Mr. GROSS. I do not know \r ho is
going to pay for it., but I SIAS pec;:,
money will come from the usual sonree.
Mr. BOW. As I understand, this is
lie housing housing under 236, end the Feciesiii
Government will pay for it, and in a
tion to the $7 million, the land We are
providing now, for the -building of a
1,000-unit high-rise.
Mr. GROSS. I thinir the city of New
York, if it does obi nn title to this .?c(:.p--
erty, ought to pay for it just c
States and municipalities would hsv 0
do.
Mr. UDALL. ?-Ti. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the: gent:Ionian.
from Arizona.
Mr, UDALL. To my regret. I cermat
support the gentleman's amend:a-met z.o
my amendment, but it does pinI3C1A
conalvomise in the nature et
inent I offered. We are giving oeier ie
air rights and the public land ift)C. ' -
eral Government bought and
order that this public c
bunt upon it. r simply see.C.:e;?-A int;
ment was a 1,.-er5' CA:tt;
offered to the people the city of New
York, I thought. ?
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairm'7,11,
position to the arra ne , -
ment. I thInk
looked. The Posen
this property and a.
income people. Most in lone, ea, ?
their property. In most. (a:as, the- '.it
no relocation costs,. Ti e
not use that property for Lee
intended. Do we not owe thoee si
pie something in the its of pee-vie:11g
public housing for them? That is num-
ber one.
No. 2, we paid only $3 million when
we took it. There have been no itrun-ove-
merits made on it. How can it now be
worth $7 million?
Third, the public housing.. as the gen-
tleman from Ohio has point 3a cut. is
subsidized by the Federal Gov-emir:ult.
This committee bill does not
the construction of bigh-r:e
merely says when the low- rent iictistn
is built, it win be built on
This does not constitute
housing a uthorrzrefion,
perfectly clear.
But in equity, do We 4.2 tiv:,
something? We kick-.aii tlicin off ie
property and did not use it for the teir-
pose intended. That is what the (Jolorrit-
tee bill says. We _say they cell it
back, but wlmn they Wein, irei eecet iree
housing, it will be built there. It ter elm.
be taken by the city of New 'York and sold
and the money put in its coffers, it is
Approved For ReleWe 2000/09/14: CIA-RDP86-002404000100080037-8
H 3292 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE April 19, 1972
amendment to the amendment and the
amendment.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GRAY. I yield to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, there
is one thing I do not understand about
this whole proposition, which is -why we
are handling this particular matter in
such a unique fashion. We have laws
which apply to all surplus Government
property matters and which are applied
throughout the country to dispose of
property the Government no longer
needs.
There are surplus property disposal
cedures where in the normal course of
events the city would get an opportunity
to acquire the property. Here we are leg-
islating a special rule for this one parcel
of land, and I do not understand why.
Mr. GRAY. I am delighted to answer,
in two parts.
No 1, it was our committee which au-
thorized the taking of that property in
the first place, in 1966. We were deceived
by the Postal Service. They did not use
it for the purposes intended. We gave
them the authority, and they went over
to New Jersey, and instead of spending
the $50 million authorized they went over
and bought additional land at the ex-
pense of the taxpayers, and spent a quar-
ter billion dollars.
No. 2, as I said earlier, we gave away
the committee's authority. We would not
be here today if we had not given away
that authority.
That is water down the stream. We
are back here, because the Postal Serv-
ice administratively usurpted the prerog-
atives of this committee.
Mr. WYDLER. The point is that we
are trying, it seems to me, to punish the
Postal authority for not doing what we
wanted them to do, but we are not really
punishing them much at all. We are
really going to punish the whole Federal
establishment by making this particular
site available for other needs of the Fed-
eral Government, which might very well
exist and be valid.
What I say is that we have established
Government procedures for the disposing
of surplus Federal property. That is sup-
posed to give the Federal Government
an opportuntiy to use it, for what it
needs, and the localities an opportunity
to acquire it if it is surplus to the Gov-
ernment needs.
In this particular case we look at a
particular piece of property and say that
we are going to legislate it into the hands
of one particular person.
Mr. GRAY. I want to make clear to
my friend from New York that the sur-
plus Property Act does not now apply to
this private corporation downtown. We
gave away that authority. We have no
control under the Surplus Property Act.
There is no criterion for this. We have to
legislate it.
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
the committee bill and in opposition to Mr. GROSS. The Federal Government
the amoweinedm
Just a block away from my district, and
I have worked with the tenants in this
area and I know the site well.
It is in an area called Chelsea. It is a
marvelous integrated area of low, mod-
erate, middle, and "posh" housing.
It is an area which suffered tremen-
dously when this particular site was
taken by the Post Office. If it had been
used for the purpose intended?while we
did not think the Post Office should actu-
ally use a site in that particular area?so
be it, if they had built the building we
would have accepted it. But they did
not do that. People were thrown off their
property. The area suffered.
Now we find the Post Office has de-
cided they really cannot use the prop-
erty. It is going to build elsewhere. We
applaud that decision.
The community went to work with the
mayor and with the low-income housing
authority and with all the people there.
I know, for I worked very closely with
them. They went to work to get housing
built.
I do not have to tell the Members how
desperate the housing situation is, and
not just in that particular area, though
it is an area which requires housing
desperately. In the whole city of New
York we have slums that are just not
describable, where people are living in
rat-infested apartments.
Apartments could be built on this site.
But if we tack on an expense of, let us
say, $7 million, which the gentleman
from Iowa suggests, as the fair market
value, if we add an expenditure for this
property which could only, under the
committee bill, be used to erect low-
income housing, we are going to make
the low-income housing impossible to
build.
That is the problem. There are limi-
tations on low- and moderate-income
costs. I serve on the Banking and Cur-
rency Committee out of which low-in-
come and moderate-income housing
comes. There are limitations on what ex-
penses can be entailed in building low
and moderate-income housing. The
building costs in New York have become
very high. There are a host of reasons,
one of which includes the cost of the
land.
What. we are asking you to do with
this particular piece of property, and
what we are asking you to do for the
city of New York, is something that we
do not ask for very often, but is what you
do so often in your own districts. If there
are rivers to be channeled, the Congress
proved the money for it. If there are
farm subsidies that are required in order
to help you with your crops, you do not
have any hesitation to c:ene neve and
ask for and get them. Well, e do not
grow crops or channel rivers. but we have
people to house. We are asking you to do
a certain amount of equity. The Public
Works Committee did equity, and I hope
you will support the bill.
Mr. GROSS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOCH. Of course. I am delighted
to yield.
Javg*PVIMEOMIMEMANNItS0
York ought not to pay the fair market
value for this land? On top of that New
York will be getting a 235 low-income
housing unit to get these people above
the rats you are talking about.
Mr. KOCH. The gentleman is incor-
rect when he refers to 236 money M this
bill. There is no housing money in the
bill.
Mr. GROSS. Will the gentleman yield
further?
Mr. KOCH. I decline to yield further.
What I said to the gentleman and the
Members of the House is we have a cry-
ing need for housing in the city of New
York. We cannot build it because, for
one thing, the 236 money and the low-
income money is not available, and when
it is -availablt the costs of the property
on which the structures have to be built
are too high for us to build low- and moi:-
erate-income housing. We are asking-you
to do for us what you do so often for
your own district's needs?give us a
break.
Mr. RUTH. Will the gentleman yield?'
Mr. KOCH. I am happy to yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. RUTH. Will the gentleman ex-
plain to me why you put low-income
housing on a $7 million piece of prop-
erty?
Mr. KOCH. Why we what?
Mr. RUTH. Why would you put it on a
$7 million piece of property?
Mr. KOCH. I will explain to you woy
it is. In the city of New York we have
problems where property that you -would
not consider desirable because of its lo-
cation costs a lot of mohey. The islond
of Manhattan is a very small place.
piece of real property is very expeisve.
We do not want the island of 7:iiso.so-
ten to be a place just for the very --
We think we have a successfulisianu
because it has low-income people and
moderate-income people and middle-
income and posh people, and we do tiat
want to change that.
Mr. BRASCO. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of vosi-d.s.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
committee bill and against the two
Ing amendments.
Let me say this: when this proposition
was brought to the attention of the Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service the
Committee decided that we should turn
the matter over to Congressman NIN7. the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Postal
Facilities. He held some independent
hearings in connection with this very
matter before the committee.
Interestingly enough?and I am sine
It was pointed out before?as late as No-
vember 1971 Mr. Reynolds. the coneres-.
si(mal liaison officer 01 the
indicated that there wouiti be no
this particular faciiity and its
relates to the Postal Service organi,J11..
Thereafter he flip-flopped and changed
his mind, after the city of New York
made preparations to use this land for
low-income and moderate-income- hous-
ing.
Also and interestingly enough, as a re-
sult of the hearings Mr. Nix had it was
cpagijrual
pen, es
it is not directly in my district, but it is there and saying that the city of New were declared excess and turned over to
April Appssayed For Relkikttgf49144144t M45111P4138141(264A000100080037-8 11 3293
local governments in separate letters
dated November 8, 1971.
And, as a result, postal facilities were ?
turned over to local governments located
in Augusta, Ga.; Miami, Fla.; Rock Hill,
S.C.; Carbondale, Ill.; Commerce, Tex.;
Keene, N.H.; Mansfield, Ohio; Midland.
Tex.; Saint Martinville, Lan Ville Platte,
La., and West Palm Beach, Fla.
Now, after all of these facilities were
turned over to those local governments,
we are only asking that the same kind of
consideration be given to the city of New
York in order for it to cope with a very
critical problem. The need for housing.
I am not here, my friends, to recrimi-
nate with anyone about some of the ob-
servations that have been made about the
cost of this property, that in fact that if
there is low-income housing to be built
here, the Federal Government would have
to be involved with the expenditure of
239 funds.
Sometimes I think we talk about this
money as if it were our own money. This
is taxpayers' money and .we use it as
Members of Congress for multi purposes
all across the land. T have voted for the
expendituee of taxpayers' money to be
used for many purposes such as irriga-
tion, watersheds, and highways, and, in
f act, for all types of purposes related
to the needs of citizens across our coun-
try.
The city of New York has taxpayers
also who contribute to these projects. All
we are asking for now is some consid-
eration in this very same manner.
I think some clay we really have to
learn to swim together or otherwise we
will drown together.
Mr. Chairman, this is a problem that
we hove in New York. I am asking my
friends to give it their very serious con-
sideratien?
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield? -
Mr. BRASCO. I am glad to yield to the
gentleman loom New York.
Mr. WYDLER. I am very sympathetic
to what the gentleman has said, but I
think what you just said supports the
point I am trying to make. You are going
about this particular case in the wrong
way. Whatever happened with reference
to the Post Office Department is one
thing. However, we are not here today
to talk about one department of the
Government. We have to consider the en-
tire Federal Government. These other
properties that you talk about were not
turned over to local governments. They
were turned over to the Administrator of
the General Services Administration to
be disposed of according to law and ac-
cording to their rules and regulations to
whomever should get it.
I a ireti with the gentl,r1;311.. I would
like to see the seine thMg done with ref-
erence to this property that We are doing
with reference to other properties and
that is turn this property over to the
GSA to dispose of under the surplus pro-p-
erty law and rules and regulations.
Mr. BRASCO. As the gentleman knows,
we are talking about the opportune time
to do something. Those properties, as I
understand it, went back to the local
governments. Therefore, this is the op-
portune glintWOO?dalPer Rete
theory is Mei-same, although the-v-elifee
may be a little different. I subscribe to
what my friend from Illinois indicated,
the chairman of the subcommittee (Mr.
GRAY), We threshed this business out
very thoroughly when we discussed the
Postal Reorganization Act and he was
very correct in his observations that he
made at that time and today in this
Chamber.
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. BOW asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BOW. 'Mr. Chairman, I rise in sup-
port of the amendment to the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Gaoss)..
I would like to make inquiry from the
distinguished chairman of the subcom-
mittee as to what is the situation with
reference to this property. What is going
to be built on this property? Am I cor-
rect in the assumption that there is a
1,000-unit high rise housing project go-
ing to be built on it?
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, if the gen-
tleman will yield. I would say to my dis-
tinguished friend from Ohio that we do
not in the legislation now pending before
us stipulate what type of building will be
put there. We merely limit the use of it
to public housing through normal chan-
nels, if such a project is authorized. We
merely state that it has to be used for
the purpose it was primarily used for
low-income or medium housing when it
was taken. We want merely to try to have
equity here. Let us go back to the origi-
nal use of that property. We are saying
that we are giving it to them but it has
got to be used for public housing. How-
ever, Nre do not authorize that housing.
I hope that answers the question.
Mr. LOW. I thank the gentleman for
his answer, but it seems to me very ob-
vious that in addition to the giving back
of the piece of property which I am ad-
vised is worth something over $7 million,
that if a 1;000-unit high-rise is to be
built, the information I have is that it
would be built out of 236 funds. So, ac-
tually the 'Federal Government would
not only lose $7 million, but would be
called upon to make some payment for
this 1,000-unit high-rise.
Also, the argument has been made
here that this high-rise is to make a
place for the displaced people who have
lost housing. I also find here in the files
that actually there were 300 families.
and not 1.000 families, who were dis-
placed, that you are going to build the
high-rise for. So it seems to me we
should give real consideration to the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Iowa 4.Mr. ?Ross) and not only
find the Federal Governmara. nvtng
away $7 mt;lion, but also getting them-
selves in a position where they are going
to have to pay for a 1,000-unit high-
rise, and the cost of that high-rise I do
would be?I have no
it will run into mil-
of dollars.
Chairman, will the
not know what it
idea, but certainly
lions and millions
Mr. GRAY, Mr.
gentleman yield?
Mr. BOW, I will
20R0/09M47
to t gentleman
first yield to the gen-
9ori
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
A letter of November 8, 1971. from the
Post Office Department of the Honorable
Robert L. Kunzig of the General Services
Administration, it lists several post of-
fices that are surplus to the needs of the
postal service. One of them is in Carbon-
dale, Ill. I suspect the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr, GRAY) understands where
Carbondale, Ill., is, and that post office is
going to be disposed of.
This letter states among other things
that:
The General Services 'Administration fur-
ther agrees to return to the Postal Service
the net proceeds, if any, received from the
disposal of these propertics.
So it is the established policy to return
these proceeds to the Poi, Office Depart-
ment rather than dissipate the canita
assets of the Post Office Departin nit, anti
then insist that those capital esane he
restored through increased postal rates
that would be loaded on all the citizens
of the country.
Mr. BOW. I agree with the gentleman.
I think he is absolutely right,
Now I will be haeoy to yield to tate
gentleman from Illinois, ?
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Cliairman, I know my
friend, the gentlemen from Iowa
GRoss) is laboring tattier the asarairtitai
that this proposed ameintlintrit
helping the Postal Service, but let me
remind my friend that in all of tiat ci its
alluded to by the gentleman from
York a moment ago in cccate
York and Caitonc.,1, _
man has just mentioned. thtit money
goes to the GGA, anti not to the iitaslot
Service if any is collect,f.d.
Postal Service isthat araga
GSA. then they iatss it
Not one
of the PO.Z.J1. Service, toad
any effect upon the postai rates.
I am sure the taintleman Oties not
want to leave 'the iivreng impression with
the House.
Mr. C.ili-ZOSS. If the gentleman vtrl
yield further, does the gentleman front
Illinois deny the authenticity of the let-
ter which states e:tectly contri",'to
what the gentleman from Illinois says?
Mr. GRAY. I do. The Postal Service
has told us 15 different stories. I can
show you three letters from Assistant
Postmaster General Lehne stating they
are going to give the property bacit. to
New York City. I held hearings in New
York. and I talked to the regional three-
tor. and I said: -
Are you not going Lo uphold the pro rise
given lar the ASsi-i117. General
to give this property
He said:
I can't 1;.6-0,!or t 11;tt queitmn.
He tone, the fah amentini- .
our 'congressional committee:
. Mr. BOW. I think what the gentle-
man is saying is virtually correct, if the
property is sold: that is. Pre owned
by the Post Office Dern i ata the
money will go into the Postal Depart-
ment, into the private corporation.
These other items that you have in this
44R00011000pow-8urplus, and
turned over to t ta. , and for that
H324pproved For ReletwitAgpAbIN,Aql*MU:293394,000100080017-8.
pnl 19, 1972
reason that would not happen, but if
you have property, and it is sold; that is,
Postal Service property, and it is sold
for $7 million, that money would go
into the Post Office Department, and
would not be money that is taken away,
as the gentleman has suggested,
because--
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Ohio has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Bow was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield to me for a clarifica-
tion?
Mr. BOW. Certainly I will yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. GRAY. I would say to my friend,
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gaoss)
that under the Property Disposal Act
these properties are given by the Post
Office to the GSA, and the first screen-
ing is for other Federal agencies to have
the right to come in and ask for them.
The second screening is that the cities
and States have a right to take that
property for public use such as housing
needs in that city.
Now, do you know of any city that is
offered a site that is not going to take it
for nothing? So where is the money go-
ing to come from?
Mr. BOW. I agree with the gentleman
that if it is surplus property it goes
back to the GSA. This has not been
declared surplus property, it is still Post
Office property. If it is sold for $7 mil-
lion, then the money will go back to the
Post Office Department.
Mr. GRAY. I have two letters stating
that they did intend to declare it sur-
plus. Is not the word of an Assistant
Postmater General worth anything?
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the committee bill and in op-
position to both the Gross amendment
and the Udall amendment.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
GRAY) stated very ably the equitable
case for the committee position.
Section 7(d) of H.R. 10488 provides
that the Postmaster General shall con-
vey to New York City the real property
known as the Morgan Annex?a square
block between Ninth and 10th Avenues,
and 28th and 29th Streets?without
monetary consideration and upon condi-
tion that the real property is used for
publicly assisted housing.
The committee adopted this provision
after very thorough consideration and
after reviewing the history of the U.S.
Postal Service's behavior toward the
Chelsea community.
This site was acquired a ml cleared for
the construction of a postal facility. Sev-
eral hundred families were uprooted and
displaced from their homes. Then the
Postal Service changed its mind and de-
cided not to build the facility.
The land lies vacant; the people have
been scattered; and the community has
been disrupted. In an effort to make
amends, the committee bill would make
the site available for housing?housing
which the site tenants and neighborhood
Approved For Release
people can afford. That is only fair and
equitable.
To require New York City to pay the
fair market value would be to insure that
low- and moderate-income housing could
not be built. The cost of the land, in
addition to escalating construction costs,
would make it economically unfeasible.
The effect of adopting the Gross amend-
ment would be to deprive the local com-
munity of desperately needed housing.
It is specious and misleading to argue,
as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Bow)
did, that the conveyance of this site will
result in the Federal Government paying
for 1,000 units of housing which other-
wise would not be contracted for.
In the first place, there is no housing
money authorized or appropriated in this
bill.
Second, Federal money in the form of
annual contributions to local public hous-
ing agencies and for section 236 interest
subsidies is allocated by HUD. HUD
determines how much money is to be
provided to New York City for new hous-
ing starts in each fiscal year.
So whether there are a thousand units
at this site or a thousand units at an-
other site, the number of housing units
will be the same. The committee bill will
not result in the Federal Government
financing an additional 1,000 units. How-
ever, it will provide a site where new
housing can be built without the dis-
placement and relocation of people, and
that is critically important to us in New
York City where there is a severe short-
age of decent housing and some 135,000
families are on the waiting list for public
housing.
As far as the Udall amendment is con-
cerned, the Postal Service has played fast
and loose with the cr.urnuriity on this is-
sue for too long. It has not used the site.
It should not be permitted to use it for
parking purposes. The community needs
it for long promised housing.
Simple justice dictates a return of this
land to provide housing for the poor peo-
ple who have been displaced and others
in the Chelsea community which has al-
ready suffered through torture for 6 or
7 years.
I urge my colleagues to vote down the
amendments and to support the bill as
reported out by the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. GROSS) to the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from Ari-
zona (Mr. UDALL) .
The question was taken; and on a divi-
sion (demanded by Mr. GRAY) , there
were?ayes 39, noes 32.
TELLER VOTE WITH CLERKS
Mrs. APZT.M. Mr. Chairman, I demand
tellers.
Tellers were ordered.
Mrs. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I de-
mand tellers with clerks.
Tellers with clerks were ordered; and
the Chairman appointed as tellers Mrs.
ABZUG and Messrs. GROSS, GRAY, and
UDALL.
The Committee divided, and the tell-
ers reported that there were?ayes 196
[Roll No. 114]
[Recorded Teller Vote]
AYES-196
Andrews, Ala, Gibbons '
Andrews, Gooclling
N. Dak. Gross
Archer Grover
Mends Gubser
Ashbrook Gude
Baker Haley
Baring Hall
Belcher Hamilton
Bennett Hammer-
Betts Schmidt
Bevill Hansen, Idaho
Biester Harvey
Bow Hastings
Bray Hechler, W. Va.
Brinkley Heckler, Mass.
Broomfield Heinz
Brotzman Hulls
Brown, Ohio Hogan
Broyhill, N.C. Horton
Broyhill, Va. Hosmer
Burke, Fla. Hull
Burleson, Tex. -Hunt
Burlison, Mo, Hutchinson
Byrnes, Wis, Ichord
Byron Jacobs
Camp Jarman
Carlson Jonas
Carter Jones, N.C.
Cederberg Jones, Tenn,
Chamberlain Keating
Chappell Keith
Clancy Kemp
Clausen, King
Don H. Kuykendall
Clawson, Del KYI
Cleveland Lfindgrebe
Collier Latta
Collins, Tex. Lennon
Conte Lent
Cotter Lloyd
Coughlin Lujan
Crane McClory
Daniel, Va. McClure
Davis, S.C. McCollister
Davis, Wis.
Dellenback McDadd
Dennis /t.InDrazild,
Derwinskt
Devine MCEWE/2
Downing
Duncan
du Pont
Edmondson 5;SI ina
Edwards, Ala. Martin
Erlenhorn Mathias, Calif,
Evans, Colo. Mayne
Fascell Mazzoli
Findley Michel
Fisher Miller, Ohio
Flowers Mills, Md.
Flynt Minsb all
Ford, Gerald R. Mizell
Forsythe Montgomery
Frenzel Myers
Frey Natcher
Fuqua Nelsen
NOES-170
Caffery
Casey, Tex.
Coller
Chisholm
Collins, Ill.
Conyers
Carman
Daniels, N.J.
Danielson
Davis, Ga.
de la Ctarza
Delaney
Duncell
Dorn
Dow
Abourezk
Abzug
Adams
Acidabbo
Alexander
Anderson,
Calif.
Annunzio
Aspin
Aspinall
Bacillio
Barrett
Nichols
Obey
O'Hara
OBonski
Pan:anal;
Pelly
Pettis
Piroi
Pot!
Powen
Price, Tex.
Qui d
Qati)lerl
Far,lsback
Randall
Itarick
Rhodes
Robinson, Va.
- Roush
Rulknels
Ruppe
tit
St Germain
Sandman
Satterfield
Scherle
Sclunitz
Schneebeli
Sch,vengel
Scott
Se be? ius
Stm, to
StIriver
Sgkes
S]'-;:tesktz
St;!;