[IT WAS THE TEAMWORK OF CHOU AND NEHRU THAT WAS RESENTED]

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120001-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 23, 2004
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: January 1, 1955
• Content Type: OPEN

F 03 4,/ gcc
Approved For ease 2004/08/3'7CIA-RDP63T0 4 0100120001-6
NGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE ' 4355
among the delegates against the close rela-
tionship between Chou and Nehru?
Answer. Precisely. It was the preconfer-
ence teamwork of Chou and Nehru that was
resented, resisted, and challenged apparently
successfully-by the other delegates. Even
the so-called neutralists-whom I prefer to
call the uncommitted-definitely came out
against communism as a form of world im-
perialism.
Question. Then you don't think people
in this part of the world see communism as
"the wave of the future?"
Answer. Definitely not. For example, I have
talked to Indonesian officials who favor free-
dom for all people, but privately are wor-
ried about independence for Malaya where
there is already a strong Communist move-
ment. They are afraid an independent Ma-
laya now would be a Communist Malaya and
they're against any more of southeast
Asia falling into the hands of the Com-
munists.
Question. Isn't that encouraging for
America?
Answer. Of course. Actually, in some
ways, Chou En-lai stupidly helped our cause.
Question. What do you mean?
Answer. For instance, take what happened
toward the end of the opening session.
When every single one of the delegates in-
voked the blessing of their god upon the
conference. Chou arose and said, "We Com-
munists are atheists." In the midst of that
deeply spiritual atmosphere, Chou played
right into our hands with this astounding
tactical blunder. It literally shocked
many delegates.
Question. Did you find any support here
for America's position on the Formosan
problem.
Answer. Non-Communist countries didn't
want to raise this question at the confer-
ence because they didn't want to antagonize
anyone, including the United States. But
behind the scene, many delegates told me
Quemoy and Matsu should go to Red China.
All of them definitely are against the use of
force by either side-Communist China or
the United States-to settle the Formosa
problem.
Question. How much support did you
And here for Chiang Kai-shek and his Na-
tionalist Chinese?
Answer. Very little.
Question. Did you talk to the delegates
about thermonuclear weapons?
Answer. Yes, I did. They had originally
placed that question on the agenda and
struck it off because they thought it would
give Red China an opportunity to sound off
against America. However, to a man the
delegates I saw were appalled at the mere
thought of the United States using thermo-
nuclear weapons. This emphasized to me
again that this was a conference for peace.
Question. Did you find much support for
the admission of Communist China to the
United Nations?
Answer. The question of Red China's ad-
mission was not considered, by itself. You
must remember that more than one-third of
the countries represented here do not belong
to the United Nations. If the question of
Red China's membership in the U. N. had
come up by itself it would have been defeated
by a vote of 16 to 12. But, if the vote dealt
with the question of admitting all nations-
including Red China-you will find most of
the nations here supporting it.
Question. Were most of the delegates you
talked to for or against continuing restric-
tions on strategic trade with Red China?
Answer. It so happened that Burma actu-
ally moved that these restrictions be lifted
but it was opposed by the Philipines and
Thailand. Since no motion could be carried
without a unanimous vote, that move failed.
But, on a simple majority vote, that motion
would have carried.
Question. If controversial questions such as
Formosa were avoided, why did this Confer-
ence devote so much time to Palestine-
which certainly is a controversial subject?
Answer. The Arab bloc had the Colombo
powers over a barrel from the very begin-
ning. The Colombo powers didn't want the
Arab countries to boycott the Conference,
and so they were literally forced not to in-
vite Israel. Therefore, when the question
was raised by the Arab bloc it had to be
dealt with. Nehru tried to pour oil on
troubled waters by trying to persuade the
Arabs to keep the discussion as calm as
possible.
Question. As a Negro, did you feel the
Communists were able to exploit the color
question for their ends?
Answer. They came fully prepared to do so.
They sent in advance a girl from Ceylon to
ask loaded questions at all press confer-
ences. At a Union of South Africa press
conference she asked, "What aid can you hope
for from the United States when it has the
same doctrine of segregation toward the
Negro as South Africa?"
The Communists wanted to show that the
United States was practicing racialism within
its own borders-but they failed to achieve
their purpose.
Question. Was there any resentment here
against you, as an American, attending the
Conference as an observer?
Answer. Quite the opposite. I was re-
ceived here with open arms. Many of the
delegates were friends of mine. In fact, I
felt I did a lot of good. I was able to stop
Communist propaganda concerning the
American Negro by holding a press confer-
ence. At least, after my press conference
the Communist press gave up attempts to
smear the United States on the Negro ques-
tion. I did this simply by telling the truth
about the race problem in the United States.
Question. But wasn't racialism as a world
problem still a major question at this
Conference?
Answer. Yes. The subjects of racialism
and colonialism were questions on which all
delegates agreed. And here our Nation was
definitely hurt. Even our best friends at
this Conference, such as the Philippines,
stood firm for complete elimination of racial-
ism and colonialism.
Question. You have mentioned several
times the question of colonialism. What is
the feeling here toward America's attitude
on that issue?
Answer. We can no longer underestimate
the passionate determination among these
people that all men should be free. The
delegates here who disagreed bitterly on the
question of communism were united on the
question of colonialism. They simply can-
not understand why the first Nation in the
world to defeat colonialisoi is now siding
with colonial powers.
In the United Nations we abstain when
the question of independence for North
Africa and other colonies comes up. But
this does not fool the leaders of the Asian
and African nations at this Conference.
They regard abstention on colonialism as a
vote for it. From this Conference on, the
United States, if it continues to abstain on
colonial questions, will lose the support of
Asia and Africa.
Question. You've talked to many dele-
gates here. On the basis of these talks,
what do you think the United States can
do to win more friends among the peoples
of Asia and Africa?
Answer. Here are obvious things we must
do: Quit taking the side of colonialism in
the U. N.; clean up the race problem in the
United States as rapidly as possible, and get
across the tremendous progress we've al-
ready made; appoint more Negroes to our
foreign diplomatic posts.
President Eisenhower should invite the
Colombo powers to a top-level conference
on the problems of Asia. This is nothing
unusual. It's the historic approach we have
taken in formulating our European policy.
There is no reason why we cannot do the
same in formulating an effective policy in
Asia. We must do it now because these
people of Asia and Africa are on the march,
demanding admission at the front door
into the fraternity of modern mankind.
Question. After attending this conference,
do you feel more hopeful about the prospect
of stopping communism in Asia?
Answer. Most assuredly I do, but not on
the basis of what we are doing now. We
cannot defeat communism in the Far East
with military alliances alone. These peo-
ple do not want communism. They are
hungry for freedom and democracy. Even
Nehru, who is friendly with Red China,
bitterly fights communism in his own coun-
try. To the people here, communism is not
the only problem. They need the under-
standing and help of the United States to
solve their ancient problems of poverty and
colonialism.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker,
I rise to urge the adoption of House
Resolution 215, which will make in order
the consideration of the bill (H. R. 4954)
to amend the Clayton Act by granting a
right of action to the United States to
recover damages under the antitrust
laws, establishing a uniform statute of
limitations, and for other purposes.
House Resolution 215 provides for an
open rule, with 2 hours of general debate
on the bill itself.
H. R. 4954 would provide that when-
ever the United States is injured in its
proprietary capacity through violations
of the antitrust laws that the United
States may institute action to recover
actual damages incurred through these
violations. Under existing case law it is
now held that the United States is not a
person to sue under the statute.
The proposed bill would also provide
that private treble damage actions for
violations of the antitrust laws as now
provided in section 4 of the Clayton Act,
as well as actual damage suits by the
United States, shall be governed by a
uniform Federal statute of limitations of
4 years.
H. R. 4954 would also provide that the
statute of limitations with respect to
private antitrust actions shall be tolled
for an additional year after the termina-
tion of a Government antitrust proceed-
ing in order to permit the parties to take
full advantage of a final Government de-
cree as prima facie evidence of their case
and to have sufficient time in which to
file suit.
Section 7 of the Sherman Act would
be repealed by H. R. 4954, since this sec-
tion has been superseded by section 4 of
the Clayton Act, and finally the bill
would provide that the effective date of
the measure would be 6 months after the
date of its enactment.
H. R. 4954 attempts, Mr. Speaker, to
furnish the necessary statutory founda-
tion which the Supreme Court in the
Cooper case decision declared essential
to a recovery by the Government. The
Court declared at that time that "the
Government must have statutory au-
thorization before it can sue for treble
damages under the Sherman Act." This
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120001-6
 ppro ed For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120001-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE April 26
bill, however, would only grant the Gov-
ernment the right to recover actual dam-
ages, since it A felt that if the Govern-
ment could tecover triple damages it
would have,AA disastrous economic effect
upon business concerns doing a great
proportion of their business with the
United States Government.
Mr. Speaker, this bill Is open to
amendment on the floor; there are no
restrictions in the rule regarding amend-
inentr, and for this reason I hope that
the House membership will adopt House
Resdlution 215, which would provide for
thelconsideration of the bill under an
opn rule and with the very ample time
of hours for debate on its provisions.
Ar. SMI of Virginia. Mr. Speaker,
I hove t revious question.
The evious question was ordered.
3 T SPEAKER. The question is on
PRINCIPAL OFFICE BUILDING FOR
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself Into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (H. R. 5645) to authorize the
Atomic Energy Commission to construct
a modern office building in or near the
District of Columbia to serve as its prin-
cipal office.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from North Carolina.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill H. R. 5645, with
Mr. SMITH of Mississippi in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 10 minutes.
(Mr. DURHAM asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Chairman, this is
a very simple bill and not very difficult
to explain. I am sure every Member of
the House is familiar with the Atomic,
also the fine work it has done on ti
matter of dispersal. The question of dis
persal has been raised here this morn
dispersal principle more carefully tha
the Atomic Energy Commission. If one
cares to look at where our laboratories
are situated, he will find that they are
well placed in all parts of this country.
They are primarily convenient for the
scientific personnel and the colleges.
Storage facilities and everything con-
nected with this work is well dispersed.
ENERGY COMMISSION
The bill up for consideration will au-
thorize the Atomic Energy Commission
to acquire a site in or near Washing-
ton, D. C., for a principal office building.
It will authorize the Commission to pre-
pare or supervise the preparation of
plans, specifications, and design of such
a building together with necessary aux-
iliary items such as guard stations, ac-
cess roads, and garage.
It will authorize the Commission to
handle the construction of the building
itself.
The total cost of site, engineering, and
construction for this building shall not
exceed $10 million.
The project will be paid for from funds
presently available to the Commission.
The bill, however, also authorizes ad-
ditional appropriations for the project
if rising costs or other necessary circum-
stances require them.
I should like to briefly state for the
Information of the House some back-
ground on this building: The AEC, when
it first set up its offices in 1947. was as-
signed the Old Public Health Building.
At the time this was perfectly adequate
to meet the purposes and needs of the
Commission. It had a small staff of
about 300. Since that time the Commis-
sion programs for the defense of the free
world have expanded mightily.
To date more than $12 million have
been invested in the atomic-energy pro-
gram and concurrent with this expan-
sion the Commission administrative re-
sponsibilities and staff have Increased
with a Washington headquarters of
about 1,200 people. With the adoption
by the Congress of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 last year and with the con-
current additional responsibilities for
licensing and establishing the procedures
under which a new atomic industry will
arise, it is estimated that the Commis-
sion staff will Increase to approximately
1,300 persons by next year.
As of today the Commission's Wash-
ington headquarters. which I might point
out is required by the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 to be in or near the District
of Columbia. Is housed in four separate
buildings. One is the Public Health
Building, 19th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW. The other three are tem-
porary buildings spread along Constitu-
tion Avenue at 15th Street. The tem-
porary office space which houses two-
thirds of the Commission's staff is not
well suited to the requirements of an
agency like the Commission. The fact
that the Commission is spread through
four buildings has, In the opinion of the
joint committee, two very serious objec-
tions. First and foremost, It Is unde-
sirable from a security standpoint. In
order to transact Commission business
classified documents must be moved in
large volume among three of the build-
ings. This greatly increases the risk of
compromise of documents. Secondly,
the temporary buildings are not well laid
out from a security standpoint. Not
only is some security risk inevitable in
the present setup, but the cost of the
guard force is considerably increased
since four separate buildings must be
guarded, whereas if the force were all
In one building, public access to the
building could be controlled through one
entrance and a better guard force main-
tained with far less personnel.
The General Services Administration
has informed the Commission officially
that it does not have any suitable space
in the District of Columbia and its sub-
urbs which it can make available to the
Commission. The Commission was
therefore authorized in the 1955 Appro-
priations Act to rent 250,000 square feet
in the Washington area.
As an alternative to renting space the
GSA and the Commission, with the ap-
proval of the Director of the Bureau of
the Budget first proposed to have an
office building erected under the Public
Buildings Purchase Contract Act of 1954,
on the grounds that this will be less ex-
pensive than renting available space.
The alternative of using the lease-pur-
chase method rather than renting was
favorably considered by the House Public
Works Committee. The Senate Public
Works Committee approved the lease-
purchase method subject to consultation
with the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy. It should be stressed that nei-
ther the House nor the Senate Public
Works Committees had before them the
third alternative, namely, direct Govern-
ment construction.
In view of the fact that the Senate
Public Works Committee sought the
guidance of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, the Joint Committee
carefully considered the matter in execu-
tive session with the Commission and
decided that, in the case of the proposed
AEC building, the lea -psrehacn.+.Ptt,o
was undesirable for the following rea-
sons.
First, the lease-purchase method of
constructing public buildings was devised
principally for the construction of court-
houses and post-office buildings. The
country faced the problem of rapidly
constructing a large number of new post
offices and courthouse buildings in order
to make up for construction which was
not performed during the war years.
The lease-purchase method provides a
system for having a large number of
these buildings built in the near future
while paying for them over a 25-year
period.
Second, these buildings would nor-
mally be built in the center of a city for
one long-term tenant and the builder
could be sure that the tenant would be
In the building long after the Govern-
ment took title to the building. In the
case of the Atomic Energy Commission
building, however, the structure would
be located in a spot removed from the
center of the city, in fact probably re-
moved from the city itself. The con-
tractor would always have to plan for
the eventuality that the Government
canceled the lease before the expiration
of the 25-year time. The rental pay-
1 ments would have to take this into con-
sideration.
And, third, the Atomic Energy Com-
mission's office building requirements
re somewhat different from that of the
average general-purpose office building,
partly because of its great volume of
classified documents and special secu-
ty requirements.
The Joint Committee on Atomic En-
ergy came to the conclusion that direct
construction by the Atomic Energy Com-
mission would be most advantageous.
TYPE OF BUILDING
The Commission proposes to have a
building wii,h a gross floor space of 400,-
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120001-6
 100120001-6 4357
1955 Approved Fore eGRESSIONAL1RECORDP63IOOQ rw'J 0
000 square feet and a net, usable floor seems to the joint committee most ap- AEC CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE
space of 230,000 square feet erected. The propriate that the AEC, which is the AEC expenditures for plant and equip-
building will be a 3-story reinforced con- country's expert on the effects of atomic ment:
crete structure, described by the Com- weapons, should follow the dispersal rec- Million
mission as "functional in concept and ommendations for which its staff is Fiscal year 1953___________________ $1,100
devoid of excessive embellishments and largely responsible. Fiscal year 1954____________________ 1, 100
Fiscal year 1955____________________ 900
extravagant appointments." As long as the Commission maintains
it will be its headquarters in the District of Co- During this 3-year period AEC esti-
In addition to the building
,
necessary to provide parking space for lumbia it is necessary that it also main- mates that $300 million was spent on con-
a water supply system and a tain an emergency headquarters at a struction of community, light laboratory,
9 500 cars
,
9 sewage disposal system. About 20 acres point which meets these dispersal cri- and administrative type building.
of land would be required. The location teria. By locating its offices at a point Department of Defense expenditures
for this structure has not been selected, which meets the dispersal criteria the for construction of all types:
The Commission desires to locate this additional expense of an emergency Million
building approximately 20 to 30 miles headquarters in the Washington area Fiscal year 1953____________________ $2, 000
from the center of the city of Washing- can be dispensed with. Fiscal year 1954____________________ 1, 700
ton in order to meet present dispersal The precise location of the building Fiscal year 1955____________________ 1, 400
criteria. It would also be necessary that will be a decision of the executive de- The Bureau of Reclamation, Depart-
the location be west of the north-south partment, based upon the technical facts ment of the Interior construction expen-
line through the center of the city of developed by the Atomic Energy Com- ditures:
Washington. As a practical matter this mission and the office of Defense Mobili- Million
means locating the building on an are zation, Fiscal year 1953______________________ $200
which passes through Frederick, Md., Fiscal year 1954______________________ 170
I urge the passage of the bill. Fiscal year 1955---------------------- 135
and Leesburg, Warrenton, and Freder- ESTIMATED COSTS FOR AEC OFFICE SPACE
icksberg, Va. The building would be lo- Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, will the
ntal: Rental of building on H
Fi
t
R
e
rs
.
gentleman yield?
Gated on a main arterial highway so as
Street in District of Columbia which has
to be not more than 45 minutes com- Mr. DURHAM. I yield.
muting distance from the city of Wash- 255,000 square feet of usable space: Mr. COLE. As the gentleman has in-
ington. Annual rental payments ---------- $085, 000 dicated the original Atomic Energy law
The cost of constructing this building, Other housing costs-------------- 215, 000 required the central office to be in the
based on 1954 materials and labor fig- Total_______________________ 900, 000 District of Columbia. When the joint
ures is estimated at $8.5 million. To $900,000 committee last year undertook a general
protect against the contingency of ris- 255,000-$3.54 per square foot of usable revision of the Atomic Energy Act, at the
ing building and labor costs in the next space per year. request of the chairman of the Atomic
2 years the joint committee has set a Energy Commission, Mr. Strauss, the
limit of $10 million on this building, Second. Lease-purchase method: 232,- statutory limitation on the location of
since the Commission could not fund for 000 square feet usable space: the office was extended to beyond the
increased costs without additional au- Interest at 33/4 percent and amor- boundaries of the District of Columbia.
thorizing legislation were the figure in tization________________________ $498, 000 Mr. Strauss made that request, having
the bill limited to the 1954 estimate of Managerial, custodial, heat utili- in mind the desirability of placing the
ties--------------------------- 268, 000 central office of the Atomic Energy Com-
$8.5 million. The Bureau of the Budget Annual payment on construction
has informed the committee that it will overhead----------------------- 16, 000 mission farther away than the District of
limit the Commission's spending on this Maintenance of property ---------- 40, 000 Columbia itself, but within a reasonable
building to $8.5 million if the Congress Real-estate taxes_________________ 135, 000 distance, to make it accessible to other
passes the bill to authorize the new office Insurance ----------------------- 17, 000 sensitive agencies.
building, unless an increase is justified Mr. DURHAM. The gentleman is Cor-
by a rise in material and labor costs. Total annual operating cost ------ 974, 000 rect.
Less value of land and buildings at Mr. Chairman, I feel that this measure
The Atomic Energy Commission has end of 25-year contract period-- 169, 000
expressed satisfaction with the joint should be adopted.
committee's recommendation as has the Net annual cost ------------ 805, 000 - Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
Bureau of the Budget. $805,000 gentleman yield?
232,000=$3.47 per square foot of usable Mr. DURHAM. I yield to the gentle-
COST ANALYSIS
COST
Commission estimates that it will space. man from Iowa.
cost $2.50 per usable square foot to con- Third. Direct AEC construction: Mr. GROSS. I may say to the gentle-
cost its own office building and amor- Using 21/2 percent interest rate, 25- than I still have not heard any com-
tize it on a 40-year basis.. On a 25-year year amortization period: pelting reason for the location of this
basis it is estimated the cost would be Annual savings on interest -------- $56, 000 structure in or near the vicinity of the
$2.57 per usable square foot. This com- Annual savings on insurance---___ 17, 000 District of Columbia.
pares most favorably with the lease- Annual savings on taxes----------- 135, 000 Mr. DURHAM. I tried to say to the
gentleman that this does not involve
purchase cost which would have been
$3.47 per usable square foot, according Total annual savings over lease- what one might call the strategic opera-
to estimates of the General Services Ad- purchase method--------------- 208, 000 tions, but more or less paperwork and
ministration. The GSA and the AEC $806,000 less $208,000=$597,000. clearinghouse activities.
ffi597,000 One reason why we provided that this
estimate that the cost of renting a build- 232000=$2.75 per square foot of usable building should be outside the District
ing in downtown Washington with 255,- space. of Columbia was the matter of protection
000 square feet of usable space would of records. We believe we can build a
be $3.54 per usable square foot. Using 21/2 percent interest and 40-year
All square-foot costs listed above are amortization period: very safe vault.
on an annual basis. Annual savings on interest and Mr. GROSS. And does not the gentle-
There is another matter that entered principal________________________ $74, 000 man think a safe vault could be built out
our consideration: Annual savings on taxes ----------- 135, 000 in the Midwest, for instance?
The major products of the AEC, and Annual savings on insurance------- 17, 000 Mr. DURHAM. Unquestionably a safe
the prime military reasons for its exist- Total______________________ 226, 000 vault could be built anywhere; but the
ence and its present large size, are atomic $805,000 less $226,000=$579,000 total an- gentleman well knows that in the case
and hydrogen weapons. It is these very nual cost. of a large agency like this there must
weapons which have required the coun- $579,000 be a central agency convenient to Gov-
try to attempt a dispersal policy with 232,000 =$2.50 per square foot of usable ernment. The need of consultation with
regard to its vital industries. It thus space. the members of the Commission by Mem-
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120001-6
 4358 Approved For OSjt/~L Q~RDP63T~40~02~4 000100120001-6 April 26
hers of Congress is necessary; and then
in the matter of representatives of the
Commission coming to Washington for
appropriations and hearings could cost
a great deal of money and cause a great
deal of inconvience and waste of time.
Think what this would be if we moved It
somewhere away from the city of Wash-
ington at a long distance.
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DURHAM. I yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois.
Mr. PRICE. Is not the language of
the appropriation bill in conformity with
the language in the existing Atomic
Energy legislation?
Mr. DURHAM. That is correct.
Mr. PRICE. And is it not also a fact
that this bill in providing for a possible
construction within 20 or 30 miles of
Washington also is in conformity with
the dispersal policy enunciated by the
Government?
Mr. DURHAM. It Is. I believe that
is a recommendation of the Security
Council of the Federal Government.
Mr. GROSS. Is it not also a fact that
the original Atomic Energy Commission
legislation has been expanded to say that
the structure may be built outside of the
District of Columbia?
Mr. DURHAM. It was: yes.
Mr. PRICE. The existing legislation
uses exactly the same language as the
bill presented here today: "In or near the
District of Columbia."
Mr. GROSS. But that is taken from
the original language.
Mr. DURHAM. I would like to call
the attention of the gentleman from
Iowa to the fact that at the time the
original act was passed we had no knowl-
edge of the blast effects of an atomic
explosion. The committee, therefore, is
concerned about that. That is the rea-
son we have suggested it outside the city
of Washington.
Mr. GROSS. Now with knowledge of
the blast effect of an atom or a hydrogen
bomb, we realize that even at 30 miles
it is not out of the blast zone. Is not
that correct?
Mr. DURHAM. It would be out on
the fringe of the blast effect.
Mr. PRICE. If the gentleman will
yield further, I would say that as far as
the dispersal angle Is concerned this
meets the criteria of dispersal.
I would like to point out that the sit-
uation here is a little different from that
of the ordinary Government agency.
The Atomic Energy Commission is com-
pelled by law to keep a standing com-
mittee of the House and Senate, a joint
committee, currently Informed on all
phases of its program. The result Is that
these commissioners and all the top offi-
cials of the Atomic Energy Commission
spend almost as much time In congres-
sional committee rooms as they do In
their own conference rooms In their own
building here in Washington. In this
respect It is different from most of the
Government departments.
Mr. DURHAM. The gentleman from
Illinois is correct, and the committee is
in almost continuous session. The cost
at a great distance would be prohibitive.
(Mr. DURHAM asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 7 minutes.
(Mr. COLE asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, appar-
ently the only Item of controversy In
connection with this proposal is with
respect to the location of the office. I
might take just a moment to repeat
what I had earlier said in explaining
how it came about that this expression
Is used in the bill before us: That the
central office of the Commission be
located "in or near the District of
Columbia."
The original Atomic Energy Act re-
quired the central office to be In the
District of Columbia. Last year the
Chairman of the Atomic Energy Com-
mission, being very sensitive to the need
for dispersal, requested that the basic
law of the Commission be changed so
that the central office could be In or
near the District of Columbia, leaving
It to the discretion or Judgment of the
Commission or the appropriate commit-
tees of the Congress as to what con-
stitutes "near," having In mind the
atomic hazards to which this activity
might be subjected.
The Joint Committee on Atomic En-
ergy Is likewise sensitive to the need for
dispersal and feels that If for no other
a pattern for other agencies of Govern- proval of an office building. The joint
ment as well as industrial activities, that committee felt that because of the pecu-
reason alone justifies the central office liar nature of this office building-its
being located some reasonable distance type of construction necessarily must be
from the District of Columbia. As the different from the ordinary office build-
gentleman from Illinois has indicated, tog for reasons of security-and because
constant communication with the joint
committee and other committees of Con-
gress and, of course. with other agencies
of Government located here in the Dis-
trict or adjacent to the District which
are of equal sensitivity. I have in mind
the Defense Department, the three serv-
practically within the District of Colum-
bia. I have in mind the proposal that
the Cen~l ntelliea~_annn-rev Is about
to ie located somewhat near the District
of Columbia. Of course, that is a very
important and sensitive agency.
The House can be assured that the
problem of dispersal is one which is of
concern to the Commission as well as to
the joint committee and what eventually
will be determined to be the location will
be a location that is at a reasonable dis-
tance, having In mind the need for dis-
persal and the obligations of the Com-
mission to commute between the central
office and the Capitol Building as well as
other agencies of the Government.
Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLE. I yield to the gentleman
from Ohio.
Mr. JENKINS. May I say that I had I ent buildings. It has in temporary build-
the honor of serving for some time on Ings such important Divisions as Reactor
the Joint Committee on Atomic Ener- Development-charged primarily with
gy. If the gentleman from New York the responsibility for development of
who was the chairman of that Joint reactors for power and propulsion of
committee tells me that the Atomic
Energy Commission has passed on this
matter and approved It and that the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy has
considered It and recommend it, I guar-
antee to anybody that it has been given
thorough consideration by competent in-
dividuals whose judgment is good enough
for me.
Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman.
I should advise the House that there is
an understanding between the Commis-
sion and the joint committee that be-
fore any final decision is made in re-
spect to the exact location of this build-
ing, the Commission will apprise the
Joint committee of that recommenda-
tion and come to some agreement in
that respect with the joint committee.
The House should also be advised that
the matter of an office building was first
submitted to the Committee on Public
Works of the House with a request that
funds for that purpose come from what
is called the lease-purchase program for
Government buildings. The Committee
on Public Works interposed no objec-
tion to the Commission using that ave-
nue of approach in acquiring the funds
for this office building. The Commis-
sion also last year went to the Commit-
tee of the Senate on Public Works and
obtained from the Senate committee an
acquiescence providing the joint com-
mittee approved of the construction of
the building, The Commission came be-
fore the joint committee about a month
of the amount of money Involved, $10
million, it would be better for the Com-
mission to obtain this authority inde-
pendently of the lease-purchase pro-
gram. So the joint committee recom-
mended this procedure.
It should be pointed out also that
funds for the construction of the build-
ing are already available to the Commis-
sion. It has sufficient funds in its con-
trol now to build it, but because of the
fact that the Congress last year required
specific authorization hereafter for the
appropriation of funds for construction
of any plants, buildings or property, the
Commission following out the spirit of
that recommendation came to the joint
committee for specific authority. That
is what the pending bill before the House
appropriation of funds specifically for
the construction of this office building to
be built by the Commission under its own
he security considerations.
I would like now to comment on an
aspect of this bill which I believe to be
of particular importance-that is, secur-
ity. The AEC now has offices in 3 differ-
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120001-6
 Approved For RaWase 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R6fi0100120001-6
1955 NGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
naval vessels and aircraft; Raw Mate-
rials-responsible for domestic and for-
eign procurement of ore; Biology and
Medicine, Research, Security, and other
important divisions. Necessarily there
must be a constant shuttling back and
forth between the main building and the
temporary buildings of key personnel
and of records and documents. Many
times these documents are carried by the
persons who are going to utilize them.
Some of them are quite sensitive. With
thousands of classified documents flow-
ing between buildings each year, this sit-
uation is going to result in the loss or
compromise of a sensitive document
sooner or later.
Moreover, the security rules of the
AEC, as in the case of many other agen-
cies, require that no classified informa-
tion be discussed on the telephone. Ob-
viously, this means a great deal more of
face-to-face contact by key personnel
than would otherwise be necessary. For
key personnel located in separate build-
ings, this requires a further and con-
siderable loss of valuable time.
This bill will permit the AEC to con-
struct a modern building with all the
latest protective security devices and
vaults. At present the Commission must
secure its sensitive documents by placing
them in hundreds of separate locked file
cabinets. In a single office building sen-
sitive files can be placed in centrally
located vault type file rooms at a greatly
reduced cost and with maximum pro-
tection.
As I have pointed out the Commission
is now housed in 2 temporary buildings
as well as the Old Public Health Building.
To guard these old temporaries requires
an extremely large guard force. In fact,
the AEC shares one of its buildings with
another agency. Guards must be placed
in all the common corridors in addition
to all the doors leading out of the build-
ing. Housing the Commission in a single
building will of course vastly reduce the
necessary guard force.
You have seen, Mr. Chairman, the
typical temporary buildings such as the
AEC is now using. To make one of them
secure Is a complicated and expensive
operation, and with the best efforts, one
can never be sure. I have utmost faith
in the security officers of the Atomic
Energy Commission, I know they are
doing a conscientious job, but there is a
limit on the type of security one can have
with such facilities as are available.
A modern office building equipped with
all the latest protective devices would
not only save money by saving executive
time and -reducing security guard forces
but it would give a greater degree of pro-
tection to the Nation's vital atomic
secrets.
Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Illi-
nois [Mr. PRICE].
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to
speak in support of this bill not only
for the important and cogent reasons
expressed by my distinguished colleague
the vice chairman of the joint commit-
tee, and our distinguished colleague from
New York, but because I believe the
building of this new headquarters in ac-
cordance with established dispersal cri-
teria will set a splendid example for the
whole country.
In these days of hydrogen bombs with
utter, devastating destructive capability,
we must pay attention to the one simple,
yet effective, answer-disperse our in-
dustry, our cities, and our important
governmental agencies. That the AEC
will build its headquarters in accordance
with dispersal requirements, for which
incidentally it bears a major responsi-
bility, makes sense to me, and even if
reasons of economy, and security, and
prudent business did not persuade me to
the need for passage of this bill, the
overriding need for dispersal would.
Let me amplify my reasons. The
threat of atomic attack on this country
is still real and this peril may remain
for many years. Most of those - who
have studied the problem are convinced
that some measure of additional pro-
tection is afforded to this country's vital
industry and key Government agencies
by relocating them at sites meeting dis-
persal criteria. Obviously a target high
on the list of any nation launching an
atomic attack against this country
would be the seat of its Government,
Washington, D. C. Because of the huge
investment in existing plants, any dis-
persal is going to have to take place
over a period of years. I am quite con-
vinced that the relocation of the Atomic
Energy Commission headquarters at a
site meeting dispersal criteria would set
a splendid example for the rest of the
Government and private industry. If
the agency with as much knowledge of
the terrible destructive capability of
thermonuclear weapons relocates its
headquarters, I am sure others will rec-
ognize the need for them to do likewise.
I understand that the agency believes
it can meet dispersal criteria and locate
its headquarters not more than 20 miles
from the Washington monument. By
not going a greater distance from Wash-
ington the impact on its employees
should be considerably lessened.
Moreover, it will minimize the incon-
venience the distance which must be
traveled in order to conform with other
Government agencies. Obviously no re-
location such as this can take place
without some inconvenience. I am as
sure that the agency will take very rea-
sonable precaution to minimize any in-
convenience.
I urge the passage of the bill.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE. Yes; I will be glad to
yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
.Mr. GROSS. Someone a few mo-
ments ago, the gentleman from Illinois
or the gentleman from North Carolina,
established the effective blast area as 30
miles. Why do you now speak in terms
of perhaps locating this structure within
the blast area?
Mi?. PRICE. I said about 20 miles. I
think the assurance we have from the
Commission would be within 20 to 30
miles.
Mr. GROSS. The bill contains a pro-
vision "a suitable site in or near the Dis-
trict of Columbia." I assume from what
the gentleman has said that he would
4359
not oppose striking out the language "in
or near the District of Columbia."
Mr. PRICE. I would oppose any
amendment that would limit the Com-
mission to constructing the building
within the District, and I think unless
we have "in or near" it would be limited
to the District.
Mr. GROSS. Well, how can you be
20 miles from the Washington Monu-
ment and still be in the District of
Columbia?
Mr. PRICE. It says in or near the
District of Columbia. I should say that
anywhere within 50 miles could be con-
sidered near in this age.
Mr. GROSS. I think "in" means ex-
actly what it says-in the District of
Columbia.
Mr. PRICE. That is correct; "in"
would mean that, but it does not say that.
It says in or near the District of Co-
lumbia.
Mr. GROSS. It says in or near the
District of Columbia.
Mr. PRICE. That is correct.
Mr. GROSS. So the structure still
may be constructed in the District of
Columbia, if this bill is passed.
Mr. PRICE. That is correct; it could
be, but it is not the intention of the
Commission to do that. It is the Com-
mission's request that we liberalize the
language so that it can go outside the
District of Columbia.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Why
not make them go outside the District
of Columbia?
Mr. GROSS. That is the point; let us
make them go outside the District of
Columbia. Let us get the building out
of this blast area.
Mr. PRICE. I do not suppose that
they would have any objection to that,
because it is their intention to do that.
Mr. GROSS. I was in hopes that the
gentleman would say that he would not
oppose an amendment to the bill pro-
viding for construction outside the blast
area.
Mr..PRICE. I do not see any need for
an amendment to the bill, because I
know that it is the intention of the Com-
mission to build outside the District of
Columbia.
Mr. GROSS. I am sure the gentleman
from Illinois knows that the gentleman
from Iowa [Mr. GROSS] does not know
that is the intention of the Commission.
Mr. PRICE. I can appreciate that,
but I think the gentleman from Iowa can
take the.assurance of the Commission,
through the Congressional Joint Com-
mittee, that that is the intention of the
Commission. I can appreciate the gen-
tleman's concern.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE. I am glad to yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I should
like to say to our good friend this: Why
should we have to take everybody's word
for their intention? We have been let
down so many, many times, I am sure
the gentleman is aware of that, why not
put this outside the District of Colum-
bia? We know the District of Colum-
bia is overcrowded.
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120001-6
 Approved F ft%WAL/3A - -8DPJi6,2 58000100120001-6 April 26
Mr. PRICE. Of course we do. And
that is the reason why I do not see any
possibility of the commission staying
within the District of Columbia. They
would not have the space to stay here.
They are the ones who are requesting
that they be allowed to go outside.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. It is not
fair to the District, because here is some
more property that would be Federal
property and, therefore, not taxed. It is
not fair to dump all this stuff onto the
District. Why should we not put it in
the bill that they should go outside?
Mr. PRICE. We are not going to do
that. The Commission does not Intend
to do that.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. That is
what the gentleman says, that they do
not want to do that, that they do not
intend to do that and everybody is
agreed. So why not put it into the bill?
What is the objection to stating it?
Mr. PRICE. I do not see any neces-
sity of stating it. There probably would
not be any objection on my part, but I
do not see any necessity for it in this par-
ticular case.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. We
have been promising the taxpayers a
great many things over the years and
have not come through on many of them.
Why not put it in the bill now?
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Mary-
land [Mr. HYDE].
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise for
a few minutes in hearty support of this
bill to authorize the Atomic Energy Com-
mission to construct a modern office
building in or near the District of Co-
lumbia, to serve as its principal office.
I should like the record to show that
there are in my congressional district,
which starts right here on the borders
of Washington, in Montgomery County,
and in western Maryland a number of
very, very suitable locations for this
building; suitable not only from the
standpoint of a location for an office
building but desirable from the stand-
point of relieving economic distress in
areas within a 30-mile radius of Wash-
ington. Those areas are losing business
that they now have as a result of shut-
downs and changes made in industries
now located there.
So I should like to commend to the
Atomic Energy Commission the serious
consideration of that part of Maryland
known as Western Maryland for the loca-
tion of this atomic-energy building.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield.
Mr. COLE. I am not sure whether
the gentleman from Maryland is aware
of the fact or not, although I think he
undoubtedly is, but just on the outside
chance that he may not know of it and
for the purpose of giving him some com-
fort and the people he represents some
degree of hope, it is a fact that the Com-
mission has had under consideration and
still has under consideration locating the
office building in the section of Maryland
which the gentleman represents.
Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman for
that information. I have heard some-
thing about that. Of course, on the
basis of that information we have high
hopes.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I notice
the bill carries $10 million. Is that for
the survey or the drawing of the plans?
Mr. HYDE. I know nothing about the
details of the plan.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. What is
that $10 million for? Is that just for
the making of plans or the making of
a survey?
Mr. HYDE. I would prefer the gen-
tleman ask that question of someone
more qualified to answer it.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentlemen yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman
from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman is satis-
fied with the bill as it presently stands
because there is a good chance that the
building will be located in his district.
Is that correct?
Mr. HYDE. I would say that is sub-
stantially correct, yes.
Mr. DURHAM. If the gentleman will
yield, since the question was raised by
the gentleman from Michigan. I can as-
sure him that this includes not only the
surveying and planning but the comple-
tion of the building.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I want
to commend the gentleman for serving
his district. I do not have any criticism
and I do not think my friend from
Iowa has any criticism because the gen-
tleman wants it for his district, because
that is natural and commendable.
Mr. HYDE. I deeply appreciate the
gentleman's commendation.
(Mr. SMITH of Mississippi (at the
request of M:'. DURHAM) was given per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. SMITH of Mississippi. Mr.
Chairman. I support this bill to author-
ize the construction of an office building
for the Atomic Energy Commission head-
quarters. I hope I will be pardoned for
pointing out that action on this legisla-
tion justifies a position which I took last
year in opposing the request of the
Atomic Energy Commission for approval
of the construction of the headquarters
under the lease-purchase system.
The lea e-purchase plan was not de-
signed for the construction of buildings
so immediately essential to the proper
conduct of our national-defense effort.
The funds for this building have already
been appropriated by the Congress.
If this headquarters building had been
built under the lease-purchase arrange-
ment which was proposed by Admiral
Strauss in 1954, the cost to the Govern-
ment would have amounted to several
million dollars more. The method being
used to authorize construction of the
building is by far the simplest and cer-
tainly the best one from the viewpoint
of the American taxpayer.
The action of the House here today
makes it clear hasty action should not
be taken on these lease-purchase proj-
ects. It is obvious that the adminis-
tration is realizing that the lease-pur-
chase plan is not the panacea that many
originally assumed it would be. Lease-
purchase should be used only for the
construction of essential buildings for
which there is no possibility of direct
appropriations being provided.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read
the bill for amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That the Atomic Energy
Commission Is authorized. with funds pres-
ently available or otherwise made available
to It, to acquire (by purchase, condemnation,
or otherwise. under the applicable provisions
of chapters 14 and 15 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1054) a suitable site In or near the
District of Columbia and, notwithstanding
any other provision of law, to provide for
the construction on such site, in accordance
with plans and specifications prepared by or
under the direction of the Commission, of a
modern office building (including necessary
related equipment, and auxiliary structures,
as well as vaults for the protection of re-
stricted data) to serve as the principal office
of the Commission at a total cost of not to
exceed $10 million and for that purpose there
Is authorized to be appropriated such sums
as may be necessary.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. GRoss: On page
1. line 7, strike out "In or near" and substi-
tute the words "not less than 30 miles from."
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr, GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I want
to make certain that this structure is
not going to be erected at a cost of $10
million within the District of Columbia.
My amendment simply provides that the
structure shall be built not less than 30
miles from the District of Columbia,
which would take it beyond the primary-
blast area.
The members of the committee them-
selves have stated on the floor that the
primary-blast area of an expected atomic
weapon would be 30 miles. There is
nothing complex about this amendment
at all, Mr. Chairman. It would simply
take this structure beyond the primary
area.
We talk a lot about civil defense but
there is only one effective civil-defense
program and that is the widest possible
dispersal of prime targets.
Personally, I can see no reason why
this Atomic Energy Commission building
should not be constructed somewhere in
the country much further removed from
the National Capital than 30 miles, in
view of modern methods of communica-
tion, but I am willing to go along with
the committee to the extent that this
building be constructed beyond the pri-
mary-blast area.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the
amendment. If the threat of atomic
warfare is as real as it is purported to
be, and if Congress is not merely giving
lip-service to dispersal of prime targets,
then there can be no question of the
location of a new, $10 million structure
safely distant from the target area of
the District of Columbia.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, as has been Indicated
in the earlier discussion of the bill, the
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120001-6
 Approved For R se 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245RQQp100120001-6
1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
basic law, the law which the House con- ing of the records being safe because Mr. DURHAM About 1 300
4361
sidered and the Congress passed last the records would be safe almost any- Mr. GROSS. If you construct a build-
August requires that the central office of where they are placed, and they will ing out here somewhere, the employees
the Atomic Energy Commission be lo- probably be placed in deep vaults. But are going to go there to go to work. The
cated in or near,the District of Colum- that is quite a different thing from the gentleman does not mean you are going
bia. It is appreciated that the gentle- protection of the personnel, to establish some segment of it down-
man from Iowa has this concern over Mr. HALEY. Mr. Chairman, will the town; do you?
the safety of the Atomic Energy Com- gentleman yield? Mr. DURHAM. I cannot be sure that
mission and the people who will be em- Mr. COLE. I yield. everybody is going 30 miles outside of
ployed in this new office building. Mr. HALEY. The gentleman speaks Washington to work. We have not done
I do not know, Mr. Chairman, of any about a change in the basic laws which that before. We are making an attempt
agency of Government which is more were passed a year ago. I know of no to put it outside of the District of Co-
aware of the hazards of an atomic attack reason, and I wonder whether the gen- lumbia,
than the Atomic Energy Commission it- tleman knows of any reason, why the Mr. GROSS. Have we not built some
self. I am not aware of any group in Congress should not change basic laws kind of a sensitive agency a great deal
the Congress which is more aware of and after they are enacted, if it is found further out here somewhere?
alive to the hazards of atomic attack desirable to change them. Mr. DURHAM. I do not know of one
and the need for dispersal than the Joint Mr. COLE. The gentleman misun- at the present time where 1,300 employ-
Committee on Atomic Energy. It has derstood my statement. I did not argue ees have had to go that distance. All
already been pointed out that it is the that this bill does change existing law, employees necessarily have to have se-
joint view of the Commission and the I was simply pointing out that this
committee that the office building should amendment did not change existing
be located somewhere within a reason- law, the provisions of which still remain
able distance outside the District of in the basic act for the central office to
Columbia. If we were to adopt the gen- be located in or near the District of Co-
tleman's amendment, and provide a lumbia. I was simply undertaking to
minimum distance of 30 miles, we must show that this amendment, before us
consider the convenience of the 1,200 now, is inconsistent with the action
people who will be required to travel to which the Congress took last year.
this office building. To some, 30 miles Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge that
may not be a great distance for the the amendment be rejected.
reason that they may live nearby and, Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Chairman; I move
therefore, may be closer to whatever lo- to strike out the last word.
cality is selected as the site for the office Mr. Chairman, I hope that this amend-
building. For other persons presently went will be voted down. I think one
employed by the Commission who will of the worst things which would happen,
be required to travel the distance which in my opinion, and this was discussed
will be necessary under this proposed quite at length in writing the original
amendment in order to arrive at the law, and also this provision, is that it
office building, which the gentleman pro- would create a speculative interest im-
poses must be at least 30 miles away, mediately in land values if a 30-mile
the distance that they may be required limitation were placed in the bill. So
to travel might be as much as 30, 40, the committee felt that it would be wise
or 50 miles. It would seem to me, Mr. to leave this in the discretion of the
Chairman, that the House, which has Atomic Energy Commission, I believe
had rather generous reliance upon the the House can be assured, and I am
judgment of the joint committee in other sure we are, that this building should
respects will be equally reliant on the be built outside the District of Columbia.
joint committee with respect to where I personally do, and I have insisted on
this office building is to be located. that from the beginning. So I see no
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the reason to adopt this amendment to
gentleman yield? create speculative prices around here.
Mr. COLE. I yield. We have got to purchase the property
Mr. GROSS. Is this structure being wherever it is.
built for the convenience of the em- Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
ployees or for the protection of the gentleman yield?
Atomic Energy Commission? Mr. DURHAM. I yield.
Mr. COLE. Of course, the gentleman Mr. GROSS. That would be true no
well 'knows that the building is being matter where you constructed the build-
built to house the employees of the ing, would it not?
Atomic Energy Commission as well as Mr. DURHAM. That is possibly true,
the Commission itself. I do not know but it is different in pinpointing 20 or
whether the gentleman shares my view- 30 miles and in leaving it more or less
point or not, but frankly I am just as wide open.
concerned about the convenience and Mr. GROSS. How many employees
safety of the employees of the Commis- will this building house?
sion as I am about the Commission it- Mr. DURHAM. There are about 1,300
self. - at the present time employed.
Mr. GROSS. I think the gentleman Mr. GROSS. How many does the
is more concerned over the convenience gentleman anticipate putting into this
and travel of the employees than he is building?
for the safety of this structure and the Mr. DURHAM. We. intend to put
records and personnel. them all in the building. Some of them
Mr. COLE. The gentleman can be may resign. I do not know.
assured that the office building will be Mr. GROSS. How many would that
constructed in such a fashion that the be?
important records of the Commission Mr. DURHAM. I do not know, be-
will be safely housed and protected cause some are on the north side of
against any damage. Washington and some on the south side.
Mr. GROSS. Yes, because the rec- Mr. GROSS. But it is a minimum of
ords will be in vaults. We are not think- 1,300?
curity clearances and it take quite a long
time to secure these clearances and costs
a lot of money, so we cannot afford to
lose them by going too far.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike out the last
word.
(Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield before he gets started?
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Yes. I
yield.
Mr. MASON. On the question of pin-
pointing the rise in value, when we say
"in or near," we have a circumscribed
circle that is just about so big, whatever
"near" might mean. But when you say
"not less than 30 miles," then you have
got a much greater area, and there would
be less pinpointing in that than there
would be in the present language in the
bill.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I thank
the gentleman.
Occasionally there comes to my desk
a letter inquiring, "Just how crazy can
Congress get?"
I would not ask that question, but I
will ask, "Just how illogical can we get?"
Now here is a building to make a place
for these people, in this very sensitive
agency. The purpose is to put them in
or near Washington. When the gentle-
man suggests that 50 miles is "near"
today, permit the suggestion that over
the years I have been hearing that Asia
and Africa and other places, all on the
other side of the world, were just next
door to us, and that we were forced to
spend billions to protect ourselves from
them because they were so close to us.
We might be called on the next moment
to defend ourselves from them.
If I remember correctly, there has
been more or less talk and some legis-
lation with reference to making Wash-
ington secure, because it seemed to be
the center of our national defense. Then
there was some talk about defense plants
being placed on outside of cities where
they are now located, scattering them all
around, so that no one bomb could get
them all at once. Up at the locks in
Michigan, at Sault Ste. Marie, we had
built a new airport because we had to
protect the locks.
I have heard that the President has a
hide-away, and they are talking about
building another one for the Speaker
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120001-6
 Approved
For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120001-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE April 06
and the assistant minority leader and The CHAIRMAN. The question Is on
for Members of Congress, to get them the amendment offered by the gentleman
away from Washington in time of dan- from Iowa [Mr. GROSS i.
ger so that someone cannot blow us all The question was taken: and on a
up at once. division (demanded by Mr. COLE) there
I met with a great deal of criticism were-ayes 22, noes 24.
one time when some one suggested a few Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I de-
years back, I think it was right after the mand tellers.
Puerto Rican shooting, that someone Tellers were refused.
might drob a bomb down here and blow The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule the
up the Congress. Thoughtlessly I sug- Committee rises,
gested if they did maybe they would get Accordingly the Committee rose; and
just as a good a Congress if a new Con- the Speaker having resumed the chair,
gress was elected. You know some Mem- Mr. SMITH of Mississippi, Chairman of
bers here were really indignant about the Committee of the Whole House on
that; that they could not be replaced? the State of the Union, reported that
My own opinion is that no one is indis- that Committee, having had under con-
pensable. Though some are difficult to sideration the bill (H. R. 5645) to au-
replace. thorize the Atomic Energy Commission
There is now before one of the com- to construct a modern office building in
mittees of this House the question of or near the District of Columbia to serve
moving one of the defense organizations as its principal office, pursuant to House
which is over here in Baltimore, moving Resolution 214. he reported the bill back
it to Dayton, Ohio. It was once located to the House.
at Dayton, then moved to Baltimore, now The SPEAKER. Under the rule the
it is to be sent back to Ohio, so I hear. previous question is ordered.
I do not know, although I am a member The question is on the engrossment
of the committee, whether it ought to be and third reading of the bill.
moved or whether it should not be moved. The bill was ordered to be engrossed
But if we are to move these agencies and and read a third time, and was read the
defense plants away from centers, then third time.
why not support this amendment offered The SPEAKER. The question is on
by the gentleman from Iowa? Let the the passage of the bill.
Commission put it somewhere-and I do The SPEAKER announced that the
not suppose many of us know where it ayes appear to have it.
should be or care where it is to be-but Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I object
put it away from this very, very vital to the vote on the ground that a quorum
and already congested center here in is not present and make the point of
Washington. Does not the amendment order that a quorum is not present.
seem sensible? Does not that seem Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask
sound? Or should we build this $10 mil- unanimous consent that further pro-
lion building to house these employees ceedings on this bill may be postponed
and then in a year or two move the until Thursday.
agency to some other city? Some say Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
that now we should just abandon the the right to object-
old Capitol here, this historic room, and The SPEAKER. The Chair wishes to
the whole building itself. say to the gentleman from Iowa that
Over across the plaza we built a $12 there is a gentleman's agreement that
million building for the Supreme Court. there would not be a rollcall vote on a
Go over there some day and take a look substantive matter today; therefore the
at it and ask or see if you can learn what gentleman from Oklahoma is asking
it costs just to maintain it for those nine unanimous consent that further pro-
fine young learned gentlemen who ad- ceedings under this bill be passed over
minister the law, who not only admin- until Thursday.
ister the law, but with reference to seg- Is there objection to the request of the
regation some say make the law. If gentleman from Oklahoma?
the trend continues some day we will There was no objection.
not need Congress at all, just turn every- I The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman l
thing over to the Executive-a man at , from Iowa wi
the present time in whom we have the l quorum?
greatest confidence and whom we trust- 1 Mr. GROSS.
and the Supreme Court, and let it go at
that.
Is it not reasonable to suggest that
when we build this new building it go
out somewhere so that when those bombs
come over, if they do-and that is an-
other thing that is difficult to under-
stand; this bombing business seems to
be on a one-way road and schedule; one
shot or drop will not wipe out the whole
Government. For the last 10 or 12
years we have been frightened to death
that either the Chinese-I do not know
whether they are going to send over a
bomb in a paper balloon-either the
Chinese or the Russians would just blow
us all to kingdom come.
The amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Iowa ought to be, but prob-
ably it will not be, adopted.
CLAYTON ACT AMENDMENT
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (H. R. 49541 to amend the
Clayton Act by granting a right of ac-
tion to the United States to recover dam-
ages under the antitrust laws, establish-
ing a uniform statute of limitations, and
for other purposes.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House resolved itself
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this is a rather simple
bill. In a word it provides for a uni-
form statute of limitations with refer-
ence to treble damage suits filed by
private litigants against violators of the
antitrust laws and permits a right of
action on the part of the Government in
its proprietary capacity by virtue of vio-
lations of the antitrust laws.
At the present time, if the United
States Government is injured in that
proprietary right-and it is injured many
times in its procurement activities on
account of violations of antitrust laws-
it cannot now sue to recover actual dam-
ages. It is rather anomalous that a
State can sue for such damages, a city
or municipality can sue for such dam-
ages, a tri-State authority can sue for
such damages, a corporation may sue,
but by virtue of a decision rendered by
the Supreme Court in 1941, U. S. v.
Cooper (312 U. S., p. 600) , the United
States is deemed not a "person" and thus
cannot sue. The word "person" is the
key word in the statute. Only a "person"
presently can sue.
When you contemplate that the
United States Government through its
procurement agencies buys upwards,
shall I say of $6 billion a month of goods
and then cannot by virtue of violations
or possible violations of the antitrust
laws sue for its actual damages when
bidders seem to cabal and unite together
to defraud the Government, it is time for
us to pause. We must remedy that de-
fect.
The Attorney General has asked for
this provision and among other things
he has stated:
The United States Is the largest single
purchaser of goods In this country and may
suffer substantial losses from antitrust vio-
lations. As shown in the Cooper case, the
Government sustained extensive damages as
the result of certain bids submitted on
motor vehicle tires and tubes. For the half
year ending March 31, 1937, 18 companies
submitted Identical bids on 82 different sizes
of tires and tubes. This Identical bidding
was repeated in the next half year. but with
substantially higher prices than for the pre-
ceding period. When bids were submitted
for the third half year period the Procure-
ment Division of the Treasury Department,
upon the advice of the Attorney General,
rejected the bids and invited new ones. The
new bids were the same as those rejected.
In the circumstances the Treasury Depart-
ment negotiated a contract with another
supplier for its full requirements.
In its next invitation to submit bids the
Government required the bidders to warant
that the prices bid were not the result of an
agreement among them. Lower bids fol-
lowed. A comparison of these bids with the
earlier bids showed that the United States
had been Injured to the extent of $351,158.21
during the 18-month period involved. A
treble-damage action against the offending
companies was Instituted by the Govern-
ment but was dismissed on the ground that
the United States is not a "person" within
the treble-damage provision of the statute.
Into the Committee of the Whole House it was thus discovered that the United
on the state of the Union for the con- States Government, as the result of this
sideration of the bill H, R. 4954, with illegal, illicit combination, was mulcted
Mr. HAYS of Ohio in the chair. in the sum of a little over $351,000. Now,
The Clerk read the title of the bill. there have been many other instances
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120001-6