Senator JOHNSON.As I understand it, the Army suggests amendment to the title to read:

A bill to direct the Secretary of the Army to convey certain property located in Polk County, Iowa, and described as Camp Dodge and Polk County Target Range, to the State of Iowa.

That is the proposed amendment. I would be glad to have you touch on the difference between the amendment and the title in the bill.

Senator, the staff just had you listed first because we knew of your limited time.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I just thought that from the Army standpoint, an understanding from their standpoint would lay a little better basis.

Senator JOHNSON. That is fine. I just wanted to conserve your time as much as possible.

Would you give your name and department please?

Mr. KNOTT. I am Lawson Knott, Mr. Chairman, of the Office of Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, and the Department. has considered this bill.

The bill does provide for the conveyance of 2 small installations located between 14 and 17 miles outside of the city of Des Moines. Those installations were acquired at various times beginning in 1909 with respect to the Polk County Target Range and during World War I with respect to Camp Dodge.

I might say that that is the sole purpose of the amendment, is to include the Polk County Target Range in the title.

The Camp Dodge Reservation involves about 1,800 acres. It was first assembled, the land was assembled, by the Greater Des Moines Committee and leased to the Government during World War I with an option to purchase. The Government did exercise that option to purchase and acquired it in about 1921 at a cost of slightly over a half million dollars.

The improvements on the property consist of 12 hospital buildings and certain walkways that were constructed at a cost of slightly under a half million dollars.

Located a short distance away is the Polk County Target Range of 742 acres which had been acquired back in 1909. It was one of numerous installations acquired from a period of about 1906 on until 1918 and 1919, the purpose being solely to provide target ranges for National Guard training purposes. And other than World Wars I and II, neither of these properties have been used by the Department of the Army.

They have been used by the State National Guard. In the meantime, the State has acquired a small corridor of about 575 acres of land adjoining these 2 installations. The bill provides that as a part of the consideration for the transfer of these properties to the State where they are to be used for National Guard training purposes only, that the State will agree that it will not encumber or dispose of its land and that all of the lands combined together will form a united installation available to the Department of the Army for use in the event of a national emergency.

In that respect, this bill takes on some of the aspects of a bill which this committee acted on last year, namely, Camp Blanding, Fla. The Department feels that the bill is designed to fully protect any possible interest that it may have in the property in the future.

Senator BYRD. That is the reserves, the mineral rights are reserved, I see.

Mr. KNOTT. Yes, sir.

Senator BYRD. And likewise, the Government can capture the property?

Mr. KNOTT. That's right, sir.

Senator BYRD. Also, if it is not used for this specific purpose, it reverts back to the Federal Government.

Mr. KNOTT. That's right, sir.

Senator BYRD. Mr. Chairman, that complies with the rules of the committee, as I understand it, and I move that the bill be reported. Senator JOHNSON. Senator Hickenlooper, do you care to make a statement?

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I would appreciate it, yes, Mr. Chairman. Senator JOHNSON. Will you proceed, Senator?

STATEMENT OF HON. BOURKE HICKENLOOPER, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM IOWA

Senator HICKENLOOPER. This map is a little more graphic just for the information of the committee. The pink area is the Government land involved in this particular section of Camp Dodge. The blue is the land now owned in fee by the State of Iowa and used for National Guard purposes and military purposes.

Camp Dodge has some sentimental memories for me. I mean, I served there the first part of World War I. I am, of course, familiar with the reservation.

The State of Iowa, as has been stated to you, now owns five-hundredsome acres as shown in the blue on the map, and the State National Guard uses that as an installation.

Practically all of the military storage buildings and installations are located on the State-owned land.

There may be a building or so on the Federal land at the present time, but the cantonment buildings which were temporary and erected in World War I have all been removed, and the State is very desirous of incorporating all of this land into its National Guard military

activities.

I believe, as is made clear, that the Department of the Army feels that that is a most advantageous use of it.

Senator JOHNSON. Is it your understanding that the bill requires the State to use this property for training of the National Guard and other military purposes?

Senator HICKENLOOPER. It is primarily for military purposes. May I suggest this: That the State probably would want to use it for civildefense activities or headquarters. They are contemplating that, perhaps. They may use it for the storage of some road-maintenance machinery, for the general highway use. I don't mean all.

We have ample storage space over the States for that, but some uses of that kind.

There are two things I would like to mention-we have presently built on the State-owned land a State liquor warehouse. That was built some years ago and is on that. I take it that this bill does not disturb the use by the State of that warehouse for the purposes that it has already been used for, and which they expect to continue.

61731-55-2

Senator BYRD. That is on State land?

Senator HICKENLOOPER. That is on State-owned land and built at State expense. The Government has no interest in that.

And then there is one other question that I merely want to mention. At the present time the Federal Government leases such of this land as is not in immediate use. They will lease it for farming purposes and obtain revenue from it. The State assumes there is nothing in this bill which would prevent the State from leasing this land from time to time when it is not in other use, for the raising of crops. will produce some revenue.

Senator BYRD. How does that conform with section 3:

It

The conveyance of the property authorized by this Act shall be upon condition that such property shall be used primarily for training of the National Guard and for other military purposes

Senator JOHNSON. I would like to ask this question, Senator. In section 5 it says:

In consideration for the conveyance of the lands described in the first section of this Act, the State of Iowa shall agree to use for military purposes only

Senator BYRD. It is my understanding that we have adopted a policy in this committee that should these properties be used in any way for revenue, that that revenue would revert to the Federal Government, one might say, very incidental. There would be some

revenue.

It is primarily used, I am informed, and General Bennett, who is now retired but has been active in the Iowa National Guard and also military service in World Wars I and II and has been judge advocate of the Iowa National Guard for many years, is here, and I think he could

Senator BYRD. Mr. Chairman, I regret to say I would have to object to the bill if it is going to be rented out, because we have had a number of these bills before the committee and we have established a rule on it, and I don't believe that we could afford to give this property to the State if the State is going to rent it out for revenue.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I am informed, and I would rather General Bennett would speak to that, primarily and practically the sole purpose of renting it out is the hay stumpage which has for its net result the reduction of fire hazard from weeds.

Senator BYRD. The Senator well knows that there are thousands of acres of property of this character in the hands of the armed services, and we have established a regular rule about it, and to change that rule, so far as I am concerned, I don't believe I could vote for it.

I will vote for the bill with the understanding it is used for the purpose it is intended to be used for, but when it comes to leasing. the land out and getting revenue, that opens up another field that would be applicable to many other requests that we have.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I think, Senator Byrd, this is not in any way unique. I know of a number of installations where they have had this base requirement where they would remove the fences a certain distance from the installations as a matter of safety and security, and where the Government, itself, when they put buildings on that land, have leased it for the production of farming.

Senator BYRD. You mean land that the Government gives to the

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Land that the Government owns. Senator BYRD. That's all right for the Government to own it. They get the revenue. The Government is giving the lands to the States. This is an entirely different request.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Knott has testified on that point I understand, at the House hearings on yesterday; is that right?

Mr. KNOTT. Only in this respect, Senator. It was pointed out that some of these lands were being leased directly by the Department of the Army for agricultural purposes. That was merely to indicate its present use.

Now, it is felt that there is perhaps some difference in language between section 5 and section 3. The provisions of section 3, inasmuch as they include the word "primarily," I do not believe would preclude their leasing of the property for

Senator BYRD. Let me say this to you, sir. It does conflict with the policy of this committee.

When World War II ended, this committee was flooded with applications all over the country about giving land back to the States in localities, and we adopted a rule. That is the only way we could handle it.

This is a very inconsequential matter and I trust that they will omit from this the rental of the land by the State for revenue purposes.

Senator JOHNSON. I wonder if I could say this. I have a bill that is quite similar. Now, it directs the Army to convey to the State of Texas, 189 acres. The purpose of that bill is to permit the State of Texas to use that for the training of the National Guard.

If it were to be used for any other purpose except a military purpose, or National Guard purpose, we would probably sell that land or at least retain title to it if we could use it in any way.

It seems to me that perhaps in light of the committee's policy and the objection we know some Senators have to conveying this property for purposes other than military purposes, or for revenue uses, maybe we could strike out the word "primarily" and have it read that "such property shall be used for training of the National Guard and for other military purposes.'

Now, if that is not the purpose of the transaction, then there are going to be a lot of Senators that take the position

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Chairman, that is perfectly satisfactory with us. We have no desire to produce revenue as such. The only use that the State would put to the land, from the standpoint of leasing, is that the State will either have to go in there and at its own complete outlay expense control the weeds and the cropping and so on, or the grasses and so on.

Senator BYRD. All they have got to do is mow it. I am in the farming business. It doesn't cost much to mow it. I don't believe we can change the policy of this committee, so you can mow a few weeds on this property out there.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. It isn't very much.

Senator BYRD. I would say, Senator, if you would leave out that word "primarily" and make it conform with all the other things we have done, we don't want to have to open up all these other things. Senator HICKENLOOPER. The word "primarily" was not placed there by the State of Iowa. This bill is filed verbatim as recommended by the Department of the Army.

Senator JOHNSON. Let me ask the Army, will you have any objection to striking out the word "primarily"""? Then, would that not give the Congress the assurance that this conveyance was solely for the purpose of the State using this for National Guard or military purposes?

Mr. KNOTT. Mr. Chairman, the only thought--and that language has appeared in a number of bills that the Army had in using the word "primarily" at all, was that you could assume a situation short of a national emergency in which it might be desirable to use part of these facilities for the taking of Army Reserves. A strict. construction of the language

Senator BYRD. That would be military purposes, wouldn't it? You can say "train the National Guard or for other military purposes.' Senator JOHNSON. Read section 3 there: "The conveyance of the property authorized by this Act shall be"-upon what condition?"upon condition that such property shall be used"-strike "primarily"-"for (1) training the National Guard or for other military purposes.

Now, that is what we want to use it for in Texas, and I assume that is what they want to use it for in Iowa.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Completely and entirely.

Senator JOHNSON. You are going to get into a long debate about "primarily" because there are some Senators who think it it is going to be used for purposes other than military, it ought to be sold and the revenue go to the Federal Government.

I would suggest to the Army-and I think it is agreeable to Senator Hickenlooper and to myself, my bill is next on the agenda--just authorize the staff to strike the word "primarily" and report the bill with that amendment. Is that agreeable?

Senator HICKENLOOPER. It is perfectly agreeable to us.

We have no thought to use it for the production of revenue. The only thing is, in the State of Iowa we believe somewhat differently that the Federal Government, if we can make a thing pay its own way, weed control, hay control and so on, why, we do that.

Senator JOHNSON. Without objection, the staff will be requested to amend the bill accordingly, as well as amend the title as suggested. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Chairman, I suggested a moment ago that on the State-owned land is this liquor warehouse built at State expense. Now, I want to be sure

Senator BYRD. Is there any law that exists--does the State sell it at retail?

Senator HICKENLOOPER. No.

Senator BYRD. There may be some law that prohibits sale of liquor within a certain distance from camps.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. We have a State liquor system there. Senator BYRD. I would look into that, Senator. That would be outside of this bill.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, you called my attention first to section 5.

Senator JOHNSON. That applies only to State, I think.

Senator SALTONSTALL. But if he has got this liquor building on State land, as I read that section--I don't say that I read it absolutely correct-"in consideration for the conveyance of the lands described in the first section," which is the United States land, "the