with metropolitan Boston, and I think my colleague will speak for the Democrats in the House who have anything to say.

Now this Army base very briefly is a pier in Boston Harbor that was built in 1918. During both wars, it has done a very substantial amount of Government business.

There is a building on it that supports, I think, the Army engineer headquarters in Boston, and then there are a very substantial number of berths. It is by far and away the biggest pier in Boston harbor. It does about a third of the business that comes in and out of Boston harbor.

During World War II it handled between 12 million and 2 million tons of cargo on an annual basis. It has 7 covered and 1 open berth with an 8-story warehouse and some half-dozen sheds with a combined floor area of 697,200 square feet.

The berths at mean low water carry 30 feet. Now in 1923 the United States Shipping Board took over the operation of the pier from the Army and leased it to private operators. At that time the rentals received would go into revolving fund, out of which the Maritime Commission could draw to pay for maintenance and upkeep of the pier.

Then within 2 months after the start of World War II, the Army took back the base and it reverted to the United States Maritime Administration when the war was over.

But in the meantime the revolving fund had been discontinued. Now I personally took a trip with the Army engineers around the pier several months ago I guess in November-and the pier today is in very bad shape. Some people might tell you that it will fall into the harbor in a couple of weeks. Other people will tell you that it might last for a couple of years.

But unless it is repaired, that pier, sooner or later, a great proportion of it, will become unusable and may fall into the harbor. As I say, it is much the biggest pier in Boston today. It carries the channel where the best water is, and is really essential if Boston is to be continued as a maritime port.

The proposition that has been worked out between the governor of the Commonwealth, the port authorities of Boston, and the Army is substantially as follows: The United States Government is to repair the pier at a cost of $11 million, not to exceed $11 million, 10 percent of which is to be contributed by Massachusetts.

Massachusetts gets the pier on a lease for 25 years for $1 a year plus its maintenance and repairs, with the right to renew for 5-year terms after the 25 years have run out.

In the meantime, if a war or other emergency occurs, the Government can take it back at any time. I think in a very few words that is the substance of the negotiations that have been worked out.

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Gulliver, the chairman of the Boston Port Authority, is here to answer any questions on the part of the Commonwealth. He does not have a prepared statement. He will not speak unless you wish him to speak or answer any questions.

That very briefly is the proposition, and rather than take all your limited time, I know my colleague would like to add his word and fill in the omissions that I have left unsaid.

Senator CASE. We would be pleased to hear from Senator Kennedy.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KENNEDY, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Senator KENNEDY. If I could just file a brief one-page statement with this committee, Mr. Chairman, as Senator Saltonstall has given the highlights

(The prepared statement submitted by Senator Kennedy is as follows :)

Senator KENNEDY. I appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly on behalf of this measure which is of such vital importance to the economic health of my State and region.

The problem and alternatives are basically simple. Something must be done, and done now, to prevent the disaster which would occur when the Boston Army Base pier's steadily deteriorating steel skirt and pilings collapse, and the whole base slides into Boston Harbor. This would in the end be far more expensive than the bill before you today; expensive in loss of life and property; expensive in the loss of the facilities of the port of Boston, which are of high value to the Army as an emergency port of embarkation and to New England as an excellent port of international trade; and expensive to the Federal Government in the amount of funds which Congress would be required to appropriate in order to remove the collapsed wreck from the channel. Moreover, even in the absence of such a scandalous calamity, a do-nothing policy on our part could be based only upon the hope that the property will be acquired for private industrial use which, even if feasible, would impair the use of these facilities by the Army and for international trade.

Thus the only question is whether it is in the interests of sound economy to authorize only those halfway measures which have been suggested as alterna tive methods of preventing the eventual collapse of these facilities. Of the two such plans which the Corps of Engineers informed me were possible, the first would provide satisfactory safety. for not more than 10 years, when we would be faced with the same problem all over again; and the second, which would cost nearly half as much as the amount contained in the pending measure, would render the pier unusable, and thus waste the Federal taxpayers' investment which has been computed (on the basis of replacement value) at from $75 to $100 million. Why spend $5 million to render a $75 million plant unusable, when $10 million would provide not only more adequate safety and rehabilitation but also continued use by the Nation?

Thus I urge your committee to act favorably upon this bill, in order that the pier may be fully and economically rehabilitated so as to serve the Nation in time of peace and war. Certainly it is wiser to take this step now than to be subsequently faced with the necessity of hasty, costly rehabilitation in an emergency. Inasmuch as the bill provides for participation in the initial rehabilitation and full responsibility for subsequent maintenance by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it provides a real opportunity for the type of Federal-State partnership which is beneficial to the needs of both Governments.

Senator KENNEDY. This base in 1953 dealt with about 75 percent of all of Boston trade. It is, therefore, of great importance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and New England.

The letter from Mr. Stevens, the Secretary of the Army, which came in this morning, I think indicated the potential use which the Army might have of the pier in case of another emergency. It was of tremendous importance to the Army in World War II when Boston was a port of embarkation, and, as Senator Saltonstall indicated, in World War I.

The only other question is, if nothing is done with the Army base, if no action is taken on this bill, it is a question of what would happen to it.

The Army engineers have suggested that there might, according to Fay, Spofford, and Thorndyke, who have been doing some surveys, they suggested there might be two alternatives. One, a million and

a half dollars which would be spent which would put the Army base more or less on ice for 10 years. It could not be used as a base, the berths could not be used, but nevertheless it would not fall into the harbor with a potential loss to life and property.

At the end of 10 years we would still have to face the problem again. The other plan suggested by them would call for the expenditure of about $42 million, and for an expenditure of $42 million, the Army base could be permanently put out of commission.

What we are asking for in this bill is an expenditure at least by the Federal Government of around $9,500,000, which would secure the Army base for the maritime trade of New England for the Army instead of the $42 million which would be required to eliminate the Army base as a useful function.

I think that is the basic problem.

You just can't walk away from the Army base today. If you do, it will collapse into the harbor and it would cost a tremendous sum of money to dig it out.

Therefore, the Army has to take some action with it, and they can spend either a million and a half, which would deal with the problem for 10 years, and then the Congress would be faced with what they are going to do with it again, or they can spend $42 million and dispose of the Army base, but nevertheless it would cease to be of use to us or to the Army.

And they could spend $9 million and maintain it for another 60 years in partnership with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, so that it seems to me a facility which would cost around $75 million to replace at present values, and which is of such tremendous importance to us and potentially to the Army in case of another emergency, that it should be maintained.

Senator CASE. You mean it would cost $42 million to remove it? Senator KENNEDY. To dispose of it in such a way as to prevent it from falling into the harbor and being a threat to the people in the neighborhood.

You couldn't remove it, I don't think, because it is a tremendous facility, but you could prevent it from falling into the harbor, and you could prevent it from threatening the communications with the neighboring docks permanently.

Senator CASE. Does the United States have any use for it except in time of war? Would United States vessels be using the docks if it were rehabilitated?

Senator KENNEDY. Perhaps Mr. Gulliver could answer that question. Mr. GULLIVER. The Navy has been using that pier for the last several years to the extent of 50,000 or 60,000 tons of cargo per year, and will continue to do so after rehabilitation.

General CARTER. That is correct, sir. They have a commercial operator who leases it, and when the Army has any cargo that comes in and out of Boston, it goes to that dock and is handled by that commercial operator. It will continue under any system the Commonwealth sets up.

Senator CASE. Is it proposed to be operated by the port authority or by the subcontractor?

Mr. GULLIVER. The actual lessee would be the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which would in turn hand it over to the Port of Boston Commission, its agency for handling port facilities for operation.

Senator CASE. If that is done, will the United States pay some sort of berthing fees for use of the piers?

Mr. GULLIVER. That remains to to be worked out. I expect there would be some small charge.

General CARTER. There would be some charge, yes, sir, because it wouldn't be exactly berthing fees, but of course, the commercial operator has to pay his own expenses and whatnot.

And since we do not run a port there with our own people, we would have to pay more or less what it would cost us at a commercial facility. We gain, of course, in this, the maintenance and upkeep of this pier for these 25 years, and then perhaps for another 25 years.

Senator CASE. Of course, if the Army were operating it and permitted commercial shipping to use it, presumably the Army would collect fees from the commercial users.

General CARTER. The Army at no place is in the commercial shipping business.

Senator CASE. When you lease it to the Maritime Commission, what happens to fees there?

General CARTER. They go into miscellaneous receipts of the Treas

ury.

Senator CASE. The Maritime Commission takes the responsibility for maintaining it?

General CARTER. There is a problem in this pier. The Maritime Commission has responsibility for maintenance of the superstructure. The Army has had responsibility for maintenance of the substructure, and we have spent several million dollars in maintenance on this pier in the past 15 years.

In fact, between 1947 and 1953 there has been about $42 million spent on maintenance of this Army base.

Senator CASE. In 5 years or 6 years?

General CARTER. 6 years.

Senator DUFF. Under the provisions provided for in this arrangement, who has the responsibility for maintenance?

Senator SALTONSTALL. The Commonwealth, under terms to be worked out. There has been a broad general agreement, Senator Duff, in the Governor's office, that is my understanding of it. I was not there; Mr. Gulliver was there, and these conditions as to the Commonwealth putting in a million dollars and to maintain and repair and the upkeep for these 25 years is its responsibility.

Am I not correct, General?

General CARTER. That is correct.

Senator DUFF. If that is the case, on the basis of the figures that the General has just given, it is a pretty good deal for the Government on the basis of saving what you have expended in the last 5 years, if that would be a continuous proceeding, left as it is.

General CARTER. Well, as the Senators from Massachusetts have pointed out, we have got to spend some more money immediately. The pier was repaired in the late 1930's by building a sheet pile, steel sheet pile bulkhead around it. Unfortunately when it was built back in the First World War, the buildings on the pier were put on untreated pilings.

In the 1930's we put this sheet-steel pilings around the pier for the sole purpose of holding the earth fill. The earth was pumped in, thereby keeping the marine borers out from these untreated pilings.

About 3 years ago a very peculiar situation developed. It had not developed up to that time. The corrosion began to progress very rapidly on this steel piling, and there are large holes that have developed in it, so that the fill is running out of the holes. The water is going in, and the marine borers are getting back to the untreated piling, and the situation is bad.

We will fix it by putting in a concrete gravity retaining wall around the whole thing, filling it in with earth, and then it is fixed, as Mr. Gulliver has stated, for 60 years. It will last for an awfully long time, but we have got to do something about it. There is no question about that.

Senator SALTONSTALL. At the risk of talking too much, Senator Duff, I would just say this: That if you should come in Boston Harbor today from the sea, that pier just stands right out. It is the pier of Boston Harbor.

We have some other fine piers, but this is the best one, and the most prominent one, and with the best water up to it, and if this pier should collapse into Boston Harbor it is just unbelievable to me to visualize it. Now, if nothing is done it is going to collapse into Boston Harbor. Senator DUFF. You would have an extreme hazard to navigation should it collapse at that point.

Senator SALTONSTALL. If it collapses, we would be on somebody's head down here to dig it out, and to dig it out is going to cost a lot of

money.

Senator CASE. I notice section 3 of the bill provides:

In the event that a lease is entered into under this act, the Department of the Army, or any other department or agency of the United States, which, prior to the entering into such lease, was furnishing necessary utilities or services to the leased property, may, upon the request of the lessee, continue to provide such utilities or services.

What agencies or departments are involved in supplying the utilities or services?

General CARTER. The Department of the Army has a powerplant on the pier which will probably not be included in the lease. I say the pier. It is not the pier, but the Boston Army Base.

That provision is in there so that we will be able to supply those utilities, of course, at an agreed cost to the pier itself. They are all tied in together, and I believe the electric power comes through a substation which will still be under Army control. That is a provision set up in there to give us authority to work out those details in the agreement.

Senator CASE. Do the letters inserted in the record explain what the provisions are of the act that are waived, the act of June 30, 1932, the act of Sepember 28, 1951, General?

General CARTER. The letters do not; no, sir.

Senator CASE. If not, the Chair would like to ask that you prepare a memorandum explaining what sections are waived so that they can be used in the possible compilation of the report.

General CARTER. We can give you that verbally, I believe, sir, right

now.

Senator CASE. What are they?

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, the act of June 30, 1932, would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from making this long-term lease prior to