continue to use this for public purposes because of its very design. designed primarily for a Century 21 Exposition, very radically, and it could not be continued in use for public purposes later on. This was my authority for questioning the word "continue," as it may not necessarily be used for public purposes.

Mr. DODDS. I think Mr. Hersh can say something on that.

Mr. HERSH. I think the use of the word "continue" was primarily intended to apply to the use of the property after the exposition is over. It is not said too well, perhaps, but that is the intent of it. Mr. KARTH. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

Mr. SISK. Your language, as I understand it now in the proposed amendment to the bill, on your first amendment, of course calls for the conveyance, more or less as a grant, free of any cost from the Federal Government to the city of Seattle or the State of Washington.

Mr. DODDS. That is right.

Mr. SISK. Do I understand that is what the city of Seattle wants? Mr. DODDS. I meant to bring this up before. I have a copy of a telegram coming to you signed by Gordon S. Clinton, mayor of Seattle, which I would like to submit for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you read it?

Mr. DODDS (reading):

Following series of conferences with various city officials meeting was held this morning with David Levine, president of the Seattle City Council; J. D. Brannan, chairman of city council budget and finance committee; Bob Jones, chairman of city council utilities commission; Ewen D. Dingwall, Century 21 Exposition director; and myself. I am pleased to report unanimous acceptance of amendatory language proposed by Representative Overton BrooksThe CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute. I did not propose that. Mr. DODDS. That is not strictly correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the record show it is not strictly correct.

Mr. DODDS. As chairman, he assumed you had offered it. (Continues reading :)

as received by Mr. Dingwall Tuesday. Not only are we in accord with protective guarantee wisely sought by the U.S. Government as included in amendment, but we heartily endorse viewpoints that this Government investment must have a direct public use following conclusion of the exposition. To implement this latter program we have for past several months had separate discussions with various public agencies relative to possible further acquisition of the Federal pavilion. To bring this thinking to a head I am calling together a representative group, including the University of Washington, the Port of Seattle, the National Science Planning Board and other public agencies and industries to explore the plans advanced today. These plans which envision acquisition of the pavilion for uses of science research center, a science museum, and a foreign trade center are motivated by a view we all share: Namely, that the investment of the U.S. Government in this magnificent display of science should have continued benefits, especially to our youth in decades to come. You may be assured of continued support and wholehearted cooperation of this office.

Mr. SISK. Do you understand, Mr. Dodds, that implies their acquiescence to this approach, then?

Mr. DODDS. Yes, indeed.

Mr. SISK. Let me ask the gentleman from General Services this question: Is there authority either exercised or implied, either in this case or any other case of similar nature, priority, in the security

or returning of that property to the agency which makes a grant of land?

Mr. HERSH. So far as I know, there is nothing in our statute that requires a granting of priority, to, let us say, in this case, the city of Seattle.

Mr. SISK. Is there ever any consideration of priority for a city, county, or any other public agency of any type, where they have made an outright grant to the Federal Government of land, that at the time of the disposition of that property, that is given any consideration?

Mr. DODDS. May I say this, under our act we are required first to screen for Federal utilization, and that is what we do.

If the city or the county-whichever it might be makes the appropriate application pursuant to the act, and let us say another city or the State were to make a similar application, then I think, I am not certain-I think the fact that the city may have originally granted the land to the Government, let us say, without consideration, might be given consideration.

However, as I mentioned before, our act does not require or set up any priorities in sofar as State, municipalities, or counties are concerned.

I will ask Mr. Roos, whether on the basis of his experience he has ever run into that situation.

Mr. Roos. There have been bills introduced into Congress which have authorized and directed the Administrator of the General Services Administration to reconvey properties to cities and municipalities where those properties were donated to the Government for a specific purpose and the Government has not used the property for that specific purpose, and I am sure the gentleman is aware of many of those bills.

Mr. SISK. I am fully aware of it. This question has come up many times, with further reference to properties made available free of charge to the Federal Government during World War II, for example, for airports, for bases-made available by counties and other subdivisions to the Federal Government, there comes a time for the disposal of all of that property. I am a little bit curious.

As I understand the requirement, assuming there was no need stated by any Federal agency at the time that came when you had to divest yourself of this property-that is general services and the fair market value of a piece of property given to the Federal Government by the city of Seattle, in fee simple with a value of a million dollars, are you going to turn around and ask the city to pay that million dollars, based upon the fair market value in other words, if the statute requires that or if you have some flexibility of consideration in the matter?

Mr. Roos. If the city applies for the property within the meaning of our act for public purposes, either for health or recreation, or for parks, and these applications are approved, we would then pursuant to the bill be required to convey the properties in accordance with the act. If it were for health and education purposes through the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 100 percent would be conveyed without consideration.

If, on the other hand, the reconveyance was made for park purposes through the Department of the Interior, it would be required to pay the 50 percent of fair market value of the land and current improvement. If, on the other hand, there is no regular application through regular channels for this property but merely application on the part of the city of Seattle to have this property reconveyed, not for any public use described in the act, we are authorized to negotiate with the city of Seattle but the law requires we negotiate at the fair market value.

Mr. SISK. Thank you.

Mr. FULTON. Would you yield on that, Mr. Sisk? Without the amendment, there is the possibility this property or whatever is erected on the fee simple real estate could be disposed of at auction sale and go to somebody for a corporate or a private or a business use. Isn't that right?

Mr. Roos. Yes, sir. If there is no application.

Mr. FULTON. And if you cannot get together on the applications and what the value is, there would be a possibility that some future persons in the General Services Administration would say, well, we will just sell it at public auction and if you want to get it, you can bid; but if we put the amendments in, then it could only go for public use. It can only be used for public use. Is that right?

Mr. DODDS. That is right.

Mr. HERSH. That is right.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Could the gentleman yield on that point? It seems to me that what you say would only be the case after the bonded indebtedness you refer to has been retired, because, as long as that remains outstanding, no private interest could purchase this for anybody for private use.

It has to be devoted to public use.

Mr. FULTON. There would be a conflict between the Federal statutes and the constitution of the State of Washington, as to which one is going to have the precedence-whether the Federal rights to dispose of its property placed on real estate owned by either the State of Washington or a subdivision of it, and a city would be that which comes first, or whether the State constitution comes first, because the personal property or the building or the contents or the fixtures have then become real estate and subject to the law of Washington, as a matter of real property.

In order to get out of all that question, that is why we have the amendments.

The second thing I would point out is this-
Mr. HALL. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. FULTON. Let me get my second point in.

The reason for having a building that is not a symposium of three beehives, or that is 200 feet high and built on a point with an entrance under water-in order to conform with what is a public-building standard in that area, is to satisfy the city of Seattle and to have it for later, for science, education, and development. That is my point: Rather, than have it in the report we might draw up, to have us specifically state what we want the architect to do something for public use later and there is where I might be disagreeing with the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Karth. Because I want it not for this par

ticular affair alone, and I feel any building that is built for a 2-year fair is a permanent building, just as the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Daddario, said.

Mr. HALL. I just wanted to make a statement on the point he was making at that particular time about private use, because, in the testimony given here in this bill when it was first considered there was a statement made that certain negotiations had been carried on with some steamship company for the possible disposal of this building or property after the fair was concluded.

Mr. FULTON. Yes; that is right.

The CHAIRMAN. I think everybody has pretty well had an opportunity to be heard here.

Mr. DADDARIO. I have just one question.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Daddario.

Mr. DADDARIO. I would ask the gentleman from GSA if this amendment is passed, what it does is restrict you and forecloses you out from selling at private sale in the event this is no Government or public use that this property is put to.

Mr. Roos. No public use, yes.

Mr. DADDARIO. If all this money were to be put in the property and the building is built in accordance with Mr. Fulton's ideas, along that line of architecture, there would be no Government use, and it would be just lying fallow there and you would not be able to do anything with it.

Mr. MILLER. That would be a white elephant, I believe.

Mr. HERSH. Unless the city of Seattle could use it.

Mr. DADDARIO. I say, if no Government or Federal, or State or city or county organization would want it whatever it might be you would finally reach the point where that building could not be sold except to a private buyer, a steamship company who might be able to purchase it and get back some of the money that had been put into it. Mr. HERSH. That would appear to be so.

Mr. FULTON. It would withhold the temptation to hold it off and sell it for a good price to a private company, when it could be used for public purposes and cannot agree on the price.

Mr. WOLF. I would just like to have the record show I think this is a good deal for the city of Seattle. I think they should pursue it very graciously. I think we are being very generous, and I do not want to share in that generosity.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

Mr. MILLER. I just wonder if, in view of Mr. Fulton's last statement he could enlarge on it, if the Government can get a good deal whether we should not get the maximum for the Treasury on this thing, rather than have a white elephant on our hands for 20 years or until the time the bonds expire?

Mr. FULTON. I would be glad to answer that.

I believe, as the city of Seattle has pointed out, we should try to make this into a center for science, education, and research. If we do aim for that, the likelihood is that the local agencies will cooperate, and we will have the kind of a building that will be used for that. If we do not do it on this basis, I have seen some designs that show three

things that look like beehive coke ovens put together, and it is going to be a very peculiar type building.

You just have to make up your minds whether the building is for this fair alone or is for permanent public value for the city of Seattle in the State of Washington. To me that is the aiming of it.

Mr. DODDS. Mr. Chairman, could we clarify what may be a growing misconception of this building? It worries me thinking of something tottering 200 feet in the air on a point. I think Mr. Miller could shed a little light on it.

Mr. FRANCIS MILLER. I would be most happy to do so with the Chair's permission.

The CHAIRMAN. Tell us about the point.

Mr. MILLER. I have every confidence in Mr. Miller. I think he is a very fine gentleman.

Mr. FRANCIS MILLER. Many months ago a preliminary design was drawn by an architect in Seattle which he called an icosahedron. I may be wrong, but I think the definition is a building with 100 sides. This was never seriously considered. It looked like a put-and-take top, and we never seriously considered it as a design at any time.

So far as the so-called three dumplings are concerned, Mr. Fulton, I hope I made that clear in my testimony last week this was not a design for a building. This was really a working drawing, a drawing we put on paper to see how large a building we needed. We wished to study the type of exhibits we would have in it. The so-called core exhibits would be basic research exhibits and we would need, we thought, about 60 in each of the 4 areas which would be the basis of this building, the life sciences, man, energy, and space.

We felt probably we would need three times as many exhibits in the technological area, so this was merely a working drawing of a flow manner for circulation within the building, and I would be the first to say that I object strenuously to the so-called cloverleaf or beehive as we have seen it, and I might also say it is very easy to confuse it with the design of a building. I hope this adequately explains it. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

Mr. Miller, is it not also true, generally, in expositions and you have had some experience with them, that some general overall theme is adopted as to its architecture and buildings are made to more or less conform to that general plan?

Mr. FRANCIS MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLER. And those building, being in the exposition fair, are generally put up of a monumental type or attractive type, rather, than for their other utility?

Mr. FRANCIS MILLER. That is true.

Mr. MILLER. That is generally the case?

Mr. FRANCIS MILLER. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. And, is it not true that the talk about the beehive or triple dumplings that my friend speaks of—I was out to Las Vegas sometime ago as a member of this committee to attend the Congress of Flight and the city of Las Vegas is putting up a new building to attract conventions from all over the country and, isn't it substantially the thing you have gone, but two instead of three, the theater and one round building, substantially two-thirds of a dumpling? Have you seen it?