ENCLOSURE 2. MAJOR CHICAGO TRADE ASSOCIATIONS IN THE FOOD AND CONTAINER FIELDS A. FOODS Chicago Candy Association, 306 North Union Avenue Independent Grocers' Alliance Distribution Co., 131 South Wabash Avenue Mayonnaise & Salad Dressing Manufacturers Association, 100 East Ohio Street National Association of Retail Grocers, 360 North Michigan Avenue National Association of Retail Meal & Food Dealers, Inc., 500 North Dearborn National Cheese Institute, Inc., 100 North Franklin Street National Confectioners' Association of the United States, Inc., 36 South Wabash Avenue National Fruit & Syrup Manufacturers Association, 38 South Dearborn Street National Pickle Packers Association, 202 South Marion Street, Oak Park National Retail Tea & Coffee Merchants Association, 222 West North Bank Drive National Soup Mix Association, 125 East Church Street, Libertyville National Split Pea Association, 332 South Michigan Avenue Research & Development Associates, Food & Container Institute, Inc., 1849 West Pershing Road Salt Producers Association, 231 North La Salle Street American Meat Institute, 59 East Van Buren Street American Meat Institute Foundation, 939 East 57th Street National Live Stock Producers Association, 139 North Clark Street National Live Stock and Meat Board, 407 South Dearborn Street Packers & Sausage Manufacturers Association, 100 W. Monroe Street Cereal Institute, Inc., 135 South La Salle Street Chicago Association of Stock Exchange Firms, 120 South La Salle Street Association of Vitamin Chemists, Inc., 7737 South Chicago Avenue American Butter Institute, 110 North Franklin Street American Dairy Association, 20 North Wacker Drive American Dry Milk Institute, 221 North La Salle Street American Farm Bureau Federation, 2300 Merchandise Mart Evaporated Milk Association, 228 North La Salle Street Illinois Dairy Products Association, 309 West Jackson Boulevard Milk Foundation, Inc., 28 East Huron Street National Cheese Institute, Inc., 110 North Franklin Street National Dairy Council, 111 North Canal Street National Poultry, Butter & Egg Association, 110 North Franklin National Soybean Processors Association, 3818 Board of Trade Building Pure Milk Association, 343 South Dearborn Street American Bakers Association, 20 North Wacker Drive American Institute of Baking, 400 East Ontario Street American Society of Bakery Engineers, 121 West Wacker Drive Associated Food Retailers of Greater Chicago, Inc., 500 North Dearborn Street Bakers Club of Chicago, 112 West Randolph Street Canned Chop Suey Foods Industry, 332 South Michigan Avenue B. CONTAINERS Chicago Paper Box Suppliers Association, 1210 Ridgewood Drive, Northbrook Folding Paper Box Association of America, 222 West Adams Street STATEMENT OF RAYMOND J. SPAETH, VICE PRESIDENT, ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ON THE QUARTERMASTER RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING CENTER The motivation for this move is most commendable-it is being undertaken in the spirit of economy. The economies to be effected, however, will result from the closing of the 1819 West Pershing Road Depot, of some 1,868,280 square feet, of which the Food and Container Institute requires only approximately 148,000 square feet, or only 8 percent, and not from the specific relocation of this activity in Massachusetts. The proposed move of the Institute from Chicago will probably result in large new capital outlays and larger annual operating costs than if the facility were retained in Chicago. It may be said that economies from centralized administration are possible at Natick. Research experience has proved, however, that decentralized research is not only effective, but even desirable, if it is necessary for the proper environment. Chicago is the geographical center of the Nation's food industry. It is more accessible and readily available to all parts of the country, all of which is engaged in some aspect of the food industry. Chicago is the location for the Military Subsistence Supply Agency and the Army Subsistence Center, both of which of necessity must work in close collaboration with the Food and Container Institute. Effective research requires effective communication-the costs of added travel to the distant location on the east coast by representatives of the food industry, by representatives of the Government agencies using these facilities, and by those Government and public individual research workers, all of whom must be in constant touch with this facility for effective results, will substantially exceed expenditures necessary for these contacts in Chicago. These added costs alone will more than offset any possible operating economies of the proposed location. The cost of a new facility for this operation, including land, buildings and equipment, would be no more, if not substantially less, in Chicago than in Natick. The cost of transporting present staff, recruiting new staff, disrupting and reactivation of the present program, could be avoided. Annual operating costs at Chicago would be less than at Natick. Illinois Institute of Technology, one of the Nation's outstanding technological and scientific institutions, has sufficient land available immediately adjacent to its 110-acres campus for this activity. The institute's campus is part of Chicago's great urban renewal program, and is located just 3 miles south of Chicago's Loop. It is readily accessible to all forms of the city's transportation system. The campus has direct entrances to the city's new South Expressway, a part of the Federal Highway System. A scientific and engineering staff of 2,200 and 7,500 students provide a constant pool and source of scientific manpower. The research facilities of the Association of American Railroads, the Institute of Gas Technology, and Armour Research Foundation are located on the campus. Of an eventual building program of some 60 new buildings, estimated to cost in excess of $60 million, some 36 new buildings, estimated to cost in excess of $60 million, some 36 new buildings, costing in excess of $30 million, have already been built or are under construction. Included in these is the new John Crerar Library, the largest technological library in the United States. Already available on the campus are the necessary utilities such as steam for heating and processing, virtually every form of research services from glassblowing to all forms of metal process shops, and specialized laboratories, including large computers and a nuclear reactor. All of this manpower and facilities are available at their net cost to this possible new Government laboratory. If the Government does not care to appropriate the same or a substantially less amount for the construction of this facility in Chicago, the institute can, and is willing to, finance the construction of this necessary building, the physical facilities built to the Government's specifications, and make it available to the Government on terms which will just cover the cost involved. The institute has already provided the Army with a detailed proposal for a facility at the Illinois Institute of Technology campus. We urge your committee to reconsider this move and believe the retention of this operation in Chicago will, over the years, result in a more economical operation, a more effective research program for the food and container program of the Armed Forces and be more in the best interests of the food industry and the Nation. Senator STENNIS. What is the substance of what they say on that point? Are they willing to supply a building? Mr. WILSON. Well, they are not willing to give it but they are willing Senator STENNIS. Make it available? Mr. WILSON. Make is available on a rental basis, on a lease-back basis. Senator STENNIS. Do they name a figure? Mr. WILSON. No, sir; they do not. Senator DOUGLAS. May I ask, Mr. Wilson, are they willing to give the land? Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir; I believe they are willing to provide the land for this. Senator CANNON. The record here so far shows that the Illinois Institute of Technology offered to provide the facility on the campus for approximately $6 million which is about approximately $2.5 million more than the estimated cost of this facility in Natick. That prompted my question to Congressman Yates, and also Mr. Mason indicated earlier he thought the facilities could be furnished at about the same cost. If that is the proposal here, I think it should be clarified before the committee. Senator STENNIS. I join in your comment. We are talking about economies. We have to act on figures, gentlemen, and if there are any figures you have now, we are interested in them, but just the general statements do not mean anything. Mr. WILSON. May I make this observation, please? Senator STENNIS. Yes. Mr. WILSON. I think if we had specifications then we could determine the cost relationship between Natick and Chicago. We cannot just speculate and each man pick his own specifications and come up with figures and make any sense at all. Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Wilson, is it not true that the estimate of the Illinois Institute is for a very much larger space than is provided for in the Natick building and that, therefore, the comparison on a cubic foot basis, there is no comparison on a cubic foot basis? Mr. WILSON. That is my understanding. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, does the remark of Senator Cannon pertain to a building which is the same size as the present building in Chicago or to one which has a square footage which has been reduced by 75 percent? Senator STENNIS. I think the Senator was speaking from a memorandum here in the record from the Army itself. Senator CANNON. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. It does not give a footage, but just simply states, in subparagraph 6 of the memorandum covering the subject: The Illinois Institute of Technology has offered to provide a facility on their campus for approximately $6 million and furnish support at cost. As indicated by the comparative new construction costs, $6 million versus $3,628,000 total at Natick, such a facility does not allow for the basic economies that can be achieved by consolidating at Natick. Mr. YATES. It would be well to interrogate the Army to find out whether the two buildings are comparable. Senator STENNIS. All right. before the committee now is what further facts do you ? Senator DOUGLAS. May I ask another question? Do you have something further? Mr. WILSON. I will defer to Senator Douglas. Senator DOUGLAS. Before we pass this, I would like to point out that the real test of a comparison of costs is the square footage or cubic content, not to compare a small building in Natick with a large building in Chicago. You can cut down the building in Chicago to the size of the Natick building and that would be a fair comparison. But there is one question I would like to ask Mr. Wilson. I have heard rumors that there is to be a new radiation and food preservation center; is that true? Mr. WILSON. I have heard that same statement. Senator DOUGLAS. Is it true that a committee has been set up to select a site for this? me, too. Mr. WILSON. I heard the rumor; it is a rumor with Senator DOUGLAS. Did you hear that this committee consists of three men from the Natick center and one from outside? Mr. WILSON. I heard this, too. Senator DOUGLAS. Doesn't this indicate that if the Food and Container Institute goes that you will have a radiation and food preservation center there, too; isn't that correct? Mr. WILSON. That would be my understanding logically. Senator DOUGLAS. Was there a visit paid in Chicago by a certain colonel from Natick who seemed to find the Chicago administration center to which you referred well suited for these new uses? Mr. WILSON. That is my understanding, sir. Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Chairman, I think that this is simply one of the entering wedges, blowing Natick up; it has already started and it is going to expand, so you have all the center of the research of the Quartermaster Corps centered in this cold and distant New England town far removed from the canning industry, the food containers, the food industry of the country. As I say, if this is done, then I am going to insist that the Institute of Tropical Diseases go to Alaska. Senator STENNIS. Gentlemen, do you have anything further? Mr. YATES. I have one last comment, if the chairman please. I refer the attention of the committee to page 7 of the report of the GAO, and I think, Senator Cannon, in view of your comment on what appeared in that specification, you will be interested in what this says. It says this: We found by analyzing the current costs at CAC and the projected plans and related costs for relocating all present CAC tenants, that— 1. The possible annual savings are substantially less than those estimated by the Army. More importantly, most of the savings which may be realized are contingent upon the ability of the Army to perform the operations within the sharply reduced space requirements estimated by the Army for the relocation sites. 2. The savings estimated by the Army were inflated because: (a) Army estimates for support costs at the relocation sites were substantially underestimated. The effect of this on the overstatement of savings, however, is partially offset since the Army also understated current CAC support costs. Our estimates of recurring and nonrecurring costs and savings in comparison with those of the Army are summarized in the following tables and are discussed below. I suggest that the Senate may want to remember that in the Army's comparison of these two costs, we have this comment by GAO as to what validity one should place upon the figures the Army has offered. Senator STENNIS. Very good. I am glad it is in the record. Now, gentlemen, as I understand it, that completes the primary or principal part of your presentation; is that correct? Mr. YATES. This is true, Senator. I think this record should show the fact that I had misinterpreted the statement of Chicago's offer. I had stated the industries were going to offer these buildings without charge. Apparently what happened was that the IIT had proposed to offer the land for the buildings. Senator STENNIS. All right. That is a detail we understand. We have here the proponents for the item and we should now proceed with them. Gentlemen, don't leave the room, please. My idea is for you to stay, if you can, while the other, so-called, side is heard. Is General Seeman in the room? Come up to the table where you can hear these witnesses. I am going to ask Senator Saltonstall if he will proceed. He is a member of our committee and I know he is interested. We are glad to have you here, Senator, and those who may support you, and you proceed in your own way. STATEMENT OF HON. LEVERETT SALTONSTALL, A MEMBER OF THE U.S. SENATE FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, may I say as a member of this committee, I thank the committee for its hearing. I would like to point out just a very few things, and then I have a very brief statement. I would say I am appearing here in behalf of Senator Kennedy, my colleague, and myself. I have a prepared statement from Congressman Joe Martin in whose congressional district this laboratory at Natick is situated. I will put that letter in the record. Senator STENNIS. We are glad to have it in the record. (The statement referred to follows:) Hon. JOHN STENNIS, Chairman, Military Construction Subcommittee, Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR STENNIS: I would like to be recorded in favor of the proposed transfer of the Army Quartermaster food and food container research facilities to the Quartermaster Research and Engineering Center at Natick, Mass. ! To integrate the Quartermaster research and engineering activities at the Natick center would result in economies and greater efficiency and would make the operations of the command more effective. Over and above the financial advantages to be realized from the relocation of the Food and Food Container Institute, the technical advantages would appear to be immeasurable. It is a well known fact that the effectiveness of any research and engineering project depends in a large degree upon the opportunities for intercommunication between experts of various scientific experience and capabilities. There is too great a distance between Massachusetts and Chicago to provide the effective cooperation which integrated forces at Natick would promote. |