OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF CAMP PERRY Mr. FORD. Who built Camp Perry in the first place? Colonel LEE. It is a State-owned National Guard camp. However, during World War II the Federal Government did obtain control of it and used it as an area to house German prisoners of war, and the Federal Government did put up these little tar-paper shacks. They are the ones we are now still improving. They are some 15 or 20 years old, but we are still using them and improving them for the competitors in the national matches. Mr. FORD. Is Camp Perry used by the Ohio National Guard? Mr. FORD. Other than when the national rifle matches are going on? Colonel LEE. It is. It is used for approximately 6 weeks prior to our going into the national matches. It is used by not only the State of Ohio, but other National Guard units, and they are sent in there by the 2d Army. Mr. FORD. I know in the case of Michigan National Guard the Federal Government does make contributions for operations and maintenance on an annual basis and does help and assist to some extent, as I recall, in the construction, permanent construction of facilities. Is that true, or has it been true at Camp Perry over the years? Colonel LEE. I am unaware of any permanent construction that has been done for the National Guard specifically by the Federal Government. There has been some done. The financial arrangement between the State and Federal Government, I have no knowledge of it and cannot speak. FEDERAL PAYMENTS FOR USE OF STATE-OWNED CAMP However, it is normal in the case of a State-owned camp that the Federal Government does pay certain sums of money according to the strengths of the units that are going to use it. Mr. FORD. General Duff, can you get for the record what these contributions have been in dollars, and for what purposes for the last 10 years at Camp Perry? General DUFF. I will provide it for the record. (The information to be supplied follows:) Federal payments for use of Camp Perry, 1950–60 Military Police Reserve training-150 individuals_ 2,000 59, 120 12, 173 Total 73, 293 Federal payments for use of Camp Perry, 1950–60—Continued FISCAL YEAR 1952 Military Police Reserve training—150 individuals....... Range repair for National Guard unit firing_ Total____ FISCAL YEAR 1953 Military Police Reserve training-150 individuals__ Modification and repairs to facilities, mess halls and warehouses for Opening and closing cost-National Guard_. Total-- FISCAL YEAR 1954 $2,000 6, 020 12,000 20, 020 2,000 70, 775 12, 346 85, 121 Effective 1 January 1954.1 Lease of 34.8 acres (Training, and support of - Military Police Reserve training-150 individuals_ Opening and closing cost-National Guard_ 10,000 7, 260 2,000 12, 479 18,248 Military Police Reserve training-150 individuals_ 10,000 23, 146 2,000 49, 974 45, 638 1 Lease for the 34.8 acres of Camp Perry will be cancelled when new Camp Perry lease becomes effective. 2 Service contracts include cost for electricity, water, sewage, maintenance of certain roads, buildings, facilities, grounds, dikes, fences, storm water and drainage systems, and furnishing firefighting service. These service contracts will be cancelled when new Camp Perry lease becomes effective. Federal payments for use of Camp Perry, 1950–60—Continued Additional rehabilitation of competitors mess. Military Police Reserve training-150 individuals_. Repairs and utilities-National Guard (17 latrines, 7 mess halls and commissary) – Opening and closing cost-National Guard____ $10,000 4,840 2,000 2, 193 34, 968 54, 001 10,000 10, 890 3,100 2,000 52, 150 17,779 95, 919 10.000 Camp improvement for national matches- Service contracts- Military Police Reserve training-150 individuals_. Repairs and utilities-National Guard___ Opening and closing cost-National Guard__ Total. 14, 600 14, 120 2,000 7,348 32, 107 80, 175 Colonel LEE. I would like to say one thing to complete my answer to you as to what arrangements have been made before. The Federal Government has leased this messhall I referred to with a capacity of 3,000. They have leased that and a cold storage plant and a little bit of acreage. It was originally leased by the Federal Government, that was used for other purposes than the national matches. We had the use of it. Some moneys have been paid to the State of Ohio. That can be determined. Mr. FORD. Whatever those arrangements were, General Duff, just so we have the full and complete picture. I am quite frank in saying, Colonel, I thought the way this arrangement was made a year ago without any warning whatsoever, at least to this committee, was a pretty shabby way this setup was undertaken. 1 never knew that this $150,000 a year was contemplated until Frank Orth came in to talk to me about it on an unofficial, but a very proper basis. I said, "Well, our committee, and as far as I know the Congress, has never been told of any such program, or of any such proposed arrangement." I think it was indefensible, the way it was handled. I can see why there is perhaps a need for some building program that results from this lease, but it does not excuse the way in which the authorities, whoever they might be, handled the information as far as the Congress is concerned. This committee has always been quite receptive. I just think somebody missed the boat in the way the information was conveyed to the responsible people in the House of Representatives. Colonel LEE. Yes, sir. Mr. FORD. As I remember, the final arrangement, the $150,000 for fiscal year 1961 was made available, but a word of caution was passed down the line that no contract should be made in any subsequent years until the matter had been justified to the Congress. It is my understanding what was intended at the time, the conference report between the House and Senate was agreed to. Is that not right, Mr. Sheppard? AMOUNT FOR CONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION Mr. SHEPPARD. Yes, it is. Out of the total requirements that you are asking for, what portion of your appropriation will be diverted for modification, or construction of physical properties? Colonel LEE. It is not contemplated any will be new construction, or modification. What we are to do is to rehabilitate what we have. Mr. SHEPPARD. That will be under the guise of maintenance? Colonel LEE. Yes; when I speak of modification, there will be nothing more severe than replacing tar paper with a better grade of asbestos. If that is modification, that is what we are doing, but we are not building new buildings. We are not altering the shape, or anything of the sort. It is maintenance, replacing tar paper with a better grade shingle. Mr. SHEPPARD. What portion of the sum you are requesting would fall within the category of maintenance, or modification, or both? Colonel LEE. I will have to supply that for the record. At the moment I do not have figures available on that. (The information to be supplied follows:) The total cost of rehabilitating Camp Perry is estimated to be $600,000. Of this amount the Ohio Legislature has appropriated $200,000. The balance, $400,000, is to be provided by the Federal Government over a period of 4 years of payments of $100,000 each year. Normal maintenance, rent, and utilities are at the rate of $50,000 per year. For the first 4 years, one-third of the total payment will be for maintenance, rent, and utilities and two-thirds for rehabilitation. During the remainder of the lease, all of the $50,000 payments will be for normal maintenance, rent, and utilities. Terms of the lease with the State of Ohio provide for the rehabilitation of existing facilities. No new buildings are to be constructed. In renovating the existing facilities it is necessary in several instances to replace obsolete and wornout items with new material, with modifications to suit the replacement. For example, some powerlines and telephone lines are so old and dilapidated that they are beyond repair, and will be replaced with new cable that is waterproof, permanent, and installed underground. Mr. SHEPPARD. There has just been handed me something having to do with the subject matter Mr. Ford referred to, Amendment 34: The National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice, Army, appropriates $501,000 as proposed by the Senate instead of $300,000 as proposed by the House. It is the understanding of the committee of conference that nothing in the lease of facilities from the State of Ohio shall be construed as creating an obligation on the part of the lessor to construct additional buildings, build additional roads, lay additional water mains or pipes, provide additional sewers, utility lines or facilites other than those now in existence. Further, the appropriation of $501,000 for the fiscal year 1961 is not to be construed as a commitment for the entire rehabilitation program at Camp Perry, Ohio. That language was rather definite and precise. Colonel LEE. Yes, sir. We are just repairing what we have. Mr. FORD. I gather from that language the Army is cautioned not to make a lease until the matter has been fully explored. That is the way I would read that. Do I understand such a lease is in the process of consummation? Colonel LEE. Yes, sir; an agreement. I do not know whether a lease is an agreement. There is an agreement being worked out with the State of Ohio. Mr. FORD. Has any effort been made to clear with this committee, or any other responsible committee, such a program? From reading that language, I get the impression no such lease or commitment has been made. Colonel LEE. It was not so interpreted within the Army, to my knowledge. Mr. FORD. This arrangement, would not involve the construction of additional buildings, building additional buildings, laying additional water mains or pipe, providing additonal sewers, utlity lines, or facilities other than those now in existence. Was that the basis upon which it was thought you could not go ahead? Colonel LEE. We did not take it as a "not go ahead." The very appropriation of this $150,000 for expenditure in 1961, we took this as instruction to spend this amount. Mr. FORD. For 1961? Colonel LEE. And to spend it on this program of not new construction, but repairing what we have. The agreement we have with Ohio has been to that purpose. Mr. FORD. There is no doubt about the authority to proceed in fiscal year 1961, that is clear. Colonel LEE. That is right. Mr. FORD. Despite the fact I think personally it was done in the wrong way without any justification in the hearings, any justification any place as far as the Congress is concerned. Colonel LEE. Yes, sir. TERMINATION PROVISIONS IN CAMP PERRY AGREEMENT Mr. FORD. That is water over the dam. But I am surprised a 25year lease is now in the mill without any further consultation, or notification. Colonel LEE. The agreement we have is a year-to-year agreement. When we speak of a 25-year lease, I think it is a complete misnomer. It is an agreement that can be terminated on 1 year's notice by either party. It can be terminated on the part of the Federal Government if the funds are not available. We will have to tell them we are not doing any more development. Mr. SHEPPARD. The contemplated lease, as I understand it, is an agreement from year to year with an estoppal clause and a 5-year limitation. Is that correct? In other words, this agreement shall be effected from year to year up to and not exceeding 5 years. Is that not correct? Colonel LEE. It will go along for 25 years. Mr. SHEPPARD. It is not a lease in its literal application? |