Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. MALETZ. I show you a document which has been made available to us by GSA and ask you whether that is an accurate copy of a list which purportedly was sent to CIA.

Mr. STROBEL. Actually I believe this list was made up for another purpose in order to arrive at a selection for another large project.

The CHAIRMAN. What project was that!
Mr. STROBEL. It might possibly have been the Smithsonian.
The CHAIRMAN. What was involved in that building?
Mr. STROBEL. That is estimated to cost $37 million.

The CHAIRMAX. Is the name of De Young, Moscowitz & Rosenberg on that list?

Mr. STROBEL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And that firm of De Young, Moscowitz & Rosenberg was one of the architects that might be used in the Smithsonian or some other building?

Mr. STROBEL. They were on the list together with the other outstanding firms in New York City and other cities.

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Strobel, was that list sent to CIA according to your recollection?

Mr. STROBEL. According to a note here it was.
Mr. KEATING. How many names are on that list?
Mr. STROBEL. Eleven.

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer that document in evidence. That list contains the names of 14 architects, does it not? Would you like to have the list before you?

(The document referred to is as follows:)

LIST OF OUTSTANDING ARCHITECTS Who SUBMITTED QUESTIONNAIRE INFORMATION

REQUESTED BY LETTER OF JULY 20, 1955 1. Saarinen & Associates, Detroit.

Smith, Hinchman & Grylls, Inc., Detroit. 2. Graham, Anderson, Probst & White, Chicago.

Urbahn, Brayton & Burrows, New York City.

R. A. Willgoos and D. C. Chase, Alexandria, Va. 3. Kelly & Gruzen, New York City. 4. McKimm, Meade & White, New York City. 5. La Pierre, Litchfield & Partners, New York City. 6. Kahn & Jacobs, New York City. 7. Harrison & Abramovitz, New York City. 8. Shreve, Lamb & Harmon Associates, New York City. 9. Eggers & Higgins, New York City. 10. Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson & Abbott, Boston. 11. De Young, Moscowitz & Rosenberg, New York City.

Mr. STROBEL. There are 11 firms; there may be 14 architects.

Mr. MALETZ. There are 11, but the first is a combination of architects.

Mr. STROBEL. Right.

Mr. MALETZ. Why don't you have this list? I think you might consult that list.

Mr. KEATING. Who put that notation on the bottom "sent to CIA”? The only reason I raise that is that you said something about the Smithsonian Institution. I don't know how important it is.

Mr. STROBEL. I don't know who put that note on it. That is just a matter for the record.

Mr. MALETZ. That was furnished to the committee by the General Services Administration. That is the original document that was made available to the committee.

Mr. FINE. From Mr. Mansure's office ?
Mr. MALETZ. Yes.

Mr. STROBEL. Then this note was put on at the time this was given to you?

Mr. MALETZ. Yes, that was on the document which was made available to us.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hill?
Mr. Hill. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. You gave that document to us, did you not!

Mr. HILL. Yes, I can explain that, I believe. That is my handwriting on there. One of the men from my office.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your connection with the GSA?

TESTIMONY OF JOHN E. HILL, DIRECTOR OF COMPLIANCE

DIVISION, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Mr. HILL. Director of Compliance Division. Mr. KEATING. Let's have this witness sworn along with the others.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. HILL. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. What is your full name?
Mr. Hill. John E. Hill.

The CHAIRMAN. You sent that document you have in your hand to this committee, did you not?

? Mr. HILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a document you took out of the files of the GSA?

Mr. HILL. Yes.

Mr. MALETZ. Were you led to believe by people in the Public Buildings Service that that was a true and accurate copy of a list of architects that was sent by the Public Buildings Service to the CIA?

Mr. Hill. I was, sir. I can explain how that occurred if you care to hear it.

Mr. MALETZ. Would you please!

Mr. HILL. Mr. Ray Dineen, who was one of the special agents in our office, was sent to the Commissioner's Office to request information as to what names had been submitted to CIA. He brought this document back with him, but upon the face of the document it did not indicate that these particular names had been submitted to CIA and I am sure that I wrote that notation on it at the time that Mr. Dineen brought this back-from-I don't know whether it was the Commissioner's Office or one of his immediate subordinates up there.

. Mr. FINE. I just don't understand. You said the Commissioner's Office before, too; whom did you refer to?

Mr. Hill. I think the Commissioner's Office adjoins-
Mr. FINE. Which Commissioner?
Mr. Hill. Commissioner of Public Buildings Service. Mr. Strobel.

Mr. FINE. Mr. Dineen went to Mr. Strobel's office; that is what you were saying?

Mr. ÅILL. That is right.

Mr. RODINO. You learned from whom that purported to be sent to the CIA?

Mr. HILL. From Mr. Dineen.
Mr. RODINO. Then you added that notation?
Mr. HILL. Yes.
Mr. KEATING. Who is Mr. Dineen?

Mr. HILL. He is one of the investigators in the Office of Compliance and Security of GSA.

Mr. KEATING. And you are the head of that office ?
Mr. Hill. I am not the head of the office; I am head of division, of

I the Compliance Division.

Mr. KEATING. Who is the head of the office ?
Mr. HILL. Baron Shacklette.

Mr. KEATING. Whom have you been with at Public Buildings Administration!

Mr. HILL. I am with General Services Administration. I have been with them since its inception in 1949 and the predecessor agency in 1946.

Mr. KEATING. Did you deliver a lot of these documents to the counsel for this committee?

Mr. HILL. Yes, sir. I think in most instances counsel for the committee selected the documents that he wanted photostated or copies from the files himself.

Mr. KEATING. He came down to your office ?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir.
Mr. KEATING. And you worked with him in getting the documents ?
The CHAIRMAN. What is this? A cross-examination?
Mr. KEATING. I want to ask some questions about this.
The CHAIRMAN. I don't think the questions are pertinent.
Mr. KEATING. We want to know what is behind it.

The CHAIRMAN. I can tell you what is behind it. You are not going to impugn the credibility of a man like this who simply forwarded documents to us.

Mr. KEATING. You are getting rather touchy about impugning credibility.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed with the examination.
Mr. KEATING. I want to ask some questions.
The CHAIRMAN. You are out of order.
Mr. KEATING. What kind of a hearing is this?

The CHAIRMAN. You can put any kind of a complexion you want on the hearing.

Mr. KEATING. I am denied the opportunity to ask questions of this witness?

The CHAIRMAN. You can ask him questions a little later on. I want to continue the testimony of Mr. Strobel.

Mr. KEATING. I think it is very pertinent now that the documents came up:

The CHAIRMAN. You are out of order. You will get your chance. Go ahead with Mr. Strobel.

Mr. KEATING. I hope the witness will be directed not to leave the room.

The CHAIRMAN. He will not leave.

Mr. MALETZ. This list contains the names of 14 architects; does it not, Mr. Strobel ?

a

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct. Architectural firms I should say:

Mr. MALETZ. Is it correct that one of the architects whose name was submitted to CIA was Urbahn, Brayton & Burrows?

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.

Mr. MALETz. Is it correct that Urbahn, Brayton & Burrows is a client of Strobel & Salzman?

Mr. STROBEL. They have been in the past.

Mr. MALETZ. Is it correct that that list includes the architectural firm of Kelly & Gruzen!

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.

Mr. MALETZ. And is it correct that Kelly & Gruzen is a client of Strobel & Salzman?

Mr. STROBEL. Did counsel say is or has been?
Mr. MALETZ. Is or has been.
Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.

Mr. MALETZ. Is Kelly & Gruzen presently a client of Strobel & Salzman?

Mr. STROBEL. They might be.
The CHAIRMAN. They might be ?
Mr. STROBEL. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. You are not sure they are not?
Mr. STROBEL. I am not sure they are or they are not.

Mr. MALETZ. Is it correct that that list includes the architectural firm of Harrison & Abramovitz?

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.

Mr. MALETZ. Is it correct that Harrison & Abramovitz has been or is a client of Strobel & Salzman?

Mr. STROBEL. That is a matter of opinion whether they are clients of Strobel & Salzman. They appear on the list that I submitted to Mr. Mansure, a list of clients of Strobel & Salzman. However, we have only done one project with them.

The CHAIRMAN. One what?

Mr. STROBEL. One project for that firm. And they were directed by the builder or the owner to use us. They are not regular clients of ours.

Mr. MALETZ. Is it correct that the list includes the architectural firm of Eggers & Higgins?

& Mr. STROBEL. That is correct. Mr. MALETZ. Is Eggers & Higgins a client of Strobel & Salzman? Mr. STROBEL. They are.

Mr. MALETZ. About how many projects has Strobel & Salzman performed for Eggers & Higgins since May 1, 1953 ?

Mr. STROBEL. It might be 2 or 3.

Mr. MALETZ. Does that list include the name of Shreve, Lamb & Harmon as a client of Strobel & Salzman?

Mr. STROBEL. They have not been a client of the firm for quite a number of years, maybe as many as 6 years. They were previously.

Mr. MALETZ. Is it correct that that list includes the name of De Young, Moscowitz & Rosenberg ?

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not correct that at the time this list was sent to CIA, Strobel & Salzman had a contract with De Young & Rosenberg amounting to something under $30,000 ?

Mr. STROBEL. That would be a matter of comparing the dates as to when this was sent and the date of the letter canceling the agreement between Strobel & Salzman and De Young, Moscowitz & Rosenberg?

Mr. MALETZ. If this list was sent over to CIA in July, would it be correct that Strobel & Salzman as of that time had this contract with De Young, Moscowitz & Rosenberg?

Mr. STROBEL. That would be correct.

Mr. MALET2. It is correct then, is it not, that 6 of the 11 or 14 architectural firms submitted to CIA were or are clients of your firm?

Mr. STROBEL. In answer to that, I would say that it is correct and it goes to prove the high caliber of clientele, Strobel & Salzman has been able to establish.

In other words it would be impossible to give fair consideration to the qualified firms without running across some people that I had business with as a partner of Strobel & Salzman.

Mr. KEATING. There were a great many architectural firms that you had had business with that were not on that list, I take it.

Mr. STROBEL. Oh, yes.

Mr. KEATING. Were all of those six firms that are mentioned here, New York City firms?

Mr. STROBEL. Yes, I think they are.

Mr. KEATING. There are several from other cities than New York, are there?

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct, there are some from Detroit and Chicago. Alexandria, Va., and Boston.

Mr. MALETZ. Do you recall receiving a letter on August 3, 1955, from Mr. Allen Dulles, head of the CIA, stating that he would like to select his architect for this CIA building, the New York City firm of Harrison & Abramovitz?

Mr. STROBEL. I do not believe that letter was sent to me.
Mr. MALETZ. I show you a document-

Mr. STROBEL. But I do believe I saw a letter which was addressed to Mr. Mansure.

Mr. MALETZ. I show you a document dated August 3, 1955, which is addressed to Mr. Mansure from Mr. Allen Dulles and ask you whether this is a true and accurate copy of the letter which had been received by GSA.

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.

Mr. MALETZ. Is that an accurate copy, Mr. Strobel, of a letter which had been received by GSA?

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.
Mr. MALETZ. I ask that that letter be introduced in evidence.
The CHAIRMAN. We accept it.
(The document referred to is as follows:)

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR,

Washington 25, D. C., August 3, 1955. Hon. EDMUND F. MANSURE Administrator, General Services Administration,

Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR. MANSURE: In title IV of Public Law No. 161, 84th Congress, and the Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1956, which awaits the President's signature, the Congress has authorized the Director of Central Intelligence to provide

« PreviousContinue »