for a headquarters installation for the Central Intelligence Agency and has appropriated $5,500,000 to this Agency for the preparation of detail plans and specifications and for other purposes.

Our representatives have been working together on this project for several months and I appreciate the personal interest which you have shown in expediting it as much as possible. I am now in a position to select an architect which you and General Bragdon urged me so strongly to do when you called on me some weeks ago and which I discussed with you briefly today by telephone, I reviewed the list of architectural firms to which the Public Buildings Service mailed questionnaires and my representatives have examined the responses of some 57 of these firms which have been returned to date. Of these, it appears that Harrison & Abramovitz is at this time in a particularly good position to undertake this work and I am personally very much aware of their outstanding reputation. I have personally known Mr. Wallace Harrison for many years and believe he, as well as his partner, is particularly qualified to deal with certain of the specialized problems involved in a building for CIA. Subject to negotiation of a satisfactory contract, I should like to select this firm to perform the architectural and engineering services for this construction. I trust that this selection will be agreeable to you as I desire to proceed immediately with the necessary preliminary negotiations.

Sincerely yours,

ALLEN W. DULLES, Director.

The CHAIRMAN. The letter might be read. Read it, Mr. Maletz. Mr. MALETZ. This is to Hon. Edmund F. Mansure, Administrator, General Services Administration:

In title IV of Public Law 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 for a headquarters installation for the Central Intelligence Agency and has appropriated $5,500,000 to this Agency for the preparation of detail plans and specifications and for other purposes.

Our representatives have been working together on this project for several months and I appreciate the personal interest which you have shown in expediting it as much as possible. I am now in a position to select an architect which you and General Bragdon urged me so strongly to do when you called on me some weeks ago and which I discussed with you briefly today by telephone.

I reviewed the list of architectural firms to which the Public Buildings Service mailed questionnaries and my representatives have examined the responses of some 57 of these firms which have been returned to date. Of these, it appears that Harrison & Abramovitz is at this time in a particularly good position to undertake this work and I am personally very much aware of their outstanding reputation. I have personally known Mr. Wallace Harrison for many years and believe that he, as well as his partner, are particularly qualified to deal with certain of the specialized problems involved in a building for CIA. Subject to negotiation of a satisfactory contract, I should like to select this firm to perform the architectural and engineering services for this construction.

I trust that this selection will be agreeable to you as I desire to proceed immediately with the necessary preliminary negotiations.

Sincerely yours,

ALLEN W. DULLES, Director.

Mr. FINE. Who is that letter addressed to?

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Mansure.

Did you have several telephone conversations on the next day, August 4, with Mr. Mansure, concerning the selection of architects for the CIA building?

Mr. STROBEL. I think I did.

Mr. MALETZ. I show you a document, as photostatic copy of a transcript of that telephone conversation which I believe you have already identified.

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.

Mr. MALETZ. Is it correct that you identified this document this. morning?

Mr. STROBEL. That is the same document.

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask that this transcript of telephone conversation be offered in evidence.

The CHAIRMAN. Accepted.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

AUGUST 4, 1955.

MR. MANSURE CALLED MR. STROBEL 4:50 P. M. RE CIA ARCHITECT

Mr. MANSURE. Pete, on this CIA job. I got a call from Dulles. What is it about?

Mr. STROBEL. They are coming over tomorrow afternoon right after lunch. We are trying to work up list.

Mr. MANSURE. Is idea to have 2 or 3 on it?

Mr. STROBEL. It is a very big job.

Mr. MANSURE. I don't think we should have just one firm.

Mr. STROBEL. It will be a combination.

Mr. MANSURE. What about Bloomenthal's recommendation?
Mr. STROBEL. De Young & Moscowitz.

Mr. MANSURE. How do these firms stack up in quality?

Mr. STROBEL. I would like to show you the names (interrupted by Mr. Mansure). Mr. MANSURE. Is Moscowitz one of them?

Mr. STROBEL. Could be one of them but if considered they should be combined with strong local firm. There is a stronger firm than Willgoos & Chase-Louis Justement. We don't know if building will be in Maryland or Virginia.

Mr. STROBEL. If you get good smaller firm you are assured of the time of the principals.

Mr. MANSURE. They are pushing for a Federal office building in Chicago. I would rather not bring Chicago firm in on this. Take New York, Washington, Cleveland, etc. Chicago firm got Air Force job in Colorado.

Mr. STROBEL. One other consideration on CIA is that State Department will come right after it and Smithsonian. Smithsonian will be special consideration. It is the architectural plum.

Mr. MANSURE. Only thing is we told Bloomenthal that he would get chance at AEC. Strauss told him same thing. They were never given chance to present their goods.

Mr. STROBEL. We are collecting up-to-date information on 70 to 75 firms so that we don't have to go out and collect questionnaires every time we do a job.

Mr. MANSURE. What about HEW in Atlanta-lot of criticism on that. Chip Roberts.

Mr. STROBEL. This is probably the only project on which we will use the existing plans. More criticism from AIA and architects in general if we do not handle this way.

Mr. MANSURE. These contracts were signed 2 years ago?

Mr. STROBEL. Right.

Mr. MANSURE. Can we write letter to that effect to these people?

Mr. STROBEL. Yes.

Mr. MANSURE. Call me if you need me for meeting tomorrow. back now.

5:01 p. m.

I'll call Dulles

Mr. MANSURE. I just talked to Dulles. He is interested in firm of Harrison & Abramovitz. Should give serious consideration to that firm. It would be most helpful to him if we could decide before he goes to Europe next week. When are you meeting, tomorrow? Give me a call tomorrow. I would like you to keep in mind-don't use up all of your big guns on the first building. Let's have a little bit of depth.

Mr. STROBEL. Erro Saarinen would be strong recommendation for Smithsonian. Mr. MANSURE. If you took Harrison for this.

Mr. STROBEL. We have State Department building.

Mr. MANSURE. Give some consideration to De Young & Moscowitz. Let's keep one top architect on your list for each building.

Mr. STROBEL. We have so much good talent to pick from. A job like CIA of $46 million is actually big enough to have a combination that could consist of 3 firms. I feel we should spread a bit.

Mr. MANSURE. Lot of prestige. O. K. Call me tomorrow.

Mr. MALETZ. This document reads as follows:

The CHAIRMAN. What date?

Mr. MALETZ. August 4, 1955.

Mr. Mansure called Mr. Strobel 4: 50 p. m. re CIA architect.

Mr. MANSURE. Pete, on this CIA job. I got a call from Dulles. What is it about?

Mr. STROBEL. They are coming over tomorrow afternoon right after lunch. we are trying to work up list.

Mr. MANSURE. Is idea to have 2 or 3 on it?

Mr. STROBEL. It is a very big job.

Mr. MANSURE. I don't think we should have just one firm.

Mr. STROBEL. It will be a combination.

Mr. MALETZ. I do not read the next two items.

Mr. MANSURE. What about Bloomenthal's recommendation?

Mr. STROBEL. De Young & Moscowitz.

Mr. MANSURE. How do these firms stack up in quality?

Mr. STROBEL. I would like to show you the names (interrupted by Mr. Mansure).

Mr. MANSURE. IS Moscowitz one of them?

Mr. STROBEL. Could be one of them but if considered they should be combined with strong local firm. There is a stronger firm than Willgoos & ChaseLouis Justement. We don't know if building will be in Maryland or Virginia.

Mr. MALETZ. Delete the next.

Mr. STROBEL. If you get good smaller firm you are assured of the time of the principals.

Mr. MANSURE. They are pushing for a Federal office building in Chicago. I would rather not bring Chicago firm in on this. Take New York, Washington, Cleveland, etc. Chicago firm got Air Force job in Colorado.

Mr. STROBEL. One other consideration on CIA is that State Department will come right after it and Smithsonian. Smithsonian will be special consideration. It is the architectural plum.

Mr. MANSURE. Only thing is we told Bloomenthal that he would get chance at

Mr. MALETZ. I am not sure whether that should be AEC or CIA; do you recall?

Mr. STROBEL. That should be AEC.

The CHAIRMAN. What is AEC?

Mr. STROBEL. That is the Atomic Energy Commission.

Mr. MALETZ. I will repeat that:

The only thing is we told Bloomenthal that he would get a chance at AEC. Strauss told him same thing.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is Strauss?

Mr. STROBEL. I would like to explain that word "we." I was not in that.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is Strauss?

Mr. STROBEL. Admiral Strauss, Chairman of the AEC.

Mr. MALETZ. He told Blumenthal that he would get a chance at the AEC building?

Mr. STROBEL. I don't know anything about it.

Mr. MALETZ (reading):

They were never given chance to present their goods.

Mr. STROBEL. We are collecting up-to-date information on 70 to 75 firms so that we don't have to go out and collect questionnaires every time we do a job.

Mr. MANSURE. What about HEW in Atlanta-lot of criticism on that. Chip Roberts.

Mr. STROBEL. This is probably the only project on which we will use the existing plans. More criticism from AIA and architects in general if we do not" handle this way.

Mr. MANSURE. These contracts were signed 2 years ago?

Mr. STROBEL. Right.

Mr. MANSURE. Can we write letter to that effect to these people?

Mr. STROBEL. Yes.

Mr. MANSURE. Call me if you need me for meeting tomorrow. I'll call Dulles back now.

5:01 p. m.

Mr. MANSURE. I just talked to Dulles. He is interested in firm of Harrison & Abramovitz. Should give serious consideration to that firm. It would be most helpful to him if we could decide before he goes to Europe next week. When are you meeting, tomorrow? Give me a call tomorrow. I would like you to keep in mind-don't use up all of your big guns on the first building. Let's have a little bit of depth.

Mr. STROBEL. Erro Saarinen would be strong recommendation for Smithsonian.

Mr. MANSURE. If you took Harrison for this.

Mr. STROBEL. We have State Department Building.

Mr. MANSURE. Give some consideration to De Young & Moscowitz. Let's keep one top architect on your list for each building.

Mr. STROBEL. We have so much good talent to pick from. A job like CIA of $46 million is actually big enough to have a combination that could consist of 3 firms. I feel we should spread a bit.

Mr. MANSURE. Lot of prestige. O. K. Call me tomorrow.

Mr. MALETZ. Now could you tell me if the Blumenthal referred is Mr. Morton Blumenthal about whom I inquired previously?

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.

Mr. MALETZ. So therefore on August 4, 1955, Mr. Blumenthal was representing De Young & Moscowitz, isn't that correct?

Mr. STROBEL. That would be the inference from this, as far as Mr. Mansure was concerned.

Mr. MALETZ. Could you tell this committee why you and

Mr. KEATING. Why do you say it is the inference then from that. I don't follow you on that.

Mr. STROBEL. Because I don't, I can't verify whether he actually was representing them or not.

Mr. KEATING. They refer to having promised or having given Blumenthal a chance. I thought that referred to the past.

Mr. STROBEL. That referred to the past; however, it is current as well.

Mr. MALETZ. Could you tell the committee why you and Mr. Mansure were so interested. in Mr. Blumenthal's recommendation? Mr. STROBEL. I can only answer for myself.

Mr. MALETZ. Yes.

Mr. STROBEL. And the point is that I would not be particularly Interested in De Young & Moscowitz. I knew of them. It was a qualified firm and would be perfectly willing to consider them on the basis of Mr. Mansure's request.

Mr. MALETZ. Now, Mr. Strobel, Mr. Mansure asked you about Blumenthal's recommendation, and you said De Young & Moscowitz. How did you know that?

Mr. STROBEL. I think we had discussed that previously. At the time I don't know just when-there must have been some discussion previously.

69220-55- -9

Mr. MALETZ. I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, that you testified that you did not have any discussion with Mr. Blumenthal concerning possible Government business for De Young & Moscowitz? Mr. STROBEL. I don't think I did.

Mr. MALETZ. How would you know that Mr. Blumenthal had recommended De Young & Moscowitz?

Mr. STROBEL. Because Mr. Mansure told me.

Mr. MALETZ. I repeat this excerpt from the conversation:

Mr. MANSURE. What about Blumenthal's recommendation?

Mr. STROBEL. De Young & Moscowitz.

Does that not indicate to you that you were familiar at the time of your conversation with Mr. Mansure with the fact that Mr. Blumenthal had recommended De Young & Moscowitz?

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.

Mr. MALETZ. So, therefore, would it not be fair to assume that you did have some conversation with Mr. Blumenthal concerning De Young & Moscowitz?

Mr. STROBEL. Not necessarily because, as far as the recommendation of De Young & Moscowitz, that was Mr. Blumenthal's business and he did that to Mr. Mansure and Mr. Mansure asked me about this firm which I am sure he did not have any personal knowledge of. Are they qualified? If they are, then give them consideration.

Mr. MALETZ. Did you get the impression that Mr. Mansure was interested in De Young & Moscowitz?

Mr. STROBEL. The answer would be "Yes, sir." He was recommending them and, if they were qualified, I would be perfectly willing to consider them, as I said before.

Mr. MALETZ. Was that because of Mr. Blumenthal that Mr. Mansure was interested in De Young & Moscowitz?

Mr. STROBEL. I don't know. I can't answer that.

Mr. MALETZ. Is it normal procedure for you or Mr. Mansure to decide what achitects are selected for buildings like the CIA Building, the AEC Building, the Smithsonian Building, and the new State Department Building?

Mr. STROBEL. I think it is natural for Mr. Mansure, being the head of GSA, to have some interest in some of these outstanding projects. However, I have let a number of contracts without discussing them with Mr. Mansure.

Mr. MALETZ. Did you have any conversations with Mr. Allen Dulles concerning Harrison & Abramovitz?

Mr. STROBEL. Yes; I did.

Mr. MALETZ. Did he indicate why he wanted to select Harrison & Abramovitz for this building?

Mr. STROBEL. I think he stated his case similar to what was in the letter he wrote.

Mr. MALETZ. That was what he stated to you in the discussions concerning Harrison & Abramovitz?

Mr. STROBEL. That is right.

Mr. MALETZ. Did you decide on the same day, August 4, to select De Young & Moscowitz as a participating architect on the CIA Building?

Mr. STROBEL. I am not quite familiar with the dates. But we did have a few meetings with CIA and I recall a conference in Mr. Dulles'