office at which Mr. Mansure was present and the combination of the firm. Harrison & Abramovitz having been picked by Mr. Dulles, not by me and the firm of De Young & Moscowitz having been suggested by me on the basis we discussed, would be a fair and good selection for this project. They are both very outstanding firms. I might elaborate on my comments in the telephone conversation, why I have the idea that we should have more than one firm on these large projects. In fact we encourage and make combinations on even very small projects. In this case here, the project is so large that it takes a capacity of probably more than any one office in existence at the present time to do it alone.

I figured out that first of all the fee would be from one and a half to two million dollars. I figured out that it would take a force of something like 80 men on the board-I am now talking about technical people, architects and engineers-a period of 9 months to produce that job. Well, I don't know of any one office that could take on such a project and promise completion unless it just happened that they had the force and no other work at the time they started on it. There are very few offices of that size in the country, and due to the information, due to our current file on the status of capacity which would mean how much work they can produce with their present workloads, it bears out the fact that a combination is definitely in order if we want to be assured of the project in time. It has to be remembered that most architects and engineers are extremely busy now.

Mr. MALETZ. Now on August 4, the same day as the telephone conversation, it is correct, is it not, that Mr. Salzman of Strobel & Salzman wrote to De Young & Moscowitz withdrawing from the contract that Strobel & Salzman had with De Young & Moscowitz?

Mr. STROBEL. According to the letter I wrote.

Mr. MALETZ. I don't recall whether this letter was offered in evidence.

The CHAIRMAN. It has been in evidence.

Mr. MALETZ. Has it been read?

Mr. STROBEL. I read it.

Mr. MALETZ. Do you recall whether or not on August 15, a decision. had been made to select De Young & Moscowitz for this CIA Building? Mr. STROBEL. Are you tying that, on what basis are you tying that question into August 4?

Mr. MALETZ. On the basis of the Strobel & Salzman letter which was sent to De Young & Moscowitz canceling your contract with De Young & Moscowitz?

Mr. STROBEL. I don't know whether it was a few days after or before. Mr. MALETZ. Did you feel that Strobel & Salzman could possibly get future business from De Young & Moscowitz?

Mr. STROBEL. I have no feeling in that matter. They have never been clients of ours and are not clients of ours at this time. The only contract we had with them was what was testified before.

Mr. MALETZ. On August 10, did you reach an agreement with the CIA that Mr. Harrison of Harrison & Abramovitz with Mr. Allen Dulles' approval would have the final decision as to the plans or designs which would be submitted for the CIA Building?

Mr. STROBEL. Subsequently agreement was reached, whether it was August 10 or any other date I can't say unless I have documentation.

Mr. MALETZ. I show you a document dated August 10 at the top and dated August 12 at the bottom and ask you whether this is a true and accurate copy of the agreement?

(Document examined by witness.)

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct. I might explain that at a meeting in Mr. Dulles' office where we were present and the architect, Harrison, it was agreed upon or it was agreed to by us of GSA that in this combination Mr. Harrison would, as this statement says, have the final decision as to which plans or designs would be submitted. In other words, with that upper hand so to speak in the combination, he would have the major decisions or the right to make the major decisions in regard to design. Assuming they would meet with our approval.

Mr. FINE. I just wanted to ask you this question.

I think it would be appropriate now to ask you the questions that Mr. Scott asked you, whether or not you directly or indirectly benefited by putting this firm's name, De Young & Moscowitz on that list? . Mr. STROBEL. None whatsoever; no tie whatsoever.

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Strobel, on August 12, 1955, did you write De Young & Moscowitz and advise them that they had been selected as the second party for architectural work in the new CIA building?

Mr. STROBEL. I did write them. As to the date I would have to see the letter.

Mr. MALETZ. I show you a document dated August 12 and ask you if that is the letter you sent.

(Document examined by witness.)

Mr. MALETZ. I offer in evidence a document dated August 10, 1955, an agreement between Commissioner of Public Buildings and the CIA concerning the selection of Harrison & Abramovitz as architects for the CIA project.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be accepted.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

AUGUST 10, 1955.

In asking the architects, Harrison & Abramovitz and F. R. King, to act as architects, with any other architects who might be associated with them, for the new headquarters for the CIA, Mr. Dulles requested, and Mr. Mansure agreed, that Mr. Harrison, with Mr. Dulles' approval, have the final decision as to which plans or designs would be submitted.

In Mr. Harrison's absence this responsibility will be assumed on his behalf by Mr. Abramovitz or Mr. King.

The above agreement acceptable to PBS of GSA as written.

Date: August 12, 1955.

(Signed) P. A. STROBEL, Commissioner of Public Buildings,

Mr. MALETZ. Is that an accurate copy of the letter you sent to De Young & Moscowitz?

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.

Mr. MALETZ. This letter states, does it not:

DEAR MR. MoscowITZ: This is to confirm information given to you by telephone today that it is our intention to negotiate an architectural-engineering contract for plans and specifications for the new headquarters for CIA to be built in Washington, D. C.

A combination of architects consisting of Harrison & Abramovitz and F. R. King as one party and De Young, Moscowitz & Rosenberg as the second party has been selected by CIA and GSA. The two enclosures are self-explanatory in regard to final authority on final decisions on plans and designs to be submitted.

We hope this agreement can be executed as soon as possible, as we are anxious to proceed with the negotiations for the A-E contract. Sincerely yours,

P. A. STROBEL,

Commissioner of Public Buildings.

Mr. MALETZ. Now, Mr. Strobel, is it or is it not true that the reason for the selection of De Young, Moscowitz & Rosenberg was because of Mr. Blumenthal?

Mr. STROBEL. I can't answer as to that.

Mr. MALETZ. Did you feel

Mr. STROBEL. I would say as you know he had represented them in his talks with Mr. Mansure. Mr. Mansure had asked me if they were qualified and I told him that they were fully and highly qualified.

Mr. FINE. I just don't quite understand. Suppose it were true. I am just trying to clarify something in my mind on the facts. Suppose it were true that Mr. Blumenthal did recommend De Young & Moscowitz and it was only because he recommended De Young & Moscowitz that the firm was selected, what has that to do with this particular case of conflict of interest between Mr. Strobel and the firm of Strobel & Salzman?

The CHAIRMAN. It shows a direct relationship between Mr. Blumenthal and the witness who is on the stand now and if you don't feel that it is that way, you can draw any inference you wish.

Mr. FINE. I am not questioning the propriety of asking the questions. I wanted to know for my own sake what conclusions the counsel can draw from the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Draw your own conclusions.

Mr. FINE. Did you ever get any money from Mr. Blumenthal?
Mr. STROBEL. Never.

Mr. FINE. Did you ever gain anything directly or indirectly from Mr. Blumenthal at any time?

The CHAIRMAN. Nobody is charging that. Mr. Blumenthal and De Young & Moscowitz are good friends and De Young & Moscowitz received some business from this witness. Let the chips fall where they may. You forgot there was a contract given by De Young & Moscowitz to Strobel & Salzman.

Mr. FINE. And canceled.

The CHAIRMAN. The contract was given Strobel.

Mr. STROBEL. I would like to mention

The CHAIRMAN. You don't have to comment on the colloquy among the members, unless there is a question.

Mr. KEATING. I have a question.

What is the comment on the colloquy among the members?

Mr. STROBEL. As far as the selection of the firm of De Young & Moscowitz, as far as I am concerned Mr. Blumenthal does not enter into it.

The CHAIRMAN. You have a lot of advocates on this committee. They ought to be on your side of the table and act as your counsel. Mr. KEATING. We like to see a fair hearing. I am the only one cut off.

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing has been conducted in a fair objective

manner.

Mr. FINE. No question about that.

The CHAIRMAN. Nobody can complain about that. Mr. Maletz has a question. Ask it, Mr. Maletz.

Mr. MALETZ. I want to ask you this. I believe I have asked question previously:

you the

In July 1955 when Public Buildings Service recommended De Young & Moscowitz to the CIA, is it not true that the contract between Strobel & Salzman and De Young & Moscowitz was still in effect? Mr. STROBEL. I don't think so according to the dates there.

Mr. MALETZ. Did you not indicate that this contract was canceled on August 4, 1955?

Mr. STROBEL. August 4, right. The letter I read or you read was August 12.

Mr. MALETZ. I am referring to the recommendation to the CIA concerning De Young & Moscowitz?

Mr. STROBEL. There may have been some overlap.

The CHAIRMAN. There are your regular steps if you listened attentively.

Mr. FINE. I read all the facts and read the record and listened attentively. I am mindful of the statement that you made at the beginning of this hearing, that the committee does not wish to prejudge Mr. Strobel. You want to get at the facts. I want to get at the facts just as you do.

Mr. MALETZ. Did you say that actually De Young & Moscowitz was selected on the basis of a recommendation by Mr. Mansure to you?

Mr. STROBEL. I would say that had some bearing.

Mr. MALETZ. Subsequently, the selection of De Young & Moscowitz as the architects of the CIA building was withdrawn; was it not? Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.

Mr. MALETZ. That was on the basis of a letter you received from Colonel White, Deputy Director of the CIA?

Mr. STROBEL. It was actually on the basis of a telephone call from Mr. Allen Dulles to me.

Mr. MALETZ. Do you recall receiving a letter dated August 18, from L. K. White, Deputy Director of the CIA?

Mr. STROBEL. I had a communication from him.

Mr. MALETZ. I show you a document dated August 18 and ask you whether that is a photostatic copy of the letter which you received? (Document examined by witness.)

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct, that is the letter.

Mr. MALETZ. May I have that in evidence?

Mr. KEATING. May I see it if it is not going to be read?

Mr. MALETZ. It is rather lengthy.

Mr. FINE. What is the gist of it?

Mr. MALETZ. The gist of it is that the naming of De Young & Moscowitz was going to be withdrawn because

The CHAIRMAN. Read the whole thing.

Mr. MALETZ (reading):

Hon. PETER A. STROBEL,

Commissioner of Public Buildings,

General Services Administration, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. STROBEL: I have just received the copies of your letters of August 12, 1955, to Mr. Moscowitz and Mr. Harrison which I requested after you read them to me on the telephone this morning. While I was aware you had considered the firm of De Young, Moscowitz & Rosenberg as a possible affiliate to Harrison & Abramovitz on the architectural-engineering contract for the Central Intelligence Agency's building, there is no foundation whatsoever for your statement in your

letter to Mr. Moscowitz that his firm had been selected by the Central Intelligence Agency.

At the various meetings on August 9 between the Director of Central Intelligence, the Administrator of General Services, Mr. Harrison, and others, including yourself, it was made quite clear that the question of affiliation and the candidates therefor would be considered but that no decision would be made without further study and discussion with Mr. Harrison.

Therefore, any commitment or even discussion of affiliation with any other firm is premature.

It is essential that the precise situation be made quite clear to Mr. Moscowitz in writing at the earliest opportunity. This implies no criticism whatsoever of the firm of De Young, Moscowitz & Rosenberg, but would apply equally to any other firm that might have been put in the same position. The magnitude and complexity of this construction project require the most careful consideration by all concerned in the initial steps.

As you know, we hope to work out a mutually satisfactory arrangement with the General Services Administration for carrying out this project, but unless and until our respective roles are clearly delineated and agreed upon, I must request that all actions of any nature whatever by the General Services Administration with regard to this project be concurred in fully and in writing by the Central Intelligence Agency in advance.

Sincerely,

L. K. WHITE, Deputy Director.

The CHAIRMAN. Accepted in the record. (The document referred to is as follows:)

Hon. PETER A. STROBEL,

Commissioner of Public Buildings,

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
Washington, D. C., August 18, 1955.

General Services Administration, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. STROBEL: I have just received the copies of your letters of August 12, 1955, to Mr. Moscowitz and Mr. Harrison which I requested after you read them to me on the telephone this morning. While I was aware that you had considered the firm of De Young, Moscowitz & Rosenberg as a possible affiliate to Harrison & Abramovitz on the architectural-engineering contract for the Central Intelligence Agency's building, there is no foundation whatsoever for your statement in your letter to Mr. Moscowitz that his firm had been selected by the Central Intelligence Agency.

At the various meetings on August 9 between the Director of Central Intelligence, the Administrator of General Services, Mr. Harrison, and others, including yourself, it was made quite clear that the question of affiliation and the candidates therefor would be considered but that no decision would be made without further study and discussion with Mr. Harrison. Therefore, any commitment or even discussion of affiliation with any other firm is premature.

It is essential that the precise situation be made quite clear to Mr. Moscowitz in writing at the earliest opportunity. This implies no criticism whatsoever of the firm of De Young, Moscowitz & Rosenberg, but would apply equally to any other firm that might have been put in this same position. The magnitude and complexity of this construction project require the most careful consideration by all concerned in the initial steps.

As you know, we hope to work out a mutually satisfactory arrangement with the General Services Administration for carrying out this project, but unless and until our respective roles are clearly delineated and agreed upon, I must request that all actions of any nature whatever by the General Services Administration with regard to this project be concurred in fully and in writing by the Central Intelligence Agency in advance.

Sincerely,

L. K. WHITE, Deputy Director.

Mr. MALETZ. If I may turn to another matter.

Mr. STROBEL. Mr. Chairman, may I follow this particular subject. I just want to emphasize that it was of no interest to me whether De Young & Moscowitz were selected. I mean to me personally, whether they were selected. I might also comment on the letter just