Mr. MALETZ. They are clients with whom Strobel & Salzman has done business at one time or another? Mr. SCHWARZ. Right. Mr. MALETZ. But you did submit this list of 14 architectural firms to CIA? Mr. STROBEL. Right. Mr. SCHWARZ. Right. Mr. MALETZ. I see. Mr. KEATING. And 8 of those 14 architects were people for whom you have never done any business at all? The CHAIRMAN. No; six of the people. Mr. FINE. NO. Eight he did no business with. The CHAIRMAN. No. Mr. MALETZ. No. We will come to that in a minute. The CHAIRMAN. We have to be patient. Mr. KEATING. I am asking the witness. I do not know what the facts are. The chairman seems to know all these facts, but the rest of the committee does not. The CHAIRMAN. We asked it in the record. If you will read the transcript, you will see. Mr. MALETZ. Let me see if we can get this in perspective. You submitted to CIA a list of eight New York City architectural firms who you thought would be qualified to do the CIA job? Mr. STROBEL. I think the figure is 6, and not 8. Mr. MALETZ. Six New York City architectural firms; is that correct? Mr. STROBEL. That is correct. I am going by this list. Mr. MALETZ. Eight New York City firms? Mr. STROBEL. No. Mr. MALETZ. Eight? Mr. STROBEL. Six. The CHAIRMAN. He said "six." Mr. MALETZ. Would you count that again, Mr. Strobel? Mr. STROBEL. That is correct. That list contains nine architectural firms from New York City. Mr. MALETZ. All right, let us put it this way. This list comprised 14 architectural firms; is that right? Mr. SCHWARZ. Yes. Mr. MALETZ. Nine of those architectural firms are located in New York City; is that correct? Mr. STROBEL. Right. Mr. MALETZ. Six of those architectural firms are New York City Mr. FINE. Nine. Mr. MALETZ. Nine of the fourteen are clients of Strobel & Salzman; is that correct? Mr. STROBEL. They are clients or have been clients of Strobel & Salzman. Mr. MALETZ. Yes. Mr. KEATING. Now, then, I get back to my original question. There are eight on that list-and I wish the chairman to attend to this, because this is the question I asked before-there are eight on that list for whom Strobel & Salzman have never done any work at all? Or am I wrong? I do not know. It sounds that way to me. Everybody shakes his head, and that makes me think I may be wrong. Mr. STROBEL. The answer is eight; yes. Mr. FINE. Now, the question I was going to put when you answered my question to the effect that 30 clients in addition to those 6 that your firm did business with in New York, those 30 clients were in addition, that you did not include on this list? Mr. STROBEL. That is correct. Mr. FINE. The question I wanted to put to you was, Did you earn substantial fees from those 30 additional clients whose names you did not put on the list? Mr. STROBEL. I think the answer would be "Yes." Mr. FINE. I mean, fees commensurate with the fees earned by you from the six? Mr. STROBEL. Oh, yes. Mr. FINE. $8,000, $6,000, $9,000, $10,000; is that correct? Mr. STROBEL. It might on occasion have been a lot more. Mr. KEATING. And these six firms whose names were on the list, were they all what you would call outstanding architectural firms of New York City? Mr. STROBEL. Definitely. I would like to make a comment on the testimony that I made the other day. It appeared now-it was repeated here as if I personally made up this list, and also appeared as I took a very active part in preparing that list. That list was prepared by the staff, and I sat in on it after it had been prepared. Mr. ROBB. Mr. Chairman, might it be made clear which list he is talking about? We have 2 lists here, 1 prepared by Mr. SchwarzMr. FINE. He was referring now, as I understand it, to the list. of 14. Mr. ROBB. That is right. Mr. STROBEL. Submitted to CIA. Mr. FINE. Submitted to CIA? Mr. STROBEL. That is correct. Mr. FINE. And he said then that at the previous hearing he did not participate actively in the selection of those 14. The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no. Were you in conference with the staff when those names were put on that list? Mr. STROBEL. As far as I recall, we started out with a considerably larger list that was then boiled down to this one here. Now, whether that was done in collaboration with CIA, I can't remember. But we did discuss a bigger list. The CHAIRMAN. This is clear, is it not, that you sent that list; you personally sent that list, and you knew the names on the list when you sent it to the CIA? Mr. STROBEL. No, sir; I did not personally send that list. The CHAIRMAN. Did you know the names were on the list when it was sent ? Mr. STROBEL. Yes, I did. I was familiar with the content of the list. Mr. KEATING. Who sent the list? Mr. STROBEL. As far as I recall, it was given by the supervising architect to the CIA people. Mr. KEATING. And the supervising architect, would you say, was primarily responsible for preparing the list? Mr. STROBEL. He had a great deal to do with it. The CHAIRMAN. But did you not participate in the preparation of the list? Mr. STROBEL. As I said before, my recollection is that we had a greater list to start off with The CHAIRMAN. I understood that. But Mr. STROBEL. And we eliminated a number of names. The CHAIRMAN. But in the setting forth of the names, you did participate? Mr. STROBEL. As I said before, I was familiar with the names on this list. The CHAIRMAN. But you have not responded to my question. You did participate in the preparation of the list, did you not? Mr. STROBEL. Well, that is a The CHAIRMAN. You testified to that. Mr. STROBEL. Yes; I would say that I knew about the preparation of the list. The CHAIRMAN. No; not only knew, but did you participate in the preparation? Mr. STROBEL. Not the original list; no, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Did you participate in the final list? Mr. STROBEL. The answer would be "Yes." Mr. MALETZ. Now, Mr. Schwarz, is it not a fact that another architectural firm on this list of 14, LaPierre, Litchfield & Partners, is a firm with which Strobel & Salzman negotiated to get work from? Mr. FINE. Is that on this list? The CHAIRMAN. This is in addition to the six. Mr. ROBB. Could we have that question read back? I am not sure I got the end of the question. "Negotiated to get work from"; is that it? Mr. MALETZ. Yes. Mr. ROBB. Thank you. Mr. SCHWARZ. I would say the answer to that question is "No." Mr. MALETZ. Would you refer to the list which Mr. Strobel sent to Mr. Mansure on August 30 and see whether you can find the name of La Pierre, Litchfield & Partners? Mr. SCHWARZ. I see that name on the list. Mr. MALETZ. You do see the name on the list? Mr. SCHWARZ. I do. Mr. MALETZ. That would indicate or signify to you that Strobel & Salzman have attempted to secure work from LaPierre, Litchfield & Partners; is that not correct? Mr. SCHWARZ. Not exactly, because the firm from which we solicited business is the firm of Alfred Hopkins Associates, which is stated in this list. We did not solicit any business from LaPierre & Litchfield, architects, as such. Mr. MALETZ. Is it correct that La Pierre-Litchfield just took over the work of Alfred Hopkins? Mr. SCHWARZ. I do not know that to be a fact. Mr. MALETZ. Do you know the answer to that, Mr. Strobel? Mr. STROBEL. I think that is correct, yes. The office changed its name. Mr. MALETZ. Now, is it not a fact that the eighth firm on this list of 14 sent by CIA Mr. FINE. Sent to CIA. Mr. MALETZ. Sent to CIA by PBS is the architectural firm of Kahn & Jacobs? Mr. SCHWARZ. It is marked "No. 6" on this list, and that is Kahn & Jacobs. Mr. MALETZ. Is Kahn & Jacobs on the list of 14 sent to CIA by PBS? Mr. SCHWARZ. Yes. Mr. MALETZ. Is it also not correct that Kahn & Jacobs is an architectural firm from whom Strobel & Salzman attempted to get business? Mr. SCHWARZ. Yes. Mr. MALETZ. When did Strobel & Salzman attempt to get business from Kahn & Jacobs? Mr. SCHWARZ. I would say Mr. STROBEL. Could I answer that, Mr. Chairman, because I do not think Mr. Schwarz would know? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, certainly. Go ahead. Mr. STROBEL. That most likely was in the late forties, 1948 or 1949. Mr. MALETZ. Is it not correct that around February 1955, Strobel & Salzman was interested in getting an office building job from Kahn & Jacobs ? Mr. STROBEL. I don't know. I can't answer that. Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Schwarz, will you refer to a document dated February 7, 1955, a document, I believe, purporting to be a report from you, "S. S.," and see if you can identify the document? Mr. SCHWARZ. The date is what? Mr. MALETZ. February 7, 1955. Mr. SCHWARZ. Yes, I have it. Mr. MALETZ. I show you a photostatic copy of this document and ask you whether it is a copy of the report that you sent to Mr. Strobel? Mr. SCHWARZ. Yes; that is a copy. Mr. MALETZ. Is that an accurate copy? Mr. SCHWARZ. That is an accurate copy of the report. Mr. MALETZ. Would you read that report, Mr. Schwarz? Mr. SCHWARZ. The way it reads here Mr. MALETZ. Excuse me. This is a report that you sent to Mr. Strobel on February 7, 1955; is that right? Mr. SCHWARZ. That is correct. Mr. MALETZ. Would you read it, sir? Mon abbreviation for Monday Feb. 7, 1955: As per telephone conversation with you today in Atlanta, here are three round-trip tickets which should see you through the month of February. Incidentally, February 22 is a holiday on a Tuesday. So I assume you will take off that Monday. We haven't heard a peep out of anyone and we are in a position where we could use a fair-sized job right now. Blum heard from Lewis Peterson of F. L. Smith regarding a contemplated cement plant for United States Steel. This is the kind of job I would like to see and you, too, I presume. Maybe we may have more information on this by Saturday. In the meantime, it seems like all of our prospects are still waiting for their eggs to hatch and everything will break at the same time. Carson and Lundin's job for Tishman was in the Sunday Times, but we haven't heard anything more about it. There was also a $15 million office building by Kahn & Jacobs in the same paper as well as a 20-story office building by Eggers & Higgins. Then I go on to say: After we enjoyed a miserable, rainy, cold day Sunday, we had a fine, mild, sunny, cloudless day today. All of the snow has been washed away. F. and H. expect to get the go-ahead signal on their Lord & Taylor Garden City, Long Island, job, on Wednesday. Hope you had a successful trip to Atlanta. See you Saturday. Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer this document dated February 7, 1955, in evidence at this point. The CHAIRMAN. Received. (The document referred to is as follows:) MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1955. As per telephone conversation with you today in Atlanta, here are three round-trip tickets which should see you through the month of February. Incidentally, February 22 is a holiday on a Tuesday, so I assume you will take off that Monday. We haven't heard a peep out of anyone and we are in a position where we could use a fair-sized job right now. Blum heard from Louis Petersen, of F. L. Smith, regarding a contemplated cement plant for United States Steel. This is the kind of job I would like to see-and you, too, I presume. Maybe we may have more information on this by Saturday. In the meantime, it seems like all of our prospects are still waiting for their eggs to hatch and everything will break at the same time. Carson & Lundin's job for Tishman was in the Sunday Times, but we haven't heard anything more about it. There was also a $15 million office building by Kahn & Jacobs in the same paper, as well as a 20-story insurance building by Eggers & Higgins. After we enjoyed a miserable, rainy, cold day Sunday, we have a fine, mild, sunny, cloudless day today. All of the snow has been washed away. F. & H. expect to get the go-ahead signal on their Lord & Taylor, Garden City, Long Island, job on Wednesday. Hope you had a successful trip to Atlanta. See you Saturday. S. S. Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Schwarz, did you or did anybody else in your firm try to get this $15 million office building job from Kahn & Jacobs? Mr. SCHWARZ. May I make an explanation before I answer that question? Mr. MALETZ. Yes, indeed. Mr. SCHWARZ. Generally on Sundays I read the New York Times real-estate section, and I see many lucrative types of jobs in there, and in this particular case I did see them in the New York Times, and I reported them in a very offhanded way to Mr. Strobel. Now, if you give me your question, I will be glad to answer it. Mr. MALETZ. Well, then, on the basis of your testimony, is it not true that of the list of 14 architects submitted to CIA by the Office of the Commissioner of Public Buildings, 6 firms are or have been clients of Strobel & Salzman and 2 are firms with which Strobel & Salzman negotiated for business in the past? Mr. KEATING. Are you including this Kahn & Jacobs firm in that? Mr. MALETZ. Yes. Mr. KEATING. I thought this gentleman just got through saying that he read it in the New York Times and it made his mouth water. Instead of reading the food section, he reads the real-estate section, |