Mr. ROBB. What was the last letter you referred to?

Mr. MALETZ. June 27, 1955.

Mr. FINE. Before you talk about that letter that you are looking for, Mr. Robb, I just want to make sure that I understood this thing. This memorandum that was just offered in evidence was dated July 2, 1954?

Mr. MALETZ. That is right.

Mr. FINE. Mr. Strobel became the Commissioner on July 1, 1954 ? Mr. MALETZ. That is right.

Mr. FINE. And there must have been some old business that had to be transacted that he knew about when he was an active member of the firm. Does counsel wish to indicate that just because a memorandum, dated July 2, refers to some business that he took care of that that means he was still actively engaged?

Mr. MALETZ. No, I am not indicating that, Mr. Fine, not a bit.

Mr. KEATING. What is the purpose of putting in a memorandum like that? I haven't any objection to it going in, but the fact that a memo was sent to him the next day after he assumed his Government position about some further business, I don't see the significance of it.

Mr. MALETZ. All I am trying to do, Mr. Keating, is ascertain what Mr. Schwarz' understanding of Mr. Strobel's relationship with Strobel & Salzman is; that is all. And I don't know that it is particularly material to put that report in evidence.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. MALETZ. I just asked you to refer to that letter of June 27, 1955. I beg your pardon. The letter is September 14, 1954; I am sorry. Mr. ROBB. 1954 or 1955?

Mr. MALETZ. 1955.

Mr. SCHWARZ. This isn't the one we are talking about?

Mr. MALETZ. No. I am sorry I misled you.

Mr. FINE. While they are looking for it, to refresh my recollection, was there evidence here that the business of the firm had fallen off by better than 50 percent after Mr. Strobel became the Commissioner of Public Buildings?

Mr. MALETZ. I think Mr. Strobel so testified.

Mr. Schwarz, I might suggest that you might want to put in the record your payroll figures for 1953, 1954, 1955. Do you care to do that?

Mr. SCHWARZ. Well

Mr. MALETZ. On a monthly basis.

Mr. SCHWARZ. I don't know whether that is available to put in; I don't know whether it is available.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you got the payroll figures?

Mr. SCHWARZ. Not with me.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you got them in the office?

Mr. SCHWARZ. In the office; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you supply them for the committee, Mr. Robb?

Mr. ROBB. I will be glad to do so.

Mr. STROBEL. In what form should they be submitted? There are the timetable sheets, and everything else. Are you talking about a summary that was made by Mr. Schwarz on just the half a page?

Mr. MALETZ. He gave me the payroll figures for Strobel & Salzman for each of the months beginning in 1953, extending through, as I recall, August of 1955. And I thought that possibly you might like to have those figures included in the record.

Mr. ROBB. You mean the amount of payrolls, Mr. Maletz, or the number of employees, or what?

Mr. MALETZ. Amount of payrolls.

Mr. ROBB. Just the amounts?

Mr. MALETZ. That is right, on the basis, I think-Mr. Schwarz indicated to me that is the most accurate barometer of how good or bad business is.

Mr. ROBB. I should think the amount of profits might be the more accurate barometer.

Mr. STROBEL. It might be an indication of how busy the office is, but it only has an indirect bearing on the amount of profit that is made. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Strobel, put it in any way you wish.

Mr. KEATING. I would be interested to know, if you have the figures as to Mr. Strobel's personal income, if he doesn't object to it, his personal income out of this firm in the 1 or 2 years before he came to Washington, and since he came here.

Mr. STROBEL. We can do that.

Mr. KEATING. If he doesn't object, I think that might be significant to have for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all right, Mr. Strobel?

Mr. STROBEL. That is satisfactory.

Mr. MALETZ. To get back to this letter of September 14, 1954, is it not a fact that you indicated then that you were on an overtime basis? Mr. SCHWARZ. I would have to read this memorandum. This is an informative memorandum also.

Mr. MALETZ. You do not have to read the memorandum to the committee, unless you choose to do so.

Mr. SCHWARZ. I don't know where that passage is about overtime; I have a poor copy.

Mr. MALETZ. That would be in the fourth paragraph, last sentence. Mr. SCHWARZ. I don't know for sure whether we did go on an

overtime basis.

The CHAIRMAN. What does that memorandum read?

Mr. SCHWARZ. The way this memorandum reads

Mr. MALETZ. Just that paragraph, Mr. Schwarz.

Mr. SCHWARZ. This says:

We are now quite busy, as Salo's Plattsburg final job is about to start up, and together with helicopters, Gimbel Green Acres, and a few others, we will have to go on an overtime schedule.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to explain that?

Mr. SCHWARZ. Well, I don't know whether we did go on an overtime schedule at that time; I cannot remember. I would have to look at the records in order to find out. But the helicopter job was one in which we had a time schedule to complete.

And, as Mr. Strobel explained some time ago, the way to operate our office efficiently is to permit the expansion of productive work by putting men on overtime. And if at this time it became necessary with those three jobs having a completion date which we had to maintain, we did go on an overtime basis. And that happens very often in our business.

Mr. MALETZ. Just one final question.

Could you tell us when Strobel & Salzman engaged Robert & Co., of Atlanta, Ga., as subcontractors to draw up plans and specifications for the New York City incinerator project?

Mr. SCHWARZ. I didn't hear part of your question.

Mr. MALETZ. Could you tell us when Strobel & Saltzman engaged or hired Robert & Co., of Atlanta, Ga., as subcontractors to draw up plans and specifications for the New York City incinerator project? Mr. SCHWARZ. I cannot give that date definitely.

Mr. MALETZ. Just the approximate date.

Mr. STROBEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain that question. The way the question is phrased, it sounds as if Strobel & Salzman engaged Robert & Co. to draw plans and specifications for the incinerator job. As I explained the other day

Mr. MALETZ. Alternate plans and specifications?

Mr. STROBEL. Yes, they were alternate plans, but they were only a small part of the overall project, amounting to, or the portion of the work being represented by, a total of 17 drawings be prepared by Robert & Co., as compared to a total of some 140 drawings on the entire set.

Mr. MALETZ. When were they prepared?

Mr. STROBEL. That, I believe, was in 1952.

Mr. SCHWARZ. I believe so, too.

Mr. MALETZ. Do you know what month?

Mr. STROBEL. No, I don't recall that.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Schwarz.
Mr. KEATING. I wanted to ask Mr. Strobel a question.

Did you, as Commissioner of Public Buildings-now, I am considering all the testimony we have had-did you, as Commissioner of Public Buildings, personally award any contract at any time to any former or present client of Strobel & Salzman?

Mr. STROBEL. The only contract I personally signed to somebody that Strobel & Salzman had been doing business with was Robert Associates, in regard to the extra work to be done on the communicable diseases center in Atlanta, Ga. I signed that contract.

Mr. MALETZ. And that was the case where they had originally, under your predecessors, done the big job?

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.

Mr. KEATING. And there were two points, one, you felt that no other reputable architect would take it because of the fact that they were the architects on the original job?

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.

Mr. KEATING. And, secondly, any architect that did take it would have to go over all of those old drawings, and it would cost the Government a lot more money to award it to anyone other than Robert & Co. ?

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.

And I might mention, to get an idea of the proportion of the new work to be done, they got a fee of $24,000 to finish up the drawings, to make the necessary additions and changes, as compared to an original fee of $388,000.

The CHAIRMAN. At the time you gave that work to Robert & Co., did you disclose to your superior, Mr. Mansure, the relations that you

may have had with Robert & Co. as a member of the firm, Strobel & Salzman?

Mr. STROBEL. I am not sure of that, though it seems to me that the contract was probably signed after August 30. I am not positive. The CHAIRMAN. Did you

Mr. STROBEL. No.

The CHAIRMAN. You did not tell Mr. Mansure?

Mr. STROBEL. I don't think so.

Mr. FINE. I think the record is clear-I asked the question at the time as to the reason for not telling Mr. Mansure, and it was because the ethics of the Architects' Society required him to take Mr. Robert, and there is no question about it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not the question. I asked him, did he disclose.

Mr. FINE. I know, but you have got to bring it in all together. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Strobel, will you withdraw from the stand, please.

We will now call Mr. Edmund F. Mansure of the General Services Administration.

Mr. Mansure, will you please raise your right hand and repeat after me: Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. MANSURE. I do.

TESTIMONY OF EDMUND F. MANSURE, ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY MAXWELL H. ELLIOTT, GENERAL COUNSEL, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

The CHAIRMAN. Will you give your name and official position to the stenographer.

Mr. MANSURE. Edmund F. Mansure, Administrator of General Services.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to indicate, Mr. Mansure, that you have been cooperative with this committee, and particularly with counsel, and we are grateful.

Mr. MANSURE. Thank you very much.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I am forced to leave at this point, and I understand the chairman has a letter from the Comptroller General of some kind. When will that be put in?

The CHAIRMAN. Just after Mr. Mansure's testimony.

Mr. KEATING. Would it be possible to put it in at this point?
The CHAIRMAN. No.

(At this point Mr. Keating left the hearing room.)

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mansure, you are the Administrator of the General Services Administration, are you not?

Mr. MANSURE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And the Public Buildings Service is a constituent agency within the General Services Administration?

Mr. MANSURE. That is right, it is one of our service divisions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. It is correct, is it not, that the Commissioner of Public Buildings is responsible to you?