Mr. MANSURE. No; we did not go into that.

The CHAIRMAN. When he assumed his job?

Mr. MANSURE. We did not go into that, just the discussion pertaining to his principal source of income.

The CHAIRMAN. But he did not submit his financial relationships in toto to the department when he assumed his position?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, I don't know whether the Compliance Division has that or not, I wouldn't want to say until I asked them; it would be submitted to them if we have it.

The CHAIRMAN. When a violation of the code of ethics comes to your attention, what action do you take?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, if there is a violation, of course we can't keep the person in Government employment. But we have to have grounds and justification for the violation.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you take any action with reference to your knowledge of Mr. Strobel's possible outside activities?

Mr. MANSURE. I beg your pardon?

The CHAIRMAN. Did you take any action with reference to Mr. Strobel in that regard?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, the outside activities, if there are such, have just come to our attention. I would like to qualify my previous statement, that if it is a willful violation of course, if it is something that has happened that is not deliberate, or where the individual did not realize the situation, that other statement I made would be a little too general, because our code of ethics covers everybody in GSA.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, he might not have been willful, but it might have been with knowledge.

Mr. MANSURE. Well, I want to qualify that, because we have some people that we permit to drive a taxicab, or something. But I just want to qualify that statement, because it covers all of our people now. The CHAIRMAN. Now, turn to the matter of the proposed new $46 million CIA building. You have had some experience with that, have you not?

Mr. MANSURE. Yes; I have.

The CHAIRMAN. And you would say, would you not, that that is a very substantial job, and as I think has been indicated by statements by you in conversation with Strobel, that that would be deemed an architectural plum; is that correct?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, we feel it would be. That is a very substantial construction.

The CHAIRMAN. And for one reason, because the architectural fee will come to something in the neighborhood of $2 million; is that correct?

Mr. MANSURE. I don't know what the fee would come to. But it would be a substantial fee.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the testimony before our committee indicates that Mr. Strobel, as Commissioner of Public Buildings, participated in preparing a list for the CIA of so-called outstanding architects for the CIA job. Are you familiar with that list?

Mr. MANSURE. No; I am not familiar with the list, but I know of the list. But I would like to correct that. I believe that the list was prepared by the staff and not by Mr. Strobel personally.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, he testified this morning that he participated in the preparation of it.

Mr. MANSURE. Well, he probably did.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the testimony also indicates that the list which Mr. Strobel participated in preparing comprises some 14 architectural firms. Was it ever brought to your attention that these 14

names

Mr. MANSURE. Not the specific list, but we have discussed that, because I have been in on these negotiations ever since the beginning, there has been some misunderstanding regarding the construction on it.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, did you know that 14 of those firms-I withdraw that.

Do you know-and I think the testimony is clear, and it was repeated this morning-that four of the firms on that list were at the very time the list was sent to the CIA active clients of Strobel's private firm?

Mr. MANSURE. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that brought to your attention?

Mr. MANSURE. No, I did not know that. But I still feel that even if I had known of that they shouldn't have been kept off the list if they were qualified. And what we would have done in a case like that is, when it came to my attention, when the time came for active consideration, the Commissioner would not take any part in the decision on the selection of the architect or the engineer.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the testimony is also clear that two additional firms on the list were old clients of Mr. Strobel's firm. Were you aware of that?

Mr. MANSURE. No; I was not.

The CHAIRMAN. The testimony is also clear to the effect that an additional 2 firms, the ones from whom Mr. Strobel's firm had tried in some manner to get business in the past, thus making 8 firms out of 14 with which Mr. Strobel had business relationships-was that called to your attention?

Mr. MANSURE. No; it wasn't called to my attention. But I believe that there is an answer to that. We haven't come to the point of negotiation yet. And I could definitely say that if we came to a point of negotiation it would be called to my attention.

The CHAIRMAN. By whom?

Mr. MANSURE. By the Commissioner, or by some member of his staff.

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Mansure, at that particular time-and that was the first part of August 1955-Mr. Strobel had not made available to GSA a list of the clients of Strobel & Salzman; isn't that correct? Mr. MANSURE. That is right. We got that list on

Mr. MALETZ. August 30, 1955?

Mr. MANSURE. August 30; that is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, did Mr. Strobel inform you about these private-business relationships with the firms he was recommending for Government business; did he inform you?

Mr. MANSURE. We hadn't discussed it. But neither did he recommend any of these firms, they were just on the list for consideration. He still hasn't recommended anyone on the job.

The CHAIRMAN. That was a list that was sent to the CIA?
Mr. MANSURE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And you were not informed by Mr. Strobel?
Mr. MANSURE. No; we did not discuss that.

The CHAIRMAN. I beg your pardon?

Mr. MANSURE. We did not discuss that; no.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, in view of the testimony I have cited, do you regard Mr. Strobel's official conduct in this respect as proper or improper, and is it a violation of the code of ethics?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, you are speaking about the conduct regarding this list of firms?

The CHAIRMAN. His participation in the preparation of this list, and the submission of it to the CIA where these firms had had business relationships with him, or intended business relationships, or were having relations with him at the very time.

Mr. MANSURE. Well, I would want to defer any decision on my part until the conclusion of the hearings of the committee and the judgment of the committee members, because in the first place I don't have any background on whether any influence was used or not, it would be a question of whether there was influence involved in it.

Just because the firm

The CHAIRMAN. I didn't mean to interrupt you.

Mr. MANSURE. I say, just because the firm happened to be a client either in the past, or was at present on the list, Mr. Strobel would not be in a position to make the final on that firm.

The CHAIRMAN. Aside from the final decision, do you think it was proper morally for Mr. Strobel to include those names on the list presented to the CIA where he personally participated in some way in preparing that list?

Mr. MANSURE. I don't want to avoid the answer to your question, but I would hate very much to put these firms of high standing in a position

The CHAIRMAN. No, not these firms, no, there is nothing against these firms. And I don't want to imply that. Was it proper or improper for Mr. Strobel in the preparation of this list to put these firms on that list, or even to participate in the processing of putting these names on?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, with the current

The CHAIRMAN. Without disclosing it to you.

Mr. MANSURE. With the current developments I feel that what should have been done was, the matter should have been called to my attention, and then let me review the qualifications of the firms and put them on the list or not.

The CHAIRMAN. But he did not do that?

Mr. MANSURE. No. And I think the reason for that partly was due to the fact that it was still in the negotiation stage, because GSA at present is not carrying on the program for CIA, they are handling that themselves.

The CHAIRMAN. Put it in the negative. Was it proper for him not to have called these facts to your attention?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, I think that probably the reason he didn't do it was because, as I say, it was still in the negotiation stage. I want to answer it this way. There is a feeling within GSA that we are not going to handle the CIA project.

69220-55--13

The CHAIRMAN. Now, your answer is not quite responsive. I say, was it improper for him not to have disclosed the information to you in the preparation of that list in which he participated?

Mr. MANSURE. Yes, I would like to have had the information disclosed to me.

The CHAIRMAN. You would have liked to have had it, but do you think it was improper for him not to have disclosed it to you?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, I am trying to answer your question because I think that the reason for it not having been done is because we were not at the point of decision. I believe it would be disclosed to me when we came to the point of selecting architects and engineers. The CHAIRMAN. He should have disclosed it to you?

Mr. MANSURE. When it came to the point of decision, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Should he have disclosed it to you when the list was submitted to the CIA?

Mr. MANSURE. What I am trying to say in my answer is that I have a sincere feeling that the reason the matter was not discussed with me was because we have a pretty heavy workload and were not up to the point beyond the conversational stage on any of these firms.

There were some firms that were considered for it, but they were not satisfactory to CIA.

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Mansure, was it in compliance with your code of ethics for Mr. Strobel to have participated in preparing a list for submission to the CIA without notifying you that 8 of the 14 firms were ones with which Strobel & Salzman had private business relationships?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, I would have to ask for a legal opinion on that. Mr. Elliott, I don't know from our code of ethics whether it would be or not.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Frankly, sir, as I told you somewhat earlier, I would prefer to defer any legal opinion to you at this time until I have had a chance personally to review the entire record, not only what has been put in before this committee, but what may be put in in the future. In other words, when the record is closed, and what additional information, if any, may have been developed or our own internal examination. Until that is done any opinion that I could give you would be probably a little fragile, because it would depend on an incomplete statement of facts.

So I can't answer your question or the committee's question at this time, for that reason. I would like to have all the facts possible before I give you an opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mansure, this morning there has been testimony that Mr. Strobel, when Commissioner of Public Buildings personally visited and later obtained business from the architectural firm Ferrenz & Taylor that is interested in getting business from the Public Buildings Service. Would you say that that was proper or improper?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, in the first place it is contrary to stepping out of his regular business activity, which we discussed in the beginning. And I didn't even know that there was any solicitation or any conferences or anything like that going on, other than what would be a customary report on the progress of the firm's business in their earnings, and things of that kind, which I feel it would be perfectly logical for

anyone that has an interest in the company to receive to carry on the activities.

The CHAIRMAN. It went beyond that. He went with Mr. Schwarz to the firm of Ferrenz & Taylor, and they handed him a brochure, and they had conversations which indicated that they would like to have some business from Ferrenz & Taylor.

That was at the very time that that firm, Ferrenz & Taylor subsequently, rather-were interested in getting business from the Public Buildings Service.

Mr. FINE. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt, please. I think the facts are a little different, if I may say so.

The CHAIRMAN. You question them?

Mr. FINE. No, I think that the time Ferrenz sent the brochure to the Government was subsequently, more recently.

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Mansure, do you think it was proper for Mr. Strobel, as Commissioner of Public Buildings to solicit Ferrenz & Taylor?

Mr. MANSURE. If there was actual solicitation I don't think it was proper. But I don't want to pass judgment until I actually get the facts as to whether there was solicitation, or whether he was just there at a discussion. I don't want to accuse a person if they haven't done some overt act. The first I have heard of this was this morning when I came in here.

Mr. MALETZ. I would like to ask you this hypothetical question. The testimony, as I recall it, was that Mr. Strobel and Mr. Salzman went to see Ferrenz & Taylor about the possibility of getting business. The testimony is also that subsequently Strobel and Salzman did get business, an $18,000 job from Ferrenz & Taylor, and that subsequent to that Ferrenz & Taylor evidenced an interest in getting business from the Public Buildings Service.

Now, assuming for your own purpose that that testimony is correct, would you say that Mr. Strobel's visit with Mr. Schwarz to Mr. Ferrenz is proper or improper?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, under the facts of your hypothetical case there would be the actual solicitation of business, and that was not to be done by the Commissioner or by anyone in GSA unless there was a definite exemption made.

Now, I would say this, that I don't know whether this firm-I have just heard the name, I don't know anything about the firm— whether they are going to have any business or get any business out of the Government. But if they are, then certainly-and this would be my frank feeling-that the Commissioner would make no decision on that at all. To my knowledge they have no business now, so we are still talking about a hypothetical case.

Mr. MALETZ. Yes. I am asking you this, whether that solicitation in your judgment is proper or improper.

Mr. FINE. May I interrupt, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Let the question be answered.

Mr. MANSURE. Well, I think that the actual solicitation for business while you hold a Government position would be questionable. Now, I would want to know just actually what transpired in that solicitation, if there were actually requests for business, and an inference that there might be some business from the Government in return, of course there would be no question but what there would be a conflict.