The CHAIRMAN. In any event, I do not want to raise a technicality. The privilege is waived, because we were permitted to see the contents of it. We have it. Mr. KEATING. I am not objecting to any of it. What I am particularly calling attention to, in light of the statement of the Administrator, is that he sees no objection to it because he is the one that normally would raise the question if anyone did. Mr. MANSURE. That is right. Mr. KEATING. I am just calling attention to the fact that it is unusual, in my experience, to hear read an opinion delivered by a counsel to his client. Now, ordinarily, that is a matter of privilege. Mr. ELLIOTT. Congressman Keating, this is not an opinion, sir. It was prepared by Mr. Moody of my staff and it is a recital of the facts to the Administrator. It is a recounting of the facts as he found them in the files. It is a brief summary or recap, and not an opinion. Mr. KEATING. I see. Mr. MANSURE. It is not an opinion. Mr. MALETZ. Continuing the reading of the memorandum: Extensive investigation preceded issuance of this memo but was directed toward security aspects rather than conflict of interests. (2) Strobel first declined to sign standards of conduct statement. (3) Strobel did sign standards of conduct statement on December 27, 1954; at bottom of which is notation: "see my memo re paragraphs No. 4 and No. 6; PAS". Paragraphs 4 and 6 referred to cover outside employment and outside connections. [Excerpt attached.] Memo referred to in notation appears to be memo of January, 29, 1954 (copy attached), addressed to the Director of Personnel by Strobel declaring his outside interest in firm of Strobel & Salzman; stating that the firm will not directly or indirectly do any work connected with GSA; and stating that he had relinquished active management of the firm. (4) memorandum to file dated August 26 signed by Shacklette states that Strobel was urged on December 27, 1954, and again on August 9, 1955, to permit special agent to obtain list of Strobel & Salzman clients by examination of company records or at least that Strobel submit such a list. This memo does not expressly state that Strobel refused either request but clearly so implies and as far as I can learn list has not been made available. The personnel file contains nothing of significance regarding the conflict of interest question in addition to that mentioned above. Mr. KEATING. What is that man's name? Shacklette? Mr. MANSURE. That is correct, yes. Mr. MALETZ. Now, did you instruct Mr. Moody to review these agency files? Mr. MANSURE. Yes, I did. Mr. MALETZ. What was the occasion for your issuing that instruction to Mr. Moody? Mr. MANSURE. Well, I wanted to be brought up to date on the whole situation, and, of course, at that time we were always desirous of getting this list of firms in order that we might be helpful to Mr. Strobel on it. That was about the gist of the whole thing. The CHAIRMAN. Helpful to Mr. Strobel? Mr. MANSURE. Yes, in case there would be any conflict. I talked about that this morning. You remember, the desire that we did not question the clients, but we wanted to know the list of the clients so that we could prevent any conflict if there were, of people bidding on business. Mr. MALETZ. Why would this be treated as a conflict of interest? The memorandum is captioned "Conflict of Interest." Mr. MANSURE. Well, that is very easily explained. This occurred after some of the press had talked to me about the situation. So we just referred to it as a conflict of interest. That was just the name that was given to it. The CHAIRMAN. Were you concerned about the possible conflict of interest when you read something about it? Mr. MANSURE. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. That is why we were going into it. Mr. KEATING. "Some of the press"? You mean Mr. Drew Pearson? Mr. MANSURE. No. He was out of the country, I believe, at the time. He did not talk to me about it. Mr. KEATING. His representative? Mr. MANSURE. Well, there were a couple in the press that talked about it, yes. Mr. MALETZ. I take it that what happened is that you then instructed Mr. Moody to assemble for your information all material in the agency concerning Mr. Strobel? Mr. MANSURE. Yes. He was to coordinate it from Legal and from Compliance, and so forth, so that I could review the whole matter; that is correct. Mr. MALETZ. Now, do you recall Mr. Moody's original memorandum? Mr. MANSURE. Yes. That is the one I thought you had reference to in the beginning. That is why I was confused. Mr. MALETZ. I show you a document dated August 29, 1955, purporting to be a memorandum of the Administrator, subject: Conflict of Interest-P. A. Strobel, and ask you whether this a true and accurate copy of the memorandum you received from Mr. Moody. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Mr. Moody's memorandum to the Administrator dated September 1, 1955, with two attachments. Mr. MANSURE. I would just like, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to ask Mr. Strobel if he has any objection to this, because this was more or less from the standpoint of counsel. Mr. ROBB. May I speak for Mr. Strobel on that, sir? The CHAIRMAN. I do not quite get what the answer was. What is it, Mr. Mansure? Mr. MANSURE. I was wondering, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask Mr. Strobel, because this was more or less on the basis of counsel to me on the matter for my information. I was just wondering. It has been reviewed. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mansure, we already have that document. It is available to us. If there is any privilege, or if there had been any privilege, that privilege has been waived. This is not a case of divulging confidential information as between Mr. Strobel and his lawyer or between you and your lawyer. The attorney, if there is an attorney involved, is for the Government, and neither Mr. Mansure nor anybody else Mr. MANSURE. This is correct, then. Mr. KEATING. You mean the relationship of attorney and client does not exist between the head of a Government agency and counsel for that agency? The CHAIRMAN. It all depends upon the circumstances. But I do not think it is a case of an attorney relationship here. But in any event, the privilege has been waived. Mr. KEATING. I agree it has been waived. Now, I would like to know who delivered this document to this committee. Mr. MANSURE. Congressman, we have a policy in GSA which we have practiced, at least for the past 22 years, of making available all of our files to any of the congressional commitees except restricted data for the stockpiling program or some of that, which Congress has specifically restricted, themselves, to the executive branch. Mr. KEATING. For that I highly commend you. Mr. MANSURE. It is just a general policy that we do that. Mr. KEATING. It is a very excellent policy, and I have been, as chairman of a committee, the victim of the exactly opposite policy. Now, I commend you highly for that. And your directions were to turn over any documents, and you transmitted those documents, as I understand it, to counsel for the agency? Mr. MANSURE. That is correct, yes. Mr. KEATING. Now, did counsel construe that as meaning that he was to deliver to this committee confidential opinions given by him to the Administrator? Mr. ELLIOTT. For the record, I would have so construed it but in this case counsel did not deliver this document to the committee. Mr. KEATING. Well, how did we get it then? How did counsel for the committee get it? Mr. MALETZ. I can give you the chronology. About September 11 or 12-and I can give you the exact date-I spoke to Mr. Elliott about two matters. One of the matters involved Mr. Strobel. I then asked Mr. Elliott whether the committee could get access to the files of GSA concerning Mr. Strobel. Mr. Elliott said that he thought the committee could, but he would like to check with Mr. Mansure. I then indicated to Mr. Elliott that I would return to the office and consult with my superiors on the committee and get in touch with him later that day. I did communicate with superiors on the committee and got in touch with Mr. Elliott Mr. KEATING. By superiors, you mean the chairman? Mr. KEATING. Just make it singular: One superior. Mr. MALETZ. I then called Mr. Elliott back and said that the committee would appreciate access to GSA files. Mr. Elliott, as I remember, said that he would check with Mr. Mansure and call me back within a half hour. Mr. Elliott then called me back and said that he had spoken to Mr. Mansure and that the files would be available. On the next day, I spoke to Mr. Moody, counsel for the Public Buildings Service, and I believe Mr. Elliott was there for part of the discussion. As I recall, that discussion was on September 13. Mr. Moody then arranged an appointment for me to see Mr. Strobel, which I did at about 11 o'clock on September 13. That interview lasted, I should say, until about 2 or 2: 30. At the end of my interview, I asked Mr. Strobel whether he would make available to the committee his files concerning this matter. He said that he would. And I believe I saw the files that afternon or the next morning. In addition, as I recall now, I spent the next 2 days examining certain files in an anteroom or in an office adjoining Mr. Strobel's office. They were files in the Commissioner's office. Several days later I went to the Corps of Engineers and had an interview with Mr. Berry, the Deputy General Counsel of the Department of the Army, and several people in the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Moody, counsel of PBS, accompanied me to that meeting. Then I asked Mr. Moody for all contracts entered into between GSA and clients of Strobel & Salzman. Mr. Moody said that he would undertake to have such a list prepared. About 3 or 4 days later I think I had further discussion with Mr. Moody, and Mr. Moody informed me that the Office of Compliance of GSA would act as liaison with the committee on the Strobel matter, and from time to time I have requested in behalf of the committee various documents concerning the relationship between clients of Strobel & Salzman and Public Buildings Service. In addition, I went to New York, and Mr. Schwarz was good enough, at Mr. Strobel's instruction, to make available all files in that firm concerning Mr. Strobel's activities. I believe, Mr. Congressman, that that summarizes the events as I recall them as of this moment. Mr. KEATING. All except the question that I asked: Who delivered the document in question to the committee? Mr. MALETZ. I beg your pardon. I can explain that. I think, if my memory serves me correctly, that on the morning of September 13, Mr. Moody showed me all the files in the agency that he then had in his office concerning Mr. Strobel. I think it was Mr. Moody, if my recollection serves me correctly. Mr. KEATING. It was Mr. Moody who delivered this document in question? Mr. MALETZ. Yes. Mr. MANSURE. That is correct, as I recall. The only reason I questioned this at all was that this was not really, or this was in no way supposed to be a legal opinion. It was just a review of the findings at that time, without any substantiation as to their correctness. I did not know whether there was anything in here on this preliminary review that the facts might have changed in the case. That is the only reason I hesitated on introducing it. I do not know whether we have checked this for being factually correct. That was my question. The CHAIRMAN. If there is any explanation you want to make subsequent to the reading, I will have Mr. Maletz read the document now. Mr. MANSURE. No. I just meant that Mr. Moody prepared this for me really on the basis of a very quick perusal of it, and so if he has expressed any opinions in here, they are not a legal opinion. They are more or less, as you say, a curbstone opinion on the law. The CHAIRMAN. We will have to get at that when we hear it completed. Let us have it back, Mr. Mansure. Mr. MANSURE. Pardon me. Mr. MALETZ. This is a true and accurate copy, is it, Mr. Mansure? Mr. MANSURE. That is correct, yes. 69220-55--14 Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer the document from Mr. Moody to Mr. Mansure dated August 29, 1955, in evidence at this point. The CHAIRMAN. Accepted. (The memorandum of August 29, 1955, and the supplemental memorandum of September 1, 1955, referred to, are as follows:) AUGUST 29, 1955. MEMORANDUM FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST-P. A. STROBEL Although my recollection of the matter is not exact and I have no notes from which my memory can be refreshed, according to my best recollection the occurrence of events and my knowledge in this matter is substantially as follows: Sometime in the latter part of 1955 Mr. Strobel discussed with Mr. Elliott and myself attached letter, dated August 4, 1954, which the firm of Strobel & Salzman had received from the Corps of Engineers (exhibit 1). During this discussion Mr. Strobel gave us his version of his conection with the firm of Strobel & Salzman. As I recall it, Mr. Strobel's situation as outlined by him, was substantially as follows: 1. He was the full and complete owner of the company to whom all company net earnings from all sources accrued. 2. Mr. Salzman was a partner in name only and, in fact, was a salaried employee under contract. 3. Mr. Strobel had disassociated himself from active participation in the conduct of the affairs of the company but consulted with Mr. Salzman outside of official Government hours of duties and intended to continue to do so during his tenure as Commissioner of PBS. 4. The company held contract DA-49-129-Eng-305 with the Corps of Engineers which was entered into prior to the date he assumed duties as Commissioner of PBS and his company held other contracts with the Corps of Engineers and was subcontractor for or otherwise associated with other firms who had contracts with the Corps of Engineers. 5. His company intended to continue to compete for other prime and subcontracts with the Corps of Engineers and other Government agencies except GSA during the period of his tenure as Commissioner of PBS, but that he personally did not intend to act in such matters in behalf of his company. 6. His company has no contracts of any nature with GSA and would not compete for nor accept any such contracts during his tenure as Commissioner of PBS. Mr. Elliott and I advised Mr. Strobel tentatively, and based upon his recitation of the facts, that we doubted whether he was in violation of the so-called conflict-of-interest statutes. His particular concern at that point was whether he was a resident commissioner within the meaning of the so-called officials-notto-benefit clause (18 U. S. C. A. 281) included in his contract with the Corps of Engineers. In our judgment he was not and we so advised him. We tentatively advised him further, however, that there did appear to be a question of ethics and public policy involved and that his situation possibly was in conflict with the attitude of Congress as reflected by their action in regard to certain officials of private corporations then recently appointed to public office. The Corps of Engineers' letter also raised a question as to whether there were Department of Defense regulations on the subject. We emphasized that our advice was tentative and informal pending receipt of his written statement fully disclosing all pertinent facts and we suggested to Mr. Strobel that he prepare a complete statement of his company relationships and his dealings with the Government and submit same to the Corps of Engineers in response to their letter. We further agreed to discuss the matter informally with Mr. John Adams, then General Counsel of the Army, and with Assistant Attorney General Lee Rankin, Department of Justice. We advised Mr. Strobel that, of course, he should not personally participate in any negotiations with the Corps of Engineers or other Government agency to secure contract work or otherwise in behalf of the firm of Strobel & Salzman and we stressed the importance of this. Mr. Elliott subsequently discussed the matter informally with Mr. John Adams. According to Mr. Elliott's recollection, Mr. Adams felt that it would |