large building, and we feel that the firms on there should be possibly 1 smaller firm to do the so-called leg work, and then there should be 2 or 3 firms of outstanding reputation on the construction.

But we have never gotten to the point where we have actually negotiated on this thing. I mean, it has just been all conversation.

Mr. MALETZ. Now, Mr. Mansure, turning to another matter involving the Corps of Engineers, the testimony of Mr. Strobel has indicated that 1 day before he became a Government employee-he became a Government employee, I believe, on April 1, 1954 on March 31, 1954, Mr. Strobel negotiated a $71,000 contract with the Corps of Engineers. Are you familiar with that?

Mr. MANSURE. No. I just heard about it. I did not know anything about it, though.

Mr. MALETZ. Was that matter brought to your attention?
Mr. MANSURE. No, it was not.

Mr. KEATING. My recollection of the testimony is that it was signed on that day as a result of negotiations extending over a considerable period.

Mr. FINE. NO. There were extended negotiations before, but the contract was actually signed afterward.

Mr. KEATING. Signed in April?

Mr. FINE. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Strobel did not inform you of that transaction?

Mr. MANSURE. The first I heard of that has been just in this immediate period right now. I knew nothing about it.

Mr. FINE. Wasn't that in the memorandum from Mr. Moody? Mr. MANSURE. Pardon?

Mr. FINE. Wasn't that in Mr. Moody's memorandum?

Mr. MANSURE. Yes. But that is only just in August of this year. Mr. FINE. Oh.

Mr. MANSURE. I mean, what I was speaking about as a preliminary was starting in the last of August up to now.

Mr. MALETZ. Was it brought to your attention, Mr. Mansure, that the Corps of Engineers has a firm policy of not doing business with firms owned or controlled by Government employees?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, I don't know whether it was brought to my attention, but I knew that.

Mr. MÁLETZ. Now, Mr. Mansure, this contract, a $71,000 contract, was actually executed after Mr. Strobel became a Government employee. Do you think that Mr. Strobel as Commissioner of Public Buildings owed the obligation to inform the Corps of Engineers immediately on April 1, 1954, that he had become a Government employee?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, that is very technical, and I do not want to give an answer on that basis. But, of course, he was not Commissioner until July 1. I think that there should have been some notification that it was pending, but there was not a definite surety on April 1 that he was even going to be the Commissioner on July 1. Mr. MALETZ. He was a Government employee; was he not? Mr. MANSURE. Oh, yes; that is correct.

Mr. MALETZ. On a full-time basis?

Mr. MANSURE. Yes; full time, but consultant, and the idea was to see during that consultant period if what I had told him about the

work was satisfactory to him, and all that he knew was that the Commissioner was going to retire as of July 1, or June 30.

Mr. MALETZ. Do you think that the fact that Mr. Strobel did not inform the Corps of Engineers about his assumption of the Government position on April 1, 1954, was consistent with the code of ethics of GSA?

Mr. MANSURE. It was not, but I doubt if he knew our code of ethics on that day, or within the first few weeks.

Mr. MALETZ. Are not all employees of GSA required to read the code of ethics of GSA as a condition of employment, and are they not required to certify to it before assuming Government employment? Mr. MANSURE. Well, they are, but I think that, frankly, we were very anxious to get someone of this ability at the time. Now, there may have been a pressure of work where that was not called to his attention. I do not know. But I want to be perfectly fair about it. I do not know whether the code of ethics was shown to him when he actually started in, because when we conversed on this, there was only a lapse of about 2 weeks or 10 days between the time that we discussed it and his agreement to start in, on the 1st of March, but at that time there was not any real acceptance until about 10 days before.

I am just saying that because I actually do not know whether it was presented to him or not.

Mr. MALETZ. Would you tell the committee why, if you know, Mr. Strobel did not sign and certify to the code of ethics until 9 months after he was first employed?

Mr. FINE. Six.

Mr. MALETZ. No; April.

Mr. FINE. No. He only had to sign it in July.

Mr. MANSURE. No. I do not know the answer to that question. That is why we looked into it at the time, because I did not realize it had not been signed.

Mr. KEATING. In this preliminary conference which you had leading up to his coming to Washington, did he give you any kind of brochure or anything indicating what kind of work the firm of Strobel & Salzman had done?

Mr. MANSURE. Yes. I am very glad you asked that question. I would like to introduce that into the record, because it was on this biography, I guess you would call it, or professional background, and so forth, that impressed me with his ability and experience.

Mr. ROBB. I have a copy of that here for the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. If you want to put that in the record, we shall be glad to receive it.

Mr. KEATING. I think that would be a good thing to have in. Mr. MALETZ. Now, Mr. Mansure, I would like to turn to the subject of Mr. Morton Blumenthal. Do you know Mr. Morton Blumenthal? Mr. MANSURE. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. MALETZ. And just who is he?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, I believe that his principal business is a tax authority. He used to be very active here in Washington in one of the former administrations. He is not an attorney.

The CHAIRMAN. What administration was that, if I may ask?
Mr. MANSURE. Back in the Hoover Administration.

Mr. KEATING. He is a member of the Republican National Club?

Mr. MANSURE. Yes; a real-estate broker; not an agent, but a broker. I have met Mr. Blumenthal on different occasions at dinners and things of that kind, and we have just conversed generally. Now, how he came into the picture with an architectural firm is very simple. He called at my office and told me that he was representing the firm whom I had only known by name. I knew nothing about them.

I said, "Well, I am glad that you are." He said, "What is the procedure that we go about to have them listed and considered for construction work"? And I said, "Well, I will refer you to Public Buildings, and they will give you all the information."

That is exactly the way it started, and that was the procedure that we carried with anybody. I have many people that come to me and ask me not only on public buildings, but Federal supply and our stockpiling program. We have always referred them to the department that handles the operation.

Mr. MALETZ. Did you introduce Mr. Blumenthal to Mr. Strobel?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, I don't know whether I introduced him to Mr. Strobel or whether they met me before or not. But I sent him to Mr. Strobel.

Mr. MALETZ. You say that he is a tax authority? How is it that he happened to represent De Young & Moscowitz?

Mr. FINE. He said that he was also a broker.

Mr. MANSURE. He is a real-estate broker. He has different busi

nesses.

Mr. MALETZ. Do you know when he became a real-estate broker?

Mr. MANSURE. No; I did not know that, and I did not ask the question, because that had nothing to do with it. It would not make a bit of difference to me whether a person was a broker or not. If they wanted to do business with the Government, we would give them all the particulars.

He said he represented that firm. He was in as a salesman for those architects, and I knew nothing about the firm other than by name. I know they have a very fine reputation. But I could not tell a single job that they had built. I don't know anything about them beyond that.

Mr. MALETZ. I see.

Mr. MANSURE. That is why I referred him to Public Buildings. But I personally referred them to our Public Buildings Division.

Mr. MALETZ. Do you recall this August 4, 1955, telephone conversation with Mr. Strobel?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, now, let's see. Which one was that? What was that about?

Mr. ELLIOTT. What page is that in the record, Mr. Maletz?

Mr. MANSURE. Was that about this project, or which one was that? Mr. MALETZ. About the CIA project.

Mr. MANSURE. Yes: I recall that.

Mr. MALETZ. It is at page 123.

Do you have a copy of the telephone transcript?

Mr. MANSURE. I have it right here; yes, sir. I have it right here. Mr. MALETZ. Now, Mr. Mansure, the conversation has been read into

the record. If I may, I would like to repeat parts of it:

Pete, on this CIA job. I got a call from Dulles. What is it about? STROBEL. They are coming over tomorrow right after lunch. We are trying to work up list.

And I take it that the call that you got from Mr. Dulles concerned this CIA problem, and particularly the problem of the selection of an architect; is that correct?

Mr. MANSURE. That is correct; yes.

Mr. Dulles was this exorcised that they wanted more than one firm on the job. He thought there would be a conflict of design and just confusion. And we do that all the time. We even have on a job as small as a $2,500,000 job-we might have 2 or 3 architects on it.

Mr. MALETZ. Now, then, you say, Mr. Mansure, "What about Blumenthal's recommendation?"

And Strobel said, "De Young & Moscowitz."

So that was the first time that you referred to Mr. Blumenthal's recommendation; is that right?

Mr. MANSURE. Yes. Well, when I said "recommendation," I meant the people that he represents, because prior to that time, I sent them over to Strobel to get the particulars on how to file and make out their forms, and so forth, to be on the list. I did not mean it by way of recommendation, but he was recommending these architects as their representative.

Mr. MALETZ. Then on the next page you say this:

The only thing is that we told Blumenthal that he would get a chance at AEO. Strauss told him same thing. They were never given a chance to present their goods.

Do you have that before you?

Mr. MANSURE. Yes; that is very simple. They originally came in to see us on the-the CIA or the AEC, was the first job that came out in the newspapers that was going to be done, and they originally came in on that basis because at a dinner that was held here in Washington the fall the year before last, he talked to Admiral Strauss about, if they could figure on that.

Well, no one knew, because the appropriation had not even been made at that time. So Blumenthal asked me if they would have a chance to figure on the AEC building.

I said, "Anybody will have a chance to figure on it who is qualified." So then when the decision was made by AEC to build their own building, because they have their own construction department, and General Services had nothing to do with that construction, they had been left out without any consideration at all, and that is what I had reference to, because I felt that after we had told them that they would have a chance to present their wares on it, and they never even got a chance to talk on it, out of all fairness we should let them figure on the next job. But by figuring on the job meant nothing more than just to qualify for it if they could.

Mr. MALETZ. All right. Now, Mr. Mansure, you had another telephone conversation with Mr. Strobel later on that day at which time you said to Mr. Strobel, "Give some consideration to De Young & Moscowitz." Do you recall that?

Mr. MANSURE. Yes; I do.

Mr. MALETZ (reading):

Let's keep one top architect on our list for each building.

What did you mean by that?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, now, what I meant by that was that we have a number of firms that are considered top architects in New York and

Philadelphia and Cleveland and Chicago and Los Angeles, all over the country, and what we wanted to do was to take and divide up the important types of construction so that we always, at one time, on every job, have one outstanding firm on that job.

Now, what we did not want to do was to take and put maybe our three top firms on the same job. In other words, we have 1 of super ability and 1 probably of design or construction or engineering ability, and then maybe 1 or 2 local firms on a real big job. That is what I had reference to there.

Mr. MALETZ. Now, I just wonder why you brought Mr. Blumenthal's name up three times in the course of these conversations, or twice, rather, and De Young & Moscowitzs' name once.

Mr. MANSURE. Because he was a very forceful salesman. He was after us all the time. In credit to him, I admire it. But he came in to see me several times. He called several times from New York. And it was just that pressure. And I said, "Just give him consideration." By that I mean, review their qualifications, and so forth.

Another thing was that I did not want the CIA building-do not get the initials mixed up, now-we are all through with the Atomic Energy Commission-I did not want one architect on the CIA building because, as I said, it is too big a project and too big a plum for one firm to pick out.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, with Mr. Blumenthal, there was nothing political about it, I hope, was there?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, that is a good question. He is very active politically. But we give exactly the same consideration to recommendations from a Democratic committeeman or a Democratic Member of Congress.

Mr. KEATING. Consideration? You gave a job to the former treasurer of the Democratic National Committee, and he made $383,000 out of it.

Mr. MANSURE. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. He had that job. You were complaining that we asked about that.

Mr. KEATING. No; I am not complaining. I think it is very pertinent. This is all peanuts compared to what was handed out to this man, and I understand he is a first-rate architect.

Mr. MANSURE. As a matter of fact, I have several very strong recommendations from Members of Congress now for Federal construction in their districts or States.

Mr. KEATING. I am sure, now, you have four deals here from Brooklyn. I want to ask about them when the chairman is finished. I am sure that the chairman might be willing to give you recommendations on any Brooklyn jobs.

The CHAIRMAN. I will have four architects ready tomorrow morning for you.

Mr. FINE. They are all in New York, Mr. Chairman, either in the Bronx or in Brooklyn.

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Mansure, are you familiar with the fact that Mr. Blumenthal did represent this 346 Broadway?

Mr. MANSURE. No; I knew nothing about that. We did have, very frankly, some negotiations with another firm that he represents on the Grand Central Post Office Building in New York City, where there