This is a very important post in Germany. It is a seaport and a big post. We believe that the principal officer at that post should be satisfactorily housed. He has a lot of representational responsibilities. We own the site and if we had the money we could put up a very nice residence for this purpose.

Mr. HAYS. Your site is in a suitable place; is that right?

Mr. DEL FAVERO. It is in a wonderful location. It is a beautiful site.

IRELAND

Mr. HAYS. Ireland. Mrs. Kelly wants to talk about Ireland.
Mrs. KELLY. Who needs marine guards in Ireland?

Mr. CROCKETT. We do not need marine guards in Ireland for any reason except that we have cryptographic equipment there and wherever we have cryptographic equipment we have a standing rule that we need Marine guards.

Mr. MONAGAN. What is the policy of the Department with reference to Marine guards?

Mr. CROCKETT. The general policy is this: We have found out from our experience in World War II that it is cheaper and easier to have marine guards than civilian guards, so we do not have any civilian guards at any of our properties around the world. We made this agreement with the Marine Corps. They select the cream of their crop every year. They give them special training and then they send them to our embassies and consulates where we have very sensitive cryptographic equipment. The arrangement is that we have a marine guard wherever we have this sensitive cryptographic equipment abroad. They do more than this. They act as general building guards for the whole embassy building. But basic policy relates to the cryptographic security.

Mr. MONAGAN. Did we talk about the fact before that there were none at Prague at the time of the riots there when they had all the children upstairs in a school?

Mr. CROCKETT. I do not recall.

Mr. MONAGAN. Does this come under your department-the policy as to whether or not they are furnished in a particular place? Mr. CROCKETT. Yes.

Mr. MONAGAN. I wish you would check into that and give us an answer to it. It seemed to me to be a pretty important lack in our own establishment there and it was highlighted by the fact the Czechs did not furnish any police protection whatsoever.

In the building in Prague the families, women and children were living upstairs, plus the fact there was an American school being operated there.

Mr. CROCKETT. I will be glad to look into that.

(The Department subsequently submitted the following information:)

ABSENCE OF MARINE GUARDS AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN PRAGUE,

CZECHOSLOVAKIA

For a number of years a de facto personnel ceiling on the staff of the U.S. Embassy in Prague has been imposed by the Czechoslovak authorities. Although we have not formally accepted the validity of such a ceiling, we have complied with the limitation in practice and have reciprocated by keeping watch on the size

of the staff assigned to the Czechoslovak Embassy in Washington and by maintaining equivalent limitations here.

Apart from the factor of the personnel ceiling, which precludes unilateral U.S. action to raise our Embassy staff in Prague by the substantial number of persons that a marine detachment of minimal size (six) would involve, the state of our relations with Czechoslovakia in past years has not offered a favorable prospect for obtaining the agreement of the Czechoslovak authorities to our use of marine guards.

While the Department would like to have marine security detachments assigned to all Eastern European posts, the timing of any U.S. initiative looking toward such an arrangement must be governed by our assessment of the current state of our relations with the individual governments and by the outlook for a positive response by these governments to any proposals we might make in this regard. Our relations with the Governments of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Bulgaria are still affected by a number of unresolved bilateral problems. We are prepared, however, to consider at this time the feasibility of including the question of marine guards among the subjects to be discussed with these Governments, as well as with the Rumanian Government, this fiscal year.

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND

Mr. HAYS. Before we go into any other country, I would like you to tell us a little bit about what has happened to this property in Switzerland that Mrs. McCormack gave us and which they acquired some months back and nothing has been done about it.

Is anyone prepared to talk about it? It is near Geneva.
Mr. CROCKETT. There are basically two problems.

Mr. DEL FAVERO. The Prangin property was offered to us on July 10, 1962, by Mrs. Catherine McCormack, and was accepted by the Secretary of State on September 7, 1962. The title of this property was acquired by a transfer of the stock of a corporation known as Le-Green.

Mr. CROCKETT. In Switzerland, foreigners cannot own property, but they can own stock in a company that in turn owns property. Mr. DEL FAVERO. There are two outstanding matters which have not been resolved in the acquisition of this property:

One, the funds for rehabilitation. At the time Mrs. McCormack donated this property, and even before the Secretary accepted it, and subsequently, we were given to understand she would put up the money to rehabilitate this residence.

Mr. CROCKETT. It is all run down.

Mr. HAYS. I know all about that.

Mr. CROCKETT. They offered $100,000.
Mr. HAYS. $150,000.

Mr. CROCKETT. There is a question of how much. They did not want to give it in the same tax year, so they did not give it to us at the time they gave us the property. Since then, they have never come through with the gift of the money. We have sent several emissaries to see her. The word came to us she was unhappy with us because we did not go ahead with it. She was unhappy with us because she heard we might subdivide it. She was unhappy with us because of various things, but the emissaries that went to see her never discovered any particular reason why she did not give the money except, perhaps, her lawyer had decided it was not in her interest taxwise to give us the additional money, or offer it, and she had other commitments and for various reasons it was not forthcoming.

Mr. MONAGAN. Does that gift include the furnishings appearing in the pictures?

Mr. CROCKETT. She gave us some furnishings, and they are stored now in the residence.

Mr. DEL FAVERO. As for the second problem, the Swiss Government wants us to pay $83,000 in taxes.

Mr. CROCKETT. A transfer-type tax.

Mr. DEL FAVERO. To liquidate the corporation will cost $83,000. They are willing for us to pay only $16,000 provided we will agree to make it a condition the building will be a monument and will be used only for diplomatic purposes.

We do not want to bind ourselves with respect to future disposition of this property by agreeing to this condition that the Swiss authorities were asking us to agree to.

We have been trying to get them to exempt us from these taxes but we have not had any success to date.

Mr. MONAGAN. What is the $83,000?

Mr. DEL FAVERO. The Swiss Government would tax us.

Mr. CROCKETT. A transfer tax for the liquidation of the corporation. Mr. HAYS. They will reduce it to $16,000 if you promise to use it only for diplomatic purposes?

Mr. CROCKETT. Yes. It is a large site, and we have had it in the back of our mind that some day in the future we would sell off a part of it at a profit.

Mr. HAYS. How much are you paying at the moment to lodge your Ambassador there?

Is he in rented property?

Mr. CROCKETT. Yes.

Mr. DEL FAVERO, We are paying $11,136 a year for a leased residence.

Mr. HAYS. Is there another residence on this besides the big house? Mr. CROCKETT. No. There is a little boathouse she has preserved. Mr. HAYS. How little? She lives in it?

Mr. CROCKETT. She preserved that for her use during her lifetime. We have it when she dies. Until we have resolved these two issues, we have not done anything on it.

Mr. HAYS. Do you have any estimate on how much it is going to cost to rehabilitate the place?

Mr. DEL FAVERO. We took bids in March 1963, and at that time the lowest bid was $180,000. The prices have gone up since then, and I would venture to say it would cost $200,000 to $250,000 now. Mr. HAYS. If you keep on dragging your feet, it is going to go up

more.

Mr. DEL FAVERO. There is some question as to whether or not the principal officer ought to occupy this property. It is a very large residence. It is going to entail high maintenance and operating costs. Mr. HAYS. You were aware of that when you accepted it?

Mr. DEL FAVERO. We were, sir. It is about 12 miles out of town. Mr. HAYS. It has not moved any farther out since you accepted it, has it?

Mr. DEL FAVERO. NO.

Mr. HAYS. In fact, they built a new highway which has really brought it closer in?

Mr. DEL FAVERO. That is right. They built a new highway. The traffic situation still entails quite a bit of time to get people out there.

Mrs. KELLY. Is it not a fact when we accepted this, we realized the geographic situation of Geneva, and the need of many international meetings held there, the fact, also, when our officials went to Europe we did not have a place to have them in residence at that particular time and there was need of such a place, particularly as big as this, is that not a fact?

Mr. DEL FAVERO. I do not think we ever expected to provide a residence of this size for any chief of mission in Geneva.

Mr. HAYS. The thing was sold to us on exactly what Mrs. Kelly is saying. I remember as though it were only yesterday, it would not only be a residence for the chief of mission, but we have high-ranking officials going to Geneva all the time, and when they went there they would be housed there instead of some hotel, and it would be an economical thing all the way round, and we ought to take it. That is the way it was sold to me. I concurred as chairman of the committee, and I think the committee concurred we ought to accept it. Mrs. KELLY. I will go back, Mr. Chairman.

You met with me in Switzerland or someplace during the period Secretary Dulles was there. It was difficult to find a place for him. Let us not go into further details on that. To me there is need in Switzerland for us to have a big place. To me, whether you block it off or not in your setup, make a separate division for the use of our top officials when they come in there, if you need that piece of property for our helicopters, let us have it. Let us do that which you can. I do not care if it is $2 million more. Let us do it right or not at all. I think this is a very important location in the world. I think just like the situation in Paris, let us face up to it.

Mr. HAYS. What brought this up is that Mr. Selden was recently in Switzerland at a meeting and this was brought to his attention. He asked me why nothing had been done. I will be frank with you, I assumed it had all been fixed up and somebody was living in it by this time.

Mrs. KELLY. May I continue?

Mr. HAYS. How much money have we lost in the past 2 years by bureaucratic dragging of feet and nothing happening?

Mr. CROCKETT. It is not entirely bureaucracy. There is a matter of access and a matter of getting the money. I think we crossed off the latter.

Mr. HAYS. I think you better, too.

Mr. CROCKETT. I think perhaps we better make up our minds to pay $83,000 in taxes and go along with it. I have a man going there next week who will look into the whole thing and give us his ideas.

Mrs. KELLY. Let me go a little further on this situation. At times we have had several Ambassadors in this country who could well afford an ideal residence and did so. I remember well when one chief of mission went to Geneva, he had to leave the residence used by the former mission chief because he could not afford it. He had to have a little old apartment and it was perfectly horrible.

I will say that maybe the committee of our own Congress failed to provide sufficient funds for it. I do not think it is just the State Department.

Mr. CROCKETT. We will have a man going there next week. Perhaps before these hearings are over we will have a man to talk to you about it.

Mr. FARBSTEIN. Is there anything in the agreement of sale or transfer, or whatever it is, to restrict the use to solely this building? Mr. DEL FAVERO. There is no condition.

Mr. CROCKETT. That was one of the things we would not accept, a conditional gift.

Mr. FARBSTEIN. In other words, if it is determined in everybody's wisdom that another building be constructed, we have the right to do so?

Mr. CROCKETT. Yes, sir; or build.

Mr. FARBSTEIN. I just heard testimony this is a large expanse of land area. It would seem to me that under those circumstances it could be desirable to pay the taxes so that there be no restrictions on the transfer. So that we have the right to do whatever we please. I think that the department can then determine after we have it, whether or not under all the circumstances it is wise to put up another building for the purposes that we need and use this as a museum or whether we want to pay for the demolition of this building.

Mr. CROCKETT. We cannot demolish it.

Mr. FARBSTEIN. Make whatever use you want of it.

Mr. CROCKETT. On the taxes, we were just hoping not to have to pay anything. We were hoping to negotiate with the Swiss.

Mr. HAYS. It is past 12 o'clock and I am sure that we will get a quorum call in a minute. I propose to try to have another meeting on Tuesday morning.

The committee will stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)