(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 45
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 24, 2001
• Sequence Number: 11
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
Cf
be some time limit on the deferred vote? Otherwise it
could gold us up indefinitely.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: I am pretty sure within a week
that Mr. Remon suggested we will hear from him.
1,M. REMON: I am sure we can get it within a week.
1,M. NORTON: Ought' t we to make this a fairly special
thing because supposing I can't get down here some time
and something happens -- I don't like it and I send in a
vote. Am I going to be allowed to do that?
We are opening up something here where people say!
if I had been there I would have cast the deciding vote, and
then we will get ourselves in quite a tangle.
I think this is awkward but we have got to think of
the future on it.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Well, I think that the fact that
M41r. McMillan has written a letter acknowledging that there
is a meeting and he had an interest and he couldn't be
here, and he failed to vote --
MR. NORTON: He will cast the vote himself, in
other words.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOIUIEW: I don't know. He may allow one
of the members of his committee to do so. But I think
their awareness of the meeting and their failure to vote is
rather prejudicial.
"OLONEL HUNTER: I think he should be required to
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
vote in this case.
In this case if he thinks that Mr. Broyhill has
jurisdiction, all right, let him vote for Mr. Broyhill.
It is his prerogative. I don't think we should let it be
kicked around.
1IAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Well, gentlemen, we have a
motion and we are not going to be here all day. I am going
to put the motion.
All those in favor -- do I understand that the man who
made the motion will put a seven-day limit?
COLONEL HUNTER: Yes, sir.
I.M. RJ 1ON: I agree.
I`R . CHCATHAM: Is there any limit on who may cast the
ballot?
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: I think the ballot should be
cast be the chairman of the committee. We have the vote from
the chairman of the Senate committee.
-OLONEL HU TER: I agree.
CHAIR2AAN BARTHOLOMEW: I thinkthe chairman of the House
Crmnnittee if he wishes to should cast a vote.
~. NORTON: And would you insert in the resolution
that under the peculiar circumstances of this issue and the-
CHAIRRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: We agreed
that whenever we do
this we will always decide each time -- it was decided
earlier as to whether we are going to accept absentee or such
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
rotes .
All those in favor of the motion to accept Mr.
McMillan's deferred vote within seven days, please say aye.
Would you raise hands?
The motion is carried.
't
AR. ZACH: That raises a question. With the delay of
seven days to get a complete vote, whether Mr. Poorman
would be available to vote during the same period?
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: We are getting into some nice
problems.
I.MR. NOLEN: I would like to i i.se another question.
MR fliION: I think I would like to say there is a
difference between Poorman and the chairman of the District
Committee.
MR. NOLEN: If Mr. McMillan's vote should cause a tie
in the vote of the commission, which the chairman is usually
under parliamentary procedure privileged to then vote
on, is the chairman then privileged to vote in case there is
not a tie at the moment?
MR.ZACH: Of course.
MR. SPEIMAN: The chairman could vote in all cases
anyway.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: What's that Mr. Spelman?
MR. NOLEN: There is no --
`,R. CHEATHAM: There is no restriction on your voting
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
MR. SPELMAN: You are not the vice president.
Mkt. CHEATHAM: You don't have to wait until a tie vote.
MMaR. NOLEN: What I was referring to was the usual thing
that the chairman does not vote if there is a majority that
ekes a decision and that if there is a tie, then he
usually votes. You can't tell with votes oit,standing what
the circumstances will be.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: I think there is one unresolved
question and that is with respect to Mr. Poorman. Are
there any other absent other than Dr. Lohman?
MR. CHFATHAM: No.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: While we are at it, what is
your pleasure about Mr. Poorman?
11R. NORTON: We ought to let him, too, if we are going
to let everybody else vote. What's the difference in
principle between any one of the members of the commission
and another?
Ill. ZACH: There is a difference.
M MR. R34ON: Congressional
MR. ZACH: Now that I think of it, any vote of the
commission may be of not more than eight votes normally
because people are absent and you don't go after their vote.
We are making a special case of this one because we thought
it was important enough to.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: I think we should, however,. I
think there is a distinction. Mr. Poorman was here. He
saw our program. Dr. Lohman was here and saw our program.
The matter was discussed. Dr. Lohman left a vote and Mr.
Pooxnan didn't.
MR. CHEATHAM: May I add there, Mr. Poorman is ill
toady and of course didn't foresee he was not going to be
here, if that would make any difference. I don't know.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Would anybody else like to
offer some more complications?
MR. REMON: I think of a couple but I don't believe I
will offer them.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLCMEW: Well, we will pass up the question
of Mr. Poorman unless somebody wishes to offer a motion on
that.
Are we ready for the Question?
MR. ZACH: No, I am not ready.
In view of the fact that the chairman is leaving for
a little vacation, if the vote was likely to be a tie as
a result of this seven-day deferral, he might choose to
vote now rather than have to be disturbed on his vacation
to vote.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: I have no hesitancy in so doing.
I will be glad to.
MR. ZACH: It is your privilege to do so.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
44
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: I will be very glad to.
Are you-prepared now for the vote?
All those in favor of Mr. Owen's motion which I think
you all understand, will indicate so by raising your hand.
(Four hands were raised)
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: And we do have a letter from
Dr. Lohman and this one from Senator Neely.
NR. NOLEN: He says here that since it will not be
possible for me to attend the meeting tomorrow morning of
the National Capital Planning Co*nnission in which the
question of the CIA site will be considered, I would like
to leave with you my considered opinion and vote on the
matter.
I have studied with great care the representations of
the various interested parties and have evaluated the
proposal and what I regard in the light of appropriate
planning considerations.
It seems to me that too much emphasis has been place
upon the desire of ccti ercial interests and related
public opinion polling to bring about a decision and which
considerations tend to distort the picture rather than to
permit of an appropriate decision in planning terms.
The evidence submitted convinces me that the Langley
site is ill-advised and I should like to register my vote
against the approval of that site.
Senator Neelys letter which is dated December 9.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
l*5
says that to my regret it will not be possible for me to
attend the National Capital Planning Commission meetings on
the 15th and 16th of December.
In the event there is a vote on the question of
approving the use of the Langley site for the new central
Intelligence Agency headquarters, I wish to be recorded as
voting against the selectionof that location.
Should the, commission take any action concerning the
Shirley Highway tract, I desire to have my vote cast in
favor of that site.
The best of wishes and the kindest regards, I am
always faithfully yours -- Senator Neely.
CHAIRtvIAN BARTHOLOMEW: I would like to see that again.
All those not in favor of Mr. Owen's motion, please
indicate by raising their right hand.
(Raising of hands.)
lIR. CHEATHAM Six in favor and four against.
CHA -1AN BARTHOLOMEW: One vote to come in.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Mr. Owen's motion has carried.
'1R. ZACH: Tentatively.
GHAIHMAN BARTHOLOMEW: One vote still to come.
Now we proceed with the rest of the program.
MR. NOLEN: I presume no action is necessary for you
to transmit to CIA a report of the council?
CHAM.1AN BARTHOLOMEW: Yes, I believe this action
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
46
should be referred to the council should be referred to the
CIA, Mr. Dulles, and he then may have opportunity to make a
further presentation.
MR. NOLEN: My point was that you should transmit
your report of council also. You want action on that?
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: I don't know that that is
required by the law, is it?
MR. NOLEN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: That our report also goes
to council for further action?
MR. NOLEN: That you transmit the report of the
wondered whether you wanted to take action on
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: The law requires transmission
but not direction?
MR. NOLEN: That's right.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Of course we should do so if
the law requires it.
MR. ZACH: You don't need any action if the law
requires it.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: We will transmit this to Mr.
Dulles and if I understand from what was said previously he
has the opportunity to make a presentation. If he wishes to
make a presentation, we shall hear him at our next meeting.
Approved For Release 2 112PID I 9 -04718AO02700050011-7
 4/
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
DOPY CO/PY COPY
COMMISSION MEETING
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: I believe we have a quorum
The Commission will please come to order.
We are a little behind on our program of yesterday
and I think we will just observe our Friday morning program
here and then pick up these other items as we go along.
I would like very much to see if we cannot get the
morning program in time to pick up these other items so
that then we won't have too long a meeting this afternoon as
I understand some of the members have to leave.
Item 6, scheduled for this morning, the reports on
the CIA location, are first on our program, and I believe we
are ready to hear those reports.
Is there anything you wish to say in advance of
this, Mr. Nolen? Have you got any announcements? I believe
you mentioned that you did.
MR. NOLEN: Yes, I have here an announcement
from the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment
Officials who are having an important luncheon meeting.
I might say that the previous meeting of the same
group of which the Chairman spoke -- and this is somewhat of
a follow-up of that meeting. The speaker is Martin D.
Myyerson. He is Executive Director of a citizen group called
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
4
ACTION which stands for American Council to Improve Our
Neighborhoods.
His subject is CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOR URBAN
RENEWAL.
Because of the subject matter, we thought that
perhaps some of the members of the Commission might like
to attend the luncheon and if so I believe we have time*
enough today to arrange the program to do that.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: You are an optimist.
MR. NOLEN: I have to be an optimist, Mr. Chairman,
in this matter.
But the meeting starts at 12:00 and you would
certainly be through at 2 o'clock. It means cutting off the
program half to three quarters of an hour and shoving it to
the afternoon.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Would any members like to
cut our program around for that purpose? If so, I hope
you will make it known.
i would like to proceed now.
Is there anything you wish to say to introduce this
matter of the CIA location?
M. NOLEN: I think it might be well for me to
just review very quickly the procedure on this.
Under our new Planning Act the CIA has made a
proposal to us which they are required to do, what it is
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
they want to do.
vie are supposed to review that proposal to deter-
nine its consistency with the comprehensive plan. In that
process, we are required to advise and counsel and consult
with the Regional Planning Council. That we have done since
the last meeting.
Er. Wehrly is here to present the council's report
this morning. The Commission's function is then to transmit
its own report, whatever that may be, to the CIA along with
the report of the Regional Planning Council.
ion receipt of that report, if not in agreement
vLth it, CIA shall, not may, shall then make another report-,
to the Commission stating reasons why it does not agree if it
&oes not agree with the Ccmnission's recommendation, whereupon
the Commission makes a final recommendation.
That give and take, back and forth process was set
-'-p in the law and which is provided in most communities be-
tween the Planning Commission and the action agency.
t. A RMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Mr. Wehrly, I believe, is
NOLEN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Have you a report to present
on behalf of the council?
!_. WEHRLY: Mr. Chairman, I have and I will make
it very brief.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
In view of the fact that I believe all of the mem-
bers here have had the report of the council since at least
Wednesday of this week, if not before, I may say that report
is a rather extensive one putting together all of the action
and considerations which have been studied over a period of
I might summarize the action of the council briefly
in that the council in a split vote of five to three voted
in favor of the Langley site.
I think, however, if I can take the liberty of
making some personal observations, that the commission in its
deliberations should perhaps go back of the numerical vote
of the council, particularly to the statements of the in-
dividual members of the council made prior to the vote, which
I think are significant.
In addition, I think you should look carefully at
the letter of transmittal which sets forth the second resolu-
tion of the council. I would like to read that:
RESOLVED, That the council requests the CIA in
conjunction with its request for appropriations to ask for
authorization and appropriations for the improvements not
yet committed which are related to this development as described
in the report of its director.
That is the council director, Mr. Watt. And. those
improvements are enumerated as follows -- taken from the
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
report as authorized.
Chain Bridge widening along with Canal Road and
Weaver Place improvement;
Virginia Route 123;
Parkway to Chain Bridge;
Glebe Road, Lee Highway to Chain Bridge;.
Parkway to Cabin John Bridge, including Cabin John
Bridge;
George Washington Memorial Parkway, Maryland side,
outer belt;
Route 7, in Virginia, to U.S. 4+0 in Maryland.
My own interpretation, and the council has cer-
tainly not bounded us, is that in effect these two actions
by the council, the second resolution and the statements
made prior to the split vote, would appear to me to put a
condition upon the approval which the council gave to the
CIA location at Langley.
I hope that you all have had at least a chance to
go through this report and cover the highlights. If you
have not, I would suggest that you would at least go over now
if you can the statements made prior to the vote which follow
the letter of transmittal.
I believe that is all I need to say, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Are there any questions
anybody wishes to ask?
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-0471,8A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
3
COLONEL HUNTER: Mr. Wehrly, question has arisen
as to whether or not the Regional Council's action was a
conditional action.
It was my impression you announced at the meeting
that the initial action, the vote was not conditional. How-
ever, I fully understand your implication that the subsequent
action cast a shadow on it, is that correct?
MR. WHRRLY: Yes. What I said just now is my own
interpretation. I specifically said or thought I said that
the council was not bound to that interpretation; that was my
personal interpretation.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Are there any other questions
from 14r. Wehrly?
If not, we have had a committee of our members to
look into this matter. I believe Mr. Owen, Mr. Remon, Mr.
Norton were on that committee. Have you a report, Mr. Owen?
MR. OWEN: Yes, I have, Mr. Chairman.
MMir. Chairman, gentlemen of the committee, report and
recommendation of the committee of the National Capital Plan-
ning Commission on the proposal to locate CIA headquarters
building at Langley, Virginia.
(Mr. Owen read the report referred to.)
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Thank you, Mr. Owen. I
understand why the committee worked until midnight last` night.
If I understand correctly? Mr. Remon did not agree
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
with the other members of the committee.
i1r. Remon, would you care to state your views on
the matter?
MMMR. RRION: Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I agree with
a great deal of the report. However, in the overall, I dis-
agree with it because it is an improper place to put CIA
I see for the future that that area is going to
grow and fill up very rapidly whether the CIA goes there
or not.
One major point on which I disagree with the other
two members of the committee is that I don't think the impact
or CIA going in there is going to be as serious as it is
pictured in this report.
In the overall, I agree thoroughly that the cost
of these facilities which ultimately have got to be provided
should not fall on the taxpayers in the District, Virginia,
or in Maryland. I think it is a perfectly practical thing
to assume that the Federal Government would carry these
expenses the same as they did when the Pentagon building was
built.
I see an opportunity here of getting some of these
facilities ccmpleted earlier than what they would otherwise
be, such as the George Washington Memorial. Parkway, Route 123,
Cabin John Bridge, connection with the outer loop, and the
improvement of Chain Bridge with its approaches.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
I think we have an opportunity here to do a real
job and get these facilities which are needed right as of
today. I don't believe that" the general character of that
area is going to be destroyed. It is filling up very
rapidly.
it is an ideal place with these added facilities
for people who live there and want to get to their places
in Washington. Another thing that I don't agree with on
this: I thing the report is a bit biased. I only had an
oopprtunity to read it this morning but Mr. Owen and I
had two meetings together; Mr. Owen and Mr. Norton and I
had one meeting together. The Clarke report is not quoted
in any way -- maybe it shouldn't be -- but I think it is a
matter of giving the pros and cons in arriving at a con-
clusion of this kind.
I hold no brief for the Clarke report. I got the im-
pression after I had read it several times that "Brutus
protesteth too much."
I think it is somewhat warped.
As far as quotations from the different experts are
concerned, I considered all of them, read them very care-
fully and came to my own conclusions.
Just to illustrate what is happening in that area,
one of: the experts who made a study of Fairfax County, I
think it was, Jack, Mr. Hoyt, as a result of his belief in
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
the way that area was going to grow, he purchased something
over 600 acres of land for his own self.
I am sorry I can't agree with my associates. I
have the highest regard for both of them. But that is my
considered opinion.
It was not just to midnight last night. This has
been going on for quite some time as far as I am concerned.
I don;t think I have all the material that has been
supplied in this envelope because it got so much, so heavy
that I couldn't carry it around all the time. So part of it
is at home and the rest of it here.
'Thank you very much for the opportunity.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Are there other members of
the Commission who would now like to ask questions about this
report?
MR. OWEN: In order to get this squarely before the
Commission, I want to move that the Commission approve the
recommendations in the report.
I would like to o say, too, at this time, that we have
the greatest respect for Mr. Remon's opinion; he has very
sound judgment and we have great respect for him personally
and for his opinion as well.
I have been giving this matter a great deal of
thought and I have got the same columinous correspondence
of all sorts that he has and we apparently have come to a
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
different conclusion largely from the same material.
I move the adoption of the recommendation in the
report.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Is there a second to the
motion?
MR. NORTON: I would be glad to second the motion,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Before we come to the matter
of voting, I may say that we have a letter fro?n Dr. Lohman
who was here yesterday, one from Senator Neely, and I believe
1%1r. Cheatham has something to say about a communication from
Congressman Broyhill.
Is Mr. Cheatham here?
MR. NOLEN: I think he is out checking on that right
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Mr. Cheatham, would you tell
us of the telephone communication you had from Mr. Broyhill
with respect to a vote, please?
MR. CHEATHAM: Would you like for me to announce
about the various absentees concerned, sir?
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: I have already stated that
we had comnications from Senator Neely and Dr. Lohman.
Anybody else?
14R. CHEATHAM: Yes sir. Here is Dr. Lohman's.
Here is Senator Neely's.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: You say there are others
besides Broyhill?
MR. CHEATHAM: Here is one from Mr. Wirth desig-
nating Ed Kelly as Acting Director of the Park Service.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Any others?
MR. CHEATHAM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Before coming to the Broyhill
matter
MR. CHEATHAM: I have been working on the phone since
we met and Mr. Foreman did not come to see if the General
Services Administrator would like to appoint Mr. Len Hunter
Acting Commissioner of Public Buildings but the Administrator
has not -- they have either not been able to contact him or
if Mr. Hunter wishes to --
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: We are considering, Mr.
Hunter the matter of vote that might be taken. We have some
absentee votes and are you in a position to --
MR. HUNT: I am not Acting Commissioner' and as a
consequence have no authority to vote.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Will you proceed, then,
about Mr. Broyhill?
MR. CHEATHAM: Mr. Broyhill all day yesterday and
up until now has endeavored to contact Representative McMillan,
the representative of the House District Committee. Mr. McMillan
wrote us that he was unable to attend but he did not
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
 ts Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
designate an alternate from among his committee membership
nor did he ask that an absentee ballot be cast. So Mr. Broy-
hill hesitated to come without being properly designated. But
Mr. Broyhill requests as a member of the District 6ommittee
until he has an opportunity to confer with Mr. McMillan, that
the House Committee reserve the right to send in an absentee
ballot subsequent to the vote in order to, as Mr. Broyhill
asked me to put it, even up for Senator Neely's absentee
ballot if we accepted Senator Neely's.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOIAMEW: Very good.
Now, the matter is open for discussion on the part
of any member of the Commission. You have a resolution before
you.
Are there comments or suggestions?
MR. SPEIMAN: Mr. Chairman, this report is most
interesting.
Like PMir. Remon, I think that there is a lot in the
report. The question that is most difficult to resolve is
the probable impact of the institution upon the area.
Nothing has been said here about the importance of obtaining
a good site for CIA. It is a special type of agency. I have
given a great deal of thought to it. And thinking of the
thing wholly from the standpoint of the CIA, I think I can see
rhy this area is probably the most desirable one in the
'Washington area for them.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
15
We say in this report that because the site that
may be selected, that a lot of people now living in other
places will move over into that section of Virginia.
I think that it is true that some people will move.
However, this area is nearer to Northwest Washington than
it is to Alexandria.
It is nearer to Northwest Washington than it is to
Arlington County.
I am not too sure that there will result from this
selection as much movement as apparently the writers of the
report envisage.
As regards the road improvements that will be
necessary in the event that CIA goes there, the effect of
doing all these things that are recommended, incidentally,
by the council's report, would be to freeze people in
their present locations.
I cannot personil.aybelieve that the location of
the CIA at Langley will make it necessary of itself to do
the construction on the outer belt that the report recommends.
I feel sure that if they go there it will be necessary to have
the George Washington Parkway built as they propose.
I think, too, that it will be necessary to make
the improvements to Chain Bridge and to a portion of Canal
Eoad and Weaver Place.
I dontt see the necessity to construct the Cabin
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
John Bridge because of their presence at Langley.
Now.. all of these road improvements that have been
mentioned, are part of the general plan of road improvements
for the Washington area. I have examined all of the material
that has been furnished here and mar conclusion is that as far
as the road improvements are concerned that those road improve-
ments that were indicated by the'special committee are all that
could be properly charged to the location of the CIA at Langley.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Thank you, Mr. Spelman.
Does any other member of the Commission wish to speak?
M. NORTON: I might speak to this just a moment,
Mr. Chairman.
We did not mention in this report the alternative
sites for the CIA because we did not think it was before us.
But Mr. Spelman has raised the point that this is the best
possible site and I would just like to point out here in the
paper last night and what I have understood but have not seen
before that Mr. Dulles.is on record before a Senate committee
with a statsment that he prefers the District for his new
building.
So I feel that there are alternative sites that are
probably preferable to this one.
But I don't think this issue is here before us and
I would not have mentioned it except that it has been brought
into debate here. And I would like to say that as to the
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
17
impact of an employment center up to 10,000 people, I just
don't think that from the experience we have had in the
war, the experience with the AEC plants, the experience that
I have had as a city planner now most of my life, that every
time you get employment in an area, at once and increasingly
you get a town built around it; that eight or ten thousand
people employed in an area implies at once a new town, a new
city if you like.
I went all through this personally at the time of
the U.N. site location. U.N. was going to have about eight
thousand employees. Everywhere we went in the metropolitan
area where I live and proposed to cput U.N. -- Hyde Park,
Kingston up on the Hudson, in Princeton, New Jersey, in
Greenwich, it was agreed and admitted that if the U.N.
came there would be a town there of 50,000 people as a
result.
This was in the debate and they located finally in
an area where they had sewers; they had transportation in the
heart of the city and they spent their money in replacing a
slum instead of spending their money in trying to stop a slum
building outside, if you like, or in trying to improve an
area properly which is a costly thing to do here.
So I think here the Congress in the end will have
an alternative.
Are they going to spend money to build the right
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
18
kind of place, and I don't mean just a campus on a piece of
ground but I mean a whole community in this part of the
metropolitan district at high cost, or are they going to pick
=exn+e other site where you have already in the ground some
punt and some transportation in being, some schools in being
and the other facilities.
MR. OWEN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on
that subject, too. I made noreference in the report to
another location because we thought it was not a part of our
function.
However, I want to say most emphatically I would
not have been a party to an adverse report on the Langley
site unless I felt there was another site that was as good
or better.
The CIA narrowed its preferences down to two;
Langley and the Winkler site.
I went very carefully over the Winkler site. I
made considerable investigation about it and I came to the
conclusion whether correct one or not that the Winkler site
would be just as good and in some respects better than the
Langley site. It has road facilities right in there right
now.
It has a sewer running right across the property.
There is another sewer under construction.
It has the Shirely Highway adjacent to it with plan
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
to add two lanes to theShirley Highway.
There are other roads that are either there or are
in the course of construction.
I saw a plat that was prepared showing road
accessible to the Winkler Tract and the?rouds radiate from
almost every side of that rectangle.
They showed a plan there by which you could get
4000 cars out of there in an hour very easily.
rMe question has been raised of course as to whether
the capacity of the Shirley Highway is sufficient to permit
the flow of cars that would come out of the location down
there but we must not for a minute assume thatall the cars
that are going our of the CIA property would use the Shirley
Highway because we know that is not true.
Jones Point Bridge will be soon built or will be
built by the time, I hope, the CIA is ready. That provides
another access into Washington.
Me Winkler site is within eight minutes of the
PPentegon, within ten minutes of the 14th Street Bridge.
It is proportionately nearer to the White House and the State
Department.
I would say again that I wou. certainly not have
voted against the Langley site unless I had taken the time
to look up some other available site.
LHAIHMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Does any other member of the
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
Commission wish to speak?
COLONEL HUNTER: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
I made my position clear, I thought, in the
Regional Council meeting and I believe everyone here is
familiar with the comments that we made.
We felt that there were certain deficiencies in the
site -- the planning problems that we did not feel that those
deficiencies were of sufficient magnitude to preclude the
selection of a site for this institution.
I would like again to reiterate the position that I
took in that meeting and that is to say the District of
Columbia does not feel that it should shoulder the burden of
providing bridge improvements and the road improvements which
may become necessary if this site is selected. That we want
to make a matter of record and make it clear.
We do not have the bridge that might be required
or any bridges in our ten-year public works program and we
don't think that we should have to shoulder them.
MR. RrION: Could I say just one word, Mr. Chairman,
on the Winkler site?
I personally do not feel that the Winkler site was
given full consideration.
I agree with pretty near everything that Mr. Owen
says about the Winkler site except one fundamental thing as
far as I am concerned, and that is, you are putting down there
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
this number of people in one of the most congested through
thoroughfares that we have in this area. It is already
overloaded. That is why I personally passed up the Winkler
site as a possibility.
Over and above that, I think Mr. Carr had already
offered a substantial part of the necessary land to CIA free
of charge. Whether it was all that they required, I don't
But to pick -- to picture as the Clarke report did
this terrific jam of traffic just overpainted the lily as far
as I am concerned, and Mr. Owen in collaboration, I think,
with some of the Alexandria officials, worked out a scheme
where it would work.
it wouldn't take four hours to get the cars out of
there. But it is still one of the jammed, main thoroughfares
and I don't think that is good planning.
MR. OWEN: The architect referred to it as a swamp.
Actually, I drove an automobile within ten feet of the stream
that runs there, Holmes Than, a day after a heavy rain and
you could hardly see where the tracks of?-fhe automobile were.
Furthermore,' they have had drillings made on thatland
and they have struck -- they have overlay in the upper
layer of soil which is sand and gravel -- 21 feet in one
place, they struck solid rock and in another place, 25 feet;
so building conditions there are just about ideal.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
COLONEL HUNTER: Mr. Chairman, I don;t think we
should get into a knock-down, drag-out on the Winkler site.
If we went into the Winkler site, if we went. to the
Langley site, I think I would find some serious problems
there, too.
I think the question before us is the Langely site,,
is the Langley site an acceptable site for the CIA. I think
that is what we have to pass on today.
I would like to point out that it is quite evident
to anyone here that the pressure to expand that area over
there and the zoning problems that have been tied to this
problem here are going to come anyway.
You can't, if for no other reason than the publicity
given over this area over this fight. People are going to be
looking in the Langley area right now for possible location.
That problem is going to be with them any-way.
MR. ZACH: I would like to speak to that point.
As I understand it, there is a tentative master plan,
McHugh Plan and Zoning Plan which would zone the area
upriver of the CIA site to large properties. Ins't it three
to five acres or something like that?
-IR. SPELMAN: Yes,. there it is. It is meeting with
a great deal of opposition.
MR. ZACH: If the CIA did not go there and that
zoning ordinance went through, or some modification of it,
to keep it in larger sized properties, which even Mr. Dullees
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
expressed an interest in seeing done, it seems to me that the
land use would be kept much more nearly the way it is than
:f CIA went there where the pressures would be so much
greater that the Board of Commissioners couldn't withstand it.
~~'hey would get down to half acre and smaller properties much
quicker anyway.
In other words, it would hold off the intensive
development a good deal longer.
iR. IIILY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that
.I think all of the roads, highway and bridge improvements have
been stated will be necessary, if the Langley site is
selected are essential emprovements. They are long programmed.
It would make possible the almost immediate extension of the
taeorge Washington Memorial Parkway and hasten the achievement
and accomplishment of plans that have been on the approved
by this Commission for many years. Unless some circumstance
~;irn.ilar to the CIA or some other large development should
come out that way we may be many many years achieving the
ultimate accomplishment of our regional plan.
I agree with everything that Mr. Spelman, Mr. Remon
have said in that regard.
MR. SPEIMAN: Mr. Chairman, could I mention just
one point`s I think it has some bearing. There is an
advantage in the IAgley site in that it would have less
tendency to draw people out of their present homes in
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
Washington than almost any sight you could pick that wasn't.
in Washington itself.
There is this further advantage, too, that it takes
10,000 people out of downtown Washington and the traffic of
10,000 people out of downtown Washington in the rush hour.
That wouldm't be true of some other sites.
IMMR. NORTON: Mr. Chairman, could I just comment
on Mr. Kelly's point? That is true that these parkways are
part of our plans, but they are only part of our plans. The
other part of the plan is one, I think, that you overlooked
and that is that this area in our plan was to be a low density
or medium density residential area.
In effect here is what we are doing if we accept your
argument, and I think Mr. Remon feels this way, where in
effect there is a selling out of part of our plan for what I
call a mess of parkways; I think that if we get this emplo$-
went there,, then our parkway and highway plans will probably
have to change to accomidate a different concept of that
part of the metropolitan region.
It is very tempting, but the price you are paying
is a changed character of an area.
I think this is what ought to be put before the
public so that the Congress and the public understand what we
are trying to Ho here if we encourage CIA to pick this site.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOIAMEW: Are there further comments?
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
IffR. ZACH: 0 I would like to ask one question of the
staff whose memory may be better than mine.
In view of Mr. Norton's reading of Mr. Dulles
facoring an in-town site, on what basis was it that Colonel
White withdrew the Langley site, as my only recolloection
of it, as not satisfying the criteria -- some words to that
effect -- last April or May, whenever it was.
LIIAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: I was going to ask the
staff or Mr. Nolen in particular who has undoubtedly given
some attention to the matter, would you answer Mr. Zach's
question and would you are to comment further?
NO,EN: I don't think he ever made that clear.
You will remember last spring there was a good deal of
agitation for a downtown location, and Southwest in particular.
I think that he felt since the matter was before Congress at
that time they had no authorization for the construction,
that CIA would be jumping the gun, perhaps, to propose a
;pecitic site without full investigation of the merits of the
downtown site versus the outlying sites.
I think he stated before the Commission here
that he preferred-to present the authorization to Congress
without a specific site in mind and that is the reason I
t'!,, Lnky the basic reason why the Langley site was withdrawn.
I1~. ZACII: I have a recollection that is not the
way the minutes read..
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
M. NOLEN: Maybe Mr. Watt would add to my statement
or maybe you have a correction.
MR. WATT: I think the point that needs to be brought
out is that at the time the Langley site which was the first
proposal of the agency was put before the Commission and thence
to the council, they were asked to report on that site and a
committee was appointed of which you were a member of the
committee, commission committee, and the council had one and
they each reported on it in view of the Fairfax resolution
which stated at that time that the Federal Government
should pay for all the public facilities and if they did
it was welcome in Fairfax County.
They did not specifically at that time say
Langley. So as Mr. Nolen pointed out when they went down to
the Hill for their authorization, and because of this cost
factor that was in the picture at that time in providing all
these facilities, they withdrew the Langley site and agreed,
I think, not as Mr., as Colonel White's leter stated, that
they were not going to ask for the George Washington Memorial
Parkway appropriation at that time without which the Langley
site would not be feasible.
'T'hen following that letter, a joint committee
was appointed from both the council and the commission directed
to work with the CIA in setting up the criteria and that
committee analyzed some 30 sites and came up with six sites
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
which met theteria which both the CIA and the council and
the commission agreed upon.
MR. ZACH: But also omitted the Langley site.
MR. WATT: Of course, it didn't meet the criteria
at that time.
The six sites were the two in the District, North-
west and Southeast, the Winkler and the Arlington Hall in
Virginia and the Casey Tract in Suitland, Maryland. That was
subsequently adopted, I think, at the May 7 or 4 meeting, some-
where in there, by both bodies at a joint meeting.
That is how that relationship came into the picture
and how Langley at that time was taken out.
Followig that report, the Congress authorized them
a certain amount of money at which time they set the site,
the site acquisition money at $350,000 which of course almost
automatically knocked out the two District sites which would
be considerably more money.
MR. NOLEN: I might say in reference to that, that
there was no appearance or report from this Commission to the
Committee of Congress that was considering that question.
We did have this resolution in April, however, that set up
the standards for a location in Washington or in the outskirts
of Maryland and Virginia.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Gentlemen, I have allowed a
great deal of time because this is indeed a very important
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
matter. I don't mean to shut off Mr. Nolen but I would
like to bring the matter to a vote as soon as possible.
If you have something to say on behalf of the staff,
Mr. Nolen -- I don't know that we have a staff report on this we will be very glad to have you make a statement.
MR. NOLEN: The staff has met with the committee
and has furnished its views and also material. I thought,
perhaps, though, it might be helpful to illustrate some of
the points that have been brought out in the report and in
the discussion here to refer to our basic plans for the location
of Federal employment which appeared in the 1950 report. After
all, it is your obligation to measure the consistency of this
proposal as against plans that have already been adopted.
You will remember that the pitch that we made at
that time was that there was too much emphasis on concentration
in the central area of the city or the metropolitan area
and that would include the Pentagon along with downtown
Washington. That since Federal employment was the economic
base for the development of this entire area, it would be
wise to have spread out more as employment, basic employment
is spread out in the average metropolitan area.
That need was entirely separate from the security
or defense angle which happened to run along with it.
So we proposed after very considerable study and
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
many of the present members of the commission were not
serving then -- so I want to make clear that months of study
went into this philos}Dhy that was back of this plan which is
so simply expressed here.
Now, there have been some things transprire in the
meantime that have negated some of the things that were
proposed on this plan and which in my opinion relate very
definitely to the Langley proposal.
These locations that are shown outlined here not on
the existing but on the proposed are in quite a number of
respects, probably never will be realized.
CHAIRMAN FINLEY: You mean at the precise location?
MR. NOLEN: At the precise location or amounts,
the reason being that with policies with respect to location
outside with the exception of the CIA are all for dispersal
at considerable distances.
We have in the mill as was mentioned the other day
the Geological Survey, Coast andGeodetic survey and the
Weather Bureau. In the aggregate they total less than the
total, considerably less than the total for CIA, so the
future, in the foreseeable future, the one government activity
that is likely to go out of Washington in addition to these
three small ones is CIA.
So that for a long time to come these sites which
we envisioned in 1950 as being potential sites for use appear
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
to have no customers.
I am blocking out each of these that are non-
existent sites which now seem unlikely in view of the present
government plans for building.
So we have now only CIA as a likely site in the
close-in metropolitan area, and three small government
institutions either in the aggregate or separately, less
than CIA to beyond the edges of this map. CIA is to put at
Langley this concentration. You can see immediately the
imbalance or the inbalance that is created. We have in
this sector here of 45 degrees we will say, in the Northwest,
we would have 10,000 at Langley, 2000 Carderock, 2000 Army
Map Service, 12,000 here, 3000 at Walter Reed Annex and
5000 Walter Reed Annex, and 3000 Bureau of Standards and
3000 in the Naval Communications Center.
If we eliminate those I mentioned just inside the
District and take those outside the District, we would have
10,000, 12,000, 16,000, 28,000, 31,000 out of a total of
about, I think it is, 47,000 in the entire area outside of
Washington excluding the military reservations that would be
located in this narrow 45-degree sector --- 31 out of 47
or about two thirds of the total. Two thirds-of the total
employment out of Washington would be concentrated and crowded
into the area that traditionally and as a matter of policy on
the part of local government has always been a development of
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
low density, high economic income, and with a center of
employment here that will bring demand for a multi-family
development and lower cost habitations and facilities.
More appropriate and better bm2ance of Federal
employment would be totake these two and these are the only
two centers of large concentration, the Bethesda and the Suitland
and balance that with a location out here In Virginia somewhere
in this sector here, say approximately at this location.
Then you would have an offset to this already large
concentration in the Northwest sector. That was visualized
in your resolution in April to which no reference has been
made and I think it is appropriate if I may take a minute
to refer to it.
This was your formal report and the last matter on
which you are on record and I believe you were unanimous on
this.
Would it be appropriate to read this r?lution?
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: I think the pertenent part, yet.
MR. NOLEN: I would like to read the three "whereases"
and the one that applies to the Virginia area.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: In the interest of consistency.
MR. NOLEN: That's right.
"Whereas, the Planning Commission has received a
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
32
request from the Intelligence Agency to furnish its views con-
cerning the several sites which have been discussed or others
which it may be appropriate to consider, and
"Whereas, an employment center of substantial size
and importance requires a location well oriented to other
government activities, with which it works regularly, and
to the community in which it is to be located, and
"Whereas, it is the duty of the Commission to
advise" and so on,
"NOW TFMMFORE, BE IT RESOLVED That consideration
be given to any of the following alternative locations"
and there were, you remember, the recommendation and specifica-
tion or standards set up for central area of Washington, for
Virginia and Maryland.
Here was the specification in Virginia which I do
not believe the Langley site meets, and that is the point of
my reading this.
In Virginia, within relatively close proximity to
either the intermediate or outer circumferences and in a
locality where there is already established a nucleus for
an urban environment which an establishment of such size would
stimulate and where public facilities and services are already
available or can readily be extended, such as in the southern
part of Fairfax County, in Springfield, or in the newly
annexed portions of Alexandria, that you were on record, that
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7 33
was your resolution of last Spring.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: What does that say with
respect to downtown? I would like to be refreshed on that.
MR. NOLEN: Not in the central area of the national
capital within areas already authorized for public buildings
by the Congress and in accordance with general plans hereto-
fore approved by the Planning Commission towards which
major committments have already been made such as in the
Northwest rectangle.
MR. REMON: Question, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: Gentlemen, are you ready
for the question?
COLONEL HUNTER: No, sir.
I think before we vote we should decide what we are
going to do about this questionable vote. I think that is
very important that we decide before we vote. It should not
be an issue after we vote.
CHAIl4AN BARTHOLOMEW: I was going to raise the
same question. I am glad you raised it also,Colomael Hunter.
We have two definite absentee ballots. I believe
that question was raised about those two yesterday when Dr.
Lohman asked, so that I think it is settled.
What about the one that is uncertain because of
inability to contact the Chairman of the House District Committee?
What is your pleasure with respect to accepting a later vote
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
34
from the Chairman of that committee or his representative?
MR. NORTON: Has he expressed any opinion on this,
Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: No. He has not expresssed an
opinion on it and the question we have before us is by a
member of his committee and not by the chairman which does
raise a little question because of certain other members on
that committee that might have views also.
I think Mr. Hyde, for example, is on that committee,
MR. NOLEN: He is.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: So that there is a question
that is rather difficult to resolve unless the chairman him-
self wishes to offer a vote and he has not endeavored to do
SO.
Iii. HUNTER: Mr. Chairman, I believe that yesterday
it was stated that this position was created somewhat by
virtue of the fact that Mr. McMillan has been trying to defer
to the Jurisdictions concerned, wasn't that it?
CHAIRMAN BARTID)LO1 I: He has, yes, quite
frequently.
MR. HUNT: Apparently he has been trying to do that
with the idea of letting the people who were most concerned
exercise that vote.
Now, it appears to me that in deference to the
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
3:5
Congressmen, concerned, that since one is voting we should
permit the other one to vote if he so desires.
I would so move.
MR. RENDN: Second
MR. OWEN: Mr. Chairman, when does he expect to have
this vote in? Are we to hold this vote open indefinitely
waiting for his vote?
MR. MORTON: We have the right to do this: this is
a legal matter, isn't it?
MR. OWEN: What has been the custom in the past in
situations of this sort if a situation such as this has
arisen?
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: We have accepted absentee
votes at the time of the meeting. We have never had one
deferred that I recall. Do you, Mr. Nolen?
MR. NOL,EN: Never heard of it.
NH. OWEN: I don't see how you can do that.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: There is another question
also I think because we have had alternate representation
by Mr. Broyhill and Mr. Hyde and I know they have both ex-
pressed an interest in it.
Right at the moment Congressman Broyhill is par-
ticularly interested because the action relates immediately
to his district. But on the other hand the other Congressman
is concerned and has not expressed himself.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
T.. NO% IZ: Mr, Cheatham has a point on that I think
would be well to hear.
Mn. CMATHAM: In line with ColonellHunterts statement
about one coming one time, if there was something in
his Jurisdiction, and one coming the other, last Spring
:qtr. McMillan wrote Mr. Bartholomew and said he would like
that letter to be a permanent designation of BroyhJ-11 when
it was something affecting his jurisdiction and Hyde when it
was something affecting his.
. Bartholomew replied to that and said that in
some cases that might work all right but in other cases
there would be a joint interest which might be diverse and
for that reason the burden would not be on us but on the
chairman of the committee. It was felt that each time we
were having a meeting the Chairman of the House Committee
should send us a specific letter.
Now, back last August we did receive a letter from Mr.
McMillan, not about a vote but he did express something
about the CIA location. And this time we received a letter
from. him.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: What is the date of that?
I.M. CHEATHAM: Dated December 6 --- no, 8, and it
was received here on December 12, saying that I wish that I
could be present for this meeting as I am vitally interested
in several matters that are to be considered.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
37
However, I find that it will be impossible for me
to be in Washington at that time.
I endeavored through his office to inform him that
in view of this letter of Mr. McMillan's and Senator NeeTy's
absentee ballot or attempt to file an absentee ballot that
he might wish to either designate an alternate or send in an
absentee ballot.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOI??EW: Or vote himself
7M. CHFATHAM: But we have been unable to contact him.
He was in Florence, South Carolina when he wrote this
letter and he seems to be off on some hunting trip.
CHLW N BARTHOLOMEW: I think the letter indicates that
he might have liked himself to perhaps have voted but
not having -- he was aware of the meeting -- not having en-
deavored to submit a vote or appoint a representative, I am
glad to have Mr. Cheatham remind me of that correspondence.
I had somewhat raised that very question, you see, in our
earlier correspondence and I had forgotten about it.
I think it is very questionable whether we should
accept a deferred vote. I really do.
d PMMON: It seems to me that we ought to give
him a chance to vote if he wants to. And I would say that
a week would be plenty of time in which to get in touch with
How long is he going to hunt?
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02700050011-7
3(3
MR. SI-IEIMAN: He will be back within a week.
R. CHEATHAM: The only thing I have gotten are
telephone reports which I don't know how much weight to give
to but they said yesterday he would be back today and today
they say he will be back tomorrow.
I might add this, Mr. Chairman, that in view of the
statement of Mr. Broyhill, he indicated that he would be
very concerned as a member of the House District Committee,
if we accepted Senator Neely's absentee ballot without
giving Mr. McMillan additional opportunity by letting Mr.
McMillan know that Senator Neely did send one in.
In other words, that the two houses should be treated
on the same basis.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: We have two motions before the
house.
The first was with respect to the committee report.
I don't know that there would be any great legal conflict
if we vote on the subsequent motion without interfering
with the earlier one.
MR. REMON: I think we should.
CHAIRMAN BARTHOLOMEW: You have heard the motion.
Unless there is some objection I will put the second motion
.at this time as to the acceptance of a deferred vote from
Mr. i.IcMillan.
MR. OWEN: Don't you think, Mr. Chairman, there should
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050011-7