H.R. 12138

Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 14, 2016
Document Release Date: 
October 4, 2002
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
June 30, 1967
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060005-6.pdf5.64 MB
proved For Release 2003/04/17: CIA-RDP80-0137,OR00, 500Q60005-6 HE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION BILL, 1957 HEARINGS COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE EIGHTY-FOURTH CONG SS H. R. 12138 AN ACT MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1957, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations T3Y T4/47Pf- PALRDPBOaUt37O 500060005-6 ability of the site in Prince Georges County, and particularly the site mentioned by Representative Lankford. As a member of the chamber of commerce, we surveyed the situa- tion and came to the agreement that the site mentioned which con- tains 100,000 acres surrounded by nothing that would be detrimental to the Agency, permitting it to develop it as they would see fit. The Baltimore Parkway runs through an edge of it. The Edmonston Avenue Expressway which is now in the process of development to Beltsville, and way beyond it, and other roads which have been cited are available. Personally, it has been very difficult for me to believe that the arguments of Mr. Dulles and Colonel White and associates, as well as the Congress, can, in the best intentions and judgment, appro- priate $20 million when they could save that amount of money with sites that are now available. The chamber of commerce acted very promptly in the matter. The people of Prince Georges County and the board of county com- missioners have been very favorable towards the possible selection of a.site in Prince Georges County and this particular site. I see Mr. Fisher is here who represents the people at Langley. Before the House committee, he presented a very wonderful argument about the objections of the people in that county. Be that as it may, I am predicating it on the cold facts of neces- sity, convenience, and ability of this site to suit the conditions of the important agency that we believe will serve them adequately. That is all. We have Mr. Milke here who has worked for it at least 2 years. He is a member of our committee. Will you not say a word about the situation for us? CRITERIA FOR SITE SELECTION Mr. MILKS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the whole thing that oc- curred to me throughout these hearings on the desirability of locating in Langley or other locations is the fact that the officials of CIA made the criteria which they set down apply very strictly to all locations other than Langley. However, the only locations that these criteria were not applied to, as far as existing roads and the like were con- cerned, was Langley. I still think that that was not a very fair way to appraise the entire Washington area. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL T. BROYHILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA SUPPORT OF LANGLEY, VA., SITE Chairman HAYDEN. You may proceed, Mr. Broyhill. Representative BItoYIIILL. My name is Joel T. Broyhill, a Repre- sentative in the House of Representatives from the 10th Congressional District of Virginia. Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved Ffer2M/AW.4q7p2M4P,013700509660005-6 Mr. Chairman, the Langley area for the proposed CIA building is located in my district. In all deference to the previous spokesmen and also to the other gentlemen to whom they referred, I represent the people of Langley, Va., and I am here to support the request of the Central Intelligence Agency for the appropriation of $49 million to construct the building on that site. Most of the things that I intended to say have been covered by the CIA representatives, and in deference to the committee who, I know, is very busy, I would like to make these three very brief points. First of all, it has been agreed by everyone that there is an urgent need for this building. The only thing I would like to caution the committee on is I hope no controversy over the actual location of the building will delay its construction, because they are now located in 34 buildings; let alone the security aspects of it, certainly the efficiency would be increased, and I understand they could actually operate the CIA for $3 million a year less when all housed in one building. Senator DwoRSIIAIc. Will the gentleman yield for just one question? Representative BROYi[ILL. Yes, sir. Senator DWORSHAK. How many buildings were they located in before this new CIA agency was established? Did they have tents or buildings? What were they operating from before? Representative BROYIIILL. I do not know. Senator DwoRSIIAIS. If it is classified information, I will not ask that. Representative BROYIIILL. Certainly the desirability of moving these unsightly tempo buildings cannot be disputed. They have been there for years. All of us want to get rid of them, and I hope a rider will be attached to this bill, which, when CIA moves out, would prevent any other Government agency from moving into them. I hope they will then be torn down. Insofar as the study of this location is concerned, I think it was pretty well indicated in the authorization act last year, as well as the appropriation of $5.5 million, that the building was going to be located at Langley when you authorized $8.5 million for the extension of the George Washington Memorial Parkway. Be that as it may, I can assure the committee that the CIA and particularly Colonel White, the Deputy Director, thoroughly explored every possible, feasible location that was presented to them. Every governmental representative from my area who had a suggestion of where this building could be located was able. to be heard by Colonel White. Even the speculators who wantedto sell their land to CIA were received and considered thor- oug'hly by Colonel White. So,. I do not think there should be any argument or criticism as to how thoroughly or how impartially they went into all of the available locations. As to the argument of whether it should be located in the city or suburb, I do not think there is any argument with my colleague, Mr. Lankford, on that. Certainly with this, we recognize that the District of Columbia, the Government, the area itself, is growing and several other factors must be taken into consideration in the location of these Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060005-6 ApprJ d For Rele49$ Vb4/1' 'PIODPSO IX3,7?R000500060005-6 buildings rather than just the geographical boundaries themselves. Several of them were covered by Mr. Dulles a few minutes ago, the parking facilities, the impact on the traffic, which is already congested on many of the streets of the District of Columbia. The convenience and location of the employees, the convenience of the Agency to other Government agencies with which they have to work, as well as the particular design of the building itself, as was pointed out here, must be taken into consideration. The building that they have planned is a very austere building. If that building had to be located in the District of Columbia on some city lot some- where, the marble facing and things of that sort would cost several millions of dollars more. Insofar as the specific site itself is concerned, I heard the previous witness here commenting on what the problem would be in State of Virginia. I feel I am a little more qualified to attest to that than he is. COOPERATION OF FAIRFAX COUNTY The county of Fairfax, the local community, the local governing body as well as the State of Virginia, including the Governor of Vir- ginia himself, has assured the Central Intelligence Agency of their full cooperation in providing all necessary community facilities to properly serve this building, including the construction of adequate water facilities, sewer disposal facilities, and particularly highway facilities, as well as school facilities. Senator ELLENDER. At no cost to the Federal Government? Representative BROYrr[LL. At no cost to the Federal Government. The only increase would be the George Washington Memorial High- way which was authorized a number of years ago by Congress and should have been constructed. I am glad to see the CIA come there to help accelerate the construction of that much-needed highway. Chairman HAYDEN. Will this George Washington Memorial Park- way be for passenger automobiles only? Will the heavy trucks be off of it? What about it now? Representative BROYi LL. It was originally designed for a beauti- ful scenic parkway. Of coure, you know that it is needed for the actual use of traffic here today. We need that extra facility now. The George Washington Memorial Parkway that goes all the way down to Mount Vernon is one of our major thoroughfares here today. It serves two purposes-the need of traffic as well as being a scenic highway. PARKWAY LIMITED TO PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES Chairman HAYDEN. Will the George Washington Memorial Park- way between here and Mount Vernon accommodate trucks? Representative BROYIIILL. No, sir, just the ordinary traffic; no trucks. Chairman HAYDEN. I had heard that heavy-duty trucks would be excluded from the parkway. Representative BROYIInLL. That is my understanding. Chairman HAYDEN. If the Central Intelligence Agency requires heavy materials, how will trucks delivering that heavy material get there ? Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved F aF &/01 HM'??P 'Rt3PW-'Ol?%QRi000500~iZO05-6 Representative BROYZZILL. There will be other highways and roads. The State is going to improve and widen the roads which they main- tain. Chairman IIVYDEN. This will not be the sole approach, then? The parkway will not be the sole approach? Representative BROYHILr.. No, sir. I doubt if you would need any heavy trucks in this except during the actual construction of the build- ing. I do not know if they have heavy trucks going to CIA now or not. Senator TIIYE. Might I ask of the Congressman this question : What sewer facilities are there now in the area? You said that there would be ample sewerage disposal and those utilities furnished to accommodate the CIA installation. Representative BROYHILL. They plan to construct them, Senator. There are no sewer facilities in that particular area. Senator TINE. What community exists that you could levy a tax on or an assessment in order to raise the funds for sewerage disposal just for the CIA building? Representative BROYIIILL. Of course, this is a county of Fairfax activity. The board of supervisors themselves have assured the CIA officials that they would provide the sewer facilities. Whether they intend to float a bond or whether they have cash reserves at the mo- ment, I do not know. Senator THYE;. But it is not like a city. It is just land with an occa- sional private homeowner in the area or it is agricultural land which is adjacent. Is that correct? Representative BROYHILL. It is a residential area. It is not quite agricultural. Senator Tiirr. But there are some agricultural acres out there, are there not? I am just trying to visualize what you are going to assess in order to raise the funds for sewerage disposal and the school build- ings and everything that you are going to offer as you made in your statement. You made the statement that all of these things would be made available. I was just trying to visualize who was going to bear the assessment to cover these expenses that you said would be furnished. Reprsentative BROYIIILL. That was my statement, but I was merely conveying to the committee the assurance and the statement that had been made by the local governing officials to the CIA officials. Senator TIIYE. That is what I was trying to get clearly in the record so that when the site was being developed we would not be confronted with the need here for additional highways and the need for sewerage and sewerage disposal and those things that could na- turally be expected as a part of the services to such an installation. Representative BROYIIILL. The actual cost of sewer lines in a county can be assessed against the property which it fronts when the owners of the property tap in to use the sewers. Insofar as the disposal plant itself, unless they got it out of the general revenue, they would have to float a bond issue. I would im- Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 758 0%PPLEMENTAL AP Rp Approved For Release 2003/04/1 P : C>`A&N8&bbid00500060005-6 agine the assurance of the governing officials would be suffcient that there will be no expense to the Government to provide water and sewerage facilities as well as streets and roadways. Senator ELLENDER. I do not think there would be objection to put- ting in the record that none of this money will be spent unless and until those facilities are made available. Representative BROYHILL. I see no objection to that. Senator ELLLNDER. An. important point raised by Mr. Lankford went to that. Senator DWORSHAK. You would not be coming back asking for ad- ditional grants to help finance some of these facilities. Representative BROYHILL. I will come back and ask for them, but maybe not necessarily for this particular thing. With respect to the impact on the community, I am very much con- cerned about the attitude of the people in that area. It is a quite urban, semirural community, and this will have some bearing on the peaceful living of the community. Senator THYE. They are not all in support of you. Representative BROYmLL. I am particularly concerned from a po- litical standpoint that there is some disagreement between some of my people. Senator DWORSIJAK. Will it be quiet in October over there? Representative BROYHILL. I think I am in good shape, but I am very much concerned about this particular thing because, as I say, it is one of my best precincts. Recognizing any community that we go into with the construction of a building that is large, it will have some effect on the community and there will be some sound, legitimate objections to it. SURVEY OF COMMUNITY ATTITUDE I took it upon myself to explore the pros and cons out there as to how the majority in that particular neighborhood felt. I have a county questionnaire and postage-paid postcard which I should like to have made a part of the record. Chairman HAYDEN. That may be done. (The questionnaire and postcard referred to follow:) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Washington, D. C. DEAR NEIGHBOR: It hds been my policy while serving as your Congressman to frequently consult individuals and groups of individuals on matters of local, State and National concern for opinions and often advice. This policy, onocca- sion, has been extended to all citizens of the 10th Congressional District of Vir- ginia. You may recall a comprehensive questionnaire on major issues which invited your expression on important matters. I deem it the duty of a Congress- man to keep his finger on the pulse of his constituency in order that he may best serve their interests. At present two controversial issues directly affect the citizens of Fairfax County. On these I again desire to seek the advice of you in Fairfax County who are most directly concerned. I refer to the proposals to construct a second national airport at Burke, Va., and a new office building for the Central Intelli- gence Agency on the Bureau of Public Roads property at Langley, Va. In reference to the Burke airport proposal, on the basis of a districtwide questionnaire and opinions expressed by citizens and citizens groups, I an- nounced my opposition to this proposal. As a result the Commerce Department abandoned plans for the project. Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved F reVMAMf7:R1AuRDP 0i3 1000506680005-6 However, some say that sentiment has undergone a change. People who pre- viously opposed location of a new national air terminal at Burke have urged me to reexamine the entire matter. Organizations for and against the proposal have been created and have presented convincing arguments pro and con. The pro group has talked of economic advantages-taxwise and businesswise-and of a potential $30 million annual payroll. The con group, just as convincingly, .has argued that an airport at Burke would reduce property value, eliminate property from tax rolls, and provide an intolerable nuisance to the community and to the county. Both arguments have a high degree of validity. Undoubtedly certain economic advantages would be present. But whether they would out- weigh the disadvantages is highly debatable. At the present moment I have not changed my position in opposition to the project. However, it is only fair to my constituents and in keeping with my policy of consulting you, to determine once again your viewpoints. I feel that 1 should not take an adamant position ; that my position. should be in harmony with that of my constituency, particularly when I know that the facts have been made available to all. With reference to the proposal to construct the Central Intelligence Agency office building at Langley, Va., there also appears to be a wide difference of ,opinion as to whether the building should be constructed in the Langley area. In addition, there have been several locations in northern Virginia which have been under consideration and have been very thoroughly surveyed. However, I have been informed by the top officials of the Central Intelligency Agency that as a result of these surveys, the only site in northern Virginia that will be considered by the CIA is the Bureau of Public Roads property at Langley. While I feel that the location of this building in northern Virginia will be of economic advantage to the community as a whole, as well as accelerate the com- pletion of the George Washington Memorial Parkway and the Cabin John Bridge, I am not unmindful of the opposition by the citizens of the surrounding neigh- borhood of Langley. There is, of course, quite a difference of opinion in the surrounding area as to whether or not this construction would impose a serious ,change in the complexion of the residential neighborhood as well as creating an additional traffic problem. It is my belief that the facts on both proposals have been well publicized and the pros and cons well discussed by all citizens. Therefore, I am confident that .your expression indicated on the enclosed self-addressed postage-paid card will give me an accurate consensus of the views of the citizens of Fairfax County. There is enclosed a card for each legal resident at your address and these cards have been divided into magisterial districts in order that the sentiments of the citizens immediately surrounding each project may be given special consider- ation. I will appreciate your returning the enclosed card immediately, as I feel a decision must be made very soon on the CIA proposal. It is not necessary to sign the card.' If you wish to sign it, your name and vote will be kept strictly con- fidential. It is my hope that in this manner we can determine the majority opinions of the citizens of Fairfax County. It is the only democratic process I know which can resolve the issue. You are assured that your answer will help guide me in my conscientious and continuing effort to reflect your viewpoint and the view- point of every citizen of the 10th Congressional District regardless of political affiliation. I am a firm believer in the axiom that given light, the people will find their own way. Sincerely, JOEL T. BROYInLL, Member of Congress. Not printed at Government expense. Return postage paid by Congressman Joel T. Broyhill. Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Aft Approved For Rel ~"6h/ffPWAIIWP%0U37?R000500060005-6 FIRST CLASS Permit No. 31053 (Sec. 34.9, .L&R.) Arlington, Virginia BUSINESS REPLY CARD No Postage Necessary if Mailed in United States - 3c POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY - CONGRESSMAN JOEL T. BROYHILL Hoiuse of Representatives Washington 25, D. C. MT. VERNON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Dear Congressman Broyhill: My views on the issues discussed in your letter are as follows. Fever Oppose Op Sian The construction of a second national airport ^ ^ ^ at Burke, Virginia. No Favor Oppose Opinion The construction of a new office building for ^ ^ ^ the Central Intelligence Agency on the Bureau of Public Roads Property at Langley, Virginia. ........... - ................................................................................................................................. (Signature is not required, however if signed, names will be kept confidential) Not printed at Government expense - return postage paid by Congressman Joel T. Broyhill. Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved FaRelease 2003/ 11000500Q0005-6 rPPLEMENTAL 0V0P I P0, FROM THE OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE JOEI, T. BROYIIII,L, HOUSE OF REPILF.- SENTATIVES, WASHINGTON 25, D. C. Representative Joel T. Broyhill (Republican of Virginia) today released the -final tabulation of ballots returned from his questionnaire on the proposed CIA headquarters and a new national airport in Fairfax. Fairfax County citizens voted overwhelmingly in favor of locating the Central Intelligence Agency on the Bureau of Public Roads Property in Langley. The vote was 7,702 to 1,881 with 922 indicating no opinion. The vote on the proposed second national airport in the Burke-Woodyard-Springfield precincts was closer as 5,544 voted in favor with 4,127 opposed and 834 no opinion. Since the question- naire was mailed, the Department of Commerce has recommended to Congress the joint use of Andrews Airbase with Burke listed as their second choice. The questionnaire was mailed to all 35,286 voters in Fairfax who were reg- istered prior to November 8, 1955. The return of 10,505 (30 percent) of the ballot shows very high interest in these 2 proposed projects. The tabulation of the ballots broken down into magisterial districts follows: Signed and unsigned returns combined No opinion No opinion ---- ill 599 233 49 737 89 55 55 e --------------------------- Centrev ----- ill 1,172 743 446 1,789 517 234 o-------------------------- Dranesv -- ch Ch F 1,102 1, 040 08 1, 697 318 43 --------------------------- ur alls L -- 565 340 36 657 141 1 4 ee---- -------------------------------- M ---- - 569 823 62 930 310 20 167 - ason------------------------------ -- V 827 304 62 772 344 64 ernon------------------------- Mount Providence------------------------------- 710 545 91 1,120 162 l T t --- 5, 544 4,127 834 7,702 1, 881 922 a o ---------------------------- Percent----------------------------------- .528 ,303 .070 .733 .179 .088 Total mailed, 35,286. Total returned, 10,506. percent. returned, .207. RETURN FROM QUESTIONNAIRE Representative BROYHILL. One of the questions on the postcard asked whether the residents were in favor or opposed to- the construction of a new office building for the Central Intelligence Agency on the Bureau of Public Roads property at Langley, Va. I received back a 30-percent return from that questionnaire, maybe because it was a short question and also because the postage was paid, but it was a 30-percent return which I think the members of the com- mittee would assume was a pretty accurate cross section of the views. I would say the community was overwhelmingly in favor of this. A return of 30 percent represents approximately 73.3 percent in favor and 17.9 in opposition to it. Insofar as the community itself is concerned, the only way I could determine that was to.take the magisterial district in which this prop- erty was located. The returns from that showed 1,789 in favor of the project and 517 in opposition which amounts to 31/2 to 1 in favor of the location of CIA in that particular community. Actually, like a lot of politicians, I like to straddle the fence occa- sionally. I had to get off the fence on this one and go with the ma- lty, and the majority is in favor of locating CIA in Langley even t7the people in that locality itself. Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Appr& d For Q / /~~pR p P, -gj37?0500060005-6 ALEXANDRIA SITE Senator DworsiiAII. What happened to the Alexandria site? Representative BRoYHILL. I had the people in Alexandria wanting it in Alexandria, and I had the people in Fairfax wanting it in Fair- fax. Fora while there, I did straddle the fence. Senator THYE. Then you furnished the CIA with the information they listed here on page 4 relative to the percentage, the 73 percent being shown in Fairfax County, voters in favor of this location? Representative BROYHILL. That is correct. ASSURANCES Senator FLLENDER. Mr. Dulles, has your Agency received the assur- ances that Congressman Broyhill has stated? Mr. DULLES. We have. Senator ELLENDER. There would be no objection on your part if we put in the report that none of this money is to be spent unless you get assurances of these facilities being furnished by the State of Virginia or the county of Fairfax? Mr. DULLES. I would like to have Colonel White speak to that. Colonel WHITE. We have written assurances from the State of Virginia, the Fairfax County Board, and the city of Falls Church. Senator ELLENDER. Therefore, there would be no objection to put ting that in the report? FUNDS FOR SEWER CONSTRUCTION Colonel WRITE. It is also my understanding that the Fairfax Coun- ty Board has $300,000 immediately available to undertake construction of sewerage facilities. Chairman HAYDEN. Thank you. Do you have anything -further, Representative Broyhill? Representative BROYHILL. No, sir. Thank you very much. Chairman HAYDEN. There are some other gentlemen here who want to be heard. Next we have Mr. F. G. Addison. SECURITY BANK, WASHINGTON, D. C. STATEMENT OF F. G. ADDISON, JR., PRESIDENT LOCATION OF FEDERAL AGENCIES Chairman HAYDEN. Do you have a prepared statement? Mr. ADDISON. Yes, sir. It is a one-page statement and I have been requested to have copies for the members of the committee. I think perhaps by reading it, I would save time. Chairman HAYDEN. Very Well. Mr. ADDISON. My name is F. G. Addison, Jr., president of Security Bank, Washington, D. C. I appreciate your committee's permission to appear before you, as requested by the District of Columbia Bankers Association, to present a resolution recently unanimously adopted by Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved For Pelt eRqR404j PbRf~-, P LQ13T 005000 05-6 the members of this association. I ask permission to read the resolu- tion'and have it inserted in the records of this hearing. The District of Columbia Bankers Association is deeply concerned with the number of Federal agencies that have announced their inters- tion of locating outside of the District of Columbia and feels that the relocation of individual agencies should not be left to the head of that agency but should follow a standard operating procedure for Federal agency relocation. The Constitution of the United States, article I, section 8, provides that- the Federal District shall. be the seat of the Government of the United States- and we feel there should be very compelling reasons before appropria- tions are authorized for governmental agencies to be established out- side of the District. The Federal payroll is essential to the main- tenance of the Capital City as the citizens of the.United States would want, not as a citizen of the District of Columbia desires. The members of our association are proud to be serving in the Capi- tal of the Nation and trust that consideration will be given by your committee to the significance of the number of Federal agencies, and their employees, being transferred from the District of Columbia. These transfers and the resulting loss of important contributors to the economy of the city could be very far-reaching with disastrous effects on the maintenance of the Nation's Capital. We feel that the Congress should concern itself with this problem to the extent of adopting a policy that would require all buildings serving the execu- tive branch of the Federal Government to be in the Nation's Capital unless the Congress passes upon the necessity of such buildings being built outside of the District of Columbia. Chairman HAYDEN. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there should be some policy established in regard to this matter. What I think has impressed the Congress in recent years, at least, is the idea that if all of the agencies were concentrated close to the Capital and an atomic bomb should be exploded here, then the Government would just be in no position to function at all. Therefore, there was a strong movement here for a time, at least, to get these various agencies away from Washington. I am not talking about just. in the nearby Maryland and Virginia neighborhoods. I am really referring to greater distances away, and that demand seems to have ceased. As yet, there has been no pol icyinaking body established to look into the neces- sities that you set forth here. ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY I think your suggestion is a wise one. I think the place where that policy should originate is in the Senate Committee on Public Works. Senator Chavez has indicated that he has adopted, maybe not in all of the details, your point of view, so I think you would have a sym- pathetic hearing there. My suggestion would be that the District bankers draft some type of legislation that they would like to have the Congress enact; that they ask for a hearing on it and take it up ject, the Congress can consider it. It is very difficult simply to say Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060005-6 ] App?6ed For RIie1r~~x7RO~iQ1,3165 0500060005-6 with the Public Works Committee, so that this policy can be ironed out. If the committee makes a recommendation to Congress on that-sub- that when one particular ]location is selected outside the District and another agency of Government says, "We want to go out."-in each one of those cases, the broad policy is not considered. Is your organization prepared to come before a committee like the Public Works Committee of the House and Senate with a plan and a program that would result in such a study? Mr. ADDISON. Senator, the resolution they adopted is one page long, and I think it covers the basis of that. If I may, I would like to read that and comment on your question if it is not covered. I believe it is covered. CIA PERSONNEL Senator DWOItSTIAK. Would you yield at that point? I question the propriety of Mr. Addison including in his prepared statement an estimated figure of 8,000 employees. Do you realize the consequences of this if a copy of this should fall into the hands of the Soviet Embassy? I think Mr. Addison should be forewarned as to the propriety of presenting a statement before this committee concerning CIA. Mr. ADDISON. I am a mathematician to the extent that when they say that they are going to have 110 square feet per employee and they have 2,250,000 feet, I can pretty well arrive at that figure. Senator DWGRSIIAK. Maybe the Soviets cannot figure that out, and I do not want you to furnish that information. Mr. ADDISON. I will withdraw the figure of 8,000. Senator DW OBSTTAK. You had better delete it. Mr. ADDTSON. Here are the statistics : Federr.l. civilian employees December 31, 1955 Central Intelligence------------------------------------------------ - (') Coast and Geodetic Survey---------------------------------------- 2892 Bureau of Standards ------------------------------------------------ 3,167 Mount Alto. VA hospital---------------------------------------------- Weather Bureau ------- ---------------------- - - 8482 ----------------------- Atomic Energy Commission------------------------------------------ 1,252 National Security Agency------------------------------------------ (') Navy Department--------------------------------------------------- -24,292 Navy Building------------------------------------------------- 10,010 All other buildings and establishment%---------------------------- 14, 282 'Deleted for security purposes. Feb. 29, 1956. 8 Not including employees at Suitl.and, Md. No data available as to the number. All. Source : Above statistics obtained from Civil Service Commission, General Services Administration, and Veterans' Administration. I would like to call your attention to the next sentence : For every Federal employee leaving the District it can be safely assumed that there would be a reduction in at least one other civilian employee in the District and an average reduction of at least 3 to 4 District residents. Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved For -ei [D41~lg 8 ,37PUP05000V@905-6 That is the statement covering the resolution. However, at that point, may I call your attention to how fast we are in this situation. The figures for the first 5 months of 1956 show that one-family dwell- ing units in the District of Columbia were granted for 188 for a total cost of $3,500,000. In the 5 counties surrounding Washington, 5,577 units were built for $72 million; 95 percent of every dwelling being built is being built outside of the District of Columbia. SHIFT IN POPULATION When we taken those figures and find-I make reference to the City of Washington in Trouble, U. S. News & World Report for July 6-it shows that in 1940 we had 474,000 white population; in 1950, we increased it to 518,000, and 6 years later it has gone down to where we have less white population in the city of Washington than we had 17 years ago. We now have in 1956, 465,000. We are reversing the situation. The colored have increased from 28 to 35 and now represent 45 percent of our population. That 45 percent shows that as to major crimes, they committed 9,053 crimes as compared to the whites who committed 2,016. Juveniles, 1,438 colored to 376 whites. Venereal diseases, for gonorrhea among the white population, 19, and among the colored, 811; for gonorrhea and syphilis, 639 white to 12,400 colored. Now, we have a situation that makes us seriously present this reso- lution to you and ask that it be made part of the record. Chairman HAYDEN. That will be done and we thank you very much. Mr. ADDisoN. I thank you very much for the opportunity of ap- pearing here today, sir. (The resolution referred to follows:) Whereas the District of Columbia Bankers Association has a prime interest in the economic health and welfare of our local community and this welfare depends almost exclusively on activities of the Federal Government which, di- rectly or indirectly, sustain employment and purchasing power in the bulk of the District economy ; and Whereas it is of deep concern to the members of this association that a growing number of Federal agencies have indicated their intention to move out of the city, and of still greater concern is the fact that, in many cases, Federal officials would seem to be paying insufficient attention to economic and planning consid- erations in relocating ; and Whereas this is basically due to the fact that there presently exists no logical, step-by-step relocation procedure, and, in relocating, agency heads are merely supposed to contact the following authorities : Bureau of the Budget and Con- gress on requested appropriations ; General Services Administration on planning of buildings ; National Capital Planning Commission on planning aspects of the suggested relocation ; and Office of Defense Mobilization on civil defense phases ; and Whereas officials charge that this process has grown haphazardly and is fol- lowed in the -same way, specifically, that many agency heads are apparently unaware of the various clearances required in relocation, that clearances are not sought in any logical order, and that planning agencies are often treated as merely rubber-stamp routine, and, that most serious of all, final responsibility for relocation is left almost entirely up to each individual agency head ; and Whereas improvement of this situation must be made a top objective of our association if it is to fulfill its obligations to the community, the only lasting solution must be to establish a standard operating procedure for Federal agency relocation, with adequate authority to see it is enforced, Therefore, be it Resolved, That : (1) Our association exert every effort within its power to help secure the es- tablishment of an orderly procedure for relocation of Federal agencies, and (2) This effort include investigation of such specific alternatives as placing final authority for relocation within the Government Services Administration, and Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Aft A% AppWed For R easletrOD lOr4ft7ioiCLATRDPSM,1370R000500060005-6 (3) Members of our association stand ready to support whatever legislation or executive directive may be needed to accomplish the goal of this resolution, and (4) They continue to give this effort their unstinting cooperation until a logical and orderly procedure for Federal agency relocation is finally secured. STATEMENT OF ROGER FISHER, LANGLEY, VA. OPPOSITION TO SITE Mr. FzSxER. My name is Roger Fisher. I am a resident of the Langley-McLean area. I. am one of those to whom Mr. Broyhill referred as not supporting his position. He represents us, but I do not think it is an open question as to how this should be handled. I am here in behalf of some 700 of my neighbors who signed a peti- tion opposing the construction of any large office building on this land. I find it hard to know where to begin, and I believe that the Agency has decided where they want to go, and I feel that they have failed to present you with a balanced picture. I believe it is perhaps not delib- erate, but it perhaps demonstrates the old maxim of the corrosive effects of power. I would like to summarize the background of this and comment on particular points which have been covered already by the Agency and by other speakers here. Chairman HAYDEN. Will you be as brief as you can, please? We have other witnesses who would like to be heard today. Mr. FISHER. I shall try to be brief. I am speaking not only in my own behalf but on behalf of other residents of the area. Senator DwoRSIATc. How many do you speak for? Mr. FISHER. I will show you. Senator DwoiSHAIc. Never mind. Mr. FISHER. This is a map of the section of Fairfax County. The proposed site is marked "X." Each one signing the petition is repre- sented by a pin in that map, living in the Langley area out be- yond-- Senator ELLENDER. That is out of how many in that area? Mr. FISHER. The bulk of ours is around the site. Senator ELLENDER. What percentage of the population there does that show? Mr. FISHER. I do not show Senator DWORSHAR. Would it be 10, 20, 30, or 40 percent? Mr. FISHER. We asked 50 percent when seeking the petition. There has been an opposition petition circulated later which had 2,300 names of people "who were not opposed to the site." They used paid solici- tors-a dollar an hour plus a nickel a name. They did all right. They went all over the county. I represent a substantial group. We think it is not to protect us but it is also for the protection of the Government's interest. The most shocking thing that was not brought out clearly was this is not a proposal to locate CIA under one roof. It is a proposal to put them in 12 buildings, 11 of which are in the District and one Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved Fo;J;04k &, VOAl~17o-p f "PP 101?7 00500 WO05-6 which is at Langley. The notice served notice to come back next year and ask for money to put them in the building next year. This will leave them with 11 permanent buildings with employees in the District. They will not be ready to let their contracts until April or May of next year. They have $5.5 million for planning purposes. I suggest that you do not give them any money until they come in with a project as a whole. Chairman HAYDEN. Did you make these representations to the House of Representatives? Mr. FIsimit. I did not understand those facts. It was executive session. Those facts were testified to indirectly by the Agency. I did not have a chance to make those points. The construction costs have gone up 5 percent. The cost of CIA's building has gone up 22 percent with respect to locating at Langley. The story starts in 1954 when Mr. Dulles requested permission from the Dispersal Branch to locate in the District of Columbia where he had thought the Agency should be located. There was quite a fight over dispersal and they compromised. I think it was an un- fortunate compromise. When you hit a fork in a road, and you cannot go right or left, then you compromise. They have the draw- backs of getting out of the District. They did not go far enough to be beyond bombing damage. In April of 1955, the Agency considered about seven sites at that time. They notified the Planning Commission that the Langley site had so many problems connected with it that they would not con- sider requesting authorization for the parkway to go out to that site. They had abandoned consideration of the Langley site. That letter was publicized to the effect that Langley was no longer being considered and that they would not request authorization for the parkway. Contrary to that letter, CIA did request authoriza- tion for the parkway in executive session. We found that the Lang- ley site was included in the authorization when it was released July 1 of last year. At that time, before this committee, Mr. Dulles testified that personally he would prefer to build a building in the District of Columbia, but there was a decision of the executive branch which precluded this, primarily because of the traffic conditions involved in the District of Columbia. The executive branch decision was apparently based on its compromise over the acceptance of the com- promise regulations. The committees of Congress, both in the House and Senate, and the Appropriations Committee and the conference committee all stated that they were not precluding or adopting any one particular site. They suggested that further study be made. Rather than turn to the National Capital Park and Planning Commission to which agency, by statute, they should "look to as the central planning agency," they hired private planners and did further studies on their own. They came in to the Planning Commission with a recommended site. The staff report recommended against it. The National Capital Park and Planning Commission in rather a strong report disapproved the Lang- Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Appi7ftd ForR s MjQ4hjTA4KAFtPR8Q )3~^0500060005-6 ley site in December. I say disapproved. That has not been men- tioned to you or called to your attention by the Agency. The vote was a close one. Two Government employees, members of the Com- mission, representing the Agency, failed to support the Langley site. At the next subsequent meeting, CIA requested reconsideration by the Planning Commission, as they are authorized to do, and those two Government employees were. replaced by two other individuals at the next meeting. CIA obtained an affirmative vote. No one else changed their minds. Those two votes were the only two that were changed. They did not wait until they had the report prepared. They came in and said, "We want a vote.' The vote was held and the report and subsequent study were held after that. CIA has told you that. the National Park and Planning Council and the Capital Park and Planning Commission have approved this site by divided votes. They have not told you that it was the unan- imous opinion-I believe I am correct in this-the unanimous opin- ion of the National Capital Park and Planning Regional Council that the Federal Government should assume additional liabilities, with regard to roads in the area. I would like to read a resolution by the Regional Planning Council which adopted the resolution approving the site. This one resolu- tion was adopted unanimously. The other was by a split vote of 5 to 3 as Mr. Dulles stated. It reads as follows : Resolved, The Council request the CIA in conjunction with its request for appropriations ask for authorization and appropriations for the improvements not yet committeed which relate to this development described in the report of its Director ; mainly, Chain Bridge widening along with Canal Road and Weaver Place improvement; Virginia Route 123 from the Parkway to Chain Bridge; Glebe Road from Lee Highway to Chain Bridge ; Parkway to Cabin John Bridge, including the Cabin John Bridge; the George Washington Parkway which is already committed. The Maryland side is not. The outer belt from Route 7 Virginia to United States Route 240 in Maryland. This was the unanimous request of the body of the roads that ought to be asked for by CIA of this Appropriations Committee if they are going to go to that site. CIA brings you the divided vote of the approval of the Council and fails to mention that the Council con- sidered that CIA should ask for these roads. Chairman HAYDEN. Could you bring your remarks to a close? We cannot stay here after 5 o'clock and I have a number of other witnesses who would like to be heard. Mr. FISHER. The National Capital Park and Planning Commission report equally recommended that these roads be built. The. road cost was estimated at some $30 million worth of roads and the required Federal share would be somewhere in the vicinity of $20 million. The commitments by Virginia to which Senator Ellender referred as to sewerage for the building itself-the District Engineer responsible for the water supply for the District has said that it is necessary to Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved Fa lease 2003/04/17: CIA RDP>Rfl0JJ-N '00050AW005-6 PPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION B , obtain necessary comparable commitments regarding the treatment of the development that will be expected. Eighty-seven percent of the CIA employees shown on the map do not own their own homes. They rent and they are a fairly fluid group, and they will move around. We will have apartment buildings out there and everything else. There are no commitments, no provisions to prevent shopping centers, water pollution of the District water supply, and so on. I am sorry that time does not permit me to go on. I would like to say that CIA has not indicated to you that they plan to take dedicated park land in part, land that was given to the United States Government which I believe cannot legally be built upon without express approval of the Congress. This has been kept in the dark although the agency has known about it, and I believe it would be illegal to put the office building on this land in any event. The District site which Mr. Dulles himself said he would prefer is a site which is now being considered by the Planning Commission in the District. If this committee will hold over the appropriation which is not now needed, I think the problem can be settled to the satisfaction of everyone, and you can throw Bre'r Rabbit into the briar patch where he wants to be anyway. STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. NEILL PHILLIPS, UNITED STATES NAVY (RETIRED), WASHINGTON, D. C. OPPOSITION TO SITE Chairman IIAYDIIN. Our next witness is Mr. Robert L. Farr. Mr. PinLLrrs. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Farr is not here. I have a pre- pared statement. My name is Neill Phillips, and I am a resident of Washington, D. C. I am appearing as representative of the Progressive Citizens Associa- tion of Georgetown (approximately 900 members) and the Audubon Society of the District of Columbia (approximately 1,200 members in the Greater Washington area). I have also been asked to speak for the Middle States Division of the American Canoe Association. Your committee has been asked to recommend an appropriation of $49 million to build a mammoth CIA headquarters (approaching the Pentagon in size) at Langley, Va., on a site with no present access except a winding two-lane State road, and with no sewage facilities whatever. COST OF ROADS, BRIDGES, AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL The cost of roads, bridges, and sewage disposal would be absolutely colossal. Parenthetically, it might be impossible ever to solve the sewage problem at the Langley site, no matter how much money were spent, as I shall try to show later. Without these access and sanitary facilities, a CIA headquarters at Langley simply could not function. The price of such improvements should be considered just as much a part of the cost, as the price of the CIA buildings themselves. I submit that it is entirely unrealistic to talk about appropriating $49 million to build a CIA Langley head- quarters when, in fact, the $49 million is only a part of that cost. Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Apprc l For R el" 3flM94/lA RoopAIRDoP800 L1370R000500060005-6 I have studied the arguments and the pages to testimony on why or why not to build CIA at LangleY, and I find that the fact fairly jumps out of even those lines of line' ne print that the pro-Langley plan is very simple : Get money from Congress to put up the buildings, and then some- how some Government department or agency will just simply have to go to work and figure out how to solve access and sanitation prob- lems and how to get appropriations from Congress to pay for them. True, there have been tentative plans put forth as to widening roads and bridges and laying sewer mains, with rough estimates of the cost. But even a superficial reading shows them to be vague and generalized, with so many essential details not covered as to be un- acceptable in a business sense, particularly when such enormous sums are involved. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is wrong even to consider CIA's request for $49 million to build at Langley until and unless CIA also submits a request for appropriations to cover this other utterly essential part of the job. Now, the above reasoning would hold good even if Langley were an ideal, or even a fairly practicable, site for CIA. But by all fair stand- ards it is a tragically bad site. Believe me, my associates and I have tried to be objective and have tried hard to find. some cogent reasons for CIA at Langley but, again, after going over and over the argiz ments and testimony we can find only two real reasons advanced for it (1) It would be pleasant for CIA employees to work in park- like surroundings with a river view. (2) It would be good for real-estate people who could put up housing developments and shopping centers nearby. On the other hand, the arguments against CIA at Langley seem overwhelming. I shall list them briefly before I close : (1) The Potomac is hideously polluted. Federal and State Gov- ernments are beginning the Augean task of trying to clean it up. Yet here is a proposal to put a Junior Pentagon, with all those thousands of people, on a bluff of the Potomac about one-half mile above the new intake for the District water supply. True, the local Virginia authorities have committed to provide sewage facilities to the Langley CIA buildings, but so far as I can ascertain, they have shown no plans as to what they are to do with the effluvient except to dump it into the Potomac. And apparently there are no plans or ideas at all. as to what to do about sewage from all the new communities that would spring up in the CIA area-a problem that can reasonably be expected to grow as big as that of the CIA head- quarters itself. And again, remember, all this in the immediate vicin- ity of the intake of the District water supply. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is little short of a medieval ap- proach to a grave health problem and is unacceptable by any modern standards. (2) Every day the press carries articles on where and how to build more bridges, or whether to pay the enormous sums required to bore Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060005-6 Approved For lease 2003/04/17: CIA-RDP80-01374 00500005-6 PPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION BILL, 195 a tunnel in order to get the population back and forth across the Potomac, or to route traffic around and outside the District. All the proposed plans are drawn up with the idea of just keeping traffic moving for the population as it is at present distributed. We all know that that alone is a problem of staggering magnitude. Yet, here we have a proposal. to compound confusion by putting up a vast CIA complex at a spot in every way situated so as to generate more, much more, cross-river traffic. (3) A CIA spokesman before the House Appropriations Committee in June estimated that- a large part of the 37 percent- of CIA traffic to Langley- would find the Key Bridge probably more convenient than Chain Bridge or Memorial Bridge. If you go to either end of Chain Bridge, Virginia or Georgetown, at the rush hour this afternoon and see the pandemonium that exists, and then try to picture what it would be like with "a large part of the 37 percent" of CIA traffic trying to get back and forth, I believe you will be appalled. No plans that I know of have been made to take care of this increased traffic in the narrow environs of the Georgetown end of Chain Bridge, and no such plans could be carried out without destroying much of Georgetown's present character and present property values. A similar, or perhaps worse, situation would exist at Chain Bridge which it is proposed to widen. Approaches are narrow and there are numerous dead ends. True, the National Capital Regional Planning Commission proposes improvements to Canal Road and Weaver Place to serve Chain Bridge, at an estimated cost of $900,000. I believe this estimate far too low for the size of the job. It is also obvious that it does not take into account-as there is no account taken in the case of Key Bridge-of the change in traffic patterns all over that part of the District of Columbia within 2 or 3 miles of Key and Chain Bridges that would result from the traffic flow engendered by a huge CIA complex at Langley. (4) This comprehensive plan was set up by the National and the Regional Capital Planning Commissions to provide for orderly devel- opment of the Nation's Capital and its environs. Putting CIA at Langley cuts directly across this plan and flouts its basic concepts, as is plainly shown on page 2 of the National Capital Planning Com- mission's report of March 2, 1956, to which I fully invite your attention. (5) The proposed site of CIA at Langley is on it tract of land now under the Bureau of Public Roads, which has indicated it does not need it. Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Oak Aft Appr?y2d For R~ eI,,,AgR#Ag4/A7P' -OPI\~%--y ,370R000500060005-6 If there were no CIA at Langley, this tract would almost certainly become park land-for which it is ideally suited-in conjunction with the George Washington Memorial Highway, since it could be oc- cupied as such under the Capper-Crampton Act. The tract is unique in being so near a big city and yet possessing so many natural blessings. There are great stands of hardwoods, groves of flowering trees and bushes, abundant wild flowers and ferns, many of them rare species, beautiful river views and teeming bird and animal life. P In conjunction with the George Washington Memorial Highway it could be made into a really fabulous park accessible to all the people. Yet, it is proposed to shut it off for one Government agency and for- ever destroy much of its unspoiled character with huge building projects. This tragic deed would run counter to the aims of every conserva- tion organization in the country and would be an official negation by the United States Government of every tenet of modern sociological thinking which stresses the need of increasing open spaces for increas- ing population. (6) -I shall not take up any more of your time other t ian to invite attention. to the several other proposed locations for CIA, in the north- west section, in the new southwest redevelopment area, in the vicinity of Alexandria and in the vicinity of the National Training School for Boys; sites where most, if not all, of the deeply objectionable features of the Langley site do not exist. This matter of alternative sites has been covered in cogent detail by the recommendations submitted to CIA by the Federal City Council. Mr. Chairman, I can sum up my regrettably long testimony in a few words : This plan of CIA at Langley is indigestible and uncooked. Yet it has the most serious potential impact on the entire District of Colum- bia area. As hardheaded but, I believe, public-spirited citizens and taxpayers, we urgently request that you recommend that appropria- tions be held up until the present fuzzy picture is brought into a rea sonable focus justifying the outpouring of billions of dollars for CIA at Langley. Senator DWORSIIAK.. I do not think you need to worry about sewage disposal. That would be classified and you would not know where it went anyway. Mr. PHILLIPS. I could claim it is in my drinking water. -STATEMENT OF R. M. SMITH SUPPORT FOR LANGLEY, VA., SITE Mr. SMITH. I will make this very brief, Mr. Chairman; I would just like to leave this map around with the members of the committee. I _got a little confused myself at hearing all of these difficulties that face Langley. I live at Langley, Va., and I thought I knew all about it. I run a weekly newspaper out there. I know this site and cannot see hardly Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060005-6 l Approved Foise e>a>ee&Q3/SW*0PFOAARDPNk043?61050(t@0005-6 any of these problems about which they speak. One speaker got as high as $20 million on sewage. At least that was sent out in a letter. (~f the county of Fairfax at this moment, there is cash in the bank from a $20-million bond issue that they issued over a year ago, and they have set that aside to take care of CIA. They have had the engineers figure out how they are going to do it and they have com- mitted themselves definitely to give that sewerage. They are taking care of the factors above the outlet of the District water supply, so I just do not see where, as far as the Government is concerned, the sewage comes in. On the roads, I believe Mr. Fisher or someone was saying something about many multimillions of dollars for roads. It is going to take some roads, but the main part is taken care of. In short, the main one required is the extension of the boulevard which is part of this bill, so we know we have that. Under the new highway bill that was justpassed,.the belt highway around Washing- ton which crosses on Cabin John Bridge just above Langley has been made top priority by the State of Virginia under its urban roads national program. I understand the Maryland part has been under consideration and that there was a big-headline article in the Post a few weeks ago by the Maryland Parks Commission roadman saying that they expected to get started this year. Chairman HAYDEN. Do you think the new highway takes care of the road problem? Mr. SMITIi. Yes, sir; we have shown on this map the various roads from Chain Bridge. Chairman'HAYDEN. The map cannot be included in the record but the printed text which accompanies it may be included in the record. (The informnation referred to follows:) FACTS AND LOGIC POINT TO LANGLEY FOR TIIE CIA It seems clear that, all things considered, the CIA would be better able to perform its functions from this location than from others under consideration, and this factor should, I believe, be controlling."-Letter from the Director of the CIA, Mr. Allen Dulles, to the United States Senate Appropriations Sub- committee. Look at the map above and you see why this 741-acre tract of Government- owned land at Langley, in Fairfax County, Va., is the right location for permanent headquarters of the CIA. Let's weigh these facts : 1. Tucked away in this huge acreage, the CIA will not disrupt the life of any community. It will not impose excessive traffic on either Washington or any suburban town. It will use only a small part of the big tract, and make pos- sible the preservation of the rest in the natural charm we wish to see. 2. At this Langley site the CIA will be just across the Potomac from Northwest Washington and adjoining Maryland communities-the area where two-thirds of CIA employees are reported to live. It will be more accessible to the majority than their present offices in downtown Washington-no need for any CIA employee to Uproot his family from present living quarters. 3. Everybody who drives a car in Washington will benefit by the choice or Langley for the CIA, because its selection will relieve downtown Washington of the burden of several thousand vehicles used by CIA employees each morning and evening. If any Virginia site south of the Pentagon were chosen, it would mean that the great majority of CIA employees would have to drive through add owntown overcrow n the aAdequate roadsdf a tithe L nglea site arre assured. Congress has nal eddy appropriated $2,500,000 to start extension of the George Washington Memorial Parkway to Langley if that site is chosen by CIA. Virginia has pledged in writ- ing to dual-lane Chain Bridge Road (Route 123) from Langley to its junction 78089-56-49 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Apprc X1 For Reka 1 ,0 tA4/'llrahkRM1OtQi33, 0500060005-6 with the extended parkway by the time the CIA buildings would be completedd.. Money has already been appropriated to extend and grade Canal Road from Chain Bridge to the Cabin John Bridge site. Other scheduled improvements include the belt highway, with its Cabin John Bridge adjacent to the Langley site, as shown on the above map. 5. Adequate water is pledged in writing by the city of Falls Church, which is at the present time having the Army engineers install a 36-inch supply main in the Little Falls Dam, almost immediately adjacent to the Langley site, as a direct connection with Dalecarlia Reservoir. 6. Adequate sewers are pledged in writing by Fairfax County to be ready by the time the CIA Building can be completed, and funds are available from the county's $20 million sewer bonds. 7. CIA will be welcomed to-Langley not only by the great majority of local residents, but also by Fairfax County as a whole. The residents of the only area which the Fairfax County Planning Commission designates as directly affected by CIA,, who own over 85 percent of the land, signed a statement for the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that they (lid not object to the move. Several thousand other residents have filed a similar statement with the National Capital Planning Commission. Both the Democratic and the Republican candi- dates for Dranesville supervisor, 80 percent of whose constituents live near the Langley site, have publicly favored CIA as their neighbor. 8. Others favoring the Langley site are the Fairfax County Planning Com- mission ; the chairman of the Fairfax County Park Authority ; the Fairfax County member of the National Capital Regional Planning Council ; the Fair- fax County Chamber of Commerce ; Mayor Herman Fink, of Falls Church ; the Forestville Grange ; the Hone and Community Club of Forestville ; and other groups. The advantages of the Langley site for CIA are admirably summed up in the following excerpt from Director Allen Dulles' letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee : "In view of Langley's easier accessibility to Agency employees, comparable accessibility to other Government agencies, far better security, and capacity for expansion if necessary, it is considered by us to be the best of those sites under consideration." Money. is ready to extend beautiful George Washington Memorial Parkway upstream from Key Bridge and approaching Fairfax County. Choice of the Langley site for CIA will speed the extension of this splendid parkway, long overdue as a quick route for travel in this area. Congress has voted $2.5 million to begin this extension and approved $6 million more for its completion to the Langley site, if chosen by CIA.. Get CIA at Langley and you get the parkway. MOLEAN-LANGLEY CITIZENS FOR THE CIA, bicLEAN, VA., RICHARD Al. SMTITII, Chairrnan. Mr. SMITH. -"Then you look at that road map and see the boulevard and the extension up the river and see the Belt Highway which is now immediately in the picture, and you see the extension of the Canal Road on the District side which they are grading :right this minute from Canal Road up to Cabin John, plus now the Constitution Ave- nue additional bridge, it seems that the flow of the employee traffic on the boulevard and up to the boulevard down on the Maryland and Virginia sides is just about as simple as it could possibly be, and it is largely not in the flow of the present traffic. There is a good deal of talk about hurting the neighborhood. The county supervisors have just voted last week to put in a 1-acre zoning restriction that you see around the Langley tract. In fact, it goes n)most rzp to the .5-mile area in which MI'. Tls/i.P,l' l ves. In f l( t, it goes almost up to his place. The county realizes itself that they are going to have to hold the zoning picture. They are putting in this Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved ForLF6?3/(i?~(FI-'01F?,0500R6rb005-6 1-acre minimum all around the site, and there is no commercial zoning allowed in it at all. In fact, CIA has helped our zoning to be stronger rather than hurting it. PROVISIONS FOR UTILITIES With respect to the water, the Government does not take care of it. The city of Falls Church is running a 36-inch main right now across Little Falls Dam which I would say is a quarter of a mile below the site, and they have guaranteed to give the site the water. The electric company has given assurance of electricity and the telephone company has given its assurance of service. So far as the Government is concerned, I can see where they have to do absolutely nothing at all except what is in the natural appropria- tion, the building plus the $8 million for the boulevard extension. Senator DwoRsIIAu. Where will they get their water. Mr. SMITH. They will get it from Dalecarlia. Falls Church is connected to Dalecarlia. Senator DWORSIIAK. Is there an adequate supply of water avail- able to take care of any potential needs? Mr. SMITH. At Dalecarl i a, there is. That is the full District supply, and at least Falls Church has been assured of that. Senator DWOIISHAK. This would be an added burden upon the water supply. Mr. SMITH. It would be for that building, but it would be District water even if you had it right here. Senator DWORSIi11K. I do not want to put it in the District. I do not want to put it anywhere. Mr.' SMITTI. When I leave here, I will be at my home in 20 minutes even during this traffic hour, so Mr. Addison and the people who think we ara moving all of the employees away, losing the trade for the city- they have nothing to worry about. We trade in the city. It is the closest place to trade. Senator E~LI:NDER. You folks would not do what the District is doing, making the people from all over the United States run the District. We put up $20 million a year, ,*nd I hope if we put up that structure at Langley that the people around there will not, in time, make us contribute toward helping to run the government of Langley or that locality. Mr. SMITH. I am sure they will not. We have been paying our own way all along and we expect to continue to do so. Senator ELLENDEIR. But the Congress has, too, up to some time, but we have so many Federal buildings here that are not on the tax rolls that the people all over the country are contributing $20 million to- ward the payment to operate the Federal Government here. Chairman HAYDEN. Thank you for your statement. Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 ApprQd Fo Rd 'IbbS/64APPFU Iq 37O%00500060005-6 CIA BUILDING LOCATION STATEMENT OF WALLACE CARPER SUPPORT FOR LANGLEY, VA., LOCATION Mr. CARPER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Wallace Carper. I am an ex-member of the county board of supervisors, having served for 20 years, and I was its chairman for 16 years. I think I am in a position and have been for the past great many years to say and to inform you of the general sentiment in our area. I hear very few complaints about it and I have heard very few argu- ments all during the time it was being so hotly discussed. I do not have much to say because I didn't know this meeting was coming up until just a late hour, and I did not prepare any statement. However, I can confirm what has been said by Mr. Smith and Con- gressman Broyhill. . I think as far as the utilities are concerned, they have all been taken care of. I think these officials have dealt as fairly as they could with the county. I think the poll which Mr. Broyhill took is just about as democratic as anything can be. By being democratic, that is how he got elected. The project, it was found, was favored by 1,789 and it was opposed by 517. All of this property is in that district. That is a poll from the people in that district and the people who would be affected by it. If there are any questions that Ican answer, I would be very glad to do so. Chairman HAYDEN. Thank you very much. DEPARTMENT OF STATE INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES COMMISSIONS LETTER FROM SENATOR POTTER ON SEA LAMPREY PROGRAM Chairman HAYDEN. I will file for the record a letter I received from Senator Potter urging allowance of the budget estimate of $620,000 requested for the sea lamprey research and control program. (The communication referred to follows:) UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, July 6, 1956. Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CxAIRMAN : ]Prior to leaving for Europe on official business, I wish to register my full support of the 1957 supplemental budget request of the Department of State for $620,000 in connection with the International Fisheries Commissions. As you know, these funds are necessary to inaugurate the international sea lamprey research and control program under the Great Lakes Fishery Com- mission on July 1, 1956. The problem of eradicating the sea lamprey is of com- pelling urgency. This eel-like predator has destroyed the supply of trout and whitefish in Lakes Huron and Michigan. By 1955 this menace had succeeded in reducing the Lake Michigan trout catch by about 2 million pounds a year, and Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved For, ase 2003/04/17: CIA-RDP80-0137$~,Q0500 0005-6 S _LEMENTAL APPROPRIATION BILL, 1 now threatens the very existence of superior trout and whitefish fisheries. This "vampire eel" costs United States and Canadian fishermen more than $5 million each year in trout alone. The requested funds will bring about coordinated research efforts between Canada and the United States to eliminate the sea lamprey and to find solutions to the numerous problems which are detrimental to the fishing industry. As a result, the cost to the United States to accomplish these highly desirable and necessary objectives will be less in the future than in the past. Because of the cooperative effort with Canada, it will be possible for ns to accomplish much more for a smaller amount of money than has been required heretofore. I respectfully urge our committee to allow the budget request of the Depart- ment of State in this matter. Sincerely yours, ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON WEATHER CONTROL Chairman HAYDEN. At this point, the formal appeal letter from the Advisory Committee on Weather Control will be inserted in the record. (The letter referred to follows:) ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON WEATHER CONTROL, Washington, D. C., July 9, 1956. Hon. CARL HAYDEN, Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR HAYDEN : There is enclosed the appeal to your committee from the action of the house and its Appropriations Committee in completely denying the estimate of $350,000 for financing the activities of the Advisory Committee on Weather Control during fiscal year 1957. At page 6 of House Report No. 2638 the House Appropriations Committee states that it feels that there is serious question as to whether or not the Advisory Com- mittee's continuation is necessary, and that legislation authorizing its extension has not as yet been approved. In this connection, please note that both Houses of Congress and their respective legislative committee had already acted unani- mouscy m favor of the legislation authorizing the extension of the Advisory Com- mittee on Weather Control at the time the committee's report was issued and the President signed this bill, S. 2913, on July 9, 1956. The enclosed justification for the requested amendment to II. R. 12138 does not reiterate the details of the full justification for the supplemental estimate of appropriation for fiscal year 1957, already presented in-hearings before the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. It is not our intention to burden either your committee or the Senate and House conferees with reconsideration of the detailed reasons for the appropriation requests they have already considered. The appeal of the Advisory Committee on Weather Control is addressed only to a summary of the reasons why we will not be able to complete our statutory mis- sion by July 30, 1956, and, therefore, why it is necessary to ask for the restora- tion of the full appropriation request to complete the assignment in the additional 2 years already granted by the Congress and approved by the President. This Committee's program to evaluate weather modification activities might well develop Into a significant contribution to the solution of the serious water resources problems and the suppression of hail and lightning in many States of the Nation. It has the support of the administration, all the interested agencies and the vitally concerned water users. My opinion is that it would be a major loss to our country if the continuity and completion of the work of this Com- mittee were permitted to cease for lack of adequate appropriations. Very sincerely yours, HOWABD T. ORVIGLE, Clha-lrvmv.n. Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Appr?yiAd For 00500060005-6 On page 4, line 14, insert : "INDEPENDENT OFFICES "ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON WEATHER CONTROL SALARIES AND EXPENSES "For necessary expenses of the Advisory Committee on Weather Control, established by the Act of August 13, 1953 (67 Stat. 559), as amended, including services as authorized by section 15 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (5 U. S. C. 55a), $350,000." "Salaries and expenses. The committee has denied the estimate of $350,000 for this activity, feeling that serious question exists as to whether or not its continuation is necessary. In addition, legislation authorizing extension of the Advisory Committee has not as yet been approved." Authorization Legislation authorizing the extension of the Advisory Committee on Weather Control for another -2 years was approved without dissent by the legislative com- mittees of both Houses of Congress (S. Rept. No. 1866 and H. Rept. No. 2424), and passed by both the Senate and House unanimously. The final favorable ac- tion by the House on S. 2913 was taken on July 2 prior to the issuance of the report by the House Appropriations Committee, and the President signed the bill into law on July 9, 1956. Legislative History The Advisory Committee on Weather Control was established after lengthy congressional hearings between 1951 and 1953 demonstrated that farmers, ranchers, electric utilities, municipalities, and other water users were annually expending 3 to 5 million dollars on weather modification activities covering 10 percent of the land area of the Nation and, also, that there were no existing private or public agencies willing or able to assume the responsibility of im- partially evaluating these weather modification operations to find out if they were actually producing favorable results. The existing agencies were primarily con- cerned with weather forecasting, pure and basic research in cloud physics or com- mercial cloud seeding. Staffing difficulties The act creating this Committee was approved August 13, 1953; funds were not appropriated until almost a year later in July 1954; and the Committee was not able to assemble a qualified scientific staff for such a small temporary agency until January 1955. The small staff of 15 scientific and administrative em- ployees has had only about a year and a half to conduct evaluations of weather -modification activities. Assembling this staff was made possible only by obtain- ing competent technical personnel on reimbursable loan from the permanent agencies. The work of this ,;mall temporary group of employees is supported by the technical and scientific advice and assistance of consultants from private industry and the various universities and foundations. Status of evaluations The Committee's statistical evaluations show that cloud-seeding operations during the cooler and moist seasons of the year in the mountainous areas of the -Pacific Coast States produced average increases in precipitation ranging from. 9 to 17 percent above what was to be expected. The Committee's physical evalua- tions, designed to ascertain if there is physical evidence to support its statistical evaluations, thus far, appear to have established that the silver iodide used for cloud seeding does in fact get up into the clouds under similar conditions present in the west coast cloud-seeding operations which were statistically evaluated. Inability to apply present incomplete evaluations to all States The Committee cannot, at this time, report to the President and the Congress whether the same economically important results found in the west coast states can be applied to the varied water-resources problems in other States of the Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved For R Wt AQ4kffIZ4 DR8Qfgfl,37j(AR 000 05-6 Nation and under other physical circumstances.. In order to. do so it must have the time and the money to statistically and physically evaluate weather modifica- tiou activities in the mountainous areas of about 24 other States and the flat coun- try of the remaining States. Importance of both physical and statistical evaluation programs House Report No. 603 and Senate Report No. 512 on fiscal year 1956 appropria- tions specifically recognized the need for the physical evaluation program as well as the statistical evaluation program of the Committee. Approximately one-half of this year's total request of $350,000 is to be devoted respectively to the statisti- cal evaluation program and the physical evaluation program. Funds required to complete assignment The Committee will be able to maintain the continuity of its data collection and analysis and complete evaluations in the remaining major portion of the Nation only if the full amount of this year's budget request is appropriated. Similarly, .the full amount of the appropriation request will permit the Commit- tee to further investigate the feasibility of cloud-seeding activities to suppress hail and inhibit lightning fires in the Nation's forests. Appropriation summary TTpon the completion of these studies and evaluations, the Committee will make a final report to the Congress at the earliest practicable date and not later than June 30, 1958, covering the entire country and all the scientific, economic, and legal aspects of weather modification. The Committee's appropriations for the fiscal years 1955 and 1956 were $120,000 and $275,000, respectively. The budget request for the Committee for this fiscal year, 1957, is $350,000. It is anticipated that the fiscal year 1958 budget request will be somewhat lower than the one for this year. UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY statement. (The matter referred to follows:) PRESIDENT'S SPECIAL INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM (NO-YEAR APPROPRIATION) SUMMARY TABLES TABLE I.-Allocation of prior appropriations and fiscal year 1967 supplemental request: Effect of House committee action Appropri- Appropri- Total Supple- mental House By action agency ated, fiscal aced, fiscal appropri- attans to request, committee Decrease - - - year 1955 year 1956 data fiscal year action - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1967 Department of State ----------- $2,060,000 - - - - $4, 300, 000 - - - - - $2,700,000 - $2, 000, 000 -$700 000 Department of Commerce --- 'U. S. Information Agency 2,592,456 2, 760, 000 190 000 5, 352, 456 347 544 1 5, 987, 400 12 2, 687, 400 , -3, 300, 000 - L , , , 600 3 ---_-___--- -312, 600 Total appropriation--_-_ 5, 000, 000 10, 000, 000 0, 000, 000 4, 687, 687,400 -4,312,600 (Seep. 475.) Chairman HAYDEN. I will insert the table referred to by Mr. Strei- bert, Director of the United States Information Agency, in his opening Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Apgoved ~or~~~/O~ag~PQIQ000500060005-6 Estimated Total allo- cations 1955 1956 Cumulative unobligated balance actual estimate total Department of State_______ $4300,000 $1,820,403 $2,433,583 $4,253,986 $46, 014 Department of Commerce '456 5:352 1 769 421 3,230,579 5,000,000 352, 456 U. S. Information Agency_____________ , 347; 544 , , 79,455 159,845 239,300 108,244 TREASURY DEPARTMENT Chairman HAYDEN. I have received a letter from Acting Secretary of the Treasury IV. Randolph Burgess relating to his appearance be- fore the committee on Thursday, July 5. The letter will be placed in the record. (The letter referred to follows:) THE SECRETARY OF THE T1E:ASURY, Washington, July 12, 1956. HOD. CARL HAYDEN, Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : Reference is made to II. R. 12138, making supple- mental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, which was reported by the House Appropriations Committee on July 6, 1956. Of the 4 Treasury items contained therein, 2 were recommended for approval in the full amount of the estimates and the remaining 2 for the Division of Disbursement and the Internal -Revenue Service were recommended for reduction in the amounts of $100,000 and $380,000, respectively. The items in which reductions in the estimates were recommended are related to each other, since both are concerned with the refund of gasoline taxes to farmers under the provisions of Public Law No. 466 of this Congress. In the case of each of these estimates, the budget request was founded upon an estimated volume of $5 million anticipated refunds per year. In reducing the amount re- quested, the House Appropriations Committee, in its report accompanying the bill, indicated that it was of the opinion that the estimated number of claims indicated would not materialize. In connection with the above, it should be noted that the estimates referred to were based upon the best information available in this Department. The amounts of the estimates were arrived at through the exercise of our best judgment based upon this information. It now appears that the House Appropriations Com- mittee, utilizing information available to it, has arrived at a different judgment. Only time and actual experience will determine which judgment was more nearly correct. Under the circumstances, since we have no new evidence bearing on the matter other than that presented to the House committee, please he advised that no pro- test will be made of the proposed reductions in these two items and that we are willing to abide by the judgment of the House Appropriations Committee in this matter. The above decision should be accepted, however, with the understanding that if the original volume estimates hold up in actual experience, it may be necessary to return at a later date for further consideration of additional funds. W. RANDOLPH BURGESS, Acting Secretary of the Treasury. CIA BUILDING LOCATION Chairman HAYDEN. I have received a report regarding the status of land acquisition in connection with the CIA building location which will be placed in the record. (The report referred to follows:) Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved For Rj32q;Y&1A7Pft9&W(-Rj3710A0 00065-6 STATUS OF LAND ACQUISITION (See p. 737) 1. As background information on the actual transfer of jurisdiction for the pur- poses of construction of the building, it should be noted that there are currently two agencies of the executive branch which have jurisdiction over the site in -question. (a) The National Park Service has jurisdiction over a 60-foot strip of land running through the site originally intended to provide access to the George Washington Memorial Parkway for the benefit of the owners of the Leiter estate. The Government eventually acquired title to the entire eLiter estate, thus extinguishing the easement. The Park Service, in a letter to this Agency of May 18, 1956, has stated : "This service will declare the land involved as excess * * * as soon as a metes and bounds declaration is prepared by the Bureau of Public Roads and clearance has been secured from the National Capital Planning Com- mission." (b) The principal portion of the land concerned is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Public Roads, which has stated, in a letter dated February 21, 1955, that : "* * * the Bureau agrees to the release for use by your Agency of ap- proximately 100 acres of the tract contingent upon an understanding with respect to the required survey, the provision of a dividing fence, and other pertinent considerations." Subsequently, in a letter of October 3, 1955, the Bureau increased the area to 140 acres. 2. Discussions have been held with the General Services Administration and arrangements have been generally agreed upon for transfer of jurisdiction of the land concerned to the Agency in accordance with procedures as prescribed by law. 3. With respect to the 60-foot strip of land currently under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, the Service has applied to the National Capital Plan- ning Commission for clearance of their proposed action in declaring the land excess to Park Service needs. This is in accord with current Park Service prac- tices. 4. At the present time, the National Capital Planning Commission staff has sent forward mailed ballots to each of the members of the Commission requesting an expression of their views. As you are aware, however, the National Capital Planning Commission has already approved the location of our building on the LETTER ON AMENDMENTS REQUESTED Chairman HAYDEN. I have received a letter from the President of the District of Columbia Board of Commissioners on the amendments requested to the supplemental appropriation bill for 1957. This letter will be placed in the record. (The communication follows:) GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, EFECUTIVE OFFICE, Washington, D. C., July 11, 1956. lion. CART. HAYDEN, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR II AYDEN : Subsequent to the hearings on July 5, 1956, before your committee on District of Columbia items Included in the supplemental bill, 1957, the House reported the bill with reductions amounting to $2,033,706. The -Commissioners have examined the Items deleted by the House and respectfully request favorable consideration by the Senate of the following restorations : Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Ap2ved F0r`s~pkq~W39W3/q4g~4I8P01if7 8000500060005-6 FEDJSRAL .PAYMENT Restoration of $3 million-$23i million authorized by the District of Columbia Revenue Act of 1956 The District of Columbia Revenue Acts of 1954 and 19.56 contemplated joint participation between the Federal Government and the District government. By virtue of these acts the local taxpayers assume an additional tax burden of $24 million and the Federal Government $13.3 million. Any reduction in the Federal payment is obviously unfair to the District of Columbia residents. Attention is invited to the House committee reports for 19,56 and 1957. In 1956 .the com- mittee stated as follows: "Sound fiscal management provides for the establish- ment of budget reserves." In reporting the 1957 bill, the committee stated : "If it were to approve the budget estimate the committee would be in the position of recommending an appropriation of Federal funds to create a surplus in the general fund of the District of Columbia." The Commissioners feel that the Fed- eral payment should not in any way be associated with the amount of unappro- priated surplus that might be available, and respectfully urge restoration of the full $3 million Federal payment.. Department of General Administration, $8,990 This request pertains to a GS-13 accountant to be used in installing modern accounting systems for the District of Columbia government. Lack of modern accounting systems is seriously hampering management control, and has been criticized repeatedly by the General Accounting Office. Department of Occupations and Professions, $3,200 This request will provide one additional clerk, GS-3, to assist in keeping up with the ever-increasing workload of this Department, which regulates the licens+ ing of 20 different occupations and professions. Without this additional clerk the workload of this Department will become progressively delinquent. Metropolitan Police Department, $136,200 (of which $17,000 shall be payable from the highway fund) The amount requested to be restored is composed of $7,200 for the purchase of 6 automobiles, and $149,000 for additional policemen. In the case of the auto. mobiles, these additional cars are required so that the police department can operate in an efficient, economical manner. Lack of these additional vehicles causes lost time on the part of police officers while they wait for repairs and also, necessitates uneconomical types of vehicle repair work. The amount for police- men would result in 28 additional man-years of employment. Although the re- cruitment could possibly be delayed to make up this reduction, restoration would be advantageous inasmuch as the extra money could be used to employ officers for an additional workday each week and thereby prevent crime. Courts, $19,600 The Central Violations Bureau for which $19,600 restoration is recommended, consists of 14 employees. The 6 employees involved in this amount would, it is estimated, provide $200,000 additional revenue to the District of Columbia. Without these employees the workload would lag and traffic law enforcement will be seriously impeded. This proposed amendment involves $126,000 for increased salary of interns and residents, and $14,500 for first-aid assistants for ambulance service. The Com- missioners are empowered by law to fix rates of interns and resident physicians, and have done so. Failure to provide appropriation will not only result in a morale situation but will certainly interfere very materially with recruitment for fiscal year 1958, which starts in September 1956 and must be completed in February 1957. The Commissioners deem it necessary to have first-aid assistants in the ambu- lance service, thereby relieving interns for more important duties in District of Columbia General Hospital. Other cities are now doing this same thing because of the shortage of interns. National Guard, $11,100 Restoration is requested to bring the salary of the commanding general of the District of Columbia National Guard up to $11,600. The Commissioners feel that Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 NVOLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION BILL, 1957 783 the full amount of this salary should be paid the commanding general notwith- standing his retirement pay. It is the Commissioners' understanding that the commanding general receives $0,513 per annum retirement pay and that this amount can be retained by him under the law in addition to the salary proposed by the Commissioners. A salary of less than $11,000 will make it difficult, if not impossible, to recxuit a qualified person for this duty when the present incum- bent's term expires. Fire boat, $100,000 The Commissioners deenn it not desirable to repair the present fire boat. The cost will be $50,000 for the present inadequate boat. They also consider it inad- visable to attempt to equip a small police patrol boat, which is designed for patrol purposes only. Attention is invited to the fact that there is always the possibility of water catastrophes necessiatiing fire-fighting equipment. The river traffic is becoming increasingly heavy and the Commissioners would not want to assume responsibility for not calling attention to the fact that they consider this to be a very vital item, is far as the protection of life and property is concerned. Site of repair shop and engine house No. 7, $25,000 This item is required to purchase a site for these activities, which price was set by the Redevelopment Land Agency. Failure to obtain this site in the current fiscal year will mean a delay of 1 year in the construction. Children's Center, detention unit, $469,900 The House committee in their report stated that the cost of this building was excessive and suggested that the plans be revised with the objective of bringing this cost estimate in line with the other projects at the Children's Center. Actually, this project is entirely different from other buildings at the center inasmuch as it is to rare for defective delinquents which require almost a separate institution with a security system. We have reexamined the cost esti- mate and feel that it is as low as these conditions permit. Youth Correctional Centel-, $550,000 The House committee stated that this deletion resulted from the fact that there was $000,000 still available from last year. This currently available amount was for the purpose of installing utilities for this center. However, after the plans were almost completed, it was determined that it would be more economical to hold this money and enter into one contract for the entire center. If the $550,000 is not restored, it will mean delay in the construction of a unit of the center and a probable increase in the cost of the deferred unit. If restoration is approved, construction could start in November. Sanitary sewers, $100,000 The Commissioners are not advised as to the reason for the $100,000 reduction in the sanitary sewer works program. Failure to obtain this appropriation will result in the delay of the very important pollution abatement program. FINANCIAL STATUS, GENERAL FUND If the Senate restores the items requested that are payable from the general fund the financial status will be as follows : Surplus in bill as passed the House (no reserve for contingencies) _ +$241, 880 Surplus in bill with Senate amendments requested ($3,000,000 Fed- eral payment and $1,000,000 reserve for contingencies) ---------- -1, 270, 390 Surplus in bill with Senate amendments requested ($2,000,000 Fed- eral payment and $1,000,000 reserve for contingencies) ---------- - 276, 390 Surplus in bill with Senate amendments requested ($1,000,000 Fed- eral payment and no reserve) __-____--__ _ - 270, 390 Deficit in bill with Senate amendments requested (no increased Federal payment and no reserve) ----------------------------- - 723, 690 There is attached a summary of the reductions made by the House and the restorations recommended by the Comissioners to this committee. Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Appr qd Fo eA gM#/'ATPAIA,Wgf 0Bgp7t' 1,00500060005-6 ~ 1 _ J The Commissioners will greatly appreciate your favorable consideration of these requests, Sincerely yours, ROBERT E. MCLAUGHLIN, President, Board of Commissioners, of District of Columbia. The following items have been approved by the Commissioners for restoration in supplemental bill, 1957: FEDERAL PAYMENT It is recommended that the additional amount of $3 million authorized by the Revenue Act of 1956, be requested. Operating expenses (by departments) Restoration recommended Department of General Administration: Accounting A i $8 990 $8 990 ssess ng----------------------- -------------------------------------- Processin , 5,440 , ---- - g------------------- ---- ---- ---------------------------------- De-artment of Occupations and Professions 17,570 - -------- -------------- M dropolitan Polic ($17 000 3, 200 3 200 e , payable from the highway fund) Courts: ________________ 138, 200 , 138200 Central Violations -Bureau D 19 600 omes tic relations ________________,._ , 25 150 Department of Public Health, Dental Health Service Mental Health Service , 0,415 -------------- -- ------------------------------------------------ t Rin w 16 254 orm con rol ------- g L c_________..___________ Legal Ps chiatri S i , 4,785 ---------- -- ------------ - y c erv ce___ oordinated dental pro ram ------------------------------ 13,756 - -------------- g Salary Salary increase foi intermsand r siid t 30, 000 -------------- e en s First-aid assistants for Ambulance Service N ------------ 126, 000 14 500 126, 000 14 500 ational ntofVehiclesandTraffc National Guard ----------------- , 3:175 4 100 , 4 100 , , Total---- 438, 135 312,500 The above recommended restorations are chargeable to the general fund with the exception of $17,000 payable from the highway fund. Capital outlay (by items) Generalfund: Fire boat----------------------------- $100,000 $100, 000 $1 00 000 $100 000 Site, repair shop and engine house No. 7- ------------------ 25,000 25,000 , 25 000 , 25 000 Operating suite, District of Columbia General Hospital------------------- 8 000 , , Glenn Dale Hospital: Medical laboratory expenses_ _ _ _ _ _ , 77,000 77,000 Expansion surgical facilities----___ 94,000 94,000 Children's Center, detention unit----- 469,900 269900 200 000 --269 900 Junior Village, permanent improvo- ments_.__---------------------------- 28,000 28, 000 , , Recreation Department_______________ 46,671 46, 671 Youth Correctional Center____________ S 5.50, 000 275, 000 275, 000 275 000 275 000 tormwater sewers____________________ 97,000 07,000 , , ---------- Total, genera] fund ------------ _ _ _ _ _ 1, 495, 571 1,012,571 483, 000 1 14 4 900 475 000 Sanitary sewerage works fund: Sanitary sewers ?.__ 100,000 100,000 , 10 , 0,000 , 100,000 Nora.-If the above capital outlay items are approved, additional language will be required. Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved For RWasm20=04 h7ioiCalr AW11M,13ZO 500Q 7005-6 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF Tim-PRESIDENT Chairman HAYDEN. I have received an appeal letter from the Di rector, Bureau of the Budget, which will be placed in the record. (The letter referred to follows:) EXECUTIVE OFFICE of THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF TILE BUDGET, Washington, D. C., July 12, 1956. Chairman, Subcommittee on, Independent Offices and General Government Matters, Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Washing ton, D. C. My DEAR MR. CIIAIRMAN : In your consideration of chapter V of H. R. 12138. there are two items dealing with the proposed 1957 supplemental appropriation. for Bureau of the Budget, salaries and expenses, which I wish to call to your attention : (1) Page 15, line 9, change "$375,000" to "$405,000." The President in transmitting to the Speaker of the House of Representatives the supplemental appropriation request for fiscal year 1957 for the Bureau of the Budget stated that : "* * * the proposed appropriation represents a necessary step in carrying out * * * further improvements in executive branch budgeting, accounting, and management * * * Expansion of the staff resources of the Bureau is needed in. order that the Bureau may provide, on my behalf, more active central leadership in the advancement of administration in the executive agencies." To carry out this program aimed at further improvement in executive branch. budgeting, accounting, and management, a supplemental appropriation of $405,000. for fiscal year 1957 for the Bureau of the Budget was requested. This was con- sidered the minimum amount required to support the commencement of a modest program which would permit the Bureau to accelerate its activities in the fields of budgeting, accounting, and management. It was estimated that the sum of $405,000 would provide sufficient funds to engage 15 additional accountants and 15 additional management specialists and to finance required supporting services. It is desirable to stress at this point that in asking restoration of the re quested $405,000 as the minimum essential for the financing of the planned pro gram, emphasis should be placed on the fact that this amount is requested to permit the Bureau (1) to assist the agencies in working out sound and compre- hensive accounting systems, with emphasis on support of budgeting activities,, and (2) to effect, further improvement of agency management, especially by re- views or surveys, which will serve to locate areas of inefficiency and overstaffing. These improvements should be effected and a basis for sound administrative con- trol established at the earliest possible date. (2) Page 15, line 12, after "$110,000", change the period to a comma and add the following : "the limitation thereunder on the amount available for services as authorized by the Act of August 2, 1940, is increased from `$20,000' to `$25,000' and the maximum per diem rate for individuals serving pursuant to said Act is increased from `$50' to `$75'." In planning this program of improvement in agency budgeting, accounting, and management, it was appreciated that with the shall additional staff re- quested, full-time staff specialists in all required phases could not be supported within the limitation of the requested amount of $405,000. Thus an increase in the amount of funds which the Bureau could spend for consultants and experts was requested. It appears to me that the restoration of the requested increase of $5,000 in the total amount which the Bureau can expend for the services of consultants and experts under this appropriation is desirable and essential. This is true not only for proper effectuation of the planned budgeting, accounting, and management improvement program but also from the point of view of efficient staff utilization. The language which was proposed for the 1957 supplemental appropriation provided authority to permit employment of consultants at rates not to exceed $75 per day, an increase over the presently authorized $50-per-day rate. This increase was proposed in order to permit more adequate compensation for con- sultants selected from among outstanding individuals in business and technical fields who are customarily reimbursed at rates higher than can now be paid. The Congress has in other instances authorized rates higher than $50 per day, par-- Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 AppTaged or w12_ 3/dJ4il6i71t RDP8I 1370Fd000500060005-6 ticularly for those agencies and activities having frequent. need for technical consultants. The programs to be financed from this appropriation are of such a nature that they will require the services of highly qualified technical experts competent to advise upon the solution of complex problems of budgeting, accounting, and man- agement. Restoration of the requested authority to employ consultants under the Bureau of the Budget "Salaries and expenses" appropriation at rates not to exceed $75 per day is therefore respectfully requested. This authority should be helpful in bringing about more effective utilization of the appropriation. Sincerely yours, PERcIVAL BRUNIIAGE, Director. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY (See p. 637) Chairman HAYDEN. The following is a list of projects included in the 1957 authorization and in the funding program, but not included in the House action, and also a list of projects approved for funding in 1956 and prior years by the Congress but not included in the House action. This tabulation will be inserted in the record at this point. (The matter referred to follows:) MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY Projects included in the 1957 military construction authorization bill, H. R. 9893, not approved for funding in fiscal year 1957 by action of if. Rept. 2638 on H. R. .12138, restoration to funding program requested SHIPYARD FACILITIES, CONTINENTAL In thousands Naval Shipyard, Boston, Mass.: Reconstruct drydock (A. and E.) ---- $1,072 Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Wash.: Drydock (A. and E.) --------------- 1,300 Harbor-Defense Base, Norfolk, Va.: Barracks-------------------------- 300 Naval Shipyard, San Francisco,-Calif.: Drydock (A. and E.) ------------ 1,300 Classified location : Harbor defense facilities-------------------------- 200 Naval air training stations : ----------- ine test facility t b j T 170 --------- eng e ur o NAS, Glynco, Ga.: -------- buildin i T i 170 g---------------- ng ra n NAAS, Kingsville, Tex.: -------- ine test facility T t b 170 -------- eng ur oje NAS, Memphis, Tenn.: 13 NAAS, Whiting Field, Fla.: Land acquisition ---------------------- NAS, Atlantic City, N. J.: Radar air traffic control center -------- 371 NAAS, Brown Field, Calif.: 200 Utilities---------------------------------------------------- Galley and messhall---------------------------------------- 300 8 Barracks ------------------------------------------------------ 27 NAS, Brunswick, Maine : Supply facilities---------------------------------------------- 385 Structural fire facilities-------------------------------------- 113 Enlisted men's club -.----------------------------------------- 13 1 BOQ with mess---------------------------------------------- 462 Aircraft parking area--------------------------------------- 2,478 Communication facilities and access road---------------------- 1, 157 NAAS, Edenton, N. C.: Aviation facilities------------------------- 13,926 NAAS, El Centro, Calif: Land acquisition for runway extension---------------------- 1 Turbojet engine test facility----------------------------------- 170 Niland-Blythe road------------------------------------------- 660 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved For ,as1; 2?:Q>:i/Q4MrCJAiRDF O1 WO50 W0005-6 Projects included in the 1957 military construction anithorization bill, H. 8..9893, not approved for funding in fiscal year 1957 by action, of 11. Rcpt. 2638 and II. R. 12138, restoration to funding program requested-Continued Naval air training stations-Continued NAP, Harvey Point, N. C. : Barge unloading facility------------------------------------- $197 Fuel storage-------------------------------------------------400 Refueling facilities------------------------------------------ 133 Boathouse--------------------------------------------------- 240 Seadrome lighting ------------------------------------------- 150 Public works office and shop ----------------------------- 150 Nose hangar-------------------------------------------`------- 100 Utilities----------------------------------------------------- 397 NAS, Jackson, Fla.: Radar air-traffic control center---------------- 113 NAS, Key West, Fla.: Turbojet engine test facility----------------- 170 NAS, Miramar, Calif.: Plight-path clearance---------------------------------------- 5,000 Guided-missile facility--------------------------------------- 800 NAS, Norfolk, Va.: Turbojet engine test facility------------- ----- 170 NAS, North Island, San Diego, Calif.: Turbojet engine test facility__ 170 NAS, Quonset Point, R. I.: Radar air-traffic control center_______________________________ 304 Turbojet engine test facility--------------------------------- 170 NAS, Whidby Island, Wash.: Water-treatment plant--------------- 149 Classified locations: Bombing targets----------------------------- 1,030 Marine Corps air stations: MCAS, Beaufort, S. C.: Training tank----------------------------------------------- 592 Combat training tank--------------------------------------- 200 Theater----------------------------------------------------- 377 Turbojet engine test facility--------------------------------- 170 Support squadron operation compound----------------------- 197 Control squadron operation compound------------------------- 405 Fire station------------------------------------------------124 Fire and crash facility-------------------------------------- 113 Cold-storage warehouse------------------------------------- 342 Puel-handling facilities-------------------------------------- 94 MCAS, Cherry Point, N. C.: Turbojet engine test facility------------ 170 MICAS, El Toro, Calif. : Water system modification----------------------------------- 180 Barracks---------------------------------------------------- 1,601 Infirmary and dental clinic--------------------------------- 1,180 Tactical area development----------------------------------- 2, 724 Training building------------------------------------------- 722 Fire and crash facilities------------------------------------- 110 MCAS, Mojave, Calif.: Gas distribution system-------------------------------------- 90 Sewage treatment plant------------------------------------- 296 Training building------------------------------------------- 325 Water system expansion------------------------------------- 166 Electrical distribution system-------------------------------- 200 Steam plant and distribution system------------------------- 785 NAS, Patuxent River, Md.: Turbojet engine test facility ------------ 170 NAMTC, Point Mugu, Calif.: Harbor facilities rehabilitation------------------------------- 843 Submerged fuel transfer lines (4) -------------------------- 80 Enlisted men's club----------------------------------------- 128 Theater------------------------------------------------- -- 302 CPO Club-------------------------------------------------- 159 Turbojet engine test facility--------------------------------- 170 NATTS, Trenton, N. J.: Altitude exhaust connection-------------- 128 Naval Air Station, Baarber's Point, Oahu, T. II.: Barracks-=----------------------------------------------------- Turbojet engine test facility------------------------------------- 598 272 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Appra4d For ReliiiiI6 /trl PPCFAIF OBM7 0500060005-6 Projects included in the 1957 military construction authorization bill, H. R. 9893, not approved for funding in fiscal year 1957 by action of H. Rept. 2638 and H. F. 12138, restoration to funding program requested-Continued Naval air stations-Continued NAS, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba : In thousands Telephone system -------------------------------------------- $335 Barracks ----------------------------------------- ------------- 723 Family housing: 8 senior, 17 junior, 89 enlisted men ------------ 2, 085 Radio facilities----------------------------------------------- 241 Utilities---------------------------------------------------- 592 Recreation building----------------------------------------- 358 MCAS, Itaneohe Bay, T. H.: Parachute loft----------------------------------------------- -80 Turbojet engine test facility ------------------------------------ 272 Naval Station, Kodiak, Alaska : Access road ------------------------ 714 NAF, Port Lyautey, French Morocco : Turbojet engine test facility-__ 221 Naval Station, Sangley Point, Philippine Islands : BOQ with mess --- 1, 821 AEW No. 4, classified locations : Supply facilities--------------------------------------------- 200 POL and distribution ----------------------------------------- 253 Public works shops------------------------------------------ 69 Utilities------------------------------------------------------ 1 329 Communications facilities ------------------------------------- 69 NAS No. 3, AOA classified location: BOQ with mess-------------------------------------------- 343 Fire station------------------------------------------------- -56 Recreation facilities------------------------------------ --- 212 Aviation supply warehouse---------------------------------- 125 Aviation ordnance shops------------------------------------- 53 Ammunition storage----------------------------------------- 195 Bore sighting range and compass rose------------------------- 75 Family housing-------------------------------------------- 2,103 Gatehouse and security building----------------------------- 5 Chapel and auditorium --------------------------------------- 226 Marine Corps facilities : MCSC, Albany, Ga.: NCO quarters and mess (open) ---------------- 364 MCSC, Barstow, Calif.:: Addition to preservation and packaging building ----------------------- -------- --- ------------------ -- 26 Marine Corps Base, Camp LeJeune, N. C.: Heating facilities--.----------------------------------------- - 120 Support facilities___________________________________________ 2,187 Service school facilities : Naval Training Center, Bainbridge, Md.: Recruit barracks and heat- ing system (2d increment) ------------------------------------- 2,569 Ordnance facilities : NAD, Hingham, Mass.: Access road------------------------------ 78 Yards and Docks facilities : Replacement of damaged facilities------ 2, 000 Total---------------------------------------------------------- 69,945 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY 1956 and prior year projects previously approved for funding by the Congress not approved for funding in fiscal year 1957 by action -of H. Rept. No. 2638 on H. R. 12138, restoration to funding program requested In thousands Fleet activities, Yokosuka, Japan : Family housing------------------ $6,540.8 NAAS, Chase Field, Tex.: Family housing------------------------------------------------- 540 Fueling stations--------.--------------------------------------- 284 NAS, Corpus Christie, Tex.: Fueling stations----------------------- 269 NAS, Alameda, Calif.: Seadrome lighting---------------------------- 182 NAS, Brunswick, Maine : Composite approach lighting---------------- 82 NAS, Cecil Field, Fla. : Oxygen service and test building------------------------------- 137 High-intensity approach lighting -------------------------------- 160 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved For I aw2II06 041?]i((DkA DR801M,37?W5000i;6?05-6 1956 and prior year projects previously approved for funding by the Congress not approved for funding in fiscal year 1957 by action of H. Rept. No. 2638 on H. R. NAAS, Edenton, N. C.: Family housing---------------------------- $1, 421.5 NAS, Miramar, Calif.: High-intensity approach lighting-------------- 160 NAS, Moffett Field, Calif.: Composite approach lighting-------------- 160 NAS, Norfolk, Va.: Flight test and transfer building------------------ 750 NAS, Oceana, Va.: High-intensity approach lighting------------------ 160 NAS, Quonset, R. I.: Composite approach lighting------------------ 115 NAS, Whidbey Island, Wash.: Composite approach lighting---------- 138 NCAS, Cherry Point, N. C.: Composite approach lighting-------------- 132 MCAS, El Toro, Calif.: Composite approach lighting----------------- 190 MCAS, Mojave, Calif.: Family housing----------------------------- 2, 177.4 NAS, South Weymouth, Mass.: Radar test tower-------------------- 270 Aviation, overseas : NAS, Atsugi, Japan : Family housing--------------------------- 1,514.8 Supply facilities, overseas : NSC, Pearl Harbor, T. H.: Drum reconditioning plant------------- 172 Marine Corps facilities, overseas : Fleet Marine Force, Pacific: Camp facilities (3d increment) ------ 6, 000 Ordnance facilities, continental: Naval Ammunition Depot, Shumaker, Ark.: Barricaded transfer depot------------------------------------------------------- 765 Ordnance facilities, overseas : Naval Ammunition Depot, Oahu, T. II.: Yard, west Loch------------------------------------------ 515 Lualnalel------------------------------------------------- 450 Medical facilities, continental : NNMC, Bethesda, Md.: Armed Forces Medical Library (A. and E.) 350 Communications facilities, overseas : NRF, Kami Seya, Japan : Family housing----------------------- 2,439.7 Yards and Docks facilities, continental : Various locations : Replacement of family housing--------------- 425.8 Total------------------------------------------------------- 26,501.0 Chairman HAYDEN. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, at which time the committee will consider the Mutual Security appropriation. (Whereupon at 5 p. m., Wednesday, July 11, 1956, the hearings were closed.) Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved For ease 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-013709M0500060005-6 LIST OF WITNESSES Page Abbey, Leonard B---------------------------------------------------- 171 Abramovitz, Max--------------------------------------------------- 719 Aderholdt, Lt. A. A--------------------------------------------------- 260 Allen, James C------------------------------------------------------- 41 Amstadt, J. M------------------------------------------------------ 19 Anderson, Arthur M------------------------------------------------ 87 Anderson, Dr. Otis L--------------------------------------------------- 177 Anderson, Rex A---------------------------------------------------- 30 Arey, Hawthorne----------------------------------------------------- 87 Asher, Philip G------------------------------------------------------ 22 Auld, David V-------------------------------------------------------- - 303 Babe, John J-------------------------------------------------------- 557 Barney, Brig. Gen. Keith R------------------------------------------- 589 Baron, Stuart T--------------------------------------------------- 1 Bartlett, Dr. Kenneth A--------------------------------------------- 80 Bartlett, E. L------------------------------------------------------ - 197 Barton, John C------------------------------------------------------ 30 Basuight, Arvin 0--------------------------------------------------- 17 Batson, Douglas N------------------------------------------------- 440 Bauer, Theodore J--------------------------------------------------- 171 Beach, Robert P------------------------------------------------------ 319 Beardsley, Rear Adm. G. F------------------------------------------- E16 Bennett, N. B-------------------------------------------------------- 72 Bigum, Maj. Alfred C.------------------------------------------------- 513 Brown, Robert W----------------------------------------------------- 149 Brownell, Dr. S. M--------------------------------------------------- 149 Broyhill, Hon. Joel T------------------------------------------------- 754 Brundage, Percival F------------------------------------------------ 97 Bryant, lion. Floyd S------------------------------------------------ 575 Burton, Hon. Harold II----------------------------------------------- 395 Brown, John C------------------------------------------------------- 395 Cake, Gilbert L------------------------------------------------------ 201 Cameron, D. E. A.---------------------------------------------------- 112 Cannon, Julian F----------------------------------------------------- 201 Carper, Wallace--------------------------------------------------- 395 719 Christiansen, Milo F-------------------------------------------------- 252 Clemmer, Donald----------------------------------------------------- 287 Cogswell, Robert F-------------------------------------------------- 242 Colby, M. E---------------------------------------------------------- 327 Colman, W. G-------------------------------------------------------- 139 Corning, Dr. Hobart M--------------------------------------------- 244 Crouch, Edward C-------------------------------------------------- 423, 437 Currie, John I)----------------------------------------------------- 133 Daly, R. T----------------------------------------------------------- 112 Davis, Hon. Chester R------------------------------------------------ 589 Dawson, Donald------------------------------------------------------ 112 Dinneny, Tames J-------------------------------------------------- 557 Dodson, James E---------------------------------------------------- 557 Douglas, Hon. James H--------------------------------------------- 650 Dryden, Dr. Hugh L------------------------------------------------- 137 Dubrow, Morgan D--------------------------------------------------- 64 Dulles, Allen W------------------------------------------------------ 719 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 ppmq~ Approved For Release 20$IWP4417 : CIA-RDP80-01300500060005-6 F WITNESSES Page Edwards, A. M----------------------------------------------------- 80 Eiseman, N. J-------------------------------------------------------- 133 Elbrick, C. Burke--------------------------------------------------- 437, 513 Estes, Thomas S---------------------------------------------- 112, 130, 423 Evans, G. E---------------------------------------------------------- 327 Ewing, Frank M--------- -------- --------------------- 753 Falck, Depue . ----------- Fentress, Carroll D--------------------------------------------------- 60 Ferratt, George St.J------------------- - 187 Ferry, John M-------------------------------------------------------- 650 Finucane, Dr. Daniel L----------------------------------------------- 207 Fischelis, Robert P------------------------------------------------- 112, 129 Fisher, Roger-------------------------------------------------------- 766 Fleming, Robert V---------------------------------------------------- 530 Floete, Franklin G-------------------------------------------------- -112, 540 Fogler, Hon. Raymond H-------------------------------------- ------ 616 Fredlund, R. R-------------------------------------------------------- 112 Gailey, Maj. Gen. C. K------------------------------------------------- 1 Garlock, Hon. Lyles----------------------------------------------- 513, 650 Gatchell, F. B-------------------------------------------------------- 30 Givotovsky, V. T---------------------------------------------------- 300 Golze, A. R---------------------------------------------------------- -72 Gotschall, John C---------------------------------------------------- 1 Graham, Thomas H---------------------------------------------------- 549 Grim, Wilbur H------------------------------------------------------- 423 Haldeman, Dr. Jack C-------------------------------------------------- 177 Hanson, Arthur------------------------------------------------------- 129 Harbison, Joseph S------------------------------------------------- 1 Harlow, Roy L------------------------------------- 163, 171, 177, 182, 185, 187 Harrington, -Russell C------------------------------------------------ 213 Harrison, S. R------------------------------------------------------- 301 Heath, Dr. Frederick C----------------------------------------------- 267 Henderson, Loy W------------------------------------------------ 423, 437 Herrington, William C------------------------------------------------ 412 Himmelbach, Dr. Clifton K-------------------------------------------- 182 Hopkins, Howard---------------------------------------------------- 380 Hume, Gray W------------------------------------------------------- 213 Hutchison, Brig. Gen. C. R----------------------------------------- 513, 589 Hutson, A. G--------------------------------------------------------- 300 Jack, Robert L----------------------------------------------- ------ 213 Jones, Arnold R--------------------------------------------------- 97 Jones, John Wesley-------------------------------------------------- 433 Jordan, Albert F---------------------------------------------------- 240 Karrick, David B---------------------------------------------------- 218 Keen, l'aul----------------------------------------------------------- 267 Kenworthy, Nelson A------------------------------------------------ 423 Kirkham, Mark AT--------------------------------------------------- 341 Kirks, Dr. Rowland F------------------------------------------------ 244 Lankford, Hon. Richard 1=------------------------------ - 750 ------------ Lawton, Maj. Gen. W. S--------------------------------------------- 513 Leavy, Charles W-------------------------------------------------- 57 Lee, George F------------------------------------------------------- 395 Lissek, William------------------------------------------------------ 301 Macomber, J. H., Jr------------------------------------------------ 112, 540 Macy, Loring K------------------------------------------------------ 30 Marsh, John D------------------------------------------------------ 129 Martin, Edward J---------------------------------------------------- 41 Mason, Harold T--------------------------------------------- ------ -549 Masur, Dr.Jack --------------- ..................................... 182,185 McCartney, Frank N-------------------------------------------------- 327 McClellan, Harold C-------------------------------------------------- 440 McConihe, F. Moran--------------------------------------------------- 112 McCoy, Horace B----------------------------------------------------- 22 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved For Release ease 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137010500060005-6 INDEX in Page McHenry, Capt. Joseph H--------------------------------------------- 616 McKinney, Rear Adm. E. B------------------------------------------- 616 McKone, Donald W-------------------------------------------------- 149 Meade, Read Adm. R. H------------------------------------------- 616 Medley, Max------------------------------------------------------- 540 Meyer, Mrs. Eugene-------------------------------------------------- 5530 30 Mielke, Arthur E---------------------------------------------------- Moore, George T-------------------------------------------- 17,19,22,30,41 Moore, Maj. Gen. R. S--------------------------------------------- 513, 575 Murphy, Robert--------------------------------------------------- 433, 440 Murray, Maj. Robert V-------------------------------------------- 260 Myers, Lawrence----------------------------------------------------- 319 Nielsen, E. G-------------------------------------------------------- 72 Neilson, Oscar H-------------------------------------------- 17, 19, 22, 30, 41 Nolen, John---------------------------------------------------------- 112 Noonan, Clifford ----------------------------------------------------- 423 Nowell, W. B-------------------------------------------------------- 1 Nystrom, Harold C--------------------------------------------------- 557 Oppenheimer, Jack--------------------------------------------------- 46 Orndorff, Roy L------------------------------------------------------ 303 Orville, Howard T--------------------------------------------------- 46 Palmer, Charles--------------------------------------------------- 423,719 Palmer, W. I-------------------------------------------------------- 72 Paul, Norman 5------------------------------------------------------ 719 Phillips, Rear Adrn. (Ret.) Neill-------------------------------------- 769 Poorman, Fred 5-------------------------------------------------- 423, 719 Popham, Dr. W. L------------------------------------------------- 365 Probst, Harley-------------------------------------------------------- 423 Puntch, Guy W------------------------------------------------------ 293 Richmond, Vice Adm. Alfred C---------------------------------------- 193 Robbins, Laurence B------------------------------------------------- 549 Rothman, Stuart----------------------------------------------------- 557 Rowe, James H., Jr., Mrs--------------------------------------------- 530 Ruffner, B. W------------------------------------------------------- 133 Ruttenberg, C. B----------------------------------------------------- 139 Saunders, E. R------------------------------------------------------ 719 Scheiderer, Lt. Comdr. E. D------------------------------------------ 193 Schmidt, W. A---------------------------------------------------- 112 Seckinger, Dr. Daniel L----------------------------------------------- 267 Sharpe, C. Melvin---------------------------------------------------- 244 Shaw, B. T---------------------------------------------------------- 341 Shaw, Dr. James R--------------------------------------------------- 185 Shea, Gerard M------------------------------------------------------ 293 Sheridan, E. J------------------------------------------------------- 575 Shinkevin, Charles--------------------------------------------------- 423 Skeington, J. P----------------------------------------------------- 327 Sheppard, F. C------------------------------------------------------- 139 Shotwell, J. L------------------------------------------------------- 41 Smith, Marshall M--------------------------------------------------- 30 Smith, R. M-------------------------------------------------------- 772 Smith, Rear Adm. H. P--------------------------------------------- 616 Spelinan, II. J------------------------------------------------------- 41 Stennis, Hon. John--------------------------------------------------- 106 Strawser, J. E------------------------------------------------------- 112 Streibert, Theodore C----------------------------------------- 440 Sunderlin, C. E - 139 Sutton, Millard H--------------------------------------------------- 264 Symons, 1)r. T. B-----------------------------------------=------ 753 Synon, George I)----------------------------------------------------- 193 Tavey, Harold C----------------------------------------------------- 22 Turner, Lewis B------------------------------------------------------ 650 Turpin, W. P-------------------------------------------------------- 540 Walsh, Frank J------------------------------------------------------ 87 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Appjved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137fJ00500060005-6 INDEX - --------- Wheeler, Joseph C--------------------------------------------- 3-1-9,-327, 341 White, L. K---------------------------------------------------------- 719 Wilder, T. V--------------------------------------------------------- 540 Ziernicki, L. A-------------------------------------------------------- 395 Waugh, Samuel C----------------------------------------------------- 87 Wohl H e n r y ? Woozley, Edward-------------------------------------- 67 - Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved For-je{ease 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-01370W0500060005-6 INDEX Page Agriculture, Department of---------------------------------------- 319, 557 Animal disease laboratory facility--------------------------------- 345 Construction and estimate---------------------------------- 352-356 Ellender, Hon. Allen J., letter-------------------------------- 356 Humphrey, Hon. Hubert II., letter----------------------------- 359 Shaw, B. T., statement of-------------------------------- 345 Site, statements on---------------------------------------- 358-365 Commodity Stabilization Service---------------------------------- 319 Sugar Act program------------------------------------------ 319 Federal Crop Insurance Corporation---------------------------- 327 Crops insured------------------------------------------------ 332 Evans, George E., statement of----------------------------- 329 Language proposed------------------------------------------- 328 Premiums received--------------------------------------- 340 Forest Service------------------------------------------------- 380, 557 Bennett, llon. Wallace F., statement of------------------------ 557 Cache National Forest---------------------------------------- 387 Superior National Forest, land acquisition--------------------- 380 Watkins, Ron. Arthur V., statement of------------------------ 389 industrial Use of Agricultural Products, Commission on ------------ 341 Agricultural Act of 1956, excerpt--------------------------- 342 Function of Commission-------------------------------------- 343 Khapra beetle infestation--------------------------------------- 365 Communications on subject----------------------------------- 366 Cost of work------------------------------------------ 372, 376, 378 Mediterranean fruitfly------------------------------------------- 379 Army, civil functions of--------------------------------------------- 1 Government and relief in occupied areas--------------------------- 1 Civil Affairs and Military Government, Office of---------------- 1 Ryukyu Islands, aid to--------------------------------------- 1 Administrative expenses---------------------------------- 9, 15 Exchange of persons-------------------------------------- 8, 14 GARIOA funds, summary of------------------------------ 2 Schools, work under program for------------------------- 4-9 Bureau of the Budget------------------------------------------------ 97 Additional personnel------------------------------------------ 101 Armed services estimates, review of------------------------------- 102 Hoover Commission recommendations---------------------------- 102 Management review-------------------------------------------- 97 Recruitment of personnel----------------------------------------- 106 Salaries and expenses-------------------------------------------- 97 Commerce, Department of-------------------------------------------- 17 Business and Defense Services Administration---------------------- 22 Ferrous scrap resources, survey of---------------------------- 22 Scrap consumption, 1955-------------------------------------- 25 Civil Aeronautics Administration ---------------------------------- 17 Washington Airport additional------------------------------- 17 Coast and Geodetic Survey---------------------------------------- 17 Sesquicentennial celebration of-------------------------------- 19 Language, need for--------------------------------------- 20 Foreign Commerce, Bureau of -------------------------------------- 30 Export control----------------------- - -- 30 Positions, OdditjOWLI ----------------------------------------- 38 Smith, Marshall M., statement of-------------------------- 34 Public Roads, Bureau of-------------------------------------- 7---- 41 Jones Point Bridge------------------------------------------- 41 Public Law 534------------------------------------ ---- 44 v Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved For elease 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-01300500060_ 005-6 VI INDEX Page Commission on Government Security ---------------------------------- 106 Breakdown of appropriation request_______________________________ 111 Industrial security----------------------------------------------- 109 Salaries and expenses --------------------------------------------- 106 Defense, Department of ----------------------------------------------- 513, 575 Air Force, Department of ----------------------------------------- 650 Airbases deleted .-___________________________ __--___ 682 Air defense command items___________________________________ 677 Air Force Academy------------------------ 658, 675, 677, 678, 693, 694 Case, Hon. Francis, letter ---------------------------------------- 690 Command distribution, Air Force ------------------------------ 653 Construction program, summary tables ----------------------- 657, 659 Curtis, Hon. Carl T., letter____________________________________ 708 Dispersal program----------------------------------------- 692, 698 Family housing, 1957 appropriation, table____________________ 660, 712 Grand Forks Base ---------------------------------------------- 678 Hobbs, N. Mex., Air Base -------------------------------- ------ 681 Holloman Air Force Base____________________________________ 683 House committee reductions---------------------------------- 685 Housing construction----------------------------------------- 676 Kerr, Hon. Robert S., letter ------------ ------------------------ 704 Land summary, 1957 appropriations, table---------------------- 661 Lincoln, Nebr., Air Force Hospital____________________________ 708 MATS, total appropriations for ------------------------------ 679, 680 Mitchell Air Force Base, N. Dak ------------------------------- 689,696, Presque Isle, Maine, Air Base ---------------------------------- 684 Reductions, list of____________________________________________ 700 Reprograming requested --------------------------------------- 688 Restorations requested, list of--------------------------------- 707 Richard Bong Base, Kansasville, Wis -------------------------- 695 Surplus commodity program------------------------------- 666, 714 Tinker Air Force Base, Okla---------------------------------- 703 Unfinanced carryovers---------------------------------------- 686 White House Conference -------------------------------------- 711 Army, Department of---------------------------------------------- 589 Army stock fund, procedure___________________________________ 598 Chavez, lion. Dennis, letter from_____________________________ 606 Davis, Hon. Chester R., statement of__________________________ 589 Ground-to-air missile program_________________________________ 615 Housing------------------------------------------ 603, 605, 606, 615 Korea, construction in, fiscal 1957----------------------------- 609 Military construction, Army, chart----------------------------- 596 Nuclear heating and powerplant---------------------------- 601, 615 Surplus commodity program___________________________ 599, 601, 602 Technical training program----------------------------------- 600 Yuma test station-------------------------------------------- 597 Central Intelligence Agency--------------------------------------- 719 Accessibility of Langley site_________________________________ 741 Acreage, total------------------------------------------------- 743 Addison, F. G., Jr--------------------------------------------- 762 Broyhill, Hon. Joel T., statement of---------------------------- 754 Building, type of---------------------------------------------- -742 Carper, Wallace, statement of--------------------------------- 776 Classified operations------------------------------------------ 748 Construction, headquarters--------------------------------- 719, 725 Community attitude, survey of-------------------------------- 758 Cost estimates------------------------------------------------- 744 District of Columbia site, objections to_________________________ 739 Estimate ------------------------------------------------------- 724 Ewing, Frank M., statement in opposition----------------------- 753 Fisher, Roger, statement in opposition________________________ 766 Highways, funds for----------------------------------------- 738 Langley, Va.,site -.-------------------------------------------- -726 Lankford, Hon. Richard E., statement in opposition------------- 750 National Capital Planning Commission et al., report -------------- 726-737 Phillips, Rear Adm. (Ret.) Neill, statement in opposition-____-_- 769 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved For F l ase 2003/04/17 :.CIA-RDP80-01370Rj500060005-6 INDEX `VII Defense, Department of-Continued Central Intelligence Agency-Continued Page Prince. George County site----------------------- ------ 751 Sewage facilities --------------------------------------- 757 Smith, It. M., statement of------------------------------------ - 772 Symons, Dr. T. B., statement in opposition---------------------- - 753 Deutschemark negotiations--------------------------------------- 513 Belgian share------------------------------------------------ 525 British and French, amounts agreed to--------------------- 516, 524 Brucker, Hon. Wilber AI, letter------------------------------- 528 Cost of program--------------------------------------------- 521 E. D. C. treaty, failure of---------------------------------- 514, 520 German contribution, amount of------------------------------- 514 German forces-------------------------------------------- 515, 516 Military facilities, maintenance and operation---------------- 529 Payments, State Department policy------------------------- 519, 521 United States troops, contribution to-------------------------- 517 Wilson, lion. C. E., letter ------------------------------------- 526 Federal agencies, location of, policy on--------------------------- 762 Federal civilian employees,table ----------------------------------- 764 Military construction funding------------------------------------ 575 Antiaircraft facilities---------------------------------------- 583 Bryant, Hon. Floyd S., statement of-------------------------- 575 FHA procedure---------------------------------------------- 585 Houses, Government built------------------------------- 584, 586-589 Unobligated balances----------------------------------------- 587 Navy, Department of--------------------------------------------- 616 Brunswick, Maine, Naval Air Station------------------------------ 647 Boston shipyard--------------------------------------------- 646 Congressional action on construction, status of----------------- 619 Construction priority list, 1957-------------------------------- 715 Forrestal-type carriers, drydock for--------------------------- 636 House action, clarification of--------------------------------- 642 Military construction program--------------------------------- 616 Naval Gun Factory, boiler repairs----------------------------- 639 Pensacola, Fla., Naval Air Station---------------------------- 644 Philadelphia shipyard---------------------------------------- 646 Portsmouth, N. II., hospital ------------------------------------ 638 Spain, construction program in------------------------------- 649 Unobligated balances----------------------------------------- 635 Wage rates, Portsmouth Naval Base-------------------------- 639 Wilson, llon. C. E., letter ------------------------------------------ 718 District of Columbia------------------------------------------------ 218 Buildings and grounds-------------------------------------------- 300 Capital outlay --------------------- .. _-- 227, 250, 290, 293, 297, 300, 303, 306 Census,school ---------------------------------------------------- 248 Claims and suits------------------------------------------------- 221 Corrections, Department of--------------------------------------- 287 Federal payment ------------------------------------------------ 218, 230 Fire Department------------------------------------------------- 264 General administration------------------------------------------- 233 Ilighvways, Department of---------------------------------------- 301 Karrick, Hon. David B., statement of------------------------------- 228 National Guard-------------------------------------------------- 308 Occupations and professions--------------------------------------- 242 Police, Metropolitan ----------------------------------------------- 260 Public Health, Department of------------------------------------- 267 Public schools---------------------------------------------------- 244 Public Welfare, Department of------------------------------------ 293 Public assistance grants--------------------------------------- 298 Recreation Department------------------------------------------- 252 Regulatory agenices---------------------------------------------- 240 Revenues------------------------------------------------------ 223, 239 Sanitary engineering--------------------------------------------- 303 Wage board employees, pay increases------------------------------ 313 District of Columbia Auditorium Commission-------------------------- 530 House action----------------------------------------------------- 533 Membership of Commissioner------------------------------------ 532,533 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-01370800.0500060005-6 VIII INDEX Page Export-Import Bank of Washington----------------------------------- 87 Federal Communications Commission---------------------------- ---- 539 Language changes requested -------------------------------------- 540 Funds appropriated to the President----------------------------- --- - 440 Information Agency, United States, allocation to------------------ 468, 477 Special international program, President's-------------------------- 440 Artistic and athletic presentations---------------------------- 447 Brussels fair-------------------------------------------------- 475 Communist cultural and trade fair activities------ 459, 472, 476, 485, 487 Files of State Department, excerpts from---------------------- 494 Iceland, program in------------------------------------------ 484 Industrial exhibits, use of------------------------------------- 480 International trade fair program--------------- 448-455, 457-468, 471 Lightner, E. Allen,. Jr., statement of--------------------------- 492 McClellan, Harold C., statement of---------------------------- 491 Private industry participation-------------------------------- 489 S. 3116, status of--------------------------------------------- 471 Trade missions-------------------------------------------- 456, 463 General Services Administration----------------------------------- 112, 540 Acquisition of land, District of Columbia----------------------- 119, 127 Additional court facilities-------------------------------------- 121, 130 American Pharmaceutical Association----------------------------- 129 Expenses, general supply fund--------------------------------- 121,130 General supply fund------------------------------------------- 122, 131 Lake Charles, La., property--------------------------------------- 126 National Association of Life Underwriters------------------------- 129 Nome, Alaska, post office--------------------------------- 124, 131, 542 Operating expenses, Public Buildings Service---------------------- 118 Payments in lieu of taxes--------------------------------------- 125 Properties, sale of------------------------------------------------ 127 Repair and improvement, building outside District of Columbia------ 541 Johnston, Hon. Olin, letters------------------------------- 545, 547 Magnuson, Hon. Warren, letter to----------------------------- -545 State building, property near------------------------------------- 128 Tin, acquisition of------------------------------------------------ 540 Tribute to Administrator----------------------------------------- 112 Wage schedules, revised------------------------------------------ 116 Health, Education, and Welfare, Department of------------------------ X149 Education, Office of ----------------------------------------------- 149 Executive Office of the President----------------------------- 149 Program, Committee on Education Beyond High School----- 150, 152, 156 Authorization------------------------------------- 154, 159, 162 Emergency fund, President's----------------------------- 160 Employees ------------------------------------------------ 161 Funds, expenditure of, to date---------------------------- 154 Public Health service-.------------------------------------------- 163 Alaska mental health facilities------------------------------ 177 Construction program------------------------------------ 181 Legislation----.------------------------------------------- 179 Communicable disease, control of----------------------------- 171 Foreign quarantine service ------------------------------- 163 Harlow, R. L., statement of------------------------------- 170 Poliomyelitis, activities on------------------------------- 173 Salary increases-----------------------------------------. ..169 Salk vaccine, use of------------------------------------- 175 States, assistance to-------------------------------------- 163 Tuberculosis --------------------------------------------- 163 Uniforms and equipment allowance---------------------- 166, 168 Venereal disease, control of-------------------------------- 163 Disease and sanitation, control-------------------------------- 177 Hospitals and medical care------------------------------------ 182 Indian health activities--------------------------------------- 185 Pay costs, increased-------------------------------------- 186 Salaries and expenses----------------------------------------- 187 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP8O-0137OR000500060005-6 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Ir;y$ XI Page Housing and Home Finale Agency____________________________________ 133 Annual caxtibutions ----------------------------------------- 133 Information Ag9cy, United States -------------------------- 468; 477, 505, 779 Appropriaions, prior and current, table____________________________ 779 Treasury Department---------------------------------------------- 193, 549 Alaska, Territory of--------------------------------------------- 197 Accounts, Bureau of--------------------------------------------- . 201 Disbursing work, increase in_________________________________ 204 Depositary receipts, statement on purchase of ------------------ 212 New regulation, requirements of----------------------- _------ 204 Coast Guard, United States ------------------------ _------------- - 193 Housing, report on------------------------------------------- 196 Courhs disposition of equipment on______________________511 I{s.2v facilities, acquisition and construction of_____________________ 505 Iuteior; Department of the--------------------________----__ ---- 57, 553 Bonneville Power Administration__________________________________ 64 Operation and maintenance---------- :------------------------- 6Fish and Wildlife Service--------------- ------_____-_--------_--_ 553 Kuehel, Hon. Thomas II., letter____________________________ __ 553 Project proposed --------------------------------------------- 554 Land management, Bureau of_____________________________________ 67 Construction ------------------------------------------------- 67 Office of the Secretary-------------------------------------------- 60 Office of Oil and Gas------------------------------------------ 60 Reclamation, Bureau of------------------------------------------ 72 Ainsworth project--------------------------------------------- 79 Construction and rehabilitation_______________________________ 72 Solano Irrigation District_________________________________ 72 Southeastern Power Administration_______________________________ 57 Clark Hill power contract_____________________________________ 59 Operation and maintenance ----------------------------------- 57 Virgin Islands Corporation________________________________________ 80 Operating losses--------------------------------------------- 83 Revolving funds for loans ------------------------------------- 80 Judiciary, the______________________ 395 Administrative Office, United States Courts________________________ 395 Administrative office, value of------------------- - ----------------- 408 Nurse, need for registered_____________________________________ 401 Space, request for additional--------------------------------- 397 Fees of jurors and commissioners________________________________ 410 Labor, Department of-------------------------------------------------- 557 Prevailing wages under Highway Act---------------------------- 557 Budgetary requirements, Highway Act of 1956--------------- 559,566 State highway departments, consultation with________________ 573 Wage rate enforcement, complaints on_______________________ 571 National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics_________________________ 137 Salaries and expenses-------------------------------------------- 137 Wage board employee pay increases_______________________________ 137 National Monument Commission_______________________________________ 537 Fund, purpose.of------------------------------------------------- 539 National Science Foundation_________________________________________ 139 Akron laboratories, sale of_______________________________________ 146 Synthetic rubber program-.--------------------------------------- 139 Unexpended balances-------------------------------------------- 145 State, Department of ------------------------------------------------ 412, 776 Building, extension and remodeling of_____________________________ 423 Expenditures to date---------------------------------------- 429 Henderson, Loy W., statements of__________________________ 427, 432 Fisheries Commission, International____________________________ 412, 776 Herrington, William C., statement of_________________________ 419 Humphrey, Hon. Hubert II., letter____________________________ 422 Lampreys, problem of---------------------------------------- 421 Potter, Ilon. Charles E., letter___________________________________ 776 International organizations, missions to ------------ -------------- 437 Vatican claims, payment of______________________________________ 433 Roosevelt message-------------------------------------------- 435 - -Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP8O-0137OR000500060005-6 ' Approved For Release 2003/04/t-7 : CIA=RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6 Treasury Department-Continued rage Internal. Revenue Service-------------------------------=----- - 213, Refunds, works involved in------ -------------------------- .:- 217 Production and Defense Lending, Office of------------------------ 549 Federal Facilities Corporation------------------------------ 549 Public Law 608, 84th Congress, 2d session ------------ ------- . 550 Weather Control, Advisory .Committee on-------------------------, 46, 55, 777 Appeal letter---------------------------- ---------------------- 777 Orville, Howard T., statement of---------------------------------- 54 0 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060005-6