DISCUSSION WITH DIA REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNING DIA BUILDING PLANS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86-00244R000300350019-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 26, 2000
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: May 25, 1970
• Content Type: MFR

Approvq'For Release =9,: CIA-RDP89*6244R000300350019-6
DIA DECLASSIFICATION/RELEASE INSTRUCTIONS ON FILE
DD/S 70-2088
2 5 MAY 1970
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Discussion with DIA Representatives Concerning DIA Building Plans
came to discuss the above subject on 20 May 197 . 25X1A
DD/L, was also present.
25X1A
2. opened the conversation by referring to DIA's long
standing desires and plans for construction of a headquarters building and
the blockage of this building at Arlington Hall Station. He indicated that, in
their latest Hearing with the House Subcommittee on Military Construction
(the Chairman is Congressman Robert Sikes (D. - Fla.) but he was not
present at this session), Committee members identified Con- 25X1A
gressman John J. McFall (D. - Cal.) and Mr. Charles R. Jonas (R. - N. C.))
recommended that DIA find a site other than Arlington Hall Station and 25X1A
specifically pointed to the BPR area, Langley. offered to pro-
vide us copies of pertinent pages of the Hearing transcript.) I -I 25X1A
confirmed that DIA at this time has neither authorization nor money for its
building; it previously had authorization but the building was never funded.
DIA included a statement of a need for the building in its current presentation
to Congress. DIA intends to put the building into its Fiscal '72 budget --
DIA is looking for approximately 100 acres to house 4, 000 people. DIA
still prefers Arlington Hall Station but its next preference would be BPR
for reasons of convenience to personnel and also for operational convenience
in reducing liaison travel time to and from CIA Headquarters. DIA feels
that with this Congressional move it has no alternative but to pursue the
BPR. idea even though it might ultimately have to tell the Committee members 25X1A
that such a proposal is not feasible. I also said that the Com-
mittee members indicated that, with individual Committee men on CIA and
Transportation Committees, the Military Construction Subcommittee could
exercise some influence in these other organizations.
25X1A
3. noted continuing discussions with Messrs. Bozarth
and Hromanik. of National Capital Planning Commission which most recently
led. to the Commission's suggestion that detailed information should be
0 323
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 CIA-R
1?&fi7bW44R9,. 300350019-6
TQANSP ~-'l~l ~ t/ Tv o z -A
(/L.? APAP L19,,1R
 Approv For Release 2002 OI CIA-RDP8 244R000300350019-6
developed on CIA., BPR, and DIA plans (personnel and/or vehicles) -for this
area so that the impact on roads and other facilities could be assessed. It
was noted that the last formal study was made in 1963.
4. I acknowledged that given the Congressional push DIA had no
alternative but to produce a response. I expressed surprise at the Com-
mission's suggestion and indicated that it seemed more sensible for the
Commission itself to take the lead rather than look to DIA to act as a
broker for all departments and agencies. I pointed out that the Agency
had extensive plans for bringing its now separated personnel to the head-
quarters area and that these, plans ideally would contemplate use of
additional BPR land. I also noted that a relatively recent new major
worry had surfaced with the publication of Washington's subway plans
and their anticipated unacceptable I noted that,
in fact, the necessity to deal with :3-in time, take
precedence over our other "campus" planning. I noted that our Director
had agreed, as a necessary action some time back, with the establishment
of a Building planning group and that, despite the general executive depart-
ment construction ban, we were nonetheless pressing ahead with develop-
ment of plans. Finally, I told the visitors that I would discuss their visit
with Mr. Bannerman, particularly the new factor of Congressional suggestion
that DIA should look in our direction. I also indicated that we would be in
touch with the Commission and, subsequently, with. with.
5. I had two discussions with I OLC. He had learned 25X1A
that no DIA building was included in this year's Military Construction Bill.
He also confirmed that there would be a tie-in on transportation and the
Agency through. Congressman Minshall (R. - Ohio), who is on the Trans-
portation Subcommittee, and Representative Bow (R. - Ohio), who is on
our Committee.
(5i3nod) Jchn V7. Ccffcy
John W. Coffey
Assistant Deputy Director
for .Support
ADD/S:JWC/ms (25 May 70)
Distribution:
Orig - DD/S Subject
1 - DD/S Chrono
1 - D/L/
1 - General Counsel
1 - Legislative Counsel
2
Approved For Release 20OZ105 CIA-RDP86-00244R000300350019-6