Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 12, 2016
Document Release Date: 
April 26, 2000
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
May 25, 1970
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP86-00244R000300350019-6.pdf145.92 KB
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