H.R. 12138

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060005-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 82
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 4, 2002
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: June 30, 1967
• Content Type: OPEN

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