MR. LAUSI. WELL, I THINK THAT WE GOT A GOOD DEAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT ON THIS.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060006-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 70
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 4, 2002
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: June 1, 1956
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved Fof%lease 2003/04/1,7: CIA-RDP80-0137 0050bb6b006-5
238
Mr. LAUSi. Well, I think that: we got a good deal for the Govern-
ment on this.
Mr. KIRWAN. But you might have gotten a better one by putting
it up for rebidding.
Mr. LAUSI. We sent circulars out on that bid.
Mr. KIRWAN. You sent circulars out on the first one, but not on
the second bid?
Mr. LAUSI. No.
Mr. KIRWAN. All right; we thank you, Mr. Bartlett, for your
appearance this morning.
Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you, sir.
(The following information was submitted by the Department of
the Interior subsequent to the hearing:)
Upon rejection of the proposals received the sale of Bluebeard's Castle Hotel
was negotiated with Antilles ]Enterprises, Inc., Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas,
Virgin Islands, for $410,000; downpa~ment of $75,000, and balance in 20 years
with interest at 3 percent. In addition Antilles Enterprises, Inc., was to invest
the sum of $150,000 in major capital improvements within 18 months after taking
possession of the hotel.
This proposal was submitted, as provided by law, to the House and Senate
Committees on Government Operations; the House committee met on June 9,
1954, and considered the matter. The approval to consummate the sale was
given on June 9, 1954, by the House Committee on Government Operations, and
on June 16,1954, by the Senate Committee on Government Operations.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS
GEORGE H. MAIION, Texas, Chairman
HARRY R. SHEPPARD, Cal'.ifornia RICHARD B. WIGGLESWORTH,
ROBERT L. F. SIKES, Florida Massachusetts
W. F. NORRELL, Arkansas ERRETT P. SCRIVNER, Kansas
JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi GERALD R. FORD, Jr., Michigan
GEORGE W. ANDREWS, Alabama EDWARD T. MILLER, Maryland
JOHN J. RILEY, South Carolina HAROLD C. OSTERTAG, New York
CHARLES B. DEANE, North Carolina GLENN R. DAVIS, Wisconsin
DANIEL J. FLOOD, Pennsylvania
FRIDAY, JUNE 1,_1956.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY BUILDING
WITNESSES
ALLEN W. DULLES, DIRECTOR, CIA
L. K. WHITE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CIA
For the preparation of detail plans ao* ction of
a Central Intelligence Agency headqua %r1% rposes
as authorized by title I V of the Act o Law 161) ] (69
Stat. 81)9) to remain available until expe< a ~: $41M1M~~
Approved For Release 2003/04/17: 9
Data
F. S. POORMAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERV-
ICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
WALLACE K. HARRISON, ARCHITECT
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
CONST C' T TI N
1d~ old Emd "I"
desk at ?1 1 0
_ T"
 Approved For Rase 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-01370 0W 500060006-5 23 Now
Mr. KIRWAN. I am not talking about that at all. I am talking
about why did you not rebid it?
Mr. LAusr. We had authority from the General Services Adminis-
tration to negotiate this bid, which we did.
Mr. KIRWAN. They gave you that authority?
Mr. LAUSI. Congress gave GSA the authority and GSA gave us the
authority.
Mr. KIRWAN. They gave you authority to go out and negotiate
with this party after receiving bids, and the other people who bid on
it did not have that same opportunity. You say some were poor bids,
so you sat down with a fellow and negotiated for it.
Mr. LAUSr. That does not mean we would get any better bids on
the second go-around.
Mr. KIRWAN. You could make a try anyway, could you not?
Mr. LAUSI. We got a lot of bids on this thing as it was circularized
all over the country.
Mr. KIRWAN. But they were not good bids. You were on the job
and did not accept any of them, but because some fellow came in and
gave you $10,000 more, you took it. That was pretty questionable,
don't you think?
Mr. LAUSI. I do not agree that it was questionable at all.
Mr. KIRWAN. You do not agree that it was?
Mr. LAUSi. No, sir.
Mr. KIRWAN. Well, the fellows who bid on it did not like it.
Mr. LAUSI. You mean the original bidders?
Mr. KIRWAN. Some of them, yes.
Mr. LAUSI. We could not accept those bids.
Mr. KIRWAN. I am not saying that you could accept these bids,
but there were no bids on the second go-around. You simply gave
it to this fellow because he gave $10,000 more than the amount of the
other bids.,
Mr. LAUSI. We negotiated with several of the original bidders, Mr.
Kirwan, to see if we could get a better bid from them.
Mr. KIRWAN. They did not have the money?
Mr. LAUSI. Well, we had some cash sales, or offers, from some of
them.
Mr. KIRWAN. Well, there was some reason why you did not go in
and have a second bidding. Instead, you just negotiated with them.
Mr. LAUSI. There is absolutely nothing wrong with negotiation in
such a case.
Mr. KIRWAN.. I agree that there is nothing wrong with negotiating,
but why did you not try another bid on it?
Mr. LAUSI. Well, I suppose we could have done that.
Mr. KIRWAN. They do that all over America. I pick up the paper
every day and I see where they do it. For instance, the State of Ohio
threw out all bids on the Ohio Turnpike on the advice of their engi-
neers because they were unsatisfactory and requested new bids five
times before they accepted a bid which was satisfactory.
Mr. LAUSI. We did hav i's ou this initially.
Mr. KrRWA But otC' is , one bid out and because the bids
did noob pd/~'pe igns, instead of requesting new bids
you e.it to some felld~j es~ause he gave you $10,000 more than
was avd b n ot`t iose nastisfactory bids.
in taro tsM ttsR
' t' 9 /17:: CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060006-
Appr UWWFI(
 Approved For R ej ase 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-01370R00Q500060006-5
239 Nwr
1. Design, specifications, and supervision ----------- --------
--------------
$1,785,000
$184,000
2. Construction------ -----------------------------------
--------------
23,000
42,320,000
3. Roads------------- -------------------------------- -------
--------------
--------------
6,774,410
Unobligated balance carried forward__________________________
3,692,000
3, 413, 5Ou
Unobligated balance brought forward_________________________
--------------
-3,692,000
Appropriation------------------------------------------
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
10 Lands and structures ------------------ -_--_-______-__-_-
ALLOCATION TO GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
02 Travel--------------- ------------------------------------
--------------
500
$4, 000
06 Printing and reproduction--------------------------------
--------------
--------------
40,000
07 Other contractual services --------------------------------
--------------
1,784,500
180, 000
10 Lands and structures-------------------------------------
--------------
15,000
42,280,000
Total, General Services AAdministration-----------------
Total number of permanent positions-------------------------
--------------
--------------
10
Average number of all employees-----------------------------
--------------
--------------
9. 5
Number of employees at end of year--------------------------
--------------
--------------
10
Average salaries and grades:
General schedule grades:
Average salary---------------------------------------
$6, 223
Average grade----------------------------------------
GS-10.0
01 Personal services (permanent positions) -------------------
--------------
--------------
$59,000
02 Travel---------------------------------------------------
--------------
---------------
800
04 Communication services----------------------------------
--------------
--------------
400
05 Rents and utilities ------------------_-__--_-___-________
--------------
--------------
2,000
06 Printing and reproduction--------------------------------
--------------
--------------
3, 000
07 Other contractual services--------------------------------
--------------
--------------
27,230
08 Supplies and materials___________________________________
--------------
--------------
1, 000
09 Equipment ---------------------------- ---------- -------
--------------
--------------
300
10 Land and structures--------------------------------------
--------------
--------------
6,277,000
15 Taxes and assessments------------------------------------
--------------
--------------
100
Total, Department of the Interior-----------------------
6,370,830
Total number of permanent positions_________________________
--------------
--------------
46
Average number of all employees-----------------------------
--------------
--------------
43.7
Number of employees at end of year--------------------------
--------------
--------------
4
Average salaries and grades:
General schedule grades:
Average salary ----------------------------------------
$5, 491
Average grade----------------------------------------
GS-8.7
01 Personal services (permanent positions) -------------------
--------------
--------------
$240,000
02 Travel----------------------------- ----------------------
--------------
--------------
3,000
04 Communication services_________________________________
--------------
--------------
1,600
05 Rents and utilities________________________________________
--------------
--------------
9,000
06 Printing and reproduction--------------------------------
--------------
--------------
12,000
07 Other contractual services________________________________
--------------
--------------
132,580
08 Supplies and materials____________________________________
--------------
--------------
4, 000
09 Equipment--------------------------------------------
--------------
--------------
1, 000
15 Taxes and assessments-------------------------------------
--------------
--------------
400
Total, Department of Commerce______________________
403,580
Total obligations--------------------------------------
49, 278, 410
78170-56-16
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved F 2elease 20031041IY46 CIA-RDP80-01 7072000500060006-5
JUSTIFICATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING
FOR THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
For several years the Central Intelligence Agency, in cooperation with the
General Services Administration, has been seeking to provide a central head-
quarters building to accommodate its personnel presently housed in 34 build-
ings, widely scattered throughout the city of Washington. More than a year
ago, based upon the determination that there was no existing permanent struc-
ture adequate or suitable to Agency needs, authorization was requested to con-
struct a permanent office building in or near the District of Columbia to house
Agency personnel stationed In the Washington area.
The Congress recognized the Agency's need for a headquarters building by au-
thorizing (69 Stat. 349) $46 million for its construction (together with $8.5
million for the extension of the George Washington Memorial Parkway from its
present terminus at Spout Run to a point near Langley in Fairfax County, Va.,
if the Agency finally selected the Bureau of Public Roads property as the build-
ing site).
The Congress initially appropriated (69 Stat. 453) $5.5 million, with the under-
standing, as communicated to the Agency, that $3 million of this sum was for
the preparation of detailed plans and specifications for the headquarters installa-
tion, and $2.5 million for acquiring right-of-way and initiating construction of
the parkway.
At the time this appropriation was considered, the Congress expressed a wish
that the Agency restudy carefully the site location of such a building. To meet
this request the Agency engaged Clarke & Rapuano, a firm of consulting engi-
neers and landscape architects of outstanding reputation in this field, to survey
all the available sites and recommend; the one best suited for the Agency's pur-
pose. Their study resulted in a strong recommendation of a portion of the
property presently occupied by the Bureau of Public Roads at Langley, Va.
The Agency approved this recommendation and, as required by law, proposed it
for consideration by the National Capital Planning Commission.
The National Capital Regional Planning Council and the National Capital
Planning Commission approved this recommendation on December 5, 1955, and
February 3, 1956, respectively. Accordingly, the Agency is proceeding in co-
ordination with the General Services Administration to take all steps necessary
to construct a building at the Langley site as rapidly as possible. In coordina-
tion with the Public Buildings Service, an architect-engineer contract has been
negotiated with the firm of Harrison :& Abramovitz. The architects have pre-
pared schematic and diagrammatic drawings of the proposed headquarters in-
stallation together with supporting architectural and engineering information,
and the Public Buildings Service has prepared the cost analysis and estimate on
which this supplemental request is based. We have, therefore, completed the
preliminary planning and are ready now to enter the definitive portion of the
project.
The congressional authorization of $46 million was less than the $50,840,000
originally estimated by the Public Buildings Service to be the sum necessary to
construct an office building of sufficient size to accommodate the headquarters
of the Agency. Since the previous estimate was prepared by the Public Build-
ings Service, March 28, 1955, the Engineering News-Record building cost index
has increased by 5.72 percent, and the trend continues upward. Current esti-
mates prepared by the Public Buildings Service, with the concurrence of Harrison
& Abramovitz, indicate that it would be impossible to construct a suitable office
building of adequate size to accommodate the entire headquarters within the
present authorization. These current: estimates indicate that $55,980,000 would
be required for relatively austere construction and site development. Under the
present authorization, a reduction from original plans of 300,000 square feet
of net usable space would be required in the building. However, the building
proposed will provide space for all of our employees who are now housed in
temporary buildings, thus permitting: the evacuation of that space so that its
demolition will be possible in accordance with Government plans for urban
renewal in the District of Columbia, and as required by the act authorizing the
building. The total number of buildings occupied by the Agency will be con-
siderably reduced, with resultant benefits. Delay, in addition to perpetuating
-excessive operating costs, may occasion an appreciable further increase in con-
struction costs, thereby further reducing the space that can be provided with
the funds available.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-013700500060006-5
241
In considering the nature of the installation, a complete survey was made
with the architect-engineer of the special requirements of the Central Intelli-
gence Agency. The unusual security needs of this Agency make mandatory a
compartmentation of personnel greatly in excess of that normally required in
Government or private office buildings. Special arrangements must be made
for secure handling in storage and transmission of large amounts of classified
material. Provision must be made for the installation and effective use of
special electronic equipment used in the analysis of intelligence data. Finally,
the Agency desires a building which, while without frills, will provide a working
atmosphere for its employees which will be pleasant and conducive to maximum
production. Considering all of these factors, as well as the physical char-
acteristics of the site, the firm of Harrison & Abramovitz has recommended a
building consisting of block-type wings as most satisfactorily meeting all the
special and unusual requirements of the Agency.
Security factors in the new building
Located on a 125-acre tract forming an inconspicuous part of a larger 750-
acre Government reservation, the Langley site was chosen as the one location,
among many sites inspected in detail, most adequate for safeguarding the security
of CIA's operations and for conducting those operations with the greatest meas-
ure of economy and efficiency consistent with security consideration. This site,
with its isolation, topography, and heavy forestation, permits both economical
construction and an added measure of security safeguards. It is efficiently lo-
cated with respect to overcoming rush-hour traffic conditions, and it permits
rapid access to the White House, the National Security Council, and the State
and Defense Departments, with which the bulk of CIA day-to-day coordination
activities are concerned.
The general arrangement and layout of the office space in the new building
have been designed with security considerations primarily in mind. The new
building will consist of block-type wings, readily compartmented from one an-
other, so that specially restricted areas can be established and special security
controls maintained in each section, with a degree of flexibility not otherwise
practicable. In this building pattern, certain types of services common to the
entire Agency will also be housed in separately enclosed sections, but near; the
center of the building, conveniently available to all points in the building. Still
other activities will be set aside in special controlled areas for receiving ap-
plicants, trainees, contacts, and other categories of visitors.
The proposed construction will permit a number of special facilities to be
installed, protected, and maintained in separate sections of the building. Many
of these special facilities will be simply reinstalled from their present scattered
locations into the new building ; others will represent special communication,
storage, and protective devices that will be built into the building in the course
of construction.
Economy and efficiency factors in the new building
While security considerations have dominated the general design and technical
details of the new building, there are also many economies that will result from
housing the Agency in a single, efficiently planned installation. The estimated
savings outlined last year to the Congress by CIA have been recomputed in recent
days, in the light of the experience of the past 12 months, and have been found
again to be as valid as before, with slight variations up or down on particular
items. The present high cost of guard forces, reception staffs, shuttle-bus oper-
ation and use, and interbuilding couriers will be substantially reduced. Tele-
type and telephone mileage charges, building service officers, rents, alteration and
moving costs are other elements of expense that will be drastically reduced or
eliminated altogether. Time lost in shuttling between buildings will be eli-
minated, with a saving of over $600,000 annually, aside from the saving in bus
operation and maintenance. There will be increased efficiency in the processing
of intelligence information not readily measurable in monetary terms.
In addition, the generally austere architectural design of the proposed building
assures a further measure of savings which would not be possible if the new
building were located in the heart of the Nation's Capital, where there are special
artistic demands for expensive, monumental-type public buildings with ornamen-
tal embellishments. The long experience and outstanding reputation of the firm
of Harrison & Abramowitz in the design of large office buildings provide an as-
surance of good design and sound construction.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For iee ase 2003/04/17 2CIIA-RDP80-013700500060006-5
Obligations
The estimated obligations during fiscal year 1956 have been substantially de-
creased from the amounts shown in budget document, clue to the delays incident
to the selection of a site.
Urgency
Since last July, when the Congress authorized a new headquarters building for
CIA, the progress toward the realization of a secure and economical building has
been steady and continuous in. virtually all aspects of the necessarily complicated
preliminary planning required.
We cannot proceed much further, :however, unless additional funds are avail-
able for obligation. Not until the building is completed can the Agency vacate
temporary structures, which would: permit their demolition. Even while the
architect is completing detailed plans, we can proceed with necessary preliminary
activity-if the funds are available. This will be a construction project of con-
siderable magnitude. Provisions mt}st be made for adequate access to the site ;
for parking facilities for the several; thousand construction workers who will be
involved ; for preparation of the site to allow the construction of foundations and
to provide stockpile areas for construction materials. Additional right-of-way
must be acquired for the extension ofthe George Washington Memorial Parkway,
and its extension must be commenced so that it will provide access to the site.
The net result of taking these steps would be to bring that much closer the day
when the building will finally be ready for occupancy. In view of all the security
advantages and the savings in money, manpower, and operating efficiency result-
ing from completion of this project, every day lost in breaking ground and proceed-
ing with construction is a costly one.
The urgency that funds be immediately available for obligation cannot be over-
emphasized.
It is therefore requested that the Congress appropriate $49 million, constituting
the balance of the funds presently authorized, in order that the construction may
proceed without interruption.
HEADQUARTERS BUILDING, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, LANGLEY, VA.
PROJECT : NEW BUILDING, $46 MILLION
Building : Consisting of block-type: wings and cafeteria ; 2 wings, basement,
ground, and 5 stories ; other wings,. ground and 5 stories ; cafeteria ground
and 1 story ; auditorium, one story. All wings to have mechanical penthouses
as required. Construction, reinforced concrete and spread footings ; exterior,
face brick and concrete, stone trim; at main entrance only; projected steel
sash with DSA glass, no screens. Coilings, generally, suspended acoustic plas-
ter ; fixed partitions for corridors, Concrete masonry units; finish, plaster on
masonry units and painted masonry units ; air-conditioning, all weather ; light-
ing, surface mounted fluorescent fixtures ; asphalt tile floor generally ; movable
partitions, wire stud with gypsum lath and plaster. Laboratory areas include
no furniture and equipment.
Total cross areas, exclusive of boiler plant ------------------ sq. ft__
V
1, 845
000
olume: Approximately----------------------------------- cu. ft_-
,
24, 200, 000
Net area :
Agency space ----------------------------------------- sq.ft__
1,135
000
Cafeteria ------------------------ ---------------------- do----
,
55
000
Custodial, etc._____---_---__--__ ____-do-___
,
45, 000
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For jase 2003/04/17: CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060006-5
243
Estimate
Building construction, including air conditioning ------ ------------- $34, 405, 000
Elevators------------------------------------------------------ 1,500,000
35, 905, 000
Boiler and air conditioning plant---------------------------------
1,800,000
Mechanical distribution-----------------------------------------
200,000
Outside utilities, water tank and fire lines-----------------------
255, 000
Special requirements ------------------------------- .------------
1, 285, 000
Emergency generator -------------------------------------------
500,000
Roads, parking, and site development -----------------------------
1, 635, 000
Reservations---------------------------------------------------
228,000
Contingencies ---------------------------------------------------
1,692,000
General expenses:
Drawings and specifications_____________________ $2,040,000
Supervision_____________________________________ 360,000
Office expense----------------------------------- 100,000
500
000
2
--
,
,
Total estimated cost______________________________________
46,000,000
Special requirements
Robertson floor system, in part------------------------------------
$150,000
Pneumatic tube ----------------------------------------------------
350,000
Nitrate film storage----------------------------------------------
35,000
ADT system ----_-__--_ -_
--------------------------------_-___ -----
200, 000
Auditorium-------------------------------------------------------
150,000
Laboratory space-------------------------------------------------
200,000
Radio and microwave antennas -------------------------------------
50, 000
3 incinerators and chute (security)
105, 000
Private elevator--------------------------------------------------
45,000
Total-------------------------------------------------------
1,285 000
Estimated cost of the e,tension of the George Washington Memorial Parkway
from its present terminus to the site to the CIA building near Langley, 1'a.
Grading (2 40-foot roadways) : Total
Spout Run to Chain Bridge (2.7 miles) ------------------------- $1,230,500
Chain Bridge to Langley (3.3 miles) 1,528,000
Total grading---------------------------------------------
2,758,500
Structures:
Spout Run Bridge :
High level-----------------------------------------------
402,300
Low level-----------------------------------------------
86,300
Windy Run Bridge------------------------------------------
546,000
Donaldson Run Bridge---------------------------------------
574,700
Gulf Branch Bridge-----------------------------------------
517,200
Glebe Rd. overpass--------------------------------------------
459,800
Pimmit Run Bridge-----------------------------------------
510,400
Virginia Route 123 underpass--------------------------------
459,800
Langley grade separation-------------------------------------
363,200
Paving (2 24-foot reinforced concrete roadways) :
Spout Run to Chain Bridge (2.7 miles) ------------------------
594, 800
Chain Bridge to Langley (3.3 miles) ---------------------------
727, 006
Total paving----------------------------------------------
1,321,800
Total construction-----------------------------------------
8,000,000
Land acquisition and miscellaneous______________________________
500, 000
Total-----------------------------------------------------
8,500,000
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved Fditelease 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-013708000500060006-5
244
Mr. MAIION. The committee will come to order.
This morning we are to consider a construction project, a building
for the Central Intelligence Agency near Washington.
Mr. Director, we are pleased to have you and members of your staff
here. We would be pleased to have a general statement in regard to
the proposed request for these funds. Will you proceed in your own
way?
GENERAL: STATEMENT
Mr. DULLES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have with me this morning fiom the CIA Mr. White, our Deputy
in Charge of Support an istration; Mr. Norman Paul, my leg-
islative assistant; who is Chief of the Building Plan-
ning Section of our gency; and Mr. Saunders, our Comptroller.
The Public Buildings Service is represented here by Mr. Poorman,
Mr. Hunter and Mr. Palmer, who have been working very closely
with us on this project.
Mr. Wallace Harrison and Mr. Max Abramovitz, our architects, are
here; and also Mr. Michael Rapuano, who has been advising us on
traffic matters and on landscaping and approaches to the building and
matters of that nature.
PRESENT FACILITIES
For several years, Mr. Chairman, the Central Intelligence Agency,
in cooperation with the General: Services Administration, has been
seeking to provide a central headquarters building to accommodate its
personnel, presently housed in 34 buildings widely scattered through-
out the city of Washington. Most or a great many of them are tem-
porary buildings which, as you well know, are in the area where bridges
and other developments may come in. In any event, those temporary
buildings are in a very disreputable condition at the present time.
More than a year ago, based upon the determination that there was
no existing permanent structure adequate or suitable to Agency needs,
authorization was requested of Congress to construct a permanent
office building in or near the District of Columbia to house agency
personnel stationed in the Washington area.
The Congress recognized the Agency's need for a headquarters build-
ing by authorizing, under title IV of the Military Construction Act
of 1955, 69 Statutes 349, $46 million for the construction of this build-
ing, together with $8.5 million for the extension of the George Wash-
ington Memorial Parkway from its present terminus at Spout Run to a
point near Langley in Fairfax County, Va., if the Agency finally
selected the Bureau of Public Roads property on the Langley site.
APPROPRIATION
The Congress initially appropriated, in chapter III of the Supple-
mental Appropriation Act, 1956, ? 69 Statutes 453, $5.5 million, with
the understanding that $3 million of this sum was for the preparation
of detailed plans and specifications for the headquarters installation,
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For R3 pase 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
245 qw
and $2.5 million for acquiring right-of-way and initiating construc-
tion of the parkway.
At the time this appropriation was considered, the Congress ex-
pressed a wish that the Agency restudy carefully the site location of
the building. To meet this request the Agency engaged Clarke and
Rapuano, a firm of consulting engineers and landscape architects of
outstanding reputation in this field, to survey all the available sites
and recommend the one best suited for the Agency's purpose. There
is a map available which shows the various sites which were considered
by Messrs. Clarke and Rapuano.
(The map was presented to the committee.)
Our authorization and appropriation were obtained with the clear
understanding that while we were exempted from dispersal we would
at the same time definitely not locate in the District of Columbia but,
rather, on the fringe of the metropolitan area of Greater Washington.
That was after a good deal of consultation, having in mind traffic
problems and congestion here in the District.
Messrs. Clarke and Rapuano were given the following additional
criteria to guide in their selection.
The new headquarters of the agency should be within a radius of 10
miles and within 20 minutes by automobile from the Zero Milestone in
the city of Washington.
The size of the building and the number of automobiles to be parked
in its immediate vicinity would require an area of not less than 100
acres.
Approximately 2.3 million square feet of building floor space will be
required and it will be necessary to provide space to park approxi-
mately 4,000 automobiles, and adequate means for ingress and egress
for automobile traffic.
The site should lend itself to ease in carrying out the security meas-
ures that are imperative for the agency.
The new headquarters should have ease of communication by road
to the White House, to the Pentagon, and to the offices of the Depart-
ment of State.
The study of Messrs. Clarke and Rapuano resulted in a strong recom-
mendation that we select a portion of the property presently occupied
by the bureau of public roads at Langley, Virginia. There is an aerial
photograph of that site, which we have there. That shows the site
and the proposed outline of the building on the site.
Mr. MAHON. Is the green over there the river?
Mr. DULLLS. That is the river there [indicating].
Air. Where is the Chain Bridge Road, for instance?
This red line on the aerial photograph.
Mr. AIION. erI would you turn right on the Chain Bridge
Road, if you were going out to Highway 7, or whatever the number
is? Where is that right turn just after you leave Chain Bridge?
This is Chain Bridge [indicating], sir, and you
would turn right. That is not Route 7.
Mr. MATION. Whatever route it i:3.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 r
Approved For Release 2003/04/1' 46CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060006-5
Yes, sir.
Mr. WIGGLESwoRTII, Is it, beyond the top: of the hill?
Yes, sir. This is approximately 3 miles.
Mr. M AVON, Approximately 8 miles from Chain Bridge to the
site ?
To this Langley intersection. About 21/2 miles
back to this porn [indicating].
Mr. PooRMAN. Those public roads buildings are visible. They show
up on the aerial photograph.
Mr. MILLER. What is that island right north there?
These are Purport Island and Sycamore Island.
Mr. ULLES. You will recall up at Langley where the road forks
and one goes along the river and one comes into McLean. You will
see where the property is.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTII. Just before you get to the fork?
Mr. DULLES. Just before you get to that fork.
This is the Langley fork shown on this photograph
[indicating].
Mr. DULLES. That map shops the whole public roads property. The
black shaded part is the part we would take over.
Mr. MILLER. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
REASONS FO$ CHOICE OF SITE
Mr. DULLES. When the George Washington Memorial Parkway is
in you would have a parkway all the way from our site to the Penta-
gon. Of course, there is a parkway to the Memorial Bridge, with
ready access to the White House, the State Department, and other
Government buildings, where people with whom we have to deal are
located. We have to deal with them on a daily and hourly basis.
It was desirable also to have the agency headquarters situated on
the west side of the Potomac in order to conform with emergency
measures that have already been taken.
I might add, off the record
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. DULLES. Located on a 125 acre tract forming an inconspicuous
part of a larger 750-acre Government reservation, the Langley site
was chosen as the one location, among many sites inspected in detail,
most adequate for safeguarding the security of CIA's operations and
for conducting those operations with the greatest measure of economy
and efficiency consistent with security considerations. This site, with
its isolation, topography and heavy forestation, permits both eco-
nomi cal construction and an added measure of security safeguards. It
is efficiently located with respect; to overcoming rush hour traffic con-
ditions, and it permits rapid access to the White House, the National
Security Council, and the State aIid Defense Departments, with which
the bulk of CIA day-to-day coordination activities are concerned.
I -would like, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to at this point make a part
of the record-I would not burden you with reading it now-the
major points contained in the Clarke and Rapuano report, submitted
to us.
Mr. MAFION. All right.
Mr. DULLES. Route 123.
Mr. MATZO N. Then it is to the right as you proceed on that road?
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For lease 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-013700500060006-5
247
(The information is as follows:)
BRIEF or PRIMARY FACTORS CONTAINED IN CLARKE AND RAPUANO REPORT
The Clarke and Rapuano report proposes that approximately 140 acres of the
750-acre Government-owned property at Langley be used as a site for the new
CIA headquarters building.
A major factor considered was the accessibility of the site to the several
official departments and agencies with which we are in daily contact. These
departments and agencies are located generally in the northwest District of
Columbia and adjacent Virginia area.
The development of 140 acres of this 750-acre Government-owned tract for
CIA will be such that a wide belt of forest land will be left around the periphery
in a manner aiding to provide the desired security. Building on this admirably
suited site can be accomplished without changing its park-like character. As
the Langley site is already owned by the Federal Government it is unnecessary to
acquire additional property or to take additional properties from the tax rolls.
If expansion should become necessary, adjacent Government-owned property
would presumably be available.
The largest number of our employees (over 68 percent) presently reside in
Washington and adjacent Maryland. The Langley site is very convenient to
the residences of a large portion of this majority. The CIA located at Langley
would not impose serious problems of new population in the community because
the larger number of CIA employees could and would continue to live in their
present residences. Additional commercial developments need not result from
locating CIA headquarters at Langley because this majority of employees, as
well as some Virginia residents, will enter the property via the George Wash-
ington Memorial Parkway. The parkway will be situated on park lands north
of the CIA site or on the opposite side of the property from the Langley area.
To effect the minimum burden of CIA traffic on downtown Washington and
the Pentagon area, our preferred site should be in the northwest quadrant of
the greater Washington area. To locate the CIA at Langley would help solve
the most difficult problem of averting further traffic congestion in a congested part
of Washington.
The only highway and bridge improvements necessary to accommodate CIA
traffic to and from the Langley site are as follows :
1. Extension of the George Washington Memorial Parkway on the Vir-
ginia side of the Potomac from its present terminus at Spout Run to the
Langley site. Congress has authorized $8.5 million and approved an appro-
priation of $2.5 million in the Agency's building legislation to accomplish
this construction if the Langley site is chosen.
2. Planned improvements to Key Bridge. A contract has been awarded
by the District of Columbia for the planned Key Bridge improvements and
construction is expected to begin in January 1956.
3. Widening of Route 123 to four lanes from its intersection with the
George Washington Memorial Parkway to Route 193 beyond Langley. The
Department of Highways, State of Virginia, has agreed to finance and com-
plete this construction concurrently with construction of the George Wash-
ington Memorial Parkway.
These three improvements, which will ultimately be required whether or not
the CIA is located at Langley, will provide a satisfactory access to the proposed
site now. The traffic situation at Langley will gain further superiority as the
already planned arterial system in this general area takes form, especially the
outer loop freeway and the bridge at or near Cabin John, which would make
this site ideal. The cost of these and other road improvements in this area which
have been planned, scheduled, or contemplated, however, definitely should not
be attached to the CIA project. It is highly improbable that there are sites in
Virginia other than the Langley site to which a satisfactory situation would
obtain without highway construction cost in excess of the estimated cost of the
George Washington Memorial Parkway.
Water and sewer services have been guaranteed by the local jurisdictions at
no capital cost to the Federal Government. The same situation holds true for
commercially furnished utilities such as power, telephone, and public transpor-
tation. For all utilities, CIA would merely pay the customary charges for
services rendered.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060006-5
 Approved Fo lease 2003/04/17 24 A-RDP80-01376R~b0500060006-5
APPROVAL OF AREA PLANNING BODIES
Mr. DULLES. The Agency approved the recommendations of Clarke
and Rapuano and, as required by law, proposed this site for considera-
tion by the National Capital Planning Commission. The National
Regional Planning Council and the National Capital Planning Com-
mission approved the Langley site on December 5, 1955, and February
3,1956, respectively.
There was a bit of a battle over that. -I do not want to leave with
you the impression that that was unanimously adopted. The vote was
5 to 3 in the Regional Planning Council and 7 to 5 in the National Cap-
ital Planning Commission.
Mr. MAIIoN. It would seem to raise some doubt, since there were
so many negative voices in these decisions. It looks like there would
have been more unanimity.
Mr. DULLES. We think there ;would have been a good deal of doubt
on almost any site. There were divergent interests involved. There
would have been that on any site: we chose outside of the District. For
various reasons, with which yo ii are familiar, I think, we felt it was
necessary to choose outside of the' District.
Mr. MAHON. In other words, you think perhaps the complaint over
the Langley site is no greater and perhaps less than it would have
been at any other site, had it been selected?
Mr. DULLES. No, I would not say less than at any other site. There
was some feeling on the part of the people there. I think that has
been largely overcome by now, and I do not look forward to any great
difficulty. There may be one or :two protestants who will present their
views to you.
LOCAL; OPPOSITION
Mr. MAHON. I understand there is someone who is to appear before
us today who has the signatures Of 700 unhappy people.
Mr. WHITE. Sir, the County; Board of Supervisors of Fairfax
County unanimously voted on three occasions, I believe, and officially
endorsed the action of coming out there. There was another petition
circulated by people who did want us to come out there, at the same
time this petition of 700 was circulated. On that petition there were
about 2,600 names, as compared with the 700, who did endorse our
coming out there.
However, I think the popular; opinion of the people is best reflected
in a poll which Congressman Broyhill conducted, because this was in
his district, to try to determine what the real wishes of the people were.
In that poll about 73.3 percent of the people responded favorably to
our locating there. That '73.3 percent, I think, is an excellent sample,
because the percentage of returns he received from his questionnaire
was almost identical to the number of voters who voted in the refer-
endum which they had not too long aoo.
Mr. WIGGLESwoRTII. You mean x(3.3 percent of those responding
were in favor of this?
Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Or 73.3 percent was the total of the popula-
tion responding?
Mr. WHITE. 73.3 percent of those responding were in favor, sir.
Mr. WIGGLESWOETH. How many responded?
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved Forlease 2003/04/14,CIA-RDP80-0137100500060006-5
Mr. WHITE. I have the statistics on that, sir.
Mr. MILLER. What was the area he polled? Was that Fairfax
County? In other words, what population did the poll cover?
Mr. WHITE. It was Fairfax County. His questionnaire included
both the Burke Airport and this installation.
Mr. DULLES. But they were different questions.
Mr. WHITE. Different questions.
Mr. MILLER. It was sent to everybody in Fairfax County?
Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir; 73.3 percent of the questionnaires returned
were in favor of it, and the people in the Dranesville district, in which
this is located, who would be most affected, were even in favor of it
in a higher percentage than the county as a whole.
Mr. MAIION. You mean the people located nearest to the proposed
site were the strongest in favor it it?
Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. The Fairfax County Planning Commission
has also very strongly endorsed the location at this particular site.
This group of people, which is a very small group of people, who
have the 700 signatures, are very definitely a small minority. They
have ben very vocal and very effective, but there is no question that
they are a very small minority.
Mr. DULLES. Mr. Chairman, they would like to see no change at
all. They do not want the road built. They would not want anything
of that kind. They do not say that, but it is in my opinion a fact.
NEED FOR PARKWAY
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. You would have to change that road to make
this practical, would you not?
Mr. DULLES. Oh, yes. Without the George Washington Memorial
Parkway it would be utterly impractical. That is an absolutely in-
evitable development, I think, of the city of Washington. I do not
think that there is any possibility that that road will not be built. It
has been on the statute books for 25 years.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. You would have to have that and you would
have to have improvements to Key Bridge and the widening of Route
123 to make this practical?
Mr. DULLES. We do need the widening of Route 123 from the
Langley fork to the parkway. Key Bridge is being improved now.
Mr. MAHON. You were making a very interesting statement, Mr.
White. Why do you not continue?
POLL OF AREA RESIDENTS
Mr. WHITE. I have statistics here. Let me read them, to make sure
the record is correct.
Congressman Broyhill's poll indicated that 73.3 percent of all the
the voters of Fairfax County favor locating CIA at Langley, with
only 17.9 percent opposing it, and 8.8 percent having no opinion.
It is also significant that each of the 7 magisterial districts heavily
favor locating CIA at Langley and in the Dranesville district, which
includes Langley, the voters favored this site by 1,789 votes for, to
517 against.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Is that the total response to the poll, 1,789
plus 517?
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For"Release 2003/04/17 2AIA-RDP80-01370500060006-5
Mr. WHITE. That is just the, Dr. anesville district, sir, which is the
district most affected.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. You do :not have the overall figure represent-
ing the number of responses?
Mr. WInTE. I do have it, sir, but I do not have it with me.
Mr. MAHON. I think that is a remarkably comprehensive poll, as
polls go.
Mr. WIGG ESWORTFH. It depends on whether 100 replied, or 5,000.
Mr. MAnoN. I know, but in tine district where the site is to be located
the people voted in large numb6rs and the majority of them favor it.
I think in this case it is significant that the people in the area want it.
Mr. WIIiTE. In the area it is;1,789 for and 517 against. In every
magisterial district it was strongly in favor of the Langley site. I
can get those statistics from Mr. Broyhill's office, for the total. I will
have them shortly.
The Broyhill poll was sent to 35,286 registered voters in Fairfax
County. 10,505 of those polled responded to this questionnaire.
As I said, this is about the same percentage that voted in the referen-
dum out there, so the statistics I gave you earlier are based on 10,505
voters, or a little more than 30 percent.
Mr. WIGGLESwor.Tli. Thank you.
ACCESS TO SITE
Mr. DULLES. On the question Of access to the site, Mr. Chairman, in
its affirmative report the National Capital Planning Commission
stated that it and the regional council were in general agreement that
certain highway improvements would :
Need to be programed at an earlier date to accommodate the traffic volumes
generated by the installation.
Citing specifically-and I Will goover the various points
The George. Washington Memorial Parkway from Spout Run to
Langley. On that we are in complete agreement.
The widening to four lanes of Route 123 from Langley fork to Chain
Bridge. That has been promisedby the State of Virginia. Planning,
I think, is already underway for that.
Mr. WRITE. Just from the Langley fork to the intersection of the
Parkway is committed.
Mr. SCRIVNER. What are you ;going to do after you cross Chain
Bridge? You will have a bottleheck there; will you not?
Mr. DULLES. We Will show yoti the figures on that. I do not think
yon will. As you see, where our people are located and the routes they
will use, and the fact that the traffic on Chain Bridge at the time our
people would be going out is in the other direction, has an effect.
There is very little traffic over Chain Bridge going out in the morning.
It is almost all coming in.
The widening to four lanes of Glebe Road from Lee Highway to
Chain Bridge.
Mr. MAnoN. Glebe Road in that area is a horrible thing.
Mr. DuLLES. That would be useful, but it is not necessary immedi-
ately for our people, because there will not be many of our people using
Glebe Road.
The widening to four lanes of Chain Bridge. That we think also
would be desirable but not essential.
Approved For Release 2003/04/1;,7 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For-rlease 2003/04/1251CIA-RDP80-0137R 00500060006-5
Improvements to Canal Road and Weaver Place in the District of
Columbia (Chain Bridge approaches) .
Mr. MAIIOx. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. DULLES. The next point is the construction of the Cabin John
Bridge and adjoining segments of the outer circumferential loop. That
is also something I think is inevitable in the very near future.
Mr. MAIiON. That is a highway across the river there?
Mr. DuLLEs. Yes, sir; the proposed Cabin John Bridge.
Mr. MAriox. How far is that from Chain Bridge?
It would be about 3 miles, sir, it is about 6 miles
from Key Bridge.
Mr. DuLLis. Route 240 is coming in from Maryland.
Mr. POORMAN. That has been a part of the planned highway system
for a great while. It was recently relocated, not because of anything
happening here. This is the last proposed location for that.
Mr. DULLES. The highway improvements proposed have been
planned, as stated, for a long time. Our consultants agree that their
ultimate development would increase the convenience of access to the
Langley site; in fact, their prospective construction is one of the rea-
sons we prefer the Langley site to the other sites. We believe that
many of these improvements may more properly be considered under
the President's highway construction program, however, than as ad-
juncts to the CIA building.
We believe that the projected immediate extension of the parkway,
and the widening of a portion of Route 123 to which the State of
Virginia is committed, will provide adequate access to the Langley
site without overburdening other existing facilities.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTII. The State of Virginia is committed to both
roads?
Mr. DULLES. No. The George Washington Memorial Parkway will
be done under appropriations that will be requested, $2.5 million of
which have already been granted.
Mr. MAIION. Has anything been done about that construction ?
Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. They are acquiring rights-of-way rapidly.
Mr. WHITE. The right-of-way is being acquired and the Bureau of
Public Roads has its plans ready to award a contact for grading.
Mr. DULLES. We have made available to the committee staff a memo-
randum covering the financing of the proposed road improvements
and construction of the parkway and Route 123.
(The information is as follows:)
ROAD CONSTRUCTION To PROVIDE ADDITIONAL AccrsS TO rIIE LANOLEY SITE
1. George Washington Memorial Parkway.-The Congress recognized the need
for additional access to the Langley site by providing, in the legislation authoriz-
ing the construction of a headquarters installation for the Central Intelligence
Agency, $8,500,000 for the extension of the parkway from its present terminus at
Spout Run to a point north of the site. The National Capital Planning Commis-
sion, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Public Roads are all con-
cerned in parkway development. These agencies are substantially advanced in
their planning for the construction. Surveys, appraisals, and right-of-way acqui-
sition for a portion of the route have begun.
(a) Arlington County.-A tripartite agreement (United States, Virginia,
Arlington County) was completed on June 17, 1950, providing for a contribution
of $600,000 (one-half by the United States, one-fourth each by the State and
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For (ease 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-013740500060006-5
252
county) -for the acquisition of right-of-way. Currently, a portion of this right-of-
way has been acquired : 2 condemnation suits are underway, and 3 additional
parcels will be subjected to condemnation in the near future. This will complete
initial steps of acquisition for all required right-of-way within Arlington County,
except for one parcel which straddles the Arlington-Fairfax line. Of the original
contribution, $196,540.60 remains unexpended and unobligated, but may well be
required for the completion of land acquisition. Construction cost estimates for
this portion of the parkway total $5,147,000 (grading, $1,380,500; paving,
$669,800; structures, $3,096,700).
(b) Fairfax County.-A tripartite agreement was completed on July 27, 1955,
providing for a contribution of $200,000 (in the same proportion as above). No
expenditures or obligations have been incurred against these funds to date. This
amount covers acquisition of right-of-way from the Arlington-Fairfax line to
Route 123. An agreement is yet to be reached covering acquisitions from 123
north to the Langley site. For this purpose the National Capital Planning Com-
mission has available funds in the amount of $150,000, the State of Virginia has
available $118,500, and the current budget of Fairfax County provides for
$75,000. Construction cost estimates for this portion of the parkway total
$2,853,000 (grading, $1,387,000; paving, $652,000; structures, $823,000) -
Under the organic legislation of the National Capital Planning Commission
Federal funds contributed to the acquisition of right-of-way may not exceed
50 percent of the cost ; the balance must be supplied by the local jurisdictions
concerned. Both the State and county have available allocated but uncommitted
funds for additional contribution. The construction cost, as estimated above,
totals $8 million. The remaining $500,000 requested is for additional Federal
contributions toward land-acquisition cost, if this should be required, and to
meet contingencies in parkway construction.
2. Virginia Route 123.-The Virginia State Department of Highways has com-
mitted itself to widening Route 123 to four lanes from its intersection with the
parkway to Langley Fork (intersection of Routes 123 and 193). The total cost of
this construction has been estimated by the department at $300,000. For this
purpose the department allocated $100,000 in fiscal 1955 and $200,000 in fiscal
1956, which remains unexpended. Virginia intends eventually to widen 123 to
a four-lane dual highway all the way to Chain Bridge, but no firm date has been
established for the accomplishment of this intention ; it would probably be related
to any projected increase in the capacity of Chain Bridge. The survey of the
committed portion has been completed and the Department expects to start
planning within the next 30 to 60 days. They estimate that plans can be com-
pleted by the spring of 1957, and that construction contracts can be let shortly
thereafter.
BRIDGE TRAFFIC
Mr. DULLES. The key to access to the Langley site is the ability to
move traffic across the river. The chart of Potomac River crossings
demonstrates that adequate capacity exists for CIA traffic to and from
Langley, especially since at the rush hours Agency traffic will be mov-
ing counter to the general flow. Location of the Agency at Langley
will, in fact, remove an estimated 1,000 cars from the dominant flow
of rush-hour traffic across the Potomac at the present time.
(The chart is as follows:)
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For,&lease 2003/04/17: CIA-RDP80-01370 00500060006-5
253 W
Traffic count for Potomac River highway bridges
Chain
Key
Memorial
Highway
Total
Hours
In
Out
In
Out
In
Out
In
Out
In
Out
7 a. m. to 8 a, m---- 1. 1
102
1,199
301
2,158
,6,068
1, 692
3, 508
1,828
2,877
---
5, 099
--CO
5,166
--
12, 667
4,514
10,036
,
8 a, M. to 9 8 . m.--- { 1
114
1,204
296
--------
2, 379
2,367
1,3 83
--------
4, 050
2,348
1, 851
-
5,118
-
3, 037
--
12, 691
-
7,983
-
6, 667
,
938
4 p. m. o Pm---
562
042
1
1,557
2,193
-
1, 324
, 342
-
3,24
257
-
4,599
4,096
11, 354
--
--
10, 669
.
1 1,031
5 P. in. to 6 P. m--- 469
,
-------
1, 504
1,866
1, 804
-
2, 639
1,406
2, 794
--------
4, 464
-
848
5,152
6
000
--------
5, 655
100
b
-
-
5,141
10,309
450
15
--------
14,162
14
650
Rated capacity-_.__ 1,500
1,500
3,750
13,750
4,200
4,200
,
,
,
,
44 u p. m. to indicate unus., 9 37 capacity.
RooseveltTotal Bridgeunused
etimated c pacity, 9,500 perrh ur. total
uu ed capacity, I Includes present expansion.
Source: Bureau of Public Roads data, September 1955.
Chain, Key, Memorial, and Highway Bridge. We have given the
rated capacities of each of the bridges, both into Washington and out.
Mr. WIGGLESWORT.ii. Where is the Highway Bridge? n i
We have indicated on the chart the four bridges;
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Where is that?
The Highway Bridge is otherwise known as the
14th Street r1 ge, sir.
Mr. IGGLESwORTII. Thank you.
This is the Memorial Bridge [indicating]. This is
the Key r1 ge 11 dicating].
The figures include the Key Bridge improvements that are being
accomplished at this time, scheduled for completion early next year.
Chain Bridge has a rated capacity in each direction-of 1,500 cars
an hour. The Bureau of Public roads data as of the September
1955 traffic count indicates that between 7 and 8 o'clock in the morn-
ing into town the bridge is at capacity, 1,502 cars per hour; while
at the same time in an outgoing direction only 301 cars use the bridge
leaving a balance of 1199 cars in that direction.
'the same count has been taken from 8 until 9 o'clock, and we find
that there are 1,144 cars entering the District, and 296 cars outbound.
The same calculations have been made on the Key Bridge, and we
find that we have a potential capacity on Key Bridge in an outgoing
direction, in the morning, between 7 and 8, of 2,058, and between 8
and 9. of 2,367 cars.
Mr- GLESWORTH. Those are estimates?
hese are estimates based on the Bureau of Public
1oa .
Mr. WIGGLI,,swoRTli. I thought you said Key Bridge was included in
the im rovements.
hat is correct, sir. There is a lane being added
in eac direction which we have included in these traffic estimates.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTII. When will that be completed ?
II. Calendar year?
Yes, sir.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For?"R lease 2003/04/17 : %I -RDP80-0137 OR0b0500060006-5
Mr. DULLES. Memorial Bridge is the same.
I think we can zove along.
At the Highway Bridge we find it to be at capacity
in t Ie morning in an outgoing direction. In fact, it is 66 cars over-
loaded between 8 and 9.
Taking the totals between the hours of 7 to 9 in the morning we
find a potential of 12,497 cars in an outgoing direction. We have
applied the same analysis for the hours of 4 to 6 in the afternoon,
coming back into the District, and we find that we have a 9,237 car
potential below the capacities of the bridges.
Figuring that we would stagger our hours in the morning and
evening we would benefit by the potential of the combined river cross-
ing of Chain, Key, Memorial, and Highway Bridges.
We do not have on this chart the capacity of the Roosevelt Island
or Constitution Avenue Bridge or Tunnel, whichever it may be.
EMPLOYEES RESIDENCES DISTRIBUTION
Mr. MAIION. Would this site, when developed and occupied, not
tend to cause people to buy property and build homes in the vicinity
of the Langley site, and would you not thereby reduce some of your
figures?
Mr. DULLES. Some of that would take place, undoubtedly, in time.
We would like to show you where our people live now. That would
give you a general clue. We have a good many already living in
Virginia.
(The chart referred to is as follows:)
Employee's Residences Distribution
Percent
Northwest Washington, D. C--------------------------------------------- 37
Arlington County, Va---------------------------------------------------- 15
Montgomery County, Md----------- -------------------------------------- 11
Alexandria, Va--------------------------------------------------------- 8
Fairfax County, Va---------------------------------- 8
Prince Georges County, Md-------------------------------- -------------------
Southeast Washington, D. C----------------------------------------------
Northeast Washington, D. C-.------------------ --------------- 7
Southwest Washington, D. C---------------------------------------------- 1
Other locations--------------------------------------------------------- 1
If you take that chart [indicating] you see that we have 31 percent
who would not have to cross any brill e at all, because they are already
in Virginia. These on the right [indicating], 20 percent, would
presumably use the Highway Bridge or Memorial Bridge. A large
part of the 37 percent would find Key Bridge probably more con-
venient than the Chain Bridge and Memorial Bridge.
The idea that we are going to swamp Chain Bridge is, I think, not
realistic.
Undoubtedly more will move, it, time. That land right near our
site is pretty expensive land. I do not think they would move there.
They would go out further, toward McLean, in that direction. I think
that is true; I think there would be some minor movement into
Virginia.
ADEQUACY OF AREA OF SITE
Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, in connection with that same thought-
commercial enterprise and dwellings and so forth being located near
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For eease 2003/04/17 0500060006-5
this site-I am wondering if they have ample protection in regard to
the site chosen, and so far as they can see in the foreseeable future they
will not need any additional land.
Mr. MAIION. That is a good question.
Mr. DULLES. Mr. Riley, you see, there are 750 acres in this tract.
We could not assure you that we would never need more of that.
Part of that will be taken up by the highway, but the Government
owns 750 acres as shown on that whole plot.
Mr. RILEY. I notice on the map that there is a square in between
the narrow neck shown anal the Government-owned land. What pro-
tection do you have there?
Mr. WRITE. Sir, that is Government-owned land.
Mr. RILEY. It is?
Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. When that property was deeded to the Gov-
ernment a provision was made permitting two ladies, the right to live
on and occupy that property for their lifetime. It is Government
property now, with that stipulation.
Mr. RILEY. In other words, there is no division on the neck shown
and the other Government land?
Mr. WHITE. No, sir. You can see it better on this photograph, sir
[indicating].
Mr. RILEY. That will eventually come to the Government?
Mr. DuLLES. Yes, sir.
Mr. MILLER. That is now Government-owned subject to two life
estates; is that the situation?
Mr. DULLES. That is correct.
Mr. MAIION. All right. Proceed.
Mr. DULLES. All needed facilities, adequate to CIA's needs, have
been promised by the public authorities or public utilities concerned.
For each of them the Government will pay installation and service
charges at the going rates like any other customer.
Water will be supplied by the city of Falls Church.
Sewage disposal will be supplied by Fairfax County.
Telephone, electric light and power will be supplied by public utility
corporations serving the area.
Public transportation will be supplied by the bus lines serving the
general area, as may be determined by the Virginia State Corporation
Commission.
Now we come to the building. In coordination with the Public
Buildings Service, an architect-engineer contract has been negotiated
with the firm of Harrison & Abramovitz. The architects have pre-
pared a tentative site plan and diagrammatic drawings of the proposed
headquarters installation together with supporting architectural and
engineering information, and the Public Buildings Service has pre-
pared the cost analysis and estimate on which this request for an ad-
ditional appropriation is based. We have, therefore, completed the
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved Fo lease 2003/04/17 2 IA-RDP80-0137-08 00500060006-5
preliminary planning and are ready now to enter the definitive portion
of the project. -
In considering the nature of the installation, a complete survey
was made by the architect-engineer of the special requirements of the
Central Intelligence Agency. The unusual security needs of this
agency make mandatory a compartmentation of personnel greatly in
excess of that normally required in Government of private office build-
ings. -Special arrangements must be made for secure handling in
storage and transmission of large amounts of classified material. Pro-
vision must be made for the installation and effective use of special
electronic equipment used in the analysis of intelligence data.
Finally, the agency desires a building which, while without frills,
will provide a working atmosphere for its employees which will be
pleasant and conducive to maximum production. It is a very austere
building we have planned, however.
Considering all of these factors, as well as the physical character-
istics of the site, the firm of Harrison & Abramovitz has recommended
a building consisting of block-type wings as most satisfactorily meet-
ing all the special and unusual requirements of the agency.
The general arrangement and layout of the office space in the new
building have been designed with security considerations primarily in
mind. The new building will consist of block-type wings, readily
compartmented from one another, so that specially restricted areas
can be established and special security controls maintained in each
section, with a degree of flexibility not otherwise practicable.
(The photograph of the model of the proposed building may be
found on facing page.)
Mr. ScurvrrEn. May I ask two questions at this point?
Mr. DULLES. Yes, sir.
Mr. SCRIVNER. They may be out of context.
One of the big arguments which was given to us originally for a
new building was that in view of the fact that you are so widely
scattered now there is time unduly consumed and a greater number
of employees required and all that. How many fewer employees will
you be able to get along with with the new building? How many men
are you going to save by having this one compact installation instead
of scattered throughout the city of Washington?
Mr. DUTLLES. We will save a great deal in the field of guards, mes-
sengers; and we also ought; to be able to save in the higher echelon per-
sonnel because of the amount of time we will save.
Mr. ScyavNER. I asked that question 3 or 4 years ago, and I believe
the general statement was made that it would save a lot of manpower,
which I felt was a general conclusion, and I understood somebody was
going to give us some figures on about how many it would save. I
knew it would not be enough to make this a self-liquidating project.
Mr. DULLES. It will in time.
Mr. Wr ri . Sir, in the dollars it will. We have not estimated
with any degree of accuracy as to the actual man-hours that will be
saved by higher echelon personnel in traveling between buildings.
However, we estimate that we will save about 228 people who are
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060006-5
 Approved For ease 2003/04/1257CIA-RDP80-01370 X0500060006-5
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved Fo'%Iease 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-01300500060006-5
258
guards, receptionists, couriers, bus drivers, and so forth, and our
efficiency will be greatly increased thereby permitting us to do more
with the people we have.
USE OF BUILDING BEFORE ALL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED
Mr. SCRIVNER. The other question is this : You are scattered now
throughout a lot of different buildings. Does the building program
which you contemplate envision a program under which you will
complete certain segments of this and move in, or are you going to
wait and move in all in one fell swoop?
Mr. DULLES. We plan to move in all in one fell swoop but, as we will
present to you in just a moment, in view of the fact that the authoriza-
tion was cut down a bit and in view of the increased prices we want
to tell you frankly we cannot get all our personnel into this building
unless the authorization is increased and the appropriation is in-
creased. We are not asking that at this time.
Mr. SCRIVNER. It would seem possible that in the construction of
this building it could be so constructed that as certain portions of it
are completed you would be able to move in and get these folks out of
these temporary quarters, particularly, so that these buildings could
be removed, instead of waiting. If you are going to wait for all of
it it will be a matter of years.
Mr. DUULLES. I would like to get the views of Mr. Harrison or Mr.
Abramovitz on that.
Mr. HARRISON. We could certainly space it over a matter of months.
Mr. SCRIVNER. That is not much satisfaction.
Mr. HARRISON. No.
Mr. SCRIVNER. How long will it take to complete the whole thing?
Mr. HARRISON. Three to 31/2 years sir.
Mr. SCRIVNER. You do not think you could build it in units, so that
you could complete one segment and move in, and then another seg-
ment and move in that?
Mr. HARRISON. We could certainly do a lot. Whether it would be
as economical to do. it that way I do not know, compared to letting
one whole contractor do it. That would have to be discussed.
Mr. SCRIVNER. You could still have one contract and have unit
completion dates.
Mr. HARRISON. We would have to have plans for the whole thing,
sir.
Mr. SCRIVNER. Can you not have unit completion dates, as well as
a complete completion date?
Mr. HARRISON. We certainly can. I think we could save a matter of
months, but I would hate to say we could save years by that.
Mr. SCRIVNER. Even a matter of months is quite an item.
Mr. HARRISON. We might get up to 9 to 10 months, sir.
Mr. DULLES. We will do our best.
Mr. MAHON. I think, Mr. Director, the idea Mr. Scrivner has pre-
sented is worthy of consideration. You might save rent on other
buildings.
Mr. DULLES. And permit the destruction of the temporary buildings
sooner, which is a very important matter.
Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, in connection with that I should like
to ask a question.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 5: CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
Do you propose to let a contract which would have as an alternate
the additional construction you hope to get in your authorization and
appropriation, so that all of it can be in one contract?
Mr. POORMAN. I think that would depend gentlemen, on your re-
action to the Director's presentation here. it would be feasible, as-
suming that favorable action could be expected within a comparatively
short period after an award were made.
Mr.. RILEY. You would certainly get a better price.
Mr. PooRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. RILEY. If you could let the whole thing as one contract, with
an alternate provision for extension.
Mr. POORMAN. If it were the consensus of the committee that the
chances were good, I believe our conclusion would be to complete
the plans and quite conceivably take a bid with an alternate for the
addition.
Mr. DULLES. I will go into that cost matter right now, Mr. Chair-
man, if I may.
Mr. MAIION. Proceed.
Mr. DULLES. I want to say, Mr. Scrivner, that we will give that ,-lost
careful consideration and see what we can do. It is a good suggestion,
and our buildings are falling down now. We want to get out of some
of these temporary buildings. They mazy not last 3 years.
Mr. SORIVNER. That is what you have been telling it,,, all this time.
That is why I raised the question why this could not be completed in
units or seginepts, or whatever you want to call it.
Mr. DULLES. Yes.
Mr. ScRIVNER. And as each one is completed move the people in
and get them out of these other places. If it is as urgent as has been
indicated there is no use waiting until the entire project is completed
to move everybody in. If you are widely separated now and can
operate you can keep on operating even though you are widely sepa-
rated out there.
Mr. MAHON. All right.. Proceed.
Mr. DULLES. Mr. Chairman, this is the cost situation.
The Public Buildings Service's original estimate, in March 1955, for
a building to house our personnel was $50.8 million.
In our hearings at the Bureau of the Budget this was reduced to
$50 .million.
The Congress authorized $46 million.
Now, on the basis of a concrete project the Public Buildings Service
and our architects estimate that we could have a very austere building
for $46 million which would house approximately 87 percent of the
people for which we had originally planned.
Construction costs have risen about 5.72 percent during the past 12.
months.
The present estimate by the Public Buildings Service and our
architects, on the basis of a specific site and specific plans, for a build-
ing to meet our needs, is $56 million.
Including $8.5 million for the parkway, the total cost would be
$64.5 million as opposed to a total current authorization of $54.5
million, as is shown in the following charts.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved Fo lease 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-01370500060006-5
260
(The charts referred to follow:)
Space requirement, $116,000,000 building
Square feet
Net Ro83ception rooms------ ------ ------------------------------- 754,650
-------------------
Files includin vaults ------ 7, 450
( g ) ----------------------------- 85,300
Storage areas (including vaults) --------------------- 46,150
Reproduction--------------------------------------- 2625,850
25,400
Class and Laboratories ____ lecture ____-_- rooms - -_-_-_---_-_ ___------------ _ 2B, 26,850
Conference and briefing rooms-_ 34,300
Medical facilities, telephone extensions, communications
facilities, etc_______________________ ------------------------------------- 136'.550
Cafeteria Net other and space--------------------------------------------------
space------
------------------------------- 100,000
Total -net space--------------------------------------------- 1,228,100
COST, BUILDING WITH GROSS FLOOR AREA Or 1,845,000 SQUARE FEET
Seven block type wings, ground floor and 5 stories, basement under 2 wings,
cafeteria ground and 1 story, auditorium 1 story. Reinforced concrete frame ;
exterior, face brick and concrete, air: conditioned, fluorescent lighting, asphalt tile
floors generally, laboratory and shops Included.
Estimate
Building (1,845,000 square feet)________________________________
E
$34,405, 000
levators ------------------------------------------------------
1 500, 000
Total------------------ ----------------------------------
B
35,905,000
oiler plant and air-conditioning equipment____________________
M
1, 800, 000
echanical distribution and utilities____________________________
455, 000
Roads, parking, site development -------------------------------
Emergenc
en
t
11635,000
y g
era
or------------------------------------------
Special requirements -------------------------------------------
500,000
1,285
000
Contingencies-------------------------------------------------
,
1,920,000
General expenses---------------------------------------------
2,500,000
Total---------------------------------------------------
46,000,000
Space requirement, $55,980,000 building
Net office s
ace
Square feet
p
-------
-------------------- -----------------------
853,350
Reception rooms_______________ ______________________
7,600
Files (including vaults)-------------------------------
110,300
Storage areas (including vaults)_____________________
66,400
Reproduction -----------------------------------------
86,200
Laboratories------------------------------------------
17,900
Class and lecture rooms -------------------------------
59,100
Conference and briefing rooms________________________
Medical facilities
tele
hone exte
i
39,100
,
p
ns
on, communications
facilities, garage, etc -------------------------------- 210,
550
Net other space------------------------------------------------ - 597,150
Cafeteria and custodial space -._____________________100,000
Total net space --------------------------------------------- 1,550,500
COST, BUILDING WITH GROSS FLOOR AREA OF 2,250,000 SQUARE FEET
Consists of 9 block-type wings, auditorium and cafeteria ; ground floor and 5
stories for 9 wings, with basement under 2 wings ; cafeteria, ground and 1 story,
auditorium, 1 story; concrete frame; exterior, face brick and stone trim; interior
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved Forlease 2003/04/17: CIA-RDP80-0137WO, 0500060006-5
261
finish, generally, plaster on masonry, air conditioned, fluorescent lighting;
laboratory and shops included.
Garage : 1-story brick, steel frame with precast plank roof.
Main building (2,250,000 square feet)---------------------------
$44,000,000
Elevators------------------------------------------------------
1,500,000
Garage --------------------------------------------------------
230, 000
Total----------------------------------------------------
45,730,000
Boiler plant and air-conditioning equipment----------------------
1,800,000
Mechanical distributor and utilities----------------------------
455,000
Roads, parking, site development--------------------------------
1, 635, 000
Emergency generator-------------------------------------------
500,000
Special requirements----------------------------------------- -
1,285,000
Contingencies--------------------------------------------------
2,075,000
General expenses-----------------------------------------------
2,500,000
Total---------------------------------------------------
55,980,000
We obtained our authorization and initial appropriation with the
expectation that we could get everyone into one building. With pres-
ent building costs this is not possible. While it is highly desirable to
have all of our people in one building, we could operate efficiently with
the essential more sensitive elements in one building with less sensitive
operations conducted elsewhere, if you deem it is not practical to in-
crease the authorization and appropriation.
Mr. MAHON. If we are going to have the building I would like to
say for myself that I want to have it and have an adequate building
and have it all done as one job and provide the funds and say to you:
"This is it and this will be the only space occupied by the CIA in
Washington."
I think that is good practice.
When do you expect to seek this additional authorization?
Mr. DULLES. We thought we would come in in January, at the next
session of Congress.
Mr. MAHON. How do you propose to let a contract for this building?
Mr. DULLES. Will you answer that, Mr. White?
Mr. WRITE. Sir, if our requests were acted upon fairly promptly
it would be in ample time to let the contract for the whole project,
inasmuch as the architect will complete his plans in March of next
year. So if we came in in January and the matter was considered at
a reasonably early date and a decision definitely would be made as
to whether we would let a contract for the $56 million building or
the $46 million building, there would be time to avoid any waste of
money.
Mr. MAHON. You ought to build the building. If you do not have
adequate room for all the personnel, maybe you ought to reduce them
and work with less personnel.
Mr. Sculvxmt. That was the suggestion I was going to make. We
might cut them down, which might be some inducement. I thought
they could cut it down substantially.
Mr. MAHON. They might come out and say : "We have our major
plant out here, but we are beginning to have activities in other build-
ing$ and so we will have X number of other buildings housing the
CIA."
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved Fo lease 2003/04/11 262 -RDP80-01370R000500060006-5
I think we have too many people in the CIA already.
Mr. DULLES. We could get rid of all of our buildings, Mr. Chair-
man, that are of a temporary nature, and just keep. 11 permanent
buildings.
Mr. W RITE. Sir, in just one minute we have charts to show you on
the comparative saving. It certainly is, in our judgment, an uneco-
nomical thing to do, not to build the building, as you suggest; but we
will show you those charts in just a minute, sir.
ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED
Mr. DULLES. We would much prefer to go ahead on the $46 million
rather than have a lot of delays.
Mr. NTAIION. Why do you not get a budget request and send it up
here and let us approve this business?
Mr. RILEY. At least get the authorization. I concur with the chair-
man that we should not take this thing piecemeal.
Mr. MAIION. The military construction bill is pending now in the
Senate.
Mr. DULLES. We had consultations with the Armed Services Com-
mittee, which would be the committee that would consider our author-
ization, and the general advice we got, though they might very well
reconsider it, was that it was better to go ahead with what we have,
and then after we have our definite plans and can tell you just exactly
how much it is going to cost to come in next year for an additional sum.
That is a question of judgment for the Congress rather than for us.
Mr. MAIIOx. In other words, you propose to get the authorization
in time to do the job?
Mr. DULLES. That is right.
Mr. MAHON. Just so you get the authorization in time to do the job.
Mr. DULLES. Then we would have completed plans. We would have
a pretty good idea of our construction costs. Then we could come in
with something more definite than we have at the present time.
Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, why could they not get the authorization
now, and when they have completed plans and have more or less exact
estimates of cost, the Appropriations Committee could make avail-
able the necessary funds? You could get your authorization now, so
that you would not have any delay.
Mr. ScRivNER. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
TIMING
Mr. MAJION. You expect to get funds at this session of Congress?
Mr. DULLES. We would like to ; yes, sir.
Mr. MAHON. For the fiscal year beginning on July I?
Mr. DULLES. Yes, sir.
Mr. MAHON. When do you expect to complete your plans?
Mr. DULLES. - By next March.
Mr. MAI[ON. March of 1957?
.Mr. DULLES. That is right.
Mr. MAHON. When do you expect to let. a contract and obligate your
money?
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved Fo R (ease 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137QRQR000500060006-5
263
Mr. DULLES. Immediately thereafter.
Mr. POORNIAN. We would allow from 45 to 60 days to receive bids
and award contracts.
Mr. MAIION. When would you expect to complete the project?
Mr. POORNTAN. We might start taking over portions of it in 24
months and run up to 30 months to complete. The Congressman's
statement appears to have considerable merit.
Mr. DULLES. We might desire to commit certain additional funds in
connection with the road, and push that along prior to the committing
of funds for the building.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Ostertag ?
AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED
Mr. OSTERTAG. Mr. Dulles, it is not clear to me whether or not you
are prepared to ask for full authorization or whether you require
additional time in order to develop your plans to determine the full
authorization for this project. What is the situation on that?
Mr. DULLES. We would be disposed to ask for that if the advice
were received here from the Appropriations and Armed Services Com-
mittees was that would be likely to succeed.
Mr. WHITE. The problem is a technical one in that our enabling
legislation OSTERTAG. That is the point of my inquiry, the matter of com-
plete authorization.
Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. We would propose to ask to have that amended
in January. Being limited to $541/2 million now, of which we already
have $5.5 million, we are asking for $49 million, $43 million of which
is for the building and $6 million of which is for the George Washing-
ton Memorial Parkway.
Then we would propose to ask for an amendment to the authoriza-
tion in January, and at the same time ask for the appropriation in an
approximate amount of $10 million to complete the whole building.
Mr. OSTERTAG. In other words, you are prepared to ask for the
authorization to complete this project now. You are in a position to
request it so far as your estimate of requirements is concerned.
Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. The estimates which you see on this chart
have been made by the Public Buildings Service people and our archi-
tects, and the estimate for the total building as of now is $55,980,000.
Mr. OSTERTAG. The appropriation itself would serve no particular
purpose until and unless you obtain the complete authorization
anyhow.
Mr. MAHON. That is right.
Mr. OSTERTAG. That is why I raised the question as to whether it
might not be wise to follow what appears to be the feeling of this com-
mittee, that you expedite the complete authorization.
Mr. DULLES. I would like to do that.
Mr. MAHON. You probably will save a little money doing it that
way.
Mr. DULLES. A little money and a little time.
On the other hand, if I should fail in obtaining additional authoriza-
tion, then I would lose time. Whereas time would be gained by ob-
taining the $49 million now.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved Fo^ease 2003/04/17 : j -RDP80-01370500060006-5
Mr. WIIITE. If we did not have the enabling legislation this year
we would be stymied on going ahead with the parkway full speed,
and it is also probable that we will want to do some site development
on the site because we have a lot of construction work there. It might
also be possible to do some foundation work in order to shorten the
time.
Regardless of whether we build a $46 million building or a $56 mil-
lion building, we do need money before it is reasonable to expect it to
be authorized next year.
Perhaps Mr. Poorman might elaborate on that some.
Mr. POORMAN. With the $46 million appropriation we would be
in a position to go ahead and carry it through and actually advertise
and make an award. I feel quite certain we could carry an alternate
in the contract for the additions which we could implement within
probably 6 months of the time of the award without delaying it, be-
cause he could go ahead full steam on the rest of the building. I feel
certain that this $46 million would enable us to go through on a con-
tinuous, rapid program without any delays at any stage.
Mr. MAHON. All right, Mr. Dulles.
ESTIMATED SAVINGS
Mr. Dura,ES. Our plans are based on average net office space utiliza-
tion per person which is considerably below the governmentwide av-
erage of net office space per employee in metropolitan Washington.
If we had to proceed on the basis of the smaller building, it would
require a reduction from our total plans of approximately 300,000
square feet of net usable space.
However, on that basis we could get in all of the people now housed
in our temporary buildings but not all of our personnel.
There are many economies which, as you have noted, could be ef-
fected if we were housed in a single efficiently planned installation,
as shown in the following charts.
New building project (on basis of t building)
Present costs
1 Estimated
costs in 1
new building
Estimated
savings in 1
now building
Guard service
Reception staff
$1,515,800
$1,515,800
$651,800
$864,000
Shuttle service---
Co
i
d
123,100
46,500
57,100
--------------
68,090
46
500
ur
ers an
messengers-------------------------------
T
l
h
246,600
204
400
,
42
200
e
ep
one milea a charges ------------".?---------------------
B
ildi
48,200
,
------------
,
48
200
u
ng services officers________________---________
t
125, 000
-
75
000
,
50
000
an
s
i
-----------""--------------- -------------
n
Alt
i
1813,800
,
----------
,
1813
800
t
o
s and
erat
ons anmoving--------_"_-._-_-__
o
f ti
2798,800
----
300,000
,
498
800
ss o
me - - ------------------------
??-----------------"_
747,000
--------------
,
747, 000
Total -------- -------------
Total------"-----"---""---
4,464,800
1, 288, 300
I Includes $359,800 present rental costs and $454,000 for Government-owned buildings.
S Average for fiscal year 1954, 1955, and 1956.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
*"of - 14W
New building project (on basis of 1 new building and 11 buildings in Washington)
Item
Present
costs
Estimated
costs
Estimated
savings
Guard service-------------------------------------------------
$1,515,800
123
100
$937,400
70,100
$578,400
44,000
Reception staff-----------------------------------------------
,
46
500
18,600
28,000
Shuttle service------------------------------------------------
Couriers and messengers______________________________________
,
248,000
48
200
200,100
200
39
-19,500
9,000
Telephone mileage charges____________________________________
,
000
125
,
139,800
-14,800
Building services officers______________________________________
,
2 818
800
1 813,800
-
Rents---------------- ----------------------------------------
Alterations and moving_______________________________________
,
z
798,800
747
000
447,000
179
000
351,800
688,000
Loss of time--------------------------------------------------
,
,
Total---------------------------------------------------
4,464,800
2,919,900
1,544,900
I Includes $359,800 present rental costs and $454,000 for Government-owned buildings.
2 Average for fiscal year 1954, 1055 and 1956.
Since last July, when the Congress authorized a new headquarters
building for CIA, the progress toward the realization of secure and
economical building has been steady and continuous. As indicated,
we cannot proceed further unless additional funds are available for
obligation.
A good deal of what I have written here has been covered in our
discussion.
I would like to request that the Congress appropriate $49 million
constituting the balance of the funds presently authorized in order
that the construction may proceed without delay or interruption.
If this is done, as indicated, I would then appear before you in the
next Congress and ask for an additional $10 million in order to build
a building to house all of our personnel.
'Mr. SCRIVNER. You may have stated this, and you have before us
two charts. One shows on the basis of 1 building that you estimate,
which is probabl opptimistic, an annual savings, once you get in the
new building, of $3,176,000 a year, which would on the surface indicate
that these savings would amortize the cost of the building in 20 years.
As I said, it is probably optimistic.
On the other chart, where you talk about what would happen if you
cannot have the additional $10 million building but would be confined
to the one presently authorized, which would be built under present
authorization, you would have the 1 new building plus buildings
r.
in Washington, and the savings there would be $11/2 per year.
In other words, as I read it, if I am correct in what you are trying
to tell us, if you are able to build the 1 building which you are now
talking about that increased $10 million would be paid off in 10
years?
Mr. DULLES. That is correct, and that is on our estimates which are
pretty hard estimates.
Mr. SCRIVNER. Isn't that the picture of what you have been trying
to give us?
Mr. DULL Es. Yes, sir.
Mr. MAIIGN. Make sure all the facts appear in the record.
Mr. DULLES. We will make all these charts available and put them
in the record, sir.
(Discussion held off the record.)
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For - eease 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-013700500060006-5
266
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
Mr. MAIION. Will this construction generally speaking be conven-
tional ?
Mr. HARRISON. If anything it will be less attractive from the ex-
terior point of view than the ordinary building in Washington because
it is built very much more cheaply.
Mr. MAIION. What will the outside wall be?
Mr. HARRISON. Brick and concrete at the moment.
Mr. MAIION. How many stories high will it be?
Mr. IARRISON. Five stories average. It varies a little bit where you
have basement areas, making it six. It is 90 feet wide and varied
distances of wings.
Mr. MAIION. What would be the longest wing you have there?
Mr. HARRISON. 400 feet, but you have
Mr. MAIION. 400 feet?
Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir ; but you have something much longer than
that. The farthest point from one end to the other would be much
longer than that. That. would be nearly 1,200 feet.
Mr. MAHON. Nearly 1,200 feet from one end of the building to the
other?
Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir.
Mr. MAxoN. It is all joined together?
Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir. The separate departments are kept in the
various ends of the complex.
LIGHTING
Mr. MAIION. What sort: of lighting would you have?
Mr. HARRISON. Fluorescent lighting, sir. With air conditioning
you have to have fluorescent lighting. It is much cooler than in-
candescent.
Mr. MAFION. Fluorescent lighting
Mr. HARRISON. _Heat loss is much less.
Mr. MAHON. Do people generally care for fluorescent lighting?
Mr. HARRISON. A lot of people do. I don't like it at all, personally.
Mr. MAHON. I don't, either.
Mr. HARRISON. It is just a personal thing. From the point of view
of economy in like units, fluorescent lighting is much cheaper when
you have air conditioning.
Mr. MAIION. Off the record.
(Discussion held off the record.)
BUILDING DESIGN
Mr. POORMAN. We believe the architect has arrived at an economical
approach. The building is sprawled over considerable territory but,
as the Director outlined, there is a high degree of compartmentaliza-
tion here which makes this a unique building. That has been recog-
nized in the design. There are no abnormal features so far as details
of construction are concerned. It is merely functional to meet their
needs.
Fifty-six million dollars will bring it more along the lines of con-
ventional building, as I said before.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For FJase 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
267
Mr. DULLES. There will be several separate entrances to different
wings of the building.
Off the record.
(Discussion held off the record.)
Mr. MAIION. What is the largest room you have there?
Mr. HARRISON. This little unit here, gathering together people who
have to be brought together, an auditorium here.
Mr. MAIION. How many seats will you have in the auditorium?
Mr. HARRISON. 500, I believe.
Mr. OSTERTAG. What purpose would this auditorium serve? Is it
to be used for briefing?
Mr. DULLES. Briefing of trainees, very largely, sir. We do that a
great deal. We will probably have it, also, so that it can be segre-
gated and you can have some teaching courses there. We do a lot of
training work.
Then there are various meetings we have with various segments of
the Agency.
We have large briefings for outside people, too. There will be
meetings of a whole group there.
Mr. MASON. Any further questions, gentlemen?
Mr. HARRISON. I would like to add one thing here, and that is this :
I think very often anybody working in the Government is being
criticized generally for not being economical. We have built many
office buildings in this country. We have never built anything as
economical as this as an office building for private enterprise.
I think that adds something to what the Government does do once
in a while. We never built a building 90 feet wide. We build them
70 feet wide. We are building these 90 feet wide. In other words,
we are building for the people of the Government more cheaply
than we would for the United States Steel Corp.
Mr. MASON. What is the distinction between 90 feet and 70 feet?
Mr. HARRISON. Simply that it is cheaper to build a building 90
feet wide. You have fewer concrete piers, bricks, and so forth.
Mr. POORMAN. Wall space is less, also.
ADEQUACY OF BUILDING
Mr. MAxoN. As a citizen and taxpayer do you think this building
is reasonably adequate?
Mr. HARRISON. I think this is a very fine building.
Mr. MArION. And serviceable?
Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir. I could wish it would be a little more
decorative but that is a personal feeling.
Mr. DULLES. We hope to have it slightly better on that opening
in the entrance court there.
Mr. HARRISON. That is right. We have allowed for some develop-
ment in the courtyard in front.
RETENTION OP III01I LEVEL PERSONNEL
Mr. DULLES. To add one word in conclusion : The problem of re-
taining the high-level personnel which we need for the very difficult
and delicate type of work we are doing is getting more and more
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved F!!*'Release 2003/04/16$ CIA-RDP80-0137012000500060006-5
difficult. We are losing very good personnel to industry, and in some
cases to the universities and colleges.
In planning our site and planning our building, we believe we are
going to create on the whole better working conditions than any other
Government building in Washington; the fact that we will have nearby
adequate parking space of this type is quite unique.
The Pentagon has it largely but this will be even more convenient
than the Pentagon, and we believe we will have in this particular
rural area conditions of work, conditions surrounding work which will
help us very appreciably in holding our employees because of the
better conditions under which they will be able to work.
Mr. MAHON. You will be able to get better teamwork, and a better
quality of work?
Mr. DULLES. I believe so. No doubt about the teamwork. Now we
have our different sections separated by miles in many cases. The
people who have to come up to see me have to come up sometimes a
mile, spend a half hour to come see me and a half hour to go back.
Mr. MAHON. Thank you very much, gentlemen, and thank you
again, Mr. Dulles.
LOCATION OF SITE'' FOR CIA BUILDING
WITNESS
HON. RICHARD E. LANKFORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
We will now hear from our colleague, the gentleman from Maryland,
Representative Richard E. Lankford.
Mr. LANKFORD. It is my understanding that the Central Intelli-
gence Agency has requested from this committee an additional large
sum of money for the construction of a headquarters building to be
built at Langley, Va. I am opposed to this appropriation and feel
that the construction of the proposed building at Langley, Va., would
be a waste of money. There are other sites which would be more than
adequate for the purposes of the Central Intelligence Agency which
would cost considerably less money.
I direct your particular attention to a tract in Prince George's
County, Md., known as the Good Luck Road tract. This tract has met
all the criteria laid down by the Central Intelligence Agency and
would not need any additional construction of roads to meet the par-
ticular criteria for accessibility. Furthermore, the land is owned by
the United States Government and it has been determined that the site
is immediately available.
In addition to this, the particular site mentioned is one of which
there is no controversy by the residents of near-by communities or the
county governmental body.
Again, may I stress that it seems to me to be a wasteful use of -the
taxpayer's money to go to the additional expense of erecting the CIA
headquarters in Langley, Va., when there are other sites available,
equally as suitable, which would be just as compatible with the use
contemplated.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137QR0 0500060006-5
140i 269
OPPOSITION TO CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING AT LANGLEY, VA.
WITNESS
ROGER FISHER, McLEAN, VA
Mr. MAHON. We will proceed, gentlemen, and hear from Mr. Roger
Fisher.
Mr. FISHER. My name is Roger Fisher. I am a resident of the
McLean area in Virginia. I live myself a few miles from the Langley
site.
I am here today in behalf of some 700 residents and property owners
of that area who have signed a petition opposing the location of the
CIA at Langley.
SIGNERS OF PETITION
Mr. MAI-ION. I wish you would tell me if on your list of 700 people
you count the head of the household, such as the husband, or do you
include also the wife, and the children?
Mr. FISHER. No children. We count a husband, a wife, and a prop-
erty owner, even though not resident in those three precincts.
Mr. MAIioN. Suppose there are some grown children who live with
the family?
Mr. FISHER. Eighteen years of age. We told our workers to get no
signatures of anyone less than 18 years old.
Mr. MAI-ION. If people are living with the family 18 years of age
or over, whether they are with the family or not, they were counted?
Mr. FISHER. Yes, sir. This map shows the location of the people
who signed our petition. The X indicates the proposed CIA site.
The group of pins are clustered around in the McLean-Langley area
in opposition, that is, showing the residents opposed to this.
Mr. MAHON. Do you have copies of the petition?
Mr. FISHER. I will give you the original petition.
WORDING OF PETITION
Mr. MAHON. I would like to know the wording o truthon petition.
any large
Mr. FISHER. The wording is "Opposed
office building on the Government tract."
Mr. MAHON. (Reading the petition) :
To whom it may concern : The undersigned residents and property owners of
the Langley, McLean, and Forestville precincts of Fairfax County urge :
1. That the present general character of the area be maintained through
adoption of residential zoning of 1 acre or more in substantially those areas for
which such zoning is proposed in the McHugh master plan ;
2. That to the same end the Government tract at Langley be preserved for use
as a wilderness park, and that no large building of any Government agency be
located there.
That is the petition you are talking about?
Mr. FISHER. That is right. We wish to show we are for something
as well as against something.
We are for having this land now in Government hands kept as a
park.
Mr. MA-HON. You are for the status quo, generally speaking?
Mr. FISHER. Generally speaking, yes. Congress already has au-
thorized the National Capital Planning Commission to occupy unused
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved Fo lease 2003/04/17 : S,A--RDP80-013700500060006-5
Government land along the Potomac as part of the George Washing-
ton Memorial Parkway scheme. The planning commission has exist-
ing authority to occupy this entire Government tract as part of a park
if CIA does not locate there.
INTEREST OF MR. FISHER
.Mr. MAHON. Will you show us on the map where you live, Mr.
Fisher?
Mr. FISiIER. At this point, sir.
Mr. MAHON. You own your home?
Mr. FISHER. I own the house and about 15 acres at that site.
Mr. MAHON. What is your special interest in this? People don't
go to all this trouble unless they have a very special interest.
Mr. FISHER. My special interest is in preservation of the area there.
I have worked with other members of the citizens association there,
and by a process of being, drafted more or less I have gotten into this
thing.
Mr. MAHON. What is your post office?
Mr. FISHER. McLean, which serves both areas. This post office
serves everybody in this area.
Mr. MAHON. Do you own any other property than the 15 acres you
have referred to in the area?
Mr. FISHER. No, sir.
Mr. MAHON. You have no selfish or financial interest other than the
interest of preserving the area somewhat as it is.
Mr. FISHER. That is correct.
Mr. MAHON. I assume if you bring several thousand people near
your area and give them jobs many of them will build homes in that
general area, at least some of them. Many of them will shop in that
general area, and it will to some extent add to the so-called prosperity
and activity there.
CONFLICTING VIEWS OF AREA RESIDENTS
Mr. FISHER. That is the view of our chamber of commerce in Fair-
fax County.
Mr. NATION. The chamber of commerce therefore favors this new
development?
Mr. FISHER. They are all for it. The more development the better.
That is where we differ. We don't want--
Mr. MAHON. Is that the view of your Congressman?
Mr. FISHER. Congressman Broyhill, who represents this area, stated
last summer that as between the two sites which then were being con-
sidered in Virginia, this one and the one on the Shirley Highway, he
would prefer the Shirley Highway site because of the strong local
opposition at Langley.
He was later told, at least he told his constituents he was told, by
top CIA officials, that if CIA did not locate at Langley they would
not locate anywhere in Virginia.
His position since then has been to support the location of the CIA
at Langley, which is in Virginia.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Broyhill is one of our colleagues. We would not
want any incorrect position presented with respect to his feelings.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
271 NO$
Mr. Crosby, will you see that lie sees the transcript, please?
In other words, the majority of the people in the county and that
area apparently are for the project, but there are about 700 of you
who are against it?
Mr. Fisni n. I do not think this question should be decided by a
Gallup poll. I think we would do as well by a Gallup poll as the
other side.
Mr. MAHON. I thought Mr. Broyhill's study showed that of the
people in that area--
Mr. FISHER. He sent out a questionnaire which did show a majority
of those answering as,approving the project.
Mr. MAHON. About 3 to I in your area, was it not?
Mr. Fisu-iEn. The statement in the questionnaire which went out was
to the effect it would not locate anywhere in Virginia unless it located
at Langley. That had a, good deal of effect.
Mr. MAHON. Why would that have much effect in the Langley area?
If they didn't want it they world. say "Good, let us get rid of this
thing."
Mr. FISHER. The commercial interests who thought they would not
have it anywhere in Virginia if they didn't have it here went to work.
Our local. editor, who himself is chairman of the McLean-Langley
Citizens for CIA, urged everyone to return the post cards. They pre-
viously had used paid solicitors on a door-to-door basis to get names
in favor of locating CIA there. They paid them $1 an hour plus
5 cents a name to recruit names supporting this site.
I do not know that they used paid solicitors in answer to the ques-
tionnaire, but there was ,,t good deal of effort there.
Mr. OSTEITAG. Do you know it to be a fact?
Mr. FisHHER. I know they used paid solicitors on the petition they
presented to the Planning Commission. Also, the chairman of the
committee, Mr. Richard M. Smith, editor of the local paper, has
an interest in which he gets 5 percent of the gross water revenue
of all new customers in the McLean area for the next 16 years, and
in that his position of interest in the area is somewhat different
from mine.
I am sure he does not know to what extent this financial interest
affects his view. He does have a remarkably important commercial
interest in bringing in new people into the area.
Colonel White has been active with his friends in the county to
keep them informed.
One reason I got into this in the beginning is that I was called
up by Mr. Smith the day after I first talked to Colonel White. and
asked to lay off and not do anything, and couldn't he talk to me before
I did anything rash. That got me more interested, and I am afraid,
was partly responsible for my getting involved in it.
I would like if I might to cover briefly some of the important
points that may not have been brought out in the affirmative testi-
mony you have had.
I am here not because I think these 700 residents should stop a
project of interest to the Government. I am here because I believe
that if you hear both sides of the story you will have a better basis
for judging the merits of this project. If you understand the facts,
78170-56 -18
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved IO`Release 2003/04/17M- IA-RDP80-01 98000500060006-5
I think you will agree that if any agency other than CIA. came
to you to ask for an extra $8 million to locate in an area which
had inadequate roads, on potential park land, on land tending to
aggravate pollution problems-because they would like the work-
ing conditions there and because they would like a view of the river-
you would laugh them out and chastise them for coming in.
-I believe this Agency, taking advantage of its unique position in
Government, has come in with a proposal that is shockingly contrary
to sound planning.
In October 1954 CIA requested an exception from the dispersal
regulations to permit them to locate in the District. They received
an exception in December of 1954, I understand, and at that time that
exception was granted with the understanding that they would stay
outside the Dsitrict. They were to stay as far from the District as
they could but they did not have to go the full 10 miles beyond the
periphery of the developed area.
In March of 1955 it was announced that CIA was considering the
Langley site. There was a leak to that effect.
During the first week of April of last year the agency wrote the
Planning Commission and stated that this site was not under further
consideration and need not; be given further consideration.
Discussions with the planning staff indicated that it met none of the
criteria. It met so few of the criteria, perhaps I should say that it
should not be given any further consideration.
It was the only site singled. out at that time to which no further con-
sideration need be given.
In July of 1955
Mr. WIGGLESWORTii. Who made that statement?
Mr. FISHER. A letter from the agency to the Planning Commission
saying that the site was not under further study and need not be given
-further consideration.
Is that substantially correct, Colonel White?
Mr. WHITE. No; it is not correct. I have a copy of the letter with
me. Perhaps we can read the exact statement.
The problem was this, Mr. Chairman :
The George Washington Memorial Parkway, which Mr. Fisher is
commenting on, will cost $81/2 million to extend from its present ter-
minus at Spout Run to the Langley site.
This authorization has been on, the statute books since 1930. This is
an expenditure which the Federal Government will eventually under-
take without regard to the location of the CIA Building.
We had hoped to get our site through the National Capital Planning
Commission before we came in for our legislation authorizing this
building last year.
We waited until about the 1st of April, and feeling that if we were
going to get any consideration by the Congress during that session we
must put in our legislation, we put it in without asking for the provi-
sion for the George Washington Memorial Parkway because of the
many uncertainties which did surround this site at that time.
I will read the paragraph from my April 4 letter which deals with
this matter.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17: CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17: CIA-RDP80-0137ORR00~00500060006-5
273
As you know, after consultation with the Public Buildings Service, we had
considered that the site at the Public Roads Research Center in Langley, Va.,
would be a desirable location and requested Your concurrence in principle
prior to undertaking the resolution of various other problems in connection
with the use of this site. Among others, a major problem was the extension
,of the George Washington Memorial Parkway. Several of these problems have
not been solved, and we now feel that we must proceed with our request for
congressional approval of this project without further delay despite the fact
that a site has not been definitely selected.
Accordingly, we plan to include language in proposed legislation to be sub-
mitted to the Congress within the next few days which, if enacted, will authorize
construction of a CIA headquarters building. Since we do not have a definite
site to propose, and in view of the many problems developing in connection
with the use of the Langley property, we have decided to omit from the pro-
posed legislation any language which would provide for the extension of the
George Washington Memorial Parkway without which we do not believe use
of the Langley property would be feasible.
We never completely abandoned the Langley property but it was
so uncertain at this time that we did not feel we should provide for
the extension of the parkway in our legislation.
When it became apparent that the water, sewage, and other prob-
lems could be solved, our request for legislation was amended. And of
course our authorization (Public Law 161) makes specific provision
for the parkway if the Langley site is used.
Mr. OSTERTAG. The point about that was that the Langley site
could not be used and it would not be used unless this highway or
parkway would develop?
Mr. WHITE. Exactly correct, sir.
Mr. RILEY. To whom was it written?
Mr. WI-n.TE. The Chairman of the National Capital Planning Com-
mission. It is dated April 4,1955.
Mr. FIsiIEx. The letter received by the Commission stating that
CIA was not going to request authorization which would include the
possibility of locating at Langley meant that the Langley site was the
one site to be excluded from consideration by the Planning Commission
since $ever 8'/2 million for the parkway would e prthe re u . esumably bee
extra $8 /2 p inc included in
e
the general authorization language.
In June 1955, CIA, contrary to that letter, requested language
which would include the authorization to construct the parkway out
to the site, and in July this was made public.
Hearings were held in the Senate. The Senate committee stated
that "further careful study and investigation should be made before
the site is fully determined" and pointed to the local objection and
difficult traffic problem involved at Langley. As you know last year
Congress appropriated $51/2 million to start the study and prepara-
tion of plans, of which $21/2 million, I believe, could have been used
to start work on the parkway.
In July the Planning Commission asked the CIA if they had any
problems, any further views on the site selection which they wanted
to discuss with the Planning Commission.
In a letter of August 1 the Agency indicated they were not yet ready
with any proposals to bring to the Planning Commission.
The agency retained New York consultants, professional planners,
and in November requested the Planning Commission to approve the
Langley site, and submitted the report of their professional planners.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved Folease 2003/04/17 : CI4A-RDP80-0137Q00500060006-5
In December the Regional Planning Council-there are two plan-
ning bodies which you have to keep in mind on these problems. One
is the National Capital Regional Planning Council and the other, the
National Capital Planning Commission.
For the location of buildings in the environs of Washington, both
must be consulted; neither has authority to stop or control. They
merely can give advice and recommendations.
The Regional Planning Council, by divided vote, 6 to 4, I believe,
approved the location at Langley and unanimously at the same meet-
ing requested that if the CIA chose the Langley site they should ask
for authorization and funds to include additional road facilities total-
ing some $30 million or more, additional roads to service the site.
(The resolution of the Council was as follows:)
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY TIIE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGIONAL PLANNING COUNSEL
AT ITS MEETING ON DECEMBER 5, 1955
Resolved, That the Council request that the Central Intelligence Agency, in
conjunction with its request for appropriations, ask for authorization and ap-
propriations for the improvements not yet committed which are related to this
development as described in the report of its Director :
Chain Bridge widening along with Canal Road and Weaver Place improve-
ment ; Virginia Route 123-parkway to Chain Bridge ; Glebe Road-Lee High-
way to Chain Bridge ; Parkway to Cabin John Bridge, including Cabin John
Bridge ; George Washington Memorial Parkway-Maryland side ; outer belt-
route 7 in Virginia to U. S. 240 in Maryland.
This was the unanimous resolution of the Regional Planning
Council.
When I discussed this with people at the Agency they stated it was
not mandatory, that this was merely a recommendation.
The Regional Planning Council has no mandatory power. Every-
thing they do is only in an advisory capacity.
A 6-4 vote approved Langley. CIA ignored the unanimous vote
that additional roads were required to serve the site.
A few days later it came before the National Capital Planning Com-
mission. There the Langley site was disapproved by a vote of 6-4.
A vote was added after the meeting to make it 6-5 disapproving the
site.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. The National Capital Planning Commission?
Mr. FIsimit. Yes. In December they disapproved the location at
Langley. The public buildings represenative, Mr. Poorman, ab-
stained from voting, and the Army Corps of Engineers' representa-
tive, Mr. Zach voted in opposition to it. He previously had made ex-
tensive studies of the many road problems involved, as well as the
threat to the pollution of District water supplies by installing a large
installation above the water intake which would encourage develop-
ment in that area.
CHANGE IN MEMBERSHIP OF PLANNING COMMISSION
These 2 Government employees serving on the Commission were re-
placed by 2 other individuals. CIA requested a reconsideration by
the Planning Commission. At this next meeting when the reconsider-
ation took place these two new individuals supported the site. Those
were the only two votes that were changed. The National Capital
Planning Commission was thus put on record as approving the site.
No one changed his mind.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
VOW 275
Mr. WTIGGI.ESwoRTlr. A 6 to 5 vote?
Mr. FISHER. 7 to 5 vote. The first man had abstained, Mr. Poorman
abstained the first time, and that vote was now on the other side. It
was a 7 to 5 vote the other way.
The Planning Commission then prepared its report discussing the
problems involved. That report has been submitted to the agency,
and if it is not already included in your record I would suggest it be
included.
(The report referred to is as follows:)
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION,
Washington 25, D. C., March 2,1956.
Mr. ALLEN W. DuLLEs,
Director, Central Intelligence Agency,
Washington 25, D. C.
DEAR Mn. DULLES. As indicated in my letter of February 6 and pursuant to your
request, the National Capital Planning Commission reviewed further your pro-
posal to establish a new headquarters for the Central Intelligence Agency at
Langley, Va,, and approved this proposal.
In its new findings the Commission has accorded overriding importance to the
emphasis placed upon your statements contained in your letter of January 23,
1956, that you are not free to select a location within the District and that by
virtue of emergency measures already taken it is important for you to locate on
the west side of the Potomac River and that you desire that the location be at
Langley.
The Commission has approved the enclosed final report prepared by a commit-
tee of the commission. The committee has set forth in this report the obstacles
which it feels must be overcome by the Federal and local governments to solve
problems connected with this site.
Sincerely yours,
IIARLAND BARTHOLOMEW, Chairman.
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION,
March 2,1956.
FINAL REPORT ON TIIE PROPOSAL TO LOCATE THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
HEADQUARTERS BUILDING AT LANGLEY, VA.
At the request of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National
Capital Planning Commission at its meeting on February 3, 1956, reconsidered the
action taken at its December meeting on the proposal to establish a new head-
quarters for the Agency at Langley, Va., and voted to approve the location con-
sidered by the Agency to be the nhost suitable site for its purposes.
The undersigned committee was appointed by the chairman to draft and submit
the final report on this proposal, as required by the National Capital Planning Act
of 1952. Membership of the committee includes those who have been for and
against the Langley site.
As the Commission had been very evenly divided in both its initial opposition
and subsequent approval of the Langley location, the committee has chosen to
present the differing points of view on the basic planning issues involved.
CONCERN OF COMMISSION AND COUNCIL IN DECISION
Fader the Planning Act of 1952, the Planning Commission and Regional Plan-
ning Council have collaborative responsibility to prepare and maintain a compre-
hensive plan for the development of the National Capital and its environs. As
the central planning agency for the Federal and District Governments, the Com-
mission has the prime duty of reviewing Federal agency development programs in
order to advise as to their consistency with the comprehensive plan.
It is now widely recognized that the most Important single factor influencing
the development and supporting the general economy of the Washington region
has been the growth and spread of Federal establishments. Consequently, the
Commission's 1950 comprehensive plan laid great emphasis on the size and loca-
tion of Government agencies. In order to produce an orderly and uniform ex-
pansion of the region, new Federal establishments which could be appropriately
located outside the central area were to be distributed on the periphery of ex-
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved F"kRelease 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-01R000500060006-5
276
fisting development or beyond, at such locations as to encourage local develop-
ment that would be harmonious with other requirements of the plan. Except
In Bethesda and Suitland, where commtiments had already been made, no single
installation larger than 5,000 employees was recommended. Furthermore, new
installations were located at least 5 miles from each other or from other large
established agencies.
The comprehensive plan, while serving as a general guide and directive for
decisions on Federal establishments, also sets forth a general philosophy on
land use and population distribution throughout the area. These basicpolicies
provide the foundation or reason for a regional thoroughfare plan and policies
for the provision of community facilities, such as water supply and sewage dis-
posal. The development of such plans is the joint and collaborative responsi-
bility of the National Capital Planning Commission and the Regional Planning
Council under the provisions of the 1952 Planning-Act.
IMPACT ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Commission's proposals for the location of future Federal establishments
in the environs of Washington did not contemplate a large Federal establish-
ment in the Langley area. On the contrary, its plan for the location of Federal
employees limited the number of those ultimately necessary to complete the
Public Roads Research Laboratory development, then estimated in round figures
not to exceed 1,000. The principal reasons for this were that the location lay
within an area traditionally developed and developing with small estates and
single-family homes of low density, which it was generally agreed as desirable
to encourage and protect. Furthermore, there was already located or committed
in the northwest sector outside of downtown Washington a disproportionately
large distribution of Federal employment, tending in the long run to encourage
an unbalanced and intensive growth in that direction.
To offset this tendency, the comprehensive plan proposed in the Virginia
sector generally west and southwest of the center, 4 locations for Federal estab-
lishments of approximately 5,000 employees each. These would have the effect
of stimulating intensive suburban growth of a satellite character in localities
where there is already established a nucleus for an urban environment and to
public facilities already projected or needed.
Whereas the location of 10,000 employees, more or less, at Langley does not
accord with the 1950 plan, a majority of the Commission believethat a revision
of the plan to accommodate CIA can be appropriately made. The minority does
not agree to this revision and believes that a location in Virginia west or south-
west of the center of Washington would promote growth of territory better
adapted for Intensive stimulation.
The position of the majority of the Commission is that there will be no adverse
long-range effect of the CIA installation upon the established land use of the sur-
rounding territory. They believe that in the immediate future employees will
continue to live very much where they now live and that traffic to and from the
Installation can be handled over bridges, highways and parkways already planned
though not necessarily programed. -
However, there is general agreement by both the Commission and the regional
council that improvements proposed In the Commission's report of December 16
will need to be programed at an earlier date to accommodate the traffic volumes
generated by the installation.
The other point of view, represented by the minority, is that there will be a
very profound effect upon the surrounding community with an installation of this
size. The reasoning is that inevitably there- will be created a demand for more
intensive development of tributary territory than has heretofore been contem-
plated. The fact that only about one-eighth of the employees of CIA own their
own homes lends- support to the viewpoint of the minority that a marked change
in land use for the Langley area is inevitable. The ensuing economic pressure
upon land will make it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for the Fairfax
County authorities to maintain. the same land use policies through zoning and
subdivision control that have heretofore been envisioned as most appropriate
and desirable for this area. This feeling is very strong among many property
owners in the Langley area, is widely supported by professionalplanners and,
perhaps most significantly, by the current waves of land speculation. In this
connection, the minority draws attention to the -change that- has taken place
in Arlington County since the construction of the Pentagon. - In 1940 nearly
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
277
three-fourths of the dwelling units in the county were of the single-family type.
Today, more than half of all units are apartments which have increased eightfold
against only a doubling of the single-family type.
The Langley site meets the general requirement, set forth in the Commission's
April resolution, that it be in close proximity to the outer circumferential. In
this respect, the location conforms with the Commission's proposed regional
thoroughfare plan, now generally accepted by the highway authorities. However,
the priority for construction of major features of that plan will have to be
advanced, as herein discussed, if it is proved that the traffic circulation facilities
which the installation will require are inadequate.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
The Regional Planning Council, in approving the Langley location last Decem-
ber, voted also to request that the Central Intelligence Agency request appropria-
tions for certain improvements which it considered would be needed at the time
the CIA headquarters is opened at Langley. The purpose of this action was, of
course, to implement planning recommendations to which the local or State
authorities were not financially committed.
It would seem that the first step toward putting into effect the Council's recom-
mendation would be the development and agreement upon a program setting
forth the specific community facilities required, and the estimates of cost and
methods of financing. The latter is particular important because of the different
jurisdictions involved and the necessity for coordination in the programing of
improvements. Following is a list and brief discussion of the important improve-
ments which the studies of the Commission and the Council during the last year
have revealed as being necessary to program definitely if the Langley site were
chosen.
George Washington Memorial Parkway
The construction of the George Washington Memorial Parkway from Spout Run
to Langley is universally accepted as having top priority. The Clarke-Itapuano
report also recommended that the parkway be extended to the Cabin John Bridge
along the useful segments of the outer loop, in which recommendation this com-
mittee concurs.
While the legislation authorizing the use of the Langley location anticipated
the construction of the parkway to Langley and provided for the allocation of
necessary funds, the land acquisition program cannot be completed without addi-
tional contributions from Virginia to match Federal funds already available or
to be made available for this purpose. Surveys and appraisals are required before
precise costs can be ascertained. In all probability, several hundred thousand
dollars will be needed from State and county authorities.
Other recommended projects
The regional planning council has recommended the following improvements be
financed at Federal expense concurrent with construction by the Agency unless
State or local financing is or can be secured :
(a) Route 123.-The widening to 4 lanes of Route 123 from Langley Corners
to Chain Bridge ($1,100,000). The State of Virginia has agreed to widen that
portion of Route 123 from Langley Corners to the parkway ($350,000).
(b) Glebe Road.-The widening of Glebe Road to 4 lanes from Lee Highway
to Chain Bridge, estimated to cost $1,300,000.
(c) Chain Bridge widening.-The District Highway Department has estimated
the widening of this structure to a capacity of 4 lanes to cost $1,350,000. The
studies made by Clarke and Rapuano and others indicate the need of additional
capacity at an early date, especially if present CIA employees are to be encouraged
to maintain their present residences. Otherwise, additional traffic will be brought
into and out of the central district over central area bridges, especially Key
Bridge.
(d) Canal Road and Weaver Place.-Required in connection with the widening
of Chain Bridge will be improvements to approach roads on the District side,
estimated at a cost of $900,000.
(e) Cabin John Bridge and segment of outer circumferential.-While the Cabin
John Bridge and the adjoining segments of the outer circumferential have been
endorsed by the Highway Departments of Maryland and Virginia and the Bureau
of Public Roads, no program for their financing and construction has been agreed
upon. Without this facility, transportation to and from the Langley site will
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved Release 2003/04/127,CIA-RDP80-01 R000500060006-5
be inadequate, causing serious congestion on existing highways. If the CIA
desires to locate at Langley, based in part upon the proximity to the outer loop,
the Agency should take the initiative in advancing the priority of this impor-
tant improvement by endorsing Federal aid to this end.
(f) Water supply and sewage disposal problems.-So far as the Agency is
concerned, it would seem to have solved its own immediate water and sewage
problems through commitments already made by Federal and local authorities.
Left unsolved, however, are services to any areas that may develop ahead of
scheduled improvements due to the CIA installation.
(g) Reservations for park and recreational needs.-Regardless of any stimulus
to local development from CIA, it has been estimated that, based on present
standards and ultimate development Of this section of Fairfax County at low
density, at least four times the present park and recreational area will be re-
quired to meet future needs. Shoud the growth of the area be accelerated, as
some anticipate, a program for financing advance acquisition of suitable open
lands according to the plan should be initiated by the county authorities.
All those who have favored the Langley site have expressed great confidence
in the ability of the county authorities, in cooperation with the interested
agencies of the Federal Government, to control the character and extent of de-
velopment which may either be required or which will take place as the result of
the CIA installation. A clear understanding of mutual responsibilities should be
formally established. To this end, it is suggested that the Central Intelligence
Agency enter into a form of agreement or memorandum of understanding as to
the policies of mutual concern that will be followed and financial responsibilities
undertaken.
More than a year ago consultants for the Fairfax County Planning Com-
mission completed a comprehensive plan for the county, including a land-use
plan, setting up standards generally designed to maintain the single-family, low-
density, open type of development for the Langley site.
CHECKLIST Or REFERENCE DATA RELATING TO CIA HEADQUARTERS LOCATION
National Capital Planning Commission' report :
Resolution dated April 8, 1955 (general criteria).
Committee report April 7, ].955.
Joint Commission-Council report on alternate sites.
Committee report, December 16, 1955.
National Capital Regional Planning Council :
Staff summary report, March 11, 1955.
Staff report, March 31, 1955.
Committee report, April 7, 1955.
Staff report and recommendation, December 5, 1955.
Member statements approving Langley.
Fairfax County : Resolutions inviting CIA to county.
Central Intelligence Agency : Report of Clarke & Rapuano, October 25, 1955.
Other consultant reports :
Consultant-Draper report.
Consultant-Upham report.
Miscellaneous reports, documents, and letters :
Committee of 100.
Virginia Department of Highways.
Alexandria Chamber of Commerce.
Fairfax Chamber of Commerce.
Federal City Council.
Washington Board of Trade.
Citizens organizations.
Letters from many interested citizens.
The report includes a covering letter from Mr. Bartholomew dated
March 2, 1956, pointing out the many planning problems involved in
locating at Langley and includes the recommendations of the com-
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17: CIA-RDP80-01370RE 00D500060006-5
279 WW
mittee which prepared the report, which was endorsed by the Com-
mission, that substantial additional Federal funds were required for
immediate road improvements beyond those visualized.
Mr. WIGGLESwoRTII. Does it specify how much?
ADDITIONAL ROADS SYSTEMS REQUIRED
Mr. FISHER. It indicates the roads systems that are required. The
Regional Planning Council has since then established a committee
to prepare cost estimates on these. There was some pubilicity about
their meeting earlier this month. The final report of the Regional
Planning Council committee, which totals some $30 million worth of
additional roads, not all of which are to be borne by the Federal
Government
Mr. WIGGLEswoRTII. Is that over and above the eight?
Mr. FISHER. The $30 million figure includes the $81/2 million, and
some of those they recommend be borne by State authorities.
The minimum roads which the Commission and the Council ap-
parently unanimously believed were required are those shown on
this map in solid red and dashed red lines.
This is the parkway and this is the proposed site.
Chain Bridge, here, must be widened to four lanes. CIA's own
consultants recommend six lanes.
We have here the widening of Arizona Avenue, Canal Road, and
the widening of 123 up to the site. None of these have been committed
or promised by any authority except that Virginia has indicated that
it will widen this distance of 1.3 miles on Route 123.
This section of the parkway from the site to the Cabin John Bridge
is needed but is not included in CIA's request.
Here we have the Cabin John Bridge and the outer belt highway
from Route 240 in Maryland at least as far as Route 7 in Virginia.
These are all included in the recommendation of the Planning Com-
mission and the Planning Council as being necessary for completion
when the building is completed.
This bypass around Langley and McLean was not included in their
recommendations, but both the State and the county are so concerned
over the congestion through Langley and McLean that they have plans
and are surveying this right-of-way for immediate use. Where they
will get the money they do not know. If they get a road plan they
will come back to see where they can get help to construct that road.
Mr. RILEY. Without objection a copy of the report will be inserted
in the record at this point.
(The information is as follows:)
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
Report of the committee on community facilities needed in the vicinity of
Langley, Va., in relation to the new headquarters building for the CIA
The Regional Council directed this committee to carefully analyze all of the
community facilities that have been proposed to service the headquarters build-
ing for the Central Intelligence Agency in the vicinity of Langley, Va., and submit
requirements with estimated cost as well as the jurisdiction which should be
responsible for the programing. This report will have the purpose of alerting
the responsible Federal, State, and local governmental agencies as to their part in
programing this project on a coordinated basis.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved Fcelease 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-013000500060006-5
280
The committee, after reviewing the problem, was of the opinion that the report
should be in three parts, the first having to do with highway and bridge needs
which are the primary facilities, to be programed, and represent a large portion
of the hosts. The second part has to do with the need for a special program dur-
ing the construction period, to be sure that present traffic needs can be served
with minimum disruption. The third part will be to reiterate, in line with the
stated desires of the county and Agency, those phases of the local planning
process which must be accomplished to insure the orderly development of the
Langley area according to plan.
I. HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES
The following projects are recommended by the committee as needs that should
be provided concurrent with construction of the headquarters building.
A map has been prepared (plate 1) to facilitate your study of this report. The
recommended projects are shown on the map with the corresponding numbers.
(1) Route 123 (Virginia) from Langley Corner (Route 193) to the George
Washington Memorial Parkway. This highway is to be widened from the exist-
ing narrow, 2-lane road, to a -4-lane divided highway. This highway at the
present time is the only route giving access to the Langley property and will in
the future be an integral part of the approach network, both north and south,
carrying commercial as well as passenger vehicles.
This project is estimated at $350,000,.and is committed by the Virginia Depart-
ment of Highways to be constructed concurrently with the parkway.
(2) Route 123 (Virginia) from the parkway to Chain Bridge. This is a
continuation of project (1) upgrading this facility from a 2-lane road to a 4-
lane divided highway serving as the approach road from the Chain Bridge
crossing to the site. The Regional' Council in its action approving this report
recommended that both projects (1) and (2) be considered as a single unit
functionally in relation to the approach network. This project is estimated
to cost $750,000 and is presently uncommitted. It is recommended that this
project be assumed along with (1) by the State of Virginia.
(3) Glebe Road (Route 120, Virginia) from Lee Highway to Chain Bridge.
This is an important facility giving access to Route 123 and Chain Bridge from
a heavily populated section of Northern Arlington County. This highway is
presently a narrow, winding 2-lane road and is proposed to be widened to
a 4-lane divided highway including acquisition of new rights-of-way to provide
for better alinement. This project is estimated to cost $2,200,000 and is not
committed at this time. The Committee recommends that the State of Vir=
ginia be responsible for the programing of this project.
(4) Chain Bridge widened to 4-lanes. This project is essential to provide
required capacity to serve the improved approach roads. This project is
estimated to cost $1,350,000 and is not presently committed.
(5) Canal Road and Weaver Place improvements (District of Columbia)..
This improvement is essential. to provide additional capacity to serve the Chain
Bridge, Glebe Road and Route 123 improvements. This project is estimated
to cost $900,000 and is not committed.
(6) George Washington Memorial Parkway from Spout Run to the Langley
site (Virginia). This improvement completes the parkway as an access road
continuously from the centralarea bridges to the site. This project is estimated
to cost $8,500,000. The Congress has committed construction funds for this
project concurrent with the approval of the Langley site for the headquarters
building. The State of Virginia and Fairfax County are responsible for one-
half (25 percent from each) of the cost of land acquisition. The National
Capital Planning Commission is responsible for the remaining one-half of
the cost of land acquisition in behalf of the Federal Government. The ac-
quisition funds are currently available through the Federal, State, and local
agencies. Some adjustment may be requiied in line with current land costs.
(7) George Washington Memorial Parkway from the Langley site north to
the Cabin John Bridge and circumferential highway (Virginia). This. project
gives high standard access north and east from Virginia and Maryland populated
areas. The cost of this project is estimated at $2,250,000 and is not committed
at this time. The Committee recommends that the Federal Government be
responsible for the construction and one-half of the cost of land acquisition
(National Capital Planning Commission) with the State of Virginia and Fair-
fax County jointly being responsible for the remaining one-half of the cost
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-01370ROOQ500060006-5
281
for land acquisition. Current status of land-acquisition funds indicate that
preliminary action is being taken to provide for the Federal one-half of the
land-acquisition moneys.
(8) Cabin John Bridge and approaches. This facility is essential in the
approach network from the north relating to the circumferential in Virginia
and Maryland and the parkway south. This project is estimated to cost
$7,100,000 and is uncommitted at this time. The Committee recommends that
the appropriate Federal agency be responsible, in particular as a part of the
Interstate Highway System on the proposed 90-10 matching formula now
before the Congress. The States would be responsible for their share.
(9) Circumferential highway from Route 7 to Cabin John Bridge (Virginia).
This facility would provide distribution on the Virginia side providing a more
balanced flow of traffic to the access points such as the Langley and central
areas. This project is estimated at $4,100,000 and is uncommitted at this time.
The Committee recommends that it be constructed as a part of the Interstate
Highway System dependent for programing in the highway legislation now
before Congress. On this basis it would be eligible for construction under
the 90-10 financing formula with the State paying its share. The Committee
also suggests that this project be set up as phase I with the section of the
circumferential from Jones Point to Shirley Highway as phase H. That section
from Route 7 to Route U. S. 50 as phase III, and from U. S. 50 to Shirley
Highway as phase IV. No cost estimates were available for phases II, III,
and IV.
(10) Circumferential highway from Cabin John Bridge to U. S. 240 (Mary-
land). This improvement would serve as a distributor on the Maryland side
serving the northwest section with access to the Langley site as well as the
central area. This improvement is estimated to cost $4,331,000 and is presently
committed in the early portion of the Maryland 12-year program. The Com-
mittee recommends that it be constructed as a part of the Interstate Highway
System eligible for 90--10 financing under the legislation now before the Con-
gress. The State would be responsible for its share. The Committee also rec-
ommends that the balance of the circumferential be constructed in accordance
with the Interstate Highway program because of its importance as a distributor
route on the Maryland side.
The Committee also recommends that the appropriate State and county author-
ities study traffic requirements related to certain other facilities in Virginia
such as Route 123, Route 193, Route 309, Route 693, Ball's Hill Road, Mackneal
Road, Great Falls Road and any others in order that needed improvements be
fitted into their program.
The Committee hesitated at this time to assign priorities to all the needed
highway and bridge facilities since there are a number that must be constructed
concurrently with the headquarters building. However, after discussion of the
overall needs, the Committee agreed that the Cabin John Bridge should be given
highest priority in the uncommitted improvements.
The Committee is of the opinion that it is important for the Agency to work
out with the appropriate Federal, and State, and local agencies a coordinated plan
to handle the construction program to allow minimum disruption of existing
daily traffic in the vicinity of Langley. It is conceivable that the widening of
Route 123, the construction of the parkway and the construction of the building
will be going on simultaneously. Unless this is programed in advance the 1,600
plus automobiles per lane in the morning and evening peaks now using Route
123, Glebe Road, and Chain Bridge will be seriously disrupted. Also the con-
struction traffic generated with slow-moving trucks hauling materials will add
to this problem.
Since the agency and the county both emphasized during the consideration of
this matter the importance of maintaing the present character of this area as
nearly as possible, the committee respectfully emphasizes the prime importance
of adopting a comprehensive plan as a key element to the programing of this
project. This action will strengthen the zoning and subdivision controls neces-
sary in implementing the plan.
This step will establish the basis for determining present and future require.
ment for the following important community facilities :
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved F 2elease 2003/04/1728 IA-RDP80-013000500060006-5
(a) Water supply.-The committee in reviewing the present source of supply
finds that there should be an adequate supply of water through the Falls Church
system by the time the building is ready for occupancy. At the present time,
Falls Churchis purchasing water, by contract, from Arlington County which is
serviced by the line across Chain Bridge. This contract stipulates that should
Arlington County find it necessary to terminate the agreement they must give
Falls Church sufficient time to supplement their source of supply. The city of
Falls Church by agreement with the Corps of Engineers dated December 1, 1954,
has deposited funds for the construction of a 36-inch main in the new Little Falls
Dam now being constructed. The city of Falls Church still has to provide funds
for a connection to the Dalecarlia plant on the District of Columbia side and a
line from the dam to their system on the Virginia side. The Falls Church Water
Department stated in October 1955, by letter, that funds required to complete
this system are in their capital budget with construction presently scheduled to
be started in fiscal 1958 and completed by 1960. However the letter states that
should the system be required sooner their plans are elastic enough to permit
completion at an earlier date.
(b) Sewage treatment.-The committee agreed that the present commitments
by the county should provide adequate facilities for the headquarters building.
These commitments are in the form of a letter to the agency stating that the
county will provide a line immediately available to the property with no cost
to be borne by the Federal Government. The committee suggests that care be
exercised in order to- meet the standards established by the Corps of Engineers
and the Interstate Commission of the Potomac River Basin relating to river
pollution.
(c) Park and recreation needs.-The committee emphasizes the importance
of planning and acquiring the needed sites prior to the development of the area,
while land values are reasonable.
(d) School site.-Here again the committee suggests early acquisition of
sites according to the plan before the development takes place.
DONALD E. GINGERY, Chairman.
JOHN. W. BROOKFIELD.
Brig. Gen. TnOa[As A. LANE.
FREmrRicK A. GUTIIEIM.
Roy BRAGG.
May-29, 1956.
Mr. FISHER. The covering letter to the report of the National Capi-
tal Planning Commission points out :
In its new findings the Commission has accorded overriding importance to
the emphasis placed upon your statements contained in your letter of January
23, 1956, that you [Mr. Dulles] are not free to select a location within the
District and that by virtue of emergency measures already taken it is important
for you to locate on the west side of the Potomac River and that you desire
that the location be at Langley.
There are three points to which overriding importance was given
by the Commission, even after this double switch and the reverse vote.
I would like to touch on each one of those briefly.
The first is his statement that lie was not free to select a location
within the District. This is based on the understanding in the fall
of 1954, at the time CIA was granted an exception to the dispersal
regulations. Those regulations were modified in January of this year
and the head of each agency is now the one who is to make the de-
cision as to the location of his site. -
Mr. MAHON. Do you take a position that probably it should be lo-
cated in the District?
Mr. Fisrian. I take the position that the District would. be a great
deal better, from every point of view, than the Langley site. - -
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
283
Mr. MAIION. Why do you not amplify your remarks for the record
on that point?
Mr. F1suna. I appreciate the opportunity of doing so.
(The following was submitted by Mr. Fisher in amplification : )
The advantages of locating the CIA within the District have been.apparent
to all. Last year, when testifying about the proposed building before the
Senate Appropriations Committee Mr. Allen Dulles himself said : "I would prefer
personally to build it in Washington."
The District Commissioners have urged CIA to stay in Washington, as have
all of the Washington newspapers. Civic organizations as well have supported
selection of a site within the District.
Three reasons have been advanced for not locating in the District :
(1.) Traffic congestion.
(2) Dispersal against enemy attack.
(3) Ready access to an evacuated location in the event of attack.
There is no merit in any one of them.
1. Traffic congestion.-Mr. Dulles before the Senate committee last year said
that there was a "feeling" in the executive branch that CIA should not be
located where it "would further aggravate the traffic problems of the District."
Apparently it was assumed without study that to locate in the District would
do so. The facts are exactly contrary.
To stay in the District would cause no increased congestion since CIA is now
in the District. To locate at Langley would require many employees who other-
wise could use public transportation to drive cars through the District.
The inner-loop highway and Constitution Avenue Bridge will result in CIA
personnel causing less congestion in the District than they do now.
That this is the correct factual situation is confirmed in Engineer-Commissioner
Thomas Lane's letter of December 23, 1953, the full text of which is as follows :
Mr. ROGER FISHER,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. FISHER : I am writing in reply to your letter of November 29, 1955,
inquiring whether the location of the Central Intelligence Agency would aggra-
vate traffic congestion here whereas the location at Langley would relieve con-
gestion in the District.
The effects of such a facility on traffic will depend upon the specific location
selected ; therefore, only general answers can be given to your inquiry.
As you know, the present facilities of CIA are located in several areas of
Washington, D. C., with the central office at 24th and E Streets NW. The Wash-
ington locations afford ready access from all the suburban areas, as is demon-
strated by the fact that employees of the Agency live in all these areas. The
programed early construction of the new Constitution Avenue Bridge and of the
south leg of the Inner Loop Freeway will insure the continued ready access from
suburban areas in the years ahead. The retention of CIA in the District of
Columbia would not create any general traffic conditions which have not already
been anticipated in our planning, although local effects would, of course, vary
with the particular site used.
The move of the Central Intelligence Agency to Langley would have its prin-
cipal effect upon the District of Columbia in the changed demands upon bridges
and connecting roads. It would move the desired crossing points of many Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency employees from the lower river where bridges are avail-
able and adequate additions have been planned, to the upper river where no
early expansion program is contemplated. As you know, the Central Intelligence
Agency feels that the traffic routes used by its employees can be controlled to
avoid excessive congestion at the Chain and Key Bridges.
It does not appear that any more specific predictions about the effects of the
Central Intelligence Agency location are practicable at this time.
Sincerely yours,
T. A. LANE,
Brigadier General, United States Army,
Engineer Commissioner.
GOVERNMENT Or THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
ExECUTIVE OFFICES,
Washington, D. C., December 23, 1055.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved^ Release 2003/04/1yiCIA-RDP80-O1ftROOO500060006-5
In short to keep CIA in the District would eventually reduce rather than
increase traffic congestion.
2. Dispersal against enemy attack.-The original and basic reason for locat-
ing CIA outside the District, decided upon in 1954, was to reduce the vulnerability
of the Capital to an enemy attack. Since then CIA has been given full authority
to weigh for itself the competing considerations. CIA has decided that day-to-day
convenience of operation is more important than the safety factor of distance
from the Capital. Langley has no dispersal advantage as it lies within the
assumed area of total distruction.
3. Ready access to an evacuated location in the event of attack.-In January
1956, Mr. Dulles wrote to the National Capital Planning Commission :
"It is important to us to have the Agency headquarters situated on the west
side of the Patomac in order to conform with emergency measures that already
have been taken."
This apparently refers to the desirability of CIA personnel being able to reach
the evacuation communication center established for CIA some distance from
Washington on that side of the Potomac.
It is a fallacious argument advanced for the first time more than 6 months
after CIA decided they wanted to go to Langley. It assumes that it will be
easier to evacuate on a winding country road from Langley than on the many
mulitple-lane highways leading from the Key, Memorial, and Constitution Ave-
nue Bridges.
I would like to submit the following memorandum as a serious discussion of the
security and dispersal factors.
MEMORANDUM : SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING Two ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS
OF CIA
The two alternatives considered are as follows :
The first is to locate the entire agency in one building or group of buildings
at Langley, Va., about a mile and a half from the District line. The second
alternative is to locate something more than half the agency within the District
readily convenient to the other agencies served and some smaller portion in a
different building at a truly dispersed location. It is understood that the agency
would be glad to locate some portion of the agency at a site meeting all dispersal
standards.
The two advantages of moving away from the center of an assumed target
area are: (a) Lessened risk of damage to the structure and personnel by a
bomb blast ; and (b) increased. ease of evacuation from the target area. The
Langley site is on exposed high ground less than 2 miles from the District line.
It is about the same distance from the zero milestone as the corners of the Dis-
trict Itself. A circle with a 5-mile radius will easily include the Langley site,
the Pentagon, the Capitol, and all of downtown Washington.
The lessened risk of damage in locating at Langley compared with locating
within the District is slight. This is particularly true as the size of the in-
stallation would be large enough to justify special attention in any attack.
From the point of view of increased ease of evacuation the situation at
Langley is not good : The evacuation from Langley would presumably be by
Route 193 leading northwest to Route -7 and then on that two lane highway.
Route 193 is too narrow to carry two parallel lines of cars at any but a slow
speed. Further, the four-lane parkway would stop at Langley causing a major
bottleneck at the very point where CIA personnel would be imposed on the
evacuation route.
From a District site near where CIA is now located, evacuation would be
across the new eight-lane Constitution Avenue Bridge and then by any one of
several major highways. There would be a further distance to travel from the
District but the better highway position would appear to compensate for that.
In short, the Langley site would appear to have no advantage over the District
from the point of view of ease of evacuation.
The suggested alternative of locating a major part of the agency within the
District and a minor part in a secure spot at a safe distance from Washington
would appear to have substantial advantages. Those functions requiring day-to-
day contact with other agencies could be located within walking distance of the
State Department and with optimum efficiency for all peacetime operations.
Laboratories, long-range study projects and other functions not requiring such
contact could be located well away from the District.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 2: cIA-RDP80-01370R00~05500060006-5
In the event of attack there would be fewer employees requiring evacuation
from the Washington area. Regardless of damage to that area the agency would
have available a substantial nucleus from which it could carry on its vital post-
attack intelligence functions. The dispersal branch of the agency would be small
enough so as not to constitute by itself a probable target.
There would undoubtedly be some inconvenience to the agency resulting from
having a branch building at a dispersed location. This inconvenience in peace-
time operations might be no greater than that which would exist were the
entire agency located at Langley. From the point of view of being prepared
against every attack and considering the security requirements of postattack
operational capability, there can be no doubt but that to locate the agency at
Langley would be worse than to locate the bulk of the agency within the Dis-
trict and a part of it at a truly dispersed site.
The desirability and advantages of a District site have been explored in detail
by the Federal City Council, which has pointed out the severe economic loss to
the community which would result if CIA were to locate elsewhere. I would
like to submit for the record the recommendations of Mr. Francis G. Addison,
chairman, and Mr. George Garrett, president of the Federal City Council.
Mr. Addison is a former president of the Washington Board of Trade, presi-
dent of the Security Bank and an outstanding local civic leader. Mr. Garrett is
a former United States Ambassador to Ireland and was appointed by President
Eisenhower as his personal representative to clear up problems in Washington's
urban redevelopment program.
FEDERAL CITY COUNCIL
To : Mr. Allen Dulles, Director, Central Intelligence Agency.
From : Mr. Francis G. Addison, chairman. and Mr. George Garrett, president,
Federal City Council.
Subject : Report on site recommendations.
Studies undertaken by the Federal City Council indicate that a District site
for the new headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency is a must from every
standpoint-economic, geographic, and engineering. No effort should be spared
to secure a decision favorable to such a location.
At least two choice sites are available within the District. They are : (a)
CIA's present location and its surrounding area ; and (b) the area now occupied
by the National Training School For Boys.
Our studies were based on CIA's special requirements concerning traveling
time and distance, area and topography, accessibility and facilities, availability
and cost. They show that a District site for CIA is imperative because it would :
(1) Avert severe economic losses to our community, which would result if
CIA were to locate elsewhere ;
(2) Minimize construction costs, and engineering and personnel problems
of the agency itself.
The council studies indicate that many of the obstacles which originally pre-
vented CIA from selecting a site within the District are no longer present.
Results of this study formed the basis of our letters to you and to Commissioner
Samuel Spencer December 21, urging that every possible effort be exerted to find
a District site. The importance of the goal was further agreed to at a meeting
December 30 between our council's CIA site committee and the District Com-
missioners.
At a meeting of our executive committee January 9, it was decided that a
brief report on the two best site possibilities which emerged from our study, be
prepared and submitted to you for consideration at our January 18 conference on
CIA sites.
Facts in the following report represent expert engineering advice. They have
been carefully checked and doublechecked from the standpoint of traffic, water
supply, sanitary sewers, and physical characteristics. Potentialities of both sites
presented have been discussed with the District Commissioners' Office, National
Capital Planning Commission, and National Capital Regional Planning Council.
The most desirable single site for CIA would be the agency's present location
and its surrounding area.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved -^ Release 2003/04/17 2: CIA-RDP80-0' 1R000500060006-5
This is the judgment of top technicians, who point out that in terms of travel-
ing time, accessibility, traffic and existing facilities, this area is superior to most
others.
The entire area includes 72 acres, and is bounded by the following streets:
Virginia Avenue and New HalnpshireAvenue on the north, Constitution Avenue
on the south, Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway on the west and 23d Street on
the east.
About one-fourth of the area is federally owned. Among buildings now located
on it are those used by the Navy Department and CIA ; the old Christian Heurich
Brewing Co. (soon to close down) ; 'various temporary Federal buildings and
parking spaces ; and a roller skating rink, now being used for CIA office space.
The region is a major hub of Washington's radial system of streets and high-
ways. This means it would be easily accessible to the estimated 50 percent of
CIA employees now living the District, as well as to those who are non-District
residents.
Employees from the Northwest and! Maryland, for example, could use any of a
number of possible downtown approaches, ranging from 13th Street to Canal
Road. This would permit use of such central arteries as 13th and 16th Streets,
and Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues. Virginia workers could travel most
of the way to their offices over such major highways as Jefferson Davis, Wilson,
Lee, Columbia Turnpike, and Arlington Boulevard.
In addition to these existing roads, future improvements are now being planned
(the inner loop and new bridge) which will boost the area's traffic adequacy.
Location at this site would apparently not require transit companies to develop
any new services. The area is served by all leading transit lines in the District,
Virginia, and Maryland.
Moreover, in terms of traveling time, the region is close to the White House
and State Department, National Airport, and Union Station.
Because no new highways, facilities, or transit services would be required, the
savings in cost over any other location would obviously be tremendous even if
the construction cost itself were higher.
Any inadequacies in outside parking area which may exist in the area would
be largely offset by the fact that fewer parking facilities will be needed due to
the central location and excellent transit facilities.
The central location would also minimize losses to the agency of clerical em-
ployees-losses which, according to professional planners and CIA's own adminis-
trators would be of serious concern were a non-District site selected:
All of these advantages led the National Capital Planning Commission to
adopt a resolution on April 8, 1955, that serious consideration be given to the
area surrounding CIA's present site, as the location for its new headquarters.
This resolution still stands.
Availability : NCPC state's CIA's requirtements can be met.
NATIONAL TRAINING SCHOOL FOR BOYS
The other top choice for a CIA site within the District, according to the Federal
City Council study, is the National Training School area. Although this lacks
some of the traffic advantages of the Northwest site, it possesses other features
which account for its high ratings.
One major asset of this area is provided by its topography, and surroundings.
The site is bounded completely on the north by Fort Lincoln Cemetery, and par-
tially on the south by the National Arboretum. Its western side is flanked by
the Anacostia River and recreational area.
The area itself includes 201 acres, consisting of several high ridges and a cen-
tral valley coming down from the cemetery side. A building of the dimensions
needed by CIA could be constructed in this pocket, and be screened from the
roads by tall ridges on the south.
These unique features make the Training School area an ideal choice from the
security viewpoint.
Most authorities interviewed by FCC rate the site "above average" on traffic
and accessibility. It is located on the rim of the city's radial street system,
rather than at the hub, as is the Northwest region. However, it is directly on
the Baltimore-Washington Highway, which ties into South Dakota Avenue, New
York Avenue, and Bladensburg Road-all central approaches to the city.
CIA workers from Northwest Washington could get to their offices by using the
following connecting link of streets : South Dakota Avenue, Riggs Road, Missouri
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR00500060006-5
NNW 287
Avenue, and Military Road. When the intermediate loop is completed, it will
provide an across-town thoroughfore which would make this site even more con-
venient to Northwest workers than CIA's present site.
The area is served by two District bus lines, and one trolley line. Mass transit
downtown is provided on nearby Bladensburg Road.
As in the case of the Northwest area, little extension of water, sewer, gas and
electrical facilities would be needed to service any new Federal Buildings con-
structed on the site.
In its master plan of 1050, the National Capital Planning Commission ear-
marked this area for installation of Federal offices. At that time, it was con-
templated these offices would house only 5,000 employees. However, spokesmen
say the area could probably accommodate a building housing 10,000 to 15,000
workers.
Availability : Immediate, since the area is federally owned, largely unoccupied,
arld the Government can dispose of it in any way desired.
It is clear that the potentialties of both these areas would make either a desir-
able site for CIA's new headquarters.
It is equally clear that previous objections to location of CIA within the Dis-
trict no longer exist.
These objections centered mainly around the fear of increased traffic, and the
need, as then visualized, for dispersing key agencies in anticipation of possible
enemy attack.
Subsequent studies have shown the traffic fears to be groundless. See Decem-
ber 23 letters of Brig. Gen. Thomas A. Lane, USA, Engineer Commissioner, which
reads in part * * " "Retention of CIA in the District would not create any gen-
eral traffic conditions which have not already been anticipated in our plan-
ning * * *"
It is also understood that under new dispersal policies announced by ODM
January 11, there would be no official objections to CIA's locating within the
District, if the agency selected such a site on its own initiative.
Mr. FISHER. Mr. Dulles stated last year that he personally preferred
to locate in the District but was precluded by the decision of the exe-
cutive agency. He so testified before the Senate Appropriations Com-
mittee and I believe before this committee.
Mr. MAIION. I think you would agree that there is a lot of con-
gestion in the District, and many, many important agencies here.
There is certainly considerable merit to the idea of some degree of dis-
persal.
Mr. FISHER. I would like to call your attention to a letter from Gen-
eral Lane, District Commissioner, concerning the traffic congestion
problem in the District. This is a letter of his of December 23, 1955,
tome. I wrote him asking about this problem.
As you know, the present facilities of CIA are located in several areas of Wash-
ington, D. C., with the Central Office at 24th and E streets NW. The Washington
locations afford ready access from all the suburban areas, as is demonstrated by
the fact that employees of the Agency live in all these areas. The programed
early construction of the new Constitution Avenue Bridge and of the south leg of
the Inner Loop Freeway will insure the continued ready access from suburban
areas in the years ahead. The retention of CIA in the District of Columbia
would not create any general traffic conditions which have not already been
anticipated in our planning, although local effects would, of course, vary with
the particular site used.
The move of the Central Intelligence Agency to Langley would have its prin-
cipal effect upon the District of Columbia in the changed demands upon bridges
and connecting roads. It would move the desired crossing points of many Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency employees from the lower river where bridges are avail-
able and adequate additions have been planned, to the upper river where no early
expansion program is contemplated.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved F ru'elease 2003/04/17: CIA-RDP80-013'000500060006-5
288
To leave CIA in the District is not bringing a new installation into
the District. At the present time other installations are being moved
out. This Would simply be keeping employees who now work in the
District.
They are constructing the Inner Loop Highway and the Constitu-
tion Avenue Bridge, which would serve the District area they now
work in. In the opinion of General Lane, this will make that site more
readily accessible by far than the site in Virginia.
I was confused by the Statements of the Agency that they were not.
free to locate in the District. I requested clarification and received
from the White House the statement that the head of the Agency con-
cerned was responsible for determining whether the nature of the
activity for such a new facility which is to be constructed would permit
the use of dispersal. It was indicated that he is responsible for bal-
ancing requirements of postattack operational capability against day-
to-day efficiency, and that the requirement of getting an exception
from the ODM was no longer in force ; that administratively no one
had told the CIA they could not locate in the District as of the first
of this year.
The agency itself apparently recognized that, because they now turn
and ,say that because of Congress they are not free to locate in the
District.
In going to the Planning Commission the Agency stated that :
Our authorization and appropriation were obtained with the clear understand-
ing that while we were exempted from dispersal we would at the same time
definitely not locate in the District of Columbia, but rather on the fringe of the
metropolitan area of Greater Washington.
So they recognize that the administrative restriction is not now appli-
cable, but they say that congressional action is binding. Last year
Congress was told they could not do anything about it because the
Executive had decided they had to locate outside the District.
It seems to me that the Planning Commission's approval of the
Langley site, considering it as advice to Congress as to where CIA
should locate, was based on a complete misunderstanding. The ap-
proval was based on a categorical statement that CIA could not locate
in the District. But for that, the implication is that the Planning
Commission would not have approved the site.
I suggest that Congress should leave open the possibility of locating
in the District and should not consider the Agency as required by
congressional action to locate outside the District when, as a matter
of fact, the last report written on the subject by Congress last year
stated that further study should be given to the site and that the
action was not meant to preclude or include any particular site.
IMPORTANCE OF SITE BEING LOCATED ON WEST BANK OF POTOMAC
The second consideration to which overriding importance was given
by the Planning Commission was CIA's statement that security con-
siderations required them to locate on the west: bank of the Potomac.
I have had a harder time tracing this one down. Apparently there is
a desire to keep in contact with the communications center established
out in the Blue Ridge for postattack conditions. If that is so, the
Constitution Avenue Bridge, with 6 or 8 lanes access across to.the
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-01370R500060006-5
289 ftw
entire multiple group of highways, would be a better place to start.
from than a location at Langley.
If it is based on the assumption that the bridges would be knocked
out and they will not be able to cross the bridges, I think it is a little
out of date. If the bridges are knocked out, with an attack of that,
size there will not be very many people trying to get across them
after they are knocked out.
I have talked with those who are both inside and outside of the
Government, with those persons responsible for the dispersal pro-
gram. It is the opinion of those to whom I have spoken that the
Agency would be better prepared for its day-to-day efficiency if some
90 percent or so of it were located in the District, with ready access
to the State Department and the Defense Department, and others.
Those few functions which do not have to be in daily contact : the
longer range research projects, the laboratories; perhaps 5 or 10 per-
cent of the Agency, which would require a substantial building, none-
theless, could be constructed and located in a truly dispersed location,
so that you would have a going nucleus in case of attack.
The location at Langley is far enough away so that you do not
have the convenience of ready access for discussions. On the other
hand, it is well within the total destruction area for the size bombs
now being considered. It is born of the unhappy compromise in 1954
between Mr. Dulles' desire for a District site and the ODM desire for
true dispersal.
The third consideration mentioned in Dulles' letter to the
Planning Commission, to which the Planning Commission gave over-
riding importance, was the statement that Mr. Dulles preferred to lo-
cate at Langley. He has indicated that he contemplates a fine building
which would have very desirable working conditions.
Last year, when he was requesting appropriations, it was spoken of
in terms of an economy structure, reinforced concrete, courtyard-type
building, 7 floors. There was some language that it would be:
A building of utility.
No frills.
Down to earth.
A minimum-type building.
Not a show place.
A practical-type construction that leans toward utilitarian aspects.
These are quotes from Mr. Dulles and some from the committee mem-
bers in discussing the matter at that time.
When he went before the Planning Commission he drew a some-
what different picture. I want to read to you a newspaper account of
that :
Mr. Dulles told the National Capital Planning Commission that he would con-
struct a group of dignified buildings similar to those on the campus at Princeton,
each with its own grove of trees and parking space. He said he thought Federal
employees deserved better working quarters than the present massive buildings,
and that he hoped to set up a new pattern for them in his CIA headquarters.
I heard his discussion that day and the personal enthusiasm with
which he visualized being able to have attractive grounds and parking
areas that would compete with the uniforms of the military and with
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060006-5
 Approved Frelease 2003/04/17 : CIIA-RDP80-013000500060006-5
290
the titles of the diplomatic service, so that he would be able to attract
and keep a higher type Government servant for a longer period-if
only he could have a campus-like atmosphere on the bluff at the site
at Langley I
I think his enthusiasm has carried him away. We each have our
biased point of view.
My impression is that those Government employees who take a job
and keep i1; because of the view, because of the park or because of
convenience are not those who'; are doing the most effective work for
the Government.
I think that in trying to build the agency with props of bushes and
trees he has made a mistake, and that Congress is the one to say :
"Whoa; no superclass employees with parks and parking lots for each
one."
SEWAGE PROBLEM IN LANGLEY AREA
The final consideration which I should like to call to your attention
is, I think, perhaps the most serious of all from the planning point
of view. It is the problem of the pollution of the Potomac River, and
the misapplication of incentives by locating this large agency just
above the water intake for the District supply. The new water intake
will be located right down here [indicating] where the dam is now
being constructed, about a half mile below the CIA site.
Eventually both aqueducts at Great Falls are to be abandoned and
the entire District water supply will be picked up at this point
[indicating-J.
This is the Fairfax County area line. Above that point, in a tri-
angle coming back toward Tyson's Corner, that way [indicating], is
an area which has no sewage facilities now and for' which none are
included in the county's plan for the period up to 1980. They have
laid out the bond issues and so forth for the proposed sewage. No
facilities are planned to serve this area.
The prior administration of the county committed itself to provide
sewage facilities for the building. They have so far not obtained
permission to put the effluent even in Pimmit Run, which is contrary
to the overall program of reducing pollution in the Potomac River.
Mr. MAHON. Where would the effluent be put?
Mr. FISHER. From the building the effluent would be put in at Pim-
mit Run, just below Chain Bridge, and below the water intake.
A building of 8,000 to 10,000 people is larger in office space than any
other Government building now existing in this country, except the
Pentagon. That is what they are talking about building here.
This will, as you have suggested, induce people to come out and
build. The chamber of commerce certainly thinks so. The building
industry certainly thinks so. There will be it lot of new people mov-
ing in.
The area where people normally build, from installations, is a pie-
shaped piece running out from the town. You can get the cheapest
land with the shortest commuting distance to the buildings. This
entire area [indicating] would be either without sewage facilities,
or you would have a rash of small sewage-treatment plants putting
effluent into the Potomac River.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR00~055_.00060006-5
291
There was a very tough fight last summer, when a small plant on
Scott Run was proposed to be brought in here [indicating]. That
was stopped after a, whole series of hearings.
I am not sure we will withstand the pressure. Already it has been
suggested in Fairfax County that the Federal Government ought to
pay for the construction of a canal or open sewer on the Virginia
side of the Potomac to catch all of the polluted streams that would
be coming in and keep them from contaminating the water supply.
This costly scheme would be so that we could go ahead with develop-
ment, because of the agency coming out here, and the fact that there
would be the need. This proposal, I take it, is not being taken too
seriously, but does indicate the serious threat of pollution of the
Potomac River, which would follow development of the area.
(forts are being taken by all agencies involved to reduce the
present pollution. The Federal Government now has the opportunity
of selecting a location in the Washington area for the largest single
population inducer it has on the agenda. Why it should pick 'a
location above the water intake, right on the shore of the Potomac,
and buy itself that many more pollution problems in the years to
come, I do not understand.
The master plan of the Capital for this area calls for parkland on
the Potomac and low density development on both sides. To locate
CIA at Langley is a step, and a major step, in the wrong direction.,
a step which we should not take lightly simply because the agency
is tired of kicking around and wants to get on with a building. They
could have been a year ahead if they had picked any site less con-
troversial. They chose the single site which was opposed by every
professional planner who was consulted in this area. The only
people who have approved it that I know of are the New York con-
sultants which CIA retained.
These are some of the comments which professional planning ex-
perts have made:
"The resultant population increase will necessitate complete revision ui cne
land use and zoning concepts now recommended in existing and proposed
plans for this area."-Paul C. Watt, Director, National Capital Regional
Planning Council
"* * * it is my considered judgment that the particular site proposed for
this installation lies in one of the sections of the northern Virginia least able
to accommodate it in terms of existing or foreseeable access, utilities, and
services, or its disruptive effect upon the present character and desirable future
development of the area."-Max S. Wehrly, Director, Urban Land Institute ;
member, National Capital Regional Planning Council.
"The proposed CIA development on Government-owned land in the Langley
area * * " cannot be accepted without disastrous effect on the present land use
and complete disruption of community relationships."-Earl S. Draper, former
vice president, American Society of Landscape Architects, American Planning
and Civic Association ; former president, American Institute of Planners ;
former director, regional planning for TVA.
They have chosen a site which has no access roads. Mr. Dulles him-
self the last time stated that the present road is "very inadequate" and
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved f"D Release 2003/04/17292 CIA-RDP80-0R000500060006-5
"could not carry any more traffic." Now he proposes to put 25 percent
of CIA's own traffic onto the present road, because the parkway itself
will not accommodate even the CIA traffic during rush hours. They
propose to add 1,000 cars each way, or 2,000 cars a day, onto the exist-
ing roads on top of the present traffic, as well. as using the parkway
exclusively for themselves in the direction in which they are going
during the peak hour.
Even CIA's own consultants, as far as I know the only professional
planners to approve the Langley site, state :
Chain Bridge should be widened to provide six lanes with a suitable connec-
tion to the proposed new dual parkway along the abandoned Baltimore & Ohio
Canal on the east side of the Potomac River in the State of Maryland. It is
further recommended, for immediate improvement, that additional lanes be
added on Canal Road at least from Weaver Place to Chain Bridge and that
Weaver Place be improved at least from Canal Road to MacArthur Boulevard.
Has CIA told you that Congress is going to be asked to pay for all
these works as part of the cost of locating CIA at Langley?
Mr. MAHON. What is your position, Mr. Fisher?
Mr. FISHER. I am a lawyer here in town, sir.
Mr. MAIION. How long have you lived out in the Langley area?
Mr. FISHER. I have been in the county about 5 years, or almost
6 years.
Mr. MAHON. You have apparently made a very exhaustive study of
this problem. I want to say that you have made an excellent presen-
tation to the committee.
Are there any questions?
SEWAGE PROBLEM IN LANGLEY AREA
Mr. RILEY. I have one question.
Mr. Fisher, would you not have the same problem with respect to
sewage in the development of the area whether or not this building
goes out there.
Mr. FISHER. We will have a similar problem on the sewage.
Mr. RILE, Y. Regardless of the building?
Mr. FISHER. I hope that our planning officials and our county gov-
ernment will be strong enough to zone the property so that the sewer
problem will be within control, so that we will be able to control the
present building pressure, which is great. I have no such optimism
if you put this monster in terms; of size and in terms of pressure in on
an area which is now one of the fastest growing counties in the world.
Mr. RILEY. If you have that rapid a growth you are certainly going
to have a sewage problem.
Mr. FIsiIER. We are. :I think we will keep a lot size in this area
large enough so that every lot will have a septic field which will avoid
the subdivider's small treatment plant with the effluent running in the
Potomac.
Mr. RILEY. That will in time contaminate the whole area, if you
have enough, regardless of the size.
Mr. FISHER. The district engineer has stated in his letter of Novem-
ber 23, 1955, that the same assurances should be obtained from Fairfax
County with regard to providing sewage for the residential develop-
ment that will follow, as were obtained for the building itself. This
has not been done. In his view it was necessary to be done as a pre-
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
NW 293 W
requisite to action on the site. This was Col. Pay Adams, who is re-
sponsible for our drinking-water supply.
Mr. MATION. Are there any other questions?
Mr. W''VIGGLLSwonTII. Your fundamental desire is- to preserve the
character of this location as it is now?
Mr. FISHER. That is my personal desire. Ibelieve it is also consist-
ent with the Government's interest.
Mr. WIGGLrswoRTII. That is the fundamental desire of these 700
people you speak for?
Mr. FISH R. That is right.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. You feel that there are no overriding reasons
for placing this building in this locality, over some other locality
where it would not have the adverse effects you refer to?
Mr. FisnYr.. That is correct. I have spent a substantial amount of
time keeping posted on this problem. I have spoken with Colonel
White, and he has kindly indicated to me at length the considerations
which they regard as controlling. It is my view that the best interests
of the Government would be served by not locating there. This is con-
sistent with our own interests.
If I thought this was just our community alone it would be dif-
ferent. If I thought that it was in the interest of the Government
and the country as a whole, to put this building there, and it was just
our community, I do not think I would be here today. I would say :
"Somebody has to be hurt. There is no reason I should take up your
time saying that 700 of us do not want to be sat upon. We will have
to take that as a cost."
The fact is that the National Capital Planning Commission has
studied this extensively and disapproved the site until the two people
who had spent the most time on it were exchanged for other in-
dividuals representing those agencies. The fact is that both the
Planning Commission and the Regional Council have insisted that if
it goes out there substantial additional roads will be required now.
How they plan to construct this office building during the next 2 or
3 years, when served by only one 2-lane road, when the parkway itself
will not be completed until the building is completed, I have no idea.
That road is now about 50 percent or 100 percent overcrowded.
Mr. MAIION. That is an excellent point, and I think the CIA ought
to take proper notice of it. I have been on that road many times,
and I have been on it recently.
Mr. FISHER. There is a long hill coming up from Chain Bridge.
Each truckload will come up in first gear. There will be an absolute
.bottleneck.
The Agency has suggested that they will try to schedule the trucks
away from the rush hour, but you are building a building which has
half of the floor space of the Pentagon using one 2-lane road.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved Fro "Release 2003/04/17 ~IA-RDP80-01 8000500060006-5
LACK OF CONCERN IN CIA FOR PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
I do not want to attack personally any of my friends in CIA. I
do believe that perhaps it is partly our own fault, that our opposition
to this has made them retrench and dig in their heels. They seem to
feel that the Planning Commission and the planning agencies and
these committees are a series of hurdles they must overcome in order
to locate where they want to go.
They did not ask, the way the Atomic Energy Commission did, for
the Planning Commission's recommendations. The AEC asked for
a list of sites in order of priority. The AEC chose the one on the top
of the list that the Planning Commission staff had recommended.
CIA did not go to them with such a request. Although they had
lots of discussions with them, the general tone I get is that they did
not regard the Planning Commission as someone whose views you
were to take and follow, but rather as someone whose approval you
were to get so that you would not have trouble getting funds -from
Congress. The Commission is only advisory, of course. Both the
Regional Planning Council and the Planning Commission have ad-
visory functions.
But CIA has ignored the unanimous views of both as to how much
in the way of roads is required. CIA has taken this-partial approval
of Langley, by split votes in each case, and says that everybody has
approved. It is not the case.
(Mr. Fisher further amplified his remarks as follows:)
As we see it, CIA's strategy has always been to get congressional approval
for the building at Langley first and then worry about the roads. They do not
want to frighten you by telling the truth about the tremendous amount of road-
building that will be necessary. Therefore they always take the position that
just the one parkway and a little entrance lane will solve everything-despite the
unanimous professional opinion, even by their own hired experts, that other
drastic improvements are needed.
And no one should get the idea that the localities can afford these improvements.
Virginia's road fund is oversubscribed for years ahead, and Fairfax County in
particular is falling farther behind on road-construction needs every year. The
total sum the State of Virginia has indicated it will advance in connection with
any CIA project at Langley is a mere $350,000.
As for the District, it has made clear that the Federal Government will be
asked to pay for all improvements required on Chain Bridge, Canal Road, and
Arizona Avenue. An editorial from the Washington Star, which I am attaching
to my testimony, makes this point of Federal funds very strongly.
Colonel Thomas B. Hunter, assistant engineer, Commissioner, said in a state-
ment as the representative of the District to the Regional Planning Council :
"The Federal Government must be prepared to supply all necessary future
requirements which are not in fact supplied by the several local jurisdictions.
* * * We in the District of Columbia do not feel that the setup of the District
of Columbia should be required to supply these other requirements which may be
later found to be necessary."
Do not be misled : They will be back year after year in this Appropriations
Committee asking for Federal money to solve the road tangle.
If you appropriate funds that allow CIA to locate at Langley you will not only
have junked the planned development for this area and encouraged the pollution
of the upper Potomac ; you will have committed Congress to the endless costs
of converting a country road into a multiple-lane highway complex adequate to
serve 10,000 commuters.
This appropriation will be merely the first of many. When the roads and
bridges are done, this will be the most expensive building you ever built.
And why? Because Langley is the most effectant location? No, the District
is concededly better. Because Langley is at a safe distance from Washington?
No, Langley is within the target area. Because overwheling planning consid-
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137O`R000500060006-5
%M01 295
erations dictate this site? On the contrary, it is only with the greatest of difficulty
that CIA has obtained grudging approval of the site.
flow many extra millions of dollars should be appropriated to carry out this
Agency's whim? On March 7, 1956, the Washington Daily News quoted a CIA
"spokesman" as follows :
"We'll have a beautiful spot. Our 140 acres will be surrounded by park
land. We'll be able to see the river from our top story. Our building will be
barely visible from public highways when leaves are off the trees in winter.
In summer it will be hidden by foliage. Our workers will have parking space.
They'll be able to go outside and eat their lunches under the trees."
It seems unlikely to us that Congress would even consider such a monumental
plan, for a park setting with a river view, if it came from anyone else. We
ask the committee simply to apply the same standards of judgment to this
scheme as it would to the request of any Government agency. We are con-
fident of the result.
I appreciate your giving me so much time.
Mr. WIGGLEsw0RTII. You are not for any particular site, but you are
against this one?
Mr. FIshrER. That is correct, sir.
Mr. MAxoN. Thank you very much.
Mr. FISHER. I would like to summarize in one word. My recom-
mendation is that you delete so much of the finds as are to be appro-
priated for the parkway and include funds to acquire an alternative
site, which is in the authorization.
Thank you very much.
I would like to submit for the record some editorials from the local
papers, the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times, and some
letters which I think might be helpful to the committee.
(The material referred to is as follows:)
[Washington Daily News, July 20, 1955]
CIA BUILDING SAGA
The Central Intelligence Agency is tired of carrying on its secret works in some
not-so-secret "temporary" buildings scattered around town. It wants a building
of its own, and it has told Congress it needs a big one-the second largest Govern-
ment office building in the country.
Now CIA is looking for some place to put this king-sized structure. Possible
sites are some Government land in Langley, Va., and the Winkler tract in
Alexandria.
To get some idea of how Government officials decide these things, take a look
at the qualifications of the two sites :
Langley is a rural-residential area with no public water or sewer lines. There
is one school. Roads are narrow and already overcrowded. Many residents
have objected violently to CIA locating here ; they say it would bring on mass
housing and commercial building, spoiling the area's character. To build there
CIA would have to spend an extra $8,500,000 on a road.
Alexandria's Winkler tract has water and sewer lines. A new $2 million high
school is being finished 500 yards away, and there are other schools. Apart-
ments and houses of all sorts are available in nearby Fairfax County and
Alexandria. No one has objected to CIA's locating on the site-in fact, city
officials are pleading for it.
Which site does CIA Director Allen W. Dulles prefer? You guessed it-
Langley.
Penetrating the mysteries of Government logic and the special mysteries of
CIA as best we can, we find that the only serious reason offered for picking the
clearly more expensive and less, convenient Langley site is that it would be a
slightly shorter auto trip for CIA employees who now live in Northwest Washing-
ton or Montgomery County.
This is bunk. By the time the CIA finishes its building 2 or 3 years from now,
many of its employees will have moved near wheatever site is chosen.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP8O-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved Fo'tlease 2003/04/17 ~%A-RDP80-0137*00500060006-5
We hold no brief for the Winkler tract, but we can't figure out why CIA wants
to go to Langley, or why Congress should permit it.
Whatever became the idea to put CIA conveniently in southwest Washington?
[Washington Post ands Times Herald, November 4, 1955]
LEAVE LANGLEY ALONE
Altogether too little attention has been given to the drawbacks of the Langley,
Va., site favored by consultants to the Central Intelligence Agency for the new
"junior Pentagon." If the Federal Government did not happen to own this
tract along the Potomac River, no one would even suggest its use for an office
center to house 10,000 or more CIA employees. Virtually every consideration
is against it.
Use of the Langley site would overload Chain Bridge and Highway 123, neces-
sitating major rehabilitation in which the District would have to share the cost.
It would occasion enormous expenditures to the Federal Government and Fair-
fax County for other roads, water and sewage facilities. Worse, it would disrupt
a lovely residential section, and inevitably it would cheapen the surrounding
countryside in which homeowners have invested heavily. Fairfax zoning is
notoriously pliable ; and no zoning rule in the world would stand up against the
residential and commercial development pressures that would follow the loca-
tion there of a major Federal employment center.
If the new CIA buildings cannot become part of the Southwest Washington
redevelopment program (and we still do not understand how a bomb that might
hit Washington would be sure to spare Langley), then they ought to be located
on the alternate tract near Alexandria. The wooded estate country upstream
along the river ought to be left as it is-as one of the few remaining park-like
retreats from Washington. This is as important in its way to the character of
Washington as is Rock Creek Park; and the only manner in which encroach-
ment can be prevented is by controlling population density by controlling employ-
ment centers. If, in turn, the Bureau of Public Roads tract which the CIA
wants to use at-Langley can't be devoted to park purposes or a Federal project
that would conform to the character of the countryside, it ought to be declared
surplus and sold for low-density residential development.
[Washington Post and Times, Herald, November 14, 1955]
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
LANGLEY AND CIA
Congratulations on your November 4 editorial opposing the plan to locate the
CIA
"junior Pentagon" at Langley, Va,
From the point of view of accessibility, traffic movement, zoning, public utili-
ties, nature conservation, and cost to the taxpayers, the Langley location is
fantastically unsuitable for a vast CIA complex.
As you say, the idea could not have been dreamed up except for the fact that
the Government happens to own a tract of land there. So we are to save $100,000
or so in land purchase in order to spend millions and millions for highway and
bridge enlargement. The cost of even the minimum necessary additional high-
way and bridge expansion to take care of CIA-Langley traffic would be appalling.
Chain Bridge and Chain Bridge Road are already a nightmare at rush hours.
Imagine the results if a CIA city were added to the present Langley-McLean
population.
Also the Government-owned tract at: Langley is a lovely unspoiled area of wood-
land and streams. By every adult consideration it should be turned over to the
National Park Service for management as a wilderness area for posterity.' Popu-
lation pressure on our existing parks and wildlife refuges make it absolutely
essential not to let the bulldozers gobble up such a God-given piece of unspoiled
nature.
A final weird, never-never quality of the CIA-Langley idea Is (as you point
out) that really suitable sites are waiting with open arms in the new Southwest
Washington redevelopment area and also near Alexandria-not to mention In
communities 50 or more miles away-for real civil-defense dispersal.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR0000500060006-5
297 VAW
The CIA-Langley plan can only be explained as an unrealistic whim in the
higher reaches of officialdom.
NEILL PHILLIPS,
Chairman, Conservation and Legislative Commnittee, Audubon
Society of D. C.
[Washington Post and Times Herald, November 26, 1955]
CIA AND THE LANGLEY SITE
I want to compliment the Washington Post and Times Herald on its editorial$
of November 4 and 22 upholding the application of planning principles for the
selection of a CIA site. It was for good planning reasons that the Committee of
100 on the Federal City on October 21 adopted a resolution favoring the Shirley
Highway site over the Langley site.
Since that time, and following the reports of Director Dulles and Consultant
Gilmore D. Clark, before a joint meeting of the National Capital Planning Com-
mission and the National Capital Regional Planning Council, but before the
planners have taken action, as they will at their next meeting, the CIA let it be
known that the Shirley Highway site had been rejected, apparently because of
the consultant's report that the land lies too low in relation to the highway and
surrounding areas.
It is our information that the Shirley Highway site is hilly, some of it 250 feet
above sea level and 100 feet above the highway, and that the lowland would
facilitate access to the highway.
In view of the excessive cost to the Federal Government of highway, water,
sewers and schools for the Langley site, as compared to the Shirley site where
these utilities are immediately available without cost to the Federal Government,
it would seem that these considerations should carry weight. But, even if the
costs were identical, there is much to be said for preserving Langley as one of
the few residential areas in the Washington metropolitan region where homes
are surrounded by ample grounds.
We hope that the editorial opinion you have expressed will be applied to the
final decision for the CIA site.
Maj. Gen. U. S. GRANT III,
President, American Planning and Civic Association.
Neither the CIA officials themselves nor the planning experts they hired to
support their own decision have ever shown any more than the most casual kind
of attention to the problems that will be created if this agency locates at Langley.
Here is just one example :
The Clarke report assumes that by the time the CIA building at Langley will
be ready for occupancy various highway developments, which they admit would
be necessary, will be completed. They state this despite the fact that the only
commitment which has ever been secured in writing from the Virginia State
highway officials is for the completion of a fraction of the total developments
which will be required.
In addition, the CIA's experts did not even mention, or consider, problems that
would face the area during the construction of the building.
This building will be over one-half the size of the Pentagon. It will be the
second largest office building in the United States and will take 2 to 3 years to
complete.
The construction of such a building will require countless carloads of building
materials-lumber, cement, etc. There is no way in the world to deliver the
necessary quantities of material to the Langley site under the current road condi-
tions serving the area. There is no railroad within miles of the project. The
supplies would have to be delivered by truck along the existing narrow, hilly, two-
lane road, either from the District across Chain Bridge or from the Rosslyn area.
Virginia Route 123 and Chain Bridge are already inadequate to take care of
the passenger traffic in the area. If Virginia residents who use Route 123 have
to compete for 3 years with all the trucks which will be necessary to serve this
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP8O-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved FdThelease 2003/04/17 -,FAA-RDP80-0137 000500060006-5
construction project? it will indeed be a. horrible nightmare and the District of
Columbia will inevitablyfeel its share of the traffic bottleneck. What. a mess It
will be!
SAMUEL E. NEEL.
[Washington Post and Times Herald, December 7, 19551
ANYWUEBa BUT LANGLEY
"Approval" by the National Capitol Regional Planning Council of the proposed
Central Intelligence Agency site at Langley, Va., is typical of the confusion
bordering on farce that has surrounded CIA's efforts to bulldoze into this resi-
dential area. Because of the death of an Alexandria member whose vote against
the Langley site would have reversed the position of the Council, a Falls Church
alternate was enabled to cast an affirmative vote. Because of a decision attrib-
uted to the National Security Council that the CIA cannot locate its new buildings
in Washington proper, the CIA is looking fora site that is neither fish nor fowl-
neither dispersed nor really convenient. Because CIA officials seemingly are
dead-set against use of the Winkler tract in Alexandria--among other reasons
because they say the four-lane high-speed Shirley Highway is overloaded-they
are doing their utmost to obtain a site bordering on a two-lane road that is far
more overloaded and that would require enormous new construction.
Is it snot time to end this absurd situation in which the CIA pushes around all
sound planning concepts for the estate and park area upstream from Washington?
If there Is civil defense reason to disperse the CIA headquarters, then let it be
really dispersed-to Cumberland or even to Kalamazoo, where it could he a com-
panion piece to the lonely and very much dispersed Civil Defense Administration
at Battle Creek. If access to the White House is more important than dispersal,
then let the new buildings be located in Alexandria, where they would be welcome
and would not violate good planning ; or in Washington, which was the first
choice of CIA anyhow. Incidentally, with the new Constitution Avenue bridge,
a CIA headquarters near its, present site in Foggy Bottom would cause less
of a traffic problem than almost anywhere else. And if the name of the area
bothers clearsighted intelligence officials, no doubt it could be changed to accom-
modate them.
[Chicago Tribune, December 23, 1955]
BIG IF NOT GOOD
Plans of the Central Intelligence Agency to set up its headquarters in a new $50
million building In the scenic residential area near Langley, Va., have aroused the
residents of that community They think that a Government building second only
in size to the Pentagon would spoil the countryside. They foresee an influx of
cloak-and-dagger boys and of merchants and people in the service trades which
will quintuple the area's present population.
The National Planning Commission agrees 6 to 4, with the Langley residents.
The Commission says that new highway facilities required by the agency and
housing developments to accommodate its payroll and camp followers are out
of all proportion to the result to be obtained.
Nevertheless, Allen W. Dulles, Directr of the CIA and brother of the Secretary
of State, is obdurate in insisting that the new headquarters stand on the shore
of the Patomac at Langley and nowhere else. All indications are that the spy-in-
chief will ignore the Planning Commission on the ground that he cannot be bound
by any decision it makes.
One consideration that seems to be overlooked in this controversy is the mon-
strous size of the CIA operation disclosed. When one thinks of spies, he usually
envisions a couple of sinister characters with bats pulled over their eyes meeting
in the mouth of an alley on a foggy night. But it is apparent that Mr. Dulles'
operation is more ambitious.
He seems to boss one of the largest bureaucratic empires within the Govern-
ment. What work does it perform that justifies the expenditure of so huge a
sum as $50 million and requires the construction of 1 of the 2 or 3 biggest build-
ings in the world?
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-01370,2000500060006-5
299 ``~~
As this outfit operates under the protection of extreme secrecy, as its size and
budget and expenditures are hidden in the General Government budget, and as
it can always turn aside Members of Congress or other questioners with refer-
ences to the national security, nobody is in a position accurately to evaluate its
activities.
We do know that the Hoover Commission sharply criticized the performance
of the CIA and contrasted its results unfavorably with those obtained by Soviet
agents. So it can be wondered whether Allen Dulles is more interested in running
a sort of country club than an intelligence operation that delivers the goods and
contributes something to the security of the country.
There has been a good deal of talk about constituting a congressional watch
dog committee to keep tabs on the CIA. That is better than nothing, though the
committee could expect many frustrations. Meanwhile, it would be well if some-
one required Mr. Dulles to justify what looks like a Pharaonic ambition for
monument building.
[Washington Evening Star, February 4, 1958]
PLANNIN9 SOMERSAULT
The closely divided vote by which the National Capital Planning Commission
has reversed its previous split decision against the Langley site for the Central
Intelligence Agency adds confusion to a thoroughly confusing picture. Only a
month ago the Commission ruled that it would be wrong to build so large a Federal
office building in a residential area so poorly equipped to sustain the impact.
Now the agency, in an upside-down maneuver, is on record, 7 to 5, as favoring
such a location. It is all rather bewildering.
The pulling and hauling on this important matter reflect no credit on-the
planning principle. And the divided vote will encourage opponents of the CIA
invasion of Langley to continue their fight-perhaps at the Capitol. They face
an uphill battle, however, since Congress already has authorized the CIA to build
there if that Agency finally decides it wants to do so. Furthermore, funds for
extension of the George Washington Parkway to Langley have been approved.
Soon or late, costly improvements to Chain Bridge and the District approaches
will be necessitated by the Langley project. Perhaps some of these improve-
ments would have to be made, anyway, in years to come. But there are no
definite plans and no District money available now for any such undertaking in
the foreseeable future. So if it becomes necessary to rebuild or replace Chain
Bridge and its approaches for the benefit of the CIA, it should be clearly under-
stood from the very outset that the job is not a proper charge against the District.
There should be no indecision and confusion about this phase of the CIA pro-
gram.
[New York Times, April 13, 1956]
BULLDOZER AT WORD
Experience has shown time and time again that the bulldozer can be one of
man's most destructive weapons, as well as one of his most useful tools. In the
truly enormous roadbuilding program now being projected, the bulldozer can and
will be both, unless some precautions are taken. Engineering alone is not the
answer ; yet the inclination of our society is to leave it all to the engineers with-
out too much regard for the elements of history, of beauty, of a spiritual and
community life that, being fragile in themselves, fall *soaeasily before the onrush
of the bulldozer unless they are specially protected.
In Washington, D. C., one of the most powerful and autonomous of Govern-
ment establishments, the Central Intelligence Agency, has been driving ahead
with its plan to build a huge headquarters in a wooded tract overlooking the
Potomac despite grave doubts as to the wisdom of the site by many professional
planners. The area selected, already owned by the Government, might alter-
natively be turned into a fine park area. There are other places where the CIA
could build without violating good planning principles.
The need everywhere is for long-range and balanced planning, and also for
increasing attention to the intangibles that are so easily destroyed, but without
which we as a nation cannot meaningfully live.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved Fo lease 2003/04/17 : W-RDP80-0137 00500060006-5
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, SITE FOR CIA BUILDING
HARRY BOSWELL, JR.
ARTHUR E. MIELKE
T. B. SYMONS
WITNESSES
Mr. SYbioNS. Mr. Chairnian, for the record let me say that Mr.
Harry Boswell, Jr., a member of our committee, has come in since the
first record was made.
I want to make a very brief statement, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MAIION. The fact is that we can be in session here only a few
more minutes.
Mr. SYMONS. Would you rather have us come back at another time?
Mr. MAUON. No. Since your statement is brief, we would be pleased
to hear ou now. What is the idea you wish to express?
Mr. SYMONS. Our idea was that in the interest of economy and in
the interest of efficiency and in the interest of the broad principles of
developing our suburban area and the city of Washington that the
committee and the Agency should give consideration to a site in
Prince Georges County which will be much more economical, and we
think more convenient and efficient, for the location of this magnificent
Agency.
Let me say in advance that none of us have any personal interest in
this matter, save the general interest as represented by Mr. Fisher.
Just to give you a general view of the situation, we have a map
here [indicating].
Mr. MAIION. Where do you propose a location?
Mr. SYiioNs. We propose a location it Good Luck Road, which is
just south of Greenbelt, Md. Langley is over here [indicating].
Mr. MAHON. You propose a site considerably east of the Langley
site, which is in the Greenbelt area?
Mr. SYMONS. Which is south of the Greenbelt area.
DISTANCE FROM ZERO MILESTONE
Mr. MAIION. How far is it from zero milestone?
Mr. SYMONS. About 8.5 miles. You can make it in a 20-minute drive.
Mr. MAIION. 8.5 Miles?
Mr. SYDIONS. Yes, sir. With the completion of the new bridge,
'Anacostia Bridge, and with the parkway to Baltimore and with the
roads that are presently built it can be done.
CONSIDERATION OF SITE BY CIA
Mr. MAIION. Colonel White, has this cite been considered?
Mr. WIIrrE. Yes, sir; this site was very carefully considered.
Mr. MAHON. Why was it vetoed?
Mr. WHITE. Because of the time and distance factors and the acces-
sibility to employees.
For example, from the Glendale Road to the zero milestone is 13.5
miles, and on the 28th of May at 8: 15 in the morning from a starting
.time it took 34 minutes to get in.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17:
CIA-RDP80-0137OR0000500060006-5
0
301
On the 25th of May, during the rush hour afternoon traffic, starting
at 5:15 p. m. from the zero milestone, it is a distance of 13.8 miles
and it took 52 minutes to get there. It takes too long for key officials
to get to the White House, State Department, and other places to which
they must travel.
Furthermore, if you look at the map and. remember where our em-
ployees live, there is no way to get them to this site except to drag them
through the streets of Washington, which already is congested, so this
site from a time and distance factor, both from the standpoint of being
able to get to the key people with whom we work and being able to get
our employees to and from the site, was ruled out.
Mr. MAIION. Many would move to that general area, of course.
Mr. WHITE. They would have to. That is one of the things which
we do not feel will happen at the Langley site, because they are more
convenient, if anything, to the Langley site than to our present head-
quarters.
NEW ACCESS ROADS
Mr. BoswELL. These figures were based on roads in existence at
that time and did not consider roads under construction. As Mr.
Symons pointed out, with the addition of the An.acostia River Bridge,
which is about completed now, and the East Capitol Street Bridge,
these connections now presently under construction, both time and
distance figures used by Colonel White are significantly altered.
In other words, the criteria used with reference to Langley were
based on roads which were not even projected.
With regard to this site, the CIA refused to use a consideration
of roads then under construction, and used roads only then in exist-
ence.
Is that correct, Colonel White?
Mr. WHITE. We obviously had to use the roads in existence.
Mr. MAHON. You are not using roads in existence on the Langley
site; are you?
Mr. WHITE. No, sir. The George Washington Memorial Parkway
already has been authorized.
Mr. MAHON. These other things are, too.
Mr. WWTIIITE. These other things would not alter the time situation,
sir.
I have run this as many as 15 or 20 times. The very best time that
we have ever been able to make during, say, 1 o'clock in the after-
noon, when nobody is going to and from out there, is about 24 minutes.
When you get into the rush-hour traffic, the East Capitol Street
Bridge and the South Capitol Street Bridge are already congested.
You cannot throw this in there.
Mr. SYI,IONS. Did you try the Baltimore and Washington Parkway?
Mr. WHITE. It is terribly full.
Mr. SYMONS. The Baltimore-Washington Parkway goes through
this property.
Mr. MAIION. This is the general idea you want to present?
NEED FOR BALANCED DEVELOPMENT OF WASHINGTON AREA
Mr. BoswELL. .We have another 81A and we want to present. Part
of the criteria being used by the CI ti and other agencies today with
regard to the location of their present employees we think is extremely
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved Fdelease 2003/04/17 BRA-RDP80-0137'000500060006-5
unfortunate from the consideration of the ultimate development of
this city of Washington, because the greatest balance with regard to
population, both by age, wealth, and different categories of employ-
ment, can be achieved, greatest stability for the National Capital
can be achieved by a wide pattern of dispersal around the city.
Mr. MAI]ON. In other words, if you locate all of your more im-
portant agencies in one area you tend to put other areas of the metro-
politan area in a worsened. position?
Mr. BOSWELL. That is right. This flies in the face of reason when
we recognize the fluidity of employment in the District of Washing-
ton and a study of change made in change of residents when the
Bethesda Institute of Health and other places were established. Peo-
ple do move to come to their places of employment.
If agencies are located because the top people in certain top agen-
cies live in the vicinity of certain of these agencies, where they are
talking about locating them now, because many of the people pres-
ently live there, if we continue this pattern we will warp the future of
our National Capital..
Mr. MAFION. In other words, you do not want a Spring Valley
complex?
Mr. BOSWELL. That is right. We are developing that not with re-
gard to the CIA only but with regard to many of the other agencies
and their locations. We have the opportunity for a wide pattern of
dispersal of the governmental office buildings, and we must recognize
there is a wide divergence between the levels of employment. For
example, the Census Bureau has a lot of file clerks on a lower wage
level and the CIA has an extremely high wage level.
If we are going to put all of the lower level agencies in the areas
where the lower level people are presently located, and the higher level
agencies in the area where the higher level people presently are lo-
cated, we will keep warping the city in proportion completely in vari-
ance with what we are able to do with our high-speed highways today.
Mr. MAIION. Speaking of high-level people, we do not have high-
level people and low-level people. You mean from an income level?
Mr. BOSWI:LL. That is so, from an income basis. We think it is wise
and we think most planners would agree to that.
At one time city growth was controlled by a system so that good-
income people went beyond areas where good-incone people presently
were located, so our city pattern' is somewhat warped, having a right
and wrong side of the tracks. With high-speed highways and oppor-
tunity to relocate employment, particularly in this National Capital
area, we have a chance to have this dispersal not just on employment
but also to avoid the homogeneous nature which was part of our past.
If we have a possibility of establishing a heterogeneous population
around the city, we no longer have a right and wrong side of the track.
The principal arguments being advanced too frequently by Govern-
ment agencies today is that here there is a right and wrong side of the
track, we want to be on the right side, and they are warping the growth
of the National Capital in a way we hope will not be accomplished.
Mr. SYMONS. Here are 1,000 acres. The CIA can make it as lovely
a spot as they wish. It is less than a mile from the University of Mary-
land across there.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17 )SIA-RDP80-01370R000500060006-5
VMW N..r
I disagree with our friend Colonel White because our records show
you can reach this point in 20 minutes. We have tried it 2 or 3 times
over new roads.
The difference was 20 minutes to zero in Washington.
Mr. WHITE. This discussion between us has been going on for about
a year now. The best test that I know of who is right on this, in dis-
cussing this with Mr. Gingry and Mr. Wells, your Maryland planners,
we agreed to drive out there together. It took us 31 minutes to go
out and 43 minutes to come back.
Mr. SYMONS. When the roads were bad.
Mr. WziITE. We went out over the Washington-Baltimore Parkway.
This was at noontime when there was no traffic on the road.
Mr. BOSWELL. The Washington-Baltimore Parkway is connected
from here to New York Avenue. This is not the best route into town.
The plans are now under way for a completion down through this
point and into East Capitol Street. These roads are not available
even though they are presently under construction.
Mr. MAiioN. How many people would probably sign a petition ask-
ing you not to locate the CIA there?
Mr. BOSWELL. The town officers and the local people are in com-
plete agreement and have expressed their desire, as Colonel White
knows.
Mr. SYMONS. Including the vote by the county commission.
Mr. MAIION. The local authorities were in the Glendale area?
Mr. BOSWELL. Including? the local people. All the local people in
local meetings have said "Yes, we want the CIA here." Colonel White
is acquainted with that.
Mr. SYMONS. This is an aerial photo of the site. There are no
homes in this 1,100-acre tract. It is very sparsely populated in the
area.
Mr. OSTERTAG. Who owns that land?
Mr. BOSWLLL. This is not just the Washington-Baltimore Parkway
and Edmonston Road, but also the circumferential highway around
the district which is adjacent to the site. You have not only the mat-
ter of being able to locate directly into town but also from the stand-
point of employees all the way around the city, being able to come in
when the parkway is completed.
I think anyone would recognize this is advanced in advance of the
roads that are being talked of with regard to the Langley site.
In other words, while neither one is there, this is ahead of the other.
These are direct roads into town with dual highways connecting in
and also a circumferential road into town.
Mr. SYMONS. Sewer, water, and power already is there, at no ex-
pense whatever. And to think we would spend $10 million to provide
those accommodations at Langley. It is preposterous to us.
78170-56--20
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved ^ Release 2003/04/13:4 IA-RDP80-019R000500060006-5
I think this is something your committee wants to hear. We are
not very far from Friendship Airport. That is an asset for the
Agency. You are within a 30-minute drive and less than that to the
Friendship Airport. We consider that as an asset rather than an
objection.
We appreciate'the time.
Mr. MAHON. It is stimulating to have you here.
Mr. SYMo..Ns. I want you to think that we are interested only in the
economy, efficiency, and welfare of the Agency, as well as the county
and the District as a whole. We have nothing whatever to submit
except earnest consideration of arguments that are apparent which
Mr. Fisher presented.
Mr. BOSWELL. We feel, not only with regard to CIA but dispersion
of all Government agencies, this matter of balance in the city is one
which must receive urgent consideration.
Mr. MAHON. I have observed that you undoubtedly feel that so many
of our high-income people live in the Northwest, and they do not want
to place important installations in the Washington area in a section
which would make it more difficult for them.
Mr. SYMONS. I can appreciate: that.
Mr. BOSWELL. We have not minded being considered poor cousins.
With the great steps we have taken in providing the finest sort of
educational facilities and roads we are doing today, we think it is a
shame that the Federal Government would compound this feeling that
we will have to continue as poor customers because top people don't
want to live in our area.
Mr.' MAHON. Thank you very much.
Mr. SYMONS. The university is a half mile from here. I think this
installation is comparable to anything around the District. It is not
an area which would degrade the, CIA or offer them any inconvenience.
They have clean acreage; no buildings around here. They could make
a lovely a spot there with those 1,100 acres, with transportation on
both sides; water, sewer, and everything.
Thank you very much.
Mr. MIELwE. This is a set of criteria sent out by CIA for sites. One
is for suburban and one for cities.
Mr. MAHON. Insert it in the record at this point.
(The information referred to is as follows:)
1. Time and distance to key points
10 miles and 20 minutes to zero mile-
7 miles. 15 minutes.
(official).
stone.
2. Area (suitable topography) -----.---_.
50 acres with 100 percent usability ----
70 to 100 acres.
3. Accessibility:
(a) Access roads and highways.-_
To handle 3,000 passenger cars per
5,000 per hour and/or
hour.
2 highways.
(5) Public transportation-_-___--_
Available potential.
water, power --___-__
4. Utilities: Sewer
Available to site boundary ------------
Existing in sufficient
,
size.
5. Availability of site--------------------
2 years------------------------------
Immediately.
6. Compatibility with existing and
Recommendations or subcommittee
proposed land use and comprehen-
of NOPC and planning boards.
sive plan.
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060006-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/17: CIA-RDP8O-01370 )0500060
iwo 305
Mr. MIELKE. I would like to point out that in considering all sites
other than the Langley site, all of these criteria were examined and ap-
plied to the exact degree, whereas as a matter of fact if you want to
travel from the Langley site to the White House, zero mile zone, you
would have to use a helicopter to get there in the time limit that they
point out.
They say utilities, sewer, water
ther considerations
.
There are o
power, availability of site, compatability with existing and proposed
.land use, and comprehensive plans, all of these were applied to the
minutest details to other sites which were advanced, whereas they were
not ap lied in general to the Langley site.
Mr. MAHON. Thank you very much.
(The following excerpt from a pamphlet of the Prince Georges
Chamber of Commerce was submitted for the record:)
The Central Intelligence Agency has listed six factors with "mandatory" and
"desirable" criteria applicable to each in connection with a site for a head-
quarters' installation.
The criteria and how they apply to the proposed Prince Georges County site
are:
1. Time and distance to key points : Mandatory, 10 miles and 20 minutes to,
Zero Milestone (the White House) ; or, desirable, 7 miles and 15 minutes.
The distance to Zero Milestone is 8.5 miles. When the express approaches
to the East Capitol between 18 and 20 minutest Bridge
The bridge will pbe opened to traffic in November
1955.
2. Area (suitable topography) Mandatory, 50 acres with 100 percent usability ;
or, desirable, 70 to 100 acres.
The Federal Government (Interior Department) owns 1,100 acres at the
proposed site. Except for streams, the entire tract has 100 percent usability.
3. Accessibility :
(a) Access roads and highways: Mandatory, to handle 3,000 passenger cars
per hour ; or, desirable, 5,000 cars per hour.
(b) Public transportation: Mandatory (only), available potential.
Five major traffic arteries (Baltimore-Washington Parkway, U. S. Route
No. 1, Queens Chapel Road-Michigan Avenue, Edmonston Road, and New
Hampshire Avenue) could accommodate many more than the "desirable"
5,000 cars per hour. In addition, cross-county roads-supplying excellent
"around Washington" routes-are either being built or improved at the
present time.
Nearby Greenbelt has bus facilities and the Capital Transit Company op-
erates a line to within a short distance of the site.
4. Utilities-sewer, water, power: Mandatory, available to site boundary ; or,
desirable, existing in sufficient size.
Water and sewer lines run directly past the site. City power is available.
5. Availability of site : Mandatory, 2 years ; or, immediately.
Since the Government owns this site it is, of course, immediately available.
6. Compatibility with existing and proposed land use and comprehensive plan :
Mandatory (only), recommendations of subcommittee of the National Capital
Planning Commission and Planning Boards.
Since there is no construction in the immediate area of the site, the pro-
posed CIA headquarters would set the land use pattern. The Maryland-
National Capital Park and Planning Commission, the county governmental
esidents of nearby com
d th
e r
body (Board of County Commissioners) an
munities (Greenbelt, College Park) have expressed eagerness for such an
installation at the proposed site.
(The following information was submitted for the record:)
The December issue of Planning and Civic Comment, the official publication
of the American Planning and Civic Association and the National Conference on
Approved For Release 2003/04/17 : CIA-RDP8O-0137OR00050
 e ease 4C' : ~l'A- P80 01
306
State Parks, with headquarters in Washington's Union Trust Building, has this
to say of the choice of Langley, Va., for the CIA headquarters :
"However, in the city of Washington the location of new Federal buildings
involves a process of conforming to the comprehensive plan and coordinating
with citywide utilities. Under the dispersal plan adopted for defense purposes,
and in the location of Federal buildings in the metropolitan area around Wash-
ington, there are in the existing communities many planning decisions to be
reached. It is not simply a matter of the Federal agency deciding where it would
like to be located regardless of the impact on the community. And when the
agency is a large one which may employ some 10,000 persons, there should be
taken into consideration the existing and potential access roads and bridges, the
availability of water, sewers, schools and shopping conveniences. States and
counties are frequently in no financial position to provide these promptly, but,
if a site can be found which does offer these facilities, there is no reason for the
Federal Government to undertake a large capital investment for a site not so
served.
"It is upon these principles that the Committee of 100 on the Federal City
of the American Planning and Civic Association has opposed the location of
the Central Intelligence Agency at Langley, Va., where a community pattern
for gracious living has been developed over a long period of years, where
there are at present no adequate access roads and bridges, where, apparently,
the proponents of the site are depending unduly on the building in the near
future of the George Washington Memorial Parkway for a use to which it
should never be subjected. A parkway in hilly country is not designed for
maximum traffic and is limited to passenger cars. In any case, the parkway
is authorized and will be built when Congress appropriates the -money, but
it will not provide the business access highway which the CIA evidently ex-
pects it to be.
"If the CIA headquarters were to be located where the dispersal act would
indicate, the site would be further from Washington than any of those con-
sidered. But as a special dispensation Congress has authorized the CIA to choose
a site nearer the White House. Since there are other sites which meet all
the criteria set up, there is no excuse for disrupting the Langley neighborhood,
for taking over Federally-owned land that should be preserved as open space
and watershed cover, for jeopardizing the Memorial Parkway by subjecting it
to punishing uses, and by forcing the Federal Government to assume costs
of utilities which there is little prospect that the State of Virginia or the
county of Fairfax will provide promptly."
(The following letter was received for inclusion in the record
from the Wilderness Society:)
Hon. GEORGE H. MAIION,
Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction,
House O,0lce Building, Washington 25, D. C.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE MAIION : I understand that your subcommittee has been
considering appropriations for a new: central headquarters agency. There
has been discussion about locating these quarters on part of the Bureau of
Public Roads property near Langley, Va.
The proposed site near Langley is ideally suited to use as a public park. Its
rolling meadows, stands of wildflowers, and hardwood forests, together with
a mile and a half of shore line along the Potomac, and the presence of wild-
life such as opossum and deer, andvarieties of birds, add to the public interest
in the prospective park values of the area from Chain Bridge to and including
Great Falls.
It would not be in the interest of sound planning to disregard and lose
these public park values. It would be advisable to locate the proposed CIA
central headquarters agency on some other site where such values could not
be impaired.
I should very much appreciate your consideration of these views and would
like to have this statement of them included in the record.