74 II

INDEPENDENT OFFICES

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1963

GOVERNMENT

Storage

H E A R IN G S

U LIBRARIES—

= = = = □

-------- □

co O'

— H

-

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OE REPR ESEN TATIVES

EIGI ITY- SE VE NT H CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDEPENDENT OFFICES 

ALBE RT THOMAS, Texas, Ch air ma n

SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois HAROLD C. OSTERTAG, New York

JOE L. EVINS, Tennessee CHARLES RAPER JONAS. North Carolina

EDWARD P. BOLAND, Mas sach usetts JOHN J. RHODES, Arizona

G. Homer Skarin, Sta ff As sistan t to Subcommittee

PART 4

AMENDMENTS TO 1963 BUDGET

PUBLIC BUILDINGS PROGRAMS, GENERAL

SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

4

i

INDEPENDENT OFFICES

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1963

H E A R IN G S

BEFO RE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OE REPR ESEN TATIVES

EIGH TY -SE VE NT H CONG RESS

SE CO ND SE SS IO N

SU BC OM M IT TE E ON IN D EPEN D EN T O FFIC ES 

ALBERT THOMAS, Texas, Chairman

SIDN EY R. YA TE S, Il linois HA RO LD C. OS TE RT AG , New York

JO E L. EV IN S, Ten ne ss ee CH ARL ES RAPE R JO NA S, N ort h Car ol in a

ED WAR D P. BO LA ND , M as sa ch use tt s JO H N J. RH ODE S, A rizo na

G. Homer Skarin, Staff Assistant to Subcommittee

PART 4

AMENDMENTS TO 1963 BUDGET

PUBLIC BUILDINGS PROGRAMS, GENERAL

SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

86921

U.S . GO VE RN MEN T PR IN TIN G O FFIC E 

WAS HI NG TO N : 1962
COM M IT TE E ON A PPRO PRIA TIO N S 

CLARENCE CANNON, Missouri, Ch airm an

GEORGE H. MAHON, Texas

HARRY R. SHEPPARD, California

ALBERT THOMAS, Texas

MICHAEL J. KIRWAN, Ohio

JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi

GEORGE W. ANDREWS, Alabama

JOHN J. ROONEY, New York

J. VAUGHAN GARY, Virginia

JOHN E. FOGARTY, Rhode Island

ROBERT L. F. SIKES, Florida

OTTO E. PASSMAN, Louisiana

SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois

FRED MARSHALL, Minnesota

JOE L. EVINS, Tennessee

JOHN F. SHELLEY, California

EDWARD P. BOLAND, Massachusetts

DON MAGNUSON, Washington

WILLIAM H. NATCHER, Kentucky

DAN IEL J. FLOOD, Pennsylvania

WIN FIELD K. DENTON, Indiana

TOM STEED, Oklahoma

HUGH Q. ALEXANDER, North Carolina

ALFRED E. SANTANGELO, New York

JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico

GEORGE E. SHIPLEY, Illinois

JOHN M. SLACK, Jr., West Virginia

DALE ALFORD, Arkan sas

JOHN LESINSKI, Michigan

JOHN J. FLYNT, Georgia

JOHN TABER, New York

BEN F. JENSEN, Iowa

H. CARL ANDERSEN, Minnesota

WALT HORAN, Washington

IVOR D. FENTON, Penn sylvania

GERALD R. FORD, Jr., Michigan

HAROLD C. OSTERTAG, New York

FRANK T. BOW, Ohio

CHARLES RAPER JONAS, North Carolina

MELVIN R. LAIRD, Wisconsin

ELFORD A. CEDERBERG, Michigan

GLENARD P. LIPSCOMB, California

JOHN J. RHODES, Arizona

JOHN R. PILLION, New York

PHIL WEAVER, Nebraska

WILLIAM B. MINSHALL, Ohio

ROBERT H. MICHEL, Illinois

SILVIO O. CONTE, Massachusetts

WILLIAM H. MILLIKEN, Jr., Penn sylvania

EARL WILSON, Indiana

Kenneth Spranklb, Clerk an d Sta ff D irec to r
INDEPENDEN T OF FIC ES AP PROPRIA TIO NS FOR 1965

Monday, J uly 9,1962.

GENERAL SERV ICES A DMINISTR ATION

P ublic Buildings Service Programs in Washington, D. C. 

w it n e s s e s

B ER N A R D L. B O U TIN , A D M IN IS T R A T O R 

LAW SO N B. KNOTT , J R ., D E P U T Y A D M IN IS T R A T O R 

W IL L IA M P. T U R P IN , A SSIS T A N T A D M IN IS T R A T O R FO R F IN A N C E 

AND A D M IN IS T R A T IO N

C. D. B EA N , COM M IS SI O NER, F E D E R A L S U P P L Y SE R V IC E 

ROBERT T. DALY, R EG IO N A L A D M IN IS T R A T O R , R EG IO N 3 

W IL L IA M A . SC H M ID T, D E P U T Y C OM M IS SI O NER, PU B L IC B U IL D IN G S 

SE R V IC E

RO BERT G R IF F IN , A S SIS T A N T A D M IN IS T R A T O R

Mr. Thomas. The committee will please come to order.

We have with us this morning our friends from the General Services 

Administration. We asked them to come over and discuss with us the 

problems confronting the GSA and the Nation dealing with construction of public buildings.

We have with us the very able Administrator, Mr. Boutin, and his 

able deputy, Mr. Kn ott; Mr. Turpin, head of Administration and 

Finance; and Mr. Schmidt, Deputy Commissioner, Public Buildings 

Service.

It is a pleasure to welcome all of you.

We note in the pap er there is a little activity going on between two 

groups of real estate people, one from New York and one local, on the 

subject of construction. The committee has no inform ation on it. We 

sometimes get our information from the papers, and sometimes we 

like to have it firsthand from the agencies.

The agency is going to construct something like 1 million square 

feet, quoting the newspaper, of office space in the District of Columbia. We would like to know something about it. Where are you 

going to build it? Under what autho rity? What are you going 

to use for money ? Who is going to occupy it ? Who is going to pay 

for it?

Why the friendly interest between New York real estate people and 

those in the District of Columbia?

We would like to know fur the r what the necessity is for the increased square footage in view of the fact that you now have a 

number of new office buildings in the District of Columbia and you are 

building some more. You have just completed the Central Intel- 

(l)
2

ligence Agency Building outside tlie District. You have several 

more new ones in the area.

RE CE NT N EW SP A PE R AR TI CL E ON LEA SE -C ONST RU CT IO N PROGRAM

I am sure it is not a secret. Perhaps it is our fault we do not 

have the information. We now ask you to give it to us. We have a 

newspaper article here which says GSA has agreed to lease 626,000 

square feet of office space in suburban Washington and is seeking 

another million square feet downtown. We will insert this article in 

the record.

(The article referred to follows:)

Contracts op $2.7 Million—GSA Taking Space in 8 Buildings Planned for

Suburba n Loca tion s

The General Services Admin istratio n has agreed to lease 626,164 square feet 

of Federal office space in eight buildings to be constructed in nearby Maryland and Virginia.

A GSA spokesman said the agency will offer con trac ts tota ling $2,669,151 

at an annual rate of $4.26 per square foot. Under the bidding term s, all of 

the buildings are to be re ady fo r occupancy by May 15.

A spokesman said the eight buildings were chosen from 22 submissions by 

firms on March 27. The agency specified th at all buildings should be within 

8 miles of the Ellipse.

In an effort to catch up with the demand for more Fed eral offices, GSA also 

is seeking bids for 1 million square fee t of space within 4 miles of the zero 

mark er.

As a res ult of the March competition, the Arlington County real estat e firm 

of M. T. Broy hill & Sons Corp, plan s two buildings in th at county. One will 

provide 57,373 squ are feet of space for th e Commerce Departme nt at Glebe Road 

and North Fa irf ax Drive. The other will supply 30,100 square fee t at Vermont Street and North Fa irf ax Drive for the GSA. Both contracts will be for 

5 years.

Locations of the other buildings, the ir developers, and the amount of space 

they will provide fo r Government agencies a re :

Arlington—1111 North 19th Stre et, Lynn Equipment Co., 20,000 squ are feet 

for the Defense Departm ent.

Bethesda—5333 Westba rd Avenue, Dr. Leslie N. Tau ber & Associates. 138,- 

199, Hea lth, Education, and W elfare Department; 4915 St. Elmo Avenue, Darius 

Phillips, 60,373, Atomic Energy Commission.

Hyattsville—East-W est Highway and Belmont Road, Byrd & Spruell Development Corp., 171,659, Agriculture Department.

Silver Spring—7915 Ea ste rn Avenue, Willste Building Corp., 92,420, Commerce Department; Colesville Road and East-West Highw ay, 56,220, Geological 

Survey.

ST A TEM EN T OF T II E AD M IN IS TR AT OR

Mr. Boutin. If I might, I have a statement I would like to submit for 

the record tha t gives the highlights of the entire space situation in 

the metropolitan Washington area. It outlines our requirements, 

what we would like to do, and if I may p ut this in the record, I would 

like to speak directly.

Mr. Titomas. Pu t it in the record.

(The statement referred to follows;)

Statement of Bernard L. Boutin, Administrator of General Services

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, knowing the constan t intere st 

which your committee has in the programs of the General Services Adm inistration, I am delighted to app ear before you to discuss GSA’s first majo r effort at 

a long-range, clearly defined and determined program to solve one of its most 

perplexing space problems, a program which will save a sub stantial sum in
3

rentals as well as make it possible for Federal agencies to consolidate their 

operations and do a more efficient job in carrying out their mission.

The problem of office space in and around the District of Columbia is most 

acute. Each yeai-

 the needs outdistance all efforts to catch up. The space situation is disorderly, inefficient and wasteful. The lack of adequate, modern permanent facilities for departments and agencies has forced GSA to continue to 

utilize temporary and obsolete buildings which are beyond the state of economical rehabilitation and to lease whatever privately owned space is available at 

a cost which exceeds by 10 to 70 percent the cost which GSA could lease space 

for if it utilized its long-term leasing au thority and planned ahead for its leasing 

program in the same manner as the Congress authorized and directed it to do 

in its public buildings construction program.

As of March 31, 1962, Federal agencies were occupying space at 300 locations 

in the Washington Metropolitan area. This number increases daily with the 

demands on GSA for additional space. Of this number only 49 are permanent 

public buildings. Although this represents 23.3 million square feet of space 

which is 62 percent of the total, most of the remaining 38 percent is in small 

blocks scattered in 251 locations throughout the area. Fourteen percent in 41 

locations is in 5.5 million square feet of temporary buildings; 10 percent in 63 

locations is in 13.7 million square feet of obsolete buildings no longer suited for 

office occupancy; and 14 percent in 147 locations is in 5.2 million square feet of 

leased space. Much of this space is crowded, poorly lighted and ventilated and is 

not conducive to efficient work performance.

Space accommodations in the 49 permanent buildings are not in every case 

adequate, but GSA’s repair and improvement program, together with additional 

new space to alleviate the present overcrowding and permit maximum consolidation of agency operations, will bring most of the space up to a reasonable 

standard in the next 5 years.

The 41 temporary buildings are a national disgrace. Three of these, containing almost 2 million square feet of space, were built in World War I. The remaining 38, totaling approximately 3 million square feet of space, were constructed at the beginning of World War II at a cost of $4.75 per square foot 

and were designed for emergency wartime use with a projected useful life of 

from 5 to 10 years. While most were designed as temporary office type buildings, some were built as dormitories for civilian and enlisted personnel. All 

of these buildings have long since served the purjiose for which they were originally constructed, and to continue to occupy them is neither safe nor economical. 

Their present condition is deplorable. Major repairs and improvements, 

urgently needed but deferred for years, would cost substantially more than 

their original construction cost and such an expenditure would still not result 

in space which would be struc turally sound or lend itself to efficient space 

layout.

Virtually all of the space in the 63 buildings in the “obsolete” category is substandard. Many of these buildings are located on future building sites and 

are small structures, poorly lighted and ventilated, put to use only because of 

the critical space shortage which has persisted for the past 20 years. Much of 

the space in the 147 leased locations is barely adequate and some is clearly 

substandard.

As departments and agencies have grown they have had to spread out into 

many locations, some several miles from the office of the secretary or the agency 

head. Moreover, personnel components of bureaus with departments and divisions within agencies are in many cases widely scattered. Numbers of locations 

for various departments a re: Defense, 57; Agriculture, 13; Commerce, 32: HEW, 

31; Interior, 24; Justice, 17, Labor, 19; State, 19; and Treasury, 27. Although 

it is not always feasible to house an entire department in one building, and 

there are cases where separate quarters for certain activities are desirable, 

nevertheless, greater consolidation and reduction in number of locations is 

indicated if secretaries are to administer the affairs of their departments efficiently and economically. This is also true of the larger independent agencies 

such as HHFA and the Veterans’ Administration.

Aggravating the critical space problem in the Washington area is the continued growth of Federal agency programs such as those administered by NASA, 

HEW, HHFA, State and Labor, ju st to mention a few. Within the past month 

we have been obliged to lease 626,000 square feet of space in suburban Maryland and Virginia, at an average cost of $4.46 per square foot to meet urgently 

needed requirements of HEW. AEC, Commerce, Agriculture, Defense and 

Interior. Additional requirements of more than 600.000 square feet remain unfilled. Most urgent of these are 125,000 square feet for NASA’s manned space
4

flight program; 115,000 square feet for the Department of Labor; 100,000 square 

feet for the Agency for International Development; and 220,000 square feet for 

HEW’s Public Health and National Institutes of Health programs.

To further compound the problem, our space inventory is being continually 

reduced by demolition of existing structures in order to make way for other 

public works or to fulfill requirements of law. Fortunately, most of this so 

far has been temporary buildings. Since the end of World War II we have 

had to demolish 38 temporary and obsolete buildings containing 1.4 million square 

feet of space for site clearance and other public works. Planned public works 

will result in the further demolition or loss of an additional 3.3 million square 

feet of space within the next 6 years. Furthermore, we are not only authorized 

but directed by law to demolish and remove temporary building space in the 

District of Columbia equivalent to tha t relinquished by the Central Intelligence 

Agency (sec. 401, Public Law 161, 84th Cong., approved July 15, 1955). This 

alone will amount to approximately 1 million square feet of space.

Overcoming these problems requires a clearly defined and determined program 

to provide new space. The General Services Administration has underway a 

long-range construction program to meet Federal space requirements in the 

Washington area. Four buildings, FOB’S 8, 9, and 10, and the Employment 

Security Building, providing 1.6 million square feet of modern, general purpose 

office space are now under construction and are scheduled for occupancy in 1963. 

FOB 7, the Court of Claims Building, and the GPO printing plant, authorized 

and funded, will provide an additional 400,000 square feet of space by the fall 

of 1965. FOB 5, authorized and now being designed, will provide an additional 

980,000 square feet of space by spring 1966. However, even under the most 

optimistic programing it will be years before sufficient facilities can be constructed to meet the total needs which are estimated at about 13.3 million square 

feet of space. Furthermore, even under an aggressive construction program 

prudent planning would not dictate tha t the Federal Government construct 

buildings for its total requirements. About 10 percent of the space inventory 

should be leased in order to provide flexibility for dealing with new requirements 

and program changes. We believe tha t the increment of leased space in the 

National Capital area should total about 3 million square feet of office-type 

space. As of March 31, 1962, the ratio of leased to total space under GSA control in 20 urban centers with a population of one-half million or more was 29 

percent. The ratio for the Washington area was 9 percent for office-type space.

Leased office space should afford Federal agencies the same advantages as do 

buildings under Government ownership. The space should be planned and designed to give the Government the optimum advantage in utilization with space 

suited to and readily adaptable to agency programs. It should be in large 

blocs so as to permit consolidation of agency operations and should be convenient to departmental and agency headquarters. It should not be in small 

bloc scattered over the entire metropolitan area as is the case at present.

For the past 20 years the privately owned spaced leased by the Government in 

Washington has averaged 4.1 million square feet. Most of this has been leased 

because it was the only space available. Most of it was scattered throughout the 

metropolitan area in small blocs just as it is today, offering little opportunity for 

consolidation of agency operations and adding to the cost of agency programs because of increased communication and other costs.

GSA has not done an effective job of planning ahead in its leasing program. As 

a result we have had to pay premium prices for small blocs of space to accommodate the ever-expanding programs of Government. Rates for space acquired since January 1, 1961, in Washington average $4.87 per square foot, with 

downtown space costing as much as $6.22 per square foot. Furthermore, the 

Government’s demands for space are removing from the market space which 

would otherwise be available for commercial use and expansion.

With better space use at less cost as our objective and with the knowledge that, 

we will have a continuing need for about 3 million square feet of general purpose 

leased space, we recently invited bids for 1 million square feet of space, preferably in a single location consisting of not more than four buildings, for a firm 

term of 10, 15 or 20 years. Delivery was requested no later than July 1, 1964. 

The invitation solicated offerings w ithin a 4-mile radiu s of the zero milestone 

in Washington, D.C. One offering at $3.98 per square foot, fully serviced, was 

for 918,000 square feet to be constructed on a site within walking distance of 

many of the public buildings on the mall. Another offering at $4.18 per square 

foot was for a building to be constructed near the Pentagon.
5

The offer of space at $3.98 per square foot is in marked contrast to the offering 

accepted last month for eight blocs of space averaging $4.46 per square foot for 

terms of 5 to 10 years and ranging in size from 20,000 to 172,000 square feet, 

all of which were located in suburban Maryland and Virginia almost 8 miles from 

downtown Washington. Offerings within the last 90 days for space in downtown 

Washington ranged from $4.77 to $6.84 per square foot.

Our new approach to meeting the Government’s space needs will not only provide the kind of space needed, at a location where it is needed, in sufficient 

quantity to permit the economies of consolidation but will save the Government $1 to $3 million a year in its ren tal bill. The only alternative is to continue to lease whatever the market has to offer, at premium prices, in widely 

scattered locations or to fill our total space requirements through construction 

which already is being programed as f ast as possible but which cannot keep pace 

with the continued expansion of Government and space losses resulting from 

other public works construction.

In conclusion, in the interest of economy and efficiency, and in conformity 

with the recommendations of the President’s ad hoc committee on space, it is our 

position tha t GSA should:

1. Continue an aggressive program of public building construction and 

repair and improvement of existing permanent buildings.

2. Meet the balance of our requirements through the leasing of large 

blocs of space.

We believe, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, tha t our plan for 

housing the Federal establishment in the Metropolitan Washington area is 

sound. It will go a long way toward correcting the situation which now exists 

and will save substantial sums in re ntals for years to come.

CURRENT SPACE SITUATION IN WASHINGTO N, D.C.

Mr. Boutin. Actually, here is the situation we find ourselves in, 

Mr. Chairman. We have space in about 300 locations in the Metropolitian Washington area. GSA, as I am sure this committee realizes 

because you have spoken to it in various hearings we have had, has 

in the past been acting pre tty much as a fire departm ent. We get a 

request from an agency on a given date that they need space and they 

need it immediately. As soon as Congress authorizes the program, 

or because of changes in their program, they need increased space or 

they need special use space or they need space for a completely new 

program. We have had to lease tha t space. The net result has been, 

we have dispersed agencies all through the metropolitan area.

Mr. T homas. Why this g reat need all of a sudden for space ? The 

Federal employment figures throughout the Nation have not risen ap ­

preciably in the last few years. The Civil Service Commission tells 

us they have a general overall figure of about 2,450,000, and it has 

not varied much in the last 3 or 4 years. Why the sudden need for 

space ?

In the last 3 or 4 years you have b uilt a half dozen new buildings 

in the general area of the Dis trict of Columbia. The record will 

show the number of completed buildings, perhaps some 50 or 60, 

covering an expenditure in excess of h alf a billion dollars. Why the 

sudden need ?

Mr. Boutin. A lot of this need, Mr. Chairman, has developed from 

two sources—one has been, we have torn down a substantial amount 

of space to make way for the highway construction program, to make 

way for the construction of the new stadium. Besides that, we have 

new programs—the man-in-space program is one where we have to 

provide space. We are working with NASA on a day-to-day basis 

trying to give them the space they need.
6

Mr. Thomas. You have put your finger on the problem the committee has been concerned with for 5 or 6 years.

TEMPORARY BUILDINGS DEMOLISHED

How many square feet of space have you torn down to get rid of 

these temporary buildings? One of the vehicles you have used to tear 

them down is the highway construction program and another was the 

construction of the new stadium. Does tearin g down temporary 

buildings cause the immediate need for new office space? How many 

square feet have you torn down ?

Mr. Boutin. About 1.5 million.

Mr. T homas. As a result of that, how many square feet of new 

space will you have to have and what will it cost you on an annual 

basis?

Mr. B outin. If I might go back to a point I was making, by acting 

as a fire department on this space—and I am talking over a long 

period of time—for these small leases we have paid premium prices 

and in many instances have gotten inferior space as a result. We 

have made a long-range study, and we feel if we got into larger 

blocks of space, and this bid offering we have had is a. good indication of it, we can let a lot of these small leases expire as they come up 

for renewal and save a substantial amount of money by getting into 

big blocks. The low bid on this 1 million square feet is $3.98, fully 

serviced.

The most recent offering we have had in the metropolitan area, exclusive of the District of Columbia, has been $4.46. In the District 

of Columbia, it has been $4.87 average. We have paid up to $6.22.

NEWLY CONSTRUCTED SPACE IN WASHINGTON

Mr. 1 homas. 1 low many additional new square feet of construction 

have come into existence in the last 2 or 3 years in the District of 

Columbia and confines, and name the buildings.

Mr. Schmidt. The CIA building which contains 1,010,000 square 

feet and FOB 6, which contains 340,000.

Mr. Thomas. Who occupies that building?

Mr. Schmidt. NASA and HEW .

Those are the only two new buildings.

In addition there is the State Department extension to the existing 

building which provides slightly more than 1 million square feet.

Mr. I homas. Tha t is brand new. It has not been occupied more 

than 15 months.

Mr. Schmidt. I would say about a year.

Mr. I homas. 1 on have two or three buildings in addition to that. 

space presentlyunder construction

Mr. Schmidt. We have FOB 10 a and b under construction.

Mr. Thomas. How many square feet in each of those ?

Mr. Schmidt. In the two buildings, 750,000 square feet. We have 

unde r construction FOB 8, 280,000 square feet, a Food and D rug Administration building, and FOB 9, 450,000 square feet for the Civil 

Service Commission and the Federal Power Commission. We also
have the E mplo ym ent Security bui lding und er con struction c ontai nin g 

130,000 squ are fee t fo r th e Dep artm en t of Labor.

Mr. T homas. H ow many squ are feet does th at add up to ?

Mr. Schm idt. About 1.5 millio n.

Mr. T homas. All of th at is eith er new ly construc ted , or pre sen tly 

unded con struction ?

Mr. Schm idt. The last fo ur are u nd er cons truction.

PL A N S FOR LE AS E CO NST RU CT IO N

Mr. Thomas. W ha t ab ou t th at 1 mi llio n squ are feet of addit ion al 

space t hat the news papers hav e been s peaking o f ? Is th at in addit ion 

to the list you have jus t given us?

Mr. Schm idt. Th e 1 millio n square fee t of leas ed space covered 

in the new spa per s, is pr im ar ily fo r con solida tion of a lot of existing 

leases.

Mr. T homas. I s th at squ are foo tag e in additio n to the seven or 

eigh t b uil din gs you have just enum era ted ?

Mr. Schm idt. That would be in ad dit ion .

Mr. T homas. W ha t are we doing , tryi ng to rebu ild the Di str ict 

of Col umbia an d environme nt in th e next 3 or 4 years? W ha t is the 

pu rpose ?

Mr. Boutin. I t gives us the op po rtu nity, by using ou r lon g-term 

lea sing au thor ity , to get int o conso lidated locatio ns, and get out of 

sma ll leases.

Mr. T homa s. Wh en you com plete the prog ram how much more 

is it g oin g to cost you th an you sp ent last year ?

Air. Boutin. When we com plete th e prog ram, and we are talk ing 

over a 10-y ear perio d, wi th the forec ast ed new constru ction t hat is up 

to the a ut ho rity of the com mittee, plus the consolida tion of leases, we 

an tic ipate it is going to save us $2 to $3 millio n a yea r.

Mr. T homas. You are bu ild ing more bu ild ing s, bu t yo ur re nt bill 

goes up. Th e more bu ild ings y ou bu ild , the more yo ur r en t bill goes 

up. Tha t is h ar d fo r us to und ersta nd .

In a dd ition to th at , you a re going to b uild an oth er 1 millio n squa re 

fee t f or w hic h you w ill pa y ren t. T hat co mpoun ds an a lre ad y angry 

sit ua tio n.

Mr. Bouttn. B ut we will be ge ttin g rid of ex isting leases, Mr. 

Ch air ma n. T hat space cou ld n ot be delivere d before 2 y ear s, anyway. 

In th at p eriod of tim e we have a gr ea t ma ny leases ex pir ing .

Mr. T homas. Eve ry ye ar you have renewals com ing up. There is 

no thing new about th at. You are co nstan tly r enew ing leases, or letting leases lap se an d pick ing up othe r leases. T hat is an every-d ay 

op era tio n with you. I do not see how you can figu re in the n ext 6 or 

8 years yo ur re nt bill is g oing down w hen you are ta ki ng on more space.

Mr. B outin. We will be leas ing ch eap er per squ are fo ot, M r. C ha irman.

A U TH O RIT Y FOR CONTE M PL ATE D LE ASE -C ONST RU CT IO N

Mr. T homas. Whic h com mittee has appro ved th is 1 millio n squa re 

feet of lease space y ou are co nte mpla tin g bu ild ing here in the District 

of Co lum bia?

Mr. Bou tin . No co mmittee, M r. Ch air ma n.

Mr. T homas. No l egislative c ommittee?

8692,1— 62 — pt. 4------2
8

Mr. Boutin. No legislative committee.

Mr. T homas. No appropriations committee? 

Mr. Boutin. No, sir.

FINAN CI NG OF LEA SE-CON STR UCTION

Mr. T homas. How are you paying fo r it ?

Mr. Boutin. By getting out of existing leases as they expire. In 

other words, we are not talking of increasing the expenditures of the 

Government. We are talking of cutting back the expenditures.

Mr. T homas. But the record does not indicate that. The record indicates it is an increase. For the last 5 years it has gone up and up 

and up. Your justifications are quite complete. They show a plus 

for office space and a minus for leases given up, but the pluses always 

exceed the minuses.

FEDERAL EMPLO YEE S HOUSE D BY GSA IN WASHING TO N

Mr. Rhodes. At this poin t in the record, would it be helpful to have 

a study of the average annual employment in the District of Columbia 

of the departments which are housed by the General Services Adiministration so we can ge a clear picture of what their problem is?

Mr. T homas. I think tha t would help us.

Mr. Ostertag. Are you refe rring to the District of Columbia?

Mr. Rhodes. Only the District of Columbia.

Mr. Thomas. A very good suggestion. Insert that information in 

the record at this point.

(The information supplied follows:)

Employme nt in the District of Columbia area housed by General Service s A dministr ation by yea r and total personnel

1958 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 169,7 34

1959 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 170,3 31

1960 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 171,9 45

1961 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 9,1 82

1962 (t hro ugh Mar. 31, 19 62 )_________________________________________ 181,0 12

Not e.— The em ploy men t fig ures ab ov e ar e ex clus ive of th e em pl oy m en t in cla ssified 

ag en cies w hi ch has incr ea se d su bst anti all y.

release of rented space

Mr. E vins. Mr. Boutin, how many leases expired as a result of 

the three new Federal office buildings tha t are now completed and 

occupied—NASA down here on Independence Avenue, the S tate Departm ent, and the third new building you mentioned? How many 

leases were given up as a result of these three new buildings being 

constructed ?

Mr. Schmidt. Actually, there has not been any reduction in the 

number of leases because of the continuing growth in the State Departm ent, the Department of HEW, NASA, and other agencies.

Mr. E vins. You said you built these new buildings so you could 

let the leases expire, but in these instances no leases have expired ?

Mr. Schmidt. In these instances, no leases have expired.

Mr. E vins. The committee has not seen a re port of the amount of 

floor space released, or rent saved, by reason of these new buildings.

Mr. Schmidt. That is right.
9

Mr. Evins. How about the four under construction; how many 

leases will expire as a result of these fo ur buildings ?

Mr. Schmidt. I believe there will be two on the Employment Security Building.

Mr. Evins. How much floorspace for those ?

Mr. Schmidt. I do not have the exact floorspace.

Mr. Evins. Will you supply that and the savings in rental payments for the record ?

Mr. Schmidt. Yes.

(The information supplied follows:)

Leased space to be given up when the following buildings are occupied:

Federal office building No. 8: None to be released.

Federal office building No. 9 : 7,859 square feet at 2121 K Street NW., having 

an annual rental of $34,000.

Federal office building No. 10-A: 35,987 square feet at 416-418 Fifth Street 

NW., having an annual rental of $110,000.

Federal office building No. 10-B : None to be released.

Employment Security Building : 3,500 square feet in the Solar Building, 16th 

and K Streets NW., having an annual re ntal of $19,909. Also, 37,265 square feet 

at 1724 F Street NW. This building, previously leased, was purchased by the 

Government from construction savings in February 1960.

Mr. E vins. Only two leases will expire as a result of four new 

buildings presently under construction ?

Mr. Schmidt. I am sure there will be some on the others. For 

Federal office buildings Nos. 8, 9, 10-A, and 10-B, which will house 

the Federal Aviation Agency and NASA, there will be some leases 

canceled.

Mr. Evins. But you do not know the amount of savings and the 

amount of floorspace ?

Mr. Schmidt. No, sir.

Mr. Boutin. A lot will be getting out of temporary buildings, 

NASA particularly.

Mr. Evins. We already have NASA housed in this magnificent 

new building on Independence Avenue.

Mr. Boutin. In part. HEW and NASA share tha t building.

Mr. Evtns. Is GSA building NASA an additional building?

Mr. Boutin. Yes.

Mr. E vins. Who will occupy the building on Virginia Avenue near 

the Interior Department ?

Mr. Sciimidt. The Civil Service Commission and the Federal 

Power Commission. The Civil Service Commission building will be 

transferred to the Smithsonian.

Mr. Evins. Wha t are you going to do with the old Civil Service 

Commission Building?

Mr. Schmidt. The building will be transferred to the Smithsonian 

Institution.

We also have one other building, the old Pension Office Building, 

which is occupied by Civil Service.

GSA CONSTRUCTION PLAN S FOR WASHINGTON

Mr. Boutin. This is really the first attempt, that I have been able to 

determine, of GSA trying to put together a long-range, economical 

housing plan. To back tha t up, I have a plus here I know the committee will be interested in.
10

Mr. E vins. I know you have supplied a statement I have not had an 

opportunity to read. Beyond the three buildings recently completed 

and the four under construction, tell the committee how many more 

are in your immediate plans for the next 4 years for construction. I 

know you are talking about a 10-year plan, but, please tell us about 

your plans, for 4 years, what you plan to do.

Mr. Boutin. We have FOB-7. We have the Court building. One 

will be on Madison and one on Jackson Place.

Mr. Evins. What is to be housed in this building?

Mr. Boutin. The Court of Claims.

Both of those have l)een funded as to construction.

We have FOB-5 tha t is currently under design that we plan to 

turn over to the Department of Defense. Tha t is not funded as to 

construction.

Mr. E vins. I s this the Little Pentagon?

Mr. Boutin. Yes.

Mr. Evins. Where is that to be built ?

Mr. Boutin. Tenth Street Mall.

Mr. Evins. How much floor space will be included in the “baby” 

Pentagon ?

Mr. Schmidt. In FO B-5, 980,000 square feet.

Mr. Boutin. Then the Public Works Committees this year approved a building for the F BI tha t we have included in our sites and 

expenses appro priations tha t is being considered by this committee. 

This is in Washington. We also have the Geological Survey that is 

planned for Maryland approved by the Senate Public Works Committee, and a new Records Center tha t has been approved as a project 

by both Public Works Committees. The Geological Survey is not 

funded for sites or expenses. None are funded for construction.

Mr. T homas. Will you permit a question right at this point?

Clearly for the record, in your discussion with Mr. Evins and the 

other members, bring out in your 10-year plan your overall program 

which I understand is in the neighborhood of about $3 billion, onethird of which will be for projects approved by the Congress th at is 

outrigh t construction, Government owned. Make a distinction between 

those projects and the $2 billion extra in projects tha t will be lease 

constructed. Make a distinction between Government-owned and 

lease construction.

If my information is correct, it is at the rate of $1 billion against $2 

billion. So keep tha t distinction clear in your discussion if you will.

Mr. Evins. The Chairman was speaking of the 10-year program, 

and Mr. Boutin was speaking of a 10-year program. I was confining 

my remarks to your plans for the next 4 years.

IIow many buildings are you planning on constructing in the next 

4 years? Enumerate please. Tell us the amount of floor space and 

which agencies will occupy them.

Mr. Boutin. Over the next 4 years, we will be pre tty much confined 

to those th at I have enumerated.

Air. Evins. Have all of those been authorized?

Mr. Boutin. Those have all been authorized.

Mr. Evins. You testified earlier you are building some buildings 

without authorization ?
11

Mr. Boutin. No. We are only going out for lease space without 

specific authorization, but we have leasing a uthority to lease up to 20 

years.

Mr. Thomas. Tha t is what I was trying to bring out. One is called 

leased space, the other Government-owned constructed space.

Mr. Boutin. I can give you a forecast without them being in the 

precise order of prio rity over the next 8 years for new construction 

for funding purposes. Would that be helpful ?

Mr. Evins. I think you should supply for the record your 4-year 

plan and your 10-year plan, and tell which ones have been authorized 

by Congress and what you propose to build on your own initiative by 

your lease authority.

Mr. Boutin. I can speak to that very clearly.

PL AN S FOR LE ASE -C ONST RUCTI ON

As far as our leasing auth ority is concerned, what we intend to do 

by lease is simply to consolidate wherever it is possible if we get economic prices in single locations in big blocks what we now have scattered all over. We are not talking in terms of increasing the amount 

of leased space that we have.

We say, and this has been concurred in by the President’s Ad Hoc 

Committee on Space Assignment, tha t we should maintain approximately 10 percent of our inventory in the Washington area in leased 

space to provide for the valleys and to provide for the peaks, and 

the rest should be, as fast as we can get it authorized and approved for 

funding by this committee, in Government-owned space. Bight now, 

we have 62 percent of our total space in the metropolitan area in 

permanent buildings. These are buildings we certainly intend to keep. 

And with our re pair and improvement program, we intend to improve 

as money is available.

We have 14 percent in temporaries, 10 percent in obsolete buildings, 

and 14 percent in leased space. This includes warehouse space, special 

purpose space and everything we control. Of the leased space, under 

9 percent is office space. This compares with a national average tha t is 

substantially more than that. Again, we get to the point of public 

building construction, we are going as quickly as we can, and I know 

the committee is interested because they have approved funds for 

construction nationwide.

PROPORTION OF G OVERNM ENT-O WN ED AND LEASED SPACE

Mr. Tiiomas. What is a good fair proportion of Government-owned 

space against rented space, first nationally and then in the District 

of Columbia?

Mr. Boutin. Ten percent in the District of Columbia ?

Mr. Thomas. Is what?

Mr. Boutin. I s a good fai r proportio n for leased space.

Mr. Thomas. Only 10 percent of all occupied ?

Mr. Boutin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ostertag. Now ?

Mr. Boutin. That is what our goal is.

Mr. T homas. What is it now ?

Mr. Boutin. Bight now, it is 14 percent—13.9 percent.
12

Mr. Thomas. What was it 7 or 10 years ago ?

Mr. Boutin. It has not varied appreciably.

Mr. Thomas. Is that the national average?

Mr. Boutin. No. The national average would be more than that.

Mr. T homas. How much higher?

Mr. Boutin. 28.9 percent.

Mr. E vins. We hear the observation around here tha t there is more 

construction going on in Washington, D.C., than in any other city in 

America, th at we are oversaturated with work and overbuilding.

Mr. Knott. This is true on a current basis. In fact, our invitation 

to bid has generated, and this is publicly recognized, a great deal of 

interest in building here. Our great problem here has been tha t we 

are in competition with private enterprise of the amount of space that 

is available. It is not possible today for us to go out in the city of 

Washington and pick up 20,000 square feet of space in a single block. 

There is not that kind of space available.

We have been leasing on, as Mr. Boutin expressed it, on a firefighting basis.

LEASE -CO NST RUCTION IN WA SHING TO N

Mr. Thomas. If it is good fo r the taxpayers to own 90 or 85 percent 

of the total space occupied by Government in the District of Columbia, 

why is it not good to own 100 percent ?

Mr. Knott. Precisely. If we could ever achieve that, but we are 

far from tha t now.

The fact is, in the District of Columbia between 1940, and until the 

CIA-----

Mr. Thomas. You are going out on your own without consulting the 

Congress and with the rankest type of back-door spending to build 

1 million square feet in th e District without any authority from the 

Congress.

Mr. Knott. In the-----

Mr. Thomas. I understand.

It looks to me, in order to protect yourself about it, you would want 

to consult Congress. Why not submit th at program to the Congress?

Mr. Knott. The Post Office Departm ent-----

Mr. Thomas. You are not responsible for what the Post Office 

Department does.

Mr. Knott. If this were made part of the-----

Mr. Thomas. The point is, you have not come before the Congress. 

Is there any reason why it should not be done?

Mr. Knott. If the legislation calls for-----

Mr. Thomas. WTien this authority was given you, I think Mr. 

Floete testified in here half a dozen times it was not going to be substituted for the authority of Congress and it certainly has been.

Mr. Boutin. I would like to make clear, as Administrator of GSA, 

I am happy to meet with this committee at any time on any part of 

our program.

Mr. T homas. There is no conflict of interest between GSA and this 

committee. We have worked hand in glove in the past and we are 

going to work th at way in the future. We have the very highest re-
13

ga rd fo r you gen tlem en, an d we are going to keep you in th at high 

esteem. That is w hy we a re m eetin g here this mornin g, to disc uss our 

comm on int ere st.

NEW CONSTRUCTION NOT RELEASING RENTED SPACE

Mr. E vins. We build thes e bu ild ings so we can give up leases th at 

are costly, an d ye t GS A cann ot enum era te specific ally a ny n um ber of 

leases canceled an d the am ounts saved. As I view the s itu ati on , th at 

is the way i t is.

Mr. K nott. That is tr ue to some exten t. We have h ad gr ow th during the same perio d the se new bu ild ings hav e come in. Th e State 

Dep artm en t plan fo r the extens ion of th at bu ild ing conte mp lated a 

red uction of 37 loca tion s to 4. Now, as a prac tic al matter, we got 

down to 19 for the St ate Dep artm en t. Pr ac tic ally e very one of those 

leases v aca ted by St ate were pic ked up an d used by agencie s such as 

the Peace C orps and oth ers, so the exp an ding p rogram s of St at e an d 

others hav e picked up the lease space.

In the last ye ar we have pic ked up the spa ce in th e five newest 

build ings t hat ha ve been c onstructed in W ash ington . Tr ue , there is a 

gr ea t deal of constru ction un de rw ay in Wash ington , bu t 2 years ago 

only 1 mi llio n squ are fee t was bu ilt in W ashing ton to meet all the 

pr ivate and Governm ent needs.

Mr. E vin s. You are bu ild ing fo ur new b uildings an d leases are expirin g, an d the n some othe r age ncy comes in an d says, we will pick 

up the lease, we need the space, so, actua lly , in reality , you do not 

cancel th e lease a t all ?

Mr. K nott. Th at, un fo rtu na tely, is th e prac tic al effect. One t hat 

we have been forc ed to give up is a bu ild ing t hat wa s in such bad co nditio n it was no t s afe to continue to occupy i t. I notice now the owners 

of the bu ild ing are being forced to build a new b uilding because there 

is no t a dem and fo r it. I t can not be lea sed.

We have been leasin g buil ding s he re f or 40 years.

ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR AGENCIES

Mr. E vin s. Wh o, in th e fina l analy sis, determines who shall be 

gr an ted new an d ad ditio na l s pace? We know eve ry agency is clam oring fo r more a nd more space. Th ey w an t more an d m ore offices. They 

claim more space req uir em ents. W ho mak es th e fina l decision as to 

wh eth er or no t X agency sh all have a new bu ild ing o r a new a dditional 

lease ?

Mr. B outin. Th e A dm in istrat or of G SA .

Mr. E vins. Th e A dm in istrator ha s a com mittee th at advises you 

an d assists you on t h is ; do you no t ?

Mr. Boutin. We do. We have th e A dm in istrator of GS A, if I 

un de rstand y ou r que stio n corre ctly, an d he has an A dviso ry Com mittee mad e up of the heads of vario us agencies an d departm ents. Up 

un til now we have not ha d the rea l au thor ity , because the 1949 act on 

space assign me nt was subje ct to such directives as the Presiden t 

would issue. No P resid en t, u nt il th is m orn ing , h as ever provid ed such 

directives.
14

EXECUTIVE ORDER DELEGATIN G SPACE A UT HO RITY TO AD MIN IST RA TOR, GSA

We have an Executive order that lias been approved this morning—I 

only have one copy of it—1 would like to supply a copy to the committee.

Mr. Thomas. We are anxious to get it. Head it out loud so it will 

be in the record.

Mr. Boutin. ‘‘By virtue of the auth ority”-----

Mr. Thomas. How long have you been working on that ?

Mr. Boutin. I have been working on tha t since I have been Ad ­

ministrator of GSA. Would you like for me to read it?

Mr. T iiomas. Yes.

Mr. Boutin (rending) :

By virtue of the authority vested iu lue by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, and as President of the United 

States, it is hereby ordered as follows :

Section 1. The Administrator of General Services (hereinafter referred to 

as the Administrator) shall initiate and maintain plans and programs for the 

effective and efficient acquisition and utilization of federally owned and leased 

office space located in the States of the United States or in the District of 

Columbia or in Puerto ltico (hereinafter termed “in the United State s”). The 

Administrator shall prepare and issue standards and criteria for the use of 

such office space and shall periodically undertake surveys of space requirements 

and space utilization in the executive agencies and initiate actions and formulate programs to meet the essential office space requirements of executive 

agencies. In carrying out these functions, the Administrator shall (a) coordinate proposed programs and plans for office buildings and space with the 

Bureau of the Budget, (&) obtain from tlie Civil Service Commission and the 

Office of Emergency Planning any information in the possession of those agencies which may bear upon such programs and plans, (c) take steps to relate 

programs for Federal office space to urban and metropolitan area planning 

and redevelopment objectives, (d) seek the cooperation of the heads of the 

executive agencies concerned with any of the foregoing, and (c) annually submit long-range plans and programs for the acquisition, modernization, and use 

of space for approval by the President.

Mr. Thomas. So far I have not heard of any authority tha t you 

need.

Mr. Boutin. Tt is coming.

Mr. Thomas. You have not gotten to it yet ?

Mr. Boutin (reading) :

Section 2. In carrying out the provisions of section 210(e) of the Federal 

Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 

490(e)) :

(a) The Administrator, and the heads of executive agencies, shall be guided 

by the following policies for the assignment, reassignment, and utilization of 

office buildings and space in the United States :

(1) Prim ary consideration shall be given to the efficient performance of tbe 

missions and programs of the executive agencies, with due regard for the 

convenience of tlie public served and the maintenance and improvement of the 

working conditions of employees;

(2) Maximum use shall be made of existing Government-owned permanent 

buildings which are adequate or economically adaptable to the space needs of 

executive agencies;

(3) Suitable privately owned space shall be acquired only when satisfactory 

Government-owned space is not available, and only at rental charges which 

are consistent with prevailing scales in the community for comparable fac ilities;

(4) Space planning and assignments shall take into account the objective 

of consolidating agencies and constituent parts thereof in common or adjacent 

space for the purpose of improving management and adm inistration:

(5) The quality of office space for Government operations shall be appropriate for the efficient and economical performance of governmental activities,
15

while affording employees safe, hea lthful, and convenient conditions of employment.

(b) The Administrat or shall assign and reas sign office space in the United 

States upon his determination th at such assignm ent or reassignment will serve 

to improve the managem ent and adminis tration of governmental activities and 

services, and will foster economy and efficiency. Prior to making such determinations, the Administrator sha ll consult with the heads of the executive 

agencies concerned and tak e fully into account their requirem ents, consistent 

with his responsibilities.

Mr. Thomas. He gave you that autho rity ?

Mr. Boutin. Yes.

Mr. Thomas. Is he going to take it away further down the page?

Mr. Boutin. I do not believe so.

Mr. Thomas. How much do you have left ?

Mr. Boutin. Ha lf a page left.

Mr. Thomas. That is a dangerous half page.

Mr. Boutin (rea ding ):

In the event th at a head of an agency deems space assigned or reassigned to 

his agency to be unsuitable, and the agency head and the Admin istrator are 

unable to resolve th e matter, the former, as prom ptly as may be practicab le and 

in no even t later tha n the effective date of the A dministrator’s assignment or reassignment, may make a written report thereof, including information and 

views pertinent there to, to the Pre sid ent or to the D irec tor of the Bureau of the 

Budget.

Mr. Thomas. He is cutting it down now.

Mr. Boutin (reading ):

Section 3. The heads of executive agencies shall (a) cooperate with and 

assist the Administrator in carrying out his responsibilities respecting office 

buildings and space, (&) tak e mea sures to give the Administrator early notice 

of new or chang ing space requirem ents, (c) seek to economize in the ir requirements for space, and (d ) review continuously their needs for space in a nd near 

the District of Columbia, taking into accou nt the feasibility of decentralizing 

services or activities which can be carried on elsew here withou t excessive costs 

or significant loss of efficiency.

Section 4. The provisions of this ord er shall be subject to applicable pro­ visions of law (including applicable provisions of any reorganization plan).

Section 5. To the exten t th at it perta ins to office space and buildings, the 

lette r of the President to the Admin istrator, General Services Administration, 

dated August 31,1960, is hereby superseded.

This gives us two things. It gives us the auth ority to assign and 

reassign space. It also gives us a provision in here where the agencies, 

as their plans develop—even before they go before the Bureau of 

the Budget, even before they go to Congress for authorization, have 

to let us know what they have in mind so we can plan for it.

But now, the day after Congress authorizes a program, we are in 

trouble. We have righ t now 600,000 square feet of requests and there 

is no question in our minds, looking it over, it is needed, but we cannot fulfill it.

GSA PROCEDURE UN DE R NEW EX EC UT IVE ORDER

I am delighted to have this. Up until now we could go into an 

agency to study their space utilization, but we had no authority to 

try to make it stick. Strangely, with regard to space utilization, the 

difference between the national average and the picture in Washington, D.C., is 1 foot—153 square feet as compared with 154 square 

feet per person.

86921— 62—pt. 4------3
16

Mr. Evins. Could it be said, Mr. Administrator, now with this 

new Executive order tha t you would not listen to the Congress as 

much as you have in the past on these matters; b ut that you will just 

go along and build all the buildings for which you think there is 

a need ?

Mr. Boutin. The order does not say that, Congressman. We 

would not have any intention of doing that.

I think the chairman has well said this is a partnership arrangement. We have no wish at all to change tha t relationship.

Aly only point in coming before the committee this morning and 

talking about a long-range plan is because this is what I think the 

committee is looking to GSA to do, and I do not think we have ever 

done it. I take no credit for this. The people in the shop are the 

ones who have done the work on it, but I think it eminently sound.

Mr. Tiiomas. That order is the most constructive thing I have 

seen come out of the White House in many years dealing with public 

buildings and office space. That, in my judgment, is overdue 20 or 25 

years. There ought to be an agency in Government, and tha t agency 

is GSA, tha t should have the authority to say yes or no to an agency 

on allocation, assignment, or reassignment of space.

USE OF GSA LEA SE -C ONST RU CT IO N AUTH O RIT Y

There is only one thin g tha t troubles me, and tha t is the use of 

our leased construction authority. You are using it as a substitute 

for congressional action whereby public buildings are wholly constructed with Federal funds and they belong to the Federal Government and the people.

LE AS E PA YOUT PE RIOD S

ITow do you figure a lease construct ion deal ?

Do you figure tha t as an 8-, 10-, 12- or 15-year payout ?

You have authority for 20-year leases.

Mr. Boutin. Actually, rig ht now our leases vary all the way from 

1 year to I think a present maximum in Washington, D.C. of 10 

years. I think that presently is our longest lease. And we are paying premium prices.

PRO POSED LE AS E CO NST RU CT IO N

Mr. Thomas. According to the newspapers, and tha t is all the information we have in here, we have no direct information, you are 

figuring on building 1 million square feet here in the District of Columbia and the construction cost will be in the neighborhood of $18 

to $25 a square foot. You are taking the entire buildings, so that 

the builder is relying upon your contract. Is your contract 10 years, 

15 years?

He is going to take tha t to his banker. We have some practical 

knowledge how these things work, as you gentlemen do. He is 

going to borrow every penny from the financial institution he can 

based upon your contract. He has a free ride and we know it. If 

there is any free riding going on, we think the taxpayers ought to 

have it, and certainly the taxpayers do not get it under your lease 

contract arrangement.
17

Mr. B outin. The only choice, Mr. Chairman, is that we either get 

into big lots at a rate tha t is far less than what we are paying now, 

or we continue to lease small blocks at higher prices.

Mr. T homas. You mean to say that under your lease arrangement, 

you are paying far less than if you build the building with appropriated funds and the taxpayers owned it?

Mr. Boutin. No, sir.

Mr. T homas. Which is the cheaper?

Mr. Boutin. To build and to own.

Mr. T homas. Why not do it ?

Mr. Boutin. Because unless this committee gives us other directions, going tha t fast in our construction program, we are still going 

to have some leased space.

Mr. Thomas. This committee has gone along with you year afte r 

year except when you want to continue a lease-purchase program or 

some extravagant measure. Let it be said for the record that the good, 

common horsesense of GSA is such that they are the first ones to point 

out the extravagance of lease-purchases and other inefficiencies in other 

programs.

You folks carry the ball and we give you credit for it. We admire 

you fo r it and that is the reason; we think vou are a great agency.

Mr. E vins. We think GSA is a great agency but my position is 

tha t somebody ought to keep the lid on building cost and lease costs. 

Somebody ought to exercise authority not to just authorize a new 

building every time some agency wants some more space. I think the 

lid has to be held on, especially in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Boutin. We agree.

Mr. Evins. We recognize, when the Congress authorizes a new 

building such as for the Smithsonian Institution, and passed by the 

legislative committee, we provide the appropriation for that, but 

just for the Administrator to approve every building t hat there is a 

demand for, I think somebody ought to hold the lid on this thing for 

awhile.

A SSIG N M EN T AND U T IL IZ A T IO N OF SPAC E

Mr. B outin. We do not do tha t now with the Executive order. We 

will be in a better position to enforce elimination of, where necessary, 

any extravagance we see in space requirements.

The difficulty, again, is how fast can we go to meet our requirements 

in new appropriations? How much of our inventory are we going to 

keep in leased spaced to take care of the peaks and valleys and how 

can we do it most efficiently ?

Air. Evins. You have to recognize the necessity and make a judgment as to which agencies require what and whether they really need 

this space and also the matter of economy. Those are judgments th at 

you. as Administrator, have to make.

Air. Boutin. Another complication we have is that the agencies 

finance, through their own budgets, their first-year requirements for 

space. They come to us on this. They are authorized a certain program, a certain level of employment, and they come to us as the service 

agency to them to provide the space. We t ry to make the best judgment we can as to how they can best utilize tha t space but we do not 

have the authority, as I see it, to say that we do not care if the Congress 

authorized it or not, they are just not going to have it.
18

Mr. Knott. We do see in this, Mr. Evins, a chance of getting a 

sufficient block of space so that we hope this will replace some of the 

scattered locations and we can deal with it as an agency in much this 

fashion: The agency is located now in four locations with 120,000 

square feet and it would be our hope tha t we can deal with th at agency 

in terms of putting them into 100,000 square feet in a single location 

in this new building. This results in economies in the ir operation 

where they are sending messengers between these four locations day 

in and day out, as well as duplicating administrative facilities and 

we would achieve economies in that fashion. We would achieve 

economies in saving 20,000 square feet and by a longer term lease, 

we would be gettin g economies tha t come from a large leased block 

of space.

Mr. Evins. This is Parkinson’s law and there seems to be no end 

to it. We built a Pentagon, the biggest building in Washington, and 

now they have to build a Junio r Pentagon.

I know of a fine efficient agency of the Government housed in one 

building here in the D istrict and now they have a brand new building 

out in Virginia and they have confusion with messengers running out 

to Virginia to their sprawling staffs outside the District.

I just do not think you have to approve and OK every demand for 

every bit of space tha t every bureau and agency says it needs.

Mr. Knott. Yes, sir.

Mr. Evins. I do not think you are providing efficiency o r economy 

by doing so.

Mr. Knott. The fact is, we have been leasing in excess of 3 million 

square feet in Washington over 20 years, on a year-to-year basis. 

Some of these buildings we have been in for 40 years. They are inefficient and the owner has gotten the money years ago and we are 

still paying the rent.

Mr. Evins. The building next to the White House used to be called 

the State, War and Navy Building; three agencies in one. Such a 

thing as this is now almost unthinkable.

Mr. Thomas. Any further questions?

Mr. Yates. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Boland. With the issuance of this Executive order, an agency 

of the Government is now getting some clear-cut responsibility in this 

field. I thin k this is good and I commend the GSA and I am sure 

the committee does, too, with the position th at the Admnistrator takes 

that this is an effort to coordinate some tremendous problems the Government has with respect to building for Government use and also leasing for Government use.

As the Administrator knows, and I am sure members of the committee know, this p artially stems from the President’s Committee on Fed ­

eral Space Requirements on which the A dministrator of GSA serves, 

as well as other high officials of the Government.

With respect to that, I note in tha t Committee report, over a 10- 

year period, you do provide for the building of particu lar office buildings in the District of Columbia and close to the District of Columbia. 

I also noted in that re port there was a projection where you would reduce the number of leased spaces in this area by how many million 

square feet ?

Mr. Boutin. About 1 million square feet.
19

PURPOSE OF LEASE CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Boland. With reference to the six or seven buildings the Chairman mentioned that you were going to build, where are they to be 

located ? Is this the 1 million square feet we have been reading about 

in the newspapers ?

Mr. Boutin. We have bids at various locations within a ra dius of 

4 miles.

Mr. Boland. Are all of these buildings approved by the app ropriate committees of the Congress ?

Mr. Boutin. No, sir; they are not going to be Government-owned 

buildings. These buildings, with 1 million square feet, we said, could 

not consist of more than four buildings and preferably two ; more preferably one building. This would be to consolidate the many leases 

we have now scattered all over the place and in about 147 locations.

Mr. Ostertag. New buildings?

Mr. Boutin. In these 147 locations ?

Mr. Ostertag. Yes.

Mr. B outin. Many of these are very old; for instance, the WalkerJohnson Building, Mr. Congressman. There was a space study made 

in 1915 when they said that within a few years we will get rid of this 

building and we will not need it any more, but we are still leasing it today. There are little bits and pieces of space all over the place.

PROPORTION OF LE ASED SPA CE

Mr. Boland. Of this 147 locations, this represents only 14 percent 

of what the Government uses in this area ?

Mr. Boutin. That is correct.

Mr. Boland. Only 9 percent of this is used for office space?

Mr. B outin. Under 9 percent.

CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR WASHINGTON

Mr. Boland. With respect to leasing this space and consolidating 

the space that you hope to do under this program, in the number of 

new buildings now going u p tha t are privately financed and privately 

built, have there been any negotiations by the GSA or by some of the 

agencies with the developers of these buildings ?

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Boutin. The most recent space we have leased is No. 1 Fa rrag ut Square. I am talkin g about the downtown area and this space 

in No. 1 F arr agut Square is for the National Capital Transportation 

Agency. We have leased space in the Lawyer’s Club Building for 

NASA and space in the First National Building presently under 

construction.

I am not sure if the building referred to was the one involving 

one of the bidders on the 600,000 square feet we invited bids for this 

spring. I do not believe it was.

Mr. Boland. Wh at do you envisage in your 10-year plan ? Let us 

just take it for a couple of years. What do you plan to do with 

respect to building Government-owned buildings in the District of 

Columbia outside of FOB and 8, 9, and 10 in the Court of Claims
20

tha t I understand are fully funded. The next buildings you hope to 

build and for which you requested site and expenses funds are the FB I 

Building, the Geological Survey, and a GSA records center.

PROPOSED FB I BUIL DING

Where do you plan to put the FB I Building? You requested 

money in the 1963 budget for sites and expenses.

Mr. Boutin. Sites and expenses.

Mr. Boland. Where do you intend to put that building?

Mr. Boutin. Our first thoug ht was to put the building across Pennsylvania Avenue on the north side so it would be located close to Justice. With the President’s ad hoc committee and a provision in that 

study which the President has accepted for a study of the development 

of the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue, which we think would be 

the place to locate it while this study is in process. Of course the Congress has now done away with the taking area tha t limited acquisition 

of sites for public buildings to a small area. Now we can go any place 

in the District. We have made no precise determination at th is point 

where we would locate this building. We would have to make a site 

survey.

Mr. Boland. You could not see in the development of Pennsylvania 

Avenue construction any great new Government building on the north 

side of Pennsylvania Avenue?

Mr. Boutin. We have made no determination on this, pending the 

result of the study.

It would be our judgment it would be better to have a smaller building there th an a million-square-foot type of building.

LEA SE OF EVE NIN G STAR BUILDING

Mr. Boland. Has the Government taken over the site where the 

Evening Star is located ?

Mr. Boutin. We have leased the entire building that is being renovated. We expect space available sometime around September 1.

Mr. Boland. You have leased it for what purpose?

Mr. B outin. Various agencies will occupy that.

Bill, do you have that information?

Mr. Sciimidt. Justice, Federal Trade, and Federal Communications 

Commission.

Mr. Boutin. It is $4.45 a square foot on a 5-year term.

Mr. B oland. Who is the owner of that property now ?

Mr. B outin. I am not sure.

Do you know ?

Mr. Schmidt. I do not know.

Mr. Boutin. We can supply that for the record.

(The information follows:)

The Evening Star Building is owned by the DLW Corp.

COST OF LEASED SPACE

Mr. Yates. What is the comparison in cost between one of your 

20-year leased projects and ownership of tha t same project?

Mr. Boutin. The most recent leases we have had in the downtown 

area of Washington has been $4.87 average, but we are paying up in 

the $6 range now because space is nonexistent and the low bidder on 

the million square feet is $3.98.
21

The third lowest bidder, and this is in blocks of the size we are 

looking for, is $4.18.

Mr. Yates. I do not know whether I phrased my question clearly: 

Where do you now have an agreement to build a 20-year project?

Mr. Boutin. We do not have.

Mr. Yates. None at all?

Mr. B outin. We have gone out for bids up to 1 million square feet 

of space to test the market, to see •where we would stand in an economic study. The results show clearly to me we would be in a 

better position if we can forecast our needs precisely, and I think we 

can, so (hat we can keep in balance the ratio of our leased to Government-owned f acil ities. That is far more economical-----

BIDS ON LEA SE-CON STR UCTIO N

Air. Tiiomas. AVhat were your requests for bids here in the District 

of Columbia for this million square feet? Was tha t 10-year lease?

Air. Boutin. We had three options ; 10,15, and 20.

Mr. Thomas. What were the prices per square foot on the 10,15, and 

20?

Air. Boutin. Air. Schmidt ?

Air. T homas. You have two fine contractors, a local one and a New 

York one.

Air. Boutin. There were nine bids on these.

Air. Thomas. Wha t were those for 10,15, and 20 years ?

Air. Boutin. Bill, do you have it for the 10 ?

Air. Schmidt. I have it for the alternate period which is 15 years.

Mr. Thomas. The papers said around $4.26 a square foot.

Air. Boutin. Tha t is $3.98 on 20.

Air. Schmidt. The low bid was $3.98 on a 20-year basis.

The next bid was $4.13 on a 20-year basis, as compared with $4.50 

on a 15-year basis.

Air. Thomas. How do you contemplate doing business on a 10- 

year lease ?

Air. Boutin. Depending on which is the most economical, Air. Chairman. They were not required to bid on all three bases. They could 

bid on 10,15, or 20, any combination.

Air. Thomas. Do you have the figures on the 10 and 15 years ?

Air. Sciimidt. I have it here on the 20 and the 15.

TE N- YEA K lease bids

Mr. Yates. AVhy w ould they not bid on a 10-year basis ?

Air. Boutin. They have an advantage to be on a longer term because they can get better financing.

Mr. Knott. The contention of many was t hat they could not get 

tha t at less. Private enterprise is leasing for more than 10 years for 

space available.

Air. Yates. AVhy would they make that contention?

Air. T homas. No bidders on a 10-year basis?

Air. Sciimidt. I do not believe any were submitted on a 10-year basis. 

LEASE OF PE RI PH ER AL SPACE

Air. Knott. There has been this confusion in the discussion: AVe 

recently leased six buildings tha t are in the periphery, the outlying 

area, that average about $4.50 a square foot. This was some 600,000 

square feet and this is space to be delivered by Alay of next year.
22

In addition to that, we advertised for 1 million square feet to be 

delivered by June 30, 1964, and this gives o pportunity for broader 

competition among people willing to bid if they could get the financing. Our problem 2 years ago, Mr. Chairman, when we leased the 

Universal Building was th at we asked for delivery in the time when 

nobody, other than this building could provide the space.

Mr. Thomas. $4.50 a square foot is just about $90 a square foot 

over the 20-year period.

None of the space is going to cost more than $18 or $21 a square 

foot to construct ?

COM PARISON OF LEASED AND OWNED CONST RUC TION

Mr. Yates. What would be a comparison between your 20-year 

bid and Government construction? How much would* it have cost 

over a similar period ? There must be a basis for comparison.

Mr. Boutin. Actually we make the basis of comparison on a 40- 

year term, Congressman. This gives us the best picture on making a 

comparison between Government-owned and non-Government-owned. 

We can provide that very easily.

As an example of the great range, six offers on this 600,000 square 

feet said they could offer any amount over 20,000; is th at right, Bill?

Mr. Schmidt. Tha t is right.

Mr. Boutin. We had 22 responsive bidders and the price per square 

foot ranged from $4.29 to $6.84. We picked up the space we needed 

in Maryland and Virginia because the space in the D istrict of Columbia just was not competitive but we are increasing the cost to the Government every time we go outside.

Mr. Yates. I still do not have an answer on the comparison of costs. 

The answer tha t you gave me is tha t you would select the most economical method, lease or construction, and you have not yet told the committee what conclusion you came to with respect to bids you received, 

whether it would be more economical to use private construction or 

Government construction.

Mr. Boutin. Mr. Yates, actually there is no question in my mind at 

all, and I cannot ba t this out with'solid information on this p articular 

case, but it is cheaper to have Government-owned space. Our problem 

is complicated by the temporary buildings where a judgment has to be 

made and made right away. Do we come into the committee with a 

grea t request for funds to put these things in shape or do we tear 

them down ?

LEASING OF “ LARGE BLOCKS”

Mr. Ostf.rtag. Mr. Administrator, in line with the recommendations of the President’s Committee and in your statement, you point 

up two major areas of concern and consideration; namely, the continuation of an aggressive program of building construction and coupled with that, repair and improvement of existing permanent 

buildings.

Mr. Boutin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ostertag. In addition to that, you call for meeting the balance 

of requirements through the leasing of large blocks of space ?

Mr. Boutin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ostertag. I assume you mean on a long-range basis, 10- or 

20-year lease ?
23

Mr. B outin. What I am actually getting at there, Congressman, is 

tha t it is our judgment we can do f ar better, cost wise, in getting into 

large blocks with totals being equal.

Mr. Ostertag. Wh at do you mean by large blocks ?

Mr. Boutin. I am talking now, if we can limit our leasing to 

500,000 square feet up to 1 million square feet, we can do substantially better costwise than we can be g etting 10,000 from one owner 

and 20,000 from another.

Mr. Ostertag. Involved in this whole picture are additional requirements on the part of Government agencies as well as the situa ­

tion with regard to temporary buildings and the condition of these 

buildings, plus the cost of leasing under the present arrangement 

which has been more or less overcostly? Is that the substance of it?

Mr. Boutin. It has been overcostly because GSA was having to 

act on a spur-of-the-moment basis. Today we have the need fo r 10,- 

000 and we will fill it.

LONG-TE RM SPAC E RE QU IREM EN TS IN WAS HI NG TO N, D.C.

Mr. Ostertag. I wanted to ask whether or not and in line with 

Presidential authority, the directive and the overall plan, as unfolded 

in this whole picture, you have been able to see what you are going 

to need by way of new buildings, and what you are going to need by 

way of improvements, and what you are going to need by way of leasing on a long-term basis that you speak of. Do you have that figured 

out spacewise, dollarwise, or in any fashion you want to express it?

Mr. Boutin. I thin k we do, Congressman. I think we have it in 

two ways. I thin k the statement we have provided to the committee speaks to that, and also the repo rt of the President’s ad hoc committee which actually was based on inform ation we supplied to tha t 

committee.

Mr. Ostertag. Projected into the futur e?

Mr. Boutin. This is projected into the future over the next 10 years 

as to what we may need in the way of new construction, what are 

some of the most pressing and urgent needs, and a balance in the 

leased space as against Government-owned space. It deals with tha t 

and as we have discussed this morning, wherever possible, to decentralize. All of these things are dealt with in these two documents 

tha t constitute our long-range planning.

Mr. Ostertag. Does this report, or this recommendation, take into 

account the potential growth of the Government over the next 10 

years as well as the number of agencies, the number of operations, 

programs, and more important than all, the total number of people 

tha t will be employed for which space will have to be provided ?

BASIS FOR PR OJ EC TION OF SPAC E NEEDS

Air. Boutin. We are estimating, Congressman, and some of the estimates have gone as high as 6,000. We do not agree with tha t but we 

have based our figures on an estimate tha t the Federal population 

in the metropolitan area will increase on an average of 2,000 employees 

a year, just on the basis of national growth and requirements of some 

of the programs. We cannot crystal-ball into the future any say what 

the new programs might be in space or atomic energy and so forth. 

86921— 62 — pt. 4 ------4
24

These are the best judgments tha t we can make but we do not look 

for any great increase in the Federal population as justifying our 

planning.

We figured 2,000 a year.

Mr. Ostertag. In recent years, there has been a terrific growth of 

new agencies and new programs and space requirements as you mentioned. We have the Peace Corps and many others tha t have come 

into being as well as others that have had a rapid growth. For example, take the case of FA A wrhich has expanded tremendously. I 

am not quarreling with tha t b ut merely pointing out these facts and 

this reality. What is going to happen in the years ahead ?

If we just keep going at the same rate, we will fall behind just 

as fast as you can catch up and growth is going to exceed your normal 

expectations of requirements.

Mr. Yates. You have to keep running just to stand still.

Mr. B outin. I talked to the President several times about this and 

where we would make determinations as to space utilization. As some 

of these programs increase we are takin g for granted some are going 

to decrease and by watching our space utilization, we are going to be 

able to keep within sensible bounds the requirements for space.

We have provided for peaks and valleys with an estimate of lease 

construction tha t will be a par t from our permanent program. We 

would not want to come to this committee with a need forecasted for 

new buildings that did not materialize. I cannot think of anything 

more embarrassing that could happen.

ESTIMA TED SAVINGS BY LEASING “ LARGE BLOCKS”

Mr. Ostertag. Getting down to the dollars and cents aspect of this 

and in your statement you point out, as well as in the discussion here, 

tha t savings would accrue anywhere from $1 million to $3 million a 

year. It is hard to picture in my mind as to how these savings would 

be achieved.

Fo r example, are they based on the fact tha t rental is more costly 

than Government-owned operations by way of dollars, or does it mean 

tha t leases would be of such a n ature in length that you would realize 

a net saving ?

Mr. Boutin. It means both, Congressman. Actually, in our forecasted plans of new buildings, we hope to be able to construct, we are 

estimating savings in tha t case, with Federal construction, Federal - 

owned construction, as against leased construction. The second point 

is th at by leasing for longer terms in larger blocks, we can get a more 

favorable rate for the Government than we can by taking small leases 

that we have now, for which we are paying, in many instances, premium prices.

This very significant. This does not take into consideration the 

savings tha t would accrue in operations of the Federal Government 

itself by consolidation, and I th ink this is a very valid point.

Mr. Ostertag. When the Government builds a large building, it is 

like any other person, company, or corporation. It is a capital investment and there is considerable funding going into i t; and then there 

is also the question of maintenance and operation, all of which is pa rt 

of the cost in the operation of a new building.
25

It may be efficient and economical to have all Government-owned 

buildings and have them operated in that way as compared with leasing, but you cannot write off completely the cost by virtue of the fact 

tha t you have a new building ra the r than a lease, because new buildings 

cost money to capitalize, and cost money to operate, repair, and maintain.

In tha t connection, I would like to ask this question:

NA TU RE AND PRO PORTION OF OW NE D AND LEASED SPACE

Perhaps this has been answered before, b ut in the overall picture 

of the Distric t of Columbia, I believe you said somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 percent of the space presently occupied is under lease ?

Mr. Boutin. The total space, about 14 percent.

Mr. Ostertag. In other words, 86 percent of your requirements to ­

day are occupied and used by means of Government-owned buildings, 

temporary or permanent?

Mr. Boutin. Tha t is correct.

Mr. Ostertag. What percentage are temporary as compared with 

permanent?

Mr. Boutin. The percent is as follows:

We have 62 percent permanent, 14 percent temporary, 10 percent 

obsolete, and 14 percent leased.

Mr. Ostertag. In your overall plans which your say are embodied 

in the report, what percentage would remain under a long-term lease 

proposition as compared with new buildings or permanent buildings?

Mr. Boutin. Not to exceed 10 percent.

Mr. Ostertag. In other words, your plan calls for continuation of 

approximately 10 percent on a leased basis?

Mr. Boutin. That is correct.

Mr. Ostertag. It would also call for complete tran sfer for temporary to permanent construction?

Mr. Boutin. That is corr ect; transfer from temporaries and obsolete buildings.

AN NU AL COST OF BU ILD ING PROGRAM

Mr. Ostertag. Your building program would be embraced within 

the 10-year period?

Mr. Boutin. Tha t is correct.

Mr. Ostertag. What would be a general estimate of the costs ?

Mr. B outin. Over an 8-year fu nding period, if this were to be followed, it would call for an annual appropriation for the Metropolitan 

Washington area of somewhere in the vicinity of $53 million. It has 

averaged in the past several years about $27 million, I believe.

Is tha t correct, Bill?

Mr. Schmidt. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ostertag. Taking the same questions and applying them nationwide, throughout the country, outside the Distirict of Columbia, 

what would the same program, carried forward for the same period of 

time and on the same basis, cost ?

Mr. Boutin. We have localized the study to the Washington area 

and as I testified a while ago, 29 percent of our space nationwide is 

leased. However, we are making some pretty rapid strides on cor-
26

reeling tha t to get into a lower category and more Government-owned 

by our construction program we are following.

Some communities now are in excess of 90 percent Governmentowned. You also do not have the temporary buildings to contend 

with, nationwide.

We have some older buildings but we are taking care of these largely through the postal modernization program. We are getting into 

buildings vacated by post offices and are modernizing some of these 

under our R. & I. and extension and conversion programs. We are 

converting many of these into good Government-owned space.

PLANS FOR LEASED SPACE OUTSIDE WASHINGT ON, D.C.

Mr. Ostertag. What percentage would remain on a leased basis 

as compared with permanent buildings outside the District of Columbia at the end of the 10-year period ?

Mr. Boutin. I cannot speak as to the end of the 10-year period, but 

what we are looking for is precisely the same ratio with some communities being substantially high er; tha t is, those tha t do not have 

big fluctuating programs, programs like NASA or Atomic Energy, 

tha t may go up today and down, tomorrow. Then you have FAA, 

Food and Drug, Inte rnal Revenue programs for lease construction, 

special purpose space.

In the case of Inte rnal Revenue, you have their ADP centers and 

even though this is their program, it does change the figures we are 

talking about. Food and Drug is almost exclusively leased space, 

long-term leased space, special purpose laboratories.

Then you have FAA with th eir facilities near the airports.

Fo r instance, the space at Idlewild Airport—we are paying substantial money for it but nevertheless it does tend to increase the percentage of leased space nationwide.

Mr. Ostertag. Is there no thoug ht or consideration given to lease 

purchase in any of this program ?

Mr. Boutin. No, sir ; none at all.

Mr. Ostertag. Getting down to the brass tacks of the situation, it 

is true tha t this committee is associated with the funding, or actually 

making moneys available as budgeted and programed from year to 

year, but where do we come in, and what authority do you need other 

than what you have today, to move ahead with this program ?

Mr. Boutin. We do not need any authority over and beyond what 

we have. All we need is a darn good close working relationship with 

this committee, Congressman. That is all we need.

Mr. Ostertag. Your purpose in discussing this matter with us now 

is to brie f us as to your plans and to make sure we have some understanding of what you have in mind?

Mr. Boutin. Precisely. Actually, what we are here for, I take it, 

is to get some ground rules. I am a neophyte in this business of 

Government and I am looking to the committee for direction. Just 

as an indication, Congressman, of what lias been done by this committee to date, when the 1959 act was passed—and many of you had 

a hand in tha t—it was estimated we had a backlog of $3 billion in 

construction requirements.

Since the 1959 act this committee appropriated $71 million for 

sites and expenses and $354.4 million for construction nationwide.
27

We are gaining on this and it is a question of how we can achieve 

the greatest economies and which tools we are going to use.

Mr. Oestertag. Wha t do you mean when you speak of “ground 

rules” ? What do you want to establish with the committee in the 

way of ground rules ? How fast you can go or what ?

Mr. Boutin. I think what I am looking for is—and I have set forth 

the position as I see it this morning with this statement and the 

testimony we have given—if the committee disagrees with this and if 

the committee thinks we are wrong, then we would like to discuss it 

and be told so. This is all we are looking for.

Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Chairman, may I go off the record ?

Mr. Thomas. Yes.

(Discussion off the record.)

CRITERIA FOR CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE WASHINGTON

Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a couple of questions on the record now.

In constructing buildings outside of the District of Columbia, does 

GSA take into account the possibility tha t the Federal services might 

contract in the area, and you m ight need to resell these buildings for 

some other purpose ?

In other words, are they constructed with the thought tha t they 

might someday have to be resold and the Federal investment 

salvaged ?

Mr. Boutin. Yes, sir. In view of this, Congressman, what we 

do in selecting a site is tha t we try to get into a growing area, the 

best part of the community. We also try to get into a growth area 

where other new construction is going in, where our property will 

retain its value. In selecting our buildings on the basis of relative 

urgency, we try to confine our construction projects to those areas 

where we know, long-range, there is going to be continued utility for 

tha t facility.

We try to forecast this on the basis of a minimum of 40 years.

SPACE TO BE RENOVATED OR REPLACED

Mr. Rhodes. Following along the questioning of the gentleman 

from New York, as I gather, 28 percent of the office space which you 

now have in the District of Columbia must be replaced or rebuilt if 

you get down to your 10 percent ratio for rental space.

Mr. Boutin. Tha t is it precisely.

Mr. Rhodes. How many square feet must be replaced or rebuilt?

Mr. B outin. We have actually 5.5 million square feet of temporary 

buildings. We do not believe th at long-range all of these should be 

replaced, at least within the next 10 years. I speak particularly of 

the Navy-Munitions Building. We think tha t can be rehabilitated. 

It is a reinforced concrete building. We will have to do something 

on cutting off the wings because of the roadway going through there, 

but the building itself can serve continued utility.

In general terms that is correct, 3.7 million square feet of obsolete 

buildings—Belasco Theatre, the old Auditorium right near the GSA 

building. There is a lot of tha t type construction.

Mr. Rhodes. That would be replaced inside of 8 years ?

Mr. Boutin. We hope, if this committee sees fit.
28

COST OF EIGH T-YE AR SPACE PROGRAM

Mr. Rhodes. What average cost per square foot do you visualize?

Mr. Boutin. On pure office space I think we can actually come 

out with a figure of about $26 or $27. When you get into court buildings, you are into a different situation. In some we will do better 

than that.

Mr. Rhodes. Does tha t include land acquisition?

Mr. Boutin. Land acquisition is a very big factor.

Mr. Rhodes. Does the figure you gave me per square foot include 

land acquisition ?

Mr. Boutin. Oh, yes, and design.

ATr. Rhodes. Will the total in 8 years be somewhere around $424 

million ?

Mr. Boutin. I can tell you precisely. About $425 million is our 

best estimate. The only problem here is tha t we have in our plans 

figured tha t there was a possibility of HH FA being authorized to 

use th eir own funds on a loan basis to build their building. If this 

does not happen, then we have to figure another $30 million approximately to bring together tha t agency.

EFF ECT OF EXECUT IVE ORDER ON GSA RE SPON SIB ILITIE S

Mr. Rhodes. The new directive which you read into the record a 

while ago seems to me to delegate quite a bit of indirect responsibility 

to General Services Administration for either approving or disapproving reorganization of some of the Government departments merely because of the fact tha t the decision to reorganize must take into 

account the space needed and the space available. So would you not 

say this causes you to be deeply involved in the business of reorganization?

Mr. Boutin. Actually it gets us pretty deep into the everyday 

operation more than the organization or reorganization because this 

directive really does two thin gs as fa r as GSA is concerned. It gives 

us the responsibility to assign and reassign space. It also gives us 

the reponsibility to do some long-range planning and to get into the 

long-range planning of the agencies.

Mr. Rhodes. In coming up with the answers as to the long-range 

need fo r space, is it not necessary for you to consider whether a p articu lar agency is doing what it should be doing by law or whether it 

is doing more or less than it should be doing?

Mr. Boutin. Not really into its functions, I would not think, Congressman. I th ink it does give us a responsibility, getting back to the 

other question, that if an agency comes to us and says we are going to 

move that big outfit we have in Kansas City or Chicago to Washington, 

we can say that this is impossible. We do not have space, it ife not 

economical, and we are going to disapprove it. We would make tha t 

desicion before it even gets to the point of Bu'reau of the Budget and 

to the various committees of the Congress.

Of course, they can then go to the President or come to the Congress 

and have our opinion set aside.

Mr. Rhodes. So your main function is still a logistical function as 

fa r as this situation is concerned ?

Mr. Boutin. Yes, sir.
29

Mr. Rhodes. I noticed in, I think, FOB 6, the one occupied by 

HE W and NASA, up on the top floor of t hat building there is a lot 

of glass. It looks like a great big beautiful entertainment space. 

Wh at is the top floor of tha t building? Is it a cafeteria or a banquet 

hall ?

Mr. Boutin. It is all NASA space. I have been through th at space 

up there. They have a couple of sizable conference rooms. That is the 

only thing I can place tha t it might be. We have had some complaints 

on the lights in FOB 6 being on at night. We have had our maintenance people watching that very closely. The fact of the m atter is a 

lot of these people are working nights. We have not found waste in 

tha t regard where they are just leaving them on because somebody is 

too lazy to turn them off.

Mr. R hodes. I should like to compliment the agency on the quality 

of building they do and the time they take to do it. I think they have 

put up about four buildings while we have been putting up this one 

Third House Office B uilding here.

Mr. Thomas. They do a good job.

Mr. Rhodes. We would have been better off had we asked them to 

do it.

Mr. Thomas. I join Mr. Rhodes in his commendation of the agency.

EX EC U TIO N OF E EA SE -C ONST RU CTI ON CO NT RA CTS

As fa r as your lease-construction program in the District of Columbia is concerned, if I may summarize it, the matter is quite indefinite 

yet. You have not stated when you expect to sign a contract. The best 

information you have is that you have very few, if any, bids on a 10- or 

15-year lease, mainly 20-year leases.

You are very indefinite on your cost figures. Your rent runs, I believe you said, up to $4.50 on a 20-year basis. About the most definite 

figure you have given us is tha t your construction bill will increase 

about $25 million a year, making it a total of around $52 million or 

$53 million a year. What concerns the committee is this lease construction that is clearly the most expensive method of providing government space.

We respectfully suggest to GSA that you withhold the signing of 

any instrument tha t would bind the taxpayers of this Government 

for 20 years, that you go back to the Bureau of the Budget and see 

if you can come back with some definite plans for direct appropriation and Government ownership of your necessary space in the District 

of Columbia.

CH IC AGO, IE E ., CO URT HOU SE AN D FOB

Mr. Yates. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the A dministrator a question 

relating to a letter which I have just received from the Chicago F ederal Center architects, dated Jun e 28, 1962, addressed to me? It 

rea ds:

Dear Congressman Yates : We are seriously concerned over the disposition 

to be made of the proposals for the erection of the superstructure on General 

Services Administration project No. 11908, U.S. Courthouse and Federal office 

building. We earnestly solicit your intervention to assure the success of this 

project which has such great significance for the city of Chicago and the entire 

State of Illinois.
30

The facts are as follow s:

The original prospectus for the pro ject based upon the estima te of Public 

Buildings Service indicated a total cost of $44,230,000.

The tota l cost based upon quotations actua lly received and a sub stantial contingency allowance now appea rs to be $42,557,500.

Unfortunate ly, the appropriation which Congress has made availab le is only 

$36,793,000.

At the present time the General Services Adm inistration is pursuin g two 

courses of ac tio n:

1. They have instiga ted a request from Congress for $5,500,000 in orde r to 

go ahead with the present building.

2. In the event that the above fails, they are asking us as the arc hitects and 

engineers to try to reduce the cost by approximately $5,500,000.

It is our concern th at such a reduction in cost is almost impossible and that, 

if achieved, will res ult in a very mediocre building unsu ited to its function and 

reflecting no credit on its sponsors. We sincerely believe that the building as 

it is now planned is a simple, functional, and economical structur e which gives 

prop er representatio n to its purpose as a Fed eral courts and oflice building.

The figure of $36,793,000 was w hat the committee voted upon the 

representation of GSA tha t this was all the building would cost; 

is that right?

Mr. Boutin. No. We came in for a greater appropriation, and the 

committee cut the appropriation.

Mr. Yates. When was that? The appropriation was cut only because we were told this was the amount you could get along with. 

Wha t is the amount you need ?

Mr. Boutin. I personally agree with the architect a thousand percent. that we cannot cut very much out of this building without cutting 

quality.

Mr. Yates. What is the amount you need for this building ?

Mr. Boutin. We need another $5.5 milion.

Mr. Yates. Will $5.5 million be sufficient? Is $5.5 million the 

amount needed to complete this building in the manner contemplated 

by the architects and GSA ?

Mr. Boutin. Yes. I can say this. We are going out on a new set 

of bids. The only thing we can see that we could do to save a little 

money is to cut out the cafeteria. There are a few other little items 

that are insignificant where we may be able to reduce this by as much 

at $800,000. We are going back on bids and see what happens. If 

w’e get real lucky, we may need only $4 million or we may need $5 

million I do not know. We did get a good cross section of bidding on 

this project. Whatever we can cut it, th at will be our need.

Mr. Yates. You do need $5.5 million for tha t building this year?

Mr. Boutin. From the best knowledge we have.

Mr. Yates. The amount of $36,793,000 is inadequate; is that right ?

Mr. Boutin. From the best information we have, tha t is correct.

Mr. Yates. Thank you.

Mr. Thomas. When will you come up with a definite figure of 

absolute need?

Mr. Boutin. We will be going out for bids within 2 weeks, I believe.

Mr. Thomas. Whatever they have to have they should have. But 

you will not know for 2 weeks.

Mr. Boutin. In about 45 days we will know.

Mr. Yates. You do know you need $5.5 million and tha t the amount 

below tha t you are able to save will be just a token amount; is that 

right?
31

Mr. Boutin. I do not thin k it will be substantial. I could be wrong, 

and I hope I am.

Mr. Yates. Your best estimate at the moment is you need $5.5 million and tha t a bid will not be substantially below this amount of $42,- 

557,000 ?

Mr. B outin. Yes.

Mr. Yates. So t ha t you actually need the $5.5 million now to complete your work ?

Mr. Boutin. That is the best information we have on hand right 

now.

Mr. Yates. Are there any other questions by the committee on this? 

It seems they cannot complete this building with the amount available. 

COST AN D SIZ E OF CHIC AGO PRO JEC T

Mr. Thomas. What is your best guess on the Chicago building as 

to the floor space and the cost?

Mr. Boutin. We had estimated construction at $42,130,000. The 

gross square feet is 1,319,000. We are talking in the area of $32.

Mr. Thomas. That is not a contractor’s estimate, is it?

Mr. Boutin. That is the low bid.

Mr. Thomas. So tha t is a contractor’s estimate.

Mr. Boutin. Well, our estimate and the low bid are almost exactly 

the same. What figure did you have, Congressman?

Mr. Thomas. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

COST AN D SIZE OF CHICAGO PROJECT

Mr. Thomas. Have you gone out for bids yet?

Mr. Boutin. No.

Mr. Yates. You have a bid now?

Mr. Boutin. We are going out for new bids.

Mr. Thomas. When?

Mr. B outin. We will be out fo r new bids within 30 days, I believe.

Mr. Schmidt. About 60 days.

Mr. Ostertag. I thought you said you would have all the bids in 

by 45 days.

Mr. Boutin. I hoped that.

Mr. Rhodes. Did you reject all bids?

Mr. Boutin. Yes, we did. Can we expedite this to get that thing 

out for bid within the next 3 weeks? Is there any reason why that 

cannot be done?

Mr. Schmidt. We will have to keep to a minimum the changes- We 

make.

Mr. Boutin. Tha t is the thing to do.

Mr. Thomas. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.)

NE T COST EFFECT OF LE AS E-CO NS TR UC TION PROJECTS

Mr. Boland. Getting back to the question of leased space, what 

would be the effect on the total rent bill in the District of Columbia

SEP 1 0 19 62

86 921—^ 2 — pt.

i
32

by virtue of these lease construction projects for the 1 million square 

feet of space?

Mr. Boutin. My point is tha t we are not going to increase our 

rental costs, but we are going to decrease our rental costs by getting 

out of the small spaces and consolidating into larger blocks. We 

are taking it from one hand and putting it in another, the net result 

being we will save money in rent and save money by having more 

efficient government.

CUR RENT RENTAL COST IN WAS HI NG TO N, D.C.

Mr. Thomas. What were the figures you gave for rent in the District of Columbia now, and what is the figure you intend to pay over 

and above what you are paying now? I was repeating your own 

figures, I thought.

Mr. B outin. Our rental bill in the metropolitan area is $16,820,000 

as of the present time.

COST OF PROPOSED LEA SE-CON STR UCTIO N

Mr. T homas. What will these new contracts cost?

Mr. Boutin. These new’ contracts on the basis of the low’ bid, $3.98 

a square foot against an average now of $4.15, and it is going up. 

We w’ill be able to stabilize our figure of rental at a lowTer figure than 

now’ and be sure we will keep it. Every single lease tha t expires 

now that w’e renew’ we are having to renew at a higher rate.

Mr. Thomas. What does it cost annually ?

Mr. Boutin. A million square feet would cost us $3,980,000. If 

we get rid of a million feet at $4.15, we are getting rid of $4,150,000. 

Some of this will not be net savings because it is a question of tempo 

demolition that is there also.

GOVERNM ENT CONST RUC TION IN LI EU OF LEA SE-CON STR UCTION

Mr. Thomas. Why not build these buildings outright and own it 

all? You are giving somebody, certainly, a 10-year payout on a 

building, or a t most a 15-year payout on a building, and the Government will pay for it, and at the end of 10 or 15 years you have nothing. 

Why not let the Government build this building? This is my point.

Mr. Boutin. We could not agree more with you. If we can move 

fast enough to provide new’ construction—w’e tried to arrive at a 

balanced figure in asking for construction money.

Mr. Thomas. Did you ask the Bureau of the Budget for it ?

Mr. Boutin. We talked to the Bureau.

Mr. Thomas. They denied it ?

Mr. Boutin. We have a $250-million-a-year nationwide figure from 

them for construction.

Mr. T homas. They want you to go out and waste a t least 20 or 25 

or 30 percent of the taxpayers’ money here on lease-construction as 

against direct ownership. I cannot see that.

Mr. Boutin. This is interim until we meet it with new construction.

Mr. Thomas. Have you asked the Bureau of the Budget for it? 

Why not go back and ask them as we suggested a while ago?
33

Mr. Boutin. Mr. Bell was a member of this ad hoc com mittee.

Mr. T homas. As fa r as I am concern ed, I disagr ee wi th th e committee. I have been wa tching leas e-c onstruct ion fo r a long tim e, and 

wh at you are doing here is th e most expensive metho d known to 

ma n—the most expensive me tho d kno wn to man—I repe at it. It is 

even more expensive th an lease purch ase , which was killed by thi s 

com mittee 2 or 3 y ears ago. You know it an d eve rybody in this room 

kno ws it.

Even un de r lease purch ase , a fter 15 or 20 or 25 or 30 years, th e Gov ­

ern me nt ac tua lly acquired ti tl e ; bu t th is way you rent and re nt and 

ren t and re nt a nd you n ever acq uire title.

NEE D FOR CERTAIN LEAS ED SPAC E

Mr. Rhodes. Mr. C ha irm an , w ith th e sit ua tio n as v ola tile as it is in 

the Gover nm ent , I wonder if we sho uld no t con sider th e likelih ood 

th at it would be good busines s t o hav e at leas t some perce nta ge o f the 

Fe de ral floorspac e be rented space ju st fo r th e purpo se of flexibility. 

I do n ot know w hethe r 10 pe rcen t is ri ght o r 14 perc ent o r 5 pe rce nt, or 

what. Bu t I can see th at it would be impossible, un de r the se con ditions, f or the G overn me nt to own all of the floorspace it utilizes.

Mr. T homas. Tha t is tru e. I th in k th at is well tak en, pa rticul ar ly 

where you are going out an d picking up a sma ll piece o f spac e in this 

tow n and th at town, bu t here in the Distri ct of Colum bia, where you 

are going to rent the en tir e bu ild ing, you are bu ild ing the entire 

bu ild ing bu t you will never acq uire title to it.

Mr. Boland. But t his is in concert wi th the plan s which GS A has 

wi th refere nce to lea sin g space, th at 14 pe rce nt now of th e space th at 

is uti lized is leased space. I agree with Mr. Rhode s, I th in k the re 

ou gh t to be some flexib ility here. My un de rstand ing is th is prog ram 

about w hich we ha ve been ta lk in g this morning is d ire cte d to th is end. 

Is th is so?

Mr. B ou tin . Yes.

Mr. Boland. W ha t you are tryin g to do is coord ina te fro m 147 

loc ations i nto how many?

Mr. B ou nN . Pr ob ab ly two.

Mr. T homas. W hy not go back to the Bu reau of t he B ud ge t and ask 

the m fo r au th or ity t o bu ild t hat bu ild ing an d you own it ? Ce rta inl y 

I, fo r one, will go wi th you on it lock, stock, an d barre l.

Mr. Bou tin . You un de rstand , Mr. Ch airm an , this wou ld be in 

ad ditio n to wh at we are alread y forecasting of do ublin g ou r constr uc tio n r ate .

Mr. T homas. You are going to pa y the bill, any way. When you 

get th ro ug h p ay ing the bill, you m ay as well own it.

Mr. Boland. Und er wh at the ch air ma n suggests, we wou ld own 

all the bu ild ings and all of th e space utilized by the Gov ernment 

wou ld be in Government-owned bu ilding s.

Mr. T homas. Th is 1 millio n square foo tage of ad ditio na l ren ted 

spac e, com pletely housed in fo ur or five build ing s, will no t be all of 

the space you ren t here in the Distric t of Colum bia by any means.
34

ANTICIPATED LONG-RANGE NEED FOR LEASED SPACE

Mr. Boutin. Our anticipation is tha t over this 10-year cycle, if we 

are successful in getting a sufficient level of appropriation to build 

the new buildings we see desperately needed, if we are going to get 

out of tempo space without spending tremendous dollars in rehabilitation, tha t we are still going to need between 2 and 3 million square 

feet of leased space, and our choice is : Do we do it in big blocks or 

do it in small blocks of space? This is the dilemma we find ourselves in.

Mr. T homas. Getting back to these six or seven buildings you are 

going to rent in toto, tha t does not comprise more than one-third or 

one-fourth of the rented space in the District of Columbia, does it?

Air. Boutin. Of the total Government rented space ?

Mr. Thomas. Yes.

Mr. Boutin. This is what we anticipate will be our total by getting 

rid of these other leases.

Mr. T homas. The whole thing will be over what period of years?

Mr. Boutin. Over a period of 10 years. By then, I hope we will be 

able to correct this. A major exception will be that, as the committee 

knows, GSA rents its warehouse at Franconia from the Methodist 

Society.

Mr. Thomas. You want to include this old concrete building on 

Constitution Avenue. When you get through, you have not included more than half of you r rented space.

Mr. Boutin. Which building is the chairman referring to?

Mr. T homas. The Munitions Buildng.

Mr. Boutin. We own that.

Mr. T homas. That is temporary space, though.

Mr. Boutin. It is temporary, but as I testified, Mr. Chairman, we 

do not consider that in the same light we do the tempos on the mall 

or the tempos across from HE W tha t are falling around our ears. 

That space can be rehabilitated for resonable continued use.

TEMPORARY BUILDINGS

Mr. Thomas. Of course, talking about these tempos, you are not 

rehab ilitating them, you are just giving them the ax, tearing them 

down.

Mr. Boutin. Those things cost $4.75 to build, and if we were to 

come to this committee to rehabilitate for a 5-year period, we would 

have to come in on a minimum of $8 a square foot to rehabilitate, and 

we would still have nothing.

Mr. T homas. I remember when they were built. They were built in 

a very short time, I think. When they started one of them, they 

worked aroiuid the clock, and in 3 days’ time from the minute they 

started work, they would be occupied. They were prefabricated anil 

all ready to be put together.

Mr. Boutin. This is in the Mall area between the Capitol and the 

Washington Monument that they have wanted to keep clear. This 

could be a great contribution to the Capital City.
35

AD VI SA BI LITY OF GOVER NM EN T CO NST RU CT IO N

Mr. Tiiomas. When you build these six or seven buildings, have 

them built and lease them, comprising some 1 million square feet of 

space, how much more rented space will you have and how much more 

temporary space will you have tha t is not rented ?

Mr. Boutin. As these new buildings are completed, Mr. Chairman, 

it is our hope tha t we will be able to backfill that space that will be 

vacated from the tempos or, rather, we will take tha t space that is 

being vacated from tempos and obsolete buildings and put it into the 

new buildings. The same think with the question of leases. To get 

out of the little leases and get them into the big leases with the economies we see. Our net result is going to be precisely the same, but we 

are going to have a vastly upg raded quality of space. We think it will 

be at substantial savings.

Mr. Thomas. You think your rent will be on the average of $4 a square foot per year.

Mr. B outin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thomas. For a million square feet. Tha t is $80 million.

Mr. Boutin. I would say to you and this committee that I can go 

out over the next 7 days and negotiate 2 million square feet of space 

for delivery in the next 3 years for under $4 and get out of the small 

blocks of leased space we have.

Mr. T homas. Why not go to the B ureau of the Budget and get your 

authority to build the buildings outright and own them? You know 

lease construction is the most expensive way you can possibly house 

your agencies.

Mr. Boutin. With the exception t ha t if we are going to keep any 

portion of our leased space as flexibility, which we think we need, I 

agree very much with Congressman Rhodes and Congressman Boland. 

I think we have to have some flexibility. I would rath er have it at 

somebody else’s risk than ours.

Mr. Thomas. Who is taking the risk? It is nobody’s risk except 

the taxpayer. You do not think the constructor is going to take the 

risk? He is not going to get 5 cents until he gets your signed contrac t, and then he will take i t to the bank. It is the taxpayer’s signature that is going to get him the money. You know it and I know it. 

Who is taking the risk ?

Mr. Boutin. Again, Mr. Chairman, our choice is to continue leasing 

the way we are leasing-----

Mr. T homas. No, it is not. You can go to the Bureau of the Budget. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Thomas. We thank you for coming over, gentlemen.
36

Monday, J uly 16, 1962.

AMENDMENTS TO 1963 BUD GET 

OF FICE OF SCIENCE AND TECH NOLOGY

W IT N E S S E S

DR. JE R O M E B. W IE S N E R , A CTIN G D IR EC TO R , O F F IC E OF SCIE NCE

A N D TE CH NO LO GY

D A V ID Z. B EC K LER , A SSIS TA N T TO T H E D IR EC TO R 

DR. JA M E S B. H A R T G E R IN G , T EC H N IC A L A SSIS TA N T

Salaries and E xpenses

Mr. Thomas. Gentleman, will the committee please come to order. 

We have with us today our very able and distinguished friend, 

Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner, Acting Director of OST ; Mr. David Beckler, Assistant to the Director; and Dr. James Hartgering, Technical 

Assistant. We welcome you gentlemen aboard.

The purpose of this meeting, I might add, is to implement Reorganization Plan No. 2 and consider the estimate transmitted in House 

Document, 462. Just what Reorganization Plan No. 2 does I do not 

know, and would be very interested in finding out. We have read 

your justification quite carefully. I got the very definite impression, 

Doctor, th at you are doing everything except setting up a laboratory 

and that perhaps you will do th at next year. You are an operating 

agency from A to Izzard. First explain your authority under the 

reorganization plan, and then what you are going to do.

General Statement

Dr. Wiesner. Mr. Chairman, I have a short prepared statement. 

Perhaps I had bette r read it and then try to amplify by answering 

questions.

Air. Chairman, members of the committee, I am pleased to respond 

to your invitation to appear before the Independent Offices App ropriations Subcommittee to explain the fiscal year 1963 budget request 

for the new Office of Science and Technology.

The background leading to the creation of the Office of Science 

and Technology and a statement of its general functions are set forth 

in Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962, and the President’s message 

of transmittal. I will be pleased to answer any questions your committee may have concerning the plan. You also have before you the 

budget request covering salaries and expenses of this office during 

this fiscal year.

If I may, I would like to make a few observations tha t may assist 

your consideration of the budget estimate.

The Office of Science and Technology was established as a means 

to provide the President with permanent staff resources capable of 

advising and assisting him on matters of national policy affected by 

or perta ining to science and technology. It will be concerned with 

the development of policies and the evaluation of programs tha t 

will assures tha t science and technology are used most effectively in 

the interests of national security and the general welfare. A major
37

responsibility is to assist the President in the proper coordination 

of science and technology functions.

The reorganization plan was based on a tran sfer to the OST of 

certain functions conferred on the National Science Foundation by 

the National Science Foundation A ct; that is, the achievement of coordinated Federal policies for the promotion of basic research and education in the sciences and the evaluation of scientific research programs 

undertaken by agencies of the Federal Government.

Staff assistance to the President in the broad areas which I have 

mentioned has been provided prio r to the creation of the new office 

largely by the Office of the Special Assistant to the President for 

Science and Technology. The office of the special assistant had a small 

staff tha t backed up the staff responsibilities of the special assistant, 

the activities of the Presiden t’s Science Advisory Committee and its 

consultant panels and working groups, and the work of the Federal 

Council for Science and Technology and its interdepartmental committees.

With the creation of the Office of Science and Technology, the staff 

of the office of the special assistant to the President has been entirely 

transferred to the new office, as were the consultant activities under 

the PSAC. The PSAC itself has been retained in the White House. 

It is the President’s intention that, if confirmed by the Senate as 

Director of the Office of Science and Technology, I will continue to 

serve as special assistant to the President, chairman of the President’s 

Science Advisory Committee, and chairman of the Federal Council 

for Science and Technology.

The character of the Office of Science and Technology and the scope 

and level of its activities projected in the budget for fiscal year 1963 reflect the work and experience of the p ast few years in the Office of 

the Special Assistant for Science and Technology. The level of effort 

of the OST projected for fiscal year 1963 will permit the strengthening of stall' and consultant activities available to the President with 

respect to scientific and technical matters, looking toward increased 

efficiency in the conduct of Federal research and development programs and improved capabilities for realizing new opportunities in 

science and technology. A strong Office of Science and Technology 

will also facilitate fru itfu l communication with the Congress.

In the past, the primary emphasis of the special assistant was on 

those scientific problems tha t were directly related to national policy; 

tha t is, defense, space, disarmament, and so forth.

While these problems will continue to occupy much of the attention 

of the office, we now are committed to a much more systematic review 

and coordinaiton of ongoing research, development, and scientific and 

technical education programs.

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, this is my first appearance before a 

committee of Congress.

Mr. Thomas. We are delighted to have you.

Mr. Wiesner. So you can haze me as we would a new fraternity 

member.

Air. T homas. Of course, Doctor, there is no hazing. Anybody can 

say anything he wants. Of course, the rule works both ways.
38

AUTHOR ITY OF TH E PRESIDE NT UND ER REOR GANIZAT ION PL AN NO. 2

Mr. Thomas. What authority does the President have under this reorganization plan he did not have before ? Tha t is question No. 1.

Question No. 2: What is going to happen to the National Science 

Foundation, Atomic Energy Commission, and the space agency?

Dr. Wiesner. Under the reorganization plan the President has no 

different au thority than he had before. Let me say what existed prior 

to the establishment of the office. As you know, in response to sputnik 

in 1957, it was felt tha t the President had not been paying enough 

attention to the development of scientific programs and did not have 

available to him the resources to judge ongoing scientific programs, 

and tha t the scientific programs of the country required more general 

over-all supervision on the pa rt of the President than they then had.

Mr. Thomas. You can get a lot of argument on tha t statement, 

Doctor. You had the National Science Foundation set up for that. 

You do not expect the President to be a scientist any more than you 

expect him to be a general. Yet he is commander in chief.

Dr. Wiesner. That is righ t, but in connection with his role as 

commander in chief and director of our foreign policy, the Congress 

had some years prior created the National Security Council with a 

staff to provide him with information and guidance he needed. It 

is true tha t the Science Foundation Act gave the Science Foundation 

responsibility for evaluation and policy in science, basic research and 

science education.

REL ATION OF NA TIO NA L SEC URITY CO UN CIL

Mr. Thomas. You anticipate us. The Security Council has juri sdiction to take up this matter now. Why set up a new agency ? The 

jurisdiction of the National Security Council is predicated on security 

of the United States, science and technological invention, change and 

operation. The Security Council has been dealing with this subject 

ever since it was set up 12 years ago.

Dr. Wiesner. I presume one could very well have hired some scientists for the Security Council and gone a different, route. I was not 

party to the discussions that created the position of Special Assistant 

for Science and Technology, so I am just reporting what did happen.

Mr. Thomas. These matters were discussed, though, in the National Security Council.

Dr. Wiesner. Nonetheless and it was decided it was probably better 

to have a qualified scientist available to the President with a staff to 

help him. The fact of the matter is that not all scientific matters 

are matters that in a direct sense are security matters. Although in 

a general sense anything that affects the prosperity-----

Mr. Thomas. They are hard to separate, though.

Dr. Wiesner. They are very hard to separate. In any event, Dr. 

Killian was appointed and the Science Advisory Committee was 

created and a staff was built up. This has grown some through the 

years with your good friend, Dr. Kistiakowsky succeeding Dr. Killian.
39

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS FROM NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Mr. Ostertag. In the Reorganization Act it says very specifically 

that there are hereby transferred from the National Science F oundation to the Director so much of the functions conferred upon the 

Foundation by the provisions of section 3(a)(1) of the National 

Science Foundation Act, as will enable the Director to advise and assist 

the President in achieving coordinated Federal policies for the promotion of basic research and education in sciences.

That is sort of vague in a way as to what it really does, what it really 

means, but at least it implies a transfer of responsibility.

Dr. Wiesner. It does, and there is a reason. The Science Foundation found that it could not effectively take on the job of assessing other 

agency programs. So in practice this was not done. It is conceivable 

tha t under a different situation the Science Foundation might have 

done it, but President Eisenhower found that there was a vacuum in 

this area, tha t, for example, he could not get from the Science Foundation assessments of the scientific programs of the Interior Department, 

AEC, or DOD. I think this is reasonable. The Science Foundation is 

a collateral agency, it has to compete for funds and for people. To 

ask the NSF in addition to being an operating agency to assess the 

programs of other operating agencies would p ut the Foundation in an 

extremely difficult position.

So it did not do it. It was as a result of tha t situation t hat the job 

I have been holding was created and a staff built up. I think this is 

reasonably sensible. If you want overall assessments for the President 

of scientific programs in the Government, an agency th at is essentially 

associated with the Executive Office does make sense.

ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Ostertag. I have two thoughts in mind in this connection. 

Although the reorganization plan calls for a transfer of authority or 

functions, in reality there was no transfer.

Dr. Wiesner. The legal trans fer will be made. It is the transfer of 

a function that the Science Foundation found it was inapp ropriate to 

carry out. This was a function which had increasingly passed to my 

office in the White House. When the Government Operations Subcommittee under Senator Jackson, looking at Government organization, 

examined the questions of scientific management, it said while this is a 

reasonably suitable mechanism, it is not established properly because 

it has no responsibility to the Congress and it has no tenure. For 

example, when I came into office, I found that scientific records and 

correspondence th at might have been useful to me had been sent to 

Abilene, because they were all personal property of the President. 

With the creation of the new office in the Executive Office, the records 

will remain. If there is a change of party and we are succeeded, there 

will he a functioning apparatus. It was to give a statutory base, 

which was Senator Jackson’s recommendation, that this office was

86 92 1— €2 — pt. 4- •6 1
40

created in this way. He felt the need for a statutory organization 

rath er than an ad hoc organization built up under the President. 

Mr. Ostertag. A statutory need for what ?

Dr. Wiesner. The office tha t provides the President with the scientific advice, evaluation of the technical programs of the Government, 

policy assistance in formulating both basic research and scientific 

and educational efforts.

Mr. Ostertag. In tha t connection, our whole Federal Government 

is wrapped in science and scientific activities. There is practically 

no agency of Government today that is not dealing with science and 

scientific aspects in one way or another, whether it be Agriculture, 

Space, Defense, Atomic Energy, Health, and others. Each and every 

one of these agencies is an arm of the executive branch of Government and subordinate to the President, and reports and administrative documents of one kind or another are channeling to the President 

constantly, as I understand it.

What are you giving or w hat do you do th at has not been done before except that of evaluation ?

Dr. Wiesner. I provide assistance to the Presid ent in judging these 

programs and evaluating them and trying to make sure that there 

is some order in the activity. For example, you can find 13 or 14 

•agencies involved in the field of oceanography, and they all belong 

in because their own individual mission somehow requires tha t they 

work in the field. But it is important for us to know tha t the sum 

of these 13 efforts is a coordinated program, that it does not have too 

much overlap, that there are not serious gaps as there were in the 

space and missile program earlier.

PRO VISIONS OF REORGANIZA TION ACT

Mr. Thomas. Tha t authority has always existed. Heretofore it 

has been over in the National Science Foundation, and the President could have exercised it more or less indirectly. This act itself 

specifically says what authority. Part 1 of the Reorganization Act 

establishes the Office of Science and Technology as a new unit within 

the Executive Office of the President and transfers to the Director 

certain functions of the National Science Foundation under section 

3( a)(1 ) and 3(a)(6) of the National Science Foundation Act of 

1950. Let us read what those two are. 3(a) (1) of the Foundation 

Act of 1950 says:

The Foundation is authorized and directe d—

tha t is the authority to tran sfer from them over to the new agency—

to develop and encourage the pursu it of a national policy for the promotion of 

basic r esearch and education in the sciences.

Can you imagine anything broader than that? Then 3(a)(6 ). 

You are transferring tha t out of the National Science Foundation 

over the the Presiden t:

To eva luate scientific research, programs und ertaken by agencies of the Federal Government and to correlate the Foundation’s scientific research program 

with those undertaken by individuals and by public and private groups.

That authority has always existed.

Mr. Ostertag. This is a transfer.
41

Mr. T homas. The question is: Will you be able to do it better, more 

efficiently, more expeditiously ? What are you going to do ? You are 

going to develop under 3(a )( 1)—“To develop and encourage the 

pursuit of a national policy.” Th at is one thing you are going to 

do. Then under 3(a) (G), “to evaluate scientific programs undertaken by the Federal agencies.”

There is it. It has been there all the time.

OST AND NSF RESPO NSIBILITIES

Dr. Wiesner. Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct your attention 

to the precise wording of tha t Act because it essentially shares—it 

does not take away from the Foundation—it shares with the Foundation. This arrangement was carefully worked out with the National 

Science Foundation because they should retain certain policy responsibilities pertaining to broad basic research and scientific education 

programs.

Mr. Ostertag. If I understood you correctly, Doctor, you led us 

to believe that the Science Foundation did not in reality carry out 

this function.

Dr. Wiesner. It carried out certain specialized ones pertaining to 

education in the field of sciences, et cetera. It, for example, did not 

have overall responsibility to make sure tha t its programs in atomic 

energy research, those of the Atomic Energy Commission and Defense Department and H EW , were not duplicatory and did not represent overlapping programs that were not reasonable, or to see whether 

together these agencies could not have a strengthened program.

Mr. Ostertag. How about research in the field of defense weapons 

systems ? Are you involved in that ?

Dr. Wiesner. Yes, indeed. Fo r the past 5 years the Office of the 

Special Assistant in the White House has been growing and doing 

many of these things on an ad hoc basis. An important reason for 

the creation of this new office is to regularize what has been going on 

and put it in the position where it is available to the Congress as well 

as the White House.

Mr. Thomas. President Eisenhower established tha t with Dr. Killian and Dr. Kistiakowsky.

CURRENT NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

How many employees do you have now ?

Dr. Wiesner. Twenty-four.

FIN ANCIN G

Mr. Thomas. How is it financed? Is it out of the President’s special fund ?

Dr. Wiesner. Yes, sir.

Mr. T homas. He is seeking a special appropria tion of $850,000 ?

Dr. Weisner. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thomas. Tha t is in addition to the jobs heretofore financed?

Dr. Weisner. No, sir. We will tran sfer all of the people from the 

White House to this new’ office. This will pay for them.

Mr. Thomas. This seeks funds fo r 35 positions?

Dr. Weisner. Thirty-five.
42

JU ST IF IC A T IO N OF T H E EST IM A TE

Mr. T homas. At this point we will insert the justifications in their 

entirety and also the green sheets.

(The material referred to follows:)

Offic e of Sc ie n c e an d T ec hn ol og y

SA LARIE S AN D EX PEN SES

For expenses necessary for the Office of Science and Technology, inclu ding services as authorized by section 15 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a) but 

at rate s for individuals not to exceed $75 per diem, $850,000.

Object classification

[I n th o u san d s o f d ollars]

1961 actu al 1962 esti m at e 1963 es ti m at e

11 Per so nnel co m pen sa tion :

P erm a n en t po si tion s___________________________ ______ 338

108

16

P osi tions o th er th a n p erm a n e n t__________ __________

O th er per so nn el co m pen sa ti on_______________________

T o ta l pe rs onn el co m pen sa ti on_____________________ 462

28

287

38

2

5

10

11

12 Per so nne l ben efits ___________ ___________________________

21 T ra v el an d tr an sp o rt ati o n of p er so ns_______ _____________

23 R en t, com m unic at io ns, an d u ti li ti es_________________ . . .

24 P rin ti n g a n d r ep ro d u cti o n _________ ____ ________________

25 O th er se rv ic es ___________________________________________

Se rv ices of oth er ag en cies __________ _____________ . . .

26 Supp lie s an d m ate ri als __________________________________

31 E q u ip m e n t___ ______ _________ _______ _____ ___________

T o ta l obli gat io ns_______ _______ ____________ ____ _____ 850

Personnel sum mar y

1961 actu al 1962 es ti m ate 1963 esti m at e

T o ta l n u m b e r of p erm an en t posi ti ons________________________ 35 F u ll -t im e e q u iv ale n t of other" p osi tions_________ ____________

A ve ra ge n u m b e r of all em pl oy ee s____ _______________________ 42 N u m b er of em pl oye es a t en d o f y ea r___________ ___________ 100 A ve ra ge OS g ra d e______________ _______ __________ ________ 11 3 A ve ra ge O S sala ry ..................................................... ............. ............. .. $9, 700

Program and financing

[I n th o u san d s o f d oll ars ]

1961 a ctu al 1962 esti m ate 1963 esti m at e

P ro g ra m b y ac tivit ie s: Scien tif ic policy d evelo pm ent an d 

pro gr am e v a lu a ti o n .. .____ _________ ____ _______ . . 850

850 Fin an cin g: N ew o bl ig at io na l a u th o rit y ____ _______________
43

Deta il of personnel compensation

1961 1962

actu al estim ate

1963 estima te

Nu mb er Tota l

salary

Grade s a nd ranges:

Special po sitions at ra tes equa l to or in excess of $18,500:

Direc tor..................................... . ............. ...................... De pu ty Directo r_______ _________ _____________ GS-18. $18,500: Tech nical staff mem bers____________ GS-17. $16,530 to $17,570: Tec hnical staff mem bers ____

GS-16. $15,255 to $16,295: Technic al staff memb er.........

GS-15. $13,730 to $15,030:

Tech nical staff m em be rs ............................................. Ad minist rati ve officer____________ ____________ GS-14. $12,210 to $13,510: Technical staff me mb er.........

GS-12. $8,955 to $10,255...... .............................. . ............... GS-9. $6,435 to $7,425______________________ _____ GS-8. $5,885 to $6,875____________________________

GS-7. $5,355 to $6,345_______ _____________________

GS-6. $4,830 to $5,820____________________________

GS-4. $4,040 to $4,670____________________________

Total p erm anent............................................. ................

De duct laps es_______________________________ ______

1 $22,500

1 20,500

6 111,072

2 33,342

1 16,307

4 54,996

1 13,749

1 13,270

1 9,235

1 7,426

7 43,867

6 34,694

2 11,315

1 4,160

35

4.5

396,433 

58,433

Ne t per ma nen t (average numb er, n et sa lar y)_______

Positions oth er th an p erma nent: In term itt en t employm ent. 

Oth er person nel compensation: Overtime and h olid ay pa y.

To tal personnel compensation.

30.5 338,000

108,000

16,000

462,000

JU ST IF IC A T IO N OF TH E ES TI M ATES

Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962, trans mitte d from the Presid ent to Congress on March 29, 1962, provides for establishm ent of the Office of Science and 

Technology as a permanent unit withi n the Executive Office of th e President.

The Director of the Office of Science and Technology will be appointed by the 

Presiden t, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and provision for a 

Deputy Director, similarly appointed, is made. The staff of OST will consist of 

technical specialists, to whom broad area s of scientific and technological interest 

of the Federal Government are assigned.

It is the responsibility of this Office to prov ide: advisory assistance and staff 

support to the President in developing policies and evaluating programs to assure 

tha t science and technology are used most effectively in the intere sts of national 

security and general welfare; proper coordination of Federal science and technology functions; review of major policies, plans and programs of science and 

technology of the various agencies of the Federal Government for appropriate 

emphasis on the relationship of science and technology to national security and 

foreign policy, and measures fo r furth erin g science and technology in the Nation ; 

assessment of selected scientific and technical developments and programs relative to thei r impact on national policies; review, integration, and coordination 

of Federal science and technology activities with consideration to their impact 

on non-Federal resources and instit ution s; unders tanding and cooperative r elations with the Nation’s scientific an d engineering commu nities; and such other 

related matt ers as may be assigned by the Presid ent to this Office.

To accomplish these responsibilities the Director makes extensive use of eminent scientists both within and withou t the Government structure. These 

experts are called together to serve in panels dealing w ith subjects in which they 

are knowledgeable. The immediate staff of technical specialists, under the 

supervision of the Director, acts to coordinate these panels in the capacity of
44

ex ec ut iv e se cr et ar ie s. Pa ne l su bje ct s in cl ud e a re a s as si gn ifi ca nt an d br oa d in 

scop e as sp ac e sc ien ce an d tec hn olo gy , n ati onal se cu ri ty af fa ir s, m il it ary te ch ­

nol ogy , an d ci vi lian tec hn olo gy . At th e co mpl eti on of ea ch pa ne l st ud y, a re port 

is pre pa re d fo r th e us e of th e D irec to r. In ca se s w he re th e re port is co ns id er ed 

to be of nat io nal sig nif ica nc e, it ma y be re le as ed as a W hi te H ou se do cu m en t. 

In su ch in st an ce s it is ca re fu lly re vi ew ed an d ap pr ov ed by th e P re si d en t’s 

Sc ien ce Adv iso ry Co mm itt ee pri or to its tr an sm it ta l to th e P re si d en t an d, a s 

su ch re pr es en ts a Sc ien ce A dv iso ry Com m itt ee pu bl ic at io n.

Th e ex te ns iv e us e of co ns ult an ts fo r pa ne l ac ti vit ie s re qu ir es th a t th e Office 

ha ve wi de di sc re tion in it s m et ho ds of op er at io n, sin ce pa ne ls dea li ng w ith 

di ve rs e su bj ec ts are fr eq ue nt ly ha nd le d in di ff er en t way s. F o r ex am pl e, a hi gh ly 

cla ssifi ed re p o rt co nc er ni ng o ur na tiona l de fe ns e wi ll he pr od uc ed in a m an ner 

wh ich is enti re ly unl ik e th e m et ho ds us ed to pr od uc e an un cla ss ifi ed re port as ­

se ss in g th e pr es en t st a te of th e be ha vi or al sci ences. T hi s var ie d sp ec trum of 

ac tivi ties pl us th e D ir ec to r’s im m ed ia te re sp on si bi lities to th e P re si den t re quir es 

th a t lie ha ve m ax im um fle xi bi lit y in th e op er at io n of th e Office. He m us t ha ve 

a st af f wh ich al so is ab le to ap pl y ex te ns iv e tr ain in g in th e ba si c sc ienc es to a 

va ri et y of d is p ara te prob lem s. St af f st udie s m ay he und er ta ken in re sp on se to 

spec ific re qu es ts , eit h er by th e P re si den t or th e Co ng res s or by o th er ag en ci es 

w ith in th e Go ve rn men t. The fo llo w in g p ara g ra p h s wi ll ou tlin e su bje ct s whi ch 

are f re qu en tly st ud ie d by t h is Office.

The are a of nat io nal se cu ri ty af fa ir s in cl ud es m il it ary an d nucl ea r tec hn ol og y 

br oa dl y, m il it ary st ra te gy, te ch ni ca l in te lli ge nc e, an d dis ar m am en t. Typ ic al 

pro blem s are th e fol lowi ng : anal ysi s of im pa ct of de ve lopm en ts in m il it ary te ch ­

nology on m il it ary s tr a te g y : as se ss m en t o f re la ti v e va lu e of di ff er en t st ra te gic 

we apon sy st em s: de te rm in at io n of p ri o ri ty of va ri ou s m il it ary pro gra m s in th e 

PO D an d AE C bu dg et s; ev al ua tion of th e ef fe cti ve ne ss an d po lic y im pl ic at io ns 

of ad va nc ed wea po n sy ste ms , re vi ew of c ri ti c a l te ch ni ca l in te lli ge nc e est im at es 

an d as se ss m en t of th eir im pa ct on th e m il it ary an d nat io nal po lic y; de ve lo pm en t 

of s pec ific pr op os al s fo r th e co nt ro l an d li m it ati o n of a rm a m e n ts : an d ev al uat io n 

of th e m il it ar y an d polic y im pl ic at io ns of dis ar m am en t pr op os als .

M ilitar y tec hn ol og y wi ll in cl ud e su ch a re a s as civ il de fe ns e, lim ited w ar , an d 

co nt in en ta l de fens e. E xe m pl ar y pr ob lems are : te ch ni ca l re vi ew an d as se ss m en t 

of curr en t an d pote nti al Gov er nm en t-w id e civi l de fe ns e pr ogra m s an d po li cie s; 

re vi ew an d as se ss m en t of pr op os ed pr og ra m an d po lic y fo r a ir de fe ns e of th e 

Un ited S ta te s; re vi ew a nd as se ss m en t of se le ct ed pro gr am s fo r U.S . ge ne ra l p u rpos e fo rc es an d th e ba la nc e in re se ar ch an d de ve lo pm en t ef fo rt de vo te d to th e 

ac hi ev em en t of m il it ary po st ur es su ppo rt in g spe cif ic (n ongen er al w a r) nat io nal 

se cu ri ty po lic ies .

The a re a of ou te r sp ac e sc ien ce an d tec hn ol og y in cl ud es te ch ni ca l fie lds su ch 

as la un ch ve hi cl e pr op ul sion tec hn ol og y an d sp ac e c ra ft de sign and de ve lopm en t ; sp ac e ve hicle comm an d, co nt ro l an d co m m un ic at io ns; ov er al l ve hi cl e an d 

m ission sy stem s en g in ee ri ng; m ea ns fo r sc ie nt ifi c in ve st ig at io ns of sp a c e ; th e 

ap pl ic at io ns of ad va nc ed co nc ep ts of el ec tron ic s an d nu cle on ic s as wel l as ot her 

ra pid ly de ve lop ing te ch ni ca l fie lds to sp ac e ex pl or at io n fo r ci vi lian an d de fe ns e 

pu rp os es . Pr ob le m s en co mp as s th e m ea ns an d m et ho ds fo r u ti li zi ng th e n a ­

ti on al sp ac e ex pl or at io n pr og ra m to en ha nc e U.S . post ure a b ro a d ; es ta bli sh in g 

th e lev el of eff ec tiv en es s of NA SA op er at io ns in ov er al l sy st em s in te g ra ti o n an d 

re li ab il it y en gi ne er in g fo r th e m an ne d lu n a r la ndin g pr og ra m , and de vi sing 

w ay s an d m ea ns fo r re al iz in g im pr ov em en ts in th es e o p e ra ti o n s; ex am in in g th e 

pr og ra m s fo r sc ientifi c in ve st ig at io ns in sp ac e of NA SA an d th e DO D to as su re 

th a t th ey ta k e fu ll ad va nta ge of th e re so ur ce s av ai la ble in u n iv er si ti es an d 

m ajo r in d u st ri al te ch ni ca l es ta bl is hm en ts , an d th a t ef fe cti ve re la ti onsh ip s are 

m ai nt ai ne d w ith th e sc ien tif ic co mm un ity .

Civ ilia n tec hn olog y co ve rs in d u st ri al and ec on om ic de ve lo pm en t in th e U ni te d 

S ta te s as well as ab ro ad , in so fa r as sc ie nc e an d tec hn ol og y pl ay s an im port an t 

ro le ; eval uating m ea ns fo r sc ienc e an d tech no lo gy to co ntr ib ute m or e eff ec tiv ely 

to n at io nal a nd in te rn ati o n al econo mi c gr ow th , in d u st ri al de ve lo pm en t an d tr ad e; 

an d in su ri ng th a t ci vi lian te ch no lo gi ca l de ve lo pm en t u n der ta ken by th e F ed er al 

Gov er nm en t fa cil it ate s ef fo rts by th e p ri v ate se ct or an d is re sp on sibl e to 

do mes tic an d in te rn ati o n al ne ed s fo r econo mi c gr ow th , in d u st ri al de ve lopm en t, 

an d tr a d e ; id en tify in g an d en co ur ag in g civi l “b yp ro du ct s” of de fe ns e an d spa ceor ie nt ed G ov er nm en t-s po ns or ed re se ar ch an d de vel opm en t; ex am in in g fis cal an d 

re gu la to ry F ed er al G ov er nm en t pr ac tice s an d re la te d Gov er nm en t org an iz at io n 

so as to pr ov id e in d u st ry w ith m ax im um in ce nt iv es fo r tec hn ol og ic al in no va tion ; 

an d fo rm ula ti ng or ga ni za tion al , pr og ra m m at ic , an d bu dge ta ry m ea su re s to im ­

pr ov e go ve rn m en ta l policy in th os e are as . Th ey inc lu de , as ex am pl es , ho us in g 

an d co ns truc tion , tr an sp o rt ati o n , te xt iles , an d co al utiliza tion .
45

While th es e il lu str ati o n s by no m ea ns del in ea te th e e n ti re ra nge of acti vit ie s 

w ith which th is Office is co nc erne d, th ey a t le ast giv e an in dic at io n of bo th th e 

scop e and the dep th o f t he inves tigat io ns under ta ken .

Just if ic ati on of oth er ob ject s o f ex pe ns es

12 Per so nn el be ne fits, $28,0 00: T hi s am oun t is ba se d on th e to ta l est im ate of 

st aff sa la ry co sts plu s th e co st of se rv ices of consu ltan ts an d pa ne l mem be rs. 

Sta ff be ne fits incl ud e re im burs em en t to th e em ploy ee s re ti re m en t fu nd , healt h 

an d life in su ra nc e. So cial se curi ty pa ym en ts w ill also be m ad e in co nn ec tio n 

w ith p an el an d consu lt ant em ploy men t.

21 Tra ve l, $28 7,0 00: A ppr ox im at el y $34,000 will be re quir ed fo r st af f tr avel, 

bo th to pr ov id e att endance of th e D irec to r or his st af f a t im p o rt an t sc ientific 

co nf er en ce s, an d to en ab le mem be rs of th e st af f to co nv en e pa nel m ee ting s in 

lo ca tion s oth er th an W as hi ng to n, w he n th is is ne ce ss ar ry . The re m ain der of 

th e to ta l re qu es te d w ill be us ed to co ve r th e tr av el co sts of th e pa ne l m em be rs 

and co ns ut la nt s. T his will in cl ud e th e tr avel co sts fo r pan eli st s wh o se rv e 

w ithout co mpe ns atio n, but wh o usu al ly re qu es t re im burs em en t fo r tr avel ex ­

pe ns es in cu rr ed .

23 R en ts an d co m m un ic at io ns and utilities , $38,0 00: To pr ov id e th e ne ce ssary tel ep ho ne , te le gr ap h, an d te le ty pe se rv ices as well as po stag e ex pe ns es 

anti cip ate d in th e b udget yea r.

24 P ri nti ng and re pr oduc tion , $7,00 0: To re im bu rs e th e GP O, oth er Gov er nm en t ag en cies an d pri v ate co n tr acto rs fo r th e pri nti ng and re pr od uc tion of 

nu m er ou s re po rts, publ ic at io ns , and al lied m ate ri als pre pare d by th is Office.

23 O th er se rv ic es : ad m in is tr ati v e co nt ra ct s, $7,00 0: To re im burs e th e PH S 

fo r em ploy ee part ic ip ati on in th e se rv ice of a H ealth U nit, and to pr ov id e fo r 

th e ne ce ss ar y contr actu al se rv ic es re qui re d su ch as re p air of ty pew ri te rs , ad di ng 

m ac hi ne s, and ot her office eq u ip m en t; cl ea ni ng an d re p air of fu rn it u re an d ru g s ; 

ph ot og ra ph ic an d a r t service s.

26 an d 31 Su pp lie s, m ate ri als , and eq uipm en t, $21,000: T his am ou nt w ill 

en ab le th e office to es ta blish an in ve nt or y of su pp lies and m ate ri als and to pro ­

vi de th e item s re quir ed fo r norm al ope ra tion s th ro ughout th e yea r. I t will also 

pr ov id e ab ou t $2,000 fo r th e purc hase of ne ce ss ar y per io dic al s an d boo ks.

EM PLO Y M E N T

Mr. Thomas. The green sheets show a total of 35 permanent positions. You only have 24 now. The yearend employment is 100. 

You might explain this 100 figure against the figure of 35. I presume 

the figure of 100 includes consultants and accounts for the difference.

Dr. Wiesner. Yes.

Mr. T homas. You will not have a hundred employees a t the beginning of the year?

Dr. Wiesner. Those are consultants.

CONSU LT ANTS

Mr. Thomas. You had better explain the hiatus in your justification 

and the transmittal from the Bureau of the Budget. The Bureau of 

the Budget document does not say anything about consultants, and 

your justification asks for consultants at a per diem of $75. You 

might explain that little hiatus. Which is correct?

Dr. Wiesner. I think the fact that the Bureau of the Budget did 

not mention consultants was an omission because our office has always 

depended very heavily upon consultants for two reasons.

First of all, since, as you pointed out earlier, we must be in position, 

when the President requests, to judge any field of science and technology, so we would either have to build up an enormous staff to have 

that continuing competence or have available-----

Mr. Thomas. You better let the Bureau of the Budget send us a 

note or give us a telephone call so we do not get mixed up.
46

You have travel for $287,000. You say only $34,000 will be used 

by your staff.

Dr. Wiesner. Tha t is right.

Mr. Thomas. How many of these consultants are you going to have ? 

Committee members? The difference between 35 and 100 is 65. Is 

that correct?

Dr. Wiesner. No; tha t number represents the number of consultants actively employed on panels at a given time. We have available 

to us a group of about 250 people in Government laboratories and 

universities and industry who will work as consultants when we need 

them. Some people work quite actively.

TRAVEL

Mr. Thomas. How do you arrive at your travel figure of $287,000 ? 

Dr. Wiesner. It was based on our average cost per consultant last 

year, multiplied by the number of times we thought we were going 

to call on the consultants, individual times we would call on them 

for the next period. Actually, it is a somewhat lower figure than we 

would have gotten by extrapolation.

BUDGET FOR 1962

Mr. Thomas. Wha t was your budget last year under the White 

House?

Dr. W iesner. $573,000.

Mr. T homas. I presume you have had a presentation for 1963 before anoth er subcommittee.

Dr. Wiesner. The Bureau of the Budget made the general White 

House presentation. We were not asked to defend our share of it.

Mr. Thomas. You said it was your first time here. We welcome 

you and hope you will come back.

Fo r rents and utilities you are asking $38,000, printin g and reproduction is $7,000, supplies and materials $21,000. You are not going 

to set up a little laboratory here, are you, Doctor?

Dr. Wiesner. Not this year.

Mr. Ostertag. Where is your office located ?

Dr. Wiesner. Executive Office Building.

FU TU RE SIZE OF OST

Mr. Boland. Will this $850,000 be the yearly cost of this new agency 

or will it increase sizably in the next fiscal year ?

Dr. Wiesner. I think it will grow some as we try to fulfill the responsibilities we have taken on. The pressure is on us to do many 

things, and I feel tha t the pressure is going to continue to be very 

great, and we are going to have to be very discriminatory about what 

areas of science we do look at. I find, for example, that already 

there are a number of congressional requests to be concerned about, 

an area of responsibility that did not previously exist.
47

COORDINATING FUNCTIO NS OF OST

Mr. Tiiomas. The doctor never told us wliat will happen to the 

National Science Foundation, the Space Agency, Atomic Energy 

Commission. In your examination will you bring that out, Mr. 

Boland? Forgive me for interrupting.

Mr. Boland. As I see it, this office was established for the purpose 

of coordinating the activities in the science and technology held, an 

ability which the Government apparently does not have or an ability 

which the National Science Foundation does not have because, as 

pointed out in this report here, it works on the same level as the other 

agencies and consequently cannot tell them what to do. But I understand this office becomes a coordinating facet for runn ing the whole 

gamut of science and technology in our Government: is that right ?

Dr. Wiesner. This is correct.

Mr. Boland. This would apply to the efforts which NASA, the 

Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, and other 

agencies have in the field of science and technology ?

Dr. Wiesner. Yes, sir.

relationship of ost and space council

With regard to NASA, of course, we do have a special problem 

because there is also the Space Council whose main responsibility is 

to coordinate Defense and N ASA space activities and we must avoid 

duplicatory efforts.

In the past my office has actually provided the technical assistance 

to the Space Council so they have not run an independent technical 

activity. We also have now the situation of NASA getting quite involved in university research and scientific education, and we will 

want to ascertain tha t their activities are coordinated with the work 

of the Science Foundation and other agencies.

In response to the chairman’s question, we are not to be an operating agency at all. This budget, of course, is very small compared to 

NASA’s budget or t hat of any operating agency. We could not run 

a very big laboratory.

nature of advice given to the president

Mr. Boland. The Office of Special Assistant to the President in 

the field of science and technology was established in 1957 which was 

the year Russia orbited the first sputnik. Ever since then our Government has been making a real effort in this area tha t was generated 

by the launching of the sputnik by Russia. I can understand th at the 

President at tha t time needed this office in order to familiarize the 

Executive or the White House with the problems which the Government faced in this area. Specifically, what has it done since 1957 and 

what kind of advice have you given to the Presiden t ?

Dr. Wiesner. It has worked in a very large variety of fields. Mr. 

Beckler pulled together a list of some of the things we have assisted 

the President with during the last year. In the national security field
48

we have studied air defense problems, civil defense, technical problems 

of limited war, and some of the technical problems associated with 

arms limitation and control; in addition, we have looked at the broad 

problems of space science.

RELA TIO N SH IP TO N A TIO N A L SE CURI TY COUNCI L

Air. Boland. Are not some of those fields you just enumerated 

also looked at by the National Security Council?

I)r. Wiesner. We in a sense have functioned as a technical arm of 

the National Security Council in these areas. The office has always 

done what the President wanted it to do. If he had a problem relating to a scientific question, we would study it fo r him. We will go on 

performing tha t function. The President also depends upon the 

operating agencies for scientific advice and recommendations. As I 

am sure you have noted, the office of special assistant has not been 

abolished. There will be no staff at the White House. So the staff 

support for tha t office will be provided by this new office.

Mr. Ostertag. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

PO SS IB IL IT Y OF OV ER LA PP IN G CO OR DI NA TION

Mr. Boland. The problem I think this committee has—you can see 

it very readily, Doctor—is whether or not we are now going to start 

to overlap in this field. As I understand from your statement, this is 

one of the precise reasons this office was established, for the purpose of 

tryin g to coordinate the various agencies in the field of science, technology, and prevent overlapping where possible. But it would seem 

tha t the National Science Foundation, outside of having the general 

power to tell the agencies what to do, considers a lot of the problems 

your office is considering or will consider.

Dr. Wiesner. Yes, of course; you know, I am sure, the Science 

Foundatio n’s organization has a much larger staff to study many of 

the problems we are interested in. The staff we are planning will be 

quite small. In the past we have depended and will continue to depend upon the Science Foundation for information, and for policy 

generation in many fields. We are really the President’s staff to 

help him assimilate what is going on within the Government.

FE DE RA L CO U N CIL FOR SC IE NCE AN D TE CH NO LO GY

As von know, there was created by Executive order the Federal 

Council for Science and Technology, with representation from the 

eight agencies that have most of the scientific activities of the Government. Its function is to coordinate and to give overall policy advice 

to the President in areas of common interest.

These are the several mechanisms by which the President does get 

technical advice.

Mr. Thomas. Are the Office of Special Assistant to the President 

and the Council going to be eliminated?

Dr. Wiesner. No; the Council will continue because it forms the 

interagency coordinating mechanism. I have been and will remain
49

Chairman. 1 will also continue to serve as Special Assistant to the 

President.

TR ANSF ER OF ST AFF OF SP EC IA L ASS IS TANT FOR SC IE NCE ANI) TE CH NO LO GY

Mr. Thomas. 

I)r. Wiesner. 

Mr. Thomas. 

agency ?

Dr. Wiesner. 

retain the title 

Technology. 

Mr. T homas. 

I )r. AV 1E SN ER . 

Mr. Thomas. 

Mr. Boland. 

Dr. Wiesner

What about your old office ?

It was in the White House.

Is it going to be eliminated and absorbed by this new

. There will be no office in the White House, but I will 

of Special Assistant to the President for Science and

Will there be a staff?

No, it will be transferred.

For all practical purposes, it is absorbed.

Completely absorbed?

. Yes; I will have a position very similar-----

relationship to office of emergency planning

Mr. Boland. Wh at became of the Office of Emergency Planning?

Dr. Wiesner. OE P is still there.

Mr. T homas. Wh at will happen to that?

Dr. Wiesner. It will continue operating. I believe it still has the 

overall national civil defense responsibility. Much of it was transferred to IX )I) when the reorganization took place.

Mr. Thomas. I s there not a scientific unit there?

Dr. Wiesner. They do have a technical staff.

Mr. Thomas. Will there be any overlapping of jurisdiction or a 

conflict of jurisdiction?

Dr. Wiesner. I believe not.

Mr. Boland. Their activity is only in the civil defense field?

Dr. Wiesner. Yes. I would only get involved in their activities 

if the President wanted an assessment of their technical activities.

Mr. Boland. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Dr. Wiesner. The difference, as I see it, between the responsibilities 

of the Office of Emergency Planning and mine are the following: 

They have the responsibility for advising the President on national 

policy for civil defense, and assisting him in coordinating planning 

for civil defense emergencies. These plans involve many technical 

areas; for example, the provision of electric power, water, and the 

planning of rescue efforts aft er a nuclear attack.

My responsibility would be for an assessment of these programs, 

tlieir technical quality, their tnoroughness, and the relationship between them and the work being done by other agencies in the same 

fields, to make sure there was no serious overlap and tha t there were 

not serious gaps. In other words, to provide the President with a 

technical judgment rega rding the programs. But I would not carry 

out operations in this field any more than I would attempt to develop 

a ballistic missile or space system.
50

FU N CTIO N S OF OST

Mr. Boland. Actua lly, what this agen cy is and has been since 1957 

is the eyes, ears, and b rain of the W hite Hou se in the field of science 

an d tech nology.

Dr . Wiesner. Tha t is rig ht. The reo rga niz ation pla n is to give 

it perm anent sta ture, to make it somewh at responsive to the Congress, 

an d actua lly to give it somewh at more res ponsibility in the sense 

th at in the prev ious inc arn ation it did not assume co nti nuing re ­

spo nsibi lity fo r the bro ad field of science, bu t would look at special 

pro ble m areas. Now’, wi th the res ponsibility tran sfer re d fro m the 

Scie nce Fo un datio n, for assessment— it will mea n more or less contin uo us assessment—so th at we can know in a gen era l way wh at is 

go ing on in all of the im po rta nt fields of science wi thin Government.

Mr. Boland. As this committee knows and as eve ry Member knows, 

there have been proposals to esta blis h a S ecretary of Science and Tec hnolo gy and esta blis h a large Fe deral burea ucrac y in this area.

Mr. Ostertag. An Academy, too.

Mr. Boland. Yes, an Academy of Science. Maybe this is a more 

reas ona ble way of doing it and perhap s a more plausible and logical 

way o f deter mi nin g w hat ought to be d one in t his field. Con gress did 

pas s the r eorga niz ation p lan una nim ously, I believe. Was there any 

opp osition ?

Dr . Wiesner. There was no opp osition. Th ere is a fee ling on the 

part of a few Members of Congress, bo th House and Sen ate, th at 

som eth ing much stronger th an the co ordinatin g mechanism repr esen ted by the new office is required. Th ere hav e been pro posals fo r a 

De pa rtm ent o f Science and prop osals fo r a Cab inet officer for science.

In my ow n opinion, ne ith er of those would solve the problem s which 

we a re tryi ng to solve. If one took all of the science activitie s out of 

the ex isting agencies and put them in one bi g agency it would be necessar y to create new’ scientific act ivities in the agencies to su pp ort their 

missions. I f you did not remove all science activities , I th in k you 

can m ake a n arg um ent f or a De pa rtm ent of Science t ha t might b rin g 

together like the Weathe r Burea u, th e Burea u of St an da rd s, and a 

numb er of other activ ities a nd give the m g reater stre ng th. How ever, 

if there was a Cabinet officer fo r such a De partm ent, he wou ld be a 

comp etitor w ith th e Cabin et officers who ha d oth er scientific responsi ­

bilit y ; th erefore he could n ot be given the overall assessment responsibility. Consequ ently the re would still be need fo r a W hite Hou se 

mec hanism t o provide o vera ll assessment, policy g uidance and g eneral 

technica l assistan ce to the Presi dent.

So, in my opinion , even if one were to create a De pa rtm ent of 

Science, there would still be need fo r an office at the Whit e Hou se or 

Ex ecuti ve Office level to do coo rdination .

R ELA TIO N SH IP OF NATIO NAL AC AD EM Y OF SC IE NCE

Mr. T homas. One thi ng th at has w’orried me about this organiz ation 

is where will the Na tional Aca dem y of Science fit into this pictu re 

now’? Be fore the reo rga niz ation plan, the au thor ity th at is more or 

less poi nted up and emphasized in the reo rganiza tion plan, an office 

inside the Pr esiden t's main office, has been in the Na tio nal Science
51

Foundation. The F oundation lias relied pretty continuously and very 

strongly on the National Academy of Science for ideas and guidance. 

They have worked hand in glove. That is a private organization. Of 

course, in the final analysis it has been partly subsidized by the 

Government.

Dr. W iesner. It is quasi-governmental.

Mr. Thomas. But it still has no Government standing. It is a 

creature of Government, but it is independent. Hoav will that organization fit into this picture?

Dr. Wiesner. Since the post of Special Assistant for Science and 

Technology has existed, there has been a triumvirate—the Science 

Foundation and the National Academy of Science have both worked 

with the special assistant. Dr. Bronk is a member of the President’s 

Science Advisory Committee and Dr. Seitz, who has just replaced Dr. 

Bronk, will become a member of the Committee. There is a close 

working relationship between the groups. The Science Advisory Committee has often asked the National Academy of Science to make 

studies for the Government as has other agencies. The President also 

has occasionally asked the Academy to make studies for the Government. I do not believe there will be any change in this relationship 

as a result of the existence of the new office. There has been a very 

close working relationship involving the Academy and the Science 

Foundation and my office, and I believe tha t it will continue.

FU N C T IO N S OF OST AND NATIO N A L SC IE N C E FO UNDATIO N

Mr. Ostertag. Doctor, the chairman just touched on the question 

tha t disturbs me. If I understand correctly, the reorganization plan 

does call for a tran sfer of functions from the Science Foundation and 

Nat ional Academy of Science to your agency.

In that connection, the question arises whether or not they actually 

function as a coordinating and assimilating group with a view to giving the President that type of information and guidance and general 

information.

While tha t was a matter of law and has now been transferred, but 

in practice this practice or function was not actually carried out before 

now. Am I correct ?

Dr. Wiesner. One cannot answer that simply with a “Yes’’ or “No.” 

Tha t would be wrong. Let me talk briefly about the question. The 

Science Foundation has done and will continue to do certain jobs that 

are of an interagency coordination or policy formulation character.

Mr. Ostertag. You mean we are going to have two?

Dr. Wiesner. No. Let me talk just a few minutes on this. I will 

make myself clear.

The NSF collects and publishes much information about scientific 

activities in the country, not only governmental but private as well. 

For example, they try to know how many scientists and engineers of 

various kinds exist in the country, how many people are employed by 

Defense Department activities, Atomic Energy Commission, and so 

on. They tr y to know somthing about the level of scientific activities 

in various fields, how much suppo rt is available for each field, et cetera. 

This is a very hard job, and it has been done very well. The NSF 

will continue to do these things as well as help us on special problems.
52

The NSF has not been willing to go to the next step, quite explicitly, 

it has not been willing to look at programs of other agencies, for 

example, the Atomic Energy Commission, and judge the work. This 

could not be done, because the NS F supports programs in the same 

fields and they consequently feel that it is inappropriate for them to be 

judging.

They have also believed it improper to say to the President, “We 

think certain scientific efforts carried out by the Departments indicate 

an overemphasis, it is not that important.” They have not, for example, been willing to look at agricultural research and say, “The 

nature of agricultural research ought to change.” They have felt this 

tob» inappropriate for the Science Foundation.

On the other hand, they have continuously surveyed the needs for 

technical and scientific manpower and made broad general recommendations in these fields.

The National Science Foundation has filled a very important role 

in the area of assessment and policy formulation and will continue 

to do so. However, they have found certain aspects of this job incompatible with their main mission.

Mr. Ostertag. Now you have put your finger on just what I was 

tryin g to determine.

Dr. Wiesner. We are to be complementary. We are to complement 

the Science Foundation, primarily to provide the President with the 

kind of information, guidance, and judgment be needs in dealing with 

the Nation’s technical problems. Ts the last decade the Nation has gone 

from a billion dollars a year to $10 or $12 billion a year in scientific 

and technical programs.

Mr. Ostertag. Will there be any duplication? You say they will 

continue to do certain of these things up to a given point, but only to 

a given point.

Dr. Wiesner. We will draw on them for statistical and study support, in the kind of work they have been doing. They have several 

hundred people involved in some of these activities. T am talking 

about staff for the next year of less than a hundred, much less than 

a hundred. I obviously cannot undertake to do all the detailed jobs 

they have been doing. The thin g I hope is that my office does not 

get to be a very large operation.

Mr. Thomas. Do you want to correct that figure of 100 or let it 

stand ?

Dr. Wiesner. About 35. T was thinking of the consultants as well. 

T mean a staff of 35 with outside help. As T said earlier, we draw a 

great deal of help both from Government facilities and private,

Mr. Ostertag. Right there, you have cleared up in my mind a certain point which is the one you made with regard to the degree that 

they have been going and work calls for something beyond that which 

is now your responsibility.

PO SS IB LE RE DU CT IO NS IN OTH ER OR GAN IZ AT IO NS DU E TO EST A B L IS H M EN T 

OF OST

However, at the same time T am wondering whether or not, in view 

of the large organization and activity you are setting up, how about 

the Science Foundation and the Academy of Sciences and others that 

are involved in the assimilation and coordination of all th is information, supposedly to be made available to the Executive? Will they
53

require all of their personnel and services tha t they have had in the 

past in this particular field ? In other words, are we building somethin g on top of something else, or is there a transfer? If it is a transfer, why would it not be practical and advisable to reduce their 

requirements which are substituted by yours? I do not know if 1 

make myself clear.

Dr. Wiesner. I understand your question. I am not sure I know 

enough about all of the Sicence Foundation's activities to guarantee 

there will not be a single man tha t could be released as a result of 

what we do. Most of what our office has been doing for the past several 

years and most of what we will continue to do relates to problems the 

Science Foundation has not been involved in at all. “Not at all” is 

probably an overstatement. As an example, there is a very large 

activity in water research today, millions of dollars are spent by the 

Department of the Interior, the Department of Health, Education, 

and Welfare, Defense Department, Atomic E nergy Commission, and 

other agencies. We will be interested in the coordination of this program. The Science Foundation has no real involvement in this.

N ATURE OF GST AUTHORIT Y

Mr. J onas. Where do you get that authority ? I am glad you are 

doing that, if you are, but where do you get your authority for it ?

Dr. Wiesner. From the Reorganization Act.

Mr. J onas. The only authority you have comes from the transf er 

of authority from the National Science Foundation.

Dr. Wiesner. I have not said what we are doing yet.

Mr. J onas. You said you were going to do some things the National 

Science Foundation was not authorized to do.

Dr. Wiesner. No, I did not say not authorized, I said has not done. 

One has to differentiate between what the Science Foundation could 

have done under its act and what it has chosen to do. We have to recall the National Science Foundation, which is 12 years old, started 

from scratch, had to build an organization, buihl a research program 

for the Nation, as well as do some of these other things. They put 

their first priority on research programs.

Mr. Ostertag. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Dr. Wiesner. They chose not to make this particu lar problem of 

Government science management a major problem, and I think rightly.

To come back to the field of water research, this is a field which is, 

I think, vital to the Nation's future. This fad is recognized by the 

executive agencies and by the Congress and these program s are going 

forward rapidly. I plan to undertake a study of the various research 

activities in order to understand the interrelationships between them, 

what the individual agencies are doing, what the national program 

ought to look like, whether duplications exist, and what the educational needs in the field are. The Science Foundation has not been 

involved in such studies. There are other fields in which we may 

find it desirable to do similar things.

We are talking about proper management of a $10 to $12 billion 

national activity. The Science Foundation's management tools and 

efforts, plus our activities that we are discussing here, are, I think, 

relatively modest programs for the total overall national management 

of these efforts.
54

Mr. Ostertag. Doctor, Mr. Jonas raised the question about the 

transfer of authority or responsibilities of the Science Foundation 

and the National Academy, and they are not involved in research in 

water, so called. He wanted to know where you get your authority 

or where the transfer was with regard to functions outside of the 

Science Foundation.

Mr. J onas. I do not find any.

Dr. Wiesner. The specific fields tha t the Science Foundation was involved in were not spelled out in the act. They chose to work in 

certain fields of science, but the act itself is very broad, and if a new 

field of science emerges, the Science Foundation can-----

Mr. J onas. But you have no authority tha t was not transferred to 

you from the National Science Fo unda tion; is that not true?

Dr. Wiesner. Except for one broad general authority, which is 

the President’s authority.

Mr. J onas. Adviser to the President.

Dr. Wiesner. We cannot do anything but give advice to the President.

Mr. J onas. You can evaluate research programs.

Dr. Wiesner. Yes, but then we give tha t evaluation to the President. The only function we have is to assist the President. We cannot change budgets, we do not control budgets, we have no operating 

responsibility. Our responsibility is to advise the President.

NATU RE OF AD VIC E GIV EN T H E PRESI DENT

Mr. J onas. Read into the record some advice you have given the 

President durin g the last year that has resulted in saving some money 

or has eliminated some duplication. You may prepare it later, if 

you like.

Dr. Wiesner. My difficulty is that so much of what we have done 

has been in the military field, and I would want to check and make 

sure, but I will.

(The information will be submitted to the committee.)

Mr. J onas. If you will yield further, have you made any advice of 

any significant nature?

Dr. Wiesner. Yes, I think so.

Mr. J onas. Can you not tell us what you have accomplished during 

the last year in specific without just saying you advised the President ? 

What is the nature of the advice you have given him and what has 

been the practical result ?

Dr. Wiesner. Fir st let me say that a very major share of the 

responsibility of the office in the past has been in the field of national 

security, and the purpose of this reorganization is to broaden it to 

looking at science programs in general. Let me see if I can find 

something here.

Mr. J onas. I will withdraw it.

Mr. Ostertag. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. J onas. Does not the Office of the Secretary of Defense have a 

board that does just what you do, that tries to coordinate the work 

of all three of the services, and in the Office of the DOD itself they are 

doing just exactly what you are doing: is that not right?

Dr. Wiesner. They do it somewhat differently.
55

Mr. J onas. II ow can you justify doing the same th ing they do?

Mr. Ostertag. You mean Dr. Brown’s office?

Mr. J onas. Yes. Is th at not right ? AYe are getting so many layers 

in Government we are going to have difficulty in keeping up with 

them. I do not object to the President having a science adviser.

Mr. Ostertag. Supplementing your point, in the Defense Establishment we have research, development, test, and evaluation. These 

are various stages. Are you associated with the possible decisions 

tha t would relate to development or is it evaluation or it is just 

research ?

Dr. Wiesner. As adviser to the President, if he requests my technical judgment in regard to a proposed development program as it 

emerges from the research stage, I would certainly attempt to provide 

it, try to get the best judgm ent I could and pass it on to him.

In fact, this has been an im portant function of the office and was the 

purpose for which it was originally set up by President Eisenhower, 

because he felt he did have to have an independent source of judgment on technical matters. We do not study everything that goes on 

in the Defense Department. Dr. Brown, mentioned earlier, has a 

continuing responsibility to know about defense matters. We have 

a responsibility to provide the President with the special information 

he wants if he for some reason wants additional advice.

A SS ESS M ENT AN D EV ALU ATI ON FU N C T IO N S

Air. Rhodes. You have a new duty. You have to evaluate now. Is 

tha t not what you have in mind?

Mr. Ostertag. I know that the whole picture or problem associated 

with research in the Defense Establishment has been packaged under 

a research, development, test, and evaluation program. Dr. Brown 

heads that agency in the Defense Department. Mr. Jonas pointed 

out that to a certain extent tha t Dr. Brown and his associates serve as 

the coordinators in these developments in the whole defense picture. 

The question arises as to where research begins, development starts, 

and evaluation takes place. Are you associated with all of them or 

are you associated with the basic research in the first instance?

Dr. Wiesner. In this new office a primary emphasis is on basic research. I will continue to advise on all technical matters of interest to 

Ihe President in my capacity as the special assistant to the President.

Mr. J onas. You cannot possibly, with 35 men, do any one of these 

things, much less all of them.

You propose assessment of relative value of different strategic 

weapons systems and that is a monumental task in itself. I guarantee 

you th at there are 10 times as many as 35 working on tha t in the Departm ent of Defense.

Wha t contribution can you make to the assessment of the relative 

value of different strategic weapons systems with 35 men ?

The development of a process of control and limitation of armament. 

What is the Disarmament Agency doing?

Dr. Wiesner. I do not know where to start.

Air. J onas. Just take up tha t page and paragraph and tell me 

how you are going to do a single one of those things and effectively, 

if you are just going to have a small staff ?
56

Dr. Wiesner. Fir st of all. I do not propose to do all of this all 

of the time.

If the 1’resident asked me for advice on a specific weapons system 

as a specific item, I would provide it. We have done this, and we 

have done it effectively. We do it, not only using our own staff, but 

here is where the consultant staffs are important. We start with the 

basic data developed by these large groups tha t you are talking about. 

We try to understand how people arrive at decisions about weapons 

systems, or any other scientific or developmental program. Understan ding their underlying assumptions and the processes by which 

they came to conclusions is important as is all of the detailed mathematical work. If you start with wrong assumptions or use the wrong 

model of how something works, you can make serious mistakes. Likewise, by selecting data and model you can come to darn near any 

conclusion that you want to, and people often do so.

It is our job to provide, if the President wants it, an independent 

judgment, of assessments of A, B, or C, to contact the people who 

have made studies, to study their work, and to try to ascertain that 

their assumptions are sound and that their mathematical methods are 

right.

(Discussion off the record.)

Dr. Wiesner. 1 would say on any specific item where I am asked 

for my analysis or judgment, it is because I happen to be there, you 

probably would not hire a special-----

Mr. J onas. I want him to have an adviser and I think he needs one. 

I do not think you need 35 or 42 or 100 people down there to help you 

advise the President. I th ink he needs you and an assistant and two or 

three secretaries but not another research organization. I think we 

have plenty of those.

Dr. Wiesner. I misunderstood.

Mr. J onas. You take the written reports of these people and 

evaluate those from the studies they made. You do not have to start 

a new study, do you?

Dr. Wiesner. 1 am not brigh t enough to know about everything. 

This is a pretty big operation and a pretty broad operation and I need 

both staff people who have general knowledge and knowledge of the 

specialized areas.

Dr. Ilartgering is a man in our agency who has a major responsibility for the life sciences. He has one assistant, so we have two men, 

in other words, in our Office who are trying to know all about research in the field of life sciences; biology, medicine, and health.

Mr. Ostertag. You are an evaluator, more or less?

Dr. Wiesner. You cannot really evaluate unless you continuously 

follow a field, can you ?

Mr. Ostertag. Do you feel that you can advise the President and 

evaluate to a g reater or better degree than, let us say, the Secretary 

of Defense, who has his own scientists and his own evaluators highly 

train ed and specialized in a given field?

It is a matter of determination of evaluation and ability to evaluate 

in a highly unknown field, so-called unknown, because we are dealing 

with the unknown.

Dr. Wiesner. In the general field of research and development. The 

Secretary of Defense is only concerned with research within the Department of Defense. The major part of the purpose of this new
Office is to be sure that what is being done in Defense relates to what 

is being done in the Atomic Energy Commission, NASA, and so on. 

Here I think we have a unique responsibility.

In regard to the general question about military weapons systems, 

if you read my biography, you will find tha t for the past 20 years 

I have been a specialist in military weapons systems so I do happen 

to have a particular background tha t is useful. As a matter of fact, 

1 worked very closely with Mr. McNamara.

Mr. Ostertag. We are not questioning your competence or your 

ability. As a matter of fact, we respect you and applaud your valued 

contribution.

Dr. Wiesxer. No; but the point is th at every agency, as you well 

know, may ask fo r more things than the country can afford. One of 

the President’s tasks is to get an understanding of the relative value 

of programs and an independent voice—one he does not have to follow—but that provides another viewpoint which is particularly useful in dealing with these complicated problems.

E L IM IN A T IO N OF D UPL IC ATIO N IN RE SE AR CH

Mr. Ostertag. If you can eliminate duplication in research, because research is coming out of our ears in all kinds of fields, eliminate 

duplication with everybody trying to do the same thing, the same 

way, and the same time, I think perhaps you can bring about some 

economy.

Dr. Wiesner. This is certainly what we are going to try and this is 

what we are hoping to do.

Mr. Ostertag. I wanted to get back to this question of transfer of 

functions from certain agencies, or, at least, the National Science 

Foundation, the National Science Academy. They have their budget 

and they have the ir organization and they have their programs. Does 

this, in any way, reduce their requirements?

Dr. Wiesner. No, sir.

Mr. Ostertag. In other words, as Mr. Jonas put it, another layer 

on another?

Dr. Wiesner. No; as I have tried to explain, this is to provide an 

interagency evaluation and coordination function which has only 

been done, to the extent it has been done at all, by my office in the 

White House, in the Executive Office.

As we reported, the bud get fo r the office this past year was $573,000. 

We have already been doing some coordination and evaluation of 

Government science programs. The reorganization provides an extension of that activity as well as a formalization of it. It is organization of it in a form in which its staff can come down and answer to 

the Congress. So that it is not an entirely new activity. In a sense, 

it is not really a layer eithe r because the agencies do not go through 

our office in their presentation of their budgets or programs to the 

President.

ROLE OF N A T IO N A L SC IE NCE FO UNDATIO N

Mr. Ostertag. But there has been a tran sfer of functions under the 

National Science Foundation Act of 1950 to two different sections? 

The question arises as to whether or not the National Science Foundation will continue to do that work and you do it, too?
58

Dr. AATesner. Yes, sir. The Science Foundation will continue to do 

the things that it has been doing, which is to collect information about 

scientific manpower, basic research, levels of activities in different 

areas of research. They will not only do this on their own initiative 

but in response to requests from us for specialized kinds of information, the Science Foundation has not attempted to do evaluation of 

programs in other agencies. Nor has it attempted to force coordination of scientific programs. These are things we will attem pt to do.

Further , the Science Foundation does not have to stop doing this 

because it has not done it in the past.

Mr. Ostertag. There is no duplication because they have not been 

doing it in the first place ?

Dr. AATesner. They will not do the things we propose to do, and we 

will lean on them for the things they now do.

Mr. Thomas. Pretty well put.

Mr. Ostertag. What is your 1963 budget request in dollars?

Dr. Wiesner. $850,000.

Mr. Ostertag. How many personnel do you have today?

Dr. Wiesner. Twenty-four.

Mr. Thomas. And he is asking for 35.

Mr. Ostertag. W hat is the average number of employees ? Ts that 

24?

Dr. Wiesner. Tha t is right.

Mr. Ostertag. Is tha t outside of consultants ?

Dr. Wiesner. That is outside of consultants.

N U M B ER OF CO NSU LT AN TS

Mr. Ostertag. flow many consultants?

Dr. W iesner. We have available to us something greater than 200 

people some of whom we will rarely use. Some we use a great deal, 

so it is very hard to give you a good feeling for that, and that is why 

we took this number of 100.

We examined the activities in December of last year and found 

that 100 consultants were actively working for us.

PO TE N T IA L GR OW TH OF OST

Mr. Ostertag.. AVe have had new agencies come into being here in 

great numbers during recent years and you are in your infancy, so 

to speak. Does this mean tha t you are going to grow and grow, or 

is this a reasonable amount of leveling off with regard to your requirements in providing coordination and the evaluation necessary for the 

President?

Dr. AATesner. I do not expect a very large growth. On the other 

hand, I am not going to tell you t hat there will not be some growth. 

I do not really know. AATe are experimenting with the control of a 

very large effort and if we can make it effective with the size staff 

we are talking about, possibly adding half a dozen, I will be very 

pleased. I do not believe one can do this job with a very big staff. 

T think this is the kind of thing that has to have a great deal of personal attention from me.

Mr. Ostertag. I agree with you.
59

Dr. Wiesner. If I had 200 people, I do not think we would be in 

a better position than the groups we are trying to coordinate and 

evaluate.

Mr. J onas. I am glad to hear you say th at. I certainly agree with 

you on that.

NEE D FO R RE DU CT IO N OF OV ER LA PP IN G AN D DUPL IC ATI ON

1 would like to have the record show there is a great need for your 

Office, and I am glad to see the President get himself an adviser and 

assign to him some responsibilities in the field of policing some of 

this research we are doing. I have the feeling that there is a great 

amount of duplication and overlapping and if you really undertake 

to put a curb on some of that, you can perform a great service to the 

country and the taxpayers.

You have already been working on this for a year and I would like 

to see some tangible results. What have you saved so far? What 

have you eliminated? Do you have any examples you can cite to 

show what you have accomplished ?

Dr. Wiesner. May I go oft* the record ?

Mr. T homas. Yes, sir.

(Discussion off the record.)

congressional inquiries

Mr. J onas. I understood you to say tha t part of your buildup is 

needed to take care of congressional requests for information; is tha t right?

Are you setting up a public information department ?

Dr. Wiesner. What we plan to do is to talk to the Congress about 

science policy when they want us to. I will be in a position to testify, 

which I was not able to do before. There have been many occasions 

when the Congress asked for someone from our office to testify when 

both the President and myself and my predecessor felt it was a desirable thing to do, but because of the tradition that White House staff 

members do not testify, it was not done.

We will now be available for testimony on interagency scientific 

problems of the kind we have been given responsibility for. It makes 

our office accessible to you when you want us. We are not going to 

carry out a public information program.

Do you think we should ?

Mr. J onas. No; but I do thin k we have enough of tha t in the agencies.

Dr. Wiesner. I thin k we should be willing, for example, to do the 

following. We have been trying to coordinate oceanographic research 

for a couple of years. There are several committees of Congress interested in oceanography. But in addition to hearing individual agency 

presentation they might be interested in the executive objectives in 

this field. If a committee wanted to ask me about our objectives and plans I would now be available.
60

FEDERAL COUNCIL FOR SCIEN CE AND TECHNO LOG Y

Mr. J onas. I did not understand your description of the difference 

between your function and tha t of the Science Council.

Dr. Wiesner. There are two Councils; you mean the Federal 

Council ?

Mr. J onas. Yes.

Dr. Wiesner. The Federal Council for Science and Technology is 

a group t hat has on it high ranking scientific officers from each of the 

operating agencies. For example, Dr. Seaborg from the Atomic 

Energy Commission and Dr. Brown from the Department of Defense 

are on it. We do consider and try to make recommendations to the 

President on scientific issues which are of mutual interest; for example, science information. How should the Government coordinate 

science and so forth ?

Mr. J onas. Is that a permanent board or council with a staff?

Dr. Wiesner. That is right, but the only staff it has is the staff my 

office provides. We also have some panels which are set up with, 

chairmen and secretaries from the individual agencies. For example, 

we can have a panel for the field of oceanography.

Mr. J onas. But it has no official staff of its own ?

Dr. Wiesner. It has no staff of its own. We either furnish the 

staff for the Chairman, or a technical secretary is furnished by some 

of the agencies. It does not appear as a separately budgeted item. 

RESEARCH AND DEVEL OPM ENT REPORT ING AC TIV ITIES IN NSF

Mr. R hodes. Doctor, I, too, am glad th at this Office is being set up 

because I have always felt there was a tremendous need for coordinating our scientific activities. The National Science Foundation has 

asked in this fiscal year for an appropriation of $65,000 f or Federal 

research and development reporting activities. It strikes me that th is 

activity is a necessary part of evaluating the various programs of the 

Federal Government. If the evaluation function is to be transferred 

to you, it makes sense to me to also transfe r this reporting and development activity. In other words, I do not see how you can properly 

evaluate the programs unless you have the reporting activity also.

Would you like to be heard on this subject?

Dr. Wiesner. Yes, we talked about this a great deal.

First of all, the reporting activity that the National Science Foun dation carries on is for the use of the whole Nation, not just my office. 

It is much broader than my own needs, and yet it does, on the whole, 

cover my needs. If we had transferred it from the Science Foun dation to my office, I would be taking on a national need and would have 

to do data gathering in fields I am not personally interested in at a 

given time.
61

Mr. Rhodes. You would become an operating agency ?

Dr. Wiesner. That is right. We decided the better thing to do was 

to continue the Science Foundation activities and ask that they be 

responsive to our special needs. This they have agreed to do.

Dr. Bolt is now carrying on for our Office a study in connection with 

the various o perating agencies, of their projections, where they think 

science is going, for the next half a dozen years, and what they believe 

their needs are likely to be.

Mr. Rhodes. I should think you would find duplication during the 

process of evaluating the reports received in the Federal research and 

development re porting activities.

Do you have any method devised whereby the National Science 

Foundation would report to you when they receive information which 

indicates duplication ?

Dr. Wiesner. Dr. Bolt has now undertaken to try to do this for us.

Mr. Rhodes. He will do this specific thing ?

Dr. Wiesner. That is right.

duplication of research

Just to make sure we understand each other, we keep talking about 

duplication. There is a lot of duplication and a lot of it is expensive, 

but a certain amount of duplication, I think, should always be tolerated 

for one of two reasons. Fi rst of all, one cannot predict which scientist 

is going to make a great discovery. If you have only one, your 

chances are smaller than if you have more than one.

Secondly, each agency has a given responsibility; for example, 

in the Public Health Service, they have a water pollution responsibility. The Interior Department has a different responsibility for 

water; namely, development of water resources. Neither of these 

agencies can do its job properly if it does not have a core of basic 

research to support its effort and one should not be too disturbed if 

there is some duplication or overlap, in research provided we are 

aware of it, and provided it is not too large.

Mr. Rhodes. Furth er provided they exchange information with 

each other ?

Dr. Wiesner. That is right. In other words, one of the things we 

always do when we set up a new laboratory—I have always done this 

and I have been involved in the creation of several new laboratories, 

particula rly in the defense field—is to insist on a fairly substantial 

component of basic research, because without it a laboratory will always be second rate. I think this is true in most fields. Basic research 

is the basis on which applied work is done, so that a certain amount of 

basic research duplication has to be tolerated within the agencies, 

for this reason.
62

If you hav e a mu lti- billion a year prog ram fo r the dev elopment of 

wa ter reso urces fo r the country , I think th at ha ving a $20 m illion or 

even la rg er basic research prog ram to su pp ort it is ap pr op riate even 

if you find sim ila r basic rese arch in the Public H ea lth Se rvice d irecte d 

toward po llu tio n con trol .

Mr. J onas. W ha t worrie s me about duplication is no t th at we have 

two, three, or four scient ists doing research in the same field, but 

diffe ren t agencies pr og raming res ear ch in the same field. It is the 

overh ead th at worrie s me.

Dr. W iesn er. Tha t is w hat I am tr yi ng to defend.

Le t me show you why by these tw o examples------

Mr. T homas. Le t me in te rr upt you to go off the rec ord a min ute.

(Discussio n off the rec ord .)

Dr . Wiesn er. W ha t I am s ay ing is t hat am ong the i nd ividua l scientis ts du pli catio n is d esirable .

You hav e a very good que stio n and th at is, sho uld we affo rd the 

overh ead i t tak es to have two sep arate rese arch pr og rams ?

I would like to pu sh th at a ste p fu rth er , because I th in k th at you 

will find th e o verhea d e xists once you decide to ha ve two agencies w ith 

responsibilitie s in the same field. I hav e thou gh t a good deal abo ut 

thi s, and I do not th in k we can afford to reshuffle the whole Government mission str uctur e. H E W has a he alth res ponsibility , and I 

th in k it is quite a pp ro pr iate t hat po llu tio n con trol be there with all of 

the othe r he alth responsibilitie s. In te rior has the res ponsibility fo r 

na tura l resources, and one o f th e most im po rta nt a nd v ita l na tu ra l re ­

sources is water; the y hav e to be conti nu all y making sure we develop 

new water sources. Once you have agre ed to ca rry on these ac tivitie s, 

the qu estion becomes, is i t a lot more expensive to have tw o a gencies do 

basic res ear ch in wa ter, ad mitt ing th at they are go ing to ca rry on 

ind ependent develop ment work? I th in k the ans wer is “No.”

SELECTION OF FIELDS TO BE STUDIED

Mr. R hodes. Doctor, one of the ma in problems in do ing away with 

du plication and ge tti ng pr op er corre lation of scien tific effort is the 

problem of mac hine lan guage inc om patib ility whi ch seems to have 

developed in var iou s echelons of th e G overnm ent.

Will th is be a problem you will a ddress you rse lf to ?

Dr. W iesner. I have no t ex plicitly decided to. I t is certa inly a 

trou blesom e enough p rob lem so that we should. One of t he proble ms 

I w ill have is th at o f selecting th e im po rta nt issues so as n ot to spr ead 

too thin. I th in k it is im po rtan t th at we no t get mix ed up in all of 

the little det ails in Go vernme nt bu t reall y concentrate on some im ­

po rtan t pro ble ms; bu t the pro ble m you hav e raised is an im po rta nt 

eno ugh one th at we sho uld conside r it s erio usly . We hav e not rea lly 

conside red it thus f ar.

Mr. R hodes. You can have one agen cy dev elo pin g da ta in such a 

way th at it can not possibly be used by an age ncy w ith an othe r machine 

system ?

Dr. W iesn er. You are absolute ly right .
63

GAPS IN SC IE NTI FI C EFFORT

Mr. Rhodes. Now, for a last question.

You intend to probe to see what vacuums exist in our scientific effort as well as to evaluate results ?

Dr. Wiesner. Yes, although it is much ha rder-----

Mr. Rhodes. This gets to the formulation of creative ideas and 

tryi ng to anticipate future needs ?

Dr. Wiesner. Tha t is very much a part of this.

Mr. Rhodes. This will be part of your function ?

Dr. Wiesner. It is supposed to be a p art of my responsibility.

FU TU R E SI ZE OF OST

Mr. R hodes. How big do you think this agency will get in the next 

5 years ?

Dr. Wiesner. I honestly cannot say. I would be misleading if I 

say that I had a good feeling for the final size, and all I can say is 

tha t we intend not to get too large.

Mr. R hodes. I hope that next year when you come in, you have effected savings of a dollar magnitude greatly in excess of the amount 

of money you ask for.

Dr. Wiesner. I hope that i f I come in and ask for five more people 

you will not say t hat I said it was not going to grow.

Mr. Thomas. Doctor, you are wonderful and we appreciate your 

frankness. We are delighted and honored to have you with us.

Mr. Ostertag. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my endorsement 

of the principle and purpose and objective of this agency and of Dr. 

Wiesner as Director of the Office of Science and Technology in the 

Office of the President. I think it is somethng tha t has been needed 

and believe it can serve a very worthwhile and laudable purpose.

We have confidence tha t you are going to do the job.

Dr. W iesner. I wish I had all that confidence. It is a mighty big 

job.

Mr. J onas. Mr. Chairman, this is not a question for him, but in 

part 3, have you checked this trans fer of unexpended balances ? Has 

there been any ?

Mr. Thomas. No.

Mr. J onas. Do you have the records on that figure ?

Mr. T homas. Tha t is what I asked him about awhile ago. He said 

it is a transfer of funds.

Mr. Ostertag. Will this budget request be made a pa rt of our regular bill?

Mr. Thomas. A transfer of funds.

No, I think we will have to decide later.

Doctor, we thank you very much and good luck.

Dr. Wiesner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
M onday, J u l y 16, 1962.

FE DE RA L COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WITNE SSES

ROSEL H. HYDE, COMM ISSIONER

ROBERT T. BARTLEY, COMMISSIONER

T. A. M. CRA VEN , COMM ISSIONER

ED WAR D W. ALL EN, JR ., CH IEF EN GINE ER

HEN RY GELLER, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL

JOH N J. N ORDBERG, CHIEF , COMMON CAR RIER B UR EA U

BE RN AR D STRASSBURG, AS SIST AN T CHIEF , COMMON CA RR IER

BU RE AU

GEORGE S. TU RN ER , CH IEF , FIEL D EN GINE ER ING AN D MONITORIN G BUREAU

ROBERT W. COX, EX EC UT IVE OFFICER

RICH AR D F. SOLAN, ASSIS TA NT EX ECUTIVE OFFICER

GERAL D CAHILL, AS SIS TA NT GEN ERAL COUNSEL

J. N. HA ND , CHIEF , DAT A PROC ESSIN G DIVISION

S ala ri es and E x pen ses

Object classification

[In thou san ds of dollars]

II

12

21

22

23

24

25

26

31

32

Personnel compensation:

Permane nt positions-------------------------

Other personnel compensation------------

Total personnel compensa tion----------

Personnel benefits----------------------------------

Tra vel and transporta tion of nersons:

Transp orta tion an d per diem--------------

Paym ent to interagency motor pools----

Trans portation of things-------------------------

Ren ts, communications, and u tility services.

Pri nting and reproduction----------------------

Oth er services--------------------------------------

Services of other a gen cies.. . ---------------

Supplies and materials---------------------------

Eq uipm en t___________________________

Lan d and stru ctures____________________

To tal costs----------------------------------------

1963 original

10,702 

81

10,783 

798

227

49

40

496

100

367

77

176

370

25

13,508

1963 revised

10,979 

81

11,060

819

Increase

277

277

21

227 . . . __ . . .

49

40

496

100

383 16

177 100

188 12

1,461 1,091

25

15,025 1,517

Personnel summary

1963 original 1963 revised Increase

Total numb er of pe rma nent positions___ . ____________ 1,512 1,551 39

Average nu mber of all employee s.- __________________ ___ 1,388 1,422 34

Nu mb er of employees at end of vear______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i 1,396 1 1,435 39

Average, GS gr ad e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8.6 8.6

Average OS salary .....................- ............................ ........ ........— $7,742 $7,752 $10

1

 In clud es 42 employees paid from reimbursa ble funds.
65

Program and financing

[In thousa nds of dollars]

1963 origina l 1963 revised Increase

Pro gra m by activities:

1. Applied technical research and freq uen cy allocation___

2. Broa dc as t.._____ ______ . . . . . . . ----------------------------

3. Safety and special radio services____________________

4. Field engineering an d mon ito rin g........................... ........

5. Comm on c arrie r..___ ____________________________

6. Executive, staff, and service------ ----------------------------

7. UHF- TV project................ . ............. ......................... ......

$829

2,987 

1,451 

3,946 

1,544 

2,343

408

$829

2,987

1,451

4,081

1,728

3,541

408

$135

184

1,198

Total program costs 1___ ______ Change in selected resources 2__________

To tal obligations—...........................

Financing:

Unobligated balance bro ught forward. 

Unobligated balance carried forward..

New obligational au thority ____________ ___________

New obligational a uth ority: Appro priation............................. .

13,508

13,508 

-40 8

13.100

13.100

15,025 1,517

15,025 1,517

-408 .......................

14,617 

14,617

1,517

1,517

i See the following:

1963 original 1963 revised Increase

472 1,552 1,080

2

 Selected resources as of June 30 are as follows:

1963 original 1963 revised Increase

Stores __ _______ ________________ __________

Un paid u ndelivere d orders_________________________ 7 7

Advances_______________________________________ 567 567

5 5

Total selected resources__________________________ 579 579

Mr. Thomas. Will the committee please come to order ?

We are delighted to have with us today the Federal Communications Commission. It is certainly nice to see so many of our old 

and distinguished friends.

We shall consider a supplemental estimate contained in House 

Document No. 401 in the amount of $1,517,000.

Gentlemen, do you have a prepared statement?

G e n e r a l S t a t e m e n t

Mr. Bartley. Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement here tha t 

I think will lie background m aterial for the request.

Gentlemen, we appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today 

to discuss the Commission’s request for an amendment to its 1963 

budget estimates. The additional amount requested, $1,517,000,
66

covers three activities for which we were unable to prepare estimates 

at the time of our original submission. These items are as follows:

1. An electronic computer program___________________________ $1,198, 000

2. A sat ellite communications pro gra m________________________ 1S4, 000

3. A prog ram for use by FCC of direction-finding facilities of anoth er agency___________________________________________ 135, 000

PURCHA SE OF ELECTRONIC COM PUT ER

In our earlier budget document, and in our hearings before you in 

February, we made reference to a data-processing study we had 

underway in the Commission. We stated on both occasions th at we 

expected to have final recommendations from our staff early this 

calendar year, and tha t if the Commission’s decision was in favor of 

procuring a computer it would be necessary to amend our budget request. When the staff’s repo rt was received in late February the 

Commission unanimously agreed to request the necessary funds 

($1,198,000) to procure a computer as soon as possible.

The decision to go forward with the computer program was not 

based on the single fact tha t we will be able to save some money, but 

probably of equal importance was the fact tha t we will be able to 

eliminate many of the backlogs of pending applications that remain 

in the Commission, and prevent such backlogs from developing in the 

future. We also consider of m ajor importance the fact tha t the computer will give us curren t and accurate information on all outstanding 

licenses and pending applications, provide for the absorption of increased workloads for many years to come at practically no additional 

cost, and give us the capability to do jobs tha t we cannot even attempt 

to do on a manual basis.

Our analysis of the cost of the computer system, as compared with 

the cost of the present manual system, has been projected over a 10- 

year period. It is our estimate tha t over this period there will be a 

saving of approximately $200,000 annually with the computer system. 

This does not, however, reduce the Commission’s overall staff requirements as described in its original budget request for 1963, since the 

proposed system will not be implemented until the very end of the 

fiscal year. Nor does it mean that the Commission will not be asking 

for increases in the future. There are many areas of work t hat the 

computer cannot touch.

We must, however, provide in 1963 for a number of costs which 

will not be recurring but which are essential to getting the computer 

program rolling. These one-time costs represent the greater part of 

the funds we are requesting today. They include the computer itself, 

site preparation, and conversion of existing files to a form that can be 

used by the computer.

You will note tha t we are proposing the purchase of the computer 

rather than lease or lease with option to buy. Cost comparisons 

show’ed tha t this method of procurement offered the greatest advantage to the Government. This confirms the view that I believe the 

committee expressed when we discussed this subject with you previously.

Recently the Commission received a management study report prepared by Booz, Allen & Hamilton, the consulting firm engaged by the 

Bureau of the Budget to study the Commission’s operations. One of
67

the ir principal findings was, and I quote, “The program for the installation of electronic data processing systems oners a g reat potential 

for better services at less cost and should be broadened and pressed 

forward.” I believe this is one recommendation with which the Commission is in unanimous agreement.

I will not, at this time, go into a great deal of detail on this program since the justification, which we submitted with our budget request describes the project quite fully. However, I am sure there are 

some points on which the committee would like additional information, so I have brought along Mr. Cox, our executive officer, and Mr. 

Hand to assist me in providing any further information tha t may be 

desired.

SA TE LL IT E CO M M U N IC A TIO N S

The second activity for which we are requesting additional funds, 

$184,000, is satellite communications. The tremendous success of the 

Telstar gives some indication of what we can look forward to in the 

future. This is a subject which has received considerable attention 

by a number of committees on the Hill in recent months, and I am 

sure tha t these hearings will, in the very near future, result in specific 

legislation to establish a communication satellite corporation. Such 

legislation will unquestionably thrust new regulatory workloads and 

complex problems on the Commission for which we must be prepared.

The funds we are requesting today are for 21 additional positions. 

This staff, made up principally of engineers, attorneys, public utility 

accountants, rate experts, and supporting clerical staff, will devote 

the ir efforts to space communications and related matters. At the 

present time, the only staff w’e are able to devote to these matters is 

borrowed from divisions of the Common Carrier Bureau, the Office 

of the Chief Engineer, and the Office of the General Counsel. In 

many cases, this is on a part-time basis, and regular work is suffering 

accordingly.

The Commission feels very strongly tha t we must prepare now to 

handle these new responsibilities and to assist in the development of 

this revolutionary medium of communications.

Commissioner Craven and I, along with staff representatives will be 

pleased to answer all questions or provide any additional information 

the committee may wish on this subject.

E Q U IP M E N T P URCHASE S

The last item, for $135,000, is to cover the purchase of technical 

equipment which will perm it us to join another agency in the use of its 

up-to-date Wullenweber long-range direction finding equipment. This 

equipment is far superior to the type we are currently using.

In our original 1963 budget we requested $65,000 for the purchase of 

terminal equipment that wfill permit us to take advantage of an opportunity to consolidate with this agency in Puerto Rico. By merging 

operations at four additional locations we will be able to eliminate 

completely or reduce the size of four of our existing stations, sell the 

property, and for the relatively small cost of the terminal equipment 

that is being requested here, save the Government over $1 million in 

the next 3 years. In so doing we will end up with vastly improved 

monitoring facilities.
68

In its building program, the other agency is planning space for th e 

Federal Communications Commission, but we must transfer funds to 

them to cover the cost of the terminal equipment th at is necessary for 

us to tie into the direction finder; hence this request for funds.

Mr. Turner, Chief of our Field Engineering and Monitoring Bureau, 

is here today to explain the agreement that has been worked out between 

our two agencies and to fill in any other details of the plan that may be 

desired.

Mr. Thomas. That is a very excellent statement and very much to 

the point.

What is the other agency ?

Mr. Bartley. The Navy.

IN CREASE S RE QU ES TE D

Mr. Thomas. You have three requests in here.

Mr. Bartley. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thomas. Two of them are involved with an increase in personnel and the three requests add up to $1,517,000.

The first one deals with computers and you have a total of almost 

$1.2f million for that, while the third activity involves 18 personnel, 

so you say, for your computers.

Your second one is the satellite communication programs, $184,000.

How many personnel are involved in that ?

Mr. Bartley. Twenty-one.

Mr. Thomas. What does your third one deal with ?

Mr. Bartley. That is monitoring.

Mr. Thomas. Tha t involves how much money ?

Mr. Bartley. $135,000.

Mr. Thomas. You indicate t ha t this program is going to save over 

$1 million in the next, 3 years.

J ustification of the E stimates

We shall put the entire justifications in the record at this point. 

(The material referred to follow s:)

F ed eral Co m m u n ic a tio n s Co m m is sio n ,

Washington, D.C., May 10,1962.

I n depe nden t Offic e s Su bcom m it te e,

Appropriations Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Gen tlem en : We are submitting herewith a request for an amendment to our 

1963 budget estimates. The additional $1,517,000 is for items that could not 

be estimated at the time our annual budget was prepared.

When we submitted our original budget request for 1963 we pointed out that 

an amendmnet would be submitted if the results of our automatic data processing study were favorable. The Commission has now reached the conclusion 

tha t installation of a computer will not only improve the efficiency of its 

operations but will, when the program is in full operation, result in a net 

saving of approximately $200,000 annually over a 19-year period. If this matter 

were to be deferred for consideration in our 1964 budget at least 1 full year 

would be lost. In view of the benefits t ha t will accrue to the Government and 

the public through this program it is of utmost importance that this delay be 

avoided.

Funds are also requested in this amendment to increase the Commission’s 

effort in the area of satellite communications. The Commission has been 

devoting some staff to this program but the increased emphasis that has been
69

p u t on th is pr og ra m by th e P re si d en t an d th e Con gr es s m ak e it im per at iv e 

th a t th is Co mmiss ion be ad eq uat el y st af fe d to carr y out it s ob lig atio ns in 

ad va nc in g th e de ve lopm en t of th is ne w med ia of co mm un ications . In th is ar ea , 

as in oth er sp ac e pr og ra m s, th e U nited S ta te s m ust ta k e th e le ad ers hip not on ly 

fo r our ow n good but al so fo r th e be ne fit of th e re st of th e fr ee world. The 

Co mmiss ion has cri ti cal re sp onsi bilitie s in th is pro gra m an d we be lie ve th a t 

a de la y fo r anoth er y ear in ad din g th is st af f wou ld gr av el y im pai r our ability 

to m ee t t ho se res po ns ib ilitie s.

(Since ou r 1903 es ti m ate s w er e pre pare d a pro gr am has be en wor ke d ou t 

w it h anoth er Gov er nm en t ag en cy fo r th e jo in t us e of m on itor in g fa ci lities a t 

fo u r lo ca tio ns . Thi s pro gra m w ill ca ll fo r th e in it ia l ou tlay of $135,000 by 

th is Co mmiss ion w ith a re su ltin g sa vi ng of $1,092,060 to th e Gov ernm en t ov er 

a 3- ye ar pe rio d. Th e us e of th is mod ern in st all ati on will offer co ns id er ab le 

te ch nic al ad vanta ge to th e Co mmiss ion. In ord er th a t ou r ne ed s ca n be in ­

clud ed in th e co nst ru ct io n pla nnin g it is ne ce ss ar y th a t we su bm it our re qu es t 

fo r th es e fu nd s now , sinc e fis cal 1964 w ill b e too l at e.

You r fa vor ab le co ns id er at io n of th e to ta l am oun t re qu es te d is reco mmen de d 

Si nc er ely yo urs,

Newton N. Mino w, Ch airm an .

J u st if ic a tio n for A m en dm en t to 1963 B udg et E stim a te

I. Ele ct ro ni c c om pu te r pr og ra m, $1,198,000

The Co mmiss ion’s bu dg et est im ate fo r fiscal y ear 1963 st ate d th a t we wo uld 

su bm it an am en de d bu dg et re ques t if it w as de cid ed to proc ee d w ith an elec tro ni c 

co m pu te r pr og ra m . On F ebru ary 28, 1962, aft e r a th or ough st udy th e Co mm issio n co nc lude d th a t a co m pu te r sy st em wo uld be m or e ec on om ical an d efficie nt 

th an i ts pre se nt m an ual sy stem and una ni m ou sl y ap pr ov ed , su bje ct to th e ap pr opri ati on of fu nd s, th e purc has e of a Uni va c I I I el ec tron ic co m pu te r an d as so ­

ci at ed X Y -P lo tter an d th e in st all ati o n of th e sy stem in it s W as hi ng to n offices in 

M ay 1963. He nce, th is re ques t fo r $1,198,000 co ve rs th e purc has e an d m ai nte ­

nan ce of th e ab ov e eq ui pm en t an d oth er item s of ex pe ns e as so ci at ed w ith th e 

in st all ati on an d oper at io n of th e s ys te m . The a ddit io nal am ount re qu es ted he re in 

do es no t re du ce th e Com miss ion’s over al l st af f re quir em en ts ca lle d fo r in our 

pr ev io us bu dg et re ques t fo r 1963 sinc e in sta ll ati o n of th e sy stem will no t be 

co mplete d unti l 1964.

The fin an ci al advanta ges of p urc hasi ng an d in st all in g t h e c om pu te r sy ste m fo r 

th e Co mmiss ion ha ve be en ca lc ula te d ov er a 10 -yea r pe rio d. 1

 The gros s co st of 

th e co m pu te r sy stem ov er th a t pe riod av er ag es $490 ,000 per y e a r ; th e co st of 

th e pre se nt m an ua l sy stem fo r th e oper at io ns to be per fo rm ed by th e co m pu te r 

is $707,000 pe r ye ar , re su ltin g in a n et annual sa vi ng s of ap pro xi m at el y $200,000 

w he n th e p ro gr am is in fu ll op er at io n. The co st of t h e c om pu te r sy stem in cl ud es 

th e pu rc has in g o f th e eq ui pm en t and th e co sts to pro gr am , op er at e, an d m ai nta in 

th e sy stem . Sa ving s in c lu d e : The d ir ect pe rs on ne l di sp la ce m en ts in th e bure au s 

an d offices, th e ab so rp tion of cert ain pe rs on ne l in cr ea se s which wo uld be re ­

qui re d to proc es s th e in cr ea se in ap pli cati on re ce ip ts anti ci pat ed ov er th e next 

10 -yea r pe riod , an d th e re du ct io n of EAM eq ui pm en t re nta ls in th e pr es en t 

ta b u la ti n g mac hi ne o pe ra tion s.

In ad ditio n to th e dir ect doll ar sa vi ng s th a t w ill be po ssibl e, th e back logs of 

pe nd in g ap pl ic at io ns in m os t are as of th e Com miss ion will be el im in at ed or su bst an ti all y redu ce d. T he co m pu te r se le cted w ill not on ly pr oc es s th e pre se nt vo lum e of a pplica tions on a cu rr en t bas is and pr ov id e an ac cura te up -to- da te re co rd 

of al l lic en sees, bu t it w ill hav e th e ne ce ss ar y re se rv e ca pab ilitie s to ab so rb 

a 25- to 30-pe rcen t gr ow th.

The de cision to in st all a co m put er sy stem is th e re su lt of a 2- ye ar det ai le d 

st udy of al l are as of FC C’s op er at io ns. Sy stem sp ec ifi ca tio ns w er e de velop ed to 

in su re fu ll an d fr ee co m pe tition am on g qu alifi ed eq ui pm en t m an ufa ct ure rs . 

The se sp ec ifi ca tio ns w er e se nt to 18 co m pa ni es w ith in vit ati ons to su bm it eq uipm en t pr op os als. In ad di tion, a pu bl ic n ot ic e w as issu ed in vitin g o th er co mpa nies 

to c onta ct th e C om miss ion if th ey w ere i nte re st ed in reco m men di ng an elec tro ni c 

d a ta pr oc es sing sy stem ba se d on our sp ec ifi ca tio ns . Pro po sa ls w er e rece ived 

fr om se ve n c om pu te r m anufa ctu re rs .

1

 The life expectancy of the new transistorized computers is estim ated to be np to 15 

shift-years.
70

The proposals were evaluated in minute detail, using cri ter ia prescribed by 

the Bureau of the Budget in Circular No. A-54 which deals with policies on 

selection and method of acquisition of automatic data processing equipment. 

The conclusion was th at the Univac II I computer would best fulfill the data 

processing requirements of the FCC and purchase (as opposed to lease, or lease 

with option to purchase) offered the gre ate st cost advantage to the Government.

The organization and management survey rep ort by Booz, Allen & Hamilton, the 

management firm engaged by the Bureau of the Budget to study FCC’s operations, 

referred to the program for the installation of a computer system in the Commission as one that offers a gre at potential for better services at less cost and 

should be pressed forw ard. Also, in Janu ary of this year, the Bureau of the 

Budget was requested to have its da ta processing staff review FCC’s plans for 

the use of a computer and render an evaluation repo rt. Their report indicated 

complete accord with the approac h taken by this Commission in its study and 

development of a computer system. It was their view th at the contemplated 

system would solve many of the application processing problems that have 

plagued the Commission for many yea rs and that it offers tremendous potential 

for furth er improving the Commission’s effectiveness in regulating the communication s indu stry.

The system will be implemented in two phases. During phase I, which will 

become operational in May 1963, the computer system will perform AM, FM, 

and TV engineering computational work, provide accurate up-to-date information 

on ownership of broa dcast stations, and fac ilitat e application sta tus reporting 

in all are as of the Commission. Pha se I will also include computational work 

in connection with the checking of antenn a data to insu re ai r navigation safety, 

and the analy ses of telephone pla nt mo rtality data to establish depreciation 

rate values for the Common Ca rrier Bur ea u; also frequency reports and licensee 

data print-outs for the Office of Chief Engineer and Field Engineering and Monitoring Bureau for improved control and management of the radio spectrum.

Pha se II, which will become operational during the period October 1963 to 

Jun e 1964, w ill encompass the processing of applications for safety and special 

uses of radio, which include the marine, aviation, ama teur, citizen and sim ilar 

rad io services. The computer system will provide for automatic printing of 

licenses, rene wal notices, license modification forms, and will make available 

a complete, easily accessible record of all outstan ding licenses and pending 

applications.

Looking to the future , this mechanized system will make possible investiga ­

tions in connection with antenna sta bility studies, geographical allocation plans, 

frequenc y coordination and assignments, and more refined chan nel-splitting 

engineering standa rds. Other potential uses of the computer are in the a rea s of 

ra te studies and the administrative functions of the Com mission; i.e., budgeting, 

personnel, and payroll and finance.

To prepare for the phase I operations in advan ce of the delivery of equipment

in April 1963, the following steps are ne cessa ry:

1. Pur cha se of computer 1____________________________________ $898, 500

2. Contract for maintenance of computer for May and June, 1963_ 5, 200

3. Pur cha se X Y-Plol te r_____________________________________ 46, 300

4. Contract for main tenance of X Y-Plotter for May and June 1963_ 800

5. Contract with GSA for pre par ation of computer site in new post

post office building______________________________________ 75, 000

6. Convert Broadcast Bureau licensee d ata 2

 to punched cards and

magnetic tape__________________________________________ 25, 000

7. Convert data on M-3 contour map to punched card s and magnetic tape______________________________________________ 10. 000

8. Pur cha se magnetic tape and other miscellaneous supp lies_______ 10, 000

9. Personnel compensation—18 positions—programers, computer

operators, clerical control personnel_______________________ 112, 584

10. Personnel benefits________________________________________ 8, 444

11. Fu rnitu re, fixtures, and office supplies_______________________ 6,172

1,198, 000

1

 T he co m pu te r co nf ig ur at io n will he completed in fiscal yea r 1964 by th e pu rc ha se of tw o 

ad dit io nal m ag ne tic ta pe dr iv es . The to ta l pu rc ha se co st an d m ai nte nan ce co st fo r 9 

m onth s to be bu dg eted i n fiscal yea r 196 4 will be .$50,000.

2

 T he co nv ersio n of th e la rg est vo lume of lic en se e re co rd s fo r th e S af et y an d Sp ec ial 

Rad io Se rv ices Bur ea u (a ppro xim at el y 1 m illio n) w ill be a fis ca l year 1964 ex pe ns e 

es tim ate d to be ap pro xi m at el y $2 00,00 0.
71

II. Satell ite communications program, $184,000

At the time the regula r budget request for fiscal 1963 was prepared there were 

no clear indications as to what course would be followed in this country’s program on a commercially operable satell ite communications system. Space communications specialists are confident t hat such a system is technically feasible. 

The experimental satell ite TELSTAR will be in polar orbit by summ er; this 

will be followed by the RELAY polar satelli te which is an experimentation of 

NASA. This in turn will be follow’ed by the ADVENT satellite, which will be 

in equatorial orbit synchronous with the e art h’s movement.

These sensational developments open up new vi stas in communication. Within 

2 or 3 years afte r these experimental steps the FCC must be prepared to meet 

the problems posed by commercial operation of the resu ltant communication 

system. The problems which must be anticipated and solved are and will be 

novel, complex, and of great consequence. Their solution will require our best 

efforts. This means concentrated attention by a highly skilled specialized staff.

Under the general guidance of a Commissioner, an ad hoc group borrowed 

from the regula r staffs of the Common Carrier Bureau. Office of Chief Engineer, 

the Office of General Counsel h as been actively engaged in formulating plans for 

the Commission’s role in futur e space communications. This, unfo rtunately, has 

diverted key staff from other very impor tant regula tor functions which will 

suffer until these people are returned to their regular work or replaced. This 

arangem ent was intended as a temporary measure for initi al planning only. 

Steps must be taken to provide the staff tha t will be requ ired in coming months 

and yea rs as this program develops.

Within the past several months Congress has been considering specific legislation to establish a communication sa tellite corporation which would be subject 

to regulation by the Commission. It is reasonably certain, therefore, that legislation will be enacted in the near future and tha t such legislation will thr ust 

upon the Commission a number of new and unique regulatory responsibilities 

and problems without precedent in the common ca rrie r regulatory field.

The Commission is therefore proposing to establish a separate working group 

to concentrate on these impor tant tasks. It is anticipated tha t space communication satellites will serve principally to complement existing transoceanic 

cables and radio in rendering internati onal communication service. Because 

of these common car rier implications, the regulation of this new facility falls 

logically and ultimate ly within the purview of the Common Carri er Bureau. 

However, it is necessary in the initial stages to effect commissionwide coordination. Our proposal is to utilize the funds requested in this budget amendment to establish the following unit s reportin g to an admin istrator of the Space 

Communications Working Group:

Technical Standa rds Unit, staffed by engineers, responsible for public service 

standar ds, acceptability of facilities and equipment in the satellite and the ground 

stations, frequency allocation and assignment, interference problems, and related 

responsibilities.

Rates and Revenue Requirements Unit, staffed principally by public utilitie s 

accountants and rate experts, concerned with the establishing of lawful and 

reasonable rate levels and structures, the revenue requirements of the satellite 

consortium, the impact of space satellites on existing rates and services, allowable 

costs of operation, the relationships of satellite services to existing transoceanic 

and domestic services, and such other matt ers as will arise because of this new 

method of furnishing public communication services.

Legal and Treaty Unit, staffed principally by attorneys, to handle all legal 

questions stemming from the new consortium, rulemaking, determination of U.S. 

position in trea ty matte rs, and the conduct of general policy studies in conjunction with th e two other working units.

Accordingly, it is requested tha t an additional appropria tion be approved for 

this new Space Communications Working Group for fiscal 1963 as follow s:

Personnel compensation (21 pos itions)________________________ $164,800

Personnel benefits----------------------------------------------------------------- 12,360

Furn iture and supplies---------------------------------------------------------- 6, 840

Total________________________________________________ 184, 000
72

II I. Jo in t us e by FCC of W ul le nw eb er dire ctio n fin de rs ow ne d by an ot he r

ag en cy , $135,000

The Co mmiss ion’s lo ng -ran ge di re ct io n fin ding ne tw or k ope ra te s 24 ho ur s a 

da y fu rn is hin g h ea ring s in c on ne ction w ith th e lo ca tio n of ill eg al an d cl an de stin e 

ra di o st ati ons and so ur ce s of in te rf ere nce to vit al co m m un icat io ns c ir c u it s; also 

to pr ov id e se ar ch an d re sc ue ai d to dis tr ess ed sh ip s and plan es . In ord er to fill 

a ge og ra ph ic al ga p in our di re ct io n- find er co ve rage , fu nds w er e re qu es te d in ou r 

1963 bu dg et (p. 105) fo r th e re es ta blish m en t of th e P uert o Ri co mon ito ring 

st ati on w hi ch had be en clo sed som e years e arl ie r be ca us e of l ac k of f un ds . Co sts 

w ill be k ept to a minim um by m ak in g jo in t us e w ith anoth er Fed era l ag ency 

of a W ellenw eb er long -ran ge d irec tion fin de r be ing co ns truc te d by th a t ag ency in 

P uert o Rico. The same ag en cy is co nts ru ct in g si m il ar W ul le nw eb er dire ctio n 

find er s a t va ri ou s ot he r st ra te gic po in ts in th e U ni te d St at es .

The w id e- ap er tu re W ul le nw eb er is a m ajo r ad va nc em en t in di re ct io n fin ders, 

ha vin g g re ate r in her en t ac cu ra cy an d efficiency th an th e adcock ty pe s cu rr entl y 

us ed by th e C om m ission ; th er ef ore , utili zati on by th e Co mm iss ion of su ch fa ­

ci lities wou ld su bst anti all y im pr ov e our long -ran ge ra di o- lo ca tio n ca pa bi lit ie s. 

Of eq ua l im po rtan ce in so fa r as be ne fit to th e Gov er nm en t is co nc erne d is th e 

fa ct th a t th e Co mmiss ion’s part ic ip ati on in a pro gr am of jo in t us e of such 

fa ci li ti es wou ld re su lt in a m ajo r sa vi ng in co sts . Su ch a mo ve wou ld be in 

co nf or m an ce w ith th e des ir e of th e P re si dent of th e U ni te d S ta te s wh o, in a 

m em or an du m to all ag en cies dat ed Nov em be r 10, 1961, ca lle d fo r th e op tim um 

jo in t us e of field fa ci lities by th e se ver al ag en cies w he re ve r it is pra ct ic ab le to 

do so. I t sh ou ld be no te d th a t th e si m ul ta ne ou s m ul tipl e- us e fe atu re of th e 

W ul le nw eb er pe rm its th e Com miss ion to fu lly utilize th is ad va nc ed di re ct io n 

fin der, w ithout in te rfer en ce to th e host ag en cy , a t a co st th a t am ou nts to but a 

sm all pe rc en ta ge of th e W ul le nw eb er in st al la tion.

As a re su lt of co nf er en ce s w ith th e ag en cy which is const ru ct in g th e W ul le nweb er sy ste m, it has be en de te rm in ed th a t it wou ld be to th e ad vanta ge of th e 

Co mmiss ion to tra n sfe r it s lo ng -ran ge d ire ctio n- find in g an d sp ec trum su rv ei llan ce 

op er at io ns curr entl y ca rr ie d on a t 4 of our 18 m on itor in g st ati ons to W ul le nweb er inst all ati ons in th e sa m e g en er al ar ea s. The i denti ty o f e ac h FC C m on itor ­

in g st ati o n inv olve d, an d of th e W ul le nw eb er in st all ati on to whi ch it wo uld 

tr a n sfe r it s long -ran ge di re ctio n- find ing an d su rv ei llan ce op er at io n, is giv en 

belo w :

FC C m on itor in g st a ti o n : W ul le nw eb er s ta ti on :

Sea rs po rt, Main e. E ast ern Ma ine.

W ai pa hu , H aw ai i. Is la nd o f O ah u, H aw ai i.

P ort la nd, Oreg. N or th w es te rn W as hi ng to n.

S anta A na , Calif. So ut he rn C al ifor ni a.

The ag en cy co ns truc ting th e direc tion find ers will pr ov id e sp ac e fo r an op erati ng room to ge th er w ith ne ce ss ar y te rm in al eq ui pm en t co nn ec tin g to th e W ulle nw eb er dir ec tion fin de r a t ea ch of th e fo ur lo ca tion s fo r a to ta l re im bu rs em en t co st of $200,000 in cl ud in g th e $65,000 which has al re ady be en re qu es te d by 

th e Com miss ion fo r Puer to Ri co on pa ge 194 of th e 1963 bu dg et. The re fo re , an 

addit io nal $135,000 will be re qui re d in 1963 fo r such re im burs em en t fo r th e fo ur 

in sta ll ati o n s list ed abo ve. Ther e w ill also be cert ain oth er co sts to th e Com ­

mission in im plem en tin g th e pr op os ed pr og ra m in cl ud in g ob ta in in g re quir ed 

sp ec ia l cl ea ra nce s fo r th e pe rson ne l inv olv ed, pe rs on ne l tr a n sfe r co sts , an d 

oth er ex pen diture s a s ite mized in the at ta ch m en t.

T he im pl em en ta tion of th e abov e pro gr am will re su lt in a ver y su bst anti al 

sa vi ng t o th e Gov ernm en t not only in te rm s of lo wered ov er he ad co sts (b ui ld in g 

an d gr ou nds m ai nt en an ce , ja n it o ri al service s, p la n t m ai nt en an ce , etc .) , but 

sp ec ia lly th ro ugh mak in g ex ce ss to th e Co mmiss ion’s re quir em en ts cert ain ve ry 

va lu ab le land . Tw o of th e m on itor in g st ati ons— S anta Ana and P o rt la n d —a re
73

situated on FCC-owned property. Both of these properties are located in are as 

which have experienced extensive residentia l and commercial development in 

recent years. Commercial int ere sts would undoubtedly be inte rested in acq uiring the property at very sub sta ntial figures, representing many times the original 

acquisition cost to the Government. The 110-acre tra ct of land at Santa Ana, 

Calif, is estim ated to have a fa ir ma rke t value of more than $1,100,000. Likewise, the 109 acres at Portla nd is certainly worth at leas t $400,000 (and probably a great deal more). If the above plan is approved, the Commission will 

release all of the Po rtland property and all but approxim ately 20 acres of the 

San ta Ana land to GSA for disposal action. The withheld 20 acres together 

with the monitoring building at Santa Ana will be reta ined as a special purpose 

VHF-UHF-microw ave mon itoring station for the Los Angeles m etropolitan are a 

including facilities for space monitoring operations currently being carried on 

there and which could not be accommodated at the Wullenweber site. A small 

VHF-UHF-microw ave monitoring ins tallation is also proposed for Haw aii to 

tak e over the higher frequency monitoring and measurem ent activities which 

cann ot be t ran sfe rre d to the H awaii Wullenweber site.

Although participation in the Wullenweber program in Maine, Hawaii, Washington, and California will increas e the number of installation s from 4 to 6 (4 

Wullenweber stations plus the California and Haw aii VHF-UHF-microwave 

monitoring sta tions) , there will be only a slight increase in personnel costs. 

This will be accomplished by elim inating custodial and main tenance positions 

and by consolidation of other nonoperational duties wherever possible. The 

only increase will be approximately $10,000 per yea r for a GS-12 engineer-incharg e fo r the California VHF -UHF-microwave monitoring station. This figure 

is included in the attache d cost comparison table.

Sale of the Santa Ana and Po rtland property by the Government should 

bring a ret urn of a t lea st $1,300,000 ( 90 ac res at Santa Ana, $900,000; 109 acres 

at Portlan d, $400,000). There would also be a saving in ren tal costs at the 

Searsport Monitoring Station pro per ty which is on rented ground, the ren tal of 

which is $1,200 a year.

The attach ed table s and c ha rts show the add itional costs for which the Commission must budget in 1963, 1964, and 1965. These costs are offset by fa r 

gre ate r savings, resulting in a net saving to the Government of an estim ated 

$1,092,060 over a 3-year period.

Cost increases and decreases re sulting from, FCC participa tion i n the Maine, Hawaii

Wash ington, and California Wullenweber operations

It em

1963

n o n ­

re curr in g

1964 1965 a nd 

su cc ee di ng y ea rs

N o n ­

re cu rr in g

C on ­

ti n u in g

N o n ­

re cu rr in g

Co nti n iu ng

R eim b u rs em en t for te rm in al eq uip - 

m e n t (+ ) +$ 13 5,00 0

Pe rs on ne l co st in cr ea se s (+ ) +$ 10 ,000 +$ 10 ,000

O th er object, in cr ea se s (-J-) (>) +$5 7,64 0 + $ 9 ,200

O th er obje ct s sa vin cs (—} _ -5 ,2 0 0 -8 ,7 0 0

F air va lu e of p ro p ert y to be re le as ed (—) -4 00,0 00 -9 00,0 00

N e t sa vin g to G over nm en t over 3- ye ar 

per io d _ _______________

+13 5, 00 0 -3 42,3 60 +4, 800 -8 90,8 00 + 1,3 00

1,0 92, 060

1,082, 960

N e t sa vin g to G ov ern m en t over 10-year 

pe riod

+ In d ic ate s c os t incr ea se .

— In d ic ate s cos t de crea se o r sa vin g.

> M o d est in cid en ta l co sts in co nnect io n w it h esta b li sh in g M ain e W ull en w eb er sta ti o n (tr a n sp o rta ti o n 

of pers onnel , h ou se ho ld goo ds a n d eq u ip m en t, s ecu ri ty cl ea ra nc es , e tc .) w ill be a bso rb ed fr om reg ula r f u n d s.
74

Fiscal yearl96Jt—Other objects

21 Transportation of personnel: 9 employees, Portland, Oreg. to northwest Washington_______________________________________ .$400

22 Transportation of thin gs:

Transportation of equipment to new Hawaii Wullenweber and

microwave sites____________________________________ 3,000

Transportation of equipment from Portland, Oreg., to the Washington Wullenweber site______________________________ 4, 000

Transportation of household goods, Portland to northwest Washington, 9 employees__________________________________ 3, GOO

Total____________________________________________ 10,600

25 Other services:

Special security clearances required for access to the Wullenweber installations, 241

 at $360______________________ 8, 040

Services in connection with erection of antenna for radioteletype communications circuit including site preparatio n:

Hawaii station__________________________________ 4, 000

Washington station______________________________ 3, 000

Erection of microwave monitoring antennas at Hawaii site— 1, 000

Total____________________________________________ 16,640

26 Supplies and materials :

Technical supplies for erection of communications antennas,

Hawaii and Washington______________________________ 2, 000

Technical supplies required in establishing Hawaii microwave

station_____________________________________________ 1,000

Total____________________________________________ 3, 000

31 Equipment: Antenna poles for communication antennas, Washington and Hawaii_________________________________________ 2, 000

32 Land and struct ure s: Purchase of land and erection of building and

associated real facilities, Hawaii microwave monitoring station_ 25, 000

Total, other objects, fiscal year 1964______________________ 57, 640

1

 R em ai nin g pe rson ne l will hav e bee n cl ea re d in 1963.

Fiscal year 1965—Other objects

21 Transportation of personnel: Travel costs, 9 employees, Santa Ana

to California Wullenweber site____________________________ $200

22 Transportation of thi ngs:

Transportation of equipment to California Wullenweber site__ 2, 500

Transportation of household goods for Santa Ana personnel___ 2, 700

Total______________________________________________ 5, 200

25 Other services: Services in connection with erection of antenna for

emergency communication circuit, California Wullenweber station, 

including preparation of site____________________ ______ 2,000

26 Supplies and ma terials: Technical supplies for erection of communication antennas, California___________________________ 1, 000

31 Equipment: Antenna poles for communication antennas, California_ 800

Total, other objects, fiscal year 1965________________ ,_____ 9,200
75

Redu ction in operating costs (other objects')

Item

Searsport, Maine, property rental (eliminated)_______________________

Maintenance and repairs of buildings, roads and grounds (services and 

materials)__________________________________________________

Maintenance and repairs of direction finders, antennas, emergency powerplants and other outside p lant facilities (parts, materials, and contractual

labor)______________________________________________________

Total saving--------------------- -------- -------------------------- -------... .

1964 1965 and 

later

$1,200 $1,200

2,000 3,500

2,000 4,000

5,200 8,700

Computer Program

Mr. Tiiomas. Let us look at your item which involves, in round 

figures, $1.2 million.

How are you going to save money with an increase of 18 in 

personnel ?

You have a very good pa rag raph on page 1 which I think we ought 

to put in the record at this point.

The financial advanta ges of purcha sing and installing the computer system 

for the Commission have been calc ulated over a 10-year period.1

 The life expectancy of the new transistorized computers is estimated to be up to 15 shiftyears. The gross cost of the computer system over th at period averages $490,000 

per ye ar; the cost of the pre sen t manua l system for the operations to be performed by the computer is $707,000 per year, resulting in a net ann ual savings 

of approximate ly $200,000 when the program is in full operation. The cost 

of the computer system inclu des the purchasing of the equipment and the costs 

to program, operate, and ma intain the system. Savings include the direct p ersonnel displacements in the burea us and offices, the absorption of certain personnel increases which would be required to process the incre ase in application receipts anticip ated over the ne xt 10-year period, and the reduction of EAM 

equipment rentals in the pr ese nt tabu lating machine operations.

You are going to buy this outright and maintain it yourself?

Mr. Bartley. Yes, sir.

EC ONOM Y OF COM PU TE R SY ST EM

Mr. Tiiomas. You say t ha t it has been calculated over a period of 

10 years the cost of the computer system will average $490,000 per 

year, and the cost of the present manual system for the operations to 

be performed by the computer is $707,000 per year, resulting in a net 

annual savings of approximately $200,000 when the program is in 

full operation.

Spell out those figures. I do not quite follow you. Your figures 

make sense, but how do you arrive at them ?

Mr. Bartley. I think Mr. Hand can answer that.

Mr. Thomas. You wrap it all by saying it is $200,000 a year.

Mr. Bartley. Can I ask Mr. Hand to answer that ?

Mr. Thomas. Go ahead.

1

 The life expectancy of the new transistorize d computers is estimated to be up to 15 shift-years.
76

Mr. Hand. I can give you a rundown.

Mr. T homas. Tell us Brother Hand.

We are for it if you can make your figures stand up.

Mr. H and. On the cost of the computer system which includes, not 

only the computer itself, but the personnel to run it, the site tha t is 

used and has to be built, and all costs spelled out by the Bureau of the 

Budget circular. We have included all of them. We come up with 

a total of 48 positions which will run the complete computer installation and this includes the punchcard phases of it and the computer 

itself.

EM PL OY ME NT FOR COM PUT ER PROGRAMS

Mr. Thomas. You set forth in the justifications 18 positions but 

now you say 48 ?

Mr. Hand. This is 18 over and above the personnel we have now. 

We are asking for 18 additional people.

Mr. Thomas. Over and above?

Mr. Hand. The programers and systems analysts.

SAVINGS DUE TO PE RS ON NE L DIS PLACEM ENT

Mr. Thomas. Where are you going to save money? The machine 

is going to wear out in 12 or 15 veal's and that is your capital investment right there, already gone.

Mr. H and. Getting to the savings side of the picture, sir, we have 

estimated a personnel displacement of, roughly, 74 people; some professional, but many clerical type.

Mr. Thomas. Where is that in your justifications?

Mr. Hand. It is not broken down in this pa rticu lar way, sir.

Mr. Cox. Tha t is what produces the net of $200,000, Congressman.

Mr. T homas. That would save us a lot of worry if you could p ut 

tha t out clearly now, quickly so we could understand it.

Mr. H and. We arrived at the total saving which includes personnel 

displacement and also the computer being able to handle a projected 

increase in workload-----

Mr. Thomas. Spell it out. It is not spelled out in your justifications.

You are seeking an increase o f 18 people and how many do you 

have doing tha t work? How many are doing it now? Forty-eight 

plus eighteen; is that correct?

Mr. Hand. There are 30 plus 18.

Mr. Thomas. That is 48 ?

Mr. Hand. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thomas. Over a period of 10 years, you are going to reduce 

that by 70 so you have a net reduction of what ?

Mr. Hand. In personnel, that would tie 26 net.

Mr. Thomas. That is a loss of how many ?

Mr. Hand. It is 74 less 48; 26.

ANNU AL SAVINGS

Mr. T 'homas. Twenty-six people with an annual saving of what, 

for the 26 ? Is that where you get your $200,000 ?

Mr. Cox. Counting other objects’ cost, yes, sir.

Mr. Thomas. This is where you get your $200,000 ?

Mr. Cox. Yes, sir.
77

COMPU TE R PROGRAM SC HEDULE

Mr. Thomas. When are you going to show up with a reduction 

of 74?

Mr. Hand. The computer will be delivered next May. Obviously, 

we will be going into fiscal 1964 before we get underway and it will 

take approximately 1 year to get all of the work, which we plan to 

put on the computer, on the computer. It is roughly 2 years away 

from today, we will say.

Mr. Cox. 1965.

EF FE CT ON FU TU RE BU DG ETS

Mr. Thomas. Two years from now you will come in here showing 

a reduct ion of 74 jobs; is tha t correct ?

Mr. Bartley. Over and above what will be required at that time.

Mr. Hand. That is right.

Mi-. Thomas. Twenty-six net then ?

Mr. Cox. There may be other offsettings, partial increases.

Mr. Thomas. The machine is going to wear out in 15 years, so we 

had better play it safe and say 12 years.

BE NE FITS FROM COMPUTER PROGRAM

Which one of the divisions is going to get the benefit of this very 

fine machine ?

Mr. Bartley. Fran kly, Mr. Chairman, we think the public will 

benefit from this one because of the increased efficiency and better 

service.

Mr. T homas. Are you attempting to justify it on speeding up certain activities in the agency, particularly in the processing of your 

appl ications now ?

Mr. Bartley. I think the immediate impact can be seen in safety 

and-----

Mr. Thomas. That is what I asked about. You put it on an entirely 

di fferent basis. (Re adi ng:)

* * * Th e co st of th e co m pute r sy stem in cl ud es th e pu rc has in g of eq ui pm en t 

and th e co sts to pr og ra m , ope ra te , an d m ain ta in th e sy ste m. Sa ving s in clu d e: 

The dir ec t pe rson ne l dis pl ac em en ts in th e B ure aus and offic es; th e ab so rp tio n 

of cert ain pe rs on ne l in cr ea se s, whi ch wou ld be re quir ed to proc ess th e in cr ea se 

in ap pl ic at io n re ce ip ts anti cip ate d ov er th e next 10 -yea r pe rio d, an d th e re du ction of E AM eq ui pm en t r en ta ls in th e pre se nt ta bula ti ng mac hi ne o pe ra tio ns .

Spell out where you will have a decrease in personnel.

PH A SE I OF COMPUTE R OPERATION

You say that the system will be implemented in two phases:

D uring ph as e I, which w ill become oper at io nal in May 1963, th e co m pu te r 

sy stem will pe rf or m AM, FM , and TV en gin ee ring co m pu ta tion al work, pr ov ide 

accura te up -to- da te in fo rm at io n on ow ne rs hi p of bro ad ca st st at io ns , an d fa cil ita te ap pl ic at io n sta tu s re port in g in all a re as of th e Co mm ission . P has e I wi ll 

also includ e co m put at io na l w or k in c on ne ction w ith th e ch ec king of a nte nna d ata 

to in su re a ir navi ga tion sa fe ty , and th e an al yse s of teleph on e pla nt m ort ali ty 

d a ta to es ta bl is h dep re ci at io n ra te va lu es fo r th e Comm on C arr ie r B ure au : als o 

fr eq ue nc y re port s and lic en se e d a ta pri nt- outs fo r th e Office of Chief Eng in ee r 

and Fie ld Engi ne er in g and M on itor in g B ure au fo r im prov ed co ntro l an d m an ­

ag em en t of the ra dio sp ec trum .
78

PHASE H OF COMPUTE R OPERATION

Then the next para graph is very good and we ought to insert that 

in the record at this point, too:

Phase II, which will become operational during the period October 1963 to 

Jun e 1964, will encompass the processing of applications for safe ty and special 

uses of radio, which include the marine, aviatio n, amateur, citizen and similar 

rad io services. The computer system will provide for automatic printing of 

licenses, renewal notices, license modification forms, and will make available a 

complete, easily accessible record of all outstan ding licenses and pending 

applications.

It looks to me like you are going to have here your most importan t one.

Your language in these two para graphs is broad enough, plus 

what you say about the 25 percent increase. You allow th at for the 

increased capacity tha t is going to work throughout the agency; is 

that what you are saying generally?

Mr. Bartley. Pretty generally. Some things are matters of judgment tha t cannot be answered “Yes” or “No.”

EX ISTING BACKLOGS

Mr. Thomas. The backlog is a matter of judgment. Nobody can 

decide th at except the Commission, which is where the slowdown is. 

How is this machine going to do tha t for the Commission itself ?

Mr. Hand. In the processing of applications, sir?

Mr. Thomas. I s tha t where the backlog is or in the Commission, 

where the Commission will finally have to make the determination between X applicant and Y applicant ? Th at is the point we are raising.

Mr. Cox. A large percentage of the to tal application backlog is due 

to the simple volume of the work. In the safety and special field, 

where there are hundreds of thousands of these things, the computer 

will be able to process a high percentage of them, the simple ones 

can be handled rather expeditiously.

ADDIT IONAL TA PE DRIVES

Mr. Thomas. I notice a rent bill here. You have a contract for 

maintenance of computer. Tha t is $5,000. You purchase an XY 

plotter for $46,200. You have two footnotes tha t for 1963 i t is going 

to take $50,000 to maintain the computer.

Mr. Hand. No, sir. Footnote No. 2 is for additional tape drives, 

which will be on the computer system in fiscal 1964.

Mr. T homas. I do not read it. I read it as maintenance, and No. 3 

is tape.

Mr. Cox. The footnote says the total purchase and maintenance cost 

for 9 months.

Mr. Thomas. No. 2 is $50,000 against $5,000 this year for maintenance, as I read it.

Mr. Cox. Purchase and maintenance.

Mr. Hand. Could I refer you to item No. 1 ?

Mr. Thomas. You are going to buy it on the installment plan and 

start paying for it next year? I thought you had about $900,000 to

pay for it.
79

Mr. H and. We do, sir. Fis cal 1963 is $895,500. In fiscal 1964, th e 

foo tnote, it will be necessa ry to ad d two comp ute r tap e drives to the 

system to take on the r em aind er of the safety and special rad io services 

work. So it will be a ph as ing in and be completed in fiscal 1964.

M A IN T E N A N C E COSTS

Mr. Ostektag. Yo ur ma int enance will be hi gh er; will it not?

Mr. H and. Th e No. 2 item, ma intenance, tha t is M ay and Ju ne only 

because the co mp ute r will be delivere d in Apr il and will be in business 

in May . So ou r ma intenance fo r 1964 will be a full year, whereas, it 

is only for 2 mo nth s in fiscal 1963.

Mr. T homas. W ha t will it be on a f ul l yea r basis ?

Mr. H and. $33,000.

Mr. T homas. Th is will come in y ou r 1964 budget ?

Mr. H and. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ostertag. In othe r words, you will not need th at money now ?

Mr. H and. No, sir .

SIT E PR EPA RATIO N

Mr. T homas. Where are you go ing to pu t this comp ute r? I see 

you co ntract wi th GSA fo r $75,000.

Mr. H and. We expec t to pu t it on the sev enth floor of the pos t 

office bu ild ing, an d GS A has told us t he are a can be used and can be 

ai r condition ed, an d so on, f or th e site.

Mr. T homas. $75,000 to i nstall a mach ine ?

Mr. Cox. Th ey are now es tim ating it may cost a lit tle more th an 

th at . Th e pro ble m invo lves get ting sufficient pow er into the bu ilding . 

I t h as to be com plete stable p owe r. I t r equir es its own air-c on ditio ning system because the space we have to use was designed in t hat building fo r sto rag e spac e and there ha s to be constan t tempe rature and 

hu midity con trol. Th is is all very expensive. I t is not ou t of line 

wi th ot he r comp ute r in sta lla tio n costs.

Mr. T homas. You mean you are going to hav e to spend a lot of 

money to get power in ?

Mr. Cox. We hav e been told that .

Mr. T homas. The bu ild in g is not wired fo r heav y loads?

Mr. H and. App ar en tly not. I believe the Po st Office ra n into the 

same problem wi th th eir com puter insta lla tio n.

Satellite Communication P rogram

Mr. T homas. Let us look at the satel lite com municatio n prog ram 

fo r $184,000. Yon are settin g up ho w m any jobs ?

Mr. Craven. Twenty-one.

Mr. T homas. Th is is a com mittee set up with yo ur own pe rson ne l; 

is t ha t correct ?

Mr. Craven. Tha t is correct at th e p resent time .

Mr. T homas. Are you go ing to ad d an y new person nel ?

Mr. Craven. Yes, sir; 21. A t th e pre sen t time we hav e an overworked staff. I th in k at the Fe br ua ry he arings I brou gh t th is to 

yo ur att en tio n. We are hav in g a difficult time .
80

GRADE AND QUALIFICATIONS OF NEW STAFF

Mr. Tiiomas. What is going to be the qualifications of these people?

Mr. Craven. The engineers will be qualified in the techniques of-----

Mr. Thomas. How many professional people will there be out of 

the 18 ? They will average no more than $8,000 a year on the average; 

is tha t right? How many professional people will you ge t? You are 

not going to get professional people at $8,000 a year.

Let us look at your detail of personal services.

Mr. Solan. The right-hand column shows the changes. Unless 

there is a change, it remains as it was in the original submission. On 

the first page there are no additional positions shown. The first additional position is shown on the second page in the right-hand column. 

That shows any changes from our previous submission.

Mr. Thomas. In other words, you have one Division Chief at $13,- 

730, one attorney at $13,730, one engineer at $13,730, and one utility 

expert at $13,730; is that right?

Mr. Solan. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thomas. You have another attorney at $12,210 ?

Mr. S olan. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thomas. You have another engineer at $12,210 ?

Mr. Solan. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thomas. You have one utility expert at $12,210 ?

Mr. Solan. Tha t is correct.

Mr. Thomas. You have six people here at GS-13, $10,635 to $11,935. 

What do they do ?

Mr. Nordberg. We could give you that exactly. Two engineers, two 

attorneys and accountants, grade 13. One engineer, one public utility 

expert, one attorney-----

Mr. Thomas. How many people in total ? Is it 39 ?

Mr. Solan. Thirty-nine positions for both programs, for the computer program and for the space satellites.

Mr. Cox. Eighteen and twenty-one.

Mr. Thomas. Where are the 18 ?

Mr. Cox. That was the computer number.

Mr. Solan. The 21 were the higher grade positions you were reading.

Mr. Ostertag. Twenty-one with Telstar.

Mr. Cox. For space communications increase.

Mr. Nordberg. I can try to summarize this.

Mr. Thomas. It would be quite helpful. We talke d about 18. 

What are the qualifications and what will be the salary range?

Mr. Hand. Eighteen?

Mr. T homas. Twenty-one. I suggested you were not going to have 

very many scientific people because the average will be $8,000. Tell us 

about the 21 you are going to have working on your satellite program, 

the ad hoc committee.

Mr. Nordberg. I can give you a breakdown. One will be in overall charge. We do not know, but it could be an engineer or lawyer 

or rateman. Four engineers, four attorneys.

Mr. T homas. What qualifications or ratings are your attorneys and 

engineers? How many people are you taking regularly from the 

agency in addition to these 21 ? How many are on your present staff 

over there?
81

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES NOW WORKING ON SPACE MATTERS

Mr. Nordberg. That are working on space communications now?

Mr. T homas. Yes.

Mr. Nordberg. I would say between 12 and 15.

Mr. T homas. I s tha t righ t, Commissioner ?

Mr. Craven. Yes. We include also engineering assistants from the 

Commissioners’ offices in there on the staff, pu tting them to work for 

a change.

Mr. Bartley. Wh at do you mean, for a change ?

Mr. Thomas. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

TE M PO RA RY A SSIG N M EN T OF PER SO N N EL

Mr. T homas. Why is this a temporary arrangement?

Mr. Craven. We are borrowing men from their regular duties.

Mr. T homas. Are these 21 positions going to be permanent ?

Mr. Craven. Yes, sir; we foresee in the future very many problems 

which will require the exclusive services of the people in our organization and on a continuing basis. The problems in the legislation 

itself, the regulatory problems, are much greater, I think, than heretofore required. We have to look out for competitive bidding.

CO M M ON CA RR IER BU REA U

Mr. Thomas. What is the present employment in the Common 

Carrier Bureau ?

Mr. Nordberg. 150 right now, sir.

Mr. T homas. Fo r the record, can you break them down? What is 

the jurisdiction of the Common Carrier Bureau?

Mr. Nordberg. Telephone and telegraph regulation, interstate and 

foreign.

N E W RE GU LA TO RY R E SPO N SIB IL IT IE S

Mr. T homas. It strikes me this is going to be a very, very im portant 

activity. It is already important. You are regulating rates and long 

lines. Now you are going to be presented with no telling what kind 

of problems which TE LSTA R will produce for you.

Mr. Craven. We think with the new mode of communications there 

will be a significant impact. In my own personal opinion, and I have 

been in communications since 1912, this is one of the most significant 

technical developments I have ever witnessed. It really revolutionizes 

the communications field.

Mr. Thomas. We agree.

Mr. Craven. We were happy to see the House passed a bill at an 

earlier date, and we hope the Senate will pass one soon and that we can 

get started.

Mr. Ostertag. I s this all contingent on the passage of the legislation?

Mr. Craven. We think we will have to go ahead, regardless of the 

legislation, if we are going to keep ahead of the other countries.

Mr. Thomas. TELSTA R is already in existence.

Mr. Ostertag. It is here even if we do not pass this legislation.

I
82

Mr. Craven. There are so many th ings to be developed, we hope to 

learn very much from TE LSTA R itself and from subsequent research ventures, Project RELAY and Project CINCOM. They 

have different, systems. We have to first agree among ourselves which 

is the best system and ultimately we will have to secure international 

agreement. All of these things bear on this pa rticular budget request 

here.

W U LLEN W EBER DIR EC TI ON FI N DER S

Mr. Thomas. You will have joint use by Federal Communications 

with Wullenweber direction finders owned by another agency at a cost 

of $135,000. This is worth going into. Look at this table here. Does 

this also include the money you requested to rehabilitate a station in 

Hawaii ?

This includes Hawaii but not Puerto Rico. 

What is it in Puerto Rico ?

$65,000.

So it is really about $200,000 ?

Yes.

Mr. Turner. 

Mr. Thomas. 

Mr. Turner. 

Mr. Thomas. 

Mr. Turner.

SALE OF E X IS T IN G PR OP ER TI ES

Mr. Thomas. You are selling some of your present properties. 

Go into this in some detail. You will have monitoring stations in 

eastern Maine, Hawaii, northwestern Oregon, southern California. 

You are going to sell the locations you have now and operate here with 

the Navy. By doing it you are going to pick up some money; is that 

right ?

Mr. Turner. That is right. T can cover it in detail, if you like, 

Mr. Chairman. I th ink it would be quite interesting.

Mr. Thomas. Tell us about the saving.

Mr. T urner. We have the two stations that we are intending to 

dispose of. In the case of the Portland, Oreg., station entirely 

tha t----- -

IM PR OV ED M O NIT ORIN G OP ER AT IO NS

Mr. Thomas. Why that changeover, in the first place, at this late 

date? Is it brought about by technological improvement, advancement, or what ?

Mr. Turner. Very much so. The Wullenweber is a recent development in long-range direction finding tha t will permit a 2-to-l 

increase in the accuracy of our operations. It will also provide additional sensitivity in terms o f the signals th at we can receive and take 

bearings on over the existing Adcock-type direction finders in use.

Mr. Thomas. What is the purpose of your activity a t these five big 

locations ?

Mr. Turner. These particular stations will be incorporated in the 

existing FCC net of monitoring stations. The overall purpose-----

NUMBER AND PURPOSE OF MONITORING STATIONS

Mr. Thomas. How many monitoring stations do you have now?

Mr. Turner. The total is 18.

Mr. Thomas. Go ahead
83

Mr Turner. The primary function of our monitoring stations, of 

course, is enforcement of the Commission’s regulations, the Communications Act, and related treaties.

PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY OF NEW SYSTEM

Mr. Thomas. Are these stations any stronger than your other 14 

or 15 stations?

Mr. Turner. They will accomplish activities and assignments th at 

the existing stations will not accomplish. Accuracy will be improved 

2-to-l over the existing stations. The sensitivity will permit us to 

receive signals tha t we cannot receive with existing stations.

Mr. Thomas. It seems to me you gentlemen are to be commended 

here for your forward step. You are really cooking on the front 

burner here.

Let us get down to cases. How about this $1,517,000? Can you 

operate on $1.2 million?

Mr. Cox. No, sir. The computer is fixed. We are stuck with a 

figure because we have an intent to purchase.

COMPUTER CONTRACT AND COSTS

Mr. Ostertag. Have you entered into a contract for the computer?

Mr. Cox. We have a letter of intent, which clearly says depending 

on what the Congress does.

Mr. Ostertag. Then you know definitely that the obligation and 

the price will be so much in that regard, so tha t there would be no 

variation in your ultimate requirements?

Mr. Cox. No, sir; these are virtually firm figures for the purchase 

of the computer, the tape drives, the XY plotter, all the equipment, 

which makes up far and away the biggest dollar figure.

Mr. Ostertag. This $1,517,000 has been approved by the Budget ?

Air. Cox. Yes, sir.

Kir. Ostertag. This is to be added or there will be an amendment 

to your 1963 budget request; is tha t correct?

Mr. Cox. Yes, sir.

CU RRENT COMPUTER PROGRAMS

Mr. Ostertag. In connection with the computer, you are making a 

request of $1,198,000. This is on an outright installation and purchase basis. Do you have computers now that you are using?

Mr. Cox. We rent sometimes from computer owners. We have 

been doing pilot projects and doing some work on leased time, a small 

amount.

Mr. Ostertag. But not to the degree of this outright purchase of a 

computer, not to the degree it would achieve?

Mr. Cox. No, indeed. These have been pilot studies to see if it 

would work and the extent to which it would be worthwhile and 

things of th at sort.

proposed computer application

Mr. Ostertag. I would like a clearer picture of what these computers will really do. You are speaking of applications. Do you 

put an application in a computer and it comes out with the answer?
84

Mr. H and. Perhaps I can explain. An application comes in from 

someone who wants to operate a radio on his boat. He has to answer 

certain questions in order to be granted a license. We record the 

data, his answers to our questions, on punchcards and feed this information into the machine, the computer. The computer has been programed to recognize a “Yes” or “No” answer to a particular question. 

If it comes out the way it should come out to g ran t one, we gr ant it 

and go ahead and p rint the license. If he does not comply in all respects to the questions, obviously he is not granted the license. It is 

referred to a person who then would use furthe r judgment to see 

whether or not he is absolutely out and cannot be granted the license.

Air. Ostertag. The computer does not serve as a lie detector, does 

it?

Mr. Hand. Only to the textent t ha t if you can preprogram or preanalyze everything you want to know, then it can; yes.

Mr. Ostertag. In other words, by virtue of deduction, it stands to 

establish proof or nonproof ?

Mr. Hand. Exactly.

Mr. Ostertag. In other words, my question was not so peculiar 

afte r all ?

Mr. Hand. Not at all, sir. There will be human judgment in certain cases.

ADDIT ION AL EMPLOY EES FOB COM PUT ER PROGRAM

Mr. Ostertag. In th at connection, you are asking for 21 additional 

personnel; is that righ t ?

Mr. Hand. On the computer program, 18.

Mr. Ostertag. That, of course, is in addition to the capitalization— 

I take it you are budgeting for the full funding of this computer 

apparatus.

Mr. Hand. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ostertag. But the additional cost over and above tha t will be 

the cost of 18 additional personnel ?

Mr. Hand. The 18.

COM PUTER PROGRAM SAVING S

Mr. Ostertag. You estimate an annual saving of about $200,000? 

Mr. Hand. Yes, sir.

Mr. Cox. Calculated over a 10-year period.

Mr. Ostertag. How will tha t saving be achieved? You are adding 

personnel. Will personnel be reduced in other areas?

Mr. Hand. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ostertag. To what degree?

Mr. Hand. Seventy-four people in the various bureaus.

Mr. Ostertag. Tha t is where the difference lies ?

Mr. Hand. Yes, sir.

RELATION SHIP OF LEGISLATION TO SATELLITE PROGRAM

Mr. Ostertag. Now, in connection with the satellite communications program, this $184,000, of course, is not a very sizable sum. But 

I would like to ask one of the Commissioners the relationship of this 

program to pending legislation. Tn other words, that legislation is 

apt to take most any form today, but actually does not the pending;
85

legislation carry with it your authorization, your administrative or 

regulatory authority, which you do not possess today ?

Mr. Craven. It adds to our regulatory authority, as I understand 

it. I am no lawyer. It gives us more duties. For example, we have 

to pass upon competitive bidding which we do not have to do now. 

We have to go far more closely into the relationship between the 

public ownership and the-----

Mr. Ostertag. How about regulatory authority? Do you have 

tha t now ?

Mr. Craven. We have a certain amount but they are adding to the 

regulatory authority. I would ask the representative of the General 

Counsel’s Office to expand on that.

Mr. Ostertag. You are adding 21 people to your staff for this pu rpose, this space communications working group. That is understandable, but the question is whether or not this is going to meet all of 

your requirements or will the end effect of this legislation broaden 

this to the degree that this is only a token application of it?

Mr. Craven. There are two versions of the legislation. One is the 

House bill and the other is the Senate bill. We are going to assume 

that the objectives are the same and regulatory authority conferred 

upon the Commission is almost the same.

We are assuming it will pass in general, in accordance with the 

general objective expressed in the House bill. I have the feeling tha t 

we have to go throu gh a certain amount of experience before I can 

give a definite answer, but we hope the 21 are going to be sufficient 

for a long time to come.

INTERNATION AL NATURE OF SPACE COMMUNICATIONS

Mr. Ostertag. You are already involved in international functions, 

legal and otherwise. Will these 21 people be closely associated with 

this on an international basis ?

Mr. Craven. Several will. At the present time we are utilizing 

gentlemen from the Chief Engineer’s Office who are now behind in 

their other work. These men here will become trained and relieve 

the Chief Engineer’s Office of the overburden they now have.

We are also involved in the study of international law. As you 

know, this particular field has not been resolved as yet. Fo r example, 

I thin k the Senate Jud iciary Committee, or one of the committees, 

has a volume about 1,000 pages thick showing the lack of international 

law. We have had a man in the Chief Counsel’s Office making a study 

of all the problems for possible actions to be taken, and he keeps us 

constantly advised. We took him away from other work, and tha t 

other work is now being neglected.

COOPERATION ON TELSTAR SATELLITE

Mr. Ostertag. What I am tryi ng to clear up is this. Fo r example, 

the TELSTAR satellite, which has recently been launched and made 

experimental, but actually it is a successful endeavor, achieved p rimarily by private enterprise.

Mr. Craven. Yes, in collaboration, private enterprise on the electronic features and the Government with respect to the launching 

facilities.
86

Mr. Ostertag. In other words, it was a cooperative endeavor ?

Mr. Craven. Yes, sir. The Communications Commission had lots 

to do with it. We had to make studies as to the frequencies to be used, 

studies as to the interference that could be created, and we set up a 

great deal of experimental problems that they have to solve.

Mr. Craven. I might add, in order to disabuse what some people 

think is a permanent operation, part of the experiment is to see how 

long it can live in the space environment. It is expected that it is 

going to live a relatively short time.

NE W DEVELO PME NTS LEA DIN G TO AMEND ED BUDGET

Mr. Ostertag. Wh at I was wondering about and leading up to is 

the question of this recent development.

Is tha t the reason you are now coming in with this supplemental 

request? In other words, do you know something now you did not 

know at the time you made your regular budget presentation? Is 

tha t what prompts this budget item of $168,000 ?

Mr. Craven. At the time we made our regular budget presentation, 

we did not anticipate all of the problems we now see. TELSTAR 

itself is not contributing to this. We have gone through a great many 

hearings before various committees and the problems created as we 

envisioned them add to our fund of information as well as the inte rnational problems involved in establishing an operative communications system in the future, some years off.

For example—can I go off the record a minute?

Mr. Ostertag. Certainly.

(Discussion off the record.)

COOR DINATION OF SA TELLITE CO MM UN ICAT ION PROGRAM

Mr. Ostertag. I s it necessary, then, to create some sort of a coordinated representation on the part, of the United States in th is connection?

Mr. Craven. We have this coordination now between NASA, the 

FCC, Department of State, and the Departm ent of Defense, and other 

Government departments, as well as the Space Council.

PURCHA SE VERSUS RENTAL OF COMPUTER

Mr. J onas. What will i t cost to rent this computer rath er than to 

buy it ?

Mr. Hand. $234,000 a year.

Mr. J onas. Does that include service ?

Mr. Hand. Yes, sir.

Mr. J onas. What would be maintenance costs to purchase ?

Mr. Hand. Total cost; $234,000 a year.

Mr. J onas. How long would it take you to amortize this ?

Mr. Hand. About 4 years.
Mr. J onas. That would be $800,000 ?

Mr. Hand. A little over; 4 years plus.

Mr. J onas. Five plus?

Mr. Cox. The computer is $898,000.

Mr. J onas. The installation and the maintenance?

Mr. Cox. We still have the installation costs.

Mr. J onas. You would have to defray the installation cost? And 

don’t forget interest because we will have to borrow the money.

Mr. Hand. You are rig ht when you include maintenance.

Mr. J onas. What would be the maintenance cost ?

Mr. Hand. $33,000 a year.

Mr. J onas. A rental proposition would be $160,000 a year; is that 

right ?

Mr. Hand. No sir; the rental cost would be $234,000.

Mr. Ostertag. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. J onas. Yes.

LIKE EXPECTANCY OP COMPUTER

Mr. Ostertag. Wh at is the life of this equipment ?

Mr. Hand. About 15 years, we are told.

Mr. Cox. We estimated 10 for the purpose of calculation so we 

would be fair and conservative in our figures. We have been so informed by the Bureau of the Budget tha t the life expectancy of 15 

years is not unreasonable.

Mr. Boland. Wha t do you mean by “shift” years ?

Mr. Hand. One 8-liour shift.

Mr. Cox. If you use up its life faster-----

GUARANTEE ON COMPUTER

Mr. J onas. What is the guarantee on this ?

Mr. Hand. The computer ?

Mr. J onas. Yes.

Mr. Hand. You buy maintenance and this-----

Mr. J onas. They do not have a lifet ime guarantee ?

Mr. Hand. There is no such thing.

Mr. J onas. You sta rt off w ith the understanding tha t you have to 

maintain it?

Mr. Hand. Yes. For example, in the Remington-----

COMPUTER OBSOLESCENCE

Mr. J onas. Just between us, do you not anticipate that 10 years 

hence this computer will be obsolete ?

Mr. Hand. No, si r; I do not think it will be obsolete.

Mr. J onas. It will be obsolete in 5 years with the advances that 

are being made ?

Mr. H and. The state of the a rt has improved considerably.
88

Mr. J onas. I do not know if you are making a good deal to buy 

the computer instead of renting it for several years. Have you made 

any studies of that ?

Mr. Hand. Yes, sir, we did.

Mr. J onas. How do you justify paying this amount of money for 

a computer you know is going to be obsolete before it amortizes itself ?

Mr. Hand. I do not think it will be obsolete. I just visited a tremendous installation in this field and they were using computers t hat 

had been on the floor for 6 years. They j ust bought them.

This is going on all over the country, particularly computers that 

lend themselves to scientific application as ours will. There are many 

industrial firms who now are buying computers they have been renting for a number of years.

Mr. J onas. Tha t is all.

Mr. Boland. Thank you, gentlemen, for your appearance.

Mr. Bartley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LIST OF WITNESSES

Allen, E. W__________________________________________ ___________

Bartley , R. T____________________________________________________

Beekler, D. Z____________________________________________________

Boutin, B. L_____________________________________________________

Cahill, Gerald____________________________________________________

Cox, It. W_______________________________________________________

Craven, T. A. M_________________________________________________

Geller, He nry ____________________________________________________

Grillin, Rober t___________________________________________________

Hand, J. N______________________________________________________

Hartgerin g, Dr. J, B_____________________________________________

Hyde, R. H_____________________________________________________

Knott, L. B______________________________________________________

Nordberg, J. J ___________________________________________________

Schmidt, W. A___________________________________________________

Solan, R. F _____________________________________________________

Strassbu rg, Ber na rd _____________________________________________

Turner, G. S____________________________________________________

Turpin, W. P____________________________________________________

Wiesner, Dr. J. B________________________________________________

Page

64

64

36

1

05 05 05 05 05 

W 05 05 05 05 05 3k. it*. I-1 J*. I-‘ 3* 05 3^ H‘ it* 3* 3*. 3*-

1

36

(I)

IN D E X

A

Amendments to 1963 b udget : Page Fe de ra l Comm unications Com mission____________________________ 64

Direction -fin din g equ ipm ent , pu rcha se of______________________ 67, 82

Electro nic comp ute r pr og ram _________________________ 66, 75, 83, 86

Sa tellite com mu nic ati ons-------------------------------------------------------- 67, S4

Em plo ym ent_____________________________________________ 7!)

Science an d Technology, Office of__________________________________ 36

Co ns ultants_________________________________________________ 45, 58

Du pli catio n of effort________________________________ 48, 52, 57, 59, 61

Em ployee s__________________________________________________ 41, 45

Fe de ra l Council fo r Science an d Technology____________________ 48, 60

Fina nc ing of________________________________________________ 41

Fu nc tio ns an d pu rpose of__________________________ 39,47, 50, 53, 59

Nationa l Academy of Science, relatio ns hip to _________________ 50

Nationa l Science Fo un da tio n, tr an sf er of func tio ns from ______ 39,

41, 51, 57, 53, 57 Re search an d develop me nt re po rti ng ac tiv iti es ____________ 60

Nationa l Security Council, relatio ns hi p to_____________________ 38, 47

Size of---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46, 58, 63

Tra ve l______________________________________________________ 46

G

Ge neral Service s Adm inistra tio n______________________________________ 1

Chicago, Ill. , courtho use an d Fe de ra l office building________________ 29

Pu bli c building s prog rams in Washin gto n, D.C., are a______________ 1

Allocation of new sp ace______________________________________ 13,17

Autho rit y for lease-co nstru cti on ______________________________ 7

Bu ild ing s co ns tru cted rece nt ly _______________________________ 6

Bu ild ing s un de r co ns tru ctio n________________________________ 6

C on stru ct io n pla nned_______________________________________ 9, 16, 19 Cost of building pr og ram_________________________________ 25, 28, 32

Cost per squa re fo ot____________________________________ 28

Cos t of leased spa ce_______________________________________ 7, 20, 32

Effect of lea se-co nstruc tion pr og ram costw ise_________________ 31

Emp loyees hou sed by GSA in Wa shi ngton , to ta l Fed er al _______ 8

Ex ecuti on of lea se-con str uctio n co ntracts , withh old ing of _____ 29

Ex ecuti ve order deleg ati ng au th or ity to GSA_________________ 14, 28

Gov ernment-o wned ve rsus leased space____________________ 22, 32, 35

Lease d space outside Wa shing ton , D.C_______________________ 26

Leasing in larg er blocks, sav ing s by________________________ 24

Pe rcen tage of spa ce lea sed an d Go vernment-ow ned _________ 11, 25, 33

P la ns for lea sin g space______________________________________ 11

Relea se of rented space as re su lt of new co ns tru ction_________ 8,13

Space req uir em ents, lon g-ter m_______________________________ 23, 34

Space to be ren ov ate d or replac ed ____________________________ 27

(in)

o




i , - ,

r

V' x , / \ ■■ v -A

3 SEP i o 19 62

■

L