PAGENO="0001" INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR THE NATIONAL CAPITAL (90-29) * HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS IEOTJSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETIETH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 16175 TO AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER, CONVEYANCE, LEASE, AND IMPROVEMENT OF, AND CONSTRUCTION ON, CERTAIN PROP- ERTY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FOR USE AS A HEAD- QUARTERS FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES, AS SITES FOR GOVERNMENTS OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES MAY 8 AND 9, 1968 Printed for the use of the Committee on Public WOrks ~GOVE~NMENT DEPOSITORY P ~` (~ P~rp~ PE ~iATFUhVER3JTy COLLLLE O~ S~J~H it~SEy' L~RARy CAMDEN, N. J. 08102 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ~ JM-196 0 WASHINGTON : 1968 JUL 2 1968 Ot/~3~~ PAGENO="0002" OOM'MITThE ON PUBLIC WORKS JOHN A. BLATNIK, Minnesota ROBERT B. JONES, Alabama JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Illinois JIM WRIGHT, Texas KENNETH J. GRAY, Illinois FRANK M. CLARK, Pennsylvania ED EDMONDSON, Oklahoma HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California WM. JENNINGS BRYAN DORN, South Carolina DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana RAY ROBERTS, Texas ROBERT A. EVERETT, Tennessee RICHARD D. MCCARTHY, New York JAMES KEE, West Virginia JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey EDWIN W. EDWARDS, Louisiana JEROME R. WALDIE, California WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Florida WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio JAMES H. GROVER, Ja., New York JAMES C. CLEVELAND, New Hampshire DON H. CLAUSEN, California ROBERT C. MCEWEN, New York JOHN J. DUNCAN, Tennessee FRED SCHWENG]~, Iowa HENRY C. SCHADEBERO, Wisconsin M. G. (GENE) SNYDER, Kentucky ROBERT V. DE;NNEY, Nebraska ROGER H. ZION, Indiana JACK H. MCDONALD, Michigan JOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT, Askansa~ CLARENCE E. MILLER, Ohio COMMITTEE STAFT RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Chief Counsel LESTER EDELMAN, Counsel CLnrroN W. ENFIELD, Minority Counsel SHELDON S. GILBERT, Associate Minority Counsel STAFF' ASSISTANTS DOROTHY BEAM, lllrecutive Staff Assistant MERIAM BUCKLEY ANNE KENNEDY STERLYN B. CARROLL ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Illinois JOHN A. BLATNIK, Minnesota JIM WRIGHT, Texas DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina RAY ROBERTS, Texas JAMES NEIl, West Virginia EDWIN W. EDWARDS, Louisiana RAROLPT. JOHNSON, California JAMES J. ~IOWARD, New Jersey JEROME R. WALDIE, California ERLA `S. YOUMANS STELLA SPAULDING JAMES R. GROVER, Ja., New York ROBERT C. McEWEN, New York WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Florida JOHN J. DUNCAN, Tennessee FRED SCHWENGEL, Iowa HENRY C. SCHADEBERG, Wisconsin ROBERT V. DENNEY, Nebraska JACK H. MCDONALD, Michigan JOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT, Askansas GEORGE H. FALLON, Maryland, Chairman SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS KENNETH J. GRAY, Illinois, Chairman STEPHEN V FEELEY, Clerk (II) PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Page I. Tzx~ OF BILL [.R. 16175: To authorize the transfer, conveyance, lease, and improve- ment of, and construction on, certain property in the District of Colum- bia, for use as a headquarters for the Organization of American States, as sites for governments of foreign countries, and for other purposes 1 II. TESTIMONY ~ozarth, Donald F., director, current planning and programing, National Capital Planning Commissioner; accompanied by Stephen Kloss 62 Anowitz, Hon. Sol. M., Ambassador of the United States to the Organi- zation of American States 8 ~yerly, J. Edward, deputy legal adviser, Department of State; accom- panied by Robert Redington and John Ford 64 ~1eeker, Leonard C., legal adviser, Department of State; accompanied by Stephen Gibson, special assistant 2 Vloody, Hon. Joe, Deputy Administrator, General Services Administra- tion; accompanied by Ronald Hardy, Esq., associate general counsel-- - 59 Vloyer, Thomas F., Esq., assistant corporation counsel, District of Colum- bia 22 E~owe, Mrs. Elizabeth, chairman, National Capital Planning Commission; accompanied by Donald F. Bozarth, director, current planning and pro- graming 24 III. MATERIAL RECEIVED FOR THE RECORD Adams-Morgan Federation, Mrs. Geneva K. Valentine, president, letter to Chairman Gray endorsing H.R. 16175 82 American University Park Citizens Association, William J. Brown, chair- man, planning and zoning, letter to Chairman Gray with statement in support of H.R. 16175 83 "An International Center for the District of Columbia," brochure prepared by the National Capital Planning Commission 37 Brown, Philip J., and McCarron, Catherine, property owners, Washington Circle area, letter to Chairman Gray requesting adoption of H.R. 16175~ 79 Department of State, Hon. Sol M. Linowits, Ambassador to the Organiza- tion of American States, letter to Chairman Gray concerning value of the land on which is located the Pan American Union Building 21 District of Columbia Government: Letter of May 7, 1968, reporting on H.R. 16175 22 Moyer, Thomas F., assistant corporation counsel, letter presenting information respecting the progress of the Washington Technical Institute in securing a permanent location 34 18th and Columbia Road Business Association, George Frain, administra- tive secretary, letter to Chairman Gray supporting I{.R. 16175 80 General Services Administration, memorandum of May 15, 1968, Joe E. Moody, deputy administrator to Harold A. Pace, office of the Chief of Protocol, Department of State, subject: preliminary value estimates, chancery sites - 11 KaloraxnH Citizens Association, Inc., Mrs. Jewell B. Smith, president, letter to Chairman Gray endorsing H.R. 16175 82 Mora, José' A., Secretary General, Organization of American States, letter to Chairman Gray, re Bureau of Standards site 79 (III) PAGENO="0004" PAGENO="0005" INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR THE NATIONAL CAPITAL WEDNESDAY, 1VLA.Y 8, 1968 HoUSE or REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON Puar~ic BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, or THE COMMrrrEE ON PUBLIC Wom~s, Wa~hingtot~, D.C. The Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds met at 10:15 a.m., m room 2253, Rayburn Building, Hon. John C~ Kluczynski, presiding. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. The Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds of the House Public Works Committee will please come to c~rder. We meet today to consider H.R. 16175, a bill to authorize the trans- fer, conveyance, lease, and improvement of, and construction on, certain property in the District of Columbia, for use as a headquarters site for the Organization of American States, as sites for governments of foreign countries, and for other purposes. This bill was introduced on March 25, 1968, by Mr. Fallon and Mr. Gray. (H.R. 16175 follows:) [H.E. 16175, 90th Cong., second sess.] A BILL To authorize the transfer, conveyance, lease, and improvement of, and con- struction on, certain property in the District of Columbia, for use as a headquarters site for the Organization of American States, as sites for governments of foreign countries, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and Honse of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, That in order to facilitate the conduct of foreign relations by the Department of State in Washington, District of Columbia, through the creation of a more propitious atmosphere for the establishment of foreign government an.d international organization offices and other facilities, the Secretary of State is authorized to sell, lease, or otherwise transfer to foreign governments and international organizations property owned by the United States in the Northwest section of the District of Columbia bounded by Con- necticut Avenue, Van Ness Street, Reno Road, and Tilden Street, upon such terms and conditions as he may prescribe. Every lease, contract of sale, deed, and other document of transfer shall provide (a) that the foreign govern- ment shall devdte the property transferred to use for legation purposes, or (b) that the international organization shall devote the property transferred to its official uses, including supporting facilities. Sue. 2. (a) The Secretary of State is hereby authorized to transfer or convey to the Organization of American States, without monetary consideration, all right, title, and interest to a parcel of land not to exceed eight acres, to be se- lected by the Secretary of State, within the area described in section 1 of this Act. The deed conveying such property shall provide that the Organization of American States shall use the property solely as a site for a headquarters build- ing and related improvements, and shall contain such other terms and condi- tions as he may prescribe. (1) PAGENO="0006" 2 (b) The conveyance authorized by section 2(a) of this Act shall not be mad until the Organization of American States has agreed that it will transfer o convey, without monetary consideration, all right, title, and interest of th Organization of American States in the building and other improvements o the property known as lot 802 in square 147 in the Distiret of Columbia to th United States as soon as the site referred to in section 2(a) is developed fo use as a headquarters. The agreement provided for in this subsection shall b in such form as may be satisfactory to the Secretary of State. (c) Is so requested by the Organization of American States, and with fund provided in advance by the Organization of American States, the Administrato of General Services is hereby authorized to design, construct, and equip a head quarters building for the Organization of American States on the property con veyed to it pursuant to section 2(a) of this Act. Sac. 3. The Secretary of State is hereby authorized to transfer or convey t~ the Organization of American States, without monetary consideration, all right title, and interest of the United States in and to the property known as lot 804 in square south 173 in the District of Columbia and the buildings and othe: improvements on such property for use by the Organization of American States Sac. 4. The Act of June 20, 1938 (D.C. Code, 1967 ed., secs. 5-413 to 5-428) shall not apply to buildings constructed on property transferred or conveyec pursuant to sections 1, 2(a), or 3 of this Act: Prot'ided, That each transfereE or grantee of property so transferred or conveyed shall comply with all othei applicable District of Columbia codes and regulations relating to building con struction, equipment, and maintenance. Plans showing the location, height, bulk number of stories, and size of, and the provisions for open space and offstreel parking in and around, such buildings shall be approved by the National Capital Planning Commission, and plans showing the height and appearance, color, and texture of the materials of exterior construction of such buildings shall be approved by the Commission of Fine Arts prior to the construction thereof. SEC. 5. The construction, reconstruction, relocation, and rebuilding of (a) public streets and sidewalks, (b) public sewers and their appurtenances, (c) water mains, fire hydrants, and other parts of the public water supply and dis- tribution system, and (d) the fire alarm system, which are within the area de- scribed in section 1 of this Act and which are occasioned in carrying out the provisions of this Act, shall be provided by the Secretary of State, in coordination with, and without cost to, the District of Columbia. SEC. 6. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of State such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. The first witness this morning on this important legislation will be the Honorable Leonard C. Meeker, Legal Adviser, Department of State. STATEMENT OP HON. LEONARD C. i~~EEXER, LEGAL ADVISER, DEPARTMENT OP STATE, ACCOMPANIED BY STEPHEN GIBSON, SPEOIAL ASSISTANT Mr. MEEKER. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before this subcommittee on behalf of the Department in support of H.R. 16175. This bill, if enacted, would solve two problems of long standing. First, it would provide sorely needed chancery sites in the District of Columbia and second, it would provide an adequate headquarters site for the Organization of American States. My colleague, Ambas- sador Linowitz, will discuss the need for a new OAS site following my initial statement. The Department of State and other agencies of the Federal Govern- ment have sought over the past 3 years to find a suitable tract of land within the District of Columbia to be sold or leased to foreign govern- ments for the construction of chanceries. These efforts have been prompted in part by the enactment, in October 1964, of Public Law 659 of the 88th Congress. PAGENO="0007" 3 This legislation barred chanceries from all residential areas except Liose areas zoned for medium high or high density uses. Suitable land n which chanceries may be constructed had already become difficult ~ find in the District of Columbia. The enactment of Public Law 659 ~crease the difficulty faced by foreign governments in finding appro- nate sites for chancery construction, since considerations ranging rom security requirements to the need for adequate parking often ~iake high density areas unsuitable for chancery purposes. The need for additional chancery sites is clear. Also clear is the re- ponsibility of the Government of the United States to insure that he representatives of foreign governments can obtain adequate prem- ses in the Nation's Capital for their official representation to the iJnited States. This traditional responsibility of host governments inder international law is set forth in Article 21 of the Vienna Con- rention on Diplomatic Relations, as follows: "The receiving State shall either facilitate the acquisition on its territory, in Lccordance with its laws, by the sending State of premises necessary for its nission or assist the latter in obtaining accommodation in some other way." The Department of State has attempted to alleviate the problem ~f finding sites for chancery construction by supporting proposals ~o set aside land in the District for this purpose. In October 1965, the Department submitted to the Congress a bill bhat would have authorized the acquisition of approximately 50 acres Df land in northwest Washington, north of Washington Circle to pro- vide sites for chanceries and for offices of international organizations. However, because of the expenditure involved and the amount of re- location that would have been necessary, the bill was not acted upon by Congress. Revisions were later made in the proposal in order to reduce the cost and relocation involved. However, problems still re- mained, and the bill was not passed. The legislation now before this subcommittee, H.R. 16175, offers, we think, an opportunity for the Government to establish the needed chancery sites without giving rise to the problems that have hampered consideration of other locations in the past. H.R. 16175 would dedicate 34 acres of the site formerly occupied by the National Bureau of Standards to use as an international center. The bill would authorize the Secretary of State to lease or sell to foreign governments or international organizations property owned by the U.S. Government in an area bounded by Connecticut Avenue, Van Ness Street, Reno Road, and Tilden Street. Property so trans- ferred would be restricted to use for legation purposes or for the offi- cial use of international organizations. Improvements to the land such as streets, sidewalks, and water mains would be provided by the U.S. Government. The bill would also authorize the Secretary of State to transfer to the Organization of American States without cost two pieces of land: an 8-acre tract in the National Bureau of Standards site for the con- struction of a new OAS headquarters complex, and the property at 17th and C Streets, Northwest, upon which the main building of the Pan American Union is located, and has been located for nearly 60 years. Conveyance of the 8 acres in the NBS site would not be made until the OAS agreed to transfer to the United States, without cost, title PAGENO="0008" 4 to the present OAS Administration Building which is located at 19th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW. The bill would give authority to the General Services Administration to design, construct, and equip a headquarters building for the OAS out on its new 8-acre tract at the request of the OAS and with funds provided in advance by the OAS. We believe that the National Bureau of Standards site, provided for in H.R. 16175, has several advantages over other sites that have been considered for an international center of this type: 1. It would not remove privately owned property from the tax rolls of the District of Columbia; 2. It would avoid the need to relocate families, since no residential housing is on the site; 3. Use of the site for an international center would be compatible with the proposed comprehensive plan for the National Capital pre- pared by the National Capital Planning Commission and with the subway plan; 4. Use of the NBS site for an international center has been personal- ly endorsed by Commissioner Walter E. Washington; 5. The Department of State has already received expressions of in- terest in the National Bureau of Standards site from the representa- tives of several foreign countries; 6. The proposed legislation can be enacted and implemented at lit- tle or no cost to the Government, since the land is already the prop- erty of the United States. The only Government expenditure envi- sioned at this time would be the construction of roadways, landscap- ing and other minor improvements. The land itself, with the exception of the 8 acres to be donated to the OAS, would either be sold or leased to foreign governments for the construction of chanceries at their expense. The State Department firmly believes that the proposal embodied in H.R. 16175 offers the best solution at a minimal cost to the pressing problem of finding suitable chancery locations in the District. We hope that this legislation will be enacted at the present session of the Congress. I appreciate the opportunity the subcommittee has afforded me to present the Department's views. I will be glad to try to answer any questions concerning the proposed legislation. Mr. GRAY (presiding). Thank you, Mr. Meeker, for a very fine state- ment. I want to apologize for my tardiness. I was detained and could not reach you when you started. I have gone over your statement here quickly. Let me ask a few questions if I may. You list in your statement, certain items of improvements to the site, namely roads and other facilities and you envision the small amount of money for this. Do you have any idea of an estimate of what this would cost to make these improvements, roadways, landscaping, and other minor improvements? Mr. MEEKER. An estimate has been made for that of $250,000. This, of course, is an estimate based on present cost levels. I suppose it is al- ways possible that by the time the work was done the amount might be somewhat higher, but I think that gives the order of magnitude that is involved here. PAGENO="0009" 5. Mr. GRAY. Fine. I would also like to refer to part of your statement where it states that the bill would also authorize the Secretary of State to transfer to the Organization of American States, without cost an 8-acre tract which we could expect in the NBS site for the construction of a new OAS headquarters and the property at 17th and C Streets. Could you describe this property and why this is part of your transfer? Mr. MEEKER. The property at 17th and C Streets was land on which the original Pan American Union was built. That building was not paid for by the Government, but paid for by funds which were acquired otherwise by the Organization of American States at that time. The land itself has, at all times, been property of the Government. The building has a historic interest. It has in it the Hall of the Amer- icas and it has been felt appropriate to mak~ that property perma- nently a part of the OAS in Washington. They would still have use of it for various ceremonial occasions, for meetings of foreign minis- ters, and the effect of this bill would be to really transfer the land to the OAS, land which today is held in the name of the U.S. Govern- ment, although the U.S. Government did not pay for construction of the building. Mr. G1i~Y. Have you placed a value on this property at 17th and C Streets NW.? Mr. MEEKER. On the land alone? Mr. GRAY. On our Federal Government's interest in this property. I notice, and I am coming to another question and you may be able to answer both at the same time, that is you propose that the OAS trans- fer the administration building located at 19th and Constitution Ave- nue. Have you compared the value of these two properties, the one we are transferring to them and the one you are asking them to transfer to us, 17th and C Streets, and 19th and Constitution Avenue? Mr. MEEKER. This is made somewhat complicated by the fact that in law, it is not entirely clear who today owns the building on the original Pan American Union site at 17th and C Street. Ordinarily, of course, the owner of the land owns any buildings, fixtures attached to it, so that in a sense the U.S. Government could be said to be the owner of the building as well. However, we have not treated it in that sense because after all, the Government did not supply the funds to build the building. Mr. GRAY. Who supplied the funds then? Mr. MEEKER. I think it was the Carnegie Foundation which supplied those funds to begin with. Mr. Ga~Y. You are taking the position that a lessor, any improve- ments made on the property belongs to us. Mr. MEEKER. As a matter of law, I think that would probably fol- low, but naturally in dealing with a situation of this sort involving an international organization of which the United States is an impor- tant member, we would want to look at the equities. Mr. GRAY. In other words, you could not place a value as though this property were up for sale by the U.S. Government, because you do not have all of the interest in the building itself. Mr. MEEKER. I think not. Mr. GRAY. The land, there is no question about that? 94-196 O-68------2 PAGENO="0010" 6 Mr. MEEKER. No; there is no question about the o;nership of the land. Mr. GRAY. Have you placed a value on the land at all? Mr. MEEKER. I am not aware of any valuation having been made. Mr. GRAY. We get this bill out on the floor and this has been a subject that has been thoroughly discussed and cussed by particularly another committee of the Congress, the District of Columbia, and I am sure these questions will be asked. If we are asked in this legislation to give up property, and what is the value of it, if we are asked to take prop- erty, and what is the value of it, are we to have a plus or a debit. All these questions will be asked. Mr. MEEKER. We will be glad to supply information on that. Mr. GRAY. I think this would be very helpful. I am not being critical, but merely asking for information. (Information requested follows:) The best estimate of the value of the land presently occupied by the Organiza- tion of American States at 17th and C Streets, which Congress intended to donate to its predecessor organization in 1907, is $11,500,000. Mr. GRAY. I am not inferring at all it is not proper in suggesting it in the bill, but I think we should have some estimate of what the prop- erty that we are being asked to transfer is worth and also that we are being asked to receive so we can get some idea. I would like to ask this question. Do you have any idea at this time how many chanceries might locate in this complex if this becomes law? Mr. MEEKER. There are 16 countries that have expressed a desire to find new chancery sites. We think it is entirely feasible to develop the area within the National Bureau of Standards, sites to be allocated for chanceries in such a way as to accommodate all those if they should choose to go in there. Mr. GRAY. How many do you think the site would adequately accommodate? Mr. MEEKER. Well, we are clear in our own minds that it would ac- commodate at least 16. Mr. GRAY. Would it be possible to supply that for the record, the number of chanceries that might locate there or would this be a delicate situation with these countries? Mr. MEEKER. I think we can certainly give the names of the coun- tries who have indicated this kind of interest. Some of them may, of course, wish to go elsewhere. There is another tract, privately owned on Ward Circle which may become available for chanceries. That is a much smaller tract but it is possible that a few of the 16 might elect to go there instead. Mr. GRAY. Let me ask you this, Mr. Meeker, This is certainly not intended to be implied as a jurisdictional dispute between committees, but do you see any competition between the State Department trying to locate chanceries here and the law that was passed recently by the Congress out of another committee that would allow them to go to the site of the old Henderson Castle? Do you see any competition here between agencies trying to vie for locations or does the State Depart- ment intend to take the attitude we have made this available and we would like to have you there, or will there be an effort made to get the chanceries to locate here in order to be able to put them all together? Do you see any competition at all? PAGENO="0011" 7 Mr. MEEKER. I do not see any element of competition. This is a mat- ter in which we want to be helpful to foreign governments and that is our attitude. Mr. GRAY. So far as you are concerned, this would be an alternative. If they want to locate here, they would be welcome but there will be no effort to put all the hens in the same chicken coop? Mr. MEEKER. That is right. I have here a list of the countries that have expressed an interest in the National Bureau of Standards site. Mr. &RAY. Will you read them into the record? Mr. MEEKER. I will read them now~ The 16 I have referred to are Venezuela, Malaysia, Pakistan, Mexico, Sweden, France, India, Peru, Ghana, Bolivia, Haiti, Kenya, Libya, Trinidad and Tobago, Upper Volta and Jamaica. Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have also just recently inquired about the site. Mr. GRAY. Beyond that 16, how many chanceries to your knowledge have indicated an interest or have selected another site in recent months? Mr. MEEKER. Probably another 10. Mr. GRAY. That have already indicated they are going to go some- where else? Mr. MEEKER. Which either have expressed an interest in another site such as this one on Ward Circle or who are still considering the matter. Mr. GRAY. The point I am making, it would be impossible to get all of them in here even if we wanted to because some have already expressed an interest in going into other places. Mr. MEEKER. We think that is true. Mr. GRAY. Are there any questions at all? Mr. Denney? Mr. DENNEY. How many countries are in the Organization of Amer- ican States? How many are represented? Mr. MEEKER. The number now is 22. Mr. DENNEY. What percentage of the contribution for the opera- tion of the organization does the United States contribute? Mr. MEEKER. It is two-thirds for the United States. Mr. PENNEY. So that any new building would be at the cost of two- thirds to the United States? Mr. MEEKER. That is correct. Mr. DENNEY. The Ambassador is shaking his head no. Mr. MEEKER. Perhaps Ambassador Linowitz can elaborate a little later on. Mr. PENNEY. I am just trying to get some background material. I am very much in favor of this bill but I want to know what we are talking about because these are the questions they ask us on the floor, Can you tell me who is the Secretary of the Organization of Amer- ican States now? Mr. MEEKER. Dr. José A. Mora. He will be succeeded by Dr. Gab Plaza. Mr. DENNEY. Who is Mr. Sanders? Was he a Secretary at one time? Mr. MEEKER. Assistant Secretary General of the Organization of American States. Mr. PENNEY. He is no longer with the Organization? Mr. MEEKER. No, he is with the Organization. Mr. PENNEY. Is he still an assistant? PAGENO="0012" 8 STATEMENT OP HON. SOL. H. LINOWITZ, AMBASSADOR OP THE UNITED STATES TO' THE ORGANIZATION OP AMERICAN STATES Mr. LINowITz. Only until May 18, Mr. Penney. Mr. PENNEY. Has he been fired? Mr. LINowITz. Their terms are expiring and their successor have been elected. Mr. DENNEY. Do they have an elected term? Do you have an elec- tion by virtue of all the States meeting together somewhat similar to the U.N. where they elect the secretariat, and so forth? Mr. GRAY. Let me say this. The Ambassador is our next witness and I think maybe we can hold off on some of these questions. Mr. PENNEY. Fine. Do you know how much during the past year the United States has contributed to the Organization of American States? Mr. MEEKER. May I suggest that Ambassador Linowitz could take that question also. Mr. GRAY. May I say to our distinguished friend we will see if there are any other questions and we will call the Ambassador. Mr. GROVER. The chairman asked what the claim of improvements would be in section 5.1 did not hear your response. Mr. MEEKER. They have been established or estimated at $250,000. Mr. GROVER. I think we will also be confronted with an inquiry into the possible amount which would be required as it says such funds as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this act. Could you give us a target amount? Mr. MEEKER. The only cost that we anticipate now which would be covered by that authorization is the cost of improvements at the $250,000 figure I mentioned. Mr. GROVER. Then. as you lease or sell off plots to these countries, I presume that would be done at market value. Mr. M1~xER. Yes; it would be. Mr. GROVER. One last question. You referred to 34 acres of the Bu- reau of Standards. Is there any residual acreage after that or is that the entire parcel? Mr. MEEKER. The plan for the use of the National Bureau of Stand- ards site, I think, will be illustrated best by Mrs. Rowe's testimony a bit later this morning. The tract would include several elements, first, an area for chancery sites, an area for the OAS headquarters and finally, two park areas which would be retained as park areas. Mr. GROVER. What is the total acreage of the site as it exists today? Mr. MEEKER. The entire acreage is 34 acres of which 16 would be devoted to chanceries and 8 for the OAS and the balance of 10 acres would be in parks. Mr. GROVER. It is not ambiguous; you said it would dedicate 34 acres of the site formely occupied. In effect, you would dedicate the whole 34 acres. Mr. MEEKER. In sum, all of it. Mr. GROVER. Thank you. Mr. GRAY. Let me ask one additional question with reference to these proposed costs of improvement. Would it not be reasonable to assume that the sale of land would far more than recoup enough money to make these improvements? PAGENO="0013" 9 Mr. MEEKER. The amounts received in the sales and the leases would be much greater than the cost of improvements. Mr. GJL&Y. Before you leave and since you are legal adviser and I am not asking this question to be facetious, but I have answered some 2,000 letters from home the last time I introduced a bill to allow the Organization of American States to have headquarters in Washing- ton and was branded by our dear friend, Mr. Gross, as the "Interna- tional Drinking Club." Since the newspapers are here, I would like to ask you, as the legal officer of the Department of State, do you en- vision any type of drinking club in this OAS headquarters? That is a funny question, but it is not so funny if you read my mail. We have had the WCTTJ and about 19 other organizations using this as a platform. Mr. MEEKJ~mi. The purposes of the two areas are for the OAS head- quarters and for the chanceries and would be for those purposes alone. There would be no clubs involved here in this site. Mr. DENNEY. Mr. Chairman, he said "those purposes." What is he referring to? Mr. GRAY. What you mean is that there would be no additional ac- tivities other than those they carry on now in their present buildings. There would be no club, per se. Mr. MEEKER. The activities would be the official activities of the chanceries and of the Organization of American States. Mr. GRAY. Let me ask you this before you leave, Mr. Meeker. We might want to give some consideration to this authorization instead of having an open end, such sums as may be necessary. If you could get some idea as to what you think these improvements are going to cost and let us insert an actual dollar figure, if it is $500,000 or $1 mil- lion or $250,000, because I am fearful that we may run into trouble with this tight fiscal situation as now exists if we just authorize such sums as may be necessary to carry out this act. I know Mrs. Rowe has been very helpful in this in passing the Visitors Center bill. We put actual ceilings and limitations and this is one reason we passed the bill by 10 to 1 and a lot of people that might by sympathetic to this would say you have open end authorization. They say they estimate it will cost $250,000 and we get out here and get these bulldozers put- ting in the streets and there we may run into several millions of dollars of expenditures, and this legislation as presently written would au- thorize such sums as may be necessary. In the interest of getting the bill passed, I am sure that is what you want, I think if we could put a definite figure of $250,000, $500,000, or whatever a maximum would be, such as-such sums not to exceed-and then give a definite figure, we would be in much better position on the floor with this legislation. This may be something you and the others may wish to consider. Mr. MEEKER. As I indicated earlier, the estimate that we made is $250,000. I think we should probably go back to GSA, have them take another look at this in the light of the fact that some time may pass before the day when it is actually received with improve~ments, and we will try to get what is a realistic estimate with enough robm in there to assure that it is possible to accomplish the improvements, but which would show an outside figure. Mr. GRAY. Thank you. I think we definitely should do that. PAGENO="0014" 10 The gentleman from New York, Mr. Grover. Mr. (XROVER. The bill refers on page 2, line 10: "that the International Organization shall devote the property transferred to its official uses," which you referred to, "including supporting facilities." Could you describe the "supporting facilities" that are involved? Mr. MEEKER. I think as that refers to the OAS perhaps Ambassador Lmowitz would be better able to respond to that question. *Mr. GROVER. One further question. We are going to be faced again with a query on the floor as to why have so many embassies, so many countries transferred their location to the requested new location. Mr. MEEKER. I think a great part of this problem arises from the fact that in the last half dozen years a large number of new coun- tries have become independent in various parts of the world. We have established diplomatic relations, and at first as those coun- tries send representation to Washington, they have rented or leased space wherever they could find it. Some of it has not been too satis- factory and they would like to get onto a firmer and more permanent footing as to a location for their chancery here. It is not simply a question of existing chanceries needing to move for one reason or another, although in some cases where expansion is required, that is a factor, but a very large part of this problem stems from the fact that we now have diplomatic relations with 120 countries instead of 15 or 90. Mr. GRov1~n. I did note, though, in reading off the names of 16 coun- tries that you have made reference to, I believe some South American countries which have, had embassies here for many, many years wish to relocate. Mr. MEEKER. That is correct. Some of them have had missions here for a long time. Others, like the Congo, Ghana, Kenya, those are rela- tively new countries. Mr. PENNEY. Mr. Meeker as you can see from the tone of the hearing we are concerned about the questioning in the future. Would this be feasible that we write into this bill a provision that in turning over this property, the 34 acres to the Organization of American States, that if any of it is allocated out to countries to build chanceries on, that the valuation of that part turned over be credited back to the United States so that we could recover some of this money ~ Mr. MEEKER. The tract that is to be given to the OAS under the bill would be 8 acres and not 34. The 8 acres has been calculated as what is necessary for the OAS. Mr. PENNEY. That is an exchange for property they already own. Mr. MEEKER. With the thought that the OAS will naturally use it for its own headquarters and not for the purpose of making any other disposition of it. Again, I would suggest that perhaps Ambassador Linowitz might want to comment on just what the OAS may plan to do with its 8 acres. So far as I know, there is no intention and expectation that the OAS would have land left over. Mr. PENNEY. Where does the other 26 acres come in? You referred to 34 acres. Mr. MEEKER. Sixteen of the 34 would be for chancery sites which would either be sold or leased by the U.S. Government directly to f or- eign governments. That does not concern the OAS at all. PAGENO="0015" It Mr. PENNEY. Is that provided in the bill? Mr. MEEKER. Yes, it is. Mr. PENNEY. Would you point that out? Mr. MEEKER. It is provided for in section 1 where it says the Sec- retary of State is authorized to sell, lease, or otherwise transfer to foreign governments and international organizations the property known within this tract, upon such terms and conditions as he may prescribe. Now, in response to your question, further I would like to call at- tention to a provision in section 2(a), and 2(a) deals with the con- veyance of a parcel not to exceedS acres to the OAS. The provision I have in mind is the one that says: The deed conveying such property shall provide that the Organization of American States shall use the property solely as a site for a headquarters build- ing and related improvements and shall contain such other terms and conditions as he may prescribe. The OAS would not even be free to parcel it out. Mr. PENNEY. Mr. Chairman, for the record I believe under section 1, the part first discussed with Mr. Meeker, I think the record ought to show what the valuation of this other 16 acres would have in way of real estate values so that in the event we want to write some limita- tions on the right of the Secretary of State to transfer these or other- wise as the bill provides, he could make a gift to the other countries that way. Mr. GRAY. Very good suggestion. Mr. PENNEY. The record should be kept open until we get that in- formation as to its valuation. Mr. GRAY. Could you ask GSA today? They have surveyed and re- surveyed this many times. They may have a value on all this, per acre. Mr. MEEKER. They do have a value per square foot on the 8-acre tract which lies in the range from $20 to $30 a square foot. That is in the National Bureau of ~Standards site. What would be necessary would be to make a computation as to the value per square foot within the 16 acres for chanceries and then we could arrive at an estimate of the market value. Mr. GRAY. Let us place that in the record. (The following was received for the hearing record:) GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C., May 15, 1968. Memorandum to: Mr. harold A. Pace, Office of the Chief of Protocol, Department of State. Subject: Preliminary value estimates-chancery sites. Pursuant to your request, the following are our preliminary estimates of values of (1) portions of the former National Bureau of Standards for O.A.S. building and Chancery sites proposed in the NCPC plan for an International Center, March 1968; and (2) the Pan American Union properties on Constitution Avenue, ~w. (1) PORTIO2ST,NATIONAL BUREAU OF ~5TANDARTh5 SJITE Proposed O.A.S. Building sites Approximately 8 acres or 348,480 sq. ft. ãJ $25 to $30 per sq. ft.-$8,700,000 to $10,500,000. PAGENO="0016" 12 (2) PAN AMERICAN UNION PROPERTIES-Constitution Avenne, N.W. Pan American Union Building and Annew (Lot 800, Square 5. 173): Building and Improvements $ 3,500,000 Land 11, 500, 000 Total $15, 000, 000 Pan American Adnvtnistration-O.A.S. Secretariat Building (Lot 802, Square 147): Buildings and Improvements $ 2,500,000 Land 2,475,000 Total $ 4, 975,000 Regarding the relationship of the land values (1) at the Pan American Union Building and Annex site, 17th and Constitution Avenue, and (2) at the Pan American Adminlstratlon-O.A.S. Secretariat Building site, 18th and Constitu- tion Avenue, the land at the 17th Street site is a large rectangular area suscep- tible of more economic development than the smaller triangular site at 18th Street, the latter site being penalized particularly by the required setback from Constitution Avenue (155 feet) and consequent reduction of buildable area. The basic land value at the two sites is approximately the same before constcleration of setback restrictions and remaining buildable area. The foregoing are rough value approximations made by members of our staff. They do not represent formal real estate appraisals and should not be so con- strued. The estimates should not be publicly disclosed. J. E. MOODY, Deputy Adniinistrator. Mr. PENNEY. I am trying to get the bill passed and I know what will happen on the floor. Mr. SULLIVAN. In line with Mr. Penney's question the bill says: "is authorized to sell, lease, or otherwise transfer to foreign govern- ments." What does "otherwise transfer" mean as far as you view it? Mr. PENNEY. That is on the second page. Mr. MEEKER. I do not think there is any intention, in fact I am quite sure there is no intention to make transfers to foreign govern- ments without a proper return. Mr. GRAY. P0 you have any objection if we strike out those two words? Mr. MEEKER. I would not. Mr. GRAY. That is "or otherwise." Mr. SULLIVAN. It would read: "is authorized to sell or lease to foreign governments," and we strike out "or otherwise" to follow up Mr. Pen- ney's point and his concern. Mr. MEEKER. There is this possibility. I do not know in how many cases it would arise. It is possible as Mr. Sullivan points out that a land exchange would be the sort of transaction that the Government would wish to make. Mr. GRAY. Would that not be covered under sales? Mr. MEEKER. I think so. Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Meeker, may I make a suggestion? The commit- tee could specifically write in language, land exchange and in the re- port under the definition of sale we could also include a land exchange as part of the definition for this legislation. Mr. MEEKER. It might be preferable to provide for transfer in an ex- change of land. Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, could Mr. Meeker provide to us sub- stitute language in line with Mr. Penney's proposal? PAGENO="0017" 13 Mr. M~II~KER. I will be glad to do that. (The information requested follows:) The Department of State contemplates the sale or lease of land to foreign gov- unments for use as chanceries on the site; however, it is possible that exchanges )f land, including exchanges of leasehold interests in land may arise. In view of :his possibility it is recommended that the words "or otherwise transfer to" in ~eetion 1 of the proposed legislation be deleted and the following langauge inserted fl lieu thereof ". . . the Secretary of State is authorized to sell or lease to, or ex- ~hange on a reciprocal basis with, . . ." Mr. GRAY. We thank you for your helpful testimony. Mr. Duncan? 94-196 O-68------~ PAGENO="0018" 14 Mr. DUNCAN. I would like to apologize to the Ambassador, but I have to leave to attend another meeting. Mr. GRAY. Ambassador Linowitz, we want to welcome you here and thank you for taking time from your very busy schedule to come. Mr. LINowITz. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee in support of the draft bill, H.R. 16175, as it pertains to the Organization of American States. As you know, Washington traditionally has been the site of the two principal permanent bodies of the `OAS-the Pan American Union, constituting the General Secretariat, and the Council. Three weeks ago, the U.S. Senate approved the protocol of amendment to the OAS Charter which President Johnson then formally ratified. I have since deposited our instrument of ratification with the OAS. These amendments make no change in the provisions of the present charter that the Secretariat and the `Council shall have their seat in Washington. At the 1967 Inter-American Conference in Buenos Aires, which 1 attended and which adopted these charter amendments, it was the Latin American countries themselves who took the initiative in pro- posing that the revised charter continue to provide that the location of these two bodies shall be the city of Washington. At the same time, the need for a new headquarters site for the OAS within this city is urgent. The OAS Secretariat offices in Wash- ington are presently scattered through five or six separate buildings in crowded conditions at a time when the functions of the OAS are expanding because of its increased responsibilities under the Alliance for Progress. Needless to say, this arrangement is administratively inefficient and also costly, requiring the expenditure by the OAS of almost $550,000 annually in rent, a sum which will increase to almost $600,000 in the near future because of new programs. It is important that these OAS offices be brought together in one place with adequate space and facilities. The proposed bill H.R. 16175 authorizes the Secretary of State to donate to the OAS for its headquarters site 8 acres of land within the area formerly occupied by the Bureau of Standards, bounded by Con- necticut Avenue, Van Ness Street, Reno Road, and Tilden Street. The T)epartment of State and our delegation to the Organization of Ameri- can States consider that this site would be an excellent one for the OAS headquarters. It is a good location in appropriate surroundings, and will have good transportation facilities for the large number ot OAS employees who will work there. At the present time the OAS Secretariat has about 1,000 employeeS in Washington, and it is estimated that this number may well double in the years ahead. Members of the OAS Council's Building Committee, consisting oi the representatives of Peru, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, El Salva~ dor, Venezuela, and the United States, are highly pleased with thE Bureau of Standards site, and officials of the OAS Secretariat als regard it favorably. . Transfer of land from the United States to an international organi zation in Washington has precedent. For example, in 1965, the U.~ Government conveyed land it had previously purchased to the Pai PAGENO="0019" 15 American Health Organization on which that Organization has since built its headquarters. There are other illustrations of similar action by other countries. Italy, for example, has provided a building, including maintenance, for the headquarters of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. Mexico provided a building for the Pan American Institute of Geography and History, and France furnished the land for the UNESCO headquarters in Paris. H.R. 16175 also provides for the OAS to receive full title to its historic and beautiful Pan American Union building located on 17th and C Streets NW., and to transfer to the U.S. Government the pres- ent OAS administration building at 19th Street and Constitution Avenue. It seems to us that this is an equitable and appropriate arrangement for all concerned. A little later on I can respond to some specific figures on several questions that were raised with Mr. Meeker. It is, therefore, highly fitting for the United States, as the host Gov- ernment, to provide the land specified in H.R. 16175 as a much-needed new site for a consolidated OAS headquarters. It will be another tan- gible demonstration of the importance which the United States gives to inter-American relations, and will be fully consistent with U.S. policy of firm support for the OAS. As this is a matter which has been before the executive branch and the Congress since 1965, and in view of the increasingly urgent need by the OAS for a new headquarters site in Washington, I strongly hope that this proposed legislation will be approved in the current session of Congress. Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Gin~&r. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for a very concise and forthright statement. Referring to your statement where you said that requiring the Bxpenditure by the OAS of almost $550,000 annually in rent-a sum which will increase to almost $600,000 in the near future because of iew programs-could you tell us approximately how much of that ~550,000 to $600,000 is American Government funds? Mr. LlNowrrz. Well, it is the same proportion as is true of any other )udgetary contribution-two-thirds are U.S. funds. Mr. Gj~y. So, putting it very simply, we are now paying two- hirds of the $550,000 rent? Mr. LINowITz. Yes, sir. Mr. Git&~. If the OAS is allowed to build these, the rent would stop. Mr. LINowITz. Yes, sir. Mr. GRAY. In the long run, this could be considered a savings to our ~ederal Government, in addition to providing the new headquarters thich will be more convenient and allow you to* operate in a more rderly manner actually from a dollar-and-cents standpoint, which he Congress is very sensitive to, and this could actually save us money. Mr. LINowrrz. Yes, sir; I am pleased you point that out. Mr. G~&Y. I want to ask this question again, It may seem a critical uestion and I do not intend it to be at all, but this matter has been isplayed in the press a number of times. Was there any coercion, in- .midation, and several other words I could use, on the various coun- PAGENO="0020" 16 tries of the OAS to get them to agree to this site? As you know, several other sites were under consideration and we have heard of some grum- bhngs here and there that the people were not really happy with this particular site. Mr. LINOWITz. On the contrary, Mr. Chairman. It is true that several other sites had been under consideration and it is true that one or two have met with the approval of members of the OAS Council. One of the biggest problems was that as the plans for the future of the OAS began to unfold it became clear that 6 acres which might have been available in another site would not suffice. When it was realized the Bureau of Standards property was available and that 8 acres on that site might be forthcoming for the OAS, there was a general recognition that this was probably the most desirable of any site that could be made available today and both the members of the Council's Building Committee inspected it~ and the members of the Secretariat and agreed it would be ideally suited for the OAS purposes. Mr. GRAY. The OAS Council's Building Committee consists of Peru, Mexico, Argentina, Columbia, El Salvador, Venezuela and the United States. Of this particular building committee was this the unanimous choice? Was there any dissent among.these countries? Mr. LINowITz. No, sir, this was the unanimous opinion. Mr. GRAY. As you recall, the State Department itself at one time recommended the so-called Sealtest site which is very near Foggy Bottom and this brought on an avalanche of protest from the Dupont Circle Association and many others I could name. In looking back now if you could get, let us say the Sealtest site today and if it were adequate in size, 6 acres compared to 8, do you now believe this would be a better site even if you had a free choice to take the Sealtest site and if no citizens groups were protesting? Mr. LlNowrrz. I have absolutely no question that if both were avail- able to the OAS, there would be an overwhelming vote of support for the Bureau of Standards site. Mr. GRAY. In preference to the Sealtest site which was the State Department's original choice? Mr. LINowITz. Because the Bureau of Standards site had not been considered. Mr. GRAY. I am saying if you had a choice now do you think this would be the best site of the two? Mr. LINowITz. There is no question about that, not only for the reasons stated, but the transportation facilities will be better, and the general location will be better for the purposes of the OAS. Mr. GRAY. In further comparing various locations how does this compare with Tregaron and some of the other places? Mr. LTNowITz. Today, the Buerau of Standards seems to be the favorite site. There was a sentiment on the part of some persons for Tregaron. Some of them did. feel that for OAS purposes it might be a very useful and very commendable property. Mr. GRAY. I do not think OAS really envisoned putting any cham ceries in the particular area, did they? Mr. LINOWITZ. I could say if there were not going to be an inter: national center, it is entirely likely OAS would feel Tregaron woulc be a good place to go. PAGENO="0021" 17 Mr. GRAY. You cannot have both. You cannot have the OAS and chanceries on the Tregaron site. Mr. LINowrrz. No, sir. Mr. Gm~&r. They feel there is a very definite advantage in being here, the 16 that want to locate? Mr. LINowITz. Yes, sir. Mr. GRAY. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Grover. Mr. GROVER. Mr. Ambassador, I think we should clear up the record. I asked Mr. Meeker if there was any residual acreage on the Bureau of Standards site after you take the described parcel in the bill and as I look at the map it would appear to me there is the equivalent of another 30 or 40 acres adjacent to it, on that part of the existing Bu- reau of Standards site which apparently in this descriptive brochure indicates the remainder of the site north of Van Ness Street would be contained for Federal use. I was under the impression the entire site was being taken for this purpose, 34 acres being taken for this purpose. Mr. LINoWrrz. Yes; 34 acres for this purpose. Mr. GROVER. What is the balance of the site? Mr. LINowITz. Mrs. Rowe will answer that. Mr. GROVER. I would like to clear the record up. Mr. GRAY. Mrs. Rowe will clear that up. Mr. GROVER. A further question: As I understand it, there are some 30 buildings and we may have Mrs. Rowe assist with this, some 30 buildings on the site at the present time, from 15 to 45 years old and in varying stages of repair and disrepair and that seven of these will be retained. It is suggested that the cost of improvements on the site will be around $250,000 but it would appear to me that the demolition of 23 buildings of the size and substance of the buildings on the site, a sub- stantially larger amount would be necessary to demolish those buildings. Mr. LIN0wITz. Mr. Grover, based on Mr. Meeker's testimony I under- stand the GSA made that estimate and I really cannot elaborate what the other details are. Mr. GROVER. If that is covered in subsequent testimony, I am satisfied. Mr. LINowITz. We are going to present it. I understand that figures in the estimates of GSA include this portion, but it will not be included in the $250,000. Mr. GROVER. We will cover that later. Mr. GRAY. Any other questions of our distinguished Ambassador? Mr. DENNEY. Has any estimate been made, Mr. Ambassador, as to the cost of the buildings that are contemplated in the event this bill we are considering becomes law? Mr. LINowITz. No, sir. As a matter of fact, the OAS has been with- holding making any plans for dealing with an architect in order to be sure first they had the site and want to be sure they had the S acres for the complex. The next step will be to talk to architects, assuming this bill goes 5hrough, and to work out a program for construction, but at this Doint it is premature. PAGENO="0022" 18 Mr. PENNEY. How would that be funded when you get to that point? Mr. LiNowrrz. That is why I was shaking my head earlier. This is not yet clear. One of the possibilities might be to go to a private foundation or private* organization and try to get funds from it. In this regard it might be interesting to observe that the Pan Ameri- can Building itself was financed by the Carnegie Corp. They ad- vanced the funds for it. We do not know that foundation funds will be available for the new building, but this is one of the possibilities. We think the various countries involved might want to consider some kind of long-term loan, but as to the precise formulation and what our share would be, we have deliberately not tried to get into it at this juncture. Mr. PENNEY. If the construction is implemented on the site like this, that would require now for the United States to put up two- thirds of that cost if you did not get foundation funds or some other source of money? Mr. LlNowrrz. No, sir, because the two-thirds refers to operating. Mr. PENNEY. Operating costs? Mr. LINowITz. Yes, sir. Mr. PENNEY. Just as a matter of interest tell me a little bit about. the Secretariat. I happen to know a little bit about this Mr. Sanders. Has his term expired? Mr. LIN0WITz. It expires on May 18. Mr. PENNEY. Are they eligible i~or reelection? Mr. LINowITz. He is going to be undertaking some new assign- ment with th.e OAS shortly. He and Dr. Mora had been serving for the last 10 years as Assistant Secretary General and Secretary Gen- eral. Although he was originally a candidate for reelection to this position, he withdrew his candidacy. The new Secretary General will be Dr. Gab Plaza of Ecuador and the new Assistant Secretary Gen- eral will be Rafael Urquia of El Salvador. They are going to take office, as I said, a little later this month, but Mr. Sanders will con- tinue to be available to the OAS in an advisory capacity. Mr. PENNEY. How many members does the TJrnted States have on the Council? Mr. LIN0WITZ. One. I am the representative. Mr. PENNEY. Every country has one? Mr. LINOWITZ. One representative. Mr. PENNEY. Is there any unit voting when you have problems like this based upon the amount you contribute to the organization? Mr. LINowITz. No, sir. We try to make our point by eloquence of persuasion. Mr. PENNEY. That is sometimes a little difficult. Mr. LINOWITZ. Yes; it is. Mr. PENNEY. Thank you. Mr. LINOWITZ. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I can just say two things. Mr. GRAY. Please do. Mr. LINowITz. First, the question with refere~ice to the valuation oi the respective Pan American Union parcels that you were interested ir earlier. The GSA has appraised the market value of the buildin~ which is now going to be conveyed back to the United States, the ad PAGENO="0023" `9 ninistration building at `Constitution Avenue and 19th Streets as $2.5 nillion. Now, the Pan American Union main building itself, the beautiful iome of the Pan American Union, does not have a present market ralue, but it costs some $900,000 to put up around 1908. This is as close ~s we come to comparable figures which might be relevant to the ques- ion you were asking. Mr. GRAY. What about the land? Mr. LINOWITZ. No one, so far as I know, has been trying to appraise t. Inevitably, it will be used for Government purposes. Mr. GRAY. The property at 19th and Constitution Avenue is valued t $2.5 million? Mr. LlNowrrz. The building, rather than the land. Now, the only ther think I want to say is in connection with the gratifying interest a the OAS expressed by your constituency. I must say to you that these days I work very hard to find 2,000 )eople who are interested and to assure you that contrary to some of he press stories, I think the OAS is a more serious, a more determined, ~more promising organization now than ever before in its history. I hink our relationship today with the countries in this hemisphere is aoving in the right direction and through cooperation and under- tanding is constantly improving. I feel strongly that it would be of tremendous significance to them. o the countries of the hemisphere to have the United States very soon riake this grant of a piece of land on which they can erect the kind of Leadquarters that ought to be here in our Nation's Capital, and I, there- ore, would hope that particularly at this moment, as the whole hemis- )here is about to take off on a whole new look at the future which can e of great significance, that the Congress would want to approve this ill. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Denney? Mr. DENNEY. Mr. Ambassador, along with some thoughts that have een in the press and have been given by speakers and candidates for olitical office in the Tjnited States; we might have to change our oreign policy and go into regional compacts, the strengthening of he OAS would be one of the regional compacts that could help this emisphere, could it not? Mr. LIN0wITz. I believe this very deeply, sir. Mr. DENNEY. Because we all recognize the United States is in such ~position that we may not be able to police the world like we have een trying to do and if we can do it within OAS that is our compact. Mr. LINowITz. That is our hope. Mr. GRAY. One other question, Mr. Ambassador. Have you any up- )-date estimates of the cost of the building itself that OAS intends D erect? Mr. LINowITz. I am sorry, they have not begun to make these stimates. Mr. DENNEY. He said he had not gotten that far. Mr. Gr~Y. At one time they were.talking in the neighborhood of 15 to $20 million. . Mr. LINowITz. On another site. I would not be surprised if that is he lowest figure they have in mind. PAGENO="0024" 20 Mr. GRAY. This could not only be esthetically helpful to the develop- ment of Washington, but be an economic boost. Mr. LINowITz. I am sure the OAS wants to create a building that will be a source of pride both to them and to the city of Washington which will be helpful to us. Mr. GRAY. Are we going to be expected to pay two-thirds of th new building? Mr. LINowITz. As I indicated before, I think that it is premature tc begin to speculate as to how it is going to be financed. It may be a private grant. Mr. GRAY. Have you received any offers? Mr. LINowITz. The Carnegie organization originally advanced th money to put up the Pan American Union Building. I cannot say we have any tangible leads at this moment, but I do believe we should explore every possible source before assuming the OAS has to com to the United States for a long-term loan. Mr. GRAY. I think if you are going to make any approaches no~ would be the time to do it and we would be receptive to receiving sucl~ an offer. Mr. LINowITz. The OAS has been a little reticent until it could b sure it had the land. Mr. GRAY. These foundations, if they think you have all the fund~ available they will not consider you. This might be a good time t put some feelers. Mr. GROVER. In that connection, Mr. Chairman, there are som gentlemen in the House of Representatives who will ask very pointedl3 who is going to foot the bills; and, if we are in a position to indicat a little more directly where that responsibility would lie, I think th( prospects of this legislation would be improved. Could you answer for me, sir-I put the question to Mr. Meekei before-what the supporting facilities will be? Mr. LINOwITz. Yes, sir, they would be, among other things, parkin~ and, storage facilities, cafeteria, conference facilities, and so forth Mr. GROVER. It has been indicated in the brochure that there woulc be hotels, restaurants, and shops also. Mr. LINowITz. For the OAS. Mr. GROVER. That is correct. Mr. LINowrrz. And the international center. Mr. SULLIVAN. Mrs. Rowe will answer that. Mr. LINowITz. No, I would be shocked if that were so. Mr. GROVER. For the international center, supporting facilitie: would include such things as restaurants, shops, and hotels. Is that little bit too broad? Mr. LlNowrrz. They would be outside. Mr. SULLIVAN. This will be totally outside the area. Mr. LINowITz. This will be a boon to the private industry. Mr. SULLIVAN. The immediate, surrounding area? Mr. LINowITz. Yes. Mr. SULLIVAN. Then this should be clarified for the record and ii the report. Mr. GRAY. That is for sure. Mr. GROVER. Because the language of the bill says the internationa organization shall devote the property transferred to its official us PAGENO="0025" 21 including supporting facilities and supporting facilities are referred to more as supporting services surrounding the area and would be such as restaurants, hotels, shops, and so forth. I think we should make the distinction in the report. Mr. Gn~y. We will, in the report. Mr. GROVER. What supporting facilities will be actually have on the land transferred to the international organization? I think you referred to those in a more limited sense. Mr. LINowITz. Yes, sir; parking and storage facilities, cafeterias, conference facilities which will be useful in connection with the oper- eration of the headquarters of the OAS. Mr. GRov1ra~. Who would operate those? Mr. LlNowrrz. The OAS. Mr. Gn~&y. Thank you very much, Ambassador. We appreciate you coming. You have been very helpful. (The following was subsequently received for the record:) DEPARTMENT OP STATE, Washington, D.C., May 20, 1968. Hofl. KENNETH J. GzAy, Chairman, Swbcom~mittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, (Jo~nm'ittee on Public Works, House of' Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dmi~ Mn. CHAIRMAN: At the hearing held by the Subcommittee on May 8, 1968, regarding HR 16175, at which I testified, you asked a question concerning the value of the land on which is located the Pan American Union Building, or Main Building, of the Organization of American States. This property is identified in HR 16175 as lot 800 in Square South 173 in the District of Columbia. It has an area of 215,111 square feet, or 4.94 acres, and is situated at 17th and C Streets Northwest. As indicated in the Secretary of State's letter of March 18, 1968, to the Speaker of the House regarding this legislation, the United States Congress ap- propriated $200,000 in 1906 for the purchase of land in the city of Washington to be used for the permanent quarters of the International Bureau of American Republics (predecessor to the Organization of American States), `and `also for the United States' contribution to the headquarters building of the Interna- tional Bureau to be erected on the land. In 1967 the United States Government used this sum to purchase from George Washington University the above men- tioned lot on 17th an'd C Streets Northwest, and it turned the lot over to the International Bureau of American Republicis. (No United State's Government contribution was required for the construction of the Main Building, completed in 1910, as almost all of the $930,000 cost was financed by donations of Andrew Carnegie). The deed for this land vested title in the United States because there was legal doubt as to whether the International Bureau, as an unincorporated association, could take and hold title to land in the District of Columbia. HR 16175, in au- thorizing the Secretary `of State to transfer title to the land to the Organ'ization of American States (which has the capacity to acquire and dispose `of real property under Public Law 291), will complete the intention of Congress at the time it appropriated money for this land. With regard to the present value of the lot, the General Services Administration roughly estimates it to be $11,500,000. Any s~ch value must necessarily be con- sidered entirely speculative, however, as the property would never be put `on the market nor made available for `other than official governmental uses. Further, it Should be pointed out that the present value of this land is not relevant to the consideration of HR 16175, as for all intents and purposes the United States h'ad permanently donated the land to the predecessor of the OAS in 1907, land which cost the U.S. Government $200,000. I hope that the `above information will be useful to the Subcommittee. Sincerely yours, S0L M. LlNowrrz. 94-196 O-68-4 PAGENO="0026" 22 Mr. GRAY. Our next witness is the Honorable Thomas F. Moyer, Assistant Corporation Counsel, District of Columbia. Would you please come forward, Mr. Moyer. We are delighted to ~ee you this morning and welcome you before the committee. You may proceed. STATEMENT OP THOMAS P. MOYER, ESQ., ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL, DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA Mr. MOYER. I would like to briefly quote the District's position from the letter, a two-page letter, the first page a brief description of the bill and from the standpoint of the government of the District of Columbia, we point out that the construction of streets and public facilities in the area formerly occupied by the Bureau of Standards now would be subject to coordination with and without cost to the District of Columbia. Thus, the bill contains adequate safeguards for the District of Columbia's concern such as streets and public facility construction on the property as described in the bill. Also, we wish to point out in connection with this site, a temporary permit which the District of Columbia will give, and we state the Administrator of General Services has issued a permit to the District of Columbia making a portion of the Bureau of Standards property available to the Washington Technical Institute for not less than 3 years, nor more than 5 years, for temporary quarters. The District believes that the needs of the Washington Technical Institute should he coordinated with those of the foreign governments and international organizations which will be making use of property in the same area. Then we conclude with the statement that the government of the District of Columbia has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from the standpoint of the administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress, and that enactment of the bill would be in accord with the program of the President. Mr. GRAY. Thank you, Mr. Moyer. We will insert the letter from Thomas W. Fletcher, Assistant to the Commissioner and dated May ~, 1968, into the record at this point. (The letter referred to follows:) May 7, 1968. Hon. Gzonori H. FALLON, Chairman, Committee on Pubtki Works, U.S1. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn, FALLON: The Government of the District of Columbia has for re- port HJ1. 16175, 90th Congress, a bill "To authorize the transfer, conveyance, lease, and improvement of, and construction on, certain property in the District of Columbia, for use as a headquarters site for the Organization of American States, as altos for governments of foreign countries, and for other purposes." The bill authorizes the Secretary of State to transfer property in a delimited area of the District of Columbia, formerly occupied by the United States Bureau of Standards, to foreign governments, to international organizations, and to the Organization of American States for officIal purposes. The bill also authorizes the transfer of the site of the Pan American Union building to the Organization of American States and the transfer of the Pan American Union Annex to the United States. Any building to be constructed on these properties is not to be subject to District zoning laws but would be subject to all District regulations relating to building construction, equipment and maintenance. The plans for any such building would be subject to the approval of the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts. The construction of streets and public facilities in the area formerly occupied by the Bureau of PAGENO="0027" 23 Standards grounds would be subject to coordination with, and without cost to, the District of Columbia. Thus the bill contains adequate safeguards for District of Columbia concerns, such as street and public facility construction on the property described in the bill. The Administrator of General Services has issued a permit to the District of Columbia making a portion of the Bureau of Standards property available to the Washington Technical Institute for not less than three years nor more than five years, for temporary quarters. The District believes that the needs of the Washington Technical Institute should be coordinated with those of the foreign governments and international organizations which will be making use of prop- erty in the same area. In view of the fact the bill offers a solution to the problem of providing space in which can be located buildings to be occupied by foreign missions and inter- national organizations, the Government of the District of Columbia strongly sup- ports its enactment. The Government of the District of Columbia has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress, and that enact- ment of the bill would be in accord with the program of the President. Sincerely yours, THOMAS W. FLETOHEB Assistant to the Coin,missioner (For: Walter B. Washington, Commissioner). Mr. Git&i~. Mr. Moyer, referring to that portion of Mr. Fletcher's letter, where he says the District believes the needs of the Washington Technical Institute should be coordinated with those of foreign gov- ernments and international organizations which will be making use of property in the same area and then the paragraph preceding that, he said that the construction of streets and public facilities in the area formerly occupied by the Bureau of Standards, the grounds would be subject to coordination with, and without cost to, the District of Columbia government. Now, who is going to pay for these improvements if the District of Columbia here in this letter indicates that they expect all these im- provements to be made without cost to the District and as I read the next paragraph it says that these improvements should be coordinated with the Washington Technical Institute. Who is going to pay for all these improvements, if the District is abrogating that responsibility? Mr. MOYER. In the first paragraph where we are talking about the streets and public facilities as such, those would be expenses to the De- partment of State and for relandscaping the area. Mr. GRAY. I understand that. I am talking about this Washington Technical Institute. Mr. MOYER. It is my understanding that the Washington Technical Institute will be using some of the existing buildings and we are just talking about coordination of the foreign governments moving in. Mr. `GRAY. You are taking the position this is all within the complex and not the responsibility of the District government for maintenance? Mr. MOYER. `That is right. We have been in contact with the State Department and General `Services Administration and we understand at the present time and for the next several years, there will be room for the `Technical Institute and the OAS to move in. Mr. GRAY. In other words between the time that the OAS takes over this 8 acres, the Washington Technical Institute will continue to use these existing buildings and therefore use the streets and all in the area now? PAGENO="0028" 24 Mr. MOYER. Yes, I understand the Washington Technical Institute will not be using more than five or seven of the existing buildings. They have been allowed to use them for a limited period of time. Mr. GRAY. I want to congratulate the District of Columbia because every time we have something up for improvement of the District of Columbia, they come up and say I am sure glad to see this happening, but we do not want any part of it. We had that with the National Visitors Center. If there is ever going to be a project that is going to bring revenue and additional taxes to any locality, it is going to be to the District of Columbia and yet, when they testify they say we do not want you to use the streets; you cannot block this one off and you cannot do this or that. I notice you have the same proviso in here, without cost to the Dis- trict of Columbia. They want all these improvements and additional taxes and want these complexes located in the vicinity, but they do not want to share any of the cost. Now, whoever writes this downtown I congratulate them. They want to dance, but do not want to pay the fiddler. Mr. MOYER. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately we have limited funds available. Mr. GRAY. I realize that. It takes money to make money and the more improvements such as this and the Visitors Center and all the more people coming in, bringing revenue the District is able to recoup. Talking about the Visitors Center, to give you some idea w~ estimate by doubling the visitors it will bring one-half billion more dollars into the District every year so you can see a little street here is of infinitesimal cost in comparison to the revenue it will bring in. I hope the District looks more at the progress of the city rather than strictly the dollars and cents cost. We are up here trying to help the District of Columbia. They come in and testify and say we want this but we do not want to be out any money. I hope they can change their attitude a little bit, Mr. Moyer. Any questions of Mr. Moyer? Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate your coming. Our next witness is the very distinguished chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission, Mrs. Elizabeth Rowe, accompanied by Donald F. Bozarth, Director, Current Planning and Programing. STATEMENT OP MRS. ELIZABETH ROWE, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY DONALD P. BOZARTH, DIRECTOR, CURRENT PLANNING AND PROGRAMING Mrs. ROWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my privilege to appear before you this morning. Mr. GRAY. Since I mentioned the Visitors Center a moment ago, I want the record to show that Mrs. Rowe was a member of the Visitors Center Advisory Commission, and was tremendously helpful in that project, and certainly in her capacity as Chairman of the Na- tional Capital Planning Commission she has made a great contribu- tion to Washington. Mrs. ROWE. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. I do have a statement that I will submit for the record, and since some of~ the background material has already been covered by the three previous PAGENO="0029" 25 witnesses, I will shorten it up because I believe that the members of the committee would be more interested in looking at some of the maps and plans. Mr. Grtay. We will have printed in the record at this point your entire statement and you may summarize it. (The full prepared statement of Mrs. Rowe follows:) STATEMENT OF Mae. JAMES 11. Rown, Ja., CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: My name is Elizabeth Rowe. I am Chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission, which was created by the National Capital Planning Act of 1952 as the central physical planning agency of the Federal and District of Columbia Government to plan "the ap- propriate and orderly development of the National Capital and the conservation of the important natural and historical features thereof." I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you in support of II.R. 16175 which would establish an international center on the southern portion of the old Bureau of Standards site. The Commission believes that the location proposed in H.R. 16175 is in all respects a most appropriate site for the development of such a center. The land is already owned by the Federal Government and would involve no displacement of private uses of any kind. The Committee may remember that the Planning Commission first suggested a site for the Center north of Washington Circle. Legislation authorizing that location was introduced into the Congress in February 1967. While the Wash- ington Circle area had much to recommend it, land costs were high and there would have been considerable residential and commercial displacement. After further study wtih the Department of State and the General Services Administration, the Commission concluded that a portion of the Bureau of Standards site for the International Center would be the best location. Not only would it be an appropriate and convenient site but the Center would conform to plans for that area of the city. The Proposed Comprehensive Plan anticipates rapid rail transit service to the site with a station serving the Connecticut Avenue and Van Ness Street area. It is currently estimated that service will begin there late in 1974. The station will be the terminus of the initial system authorized by the Congress. Ultimately, as part of the approved regional rapid rail system, the line will be extended into Montgomery County as far as Rockville. The Proposed Plan suggests the establishment of an "uptown center" in this general location with high density residential development along Connecticut Avenue (the new Van Ness Center is an example of the intensification of apart- ment, office and commercial uses in this area) and redevelopment of the old Bureau of Standards site. Ultimately a total of 15,000 private and as many as 5,000 public employees is projected. At the same time, the Plan endorses the retention and conservation of the basic existing low and moderate density residential character of the areas a round the uptown center. Because Washington is the capital of a great Nation, a place must be found where foreign chanceries can appropriately and efficiently carry on their work. At the same time, the Planning Commission must plan for the more than 800,000 residents of the city-for the federal establishment and for the city as the core of a rapidly growing metropolitan area. We believe that an International Center on Federal property at Connecticut Avenue and Van Ness Street, N.W. would not only meet the diplomatic respon- sibilities of the Nation's Capital, but would do so in a manner consistent with the future needs of the community as a whole. The Commission therefore urges the enactment of HR. 16175. At this time, I would like to introduce Mr. Donald F. Bozarth, the Director of Current Planning and Programming for the Commission, who will briefly describe the Commission's preliminary studies for the proposed site. These studies illustrate only one way in which the International Center might be developed. They do indicate how the site can be developed to meet the needs of foreign governments and the Organization of American States in a manner that is consistent with adjacent existing development. Mr. Chairman, thank you PAGENO="0030" 26 for the opportunity to testify. If members of the Committee have any questions after Mr. Bozarth's presentation, we shall be glad to answer them. Mrs. ROWE. The Planning Commission's role here is to fit this new center into the fabric of the city. The statement by OAS has convinced the committee this is a needed facility. We do have proposed compre- hensive plans for the committee ~which shows this area, and it antici- pates rapid rail transit service to this site with the stations serving Connecticut Avenue and Van Ness Streets. It is estimated this service will begin in late 1974. This station would be the terminus of the presently improved system. Hopefully, there will be a regional system that will continue the subways farther out into Rockville. Our proposed plan also suggests a so-called uptown center in this general area. That center is a rather dense development, residential and commercial and the proposed center is most appropriate and an important part of it. We also anticipate the retention of the present low and moderate- residential densities around the site, particularly to the west, the Cleve- land Park area. It is a great pleasure to appear before you in support of this pro- posed legislation which we feel would meet the needs of many of the foreign governments represented here and the OAS, and we do so in a manner consistent with the future needs of the community as a whole, and for the benefit of the members of the committee, I will introduce Mr. Donald F. Bozarth, who will explain some of the planning prob- lems and possible future development of this part of the city. Before doing that, I might just say for the record that the site is only the southern portion of the existing Bureau of Standards which the total site is 69.7 acres. We are talking here about 34.2 acres, leaving 35.2 acres in Federal ownership. Mr. GRAY. Leaving 35, Mrs. Rowe? Mrs. ROWE. Yes. Mr. GRAY. What will these 35 acres be used for? Mrs. RowE. Well, presently they are used by the Harry Diamond Laboratories, and part of it is open space. Mr. GRAY. I was going to ask that question. I believe there is a park in this area, is there not? You do envision the overall plan of having enough open space to keep from having a sea of concrete? Mrs. ROWE. We have the proposal to retain open space, 13.8 acres, leaving Federal office use of 18.7. This reflects the present open char- acter on the Connecticut Avenue side of the site which does give it a parklike setting. Mr. GRAY. You say 13 acres will remain in open space. That is fine. Before Mr. Bozarth starts to the map I wanted to ask you this ques- tion, Mrs. Rowe. Do you feel that this is certainly compatable with your overall planning for the District of Columbia? Mrs. ROWE. We do. Mr. GRAY. You think this fits in very nicely? Mrs. ROWE. This would fit in very well. Mr. GRAY. It is not in conflict in any way with the planning com- mission's overall program for the District? Mrs. ROWE. No. Mr. GRAY. It compliments it? Mrs. ROWE. Yes. PAGENO="0031" 27 Mr. GRAY. Mr. Bozarth, you may proceed. Mr. BOZARTH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to briefly describe the Commission's study of the old Bureau of Standards site or at least the southern portion of it and illustrate how this may be developed on a stage basis by foreign governments and the Organization of American States. You have before you a copy of a brochure describing the proposal and I would like to highlight this and Mr. Stephen Kloss is the gentleman responsible for this study and will be re~lating the exhibits before you. As shown on the first exhibit, (see exhibit No. 1, p. 42) the pro- posed site in Northwest Washington is well located in relation to the major concentrations of embassies, chanceries and international orga- nizations along Connecticut and Massachusetts Avenues, northwest of the White House. It is well situated on top of a hill overlooking Melvin Hazen Park and would provide a very attractive setting for the new headquarters of the Organization of the American States and for chanceries of foreign governments. In fact, they hope to relocate this into the Naval Ordnance Labora- tory at White Oak, Md. Mr. Gi~y. Even if they do not, that would not affect this proposal here before us today? Mr. BOZARTH. No, sir. Mr. GRAY. That is Van Ness Street, the top dark line? Mr. BOzARTIT. Yes, sir. Strategically located along Connecticut Ave- nue Northwest, one of the "special streets" in the National Capitol and a principal radial avenue extending from the White House to the District line, this site is now well served by bus and is to be served by the initial rapid rail subway system authorized by Congress. A sub- way station is planned at Connecticut Avenue and Van Ness Street, immediately adjacent to this site. rfhe Connecticut Avenue line, as shown on this exhibit, is currently being designed and the Washing- ton Metropolitan Area Transit Authority expects service to begin late in 1974. This site itself and existing development in the immediately sur- rounding area is shown on exhibit No. 2 (see exhibit No. 2, p. 4~) an aerial photograph of this part of Northwest Washington. You will note Connecticut Avenue and the relatively intensive existing residen- tial and commercial developments along this part of the avenue. The recently constructed Van Ness Center is an example of the type of private development taking place in what the proposed compre- hensive plan and Mrs. Rowe previously referred to as an uptown center. On the west side of Connecticut Avenue is the old Bureau of Stand- ards site. That portion south of Van Ness Street and north of Tilden Street is proposed for the international center. Exhibit No. 3 (see exhibit No. 3, p. 53) shows the existing building development on the site in more detail. For many years, the old Bureau of Standards property has been under the control of the Department of Commerce. It has been occupied by several activities of the Bureau and by the Harry Diamond Laboratories of the Department of Defense. The Bureau of Standards activities are, as you know, in the process of moving to new quarters at Gaithersburg, Md. The Harry Diamond PAGENO="0032" 28 Laboratories are located on the northwestern portion of the site, north of Van Ness Street, Northwest, and are currently reevaluating their future needs. The Department of Commerce has agreed to transfer the area south of Van Ness Street to the Public Buildings Service of GAS so that, in cooperation with the Department of State, the site can be developed for the international center. The remainder of the site north of Van Ness Street would be retained for continued Federal use. Except for the frontage on Connecticut Avenue and the southern portion of the site along Tilden Street, the proposed site is built up and improved. There are almost 30 existing buildings on the site, with re- lated driveways, surface parking and loading areas. None of the build- ings exceed four stories in height. According to the General Services Administration, the buildings are from 15 to 45 years old and range from fair to poor condition. Con- struction materials consist of brick, frame, frame and stucco, concrete, steel and quonset sheet metal. Some of the existing buildings are tem- porary and others are special-purpose-use developed for the specialized needs of the Bureau of Standards. Only seven of the buildings south of Van Ness Street are suitable for interim use. As we will indicate later, these seven are planned to be used on an interim basis by the Washington Technical Institute. The remaining buildings would be demolished in conjunction with the re- developmet of the site for the international center. I might add, Mr. Chairman, in response to the previous question al- though we cannot speak for GSA we understand they would demolish these buildings on this site much as they have recently demolished the Mount Alto Hospital on the proposed site for the Russian Embassy. Mr. GRAY. Do you have any idea what the costs would be? Mr. BOZARTIL No, I do not, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAY. Let me ask another question. Let us say we abandon this proposal altogether. You envision that GSA would still tear these buildings down? Mr. BOZARTH. Yes; they made such a statement before the Commis- sion more than once. Mr. GRAY. So that cost is going to have to be borne whether this proposal goes through or not. Mr. BOZARTH. Yes, sir; sooner or later it will be. In its studies, the Commission has developed preliminary reuse plans for this site. Exhibit No. 4 (see exhibit No. 4, p. 51), the land use and circulation proposals are summarized. Three major types of land use are proposed: The site for the OAS, the area for chanceries and related open spaces on Connecticut Avenue and Tilden Street. An illustrative site plan and two design studies have been prepared indicating how this site might be developed. As shown on the illus- trative site plan, the center would be composed of the new headquarters for the Organization of American States, sites for the construction of foreign chanceries, and related open spaces. The plan, as shown in exhibit No. 5 (see exhibit No. 5, p. 48), illus- trates how this site might be developed in a way that would preserve one of its major assets-the natural features of its topography and landscape. PAGENO="0033" 29 An, approximately 8-acre portion of this area fronting on Connecti- cut Avenue is shown as the site for the new OAS headquarters. Mr. GRAY. What hundred block is that on Connecticut Avenue? Mr. BOZARTH. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I cannot answer that right offhand. Mrs. RowE. It is about thG 4500 block. Mr. BOZARTH. This relatively large building would be in scale with Connecticut Avenue and with private development taking place across the street on the east side of Connecticut Avenue. By locating the building on the side of the hill, it would be possible to meet the space needs of the OAS, including underground parking, without changing the established height of buildings Or the skyline in this vicinity. By maintaining and enhancing the character and quality of the existing open space adjacent to Connecticut Avenue, this can be a very attractive and prestigious setting for the headquarters of one of the most important international organizations in the Western Hemi- sphere. A public open space is proposed along the southern edge of this site adjacent to Reno Road and Tilden Street, Northwest. This area is directly across from Melvin Hazen Park and is heavily wooded. Be- cause of the steep topography some of this area is unbuildable and is eminently suitable for open space use. The remaining approximately 16 acres would be available for the construction of individual chanceries by interested foreign govern- ments on land to be leased or sold by the Department of State. The buildings in the chancery portion of the international' center would be relatively small in scale so as to- 1. Provide a more intimate setting for chanceries; 2. Retain as many of the natural assets and features of the hill as possible; and 3. Be consistent with adjacent residential developments. A potential for eight large chanceries on the perimeter of the site and eight other smaller chancery sites on the top of the hill is indicated on the illustrative site plan. Each chancery could be built on its own site to give each one its own identity and permit security. Access would be either from adjacent public streets or via an international system of access roads. More detailed site plans and studies will be necessary as a basis for ultimately determining the exact number and size of the individual chanceries that can appropriately be accommodated in this area. It is anticipated that the larger chanceries will provide most, if not all, of the necessary offstreet parking within their buildings for their staffs and visitors. Onsite parking would be possible for the smaller chanceries, al- though extensive surface parking areas should be avoided because of the limited amount of land available and the adverse visual impact such parking would have on the setting for chanceries and the inter- national center as a whole. Exhibit No. 6 (see exhibit No. 6, p 49), the first perspective, shows how the new OAS headquarters might be developed. To preserve' the natural features of the site, this illustratiort retains as open space the 94-196 0-68-5 PAGENO="0034" 30 large stand of oak trees at the corner of Tilden Street and Connecticut Avenue, as well as extensive frontage along Connecticut Avenue. Set back from this area and oriented toward the downtown, the new OAS complex could be an impressive focal point for the international center. The sketch indicates three major buildings in this complex: The tallest for major offices, a low curved building for supporting functions, and a circular assembly hall for conferences and meetings. These buildings would be in scale with private development across Connecticut Avenue. On the second perspective, exhibit No. 7 (see exhibit No. 7, p. 50), an open pedestrian mall is shown along the crest of the hill which could lead from OAS headquarters to a small central park. The mall could be designed to preserve many existing trees and to provide a dis- tinctive setting for a number of small chanceries. Each chancery would ha,ve a separate site. Individual architecture treatment within the larger design framework would give each a sense of identity. These studies indicate just one way in which this site could be developed. They illustrate the potential of this site and how it could be developed in a manner consistent with adjacent private developments. The develx~pment of the entire internatiOnal center will undoubtedly take several years. The planning, design, and construction of the large OAS headquarters building will itself probably take 3 or 4 years. In view of the potential number of foreign governments involved, it also will take some time for all of the various chanceries to begin and complete their building programs on the proposed site. The demolition of existing buildings and the construction of new site improvements, roads, and utilities necessarily will have to precede other construction activities. In view of this situation, an agreement has been reached between the Public Buildings Service of the General Services Administration and the Washington Technical Institute under which the Institute will be able to use up to seven existing buildings for an interim period not to exceedS years. The Institute is currently seeking a permanent site in other, are~as that will meet its space needs at other locations within the District of Columbia. The development of the OAS building and the chanceries will there- fore be carried out in several stages. Illustrated on the last exhibit, exhibit 8 (see exhibit 8, p. 55) are four possible stages by which it would be possible to schedule the completion of the international center plan. Stage 1 would permit a few chanceries to be constructed, on the western edge of this site while the Washington Technical Institute oc- cupies the central portions of the site and the OAS headquarters building was being designed; stage 2 would see the beginning of the construction of the OAS building and the second group of chanceries as the Washington Technical Institute begins phasing out its use of three of the seven buildings. In stages 3 and 4, the OAS building would be completed, and the third group of chanceries would be developed adjacent to Van Ness Street and the internal road system would be completed. PAGENO="0035" 31 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity of reviewing these studies with the subcommittee this morning. Mr. GItAY. Do you envision that all this could be accommodated within the $250,000 figure mentioned? Mr. BOZARTH. We have made some estimates ourselves in regard to the cost of those site improvements. Mr. GRAY. Let me phrase the question another way. Were they tak- ing into account the streets in the chancery area? Were they consider- ing this when they made this estimate? Mr. BOZARTH. I think so, sir, but I think that is a very tentative estimate and we would endorse the discussion you had with Mr. Meeker in that GSA figure which could be substantiated. Mr. GRAY. We definitely need that for the record. Would even hazard a guess what the overall figure is going to be in this compbsi- tion? I am not talking about the construction cost of the buildings now, but the overall figure in preparing this site in accordance with these very detailed and very fine illustrated charts. In other words, I notice you have plazas there and you have hilltops, open areas and parks and this sort of thing. Undoubtedly, you are not going to cover this with $250,000. You envision on each site that the individual chancery, the government that is going to build their in- dividual chancery will pay the cost of site preparation on their own side and all of it will piece together like a jigsaw puzzle or do you envision us going in there and preparing all these various plazas and that sort of thing and say here it is, which one do you want. I think it makes a big difference as to what the cost will be. Mr. BOZARTH. My understanding will be that individual lots will be made available to a foreign government for construction of chanceries. As far as the streets are concerned, those probably would be done by a public enemy. Mr. GRAY. Let us have the first chart again. (See exhibit 7, p. 50.) Now, to get something like this, who is going to pay the cost of that site development. That is a very expensive looking drawing, to say the least. Mr. BOZARTH. These are illustrative sketches, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAY. What I am getting at, do you as the National Capital Planning Commission expect to have so-called zoning regulations in this area, I mean the master plan where you are going to say if you do take over this lot to build your chancery it must be compatable with the others you might have? For example, Peru might want to bring in all native rock and stone from this lost colony of the Inca Indians up there in the Andes. They may want to bring something in here that may not be compatible with some country next door. Do you intend to have a master plan and if so, are we going to prepare all this? I think it makes a big difference whether we are talking about a several million dollar site preparation plan or whether we intend to monitor these various countries when they build their chanceries. Mr. BOZARTH. May I answer the question this way. The Commission anticipates working with the Department of State and the General Service Administration in developing more detailed plans and negotia- tions with foreign governments. PAGENO="0036" 32 The bill before you provides for the Commission's review and ap- proval of the plans and also provides for the approval by the Commis- sion of Fine Arts of the building materials and the texture and color treatment of the buildings on the outside, the appearance of the buildings. Mr. GRAY. But as far as costs are concerned, for the record, would you envision that these costs would be borne by the individual countries building their own chanceries? Mr. BOZARTH. If it is within their own site, yes. Mr. GRAY. That is what I mean. Mr. SULLIVAN. You talking about an overall plan? Has that finally been worked out or being in the process of being worked on by your Department, the State Department and the GSA? Mr. BOZARTH. I think the overall plan would have to be evolved with the Department of State which countries are interested, whether they need a half-acre site or an acre site, of one and one-half acres and this shows 16 possible chanceries, eight large, and eight small. We have no country's name attached to these and I think the plan would have to evolve as the negotiations proceeded. Mr. SULLIvAN. Could the figure be less than 16, then? Mr. BOZARTH. Certainly. Mr. SULLIvAN. Will these chanceries have to come in as an overall master plan you would develop and you would say to them, this is it, you build it this way. Mr. BOZARTH. I think under the legislation, the Secretary of State would have that authority and the Commission would work with the Department of State. Mr. SULLIVAN. What I am trying to develop for the benefit of the committee is what will the ultimate cost of this whole operation be. Mr. BOZARTIE. I am sorry, but I cannot answer that. We will be happy to work with the GSA in the estimates they will be doing for the com- mittee and put a tentative cost on what these sketches might run. Mr. SULLIVAN. How about your streets, and all this, your sewer lines? Have you reached any figure on that yet? Mr. BOZARTH. No, but those kind of estimates would be in the figure Mr. Meeker mentioned earlier. Mr. SULLIVAN. The figure for the demolition of the buildings, the GSA could supply the figure to the committee? Mr. BOZARTH. I believe so. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Meeker testified the GSA plans to tear down these buildings later on, whether or not this plan goes through. I would like to just very briefly go back to about the third chart (see exhibit No. 3, p. 53) that you presented that shows the seven build- ings in dark outline that are still suitable for use. Now, if OAS is in dire need as the Ambassador testified for a head- quarters location, and if your testimony here on page 7 is to be taken on face value, it says in view of this situation, agreement has been reached between the Public Buildings Service of GSA and the Wash- ington Technical Institute under which the institute will be able to use up to seven existing buildings and I assume those seven are the ones outlined in dark pencil there. Mr. BOZARTH. That is correct. PAGENO="0037" 33 Mr. Gi~y. For an interim period not to exceed 5 years. Let us say they decide they want to use those for 5 years. The question is, Where would the Organization of American States headquarters building in relation to those buildings go, and would you have to wait for the end of the 5 years to demolish those seven buildings? Mr. B0zARTH. If it were selected by the OAS and the Secretary of State would permit the design and construction of the building, I think without damage to the seven buildings that are proposed to be used by the Washington Technical Institute. Mr. GRAY. Also, as I pointed out earlier in questioning Mr. Meeker, I believe it was we have about 10 countries that have already tenta- tively indicated locating elsewhere. Let us say that one of these 16 have not indicated a desire to locate elsewhere, and comes in and says we would like to go here, and points out one of those particular sites where you have one of the seven buildings. What would be the position of the State Department and the Na- tional Capital Planning Commission in accommodating them, or would you have to say to them "I am sorry, we cannot let you have this for five years." Mr. BOZARTH. May I speak not for the State Department, but from the point of view of the illustrative plans? If the situation you de- scribe came up, to our knowledge it would be possible to direct their interest to the western portion of the site and these buildings in this area could be demolished at an early stage and this is Tilden Street and Reno Road-these corners on the western portion of the site are desirable properties. Mr. GRAY. Having been in the real estate business, I know that people always want property that is rented or tied up on lease and they do not want available something that is vacant. Let us take the hypothetical situation where a country wants one of those seven buildings. Do you have any way, or any idea whether or not the GSA were to have the right to cancel a lease on a 30-day notice or whether they plan to tie up these properties for a 5-year period? Mr. BOZARTH. I think this would have to be deferred to someone else. Mr. GRAY. This is terribly important to the committee. If we are going to make this site available as we are telling everybody in this legislation for the construction of an OAS headquarters building and for the construction of up to 16 chanceries, and we find out that the Public Buildings Service, GSA, has preempted the choice locations here for a period of 5 years, then we are going through an exercise of futility as far as the chanceries are concerned. Now, as you pointed out, if they do select that front location for OAS, you are all right, but what if the Secretary of State decides he wants it right in the center of that complex; then again, OAS is going to be preempted for 5 years. Let me ask one other question. This Washington Technical Institute is a Government agency? . Mr. BOZARTIT. This is one of the two institutions of higher public education established by Congress last year. PAGENO="0038" 34 Mr. GRAY. Tinder whose jurisdiction? Is this under the school sys- tem of the District of Columbia, under HEW, or does anyone know? Mr. MOYER. It was established under the act of Congress under the District Board of Higher Education. Mr. GIt~&Y. It is the District of Columbia's educational institution? Mr. MOYER. That is right; a 2-year institution after high school. Mr. GRAY. I am a little surprised then, particularly at your testi- mony that you do not want to provide streets since this is one of your own institutions. Mrs. ROWE. I might just add for the record that the Technical Insti- tute is very anxious to find permanent quarters. Mr. Gi~y. You did not get my point. I am not being critical, Mrs. Rowe. If we are saying to all these countries we have a choice site available out here for you to build your chancery, and then you come along and say we have these seven wonderful buildings, they are to be under lease for a 5-year period, who knows what the performance of any country is going to be 5 years from now? I think we ought to determine from GSA, even if we have to have another hearing to get them up here, as to whether or not they are going to let this institute locate here at the convenience of our Govern- ment until such time as someone wants the site and then on a 30-day notice, they can vacate. I see nothing wrong with that, and maybe those seven buildings could stand there for 5 or 10 years, you know, without preempting anybody else's use. I do not believe we should have a noncanceliable ]ease. Having been in the real estate business, I know that people are going to want the sites that are available. I think we definitely ought to find out and certainly, the National Capital Planning Commission in work- ing up this master plan, ought to find out and see what is going to be available now. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Grover. Mr. GROVER. Following up that line of questioning, could we pos- sibly get a report from the District on the progress they are making in locating an alternate site for the institute? Mr. MOYER. We will supply something for the record. (The information requested follows:) MAY 20, 1968. COMMITTEE ON PtTBLIC WORKS, U.FJ. Ho'ase of Representatives Washington, D.C. DEAR Sin: On May 8, 1968, during hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds of the Committee on Public Works on H.R. 16175, the Chairman Mr. Gray, requested that I supply for the record information respecting the progress of the Washington Technical Institute in securing a permanent location. Pursuant thereto, I am enclosing a copy of a letter I received on May 14, 1968 from the President of the Institute setting out the preliminary steps that are being taken to acquire a permanent site. I shall furnish the Com- mittee any additional information respecting the selection of a permanent site for the Washington Technical Institute as soon as such information becomes available. Sincerely yours, THOMAS P. MOYER, Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C. PAGENO="0039" 35 WASHINGTON TECHNICAL INSTITUTE, 4106 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., Washington, D.C., May 14, 1968. Mr. THOMAS F. MOYER Office of' the Corporation (Jounsel Room 335, District Building Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. MOYER: Since YOU participated in the Congressional Hearings, I as- sume YOU are familiar with the background and organization of the Washington Technical Institute. After the Washington Technical Institute was established, several sites were offered to us, as well as to the Federal City College, for consideration for perma- nent location. These sites are as follows: (a) Fifth and "K" Streets, N.W. (b) Bureau of Standards, Connecticut Avenue and Van Ness Street, N.W. (c) Mt. Vernon Square, Seventh and "K" Streets, N.W. (d) Naval Receiving Station, vicinity of the Anacostia Freeway and Howard Road, S.E. (e) National Training School for Boys (Ft. Lincoln, N.E.) (f) Washington Navy Yard We are currently negotiating with a consultant to undertake relevant studies of these sites in addition to others which he shall recommend. It is anticipated that these studies will be developed within the next four to five months and be integrated into our total preliminary study within the next seven months. An interim report by this consultant should be available by the end of July, which will give us some insight into their recommendations. These recommenda- tions must be presented to the National Capital Planning Commission and other interested local bodies for consideration and approval. If you desire, we will be happy to forward any additional information as it is developed and as we firm up our position relative to our permanent location. Sincerely, CLEVELAND L. DENNARD, President. Mr. GRAY. We are not against your institute at all. We just feel if we are going to make this available, it ought to be available and we should not mislead people, that we have part of it available or the periphery of the site available or you can locate in the middle or skip around it. I do not think that would be compatible either. If you have a building 50 years old and say to one of these countries you can build a brand new one here, we ought to either talk about clearing the site and having it open or just saying that portion is not going to be avail- able and write it in the legislation and that those substandard struc- tures we will clear them out and say this is what we have left. Mrs. ROWE. The Technical Institute has expressed a desire to have permanent quarters appropriate for the technical equipment and teaching that is needed. Mr. GRAY. I understand that, but I know how these agencies come to our committee and complain when they make improvements. I know we had the Pathological Institute of the Armed Forces and we wanted ~o move them to Walter Reed and they had anybody who ever associated with that complex come before the committee saying oh, we just spent a half million on air conditioning and what have you. What I am concerned about is they may have spent a considerable amount of money on renovation and they may have a letter from the GSA saying you can occupy this. PAGENO="0040" 36 Mr. SULLIVAN. Who supplies the overall cost in your opinion, the GSA? Mr. BOZARTU. GSA has professional appraisers on their staff. Mr. SULLIVAN. The improvements, the demolition, the entire picture? Mr. BOZARTJI. The commisison will be happy to work with them in developing that estimate for the committee. Mr. SULLIVAN. They have been working with you, have they not? Mr. BOZARTH. Yes, sir. Mr. SULLIVAN. This includes your long-range planning. Mr. BOZARTH. Yes. Mr. Git~y. We have two problems in addition to the temper of Congress to cut back if we write into the legislation there is a ceiling of $250,000 or $500,000 and you proceed with a master plan laying out here certain things to be done. Everybody is going to say look, there is no money, no authorization for the Department of State here and if the individual country in building their chancery does not want to do it, who is going to pay for it? This is our problem and we do not want to put a straightjacket on the State Department necessarily, but at the same time we have to find out so we can tell our colleagues what this is going to do, So, if we could get GSA to give us an estimate, fine. Any further comments from our two distinguished witnesses? Mrs. RowE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Grt~tv. Thank you, very much. We appreciate your coming here and your very fine work. Without objection we will submit the entire brochure into the record at this point. (The brochure referred to follows:) PAGENO="0041" 37 AN INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR THE NATIONAL CAPITAL IATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION * 726 JACKSON PLACE,N~W,,WASNINGTON,DC 20576 PREPARED BY THE NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION IN COOPERATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, MARCH 1968 PAGENO="0042" 38 THE NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION Mrs. James H. Rowe, Jr., Chairman Walter C. Louchheim, Jr., Vice-Chairman Dr. G. Franklin Edwards Paul Thiry Conrad L. Wirth EX OFFICIO MEMBERS AND ALTERNATES Walter E. Washington, Commissioner Lt. Col. William F. Henson District of Columbia Thomas W. Fletcher George B. Hartzog, Jr., Director J. E. N. Jensen National Park Service Robert C. Home William A. Schmidt, Commissioner John C. Dye Public Buildings Service David S. Phillips Lt. Gen. William F. Cassidy, Col. Alvin D. Wilder Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army L. Everett Roberts Francis C. Turner, Director James L. Shotwell Bureau of Public Roads Martin F. Maloney CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS Hon. Alan Bible, Chairman Hon. John L. McMillan, Chairman Committee on the District of Columbia, Committee on the District of U. S. Senate Columbia, House of Representativ Charles H. Conrad, Executive Director PAGENO="0043" 39 :ONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3ACKG ROUND ~OMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPOSALS SELECTION OF OLD BUREAU OF STANDARDS SITE 5 ~HE ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER 7 EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE SITE 11 STAGING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER 12 PHOTO CREDITS: 1. Alexander 2,5 William BealI2,3,5 LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH AN INTERNATIONAL CENTER 14 Capital 5~~4,lO PAGENO="0044" PAGENO="0045" 41 INTERNATIONAL CENTER "For the District to serve its purpose as the Nation's Capital, it must provide for the representatives of foreign governments and international organizations. Increasingly, the unavailability of space for the legitimate needs of foreign governments is becoming a matter of concern. "Many new countries require but have been unable to secure adequate space for their chanceries. Many older countries which are seeking larger quarters are having similar difficulties. The problem has become an unnecessary irritant in our international relations. "I recommend legislation which, consistent with the legitimate interests of District citizens, would specify an area northwest of Washington Circle to be available for foreign chanceries and the offices of international organizations. The bill would authorize the Federal Government to acquire land in this area for appropriate, disposition, as the Secretary of State may determine, to foreign governments and international organiza- tions." L YND ON B. JOHNSON Message on the District of Columbia February 27,1967 "Last year, I recommended that the Congress authorize an International Center, a large site at which foreign chanceries and the offices of international organizations could be located. After study, it now seems clear that acquisition of the site proposed at that time is not possible. "I am, therefore, recommending new legislation to authorize the use of 34 acres of the old National Bureau of Standards terrain for these worthy purposes. The new site has the support of the Secretary of State, all other interested Federal agencies including the National Capital Planning Commission, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia. I hope for early Congressional review and approval of this legislative proposal, important, alike to the Federal Government, to the District, and to the international community located in Washington." L YND ON B. JOHNSON The Nation's First City March 13, 1968 PAGENO="0046" 42 PAGENO="0047" 43 INTRODUCTION The location of chanceries in Washington is a problem that has plagued foreign governments, as well as the residents of the Capital, for many years. When the situation became critical several years ago, the Secretary of State named a special committee to seek a solution. The committee developed the concept of an International Center. The National Capital Planning Commission, in cooperation with the State Department, took this concept and initially prepared a plan for a Center in the area between New Hampshire Avenue and Rock Creek Parkway, Washington and Dupont Circles. This proposal was part of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital and legislation was introduced in the 89th Congress in 1966 to establish an International Center, northwest of Washington Circle, to house chanceries, international organizations and related facilities. Although this area had mixed land uses, blighted and deteriorating conditions, and was already beginning to change to other more intensive uses, the total cost of the proposal and the resulting displacement presented problems with this site. Consequently, the Commission, in conjunction with the Department of State and the General Services Administration, developed an alternative proposal, described in this report, for an International Center on a portion of the old Bureau of Standards site. The proposed site at the old Bureau of Standards is well located in relation to the major concentrations of embassies, chanceries and international organizations along Connecticut and Massachusetts Avenues, northwest of the White House. The site is situated on top of a hill overlooking Melvin Hazen Park in Northwest Washington, and would provide a very attractive setting for the new Headquarters of the Organization of the American States and for chanceries of foreign governments. The site is located along Connecticut Avenue, N.W.-one of the "special streets" in the National Capital and a principal radial avenue extending from the White House to the District Line. It is now well served by bus and is to be served by the initial rapid rail subway system authorized by Congress. A subway station is planned at Connecticut Avenue and Van Ness Street-immediately adjacent to this site. The Connecticut Avenue Line, as shown on the map on the adjacent page, is currently being designed and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority expects service to begin late in 1974. PAGENO="0048" I 44 PAGENO="0049" 45 PAGENO="0050" 46 PAGENO="0051" * The center should be planned and developed on a scale sufficiently large to set a high quality of development character for the surrounding area, as well as to insure a prestige setting which will attract foreign governments and international organizations. Basic Program Objectives * The Federal Government should initiate the devel- opment of the International Center. Both the con- duct of foreign affairs and the interest of the United States in acquiring suitable locations for our own diplomatic missions in foreign capitals will be served by the establishment of a more orderly process for locating the offices of foreign governments and international organizations within Washington. It is clearly a proper function and in tlse interest of the Federal Government to provide suitable areas for representational offices and to eliminate the friction between operations of chanceries and the citizens of Washington. SELECTION OF OLD BUREAU OF STANDARDS SITE The Proposed Comprehensive Plan recommended that the International Center be located in Northwest Washington, north of Washington Circle. As indicated in President Johnson's 1968 District of Columbia Message to Congress, "The Nation's First City", the Bureau of Standards site was selected as an alternative location for the International Center where existing Federally-owned land could be made available to foreign governments and the Organization of American States. The alternative old Bureau of Standards site for the International Center is consistent with the compre- hensive planning objectives for thisgeneral area of the city. The Proposed Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital included the following major proposals for the Northwest section of the city that would have implicatiom on the future use of the Bureau of Standards silt and the immediate surrounding area: * Providing rapid rail transit service to the site with a station directiy serving the Connecticut Avenue - Van Ness Street area. It is currently estimated that service will begin to this site late in 1974. The station wifi be the terminus of the initial system authorized by Congress. Ultimately, as part of the adopted regional rapid rail transit system, this line will be extended into Montgomery County as fur as Rock- vile. * Establishing an "uptown center" in this general location incorporating the existing private com- mercial, office and high density residpostial develop- ment along Connecticut Avenue (the new Van Ness Center is an example of the intensification of apart. ment, office and commercialuses in this area) and the proposals for redeveloping the old Bureau of Stand- ards site. An ultimate total of 15,000 private and including perhaps as many as 5,000 Federal em- ployees is projected for this "uptown center". * Retaining and conserving the basic existinglow and moderate density residential character of the areas around the "uptown center". THE EMBASSY OF.~ UAS,R. PAGENO="0052" 48 LU z U 0< U-z zQ ILl I- LU LU - >0 I- LU ~~~0. 11)0 -I LU )