FOREIGN SERVICE BUILDINGS ACT AMENDMENTS, 1959

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1959

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE DEPARTMENT

ORGANIZATION AND FOREIGN OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10: 45 a.m., in room G-3, U.S. Capitol, Hon. Wayne L. Hays (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. HAYS. We have with us this morning Ambassador Henderson and some people from the Buildings Division of the Department of State to testify on the draft bill proposed in Executive Communication 507. You have a copy of it before you.

The bill has not been introduced yet but will be one of these days when the subcommittee makes a recommendation to the full committee. (The draft bill proposed in Executive Communication 507 is as follows:)

A BILL To amend the Foreign Service Buildings Act of 1926

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 4 of the Foreign Service Buildings Act, 1926, as amended (22 U.S.C. 295), is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(c) For the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, in addition to amounts previously authorized, an amount not to exceed $100,000,000, of which $50,000,000 shall be available exclusively for payments representing the value, in whole or in part, of property or credits in accordance with the provisions of the Act of July 25, 1946 (60 Stat. 663). Sums appropriated pursuant to this authorization shall remain available until expended."

Mr. HAYS. We are glad to have you here, Mr., Ambassador, Mr. Scott, Mr. Hughes, and the others, and you may proceed as you wish. Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to make a brief statement at the beginning.

STATEMENT OF HON. LOY W. HENDERSON, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ADMINISTRATION

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, we welcome the opportunity to appear before this committee to present for your consideration the Department's request for an increase of $100 million in authorization for the Foreign Service buildings program.

With me is Mr. William P. Hughes, Director of this program, who, if agreeable to you, will review the whole program.

We will outline to you some of our needs and problems and will try to give you a picture of what we have been doing in connection with

the acquisition, construction and maintenance of buildings overseas, and what we are planning to do during the next few years. I would, however, like to make a few introductory remarks before he takes over.

The Foreign Service Buildings Act of 1926 (Public Law 186, 69th Cong.) authorized the overseas buildings program of the Department of State. The original act has been amended from time to time to accommodate the many special and unusual circumstances encountered in the operation of the program overseas.

You will observe that in addition to a U.S. dollar authorization, the Congress included an authorization in foreign currencies first in 1946. At that time, as a result of lend-lease, surplus property disposals, and other agreements, this Government either owned or was owed substantial amounts of foreign currencies.

After careful consideration, the Congress recognized the buildings program as one means of converting these foreign currencies into useful and lasting facilities to be used by the diplomatic and consular establishments abroad.

The reasons for that decision are as valid today as they were in 1946. While the properties we own throughout the world today are valued in excess of $160 million, our expanded responsibilities impose additional burdens on our present facilities while creating demands for new facilities in places where none has existed heretofore.

I should like to emphasize that the buildings program has a significant bearing not only upon the effectiveness of our overseas operations but also upon the morale of our people abroad. In many remote and difficult living areas, the success of our various activities depends in large measure upon our physical plant.

This is not merely a matter of prestige, convenience, or comfort. Sometimes the very health and safety of those people assigned overseas depend upon the kind of working and living facilities furnished

them.

During the years that have elapsed since I entered the Service, there has been a virtual revolution in the housing conditions of our offices and personnel abroad.

Many of you have visited our various overseas posts and are therefore acquainted with some of our needs in the matter of Foreign Service housing. I am confident that those who are acquainted with our problems will view our request for additional authorization with sympathy.

I have an idea that members of this committee will have criticisms to offer of some of the foreign buildings which have been purchased or constructed during the years gone by. Tastes vary to such an extent with regard to architecture that I do not believe that any building which the Department may acquire or construct overseas, no matter how much thought might have gone into it, would please everybody.

I am frank in admitting that I personally have not been very happy at the design of some of our buildings. Nevertheless, when the leading American architects differ with me I feel that it would be presumptuous for me to take the position that I am a better judge of architectural style than they.

When I came into the Department 4 years ago, I was a proponent of the classical and the traditional styles for our overseas buildings

I must confess that after having been exposed during these years to the enthusiasm of our architects for new ideas and forms, I am commencing to realize that restrained contemporary architecture has much to offer in beauty combined with utility. In competent hands it can be inspirational.

Nevertheless, we all agree that it is important that the architectural styles of our buildings have dignity, that they be appropriate to the sites and that they be of a character which will create international friendship.

May I add some of my own experiences with regard to foreign buildings.

I entered the Foreign Service in 1922. My first post was Dublin. I was vice consul there. We were in a building on one of the main streets the second and third floors. The narrow entrance hallway was crammed with immigrants trying to get visas. It was a very busy consulate because at that time we had no diplomatic representation in Ireland. Ireland had just become a free state.

There were probably several hundred services to be performed a day in addition to visa services. Our visitors had to fight their way up the narrow stairs thronged with visa applicants lined up all the way to the street.

There was a complete lack of dignity in the place. No business office would think of maintaining premises of that character.

I was transferred after a year and a half to Queenstown-Cobh, it is called now. There we had a consulate over a saloon-again a long narrow stairs.

The American visitors and other visitors coming there also had to fight their way up these stairs. Our quarters were lacking in decent furniture. The atmosphere was really that of a camp rather than a consulate.

I think that our housing in Ireland was fairly typical of that of our consulates throughout the whole world.

At that time I don't suppose more than four or five embassies, if that many, were owned by our Government. We rented our embassies and legations and had to move from time to time as the landlord got tired of us or tried to raise the rent. Our diplomatic and consular quarters were cramped; the furniture was unsightly.

In general, the United States, so far as the dignity of the representation and the efficiency and convenience of the buildings were concerned, was far behind most of the countries of the world, including even the smaller countries.

Since that time we have made great progress. It was in 1926, as I pointed out previously, that Congress passed legislation which permitted a foreign buildings program. This program has been gathering momentum; particularly during the last 5 years it has made its greatest progress.

It was about 5 years ago-I believe it was in 1954-that we decided upon a systematic and orderly program covering a period of years. The idea was that the program would call for an expenditure of about $20 million a year.

Sometimes our annual appropriation has fallen down to $18 million, but in general it has been in the neighborhood of $20 million. During that period we have made, I think, tremendous progress in the acquisition of buildings.

We have made some mistakes in some of our purchases. We have also made some mistakes in our new construction. Nevertheless, I think the program as a whole has been a success. I am sure that the value of the sites which we have acquired and of the buildings which we have constructed or purchased is several times greater now than the original purchase price.

Our buildings program, with the exception of the maintenance expenditures, is really a program which adds to the accumulated wealth of the United States. It is not a program which calls for expenses going out the window.

I hope this committee will view this bill with sympathy. I am sure that the members of the committee are going to have criticismssome criticisms that are valid-to make of our program and of the way it has been carried out. I want you to know that we will listen with care to your criticisms and we will take them into consideration during the years to come.

Thank you.

Mr. HAYS. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

Would you prefer to have Mr. Hughes make his statement?

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. HUGHES, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FOREIGN BUILDINGS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to say as a preface to my general statement that I was designated as director of the buildings program in the spring of 1954. Thus I am ending my fifth year as the manager of this activity.

In line with what Mr. Henderson has stated here and as you know, this program was initiated in 1926, with the enactment of Public Law 186, 69th Congress, approved May 7, 1926.

This act authorized the Secretary of State to acquire buildings and grounds in foreign countries for the use of the consular and diplomatic establishments of the United States and other agencies of the Government.

This enabling legislation has been amended several times since 1926 and to date $231,625,000 have been authorized to carry out its purpose and $203,530,000 have been appropriated in annual bills, $172,766,000 in local currencies and $30,764,000 in U.S. dollars. The last authorization was in 1952 when $90 million, entirely in local currencies, was authorized.

The Department is gratified with the support given to this program by the Congress. Despite some administrative difficulties, the Department feels it is sound business to utilize available local currencies to the maximum extent in carrying out this worldwide program to improve our physical plant abroad.

Briefly, during the past 7 years the Department has carried forward a total buildings program of over $92 million of which only $21 million has been in Û.S. dollars. Of this $21 million in U.S. dollars, only $13,500,00 have been appropriated and $8,500,000 have been derived from the disposal of surplus and uneconomic properties abroad.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, at this point I offer a summary table which shows in detail the obligations that have been incurred during the last 7 years for this program.

Mr. HAYS. Without objection, it will be included in the record at this point.

(The information referred to is as follows:)

Mr. HUGHES. For 1960 the Department seeks an appropriation of $18 million which, if appropriated, will leave a residual authorization of only $10,095,000 entirely in local currency.

Therefore, the Department requests your favorable consideration of this bill which will increase by $50 million in local currency and $50 million in U.S. dollars the authorization for this program.

This additional authorization will permit the Department, through its buildings program, to meet throughout the world the most impelling needs for office space and adequate living quarters, with emphasis on those posts where physical conditions are oppressive.

From its inception in 1926 through 1947, this program was financed entirely by annual U.S. dollar appropriation because no local currencies or credits were available.

Upon the termination of World War II and the subsequent settlement of the lend-lease accounts and surplus property disposals, large amounts of local currencies were made available to the U.S. Treasury. In recent years, however, these credits have dwindled not only because of accelerated payments in the form of local currency drawings but also because of payment in U.S. dollars of scheduled installments of principal and interest. Local currency credits remain in only 28 countries, and for practical purposes four of these may be considered to be liquidated.

In more recent years local currencies are being generated also by the disposal abroad of surplus agricultural products under authority