United States, and increase goodwill by intelligent appreciation, recognition, and use of the architecture appropriate to the site and country. Major emphasis should be placed on the creation of goodwill in the respective countries by design of buildings and distinguished architectural quality rather than adherence to any given style of architecture. Designs shall adhere to established good practice and, to the extent practical, use construction techniques, materials, and equipment of proven merit and reliability. Buildings shall be dignified and economical to build, operate, and maintain. Secondly, to assist it in the delicate problem of the design of its new buildings abroad, the Department created an Architectural Advisory Panel. The Panel's functions were set out in two simple directives, as follows: 1. To recommend the most appropriate style of architecture consistent with the architectural policy of the State Department for the prospective projects of its foreign buildings program. 2. To review and advise on the architectural quality, fitness, and merit of the designs submitted by the private American consulting architects for each of the projects. I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, during the 5 years in which the Panel has operated, in our opinion it has proved to be of inestimable value to the foreign buildings program. In conjunction with the formulation of an architectural policy and in connection with the creation of the Architectural Advisory Panel, the Department of State in early 1954 turned to individual American architects, on a commission basis, for the design of new embassy and consulate buildings abroad. Each of the American architects thus far commissioned has distinguished himself in his approach to his particular problem abroad in sensing the delicacy of the job and the necessity for finding a solution that will result in an economical, dignified and distinguished building to represent our Government abroad. The bill now before you for consideration will permit the United States to continue to convert substantial local currency credits into tangible and valuable assets. The Department wishes to emphasize that an increase in the total authorization must be made at this time in order to permit the Department to continue to provide urgently needed physical facilities for these establishments abroad in certain areas of the world where no local currency credits exist and there is no foreseeable development of such credits. Furthermore, the continuance of this program will hasten the improvement of physical facilities at many other difficult posts, with the continued use of local currency credits where such credits are available. For these reasons the Department strongly urges your prompt and favorable action on this bill. Mr. HAYS. Mr. Hughes, if we follow the 5-minute rule there will be time for each member to have one go-around before we have to adjourn today and we will set a meeting for Friday at 10:30. I have quite a few questions but I will confine myself to two at the moment. You are asking for $100 million. I have noted here a question which I think you have later answered: you anticipate this will run 5 years? 37377-59 Mr. HUGHES. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HAYS. If we grant this amount we won't see you again for 5 years, is that right? You will do all of your consulting as you have in the past with the Subcommittee on Appropriations and they will more or less run the program, and when you run out of money you will come back again 5 years later. Is that the way it will operate? Mr. HUGHES. We will consult with the Appropriations Committee each year, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HAYS. In other words, you get your money on an annual basis, but you want your authorization on a 5-year basis? Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, could I make a remark at this point? Mr. HAYS. Surely. Mr. HENDERSON. It is very important that we have the authorization on a 5-year basis because the longer term helps us in planning. But I can assure you that we would be very happy to come up every year and report to this committee exactly what we have been doing during that year and what we plan to do during the next year. I think this committee has a right to know how we are using the funds which it has authorized, and we would be very happy to give it the information. Mr. HAYS. I am sure you would, Mr. Henderson, but the question, the thing that I can't quite get clear in my mind is why you have to have a 5-year authorization from this committee, but you can't possibly get more than a 1-year appropriation at a time. Now, you can plan on what you hope they will give you, and you can do the same on what you would hope we would authorize, but you can't spend the money until they give it to you year by year, on an annual basis; isn't that right? Mr. HENDERSON. That is right, sir. Mr. HUGHES. One point in that connection, Mr. Chairman, you realize once these funds are appropriated the fiscal year limitation does not apply. They are available until expended. But certainly to underscore what Mr. Henderson says, it would be a pleasure to come up and review with this committee each year what we have done and what we plan to do. But thinking of it, it seems to me there would be two problems for us: 1. Many individual projects involve us at the government-togovernment level, or even sometimes more importantly. 2. We as the Government of the United States are dealing with a private citizen abroad in a real estate transaction, which seldom if ever can be consummated quickly. In each instance they are highly involved and extend over a long period of time. So it would seem to me that if we were not in a position to make some reasonable commitment within an authorization, we might find ourselves hamstrung occasionally in very difficult negotiations. Mr. HAYS. I am not saying that I would advocate an annual authorization, but I am just wondering if a 5-year one isn't pretty long. Mr. Jackson. Mr. JACKSON. I have a couple of questions on this. I should like to get some idea on a dozen or so of your current programs, as to your square-foot costs. It does not have to be done at the moment, but I am sure that it would be of interest to the committee to determine exactly what foreign construction is costing us. We will then have something in the way of figures to relate to our local building costs. Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Jackson, I might say here, I have taken a look at that question, and I do so all the time. As a backdrop to your question, the new State Department Building here in Washington, I believe, costs about $26 a square foot. I am looking here at samples of some projects which we now have under contract. In Rabat, Morocco, the new Chancery is costing $16.93 per square foot. In Lagos, Nigeria, the office building just completed there cost $28.79 per square foot. The one in Port-au-Prince, on the basis of the contract, is costing $21.66 per square foot; Quito, Ecuador, $11.71; Lima, Peru, $15.26; Oslo, Norway, $17.91; London, England, $16.64; Hong Kong, $10.86. Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, it would be helpful to have these figures on current contracts in the record of the hearings. Mr. HAYS. Without objection, if you would like to submit a compilation of the ones you have under contract at the moment, we will put them in at this point in the record. Mr. JACKSON. The square footage involved and the square foot cost. Mr. HUGHES. I will be glad to, Mr. Chairman. (The information requested is as follows:) OFFICE OF FOREIGN BUILDINGS Tpical unit cost of construction since 1954-Office buildings Mr. JACKSON. How do you obtain architectural services for these new buildings? For instance, from time to time I will have an architect write to me from my district saying, "How does one get in on this business of bidding to furnish architectural services to the Federal Government? How do you proceed? How would a bidder in Los Angeles or Cleveland or anyplace else undertake to furnish such services to the Department? Mr. HUGHES. First of all, Mr. Jackson, we do not call for bids on architectural services, as does the General Services Administration. The way we arrive at it is like this: We have compiled over the last 5 years, working with the country's foremost architects, brochures of their own work where the architect himself picks out samples of what he considers to be his best performance. These brochures are submitted to us here in Washington. We study them carefully, looking always at the design qualities as distinct from the-well, whether it is a great firm, a big name firm, whether they have done world-wide work or what, seeking to learn how they have solved difficult architectural problems. Then we consult with our Architectural Advisory Panel on the fitness and merit of the designs of these architects. Now, I should like to say that our Panel is always composed of architects who, shall I say, have no ax to grind, who are not espousing any specific architectural cause. May I say, for example, that Mr. Henry Shepley of Boston has been a member of our Panel. He is on the advisory committee for remodeling of the Capitol. Ralph Walker of New York has been on the Panel. Pietro Belluschi, Dean of MIT also has been on it. We then run a public relations check on the architect to see that he is not an espouser of causes and confines himself to architecture. Finally, we consider his design capabilities in terms of the problem that confronts us and we open negotiations with the firm on the basis of the size of the job or the speed with which it has to be done or any other particular problems. Mr. JACKSON. Does this serve to bring into your building program firms that are, let us say, relatively small, assuming that their professional qualifications are adequate for the work to be performed? My interest is in assuring that everyone qualified to do so has a fair opportunity to compete. I assume this is being done. Mr. HAYS. It would be interesting if you could submit a figure on how many buildings you have contracted in the last 5 years and how many different architects have designed them. Mr. HUGHES. I would be delighted to, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HAYS. That would rip all the verbiage away and get down to the crux of the matter. (The information requested is as follows:) Number of architects commissioned: 55. Two architects had two commissions each: Eero Saarinen, Oslo and London, and Sherlock, Smith & Adams, two projects at Manila. One architect, Weed-Russell-Johnson Associates, had a single commission (contract) for projects at two posts: Lagos and Leopoldville. OFFICE OF FOREIGN BUILDINGS Architectural contracts entered into since Jan. 1, 1954 Ciudad Trujillo (E). Helsinki (E). Kabul (E).. Karachi (E)... Project Office building, staff housing.... _do Office building, residence, ma- Office building, residence, staff Office building, residence, staff Office building.. do.. Office building extension. Office building- ...do...... Office building annex.. Office building, staff housing..... Office building......... Architect Henry Weese, Chicago, Ill. John Lyon Reid, San Francisco, Calif. The Architects Collaborative, (Walter John Carl Warnecke, San Francisco, Calif. Ralph Rapson, Minneapolis, Minn. Harwell H. Harris, Fort Worth, Tex. Wurster Bernardi & Emmons, San Francisco R. B. O'Connor & W. H. Kilham, Jr., New Richard J. Neutra and Robert E. Alexander, Office building, staff housing.... Yamasaki, Leinweber & Associates, Royal do.. Office building. USIA Reproduction Center. Staff housing (30 units) Staff housing (60 units). Office building annex. Keyes and Lethbridge, Washington, D.C. Hills, Mich. (contract won in competition). Gardner A. Dailey, San Francisco, Calif. A. L. Aydelott & Associates, Memphis, Regional communications unit.. Sherlock, Smith & Adams, Montgomery, Ala. Southwestern Architects-Engineers, Austin, Yerkes & Deigert, Washington, D.C. Mills, Petticord & Mills, Washington, D.C. Alexander S. Cochran, Baltimore, Md. Thornton Ladd & Associates, Pasadena, Eero Saarinen & Associates, Bloomfield Harold Spitznagel & Associates, Sioux Falls, Mario J. Ciampi, architect, Allyn C. Martin Don Hatch, 125 Broadway, New York, N.Y. Vincent G. Kling, Philadelphia, Pa. Ketchum, Giná & Sharp, New York, N.Y: Curtis & Davis, New Orleans, La. Paul Thiry, Seattle, Wash. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Chicago, Ill. A. Quincy Jones, Frederick E. Emmons, |