"Unless some other use (preferably one that complements existing adjacent uses) is found," the report said, "this building may remain vacant, contributing to further blight in the area."

Conversion of the Lansburgh's store is among a package of redevelopment proposals for federal funding the PADC board will consider in about a month. The public corporation, successor to the Pennsylvania Avenue Commission, is responsible for preparing and implementing a development plan for the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue NW between the White House and the Capitol.

As envisioned by the corporation's staff and by its chief consultant on the project, the federally funded Urban Business Education Association, the enclosed mall would serve as a center for relocated businesses for about eight years, or until the 15-block Pennsylvania Avenue target area was redeveloped. The Lansburgh's site has been earmarked by the corporation for an "urban village" that would include residential units as well as commercial space.

However, Carolyn Walker, director of the Urban Business Education Association, said the mayor's office "expressly asks us to try very hard to preserve" the facility if it were revamped.

She said the project would be expected to result in a net deficit of $2.4 million during its life, money that would have to come from a congressional appropriation.

"We've tried to show that it's money well spent to meet the relocation need and to provide other market accesses for non-relocation firms," she said. "Its contribution to downtown would be worth a heck of a lot more than that."

Some 166 businesses, ranging from small restaurants to small department stores such as Morton's, and banks and savings and loans, are located in the area targeted for renewal. Ms. Walker said the Lansburgh's facility could probably accommodate up to 60 or 70 shops, depending on how the space was subdivided. A consortium of two architectural firms, Arthur Cotton Moore Associates and H. L. Walker Associates, has drawn up suggested designs for the facility.

Merchants in the target area, which encompasses the southern part of the downtown urban renewal area, have been generally receptive to the idea of the Lansburgh's facility, PADC relocation planner Clifford A. Brooks said.

A "satisfactory mix" of shops, would be essential to make the mall attractive to shoppers, but unlike suburban malls, no major "anchor" stores would be necessary, Ms. Walker said. The nearby Woodward & Lothrop and Hecht's main branches would continue to be major attractions for that part of downtown she said, adding that banks, at least one 5 and 10 and, "hopefully, a drug store." could also lure shoppers into the converted Lansburgh's.

The facility, she said, could be a prototype for other central business districts around the country, in cities where there are "decaying downtowns and a lot of old buildings that could be put to use."

The D.C. Bicentennial Commission has said the mall should be considered a priority project to be completed before 1976, a spokeswoman said.

The Bicentennial Commission has tried to get money for projects, Ms. Walker said. "But agencies don't seem to be responding . . If somebody doesn't get on the case and get these agencies to shell out some money to the District in response to that old commitment of President Nixon's . . . it doesn't mean anything."

Elsewhere, San Francisco's Ghirardelli Square, a thriving collection of shops housed in an old chocolate factory, is one example of a successful conversion of a commercial facility for use by small business, but Ms. Walker points out that it is not located in a central business district.

The revitalized Lansburgh's would "not have the kind of tourist draw that Ghirardelli Square has," she said, "but we'd do our best to put the mall on the tourist map."

[From Office of the White House Press Secretary, Oct. 9, 1968]

THE WHITE HOUSE

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON SIGNING H.R. 16175

Today we make the Federal City a more gracious and responsive host to our official guests from other lands.

In recent years, we have been faced with the problem of finding suitable sites for the growing number of embassies, chanceries and international organizations. Many of the world's newer nations need room for their diplomatic staffs. Many of the older nations require larger quarters. Yet, the shortage of space has become more and more acute.

We set out to cope with this problem. Committees were formed. Agendas were prepared, Local groups were consulted.

Out of this process came a plan, and a practical solution to a perplexing problem.

The bill I sign today is the culmination of that effort. It sets aside surplus land at the old National Bureau of Standards site for a new international complex. In time, we will see this 34 acre site transformed into a distinctive and diverse International Center which can be the pride of the Nation's Capital. Under this new law, the Center can be built without relocating or displacing a single District resident, and without any cost to the American taxpayer. Its use is in accord with the long-range plan for the District of Columbia.

H.R. 16175 received the unanimous approval of both Houses of the Congress. It is a forward step in the conduct of our foreign relations and in the development of our Nation's Capital. I am pleased to sign it into law.

Mr. JAMES MUSCATELLO, 614 12th Street, NW.,

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

CITY COUNCIL,

Washington, D.C., May 25, 1974.

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. MUSCATELLO: I have read with care your thoughtful letter of May 20 regarding the Pennsylvania Avenue Plan and the hearing of May 18.

The Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation Act states that "The Commissioner of the District of Columbia . . . shall hold public hearings on the plan and shall notify the Corporation of his approval or recommended modifications." Although the Chairman of the City Council is a member of the Corporation's Board, no specific role for the City Council is mentioned in the Act. However, at a meeting of the Committee of the Whole serveral weeks ago, the Council instructed its staff to monitor the hearing on May 18 and to report back to us. It is the intent of the Council, as expressed at that meeting, to develop our own position on the proposed plan, for transmittal to the Congress. You may be sure that one of our principal concerns, as we review the proposal, will be the effect it will have on the small businesses presently operating within the plan's boundaries.

Chairman, Senate Rules and Administration Committee, U.S. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Re Further Testimony for inclusion in Rockefeller Nomination Hearings, with particular reference to your statement that we were discussing zoning and planning matters outside the jurisdiction of your Committee.

DEAR CHAIRMAN CANNON: We hereby request you to include this letter as part of our testimony before your committee on the nomination of Gov. Nelson Rockefeller as Vice President. As you know, we were reported in the New York Times, and broadcast by PBS nationally. We protest your statement most vigorously, that we were discussing zoning and planning matters outside your committee's jurisdiction, which would indicate that you thought our testimony should be addressed to the District of Columbia Government, and the local planning and zoning authorities of D.C.

The Congress, Sir, for your information, just granted Home Rule for District of Columbia citizens for the first time in 100 years, and the new government isn't yet elected, and won't take office until January 1975.

How, then, do you maintain that the District Government-if we understand you-is responsible for the displacement of 23,500 people, 70 percent of them low-income Blacks, and 750 small businesses, from the 550-acre SW Urban Renewal Project? When it had no way to protest such displacement, and no vote on it.

Doesn't it occur to you that the District of Columbia which is overwhelmingly Black, would not have, of its own will, displaced 23,500 people from the

SW Urban Renewal Project, when there was no place for them to go, no place for them to live-resulting in horrible housing conditions which ultimately led to the burning and destruction visited on the Nation's Capital in April 1968 following the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King? It had no power to displace, on its own.

Perhaps you can justify in your own mind that the Federal Government had no role in this, though it contributed, through appropriations, more than $180,000,000 in cash, while the D.C. Government contributed less than $10,000 in cash. Don't you think the Federal Government should have spent this huge sum of $180 million in keeping those homes of Black low-income families and upgrading them through the Congressional Housing Act provisions?

The Rockefellers, with Chase Manhattan Bank financing, built a $100 million L'Enfant Plaza Project, and the headquarters building for the U.S. Postal Service on the sites of the low-income Black families and small businessmen. Where was the Congressional oversight that the $180 million spent to acquire the land to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing for slum dwellers was spent for that and not for the benefit of the Rockefeller families and Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller?

We can understand your reluctance to admit any Federal Government responsibility for this sordid chapter of greed, and government power, twinned together, the Federal Government and the Rockefeller Family to deprive the low-income blacks and the small businessmen of their homes and businesses for the enrichment of the Rockefellers.

We were very interested in another aspect of the way you conducted the Rockefeller Hearing-your repeated statement that the information you had obtained from the FBI showed that Gov. Nelson Rockefeller was completely divorced from the Chase Manhattan Bank.

But that isn't what Gov. Nelson Rockefeller told your Committee-what he said was that he owns part of Rockefeller Center and Rockefeller Center has stock in the Chase Manhattan Bank. Rockefeller Center is such an enormous enterprise that it could support the Chase Manhattan Bank all by itself.

So we think that Gov. Rockefeller told the truth and that the FBI has misled your Committee, and deliberately. The FBI hasn't changed much from the Nixon days.

PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE

You also dismissed our testimony regarding the 23-acre Pennsylvania Avenue renewal area and its tie-in with the Rockefellers and Gov. Nelson Rockefeller. Here, again, it was your view as you stated that we were discussing zoning and planning matters outside your committee's jurisdiction.

You did this in spite of the fact that President Nixon appointed a full Rockefeller partner, Gen. Elwood R. Quesada, to head up the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, and that Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixonand definitely not the District Government-have been pushing the renewal of Pennsylvania Avenue beginning as early as 12 years ago with the assignment by President Kennedy of Labor Secretary Arthur Goldberg and his assistant, now Ambassador to India, Patrick Moynihan to the task of drawing up plans. The District Government was never given any important role in these matters, and even today, the Mayor of the City of Washington is outvoted by

(1) The Secretary of the Interior

(2) The Secretary of the Treasury

(3) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

(4) The Secretary of Transportation

(5) The Administrator of General Services.

Further, local owners and tenants in the 23-acre Pennsylvania Avenue area are deprived of any vote-which is unconstitutional-in the legislation adopted by the Congress under and pursuant to and in response to the skillful lobbying by Rockefeller partner General Quesada.

So just how you arrive at the astounding conclusion that all of these Rockefeller-backed projects financed with Rockefeller money and the Chase Manhattan Bank where Gov. Nelson Rockefeller has his Rockefeller Center holdings-is only a local zoning and planning matter outside the jurisdiction of your Committee needs further clarification, to say the least. We, and the American people are entitled by Senatorial courtesy, and our concern of record about a nonelected Vice President, to an answer and not a curt and easy dismissal of our questions.

The D.C. City Council, the legislative body established by Congress under the Reorganization Act of 1967, was deliberately cut out and excluded from any role, even its assigned role of holding hearings, in the Pennsylvania Avenue Plan and the establishment of policy in the Congressionally-established Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation.

So we have this amazing, and unconstitutional situation

(1) The D.C. City Council is deprived of all voice; and

(2) The affected owners and tenants, businessmen and others, are deprived of their constitutional and legal rights.

This by the Congressionally-adopted Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corportion Act, which Rockefeller-partner General Quesada lobbied skillfully through the Congress and lobbied his own appointment through the White House as its chairman-so that there is no choice to the people of the District of Columbia and the D.C. City Council.

All of this is made clear in a letter which we included in our testimony from D.C. City Council Chairman Tedson J. Meyers, a distinguished attorney-at-law and a leading Democrat. The letter was dated May 25, 1974 and it said: "The Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation Act states that "The Commissioner of the District of Columbia *shall hold public hearings on the plan and shall notify the Corporation of his approval or recommend modifications.' Although the Chairman of the City Council is a member of the Corporation's Board, no specific role for the City Council is mentioned in the Act. However, at a meeting of the Committee of the Whole several weeks ago, the Council instructed its staff to monitor the hearing on May 18 and to report back to us. It is the intent of the Council, as expressed at that meeting, to develop our own position on the proposed plan, for transmittal to the Congress. You may be sure that one of our principal concerns, as we review the proposal, will be the effect it will have on the small businesses presently operating within the plan's boundaries." Due to these circumstances, and the kind of attitude displayed by you, the D.C. City Council has not been able to present its proposals to Congress. You would have us acquiesce in your apparent belief that Congress isn't the defender of Constitutional rights of all the people. We think that this is very sad, and your cavalier let-them-eat-cake attitude that these matters are zoning and planning matters outside your committee's jurisdiction adds up to 100 percent approval of everything which the Rockefeller family, and Rockefeller money, and the family interests and investments of Gov. Nelson Rockefeller have done and are doing in the District of Columbia.

WASHINGTON POST

Your critical view of the Washington Post was not merited, because it was made clear, by Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller, that his wealth, at least in a major part, was in stock of the Chase Manhattan Bank through his own personal ownership of a significant part of Rockefeller Center.

ROCKEFELLER AND FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON

We submit today, as part of this letter, the Washington Post article by the syndicated columnist and commentator, Nicholas von Hoffman, in which he makes essentially the same point we did in our testimony which you dismissed so importunately. Mr von Hoffman writes, Washington Post (Sept. 30, 1974) that and we quote:

"Most recently Rockefeller resigned the governorship of New York to head up an eleemosynary facade called the Commission on Critical Choices. It was here he stationed himself to take advantage of Mr. Nixon's fall, a fall that some people in Washington suspect Rockefeller may have helped along with a nudge. Anyway, now that the only critical choice Rockefeller cares about has been made, we won't be hearing from the commission any more.

"Rockefeller's defenders say that even if you lump the family money together, what can two or three billion do in a trillion dollar economy? The answer to that is leverage. The ownership of 2 percent of the stock gives you working control of a major corporation, but that's neither here nor there. The Rockefellers aren't going up against the entire economy most of the time.

"That works for them almost automatically, they are playing one-to-one against individuals. They are an organized power while the rest of us are a nation of families which average $15,000 or less a year.

"And for proof, we have the giant jaw man himself, Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, three time repudiated by his own party, opposed by the Left and the Right with the middle indifferent, and yet in Congress they're going to be fighting for who gets the honor to vote for him first. If that's not power, Jerry Ford has no reason to look over his shoulder."

Compare that comment by Nicholas von Hoffman in the Washington Post (Sept. 30, 1974) with our own testimony, which you dismissed by classing it as a zoning and planning matter outside the jurisdiction of your Committee, on this point: "From what we have been able to learn on our own, this seems to be true, and the question naturally arises, if the Washington Post and Rockefeller family fortunes are so closely entwined ** couldn't a lot of recent national history, including the Washington Post's unbounded pursuit of former President Richard M. Nixon, be accounted for?"

CONCLUSION

We were on the Public Broadcasting System, both TV and radio, and the New York Times, in reporting our testimony (Sept. 27, 1974) said this: "Other witnesses appearing today included * * * J. George Frain, of Business Affected Severely by the Yearly Action Plans, Inc., a small-businessmen's group protesting what it says are Rockefeller investments in urban renewal projects that displace small business and the poor."

Respectfully yours,

PHILIP J. BROWN,

The CHAIRMAN. Is Dr. Dawkins here? [No response.]

President. GEORGE FRAIN, Secretary-Treasurer.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness will be Mr. Edward J. Golden, director of the National Right to Life Committee.

Which of you is Mr. Golden?

Mr. GOLDEN. I am.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the others accompanying you be testifying? Mr. GOLDEN. No.

The CHAIRMAN. If you intend to offer anything by the way of testimony, please stand and be sworn.

[Mr. Golden stands.]

The CHAIRMAN. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this committee to be the truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. GOLDEN. Yes, I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD J. GOLDEN, IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, INC.; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. ADA RYAN, PRESIDENT, NEW YORK STATE DOCTORS AND NURSES AGAINST ABORTION

Mr. GOLDEN. Thank you.

I would like to introduce with me here today to my immediate left is Dr. Ada Ryan, president of the New York State Doctors and Nurses Against Abortion, and Mr. Ray L. White, the executive director of the National Right to Life Committee in Washington.

Chairman Howard Cannon and honorable members of the committee my name is Edward J. Golden, and I am a lifelong resident of Troy, N.Y.