U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73-488 PDF 2013

THE PROPOSED DWIGHT D. 

EISENHOWER MEMORIAL 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 

Serial No. 112-102 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Mark Amodei, NV 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Paul Tonko, NY 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

David Rivera, FL 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Mark Amodei, NV 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

John Garamendi, CA 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 ............................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 1 

Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 6 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Boswell, Hon. Leonard L., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa ........................................................................................................... 7 

Cole, Bruce, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, and Past Chairman, 

National Endowment for the Humanities ................................................... 57 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 58 

Cook, Rodney Mims, Jr., President, National Monuments Foundation ....... 52 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 54 

Eisenhower, Susan, Representing the Eisenhower Family ........................... 10 

Letters submitted for the record .............................................................. 12 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 18 

Guerin, William J., Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Construction 

Programs, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services 

Administration .............................................................................................. 26 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 30 

Reddel, Brig. Gen. Carl W., USAF (Ret.), Executive Director, Dwight 

D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission ........................................................ 34 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 37 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 42 

Segermark, Howard, Chairman Emeritus, Director, National Civic Art 

Society ............................................................................................................ 49 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 50 

Whitesell, Stephen E., Regional Director, National Capital Region, 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior ........................... 21 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23 

Additional materials supplied: 

Childs, David M., Architect, New York, New York, Letter submitted 

for the record ................................................................................................. 6 

Eisenhower, David, Letters submitted for the record ................................... 66 

Gehry, Frank, Gehry Partners LLP, Los Angeles, California, Letter 

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 4 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘THE PROPOSED 

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER MEMORIAL.’’ 

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 

Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bishop; Grijalva, Kildee, DeFazio, and 

Garamendi. 

Mr. BISHOP. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Public Lands is meeting today to hear testimony on the proposed 

Eisenhower Memorial. Under the Rules, the opening remarks are 

limited to the Chairman and Ranking Member. However, I ask 

unanimous consent to include any other Member’s opening statement in the hearing record if submitted to the Clerk by close of 

business today. And hearing no objections, so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. BISHOP. I would thank everyone who has agreed to testify 

today. Although today’s witnesses will express differing opinions on 

the proposed design, I know that everyone, critics and advocates 

alike, want a memorial, a monument, that truly honors President 

Eisenhower and helps future generations of Americans understand 

and appreciate his role in American history. 

To my staff, who actually started drafting notes for me, I want 

them to know that I was alive when President Eisenhower was 

elected, but I was still crawling, not necessarily that old. So most 

of my memories actually come from books that have been written 

about him, which is where many of us learned about the significant 

contribution of President and General Eisenhower. 

Some Members of Congress today probably served under General 

Eisenhower in World War II, and some served in Korea when he 

was President a half-century ago. But whether we come from personal memories or from our studies, he is to all of us a man who 

led our fathers and grandfathers in the crusade for Europe, and 

later the President who halted and contained Soviet expansion during the Cold War era. 

I do want to note that many lessons can be learned from his life. 

I just recently read a biography of President Eisenhower, which 

talked about when he was—I think he was still a lieutenant in the 

Army, and had his first child, and applied for and was given a 

housing increase supplement, only to find out, through one of the 

technicalities, he did not earn the supplement. 

2 

When he found out and his supervisors found out, they were 

chagrined. He offered to pay back the $250.67. Unfortunately, the 

Inspector General wanted a court-martial. Fortunately for this 

country and the world, some of his superiors realized there was 

potential in this young Army officer and did not have the same 

slavish adherence to rules that sometimes we find in bureaucracies 

in Washington today, and common sense prevailed. 

I say that only because we are going to go directly to a bill on 

the Floor today in which the issue is, do we have slavish adherence 

to rules or will common sense actually prevail? There is much that 

we can learn from this situation. 

I personally am excited. I have only three busts in my house. 

One of them is of President Eisenhower that we got in Abilene on 

one trip. 

Today we are going to review the progress that has been made 

in carrying out Congress’ call for the Eisenhower Memorial that 

would perpetuate his memory and his contributions to the United 

States. At today’s hearing we are going to hear from Susan Eisenhower, speaking on behalf of the Eisenhower family, and from representatives of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission, 

and Federal agencies that produced the current plan We will also 

hear from distinguished private citizens who have examined the 

proposal and want to express their views. 

This is perhaps a key moment in the course of this monument 

because the groundbreaking is scheduled to be imminent, and we 

must decide this year whether to go ahead with the current proposal or pause for future evaluations. The information and views 

we hear today will be invaluable to determining the course that we 

take. 

I am pleased to see that C-SPAN is televising this hearing because I like Ike, just as the American people like Ike, and I want 

them to hear about the Memorial directly from those who are involved in shaping it. 

When Mr. Grijalva, who is on his way, the Ranking Member of 

this Subcommittee appears, we will give him the opportunity to introduce his opening remarks. In lieu of that, we will ask our first 

witness who is here, who is Representative Boswell of Iowa, who 

I believe is a member of this Commission that is doing that, who 

has requested to give remarks. We are very pleased to have you 

here at our committee, Representative. 

Actually, you cannot speak yet, maybe. Mr. Boswell, we are really happy to have you here, and you are going to wait longer. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Well, thank you very much, Mr.—— 

Mr. BISHOP. But no, Mr. Boswell, you are going to have to wait 

because your colleague, Representative Grijalva, who is the Ranking Member, has arrived, and he has some opening remarks. And 

then we are going to turn to you, if that is OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Grijalva? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my apologies, Congressman, friend. Let me welcome all the guests and fellow ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 Mar 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 L:\DOCS\73488.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
3 

mittee Members. And I want to thank everyone that is going to be 

involved in testifying today. 

This is a very unusual hearing. I cannot help but feel that we 

are micromanaging something well outside our purview. Congress 

has a very limited role in this dilemma, controversy. 

The Eisenhower Memorial Commission was established in October of 1999 as part of the Department of Defense Appropriation 

Act. The Memorial has been following a very deliberate process established through the Commemorative Works Act of 1986. Eight 

members of the Eisenhower Commission were appointed by Congress, and we have done that part of our work. 

I am not an art critic. I doodle, but I do not consider it art. Some 

people value it as art, and they could be horribly mistaken because 

that is the point about beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 

This fresh new design for the Presidential Memorial has been reviewed by people with far more expertise than me. I look forward 

to receiving an update on the progress of the Commission and better understanding the source of the controversy surrounding the 

design. However, I do not think this subcommittee, the full Committee, or Congress is the appropriate place to litigate a memorial 

design or a potential family dispute. 

I have two letters to submit, Mr. Chairman, for the record, one 

from Frank Gehry, the renowned architect chosen to design the 

Memorial; another letter is from David Childs, the former Chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts. 

Again, let me thank everybody in advance for your testimony. 

And with that, if any remaining time, with the Chairman’s indulgence, if I could give that time to my colleague from California if 

he may have any opening statements, with your concurrence. 

Mr. BISHOP. Sure. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Rau ́ l M. Grijalva, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Good Morning to our guests and my fellow committee members. I want to thank 

you all for testifying today. 

This is a very unusual hearing—one that feels like micromanagement of something well outside our purview. Congress has a very limited role in this controversy. 

The Eisenhower Memorial Commission was established in October of 1999 as part 

of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. 

The memorial has been following a very deliberate process established through 

the Commemorative Works Act of 1986. 

Eight Members of the Eisenhower Commission are appointed by Congress. We 

have done our work. 

I am not an art critic. I draw—some people value it as art. The point is that the 

beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 

This fresh new design for a Presidential Memorial has been reviewed by people 

with far more expertise than me. I look forward to receiving an update on the 

progress of the Commission and better understanding the source of the controversy 

surrounding this design. 

However, I don’t think this subcommittee, this Committee, or Congress is the appropriate place to litigate a memorial design or a potential family dispute. 

I have two letters to submit for the record. 

One from Frank Gehry (Geer ee) the renowned architect chosen to design the memorial. 

Another letter is from David Childs, the former Chairman of the National Capital 

Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts. 

4 

Thank you again for your testimony. 

[The letters submitted by Mr. Grijalva follow:] 


73488.005.eps

Gehry Partners, LLP 

March 19,2012 

To: Representative Rob Bishop 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Bishop, 

rranK uenry 

Uri,an Aamoth 

John Bowers 

An.and Dc,,"arajan 

Jennifer Ehrman 

BCTta Gchry 

Meagh.l.n Lloyd 

Tcn~!J() Tak(,UJori 

laurence Tight" 

Craig \Vcbb 

I am sorry that I am not able to join you for this important hearing on the Eisenhower Memorial. I want 

to address a few misconceptions that I have read in the press regarding my design. 

The first one is regarding the artist Charles Ray. For the record, he is not currently nor has he ever been 

formally connected with the project. He is not the artist of the memorial nor will he ever be the artist of 

the memorial. 

Second, I would like to correct the mis-impression that some may have that the young boy is the only 

representation of Eisenhower in the memorial. I would like you to look at images of the bas relief 

sculptures that have been a part of the memorial since the competition winning entry. The bas reliefs 

celebrate President Eisenhower and General Eisenhower with larger than life imagery of him from both 

periods. In addition to this, we have proposed long excerpts from his Farewell Address and the Guild 

Hall Address carved in stone. The sculpture ofthe young man looking out on bas reliefs of his future 

accomplishments as Supreme Allied Commander and as president was intended to resonate with young 

school-age children to inspire them, to give them courage to pursue their dreams and to remind them that 

this great man started out just like them. It seemed appropriate to make this type of statement in front of 

the LBJ Department of Education building. My detractors say that I have missed the point, and that I am 

trying to diminish the stature of this great man. I assure you that my only intent is to celebrate and honor 

this world hero and visionary leader who did so much for our country and the world. I have worked 

closely with the Eisenhower Memorial Commission to make sure that the memorial appropriately honors 

President and General Eisenhower. Ifthe EMC and the family conclude that the sculpture of young 

Eisenhower is an inappropriate way to honor him, then T will be open to exploring other options with 

them. 

12541 Beatrice Street, Los Angeles, California 90066 

Tel: 310.482.3000 Fax; 310.482.3006 
5 


73488.006.eps

Gehry Partners, LLP 

After meeting with Anne and Susan Eisenhower in December of2011, they expressed concern that the 

memorial characterized President Eisenhower too modestly, The.y explained that their grandfather's 

modest persona had prevented several generations of people from understanding the true impact and 

legacy of Eisenhower, which is extraordinary. That conversation was impactful for me, and I have been 

exploring different design ideas that would allow me to introduce additional content such as a list of his 

presidential and military accomplishments, additional Eisenhower quotations, additional bas reliefs, etc. 

look to my commissioners, the historians and the family to direct me on the content of these additional 

blocks and the memorial generally. 

The third topic is the longevity and durability of the tapestries. From our first meeting with GSA, EMC 

and NPS, all three agencies have drilled into me how important it is that the tapestries were cleanable, 

durable and maintainable. My firm has done our due-diligence to verify the longevity and maintainability 

of the tapestries. The material science on stainless steel proves out that the material shows no corrosive 

effect in an advanced aging test which was conducted at an architectural testing laboratory. In terms of 

maintenance, it is clear that it will take a minimum of effort compared to other memorials in Washington 

DC. We have had many meetings with the NPS and GSA regarding the maintenance. Further to this, we 

have created a strategy for accessing all surfaces of the tapestries for general cleaning and 

maintenance. This system will make it very easy for NPS staff to regularly access the tapestries. 

On the fourth topic regarding the family, I have always been and continue to be open to talking with the 

family about the design. I have had many great meetings with David, Susan and Anne Eisenhower, and I 

look forward to meeting with them again to discuss their concerns; to understand their perspective; and to 

explore their ideas and advice. 

My only intcrcst is creating a monument to a great man who served our country so selflessly and who was 

a great champion of the American way. 

Best regards, 

Frank Gehry 

12541 Beatrice Street, Los Angeles, California 90066 

Tel: 310.482.3000 Fax: 310.482.3006 
6 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, if I might, first of all I am really 

looking forward to this hearing. I agree with the Ranking Member 

that we really ought not make design questions here. There are 

others that are far more capable of doing that, and the Commission 

has it. 


73488.007.eps
7 

But it would seem to me that our purpose ought to be to make 

sure this gets done, that we get this Memorial underway, and that 

it become available for the general public to memorialize and to remind us of the incredible contributions that this man made, together with millions of other Americans during World War II, before, and after, in his Presidency. 

So we get on with the hearing here. Art is always controversial, 

and certainly memorials—to this day, some on the monument remain controversial. But it ought to be our task to sort out any 

delays that there may be and the causes of those delays, and what 

we can do to get this project underway and completed. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

All right. Leonard, we have done our formal work here. We now 

turn five minutes to you for any remarks you may have. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LEONARD L. BOSWELL, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Mr. BOSWELL. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Bishop 

and Ranking Member Grijalva. I appreciate it, and it is good to be 

here. 

I kind of felt like, as this came about, that I probably might appreciate having a little comment from somebody on the Commission. I was not on the Commission when it first started. I was appointed to it after it had been started, and I will talk about that 

a little bit. 

I would like to make two points, and I want you to hear, to know, 

that the Commission has done what Congress has asked it to do. 

It has been engaged. And second, it has followed the policies and 

procedures set forth. So I will say that. And they have been working on it for about 10 years, as you have already made that point, 

and I believe you are right. It is time to get it done, and we must 

move forward. 

The Commission has received 63 million in Federal funding, and 

about half of that has been spent. And so that gives you a little 

perspective there. 

I think what I would like to do is just kind of give you my testimony of what I feel about it. But first off, I am very delighted to 

have family here, the sisters. I got to meet them not too long ago, 

and read about them, and I am just very impressed and very appreciative of your love and your personal care for a great, great 

American. 

When I came to the Commission, it was kind of interesting. I 

served—by the way, I was World War II; I just got white hair, in 

case you are wondering, or Korea, but I did make it to Vietnam a 

couple times. But so much for that. But before that, I spent a tour 

in Germany. 

I was a young lieutenant right out of OCS, and our assignment 

was in what we referred to as the Fulda Gap. That is where the 

tanks were going to come, and that was where we, as members of 

the 8th Division, were going to be to meet them. We spent half of 

our—for four years, not continuously, but we spent probably half 

of our time out there preparing, maneuvers, training, and so on. 

8 

And I got very interested in this guy named Eisenhower, and I 

became one that I, too, I liked Ike. And I knew a lot about him. 

And I went to some of the places, whether it was in Belgium or 

wherever it was, when I had the opportunity. I was there for four 

years. And I continued to grow such an admiration for this great, 

great person. And historically, he can never, ever be forgotten. And 

this Memorial on his behalf is something that needs to be done, 

and it is long overdue. And it has got to be right. 

But coming from South-Central Iowa, and probably, as the crow 

flies, maybe less than 200 miles from Abilene and so on, when I 

was deployed to Vietnam the first time, I went from Fort Riley, 

which is very nearby. So my family and I, we went over to visit 

there from time to time, and I took guests there, and the appreciation for this gentleman that came out of that part of our country— 

right from the heartland, really—and read about him. 

I ended up being a student, and then later an instructor, at the 

Command General Staff College, and studied the things that took 

place. And the Department of Tactics, had a lot of classes and reviewed some of the decisions and so on that General Eisenhower, 

the Supreme Commander, made, the leadership. Read a lot of material. 

And then fast-forward to when I am appointed to the Commission. And so I go to the first meeting, and I realize that they have 

been operating and they have been—first, I got one, oh, we are 

meeting the charter. I may have to have an extra minute, Mr. 

Chairman, I will just tell you right now; I hope you will consider 

that. 

But anyway, I saw the first idea, and I thought, I am sure about 

this. And here was this statue of a young man, and these great displays of the globe, looking over the country, and with the troops, 

and so on. I was not sure. 

And I got to thinking about it, and talking to some of my staff 

and different ones. And before, I had read some of the things that 

the designers and architect had come up with, and came to this 

conclusion: A lot of young people of this country go to the Space 

Museum. It seems to be the highest attraction. 

And I just all of a sudden realized what a site, what a spot, for 

Eisenhower to be right there where youngsters would come out of 

that museum, and it would just be natural, it seemed like, to walk 

across the street and see what could happen in a person’s life. 

And I make no comparison of Leonard Boswell to Eisenhower at 

all. But I was born in a tenant farmhouse, and got to enjoy the 

American dream. And I do not have time to tell you what that 

means to me. But here is an example of the American dream. Who 

would have ever thought Abilene, Kansas, somebody would end up 

as Supreme Allied Commander and President of this great country? 

And did a wonderful job in both places. 

And so I started really falling in love with this concept, where 

a youngster today could come out of that Space Museum, where 

they go there by the thousands, and go across the street and see 

there is an example of what can happen if you apply yourself and 

learn and prepare. Who knows what might happen to you in your 

American dream? 

9 

So I am just very impressed with this. I think it is terribly important that we continue to talk with the family, which you are 

going to hear about today, and the other members, because of this 

great moment to have a memorial to a great, great American. 

Every now and then I am still reminded of some of his wisdom. 

We probably all think about the little advice about the military-industrial complex and many, many, other things. 

But I just want you to know that I think the Commission is taking it very serious, the responsibility that the Congress gave them. 

And they want to do it in the most possible, best manner they can 

to reflect this great American. Among the greatest, no question 

about it. 

And so I will just say that I cannot speak for them, but I can 

say this from getting acquainted with the other members. They are 

very serious about it, very sincere, and want to get the job done, 

and be cognizant of the needs and satisfaction, of course, of the 

family, absolutely. 

So I think we are ready to move on, and want to do this in the 

best possible way. And I just want to say to you that I feel it is 

an honor and privilege that Leonard Boswell, born in a tenant 

farmhouse, gets to be here today and bear testimony and make 

comment, that I am just proud to be part of the memory of Dwight 

Eisenhower. 

I was out to Abilene just on the way back from visiting our children, and I will close, last December. And I said to my wife, I 

would like to just stop another time. We had been there, but it had 

been a few years. And we just went down there and sat on the 

grounds. We did not have a lot of time. And I shared with her some 

of the things that I probably had not before, back when I was instructing at Command General Staff College and walking the 

grounds where Ike had walked, and then reflecting on where he 

had come from and what he accomplished. Because he exercised 

and took advantage of the American dream. 

So with that, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for listening to me and 

letting me run overtime. I apologize for that, but not too much, because we are talking about a great guy. And with that, I will close 

and leave you to your work. You have some great testimony coming 

forward, different ones, Susan and others, Carl, people I have great 

respect for. And thank you for your efforts to spend this time today 

as well. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BISHOP. Congressman, thank you for being here with us. Do 

not worry about running overtime; I will take it out of Rau ́l’s time. 

That is appropriate here. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Appreciate it. We would also invite you, if you would 

like to stay with us on the dais and participate with the rest of this 

hearing, you may. I realize you have a busy schedule and probably 

this may not be acceptable to you. But the invitation is there regardless. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you very much. I may go for a moment and 

come back. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BISHOP. That will work as well. Thank you. 

The next panel we would like to bring up—we have, I think, 

seven seats there, seven individuals who will be able to talk to us. 

10 

I am sorry. The second panel, because I do not have enough seats 

up there after all, is Ms. Susan Eisenhower, who will be representing the Eisenhower family. 

So Ms. Eisenhower, if we can have you come up to the microphone. And then we will have enough room for everyone else that 

happens to be there at the time. 

Once again, any written testimony that you may have or present 

or wish to present will be included in the record, as will be the letters that the Ranking Member mentioned earlier will be added 

without objection to the record. We appreciate it. 

The timing device in front of you, for you and everyone else who 

will be speaking, is obviously—the green light signifies that we 

have it started, the yellow light signifies you have one minute left, 

and the red is when the time is expired. We are ready to hear your 

oral comments. We hope you can limit them to the five minutes, 

is possible. 

Ms. Eisenhower, thank you so very much for joining us. The time 

is yours. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN EISENHOWER, 

REPRESENTING THE EISENHOWER FAMILY 

Ms. EISENHOWER. Thank you very much, Chairman Bishop, 

Ranking Member Grijalva, distinguished Members of the Committee. I would like to first acknowledge my sister Anne Eisenhower, who is with me here today. 

Let me say that the Eisenhower family is grateful to Congress 

for designating that an Eisenhower Memorial be built, and we 

would like to thank you personally for your leadership in convening 

this hearing. It will allow us a frank and open exchange of views. 

We as a family are committed to seeing that the building of a 

memorial to Dwight Eisenhower be done in an open, democratic, 

and transparent way. This is what Ike would have wanted. We 

have been gratified by the public debate that has finally begun, 

and we are grateful to all of those who have worked on the Commission and worked on the Memorial, especially Mr. Frank Gehry, 

who has graciously interacted with members of the Eisenhower 

family. 

The public debate has demonstrated that the American people 

overwhelmingly endorse a memorial, but they are saying it is time 

to go back to the drawing board, and we agree. Aside from all the 

things that have been said in the press and on the internet, we 

have been inundated as family members with letters about the 

unmet challenge of creating a fitting memorial. 

Given this, Mr. Chairman, the Eisenhower family sees no alternative but to suggest two remedies: one, to redesign the Eisenhower Memorial, and two, to call on the Eisenhower Memorial 

Commission to review its staff management and stakeholder policies. First let me address myself to the design. 

Great monuments in our country make simple statements that 

encapsulate the reason the memorial has been erected in the first 

place. George Washington is remembered as the Father of Our 

Country. The Lincoln Memorial declares that he saved the Union. 

The monument to Christopher Columbus at Union Station says he 

gave to mankind a New World. 

11 

One of the main flaws of the current proposal is that Eisenhower’s contribution to this Nation is not the central theme of the 

design. Instead of the focus on Eisenhower the Liberator, the Commander who led the largest military operation in the history of 

warfare, and Eisenhower the President who championed freedom 

and prosperity, the narrative relies on a romantic Horatio Alger notion, a young Eisenhower viewing his future career. The Eisenhower our Nation wants to celebrate is not a dreamy boy but a real 

man who faced unthinkable choices, took personal responsibility, 

and did his duty with modesty and humility. 

Symbolism will also place a vital nonverbal role in capturing the 

essence of Ike’s contribution. But we have heard from many people 

in the last months who have objections to the 80-foot metal mesh 

so-called tapestries. Despite the Eisenhower Memorial Commission’s references to this ancient tradition, modern tapestries have 

generally been found in the Communist world. Marx, Engels, Lenin 

hung in Moscow during Ike’s time, as did Mao Zedong in Beijing 

and Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi. 

A number of other people have mentioned that these towering 

metal scrims are, in effect, an iron curtain. If this is how it symbolically strikes people, could the cylindrical columns also be seen 

as missile silos? 

The number of people, including Holocaust survivors, who have 

contacted me is notable, and they have said that the metal curtains 

are reminiscent of internment. One survivor told me that the chain 

link ‘‘fences’’ reminded her of the camps. 

The proposed metal curtains are to provide a screen that would 

partially obscure the Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education. We have been concerned, and others would agree, that this 

could be seen as a symbolic affront to one of Eisenhower’s contemporaries, the Majority Leader of the Senate during his presidency. 

We do not think that the design team thought of these things in 

advance. Frankly, nor did we for a while. But the public criticism 

does underscore the importance of context with respect to Eisenhower’s life and times. 

In addition, we are concerned that the metal scrims will pose 

maintenance issues, especially in these budget constrained times. 

Any high wind would assure that leaves and trash could easily be 

caught in the metal gaps, requiring constant upkeep. The same can 

be said of interactive technology. 

So now let me address myself briefly to process. From the earliest days, the Eisenhower family has been calling for a memorial 

that is simple and one that focuses on Eisenhower’s achievements. 

My father, John S.D. Eisenhower, Ike’s sole heir and executor of 

his will, wrote to this effect. I have submitted the letter for the 

record. 

The Memorial Commission, however, has repeatedly suggested 

that, among other things, the Eisenhower family is not united in 

its views. I am also submitting a statement today from my brother 

David for the record. 

[The two letters described by Ms. Eisenhower follow:] 

12 


73488.003.eps 73488.004.eps

December 19, 2011 

Mrs. Anne Illisenbowex: Ml::liI. S'Wllan miaenhower 

Anne Ei~enhower, Xno 

I have the. impression that thers are rumors of dissension in 

the f~ilyregarding the nature of the proposed Eisenhower 

Memorial i~ Washington. As you know, I am totally behind you both 

and Mary in the, efforts you ·,jl.re 'malti'nlJ .:e.s.;nave ourrent proposals 

re~ex_ine4 in a del;l.berate/1I.nd t~orcugh'::lM.nner. And, your 

brother. David, a:rtic:ula.ted',hi. ',.upp~rt,:~s:l~'~YOUl:' leacle;crdlip in 

his reoent, resignation letter to the Eisenhower Memorial 

Commission. 

We·'.re, agreed that the proposed memorial should be as aimple 

as possibl~ ~~ 'endapsu1ate. as ~oh as aan be done in • tone. the 

acoomplis~ents 'and principles of your grandfather. Dwight D. 

Eisenhower. 

F:1'riall'i!'j- r 'WOUld like to express my appreciation of the 

enthusiastic way all four of the Eisenhower gran~chil~ren have 

worked in'allmat~~rs concerning Ike's plaoe in history. 

:S~~ 

I SErved on thn Dwjght D. Eisenhower Memori~1 Comrulssion from it~ 

tncfJ)tion \11']tll \)ecemhClr of 2011 in the de-facto role of ::I!presontl ng 

Lhe- Eisenhower [llII\ily 01']. the Commi/:!l101) and a5 a regular l'rel>ident1al 

ilPPC lntae whose responsibility Wt.lS to work. witb his fClllow 

comnissioners to ensurn that the memori~'izatlon process moved forw~rd. 

During the selection proc9$s tor an architect, a number oJ! .. jurors .. Including mysel! ~upportAd another architectural firm and did not vote 

\.0 select Mr. Gehry liS the architoct. Once tho Gell1"Y r.i.rm wu cl\Osen, 

however, I supported ef!orts to ~ssure that a memorial be built. During 

my tenure, tha c~issioner!\ were always assur.ed lhat the deSigns werc e~ol~in9, ~nd that thera was plenLy ot time for consultation. 

nc:ce.-.tly, when Mr. Gehr)( was tl"lld tllDt he could not u.!Ie the Eisenhower 

imaqes on the metal scrims, T generally supported tho idea of a Kansas 

landscape. However. i did not know the deLails of how Lhe "barefoot 

boy" theme was developing and t recognized the need to be in full cons~ltQtlon ~lth the r.est o! my family. Since the July 2011 

Commission meeting. when a final vote on Lhe deSign wa~ deferred, we as 

II .fanily have discussed the design ulld tho concept ex!:ensively. ! 1.\111 in 

full supporL o£ tho f~mily's decision to share our concerns with the 

pUblic, and I endorse the £amily's offorts Lo gain & thorouQh review of 

tb:',"«"'~~~O'"'''' 

50~E~~ / 

March 18,2012 

Berwvn Pa 
13 

Ms. EISENHOWER. The Eisenhower family publicly intervened 

when we learned that the design concept was evolving—we knew 

it was evolving, but suddenly it was slated for fast-track review 

and a late spring groundbreaking. We are concerned about a 

groundbreaking before the money and full funds are raised, and we 

would oppose it if the gap is too large. This will be a public/private 

partnership, so getting the funding element of this correct is very 

important. 

We now believe that a redesign will be the only way to make this 

Memorial acceptable to the American people so that it can garner 

that support. Going forward, it will be critical that the Eisenhower 

Memorial Commission staff do a much better job of engaging the 

memorial stakeholders, the most important one being the American 

people. It will be their memorial, after all, and it will express not 

just the Nation’s esteem for Eisenhower’s leadership, but it will reflect who we are as a people and what part of this common legacy 

we want to leave for future generations. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Eisenhower follows:] 

Statement of Susan Eisenhower, Representing the Eisenhower Family 

Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Members: 

I would like to thank you, on behalf of the Eisenhower family, for convening this 

hearing on the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial. Such hearings can play a vital role 

in the memorialization process, and we thank you for your leadership in addressing 

the public interest. 

While some people may see little value in holding Congressional hearings on the 

current memorial design, all of us will benefit from a candid exchange of views. We, 

as a family, are committed to seeing that the building of a memorial to Dwight Eisenhower is done in an open, democratic and transparent way. This is what Ike 

would have wanted. He believed that public engagement and support is a crucial 

element in assuring any successful process and in meeting any collective objective. 

Let me also say that my family is most grateful to the Eisenhower Memorial Commission, the General Services Administration and the National Park Service—as 

well as Mr. Frank Gehry, for the efforts he and they have made in bringing the memorial to this stage. 

Mr. Chairman, On June 12, 1945, Dwight Eisenhower stood on the balcony of 

London’s Guildhall, where he was to receive the Freedom of the City of London. Europe lay in ruins. More than 15 million people in the Western part of continent had 

perished, not counting the 25 million Soviets who died on the Eastern Front. Eisenhower, who had victoriously commanded the largest military operation in the history of warfare, stood before millions of cheering Londoners. He spoke of the war 

and the collective effort to defeat Nazism. Without notes Eisenhower began his 

speech. ‘‘Humility,’’ he said, ‘‘must always be the portion of any man who receives 

acclaim earned in the blood of his followers and the sacrifices of his friends.’’ 

These simple words, crafted without the help of a speech writer, give us a guide 

for capturing the essence of World War II’s Supreme Commander of Allied Expeditionary Forces, Europe and later our nation’s two-term president. 

Eisenhower was born in the era of the horse and buggy. He ushered in the space 

age. Though his life straddled these two different periods in technological achievement and national life, he was a man who revered tradition and was grounded in 

the classics. Eisenhower had the capacity to inspire people of differing viewpoints 

to forge a common purpose, even in the most fractious, complex and perilous circumstances. It is these qualities, in the context of his achievements, which we hope 

will be memorialized. 

The Eisenhower family has two major concerns about the development of the Eisenhower Memorial at this particular point. One is the proposed design and concept 

and the other is the process that has brought us to this place. In both cases we see 

no alternative but to ask for strong remedies. 

We propose that the Eisenhower Memorial be redesigned and we call on the Eisenhower Memorial Commission to undergo a top down review of its staff management practices, with the goal of streamlining its operations, reviewing its stakeVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 Mar 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\73488.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
14 

holder policies, and reengaging in a meaningful way with the Eisenhower Legacy 

organizations, many of which were founded by Dwight Eisenhower himself. 

A Monumental Imperative 

We have been heartened by the robust public debate on how best to remember 

Dwight Eisenhower. Stories have appeared in newspapers from our country’s largest 

cities to some of our smallest towns, and all across the internet. Since an active public debate began at the end of last year, comments from the public and the pundits 

have made wide-ranging points. Many of them have underscored what we have always known: great monuments in our country make simple statements that encapsulate the reason the memorial has been erected. George Washington is remembered as ‘‘the Father of our Country;’’ The Lincoln Memorial declares that he ‘‘He 

saved the Union;’’ the monument to Christopher Columbus in front of Union Station 

says: ‘‘[He] gave to mankind a new world.’’ 

One of the main flaws of the current proposal for the Eisenhower Memorial is 

that Eisenhower’s contribution to this nation is not the central theme of the design. 

The narrative is muddled and never really gives us the ‘‘bottom line’’ phrase that 

articulates his contribution to the nation. 

The current design calls for eighty-foot metal curtains to be suspended from columns of the same height, scattered on a four-acre site. These are approximately 

eight stories high, or the size of a typical office building. The metal curtains are designed to create a new kind of public square. Originally the metal scrims were to 

depict images of Eisenhower in his lifetime, but on the request of the approval authorities the Eisenhower Memorial Commission and Gehry and Associates were 

asked to find something ‘‘more artistic.’’ 

The current design now depicts a Kansas landscape. In the shadow of this three 

sided enclosure, a young life-size Eisenhower—his age is now currently under discussion—would be sculpted. Atop a stone ledge he is to sit ‘‘dreaming’’ of his future 

roles as Supreme Allied Commander and as a two-term president. Two well-known 

photographs would illustrate Eisenhower’s accomplishments in bas relief. 

Proponents of the young Eisenhower believe that children will be inspired by seeing themselves in the design-element’s young Eisenhower. I wonder about this 

premise. Children are not impressed by children. They want to be Super Heroes. 

Perhaps that is why a visit to the Lincoln Memorial in one’s youth remains a memory. The Lincoln Memorial is awe inspiring. 

Despite the fact that recently released EMC documents show the bas reliefs as 

‘‘monumental,’’ the metal curtains dominate and define the space. They set Eisenhower’s life in the context of his upbringing, not in the context of the times in which 

he lead this country against fascism and communism—movements that posed existential threats to this country and our allies. 

The Horatio Alger-like narrative that Eisenhower grew up to ‘‘make good’’ is a 

slight on the countless millions of people, during World War II and the Cold War, 

whose very existence were directly affected by Eisenhower’s decisions. Menachem 

Rosensaft, Vice President of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors 

and Their Descendants, wrote me of this: ‘‘I grew up revering first General then 

President Eisenhower as the commander of the liberating armies that enabled my 

parents to live.’’ 

Eisenhower’s professional assignments carried none of the romantic notion that 

is embodied in the current memorial concept and design. He was the person tapped 

to end the horrors of a Nazi-occupied Europe and later to lead the United States 

and her allies to halt communist aggression and avoid nuclear Armageddon. The 

man we celebrate is not a dreamy boy, but a real man who faced unthinkable 

choices, took personal responsibility and did his duty—with modesty and humanity. 

The debate on this memorial has produced a groundswell of support for the idea 

of an Eisenhower Memorial while, at the same, expressing overwhelming opposition 

to the proposed concept and design. What has been seen in the newspapers and online is only piece of it. My family has been inundated with expressions of support 

for a reconceptutialization of the memorial and a redesign of its elements. 

So where do we go from here? 

The task is to articulate Eisenhower’s leadership and courage to future generations, and symbolically express his contribution to this nation. Exciting ideas have 

been suggested by many. 

Aviva Kempner, a film producer and Washingtonian whose mother was a Holocaust survivor, wrote me: ‘‘For us, Ike was the leader of the free world against tyranny. That is always how we will remember him and honor him. . .General Eisenhower was a revered name in our home and not a boy walking in the rye.’’ 

A Washington resident, born and raised in Great Britain, also wrote me, wondering how Eisenhower’s background could be the theme of this memorial: ‘‘When 

15 

I think of my own father flying scores of missions in WWII as a British bomber 

pilot, the sacrifice of countless Americans, the millions of Russians and Jews who 

died, etc. . .we should be memorializing what Eisenhower THE MAN did to overcome the horror of that time...’’ 

‘‘Liberator,’’ an African American colleague suggested, while reflecting not just on 

the war but on the desegregation of Washington DC and the armed forces—both 

early Eisenhower administration accomplishments. ‘‘Champion of Peace and Prosperity,’’ a New Yorker wrote. As president, Eisenhower managed to pay down America’s enormous WWII debt and balance the budget three times in eight years. He 

left his successor with a budget surplus, while modernizing America for the future. 

The Challenge 

Getting the conceptual narrative right is hard enough, but symbolism plays an 

equally vital non-verbal role. In this case, the design is on even shakier ground. 

We’ve heard from many people who object to the symbolism the metal curtains represent. 

Billboards: My sister, Anne, and I enjoyed our one-on-one time with ‘‘Granddad,’’ 

as we called Ike. Both of us recall that on completely separate occasions Granddad 

told us that he ‘‘hated billboards.’’ This inevitably occurred just as one of us would 

be driving with him in the area around Gettysburg, Pennsylvania where our grandparents lived in retirement. Billboards advertised tourist venues but, in his view, 

they marred the beauty of the landscape and cheapened that hallowed ground. 

Modern Tapestries: The design team at Gehry and Associates and the Eisenhower 

Memorial Commission has made a habit of referring to the metal curtains as ‘‘tapestries,’’ referencing the tradition to place great people and events on woven material. This may be true of the Middle Ages, but noteworthy modern tapestries are 

those in the Communist world. Tapestries honoring Marx, Engels and Lenin used 

to hang in Red Square; Mao Zedong could be found in Tiananmen Square; and Ho 

Chi Minh’s tapestry hung from public buildings in Hanoi—to name a few. 

Iron Curtain: Other critics have noted that we will be putting up an ‘‘Iron Curtain 

to Ike.’’ Given this symbolism, could the proposed cylindrical columns also be misconstrued as symbols of missile silos? 

Fencing: Unfortunately, in the geo-political context, ‘‘fencing’’ has always had negative connotations. Not long after the debate on the Eisenhower Memorial began, 

a woman whose mother had survived Auschwitz approached me. She begged me to 

continue our efforts to get the memorial redesigned. Her mother, she told me, said 

the metal mesh scrims reminded her of the chain link fences in ‘‘the camps.’’ Three 

other people also contacted me with concerns about the same symbolic message. 

An Unnecessary Divide: The proposed metal curtains are to provide a screen that 

would obscure the Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education. This is a symbolic affront to one of Eisenhower’s contemporaries and the Majority Leader of the 

Senate during the Eisenhower presidency. 

My family and I do not believe for a moment that the design team envisioned that 

these metal scrims would evoke such reactions, nor do we think it was intentional. 

The potential for an unfortunate interpretation or association, however, has been established. Context does matter, and it took this vital public debate to see the pejorative symbolism that some Americans could see, from the outset, in the design. 

Not the Memorial At All? Once the metal curtains became a controversy, the Eisenhower Memorial staff said in the national media that the so-called ‘‘tapestries’’ 

were ‘‘not the memorial’’—only the backdrop. Since these metal scrims are symbolically inappropriate and since they also constitute the biggest expense—not to mention the greatest cost of future maintenance—we believe this is another reason why 

they should be eliminated as a design element. 

Even if all the symbolic issues could be mitigated, these metal scrims are more 

suitable for a temporary exhibition than they are for a memorial that must last in 

perpetuity. Sustainability is a central goal in nearly every other avenue of modern 

life today—why shouldn’t a memorial for the 21st century reflect this? The last few 

decades of limitless excess are over. Our 21st century challenge is to find simpler 

more elegant ways to express ourselves. 

It is easy to imagine that eighty-foot metal mesh curtains would require constant 

maintenance. Any high wind would assure that everything from leaves to trash 

could easily get caught in the metal gaps. It is hard to imagine that the National 

Park Service would be equipped to handle the constant cleaning, especially at the 

higher reaches of the scrims. 

Current plans for interactive technology are also unlikely to remain current. We 

continue to live in a time of technological revolution. Why make this story telling 

aspect of the memorial redundant before it has even been installed? There are other 

ways to tell the story of Eisenhower’s life and times—a number of Eisenhower LegVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 Mar 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\73488.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
16 

acy organizations, most specifically the Eisenhower Foundation that is associated 

with the Eisenhower Library and Museum in Abilene, Kansas, do an excellent job 

of this. 

In sum, these factors have had a significant impact on the thinking of many people, including my family. A redesign should be sensitive to the context of Eisenhower’s times, and avoid any elements that could be misconstrued as an Iron Curtain, concentration camp chain-link fences, or any other negative imagery from 

those turbulent and dangerous times. Any new design should also make sustainability one of its central goals. 

Process is critical 

The Eisenhower family has interacted with the Eisenhower Memorial Commission 

since its inception in 1999. My brother David Eisenhower was appointed by President Clinton to serve as the family representative on it. My other siblings, Anne 

and Mary, and I attended many meetings as interested parties, as well as conduits 

for our father John Eisenhower’s views. He is Dwight Eisenhower’s sole heir and 

executor of his will. I attach his letter for the record. 

From the Commission’s earliest days we have been concerned about its direction 

and we have spoken about it forthrightly. In the beginning, the memorial was 

planned to be both a physical memorial and a living memorial, which was to tell 

the Eisenhower story and to enhance the educational and leadership development 

mission of a number of Eisenhower Legacy organizations. The E–Memorial, which 

was created by the Commission, sidestepped the most important of the Eisenhower 

Legacy organizations, located in such states as Pennsylvania, New York and Kansas. The result has been a deterioration of the Commission staff’s relationships with 

the Eisenhower Legacy organizations that are the largest and oldest in the community. While there have been recent attempts to heal the breach, much work remains 

to be done. 

The Eisenhower family’s relationship with the Commission staff is also more 

strained today than ever before—in large measure because of the decisions the staff 

made in this current debate. Unfortunately, they have persisted in suggesting that 

the Eisenhower family is not united on the Eisenhower Memorial design. I have 

tried to set the record straight numerous times on my website: 

www.susaneisenhower.com, but they have continued to assert otherwise. The following, then, is hereby entered for the record. My brother David has submitted a 

statement to, once and for all, settle the question. 

*** 

I served on the Eisenhower Memorial Commission from its inception until December of 2011 in the de-facto role of representing the Eisenhower family on the Dwight 

D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission and as a regular Presidential appointee whose 

responsibility was to work with his fellow commissioners to ensure that the memorialization process moved forward. 

During the selection process for an architect, a number of ‘‘jurors’’ including myself supported another architectural firm and did not vote to select Mr. Gehry as 

the architect. Once the Gehry firm was chosen, however, I supported efforts to assure that a memorial be built. During my tenure, the commissioners were always 

assured that the designs were evolving, and that there was plenty of time for consultation. 

Recently, when Mr. Gehry was told that he could not use the Eisenhower images 

on the metal scrims, I generally supported the idea of a Kansas landscape. However, 

I did not know the details of how the ‘‘barefoot boy’’ theme was developing and I 

recognized the need to be in full consultation with the rest of my family. Since the 

July 2011 Commission meeting, when a final vote on the design was deferred, we 

as a family have discussed the design and the concept extensively. I am in full support of the family’s decision to share our concerns with the public, and I endorse 

the family’s efforts to gain a thorough review of the currently proposed design, including a redesign. 

David Eisenhower 

March 18, 2012 

Berwyn Pa. 

*** 

When members of the Eisenhower family first saw the proposal to place Kansas 

on the metal curtains with a focus on Ike a young boy, we had varying responses. 

But as the spring of 2011 turned into the summer, small differences over how to 

proceed, turned into a unified sense of urgency to get the concept and design 

changed. 

17 

From the outset of this memorialization process, my family has repeatedly expressed its desire to see something simple and in keeping with Eisenhower’s character and values. In addition, we argued for a process that would accommodate a 

competition from range of architects specializing in different genres. 

When it was clear that the architectural firm, Skidmore, Ownings and Merrill, 

which is known for its modernistic approach, was chosen to develop the Pre-Design 

Architectural Program, we understood that the Commission was going to handle 

these matters in an entirely different way. 

We intervened behind the scenes when we discovered that the review process was 

being ‘‘fast-tracked.’’ This was a surprise to us in light of the fact that the July 2011 

Commission meeting ended without a formal vote on the design concept. Chairman 

Siciliano declared that the memorial concept and design were still evolving. (To our 

knowledge this was the last full Commission meeting that has been held.) Despite 

our concerns that the memorial design was being pushed through the review process, we were told only that they would keep us informed. As a result we issued a 

statement in November 2011, expressing our concerns about the ‘‘size, scale and 

scope’’ of the memorial proposal. 

Today’s hearing, and possibly others in the future, gives us an opportunity think 

again about how best to memorialize Dwight Eisenhower. There should be some specific conditions, however. The Eisenhower family will adamantly oppose any groundbreaking for this memorial that occurs before it is absolutely clear that the financing for the project is in place. 

Given the controversy surrounding the design and given the amount of private 

money that needs to be raised, we believe this current plan cannot be successfully 

funded. Unless a new concept and design are developed, this process could languish 

amid increasing contention. The public has spoken. It is time to go back to the 

drawing board. 

As we move forward, why not find new ways to gain the wisdom of the American 

people and ‘‘buy in’’ from the countless people who have expressed an interest in 

finding a fitting memorial to Eisenhower? 

Conclusion: 

Eisenhower family is indebted to Congress for designating that an Eisenhower 

Memorial be built. The family is committed to playing its role in assuring that the 

process and the design reflect an open and transparent process that Ike believed 

was critical to the sound functioning of our democracy. If Eisenhower was great it 

was not just because of what he did, but also because of how he did it. Just as the 

memorial must reflect the values and principles of its subject, the process must 

emulate the man for whom the memorial is being built. 

Going forward, there needs to be a much more open response to stakeholder 

input. Stakeholders are not just members of the Eisenhower family, military veterans, survivors of the Holocaust and their families, Cold War refugees or people 

connected to the Eisenhower Administration, Eisenhower Legacy organizations—or 

even residents of Ike’s home state—as important as we are. The most important 

stakeholders of all are the American people, especially rising generations who will 

be the future of this country. 

It took well more than three designs to produce the FDR Memorial we have today. 

We should not be afraid of getting this right. In rethinking the memorial we now 

have an opportunity to find ways to inspire visitors who will come to this place. Eisenhower led the free world when America became the world’s greatest superpower. 

He brought the country through some of the most dangerous chapters of the 20th 

century. 

‘‘Eisenhower’s talents,’’ wrote Jonathan Tobin in Commentary, ‘‘were exactly what 

both our republic and the world needed at a moment when everything hung in the 

balance...’’ 

The Eisenhower Memorial can and should be a reflection, not only of Eisenhower’s 

lifetime achievements, and the challenging and dangerous times in which he led us; 

it should also be anthem to our national purpose. As General Eisenhower said in 

his Guildhall address—the wartime victory was a common one. And he carried that 

humility to the White House. The peace and prosperity of the Eisenhower years 

were also America’s success. 

The Eisenhower Memorial we leave will express not just of our esteem for his 

leadership, but it will reflect who we are as a people—and what part of this legacy 

we want to leave for future generations. 

18 

Responses to questions submitted for the record by Susan Eisenhower 

1. With respect to the ‘‘E–Memorial’’ concept, what was your role in the 

grant awarded to the Eisenhower World Affairs Institute and what was 

the product of the funding? 

The Eisenhower Institute, under my direction, was tasked to convene meetings 

with the Eisenhower Legacy Organizations (ELOs) for looking at ways to cooperate 

among ourselves on an array of programs. The potential for programming, which 

would link the institutions that Dwight Eisenhower or his colleagues built, became 

the foundation for the idea of a living memorial. On March 25, 2004, the Eisenhower Memorial Commission (EMC) passed a resolution that established both a 

physical memorial and a living one, which would benefit and utilize the programming of the Eisenhower Legacy Organizations. In my role, I helped obtain a grant 

from the Eisenhower Memorial Commission to the Eisenhower Institute for the purposes of fleshing out the details of what this living memorial component might look 

like. 

On securing the grant, I stepped down from my position at the Institute to assure 

that there would be no suggestion that I was personally benefitting in any way from 

the grant. The task of convening the groups and hammering out the ELO’s proposal 

to the commission fell to the new director, James McCall. After considerable work, 

the proposal was submitted to the Eisenhower Memorial Commission on May 31, 

2005—with a cover letter from the Chairman of the Eisenhower Institute Board, 

General Brent Scowcroft. 

The Eisenhower Memorial Commission staff, and perhaps the commission’s chairman, reviewed the study and apparently decided to reject the ELO’s proposal. The 

EMC gave little if no encouragement to the legacy organizations to reconfigure their 

proposal—in fact a number of developments between the ELOs and the EMC staff 

led to an eventual collapse of this process. 

Thereafter, the Eisenhower Memorial Commission began establishing an E–Memorial, effectively sidelining the legacy organizations. Today, the ELOs—the organizations that Dwight Eisenhower or his friends and his cabinet established in his 

name—have been all but excluded from the E–Memorial. 

2. Do the legacy organizations have a relationship with the Eisenhower 

Memorial Commission? 

For the last several years there has been virtually no contact between the Eisenhower Memorial Commission staff and the ELOs. In fact considerable friction has 

occurred because the EMC staff has been using the legacy organization’s contacts 

for their own purposes. The atmosphere between the two groups is very negative. 

The most challenging situation is for the Eisenhower Foundation, founded by 

Dwight Eisenhower himself. Located in Abilene, Kansas, the organization that supports programming and exhibits at the Library is being revitalized. But the Memorial Commission staff has persistently taken steps that could potentially undermine 

the foundation’s role with the Eisenhower Library and Museum. 

3. Would you describe the interaction between the organizations? 

The ELOs continue to stay in touch, though it is largely at the board level. Cooperative programs—since they are unfunded—occur only episodically. When we discovered that EMC staff was approaching contacts who have been long-time supporters of the ELOs, the legacy organizations have begun communicating with each 

other on this issue. The EMC staff has shown no sensitivity to this concern at all— 

and some staff members have been quite hostile in its dealings with these well-established organizations. 

4. Does the Eisenhower Family have a position as to whether or not private funding should be integral to the construction of the memorial? 

Would private funding for the memorial detract from other Eisenhower 

legacy organizations? 

The Eisenhower Family fully understands that private sector fundraising will be 

an integral part of building a memorial—and we support that idea. However, it is 

imperative that any memorial be feasible from a financing point of view. We are 

deeply concerned that the EMC has not given the financial piece of this project 

enough attention. As a result of our research, we think it was perhaps imprudent 

of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission to select, in 2009, the most expensive design of a world famous architect. The country was in the midst of a financial crisis 

and it was designated for one of the most difficult and costly sites in Washington. 

Factors have not changed much since then. For this reason we feel strongly that 

no groundbreaking for any Eisenhower Memorial should occur without all or a very 

significant amount of funds in hand. Given the controversy surrounding the design, 

19 

the weight of public opinion, and the oft-quoted concerns of the Eisenhower Family 

members, it is impossible to image how the EMC could raise the private sector 

money at this stage that is required to build this design. 

Furthermore, the Eisenhower Family has informally talked to a number of architects about the costs estimates for the project. All believe that this Gehry design 

will cost considerably more than the $112 million the EMC estimates, thus making 

the feasibility of this project—from a financial point of view—even more questionable. 

5. Are you opposed to a modern design for the memorial? 

No. The Eisenhower Family has no specific genre in mind, but feels strongly that 

any memorial should be appropriate both conceptually and symbolically. The current design is neither. We also think something more modest would not only be far 

more appropriate with respect to the character and values of Dwight Eisenhower, 

it would be more affordable too. Perhaps a new site—in addition to a new design— 

should be considered, given these factors. 

6. Please explain to the subcommittee any additional concerns, or insights 

your family has that were not adequately discussed at the oversight 

hearing. Also, which misconceptions or misrepresentations regarding 

the memorial or your position on the memorial could you clarify for the 

committee? 

For more than ten years, members of the Eisenhower family have been engaged 

with the Eisenhower Memorial Commission. This decade of interaction has been 

tense and often discouraging. The minutes of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission 

are often misleading with respect to our family’s position, through the drafter’s 

choice of words. 

Furthermore, David Eisenhower, while on the architectural jury selection, promoted another architectural firm other than Gehry Partners. It was a narrow vote, 

and the family’s choice was defeated. 

Since then, the strategy of the Commission staff has been to make it appear that 

our family is divided. The evidence for this is repeatedly on display in the newspaper coverage. Naturally we are offended by the fact that this, verifiably, comes 

from the commission staff itself. They are fully aware of the signed statements we 

furnished from all relevant members of the Eisenhower family, including former 

Commissioner David Eisenhower and our father, John S.D. Eisenhower, Ike’s son, 

heir and executor of the president’s will. Our family is united. 

It is correct to say that at one time there might have been differences of opinion 

within the family about tactics (never goals), but several things happened in 2011 

that brought unity on all aspects of our approach to this design plan. The first was 

the unveiling of the ‘‘barefoot boy’’ concept, and all it came to mean. The second was 

the national debt crisis in the summer. At that time, we realized that everything 

changed. Not only is the memorial’s design concept inappropriate, but in light of the 

financial crisis it is publicly unacceptable—for its cost and for the special long-term 

maintenance that will be required, specifically for the metal scrims. Public opinion 

has borne this out. A simpler, more straight-forward design was always our preference, even from the start. But now, more than ever, the memorial should reflect 

the times. Something simple, yet powerful, was and is more appropriate. 

The Eisenhower family and the Eisenhower Memorial Commission have reached 

an impasse. On March 27, the EMC made a very strong statement about their unqualified support for Frank Gehry’s design and vision. Since we have previously met 

with Mr. Gehry, and no meaningful changes have occurred, it is hard to imagine 

that common ground can be found. 

Mr. BISHOP. Ms. Eisenhower, thank you for your comments. We 

will have some questions from the panel. 

I will turn to Mr. Grijalva, if you have questions, first. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Eisenhower, if I may, thank you so much for being here. 

Ms. EISENHOWER. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. In your statement, you stated that the family is 

committed to playing its role in assuring that the process and the 

design reflect an open and transparent process. 

Ms. EISENHOWER. Yes. 

20 

Mr. GRIJALVA. For the edification of myself and the Committee, 

could you please identify where the process was not open or transparent? 

Ms. EISENHOWER. Well, this would take an exhaustive review of 

the documents. But I think that the situation that has appeared in 

the paper has not been completely accurate. Members of the Eisenhower family from the outset have expressed concern about the 

scope and scale of this memorial. The original idea was actually to 

put a simple statue at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. 

This was our family preference in the beginning. 

And so this has evolved a great deal. To say that the Eisenhower 

family had gone along with every aspect of this process would not 

be correct, and we found it important to correct the record. I think 

you will hear from others who have their own views on this, so I 

will leave the rest of that question to be answered by others. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Garamendi, do you have questions? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I have a couple, if I could. 

Could you just briefly summarize why the family believes President Eisenhower would have rejected this design? 

Ms. EISENHOWER. Well, first of all, he was a very modest man. 

He would have expected something far less dramatic, far less—he 

would have wanted something on a smaller scale, I believe. This 

is an enormous thing. 

I did mention the metal scrims, which I think are really at the 

heart of the difficulty we have here. It was only until relatively recently that people began to focus on the size of these things. These 

metal mesh curtains are actually 80 feet high. This is the size of 

an eight-story office building. And everyone visiting the Memorial 

will be dwarfed by these edifices. 

I do not think he would understand it, and I do not think that 

it would appeal to him because he was well-known not to have 

much time for modern art. And as a matter of fact, my sister Anne 

and I could tell you a funny story about riding along in the Gettysburg countryside with him, both on different occasions, with 

Granddad saying that he hated billboards. I did not add billboards 

to my list of concerns about these metal mesh tapestries, but I 

think this would not be in keeping with any style he would really 

understand. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you or the family think there are elements of the 

Gehry design that are, for lack of a better word, salvageable? 

Ms. EISENHOWER. I think we welcome the opportunity to talk to 

Mr. Gehry again. We had a very cordial meeting in December. The 

time frames for everybody’s schedule were so constrained that it 

was extremely difficult to see him before this hearing. But certainly 

any redesign does not preclude talking to Mr. Gehry about being 

the person to do that. But I think this is to be determined, I think, 

in the coming weeks. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me ask one last question, if the family has a position on the funding of this Memorial. The Commission’s testimony infers that private funding for the Memorial would detract 

from private funding of other Eisenhower legacy organizations. Do 

you have a position on that? 

21 

Ms. EISENHOWER. Yes. Mr. Chairman, in my lengthy submission 

to this committee, I went into that issue a bit. But over the last 

years—and maybe this is where I can make a comment again 

about the earlier question about openness and transparency—we 

had a much better interactive process between the Eisenhower Memorial Commission staff and the Eisenhower legacy organizations. 

This has crumbled in recent years. And I think this indicates 

that there is a lot of work to be done going forward, and I think 

this is going to require significant cooperation and agreement. 

Mr. BISHOP. Are there other questions from the Committee? 

[No response.] 

Mr. BISHOP. If not, we thank you. As I said, your written testimony will be, in its totality, in the record. Thank you for taking 

the time to join us here today. 

Ms. EISENHOWER. Thank you again very much. 

Mr. BISHOP. Now I think I have room at the panel for everyone 

else who may be there. Can I call up for the next panel Mr. Stephen Whitesell, who is the Regional Director of the National Capital Region for the Park Service in the Department of the Interior; 

Mr. William Guerin—and I hope I did not mispronounce that—— 

Mr. GUERIN. Just right. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. That was pure luck if I did—the Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Construction Programs in the Public 

Buildings Service with the General Services Administration; retired Brigadier General Carl Reddel from the U.S. Air Force, who 

is the Executive Director of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission; 

Mr. Howard Segermark, who is the Chairman Emeritus, Director 

of the National Civic Art Society; Mr. Rodney Mims Cook, Jr., who 

is the President of the National Monuments Foundation; and Mr. 

Bruce Cole, who is the Past Chairman of the National Endowment 

for the Humanities. And we barely got you in there. 

Once again, the same rules will apply. Your written testimony 

will appear in its entirety in the record. We ask for oral comments 

at this time to supplement that written testimony. Again, the clock 

in front of you—I hope you can all see it there—has the timer on 

it; the yellow light means you have a minute left. And we would 

ask you to stay within the five-minute guidelines so that we can 

leave this room before we have to be evicted from it. 

So with that, Mr. Whitesell, if we can just start from my left, 

looking down, and go down the row. Five minutes each. If you are 

prepared, we would love to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN E. WHITESELL, REGIONAL 

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. WHITESELL. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today 

to discuss the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial. 

In 1999, Congress authorized the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission to consider a memorial to our 34th President. 

That Commission is comprised of 12 commissioners, including eight 

Members of Congress and, previously, a member of the Eisenhower 

family. 

22 

As a result of this Commission’s work, in 2002 Congress authorized the Commission to establish the Eisenhower Memorial. Since 

that time, the National Park Service has worked closely with the 

Commission to establish the Memorial in accordance with both the 

authorizing legislation and the Commemorative Works Act. 

In our experience, the subjects of memorials can provoke strong 

emotional responses because while many may agree on the value 

of commemorating a particular person or event, they may not all 

agree on the form that commemoration should take. The direction 

provided by the Congress in the Commemorative Works Act has 

been highly beneficial in guiding decision-making by memorial 

sponsors and Federal agencies in determining both the location and 

the design of memorials. 

In the case of the Eisenhower Memorial, these Federal agencies 

are the National Park Service on behalf of the Department of the 

Interior, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the Commission on Fine Arts. The process is a rigorous and sometimes 

lengthy public process which can require multiple consultations on 

the selection of a site, and on the design of a commemorative work 

as the design concept undergoes refinement, as well as extensive 

environmental and historic preservation compliance. 

The National Park Service works closely with sponsors to navigate this series of studies and reviews. Ultimately, a memorial will 

be constructed only if it is approved by these three entities and the 

memorial sponsor has met qualifications imposed by the Commemorative Works Act for the issuance of a National Park Service 

permit to begin construction. 

In 2006, the Commission was authorized to locate the Memorial 

at Maryland and Independence Avenues, Southwest, between 4th 

and 6th Streets. A National Park Service environmental assessment with public involvement was released in June of 2006. Reviewed by the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, selection of this site was approved by the Commission on Fine Arts 

and the National Planning Commission in September of 2006. 

The National Park Service has continuously facilitated the work 

of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission to develop the design in 

response to input received during the public review and approval 

processes, and has worked diligently on the environmental and historic preservation compliance documentation. The Eisenhower Memorial Commission is responsible for the design, and addressing 

any concerns regarding the design from all sources, which includes 

the public and members of the Eisenhower family. 

In September 2011, the National Capital Memorial Advisory 

Commission was consulted on the design, and the Commission on 

Fine Arts granted conceptual approval for the overall configuration 

of the Memorial. Also in September, the National Park Service released a second environmental assessment for public review on the 

environmental effects of the design. 

The National Park Service executed a memorandum of agreement under the National Historic Preservation Act regarding the 

treatment of historic properties affected by the Memorial with the 

Eisenhower Commission, the National Capital Planning Commission, the General Services Administration, the D.C. State Historic 

23 

Preservation Office, and the Advisory Commission on Historic Preservation. 

On March 6, 2012, the National Park Service issued its finding 

of no significant impact, which is a determination that the Memorial, completed as of the current schematic design, will not have a 

significant impact on the environment. 

The Memorial was scheduled to go before the National Capital 

Planning Commission on April 5, 2012, at which time the National 

Park Service and the Eisenhower Memorial Commission would 

seek preliminary design approval. On March 14, the Eisenhower 

Memorial Commission asked that this review be deferred in response to recent concerns about the design. 

The National Park Service is honored to play a role in the establishment of commemorative works in our Nation’s capital. The 

process, as directed by Congress, has worked very well, and we expect that the Eisenhower Memorial will ultimately be a source of 

pride for our entire Nation. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statements. I would be pleased 

to respond to any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitesell follows:] 

Statement of Stephen E. Whitesell, Regional Director, National Capital 

Region, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

appear before you today to discuss the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial. 

In 1999, Congress authorized the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission 

(EMC) to consider a memorial to our 34th president and as a result of EMC’s work, 

in 2002 Congress authorized the EMC to establish the Eisenhower Memorial. Since 

that time, the National Park Service (NPS) has worked closely with the EMC to establish the Memorial in accordance with both the authorizing legislation and the 

Commemorative Works Act (CWA). 

The direction provided by the Congress in the CWA has been highly beneficial in 

guiding decision-making by memorial sponsors and federal agencies in determining 

both the location and design of memorials. The process is a rigorous and sometimes 

lengthy public process, requiring multiple consultations and approvals on the selection of a site and on the design of a commemorative work, as well as extensive environmental and historic preservation compliance. In our experience, the subjects of 

memorials can provoke strong emotional responses, because while many may agree 

on the value of commemorating a particular person or event, they may not all agree 

on the form that commemoration should take. The process requires the active involvement of federal and local agencies and other organizations. Ultimately, a memorial may only be constructed if it has been considered and approved by federal 

commissions and the memorial sponsor has raised all the funds it needs to complete 

the memorial. 

Agencies Involved in the Commemorative Works Process 

There are multiple agencies and organizations involved in the siting and approval 

of memorials under the CWA. 

Historically, the NPS has facilitated the entire process because all the memorials 

that have been established so far under the CWA were to be sited on parkland or 

on lands that would be transferred to the NPS so that the NPS would administer 

that memorial. The NPS works closely with memorial sponsors to navigate a complicated series of studies, reviews, design hurdles, agency approvals and environmental compliance. Under the CWA, the actual construction of a memorial can only 

occur after that memorial’s sponsor has satisfied the requirements of the CWA, up 

to and including the obtaining the construction permit as issued by the NPS. The 

NPS has facilitated the establishment of 18 commemorative works within the District of Columbia since the passage of the CWA roughly 26 years ago. These memorials include the Korean War Veterans Memorial, the George Mason Memorial, the 

World War II Memorial, and, most recently established, the Martin Luther King Jr. 

Memorial. The NPS is presently working with the sponsors of five new memorials 

24 

authorized by the Congress, including the Memorial to American Veterans Disabled 

for Life, the Adams Memorial, and the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial. 

The Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) reviews site selection and design for each memorial and must approve both in order for the NPS to issue a permit for construction. The site selection process can take several reviews before a site is approved, 

and the CFA may apply design guidelines adopted in conjunction with the National 

Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) pursuant to the Commemorative Works Act 

as part of its review process. Design approval is completed in two stages—concept 

and final—with memorials typically requiring multiple reviews at each stage. The 

CFA reviews for approval takes place in meetings that are open to the public following public notice. 

NCPC must also approve the memorial site and design, and the review process 

usually occurs in parallel with the CFA. NCPC may, pursuant to the Commemorative Works Act, apply joint guidelines developed in conjunction with CFA or develop 

independent, mitigation-related guidelines as part of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Section 106 process, or the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) process, to guide its review and approval process. Design approval may also 

require multiple reviews, and the NCPC requires completion of environmental and 

historic preservation compliance prior to design reviews. 

The National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC), which has no approval authority, reviews proposed legislation and provides advice to Congress, 

makes recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) and the Administrator of General Services (GSA) regarding memorial proposals, and is a consulting 

body to the memorial sponsors regarding a memorial’s location and design. This consultation for location and design must occur before the NPS can issue a construction 

permit. The NCMAC includes representatives of the NPS, the CFA, the NCPC, the 

Mayor of the District of Columbia, GSA, the American Battle Monuments Commission, the Architect of the Capitol, and the Department of Defense. This consultation, 

likewise, takes place in meetings that are open to the public and following public 

notice. 

The District of Columbia Historic Preservation Officer (DCSHPO) is consulted 

during both the site selection and design phases to determine whether the establishment of a memorial could have an effect on historic properties. It may be the case 

that a new memorial could have an adverse effect on such properties, which 

prompts notice to the public and consultation with interested parties, who may include members of the public, in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA. This may 

result in the negotiation of a Memorandum of Agreement between the NPS, the 

DCSHPO, the memorial sponsor, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

and others to mitigate any adverse effects. 

The Secretary of the Interior grants final approval in the form of a construction 

permit after the requirements of the CWA are met. NCPC review and approval is 

also a pre-requisite to NPS issuance of the construction permit. The NCPC reviews 

for approval are also conducted in meetings that are open to the public following 

public notice. The GSA Administrator has the same authority to issue a permit for 

a memorial if that memorial is destined for GSA lands, although, to date, all memorials established under the CWA have been permitted by the Secretary because they 

were sited on NPS parklands or on lands that were transferred to NPS. 

The Commemorative Works Process 

The memorial process often begins with a member of the public or an organization 

with an idea to honor an individual or a group, or to commemorate an event, with 

a memorial in the nation’s capital. Statutory authorization is required to locate a 

memorial on lands covered by the CWA, and thus legislation for a memorial must 

be introduced by a member of Congress. Such legislation authorizes the establishment of the memorial and designates a memorial sponsor, often the group itself, 

which would be responsible for planning, design, fundraising, and ultimately construction of the memorial. The CWA sets a time limit of seven years for the memorial sponsor to obtain the NPS construction permit which can only be issued after 

the sponsor has the approvals and funds in hand, although that time is often extended. Whenever authorizing legislation or time extension legislation is introduced, 

the NCMAC reviews the proposed legislation and provides comments to the authorizing committee of Congress. 

When legislation for a memorial becomes law, NPS works with the memorial 

sponsor to investigate potential memorial sites on lands eligible for placement of 

new memorials. Not all federal parkland in the District of Columbia is available: 

in 2003, Congress designated an area including the National Mall that it called the 

Reserve, as a completed work of civic art where no additional memorials would be 

located. Often the search for the right site starts with consideration of the memoVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 Mar 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\73488.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
25 

rial’s subject and whether there are certain locations relevant to it, using the 2001 

Memorials and Museums Master Plan, a comprehensive study of potential sites produced by NCMAC, NCPC, CFA, and NPS. Such investigation typically involves the 

study of those sites with the most potential for that particular memorial, consultation with other agencies, the start of the environmental compliance process, and 

consultation with the DCSHPO and others. The memorial sponsor may submit a request to the Secretary to be authorized to consider sites in Area I, an area close 

to the National Mall, which is defined in the CWA. After consultation with NCMAC, 

if the Secretary determines that the memorial subject is of preeminent and lasting 

historical significance, the Secretary notifies Congress of this recommendation to authorize that memorial to be located at a site within Area I. Following Congressional 

approval, a site can be designated for the memorial in Area I. The site selection 

process concludes after NCMAC has been consulted on potential sites and the CFA 

and the NCPC have approved the preferred site. 

The sponsor’s next task is to select a designer, through a design competition or 

by any other means of its choosing, and start designing the memorial. As the design 

is developed, NPS coordinates multiple consultation meetings with staffs of the 

NCPC, the CFA, and the DCSHPO. The NPS consults the NCMAC regarding the 

design prior to submission to the CFA and the NCPC for approvals. During the approval process, NPS, with the assistance of the sponsor, completes all necessary environmental compliance work such as under NEPA, and complies with NHPA Section 106 and, if necessary, NHPA Section 110. During this time, the memorial sponsor continues to raise the all the needed funds that must be available before the 

NPS can issue the construction permit. 

The Secretary, acting through the NPS, is authorized to issue a permit for construction once the following criteria are met: (1) the site and design have been approved by the NCPC and CFA, and NCMAC has been consulted; (2) knowledgeable 

experts have determined that the memorial will be structurally sound and durable; 

(3) construction documents have been submitted; (4) the memorial sponsor has sufficient funds to complete the memorial; and (5), in case of privately funded memorials, the sponsor has made a donation of 10% of the cost of constructing the memorial to be used for perpetual maintenance, which covers non-routine maintenance 

and catastrophic repairs. 

Establishment of the Eisenhower Memorial 

The Eisenhower Memorial is tracking the process prescribed by the CWA, including with its own authorizing legislation. Responsibility for the establishment of the 

Eisenhower Memorial, including its program, design, and construction is assigned 

by law to the EMC. The EMC is comprised of twelve commissioners, including members of Congress and, previously, a member of the Eisenhower family. In 2006, the 

EMC was authorized to locate the memorial within Area I. The proposed site, located at Maryland and Independence Avenues, SW, between 4th and 6th Streets, 

was then analyzed in studies and an NPS NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) 

with public involvement, reviewed by the NCMAC and approved by the CFA and 

NCPC in 2006. 

The NPS has continuously facilitated the work of the EMC in developing the design and has worked diligently on environmental and historic preservation compliance documentation that is required before NPS can issue a construction permit for 

the memorial. The EMC engaged GSA to use its Design Excellence program to select 

a designer for the Memorial, a process that culminated with the 2009 selection of 

Pritzker Prize-winning architect Frank Gehry. 

Since it was first proposed, the design for the Eisenhower Memorial has gone 

through numerous changes during the rounds of the CWA review process, and as 

input was received from a number of sources including the public. The EMC is responsible for the design and addressing any concerns regarding the design from all 

sources, which includes the public and members of the Eisenhower family. 

In September 2011, NCMAC was consulted on the design and the CFA granted 

Concept Approval for the overall configuration of the Memorial. Also in September, 

the NPS released to the public for review and comment, a second EA concerning 

the environmental effects of the design. Following years of consultation meetings 

under NHPA Section 106, the EMC, the NCPC, the GSA, DCSHPO, the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, the NPS, and others executed a Memorandum of 

Agreement regarding the treatment of historic properties affected by the Memorial. 

On March 6, 2012, the NPS issued its Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). 

This FONSI is a determination pursuant to NEPA that the memorial, if completed 

in accordance with the current schematic design, will not have a significant impact 

on the environment; it is not an approval of the memorial pursuant to the CWA. 

26 

The project was placed on the NCPC agenda for consideration of Preliminary Approval at its April 5, 2012 meeting, but in response to recent concerns about the 

design of the Memorial, the EMC has requested that consideration of the Memorial 

design be deferred until NCPC’s May 5, 2012 meeting. 

Should the NCPC grant preliminary approval in May, the memorial design will 

undergo further refinement and the design will then be reviewed for further approvals by the CFA and the NCPC. The EMC’s schedule calls for obtaining final approval by both Commissions later in 2012, and it is possible that reaching final approval will require further Commission reviews. The NPS will continue to work with 

the EMC to facilitate design reviews by NCPC and CFA, while conducting its own 

review of the construction drawings to ensure the structural soundness and durability of the memorial. 

The NPS is honored to play a role in the establishment of commemorative works 

in our nation’s capital and we take very seriously our role and duties in the process. 

The process for establishing memorials in Washington, as directed by the Congress, 

has worked very well to ensure that new memorials are thoughtfully considered, appropriately located, and beautifully designed. We expect that the Eisenhower Memorial, by virtue of the public process by which it is being established, will have all 

of these important characteristics and will be a source of pride for our entire nation. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any 

questions you or the other members of the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. We appreciate it. 

Mr. Whitesell from—no, you just spoke. Thank you. Mr. Guerin 

from the GSA. Please to have you here. The same thing. 

Mr. GUERIN. I will give him another chance if he wants it. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. GUERIN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR THE OFFICE OF CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS, 

PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. GUERIN. Good morning, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member 

Grijalva, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the proposed 

Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial. 

GSA is honored to play a role in helping the Eisenhower Memorial Commission create a memorial to President Dwight D. Eisenhower. His long career of noble service to our country is and should 

be a source of inspiration to the American people. 

The Commission was tasked with creating an appropriate permanent memorial to perpetuate his memory and his contributions to 

the United States. GSA has assistance the Commission with issues 

related to the acquisition of office space, human resource support, 

financial and accounting services, legal and contracting support, 

and our role expanded as the Commission’s vision became clearer. 

Given our experience and expertise, the Commission asked GSA 

to help select both a design firm and a construction contractor for 

the memorial. At the request of the Commission, we used our proven Design Excellence process to select the design firm. This competitive and streamlined process seeks to select the most qualified 

designers to support Federal design commissions. 

We seek to contract with the Nation’s most talented architects, 

landscape architects, and engineers to design projects with outstanding quality and value. As part of this process, GSA utilizes 

the expertise of private sector peers to assist in the evaluation of 

proposals and design firms, ensuring that we benefit from the 

knowledge of a wide variety of individuals. 

27 

At their request, GSA worked with the Commission to develop a 

highly qualified A/E evaluation board of 11 members from the 

Commission, GSA, the Eisenhower family, as well as private sector 

peers in a variety of design and architectural areas. 

The board used a three-stage process to make its selection. This 

included evaluating the past work of firms submitting proposals, 

then developing a short list of firms to be invited for interviews, 

and finally, reviewing proposals of detailed design visions for the 

Memorial. 

In August 2008, GSA issued a request for qualifications open to 

all design firms to submit portfolios of their work. There were 44 

responses to this request. The panel convened, reviewed the submissions, and selected seven highly qualified firms based on the 

evaluation criteria outlined in the RFQ. 

The seven firms were interviewed, and from these interviews the 

panel chose four firms to submit design visions based on guidance 

provided by the panel. These four firms were: Krueck and Sexton 

Architects; Gehry Partners, LLP; Rogers Marvels Architects, PLLC; 

and PWP Landscape Architecture. 

All four firms were asked to provide a design vision for the Eisenhower Memorial. The vision was to be based on the site and 

urban context, the Eisenhower Memorial requirements and criteria, 

and the Eisenhower Memorial philosophy and aspirations. 

A jury composed of design peers and led by a professional competition advisor evaluated the submissions. The written report of 

findings and recommendations were submitted by the jury to the 

A/E evaluation board. The A/E evaluation board reviewed the jury’s 

findings as well as design vision concepts. They recommended the 

selection of Gehry Partners as the architect for the Eisenhower Memorial. A contract with Gehry Partners was ensued, and design 

began in January 2010 and is currently in process. 

It is worth noting that approval for a memorial of this importance in such a prominent location is a deliberate process that engages a variety of consulting bodies. Any proposed monument or 

memorial to be located on Federally owned land in the District of 

Columbia must undergo a rigorous review process with ample opportunity for public input and involvement. 

As an agent of the EMC, GSA’s role was to administer the process that helped select a highly qualified design firm. The resulting 

design concept itself has gone through a series of review processes 

of several Federal and local agencies and commissions, which included the opportunity for public review and comment. 

In addition to providing staff and support services on a reimbursable basis in administering the selection of a design firm for the 

Memorial, GSA is involved in a few other ongoing activities of the 

Commission. For example, the Commission requested our assistance in administering the construction contract. 

We are also working in partnership with the National Park Service to provide a portion of the land that will eventually house the 

Memorial itself. We have been and continue to stand by to assist 

with other issues as they may arrive when the project moves forward. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, GSA is proud of our efforts to assist the Commission in memorializing President Eisenhower. 

28 

1Public Law 106–79 

2Public Law 110–229 

Whether through staff and support services, administering design 

and construction contracts, or providing land upon which to build, 

GSA looks forward to assisting in bringing this project to fruition. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today before you, and 

I welcome any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Guerin follows:] 

Statement of William J. Guerin, Assistant Commissioner for the Office of 

Construction Programs, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services 

Administration 

Good morning Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Bill Guerin, and I am the Assistant Commissioner for 

the Office of Construction Programs at the U.S. General Services Administration’s 

(GSA) Public Buildings Service (PBS). Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the proposed Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial. 

GSA is honored to play a role in helping the Eisenhower Memorial Commission 

(EMC) to create a memorial to President Dwight D. Eisenhower. His long career of 

noble service to our country is and should be a source of inspiration to the American 

people. 

Establishing the Commission – 

The EMC was created in statute on October 25, 1999, and tasked with creating 

‘‘an appropriate permanent memorial to Dwight D. Eisenhower [. . .] to perpetuate 

his memory and his contributions to the United States.’’ 1 Further, Public Law 110– 

229 directed that ‘‘[t]he Commission shall obtain administrative and support services from the General Services Administration on a reimbursable basis. The Commission may use all contracts, schedules, and acquisition vehicles allowed to external clients through the General Services Administration.’’ 2

Pursuant to Public Law 110–229, GSA has assisted the EMC with issues related 

to the acquisition of office space, human resources and payroll services, financial 

and accounting services, and legal and contracting support. The role of GSA also expanded as the Commission’s vision became clearer and the time approached for the 

selection of a design firm. Given our experience and expertise, the EMC asked GSA 

to assist in selecting both a design firm and a construction contractor for the Memorial. To select the design firm, GSA, at the request of the EMC, used our established 

and proven Design Excellence process. 

Design Excellence – 

GSA’s Design Excellence process seeks to commission the nation’s most talented 

architects, landscape architects, and engineers to design projects of outstanding 

quality and value. We use the Design Excellence process to select Architect/Engineer 

firms for our new construction and major modernization projects. These projects aim 

to demonstrate the value of truly integrated design that balances aesthetics, function, cost, constructability, reliability, reduced energy consumption, and gives form 

and meaning to our democratic values. 

The Design Excellence program provides a competitive and streamlined process 

for identifying qualified firms, and then asking a short list of highly qualified firms 

for design proposals that allow us to select the firm representing the best value to 

the government. As part of this process, GSA utilizes the expertise of private sector 

peers to assist in evaluating the firms, ensuring that we benefit from the knowledge 

of a wide variety of individuals. 

Selection of a Design Firm for the Eisenhower Memorial – 

For the Eisenhower Memorial, at the request of the EMC, GSA worked with the 

EMC to develop a highly qualified A/E Evaluation Board of 12 members from the 

Commission, GSA, the Eisenhower family, and private sector design peers in the 

disciplines of architecture, landscape architecture, urban design, lighting design, information exhibit/design, as well as an architectural critic. 

The Board employed a three-stage process to make its selection. In Stage I, the 

interested firms submitted portfolios of past work that established their qualifications and capabilities. Based on this, the Board established a short-list of firms that 

advanced to Stage II. In Stage II, these firms were interviewed after submission of 

29 

a preliminary vision. In Stage III, selected designers from Stage II were asked to 

submit a detailed design vision for the memorial. 

On August 15, 2008, GSA issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for design 

firms to submit portfolios of their work. There were 44 responses to this request. 

The panel convened in October of 2008 to review these submissions and selected 

seven highly qualified firms based on the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFQ: 

Lead Designer Portfolio, Philosophy and Design Intent, Past Performance on Design, and Lead Designer Profile. In December of 2008, the selection panel convened 

to interview these seven firms. The evaluation criteria for Stage II were: Professional Qualifications and Specialized Experience of Key Personnel, Team Design 

Performance with Consultants, Team Organization and Management Plan, Preliminary Site and Program Analysis, Geographic Location, and Subcontracting Plan. 

From those interviews, the panel chose four firms to submit design visions based 

on guidance provided by the panel. These four firms were Krueck & Sexton Architects; Gehry Partners, LLP; Rogers Marvels Architects, PLLC; and PWP Landscape 

Architecture. 

All four firms were asked to provide a Design Vision for the project based on the 

site and urban context, Eisenhower Memorial requirements and criteria, and the Eisenhower Memorial philosophy and aspirations. Each competing firm was given 45 

days to respond. In March 2009, a jury composed of design peers evaluated the quality, originality, and appropriateness of the Design Visions. The jury composed a 

written report containing its findings and recommendations. 

The A/E Evaluation Board received this report and was briefed on the jury’s findings. The Board then independently evaluated the Design Vision concepts. The 

scores from the Stage II interviews and the Stage III Design Vision Competition 

constituted the final overall scoring, and the Board recommended that Gehry Partners be selected as the architect. The Selection Official then concurred with this recommendation of the Board and selected Gehry Partners. 

From March 2009 through January 2010, GSA negotiated a scope of work and on 

January 8, 2010, a design contract with Gehry Partners was signed. 

Since that time, Gehry Partners has worked on the design of the memorial and 

the design is currently in process. 

Memorial Approval Process – 

It is worth noting that the process for approving such an important memorial in 

such a prominent location by necessity is a deliberate process that engages a variety 

of consulting bodies. While GSA administered the process that helped select a highly 

qualified design firm, the actual concept itself must go through review processes of 

several Federal and local agencies which include the opportunity for public review 

and comment. Per the Commemorative Works Act, the National Park Service (NPS) 

is generally the sponsoring agency that facilitates these processes. 

All memorials proposed to be placed on GSA or NPS lands in the District of Columbia are initially reviewed by the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC), established under the Commemorative Works Act of 1986, which 

holds public meetings a minimum of two times per year. NCMAC reviews proposed 

locations and designs for memorials and recommends to the Secretary of the Interior 

or the Administrator of GSA, as appropriate, the location of the memorial. 

Once the actual design of a memorial commences, it is subject to review by the 

Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) and the National Capital Planning Commission 

(NCPC). CFA and NCPC are required to review the proposed memorial in accordance with review criteria contained in the Commemorative Works Act. As part of 

the NCPC and CFA review process, a project has to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 

CFA and NCPC both hold meetings open to the public on a monthly basis, and they 

review projects through several design phases. NEPA mandates that all potentially 

adverse impacts a project could have on the natural and man-made environment 

must be considered, while NHPA requires that any potentially negative impacts a 

project may have on historic sites nearby must be mitigated. The District of Columbia State Historic Preservation Officer must sign off on whatever mitigation measures are proposed. 

In sum, any proposed monument or memorial to be located on federally owned 

land under the custody and accountability of NPS or GSA in the District of Columbia must undergo a rigorous review process with ample opportunity for public input 

and involvement. This process is ongoing and GSA, by virtue of our management 

of the design contract for the Memorial, has provided information as requested. 

30 

GSA’s Other Activities with EMC – 

In addition to providing staff and support services on a reimbursable basis and 

administering the selection of a design firm for the Memorial, GSA also is involved 

with a few other ongoing activities of the EMC. 

Beyond assisting in the selection of the design firm, EMC also has asked for our 

assistance in administering the construction contract. GSA is using a two-stage 

source selection process. In Stage 1, potential offerors will provide information regarding their technical qualifications. We will evaluate these submissions to identify 

offerors with the potential to be viable competitors. In Stage II, a Request for Proposals (RFP) will be issued to viable competitors identified in Stage I, though nonviable competitors are still allowed to participate if they choose. The RFP will include construction documents and will request additional technical information and 

pricing. These proposals will be evaluated by a Source Selection Board and a report 

will be issued to the Source Selection Authority for award. 

The RFQ was posted on Federal Business Opportunities (fbo.gov) on March 6, 

2012, and we plan to identify viable competitors this summer. 

We are also working in partnership with the NPS to provide a portion of the land 

that will eventually house the Memorial itself. Public Law 109–220 authorized the 

EMC to consider sites for the memorial within certain areas of the District of Columbia. The site selection was conducted in consultation with affected agencies including GSA, the U.S. Department of Education, and the District of Columbia. The 

CFA and the NCPC approved the site for the Eisenhower Memorial in 2006. 

GSA is currently working to report a portion of this site as excess so that NPS 

can acquire it and facilitate the full assemblage of the site for the memorial. In addition to these efforts, GSA is happy to assist with any other issues that may arise 

as the project moves forward. 

Conclusion – 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, GSA is proud of our efforts to assist the EMC in 

its charge of memorializing President Eisenhower. Whether through staff and support services, administering design and construction contracts, or providing land 

upon which to build, GSA looks forward to assisting in bringing this project to fruition. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and I welcome any 

questions you may have. 

Response to questions submitted for the record 

by the General Services Administration 

1. In what ways did the Eisenhower Memorial competition differ from the 

standard Design Excellence Program Competitions? In particular, what 

is the significance of the fact that the evaluation panel included two 

members of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission—namely, Chairman 

Rocco Siciliano and David Eisenhower? 

GSA uses the Design Excellence Program to select Architect/Engineer (A/E) firms 

for our new construction and major modernization projects. GSA’s Design Excellence 

Program is in accordance with FAR subpart 36.6. While 36.6 does not have the explicit steps and procedures used in the Design Excellence Program, under FAR 

1.102(d), GSA is granted flexibility to be innovative in our methods of procuring A/ 

E services: 

FAR 1.102(d) states ‘‘In exercising initiative, Government members of the 

Acquisition Team may assume if a specific strategy, practice, policy or procedure is in the best interests of the Government and is not addressed in 

the FAR, nor prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive order or 

other regulation, that the strategy, practice, policy or procedure is a permissible exercise of authority.’’ 

The Design Excellence Program is a structured approach to the Brooks Act selection process, and is the center for GSA’s advocacy of quality in the Federal built 

environment. It establishes nationwide policies and procedures for selecting the finest and most appropriate architects and integrated design teams for GSA commissions. The program also implements rigorous assessment processes to ensure enduring value in that work. Operating under the Design Excellence umbrella, Interior 

Design, Lease Construction, and Sustainability sub-programs review projects for superior performance in their respective disciplines. 

The Design Excellence Program manages national peers, distinguished privatesector design professionals appointed by the Commissioner of the Public Buildings 

Service (PBS), to advise procurement and to critique concept designs under developVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 Mar 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\73488.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
31 

ment. Exhibits and other events, publications, and videos underwritten by the program document the Design Excellence Program. More information on the Design Excellence Program can be found at: www.gsa.gov/designexcellence. 

Pursuant to Public Law 110–229, GSA has assisted the Eisenhower Memorial 

Commission (EMC) with issues related to the acquisition of office space, human resources and payroll services, financial and accounting services, and legal and contracting support. Given our experience and expertise, the EMC asked GSA to assist 

in selecting both a design firm and a construction contractor for the Memorial 

through our established and proven Design Excellence Program. 

The process used for the Eisenhower Memorial was similar to the process used 

in a Design Excellence A/E selection, with the difference being the make-up of the 

evaluation board. In a typical Design Excellence A/E procurement for a Federal 

building project, the A/E board is evaluating proposals based on a more requirements specific program (e.g. defined building type or square footage), within a narrower set of defined disciplines. GSA uses an evaluation board consisting of five 

members, including four government employees and one private sector peer, with 

most members on the board having experience in making these types of selections. 

This is different from the context of the memorial selection process where the program is more wide open and there are potentially more relevant disciplines and perspectives to include. 

GSA worked with the EMC, at their request, to develop a highly qualified A/E 

evaluation board of 12 members from the Commission, GSA, the Eisenhower family, 

and private sector design peers in the disciplines of architecture, landscape architecture, urban design, lighting design, information exhibit/design, as well as an architectural critic. In addition, Chairman Rocco Siciliano and David Eisenhower served 

as client representatives, as is standard procedure for all A/E selection panels. 

2. What procedures were taken to prevent undue influence in the competition, especially regarding Chairman Rocco Siciliano’s previous professional relationship with and statements regarding Frank Gehry? 

The Design Excellence Program provides a competitive and streamlined process 

for identifying qualified firms, and then asking a short list of highly qualified firms 

for design proposals that allow us to select the firm representing the best value to 

the government. As part of this process, GSA utilizes the expertise of private sector 

peers to assist in evaluating the firms, ensuring that we benefit from the knowledge 

of a wide variety of individuals. 

For the Eisenhower Memorial, at the request of the EMC, GSA worked with the 

EMC to develop a highly qualified A/E evaluation board of 12 members from the 

Commission, GSA, the Eisenhower family, and private sector design peers in the 

disciplines of architecture, landscape architecture, urban design, lighting design, information exhibit/design, as well as an architectural critic. All Source Selection 

Evaluation Board participants (voting and non-voting technical advisers) were required to sign and submit a Conflict of Interest Acknowledgement and Non-disclosure Agreement. 

In accordance with the FAR, the evaluation board employed a three-stage evaluation process to make its selection, and using a consensus process they ranked the 

qualifications against the established evaluation criteria. Once the ranking was approved, the contracting officer commenced price negations with the highest ranked 

firm and awarded the contract upon negotiation of a fair and reasonable price. 

3. In what ways did the Eisenhower Memorial competition differ from the 

initial Design Excellence Program competition for the National World 

War II Memorial, a competition that was later scrapped for an open competition: 

Both the Eisenhower Memorial and the National World War II Memorial competitions followed Design Excellence and FAR 36.601–2 procedures. 

The National World War II Memorial design acquisition began as a GSA Design 

Excellence two-stage process. In response to concerns that university students would 

not be allowed to enter submissions, the process was modified so that the first stage 

would be a vision competition open to all U.S. citizens 18 years or older. This allowed for open competition similar to that of the Vietnam Memorial. The vision competition resulted in six finalists who were required to team up with a licensed A/ 

E firm to develop their second stage proposal. The award was made to the most 

qualified team at a fair and reasonable price. 

For the Eisenhower Memorial, the evaluation board employed a three-stage process. In Stage I, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) of Lead Designers and A/E Firms 

interested in contracting for this work was announced. Interested firms submitted 

portfolios of accomplishment that established the design capabilities of the Lead DeVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 Mar 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\73488.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
32 

signer and the associated A/E Firm. Based on this, the evaluation board established 

a short-list of four Lead Design and A/E teams that advanced to Stage II. 

In Stage II, the four teams were asked to submit a preliminary design vision for 

the project based on the site and urban context, Eisenhower Memorial requirements 

and criteria, and the Eisenhower Memorial philosophy and aspirations within 45 

days. The teams were then interviewed. During these interviews the Lead Designer 

presented the preliminary design vision and the A/E firm addressed the contractual 

relationship with the Lead Designer and project team. 

In Stage III, the selected Lead Designers and A/E teams were asked to submit 

a detailed design vision for the memorial. Using a consensus process the evaluation 

board ranked the qualifications against the established evaluation criteria. Once the 

ranking was approved, the contracting officer commenced price negations with the 

most highly qualified A/E team with whom it negotiated a fair and reasonable price. 

4. Was the Design Excellence Program ever intended to be used for monuments and memorials, as opposed to federal office buildings and courthouses? 

The GSA Design Excellence Program is not limited to a specific building type or 

structure. Given our experience and established expertise, the EMC asked GSA to 

assist in selecting both a design firm and a construction contractor for the Memorial. At the request of the EMC, GSA used our proven Design Excellence Program 

to select the design firm. 

5. In what instances has the Design Excellence Program been used for 

monuments and memorials? Given that an undergraduate student artist 

was selected to design the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, is it not the case 

that one need not be an architect to design a national monument or memorial? If so, is it correct that the Brooks Act—which covers only the selection of architects and engineers for federal projects—need not apply 

to a design competition for the Eisenhower Memorial? 

Has the Design Excellence Program been used for previous memorials? 

To the best of our knowledge, the WWII memorial competition process, described 

above, is the only other memorial design selection process that was managed by 

GSA. FAR subpart 36.602–1(b)(1) references the use of a design competition as an 

aspect of the process when evaluating for a prestige project, such as the design of 

a monument or memorial. 

Does one need to be an architect to design a national monument? 

No, the winner of a design competition need not be a professional designer. However, professional designers are required to complete selected designs and see them 

through to a successful construction. For this reason, the design contract for the 

construction documents is awarded to a licensed architecture or engineering professional or firm capable of signing off on construction documents. Under FAR 36.601– 

4(b) the contract for design services must be awarded to an individual, partnership, 

corporation, association or other legal entity permitted by law to practice the professions of architecture or engineering. 

In the case of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Maya Lin was selected as the winner of a design competition held by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, a private 

foundation. Ms. Lin consulted with Cooper-Leeky Partnership to complete the design documents and construction of the Memorial. 

Did the Brooks Act need to apply to the EMC competition? 

Yes. For a traditional design-bid-build project, the Brooks Act applies to the procurement of the architect/engineer for design services. Under FAR 36.601–4(b) the 

contract for design services must be awarded to any individual, partnership, corporation, association or other legal entity permitted by law to practice the professions of architecture or engineering. 

Indeed, the particulars of the specific monument would be important in selecting 

the right method. Given the complexity of the EMC site, especially its close proximity to Federal buildings, its proximity to the Capitol, and the notion of a public 

square, the site presented unique challenges and constraints that a highly qualified 

design firm would need to address. 

At the request of the EMC, GSA used our proven Design Excellence Program to 

select the design firm. 

33 

6. Was the Eisenhower Memorial competition limited to licensed architects? Could the following kinds of persons have entered the competition: sculptors, artists, amateur architects, unlicensed architects, student architects? Some have said this was not an open competition. Does 

the GSA disagree, and why? 

This was a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) of Lead Designers and A/E Firms interested in contracting for this work. The Lead Designer is the individual or design 

studio (team of designers within the A/E design firm) who will have primary responsibility to conceive the design concept and the memorial’s architecture. The A/E 

Firm as used in this RFQ means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity permitted by law to practice the profession of architecture, landscape architecture, or engineering that will have contractual responsibility 

for the project design. 

The EMC consulted with GSA on approaches that could be used to select the design firm. The EMC and GSA discussed using a publicly posted, qualifications-based 

process versus an open process, however given the complexity of the site, especially 

the close proximity to Federal buildings, proximity to the Capitol, and the notion 

of a public square presented some unique challenges that a highly qualified design 

firm would need to address. The Commission ultimately chose to use a publicly posted, qualifications-based process. In either instance, GSA would have relied on an 

evaluation board that contained Commission Members, GSA officials, and private 

sector peer experts. 

Stage I was open to Lead Designers and their associated A/E Firm. The Lead Designer was not required to be a design professional. 

7. The Eisenhower Memorial Request for Qualifications was announced on 

August 15, 2008. Stage one of the competition was completed in October 

2008. How much time was available for potential entrants to learn of the 

RFQ and submit entries? Given that this project is of national importance and is of a nature significantly different from federal office buildings and court houses, do you believe that there was sufficient time for 

potential entrants to learn of the RFQ and submit entries? 

The RFQ was announced on FedBizOpps on August 15, 2008 and the stage 1 portfolios were due to GSA on October 8, 2008. This allowed 55 calendar days for potential entrants to learn of the RFQ and submit entries, which was more than the 

standard 30 days usually allowed for potential entrants on other Design Excellence 

RFQ’s. 

8. How does the time allotted for competition entries to have been submitted compare with the time allotted for entries in competitions for national monuments and memorials over the past 30 years? 

Potential entrants were allotted 55 calendar days to submit entries for the Eisenhower Memorial competition. This was not only more than the typical time frame 

allotted for other GSA design competitions entries since moving to expanded competitions, but also more than the minimum standard of 30 days for other non-GSA 

competitions. 

9. How does the advertising for the Eisenhower Memorial competition 

compare with the advertising of competitions for national monuments 

and memorials over the past 30 years? Are you aware of how much 

money from the Fiscal Year 2012 appropriation to the commission is 

spent? What are the obligations from the existing contracts if they are 

cancelled? 

How does the advertising for the Eisenhower Memorial competition 

compare with the advertising of competitions for national monuments 

and memorials over the past 30 years? 

Potential entrants were allotted 55 calendar days from when the competition was 

announced to submit entries for the Eisenhower Memorial competition. This is a 

fairly typical time frame. 

For example, the initial announcement for Stage 1 of the National World War II 

Memorial was open for 60 days. Most recently, the Trust for the National Mall held 

a three-stage design competition and allowed 42 days for potential entrants to submit entries for stage 1. 

34 

Are you aware of how much money from the Fiscal Year 2012 appropriation to the commission is spent? What are the obligations from the existing contracts if they are cancelled? 

For Fiscal Year 2012, the EMC received approximately $33 million in appropriations, of which $1.3 million was provided to GSA in Reimbursable Work Authorizations (RWA). Currently, GSA has obligated $1 million of that funding, but has not 

yet processed any respective payments. 

In total, the EMC has provided GSA with about $18 million in funding through 

RWAs, of which GSA has obligated almost $15 million and paid out approximately 

$10 million. If GSA were to cancel the existing contracts, we would be obligated to 

pay the remaining $5 million. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Guerin. I appreciate that. 

We will next turn to General Reddel, who is the Executive Director of the Commission, once again for five minutes, if possible. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. CARL W. REDDEL, USAF (RET.), 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER MEMORIAL 

COMMISSION 

General REDDEL. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to be 

here today. 

Before I begin my testimony, I would like to point out the presence of three technical experts in the hearing room in the event 

you wish to draw on their expertise: Dr. Daun van Ee, recently of 

the Library of Congress, who is an expert on Eisenhower and coeditor of the Eisenhower papers; Professor Richard Striner of 

Washington College, who is an expert on the presidency and historic preservation; and Executive Architect Daniel Feil for questions with regard to the Commission’s liaison with GSA, which you 

just heard about, on contract design and construction of the Memorial. 

It is a privilege to be here, for a number of reasons. Formerly of 

the United States Air Force, now Executive Director of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission, I would like to introduce three Commissioners who are with us today: Commissioner Boswell, who you 

recently just heard from, Member of the House, of course; and 

Commissioners Alfred Geduldig, seated behind me, and Susan 

Banes Harris, who were appointed by the President. 

Our other Commissioners, your congressional colleagues, are 

Senator Daniel Inouye, Senator Pat Roberts, Senator Jack Reed, 

Senator Jerry More then, Representative Mac Thornberry, 

Representative Mike Simpson, and Representative Sanford Bishop. 

Our Chairman is Rocco Siciliano. 

I understand that the purpose of this hearing is to discuss the 

Eisenhower Memorial. While some may be here to express a design 

point of view which may be legitimately different from the Commission’s viewpoint, I am here to answer your questions about the memorialization process to the best of my ability and to demonstrate 

what the proposed Memorial is and what it is not. 

In my extended statement for the record, you will see how we 

have worked with Congress and numerous government agencies, 

such as the National Park Service, GSA, NCPC, the Commission 

on Fine Arts, the District of Columbia, and many others. 

35 

Since the passage of the legislation establishing the Commission, 

the memorial designer has been bound by law to memorialize both 

the 34th President of the United States and the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in World War II. I would like to direct 

your attention to four images that will appear on the screens in 

front of you. These are the central focal points of the Memorial, 

represented by the two dominant sculptural elements in the Memorial, monumental, heroic-sized stone blocks with realistic bas relief 

images from two of the most famous photographs ever taken of Eisenhower. 

The first image, which you see here, is a photo taken on the eve 

of D-Day, when General Eisenhower went to speak to the 101st 

Airborne, believing that the Division will incur severe and heavy 

casualties on the following day. President Eisenhower then later 

chose to send the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce the desegregation of schools. 

The second stone bas relief image, which you see here, comes 

from a portrait taken by Yousuf Karsh called, ‘‘The Elder Statesman,’’ which shows President Eisenhower with his hand on the 

globe. This represents his position as the most international of all 

presidents, and how he presided over the ascent of the United 

States into becoming a global power. 

These images are the leading contenders, not necessarily the 

final selections which will be made by our 12-member congressional 

commission, and must be approved by the Commission of Fine Arts 

and the National Capital Planning Commission. 

In the center, on or near a lower wall, will stand the Eisenhower 

sculpture, which you see here. It is in a small circle. I am not sure 

you can see that. We will attempt to point it out right—the screen 

does not pick it up. I apologize for that. 

This sculpture is yet to be determined in terms of Eisenhower’s 

depreciation and age. Frank Gehry addresses this in his letter for 

the record to the Chairman and the Ranking Member. It has never 

been a barefoot boy. That term comes from Eisenhower’s own 

words in his homecoming speech in Abilene, Kansas in 1945, when 

he began his speech with this sentence, and I quote: ‘‘Because no 

man is really a man who has lost out of himself all of the boy, I 

want to speak first of the dreams of a barefoot boy.’’ 

The designer’s vision is that a young Eisenhower will be looking 

out at what he is to become, a great general and a great president. 

These monumental, heroic-sized images of General and President 

Eisenhower in Eisenhower Square will be framed, as you see here, 

by three transparent 65-foot-tall stainless steel tapestries depicting 

a Great Plains landscape of Kansas, artistically rendered as you 

see here. 

This will be the only national Presidential memorial placed in a 

very difficult urban park setting, but this is a superb site surrounded by institutions directly related to Eisenhower’s presidency, 

and will be directly accessible to millions of visitors. 

How did we get here? As the former Professor and Head of the 

Department of History at the United States Air Force Academy, I 

have come to believe that over the 11 years the Commission has 

been working on this memorial, that the public interest and support for the memorialization that the Commission has enjoyed is 

36 

based on the increasing public and professional knowledge of the 

depth, breadth, and diversity of the Eisenhower legacy. 

My personal interest and professional involvement with the Eisenhower legacy go back to my service in the United States Air 

Force. From the beginning of the Commission’s work in 2001, we 

have been directly involved with the best possible expertise on either, such as the scholars at Johns Hopkins University who carried 

out the publication of 21 volumes of papers of Eisenhower. One of 

those editors, Daun van Ee, is with us today. 

My colleagues and I are a small staff of eight people. We partner 

with General Services Administration to accomplish much of our 

work. From the beginning, we have been transparent, public, and 

legally bound by Federal law. In the design process over the past 

two years, we have been the subject of 23 public review meetings, 

listed in my statement for the record, open to all constituencies and 

members of the public, as a result of which we have incorporated 

a wide range of design suggestions and inputs. This meeting today 

will be No. 24 over the past two years, averaging one a month. 

This careful, deliberative process has been underway for each 

phase of our work during the past 11 years, a matter you can judge 

for yourself by reading the online version of the minutes of our 15 

Commission meetings that we have held. 

How are we funded? When the Commission began its work, it 

was—— 

Mr. BISHOP. General, can I ask you to quickly sum up here? 

General REDDEL. Sure. 

Mr. BISHOP. The red light is showing, for a while. 

General REDDEL. OK. Thank you very much. 

We have benefitted from the Eisenhower family participation in 

our 15 Commission meetings over the years, especially from David 

Eisenhower as a Commissioner for more than 10. His family insights, scholarly historical knowledge, and contributions to the 

evolving design process were important. 

Since David resigned his position as Commissioner in December 

2011, one of our Commissioners from Kansas, Senator Pat Roberts, 

as a member of the Commission’s Executive Committee, has engaged in conversations with Susan and Anne Eisenhower to help 

ensure complete understanding of their views, and to explore creative ways to respond positively to their concerns. We encourage 

and support Senator Roberts in his efforts, and Congressman Boswell, also a member of that Executive Committee. 

May I close by complimenting you on bringing attention, very important for our country, to revisit some of our most important 

roots. General and President Eisenhower was of immense importance in our transition from the 20th to the 21st century. Now, at 

the beginning of the 21st century, we are asking ourselves, how do 

we remain true to ourself and its founding promises to secure liberty and freedom for all. 

The proposed National Eisenhower Memorial should be part of 

the answer for part of the young and the old who will visit the site. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of General Reddel follows:] 

37 

Statement of Brig. Gen. Carl W. Reddel, USAF (Ret.), 

Executive Director, Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission 

Table of Contents 

About the Eisenhower Memorial Commission . . . . . p. 1 

Senior Leadership . . . . . p. 2 

Commission Staff . . . . . p. 2 

Site Selection . . . . . p. 2 

Selection of Frank Gehry and the Preferred Design Concept . . . . . p. 3 

Memorial Design Phase: 2010–2012 . . . . . p. 4 

Description of the Memorial Design . . . . . p. 5 

E–Memorial . . . . . p. 6 

Federal Contracting and Oversight . . . . . p. 7 

Funding . . . . . p. 7 

Conclusion . . . . . p. 8 

List of Appended Documents . . . . . p. 8 

About the Eisenhower Memorial Commission (EMC) 

The Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission is a bipartisan Commission created by Congress. It is charged with establishing a national, permanent memorial 

to Dwight D. Eisenhower to perpetuate his memory and his contributions, specifically his service as Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in World War II and as 

34th U.S. President. This memorial will be of the highest caliber, joining other 

Washington, D.C. landmarks such as the Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt 

and World War II Memorials. It will honor Eisenhower’s memory and celebrate his 

achievements, inspiring and educating all who visit. All of the Commission’s activities contribute to realizing this goal. 

As a result of the efforts of two World War II combat-decorated veterans, Senator 

Daniel K. Inouye and Senator Ted Stevens, the Commission was created on October 

25, 1999 by Public Law 106–79. As amended, the law states, ‘‘The Commission may 

establish a permanent memorial to Dwight D. Eisenhower on land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior in the District of Columbia....’’ 

The Commission consists of twelve members, including eight Members of Congress. 

Appointed by the President: 

• Rocco C. Siciliano, Chairman (Beverly Hills, CA) 

• Alfred Geduldig (New York, NY) 

• Susan Banes Harris (Potomac, MD) 

• Vacant (Previously filled by David Eisenhower, 2001–2011) 

Appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate 

• Daniel K. Inouye, Vice Chairman (D/Hawaii) 

• Jack Reed (D/Rhode Island) 

• Pat Roberts (R/Kansas) 

• Jerry Moran (R/Kansas) 

Appointed by the Speaker of the House: 

• William (Mac) Thornberry (R/Texas) 

• Leonard L. Boswell (D/Iowa) 

• Michael Simpson (R/Idaho) 

• Sanford Bishop, Jr. (D/Georgia) 

These Commissioners, from New York to California, Rhode Island to Texas, and 

of course from Kansas, are charged with carrying out the mission to construct the 

memorial. 

Senior Leadership 

Chairman Rocco Siciliano is a World War II combat-decorated infantry veteran 

who served as Special Assistant to President Eisenhower for Personnel Management. 

Vice Chairman Senator Daniel K. Inouye is a World War II Medal of Honor recipient for valor and has continuously represented Hawaii in the United States Congress since President Eisenhower signed its statehood into law in 1959. 

38 

Commission Staff 

Executive Director Brig. Gen. Carl Reddel, USAF (Ret.), served as President and 

CEO of the Eisenhower World Affairs Institute (EWAI) following his retirement 

from the United States Air Force, where among other responsibilities he was a Professor and Head of the Department of History at the United States Air Force Academy. Gen. Reddel joined the Commission in June 2001. 

The Commission is staffed by seven full-time temporary federal employees in accordance with legislation passed in May 2008 (P.L. 110–229). Brig. Gen. Reddel, the 

Commission’s Executive Director, leads the core staff and one full-time contract consultant, the Commission’s Executive Architect. 

Site Selection 

In 2005, the Eisenhower Memorial Commission (EMC) completed its review of 26 

potential sites for the National Eisenhower Memorial. During this process, at the 

request of Senator Ted Stevens, the Commission pursued the possible joint development of the memorial with existing plans for a new headquarters of the United 

States Institute of Peace. Ultimately a proposed joint development arrangement negotiated by the Commission and its Special Counsel, in consultation with the Eisenhower family, was deemed not acceptable by the family and the Commission pursued other possible sites. In November 2004, following a request of the Eisenhower 

family, the Commission pursued establishing the memorial inside the Yates Building (the Auditor’s Building) at the corner of Independence Avenue and 14th St. NW. 

However, when the matter came before the Commission in March 2005, Commissioner David Eisenhower stated it was not appropriate to put a memorial for one 

person inside a building named for someone else and that site was no longer pursued. 

In June of 2005, after exhaustive investigation, the EMC selected its preferred location—a potentially remarkable four-acre site at the base of Capitol Hill and one 

of the top twenty sites in Washington, D.C. designated by the National Capital 

Planning Commission (NCPC) for a future memorial. This site at the intersection 

of Maryland and Independence Avenues, SW, between 4th and 6th Streets, is prominent, accessible, and has strong thematic connections with Eisenhower. 

All of the neighboring institutions were influenced by Eisenhower’s presidency. He 

created the precursor to the Department of Education, immediately adjacent to the 

site’s southern border. He also created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, whose work is highlighted at the National Air and Space Museum across 

the street to the north of the site. The site also boasts a stunning view of the U.S. 

Capitol along the Maryland Avenue view corridor, reflecting Eisenhower’s exceptional respect among all Presidents for the authority of Congress. 

In May 2006, Congress and the President approved P.L. 109–220, selecting Eisenhower as an appropriate subject for a memorial within Area I, the prominent area 

of the Capital reserved for memorials of pre-eminent historical and lasting significance to the Nation. In September 2006, both the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts voted on and approved the Commission’s 

preferred location as the future site of the Eisenhower Memorial. The site has been 

informally named ‘‘Eisenhower Square.’’ 

In 2007, the EMC contracted with Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP (SOM) to 

create the Pre-Design Program to communicate to the prospective designer what the 

National Eisenhower Memorial should be, including goals, requirements, constraints, and opportunities. This effort included interviews with Commissioners, 

scholars, authors, Eisenhower family members, Eisenhower contemporaries, and 

many others. 

Selection of Frank Gehry and the Preferred Design Concept 

In 2008, the Commission engaged with the General Services Administration’s Design Excellence Program for design team procurement. The initial request for proposals garnered forty-four submissions, with four design teams advancing to final 

consideration. 

Following the GSA design team procurement recommendation, on March 31, 2009, 

the Eisenhower Memorial Commission unanimously selected world-renowned architect Frank Gehry of Gehry Partners LLP as the designer for the National Eisenhower Memorial. Frank Gehry is one of the world’s most celebrated architects, and 

has won the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Gold Medal, the Pritzker Prize, 

Britain’s Royal Gold Medal, Japan’s Praemium Imperiale, the Order of Canada, and 

the National Medal of Arts. 

In January 2010, the Commission announced its selection of the Gilbane Building 

Company for design and construction management services. Gehry Partners and 

39 

Gilbane’s contracts were finalized at the outset of 2010, marking the official beginning of the design process. 

On March 25, 2010, the Commission chose the preferred design concept for the 

National Eisenhower Memorial out of four possible options. The design selected encompasses a world-class memorial and civic space including time-honored memorial 

elements of sculpture, bas reliefs, tapestry, and quotations in materials which will 

endure through the ages. From the outset, the bas reliefs included large representations of the General and President. 

During the design phase, Frank Gehry immersed himself in General and President Eisenhower’s life, traveling to Abilene, Kansas for a first-hand education on 

the life of his subject at the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum. The design team also worked with Eisenhower historians and the senior co-editor of the 

Eisenhower papers, Professor Louis Galambos, of Johns Hopkins University, to ensure that the design elements were historically accurate and true to their subject. 

Memorial Design Phase: 2010–2012 

In 2010 and 2011, the Commission and design team successfully completed several rounds of meetings with federal review agencies—the U.S. Commission of Fine 

Arts (CFA), the National Capital Memorial Advisory Committee (NCMAC), and the 

National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). The design team continued to refine the preferred design concept throughout this time, culminating in the unanimous endorsement and direction to proceed with the preferred design development. 

The design team then began work on construction documents which are at 75 percent completion at this time. 

Throughout much of 2011, the design team conducted significant research and 

testing on potential sources for the memorial’s tapestry elements, to great positive 

effect. In late summer 2011, the Eisenhower Memorial Commission, CFA, and 

NCPC Commissioners and staff viewed and evaluated tapestry samples from three 

separate vendors. The Commission displayed the best of the tapestry ‘mock-ups’ onsite in late August and again in September, receiving near-universal acclaim for 

their transparency and beauty, along with commendation for the determination of 

the design team to get this important feature of the design correct. 

In September 2011, the Commission of Fine Arts unanimously approved the memorial’s design, noting that the scale was correct, and expressing great enthusiasm 

for the development of the design and the artistic quality of the tapestry mockups. 

They further noted that the sophistication of the design and the proposed artistic 

treatment ‘‘will transform the site and the context of adjacent federal buildings.’’ 

The tapestry mock-ups also earned admiration from the U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, who welcomed the memorial as a new neighbor in a letter 

wholeheartedly endorsing the memorial design in October 2011. The Architect of the 

Capitol also expressed its support for the design in a letter that same month, applauding the Commission’s ‘‘decision, courage, and commitment of time’’ to work 

within the Section 106 process to better the design. 

The Commission and design team participated in a series of NEPA/Section 106 

meetings throughout 2010 and 2011, named for the section of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. In March 2012, a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was finalized, the Environmental Assessment 

(EA) concluded and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by the 

National Parks Service (NPS). 

Throughout this design stage, the Commission staff has briefed staff and members 

of Congress from the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on the Interior and Defense, Natural Resources Committees, and other members of Congress 

who have expressed an interest in the memorial. While briefing members of Congress and their staff on the design, EMC staff has received near-universal positive 

response. 

The Commission continues to cooperate with other federal agencies, including an 

on-going partnership with the Department of Education to establish an attractive 

and useful promenade between the memorial and the main entrance of the Department of Education’s Lyndon B. Johnson building. These efforts include enhancements such as space and facilities for new exhibits, meetings, events, and even retail. 

The Commission also works in partnership with the National Archives and 

Records Administration and the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum in 

Abilene, Kansas. These relationships enable the Commission to benefit from established federal resources in order to ensure that the memorial is an authentic representation of the Eisenhower historical legacy. These partnerships continue to be 

particularly useful as the Commission develops the electronic on-site and off-site 

40 

components of the E–Memorial. The Commission expects that, once the memorial 

is completed, its prominent presence in the nation’s capital will draw further attention to the library, cementing the reciprocal relationship between both entities and 

elevating public awareness of the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum. 

Description of the Memorial Design 

The National Eisenhower Memorial in Washington, DC uses the traditional memorial forms of sculpture, bas relief, tapestries, realistic images and quotations, to 

honor Ike’s unparalleled achievements in behalf of his country. For over 1,000 years, 

societies have employed these classic elements to recognize and memorialize their 

great leaders. In the design for this first presidential memorial to be built in our 

21st century, Frank Gehry, America’s foremost architect, has designed a memorial 

which speaks to Ike’s great achievements while recognizing his humanity. 

Unlike other presidential memorials in Washington, DC, the Eisenhower Memorial will be located within a new urban park space, flanked by District streets. The 

Eisenhower Memorial is set within four acres of new parkland directly across from, 

and south of, the National Air and Space Museum. The memorial honors Eisenhower’s achievements as the Supreme Allied Commander in World War II and as 

the 34th U.S. President in heroic-scale bas reliefs on monumental stone blocks. 

Quotations from several of his most memorable speeches will be inscribed on a nearby wall. Completing the powerful sculptural composition, a human-scale realistic 

statue of Eisenhower as a young man will be looking out to the images of the great 

military leader and president he will become. The setting for the memorial is elegantly created by an 80-foot tall limestone-clad columns supporting woven, stainless 

steel tapestries, which depict the Kansas plains where he grew up and where he 

developed the values and character which helped guide him to greatness. 

Pedestrians will arrive at the site from all four corners of Eisenhower Square, entering by passing under one of the tapestries, and converging in the center at the 

memorial itself. The positioning of the massive stone bas reliefs and the quotations 

wall create an area for quiet contemplation within, but separate from, the more active urban civic space. The memorial visitors will be able to talk to National Park 

Service rangers to learn more about Eisenhower. Group seating areas are provided 

throughout the site for school groups to gather and participate in presentations and 

discussions with their teachers. 

A rigorous materials-testing program is guiding material selections to ensure the 

durability of the memorial, which is being designed to last hundreds of years. Storage spaces and equipment are being provided on-site, in close consultation with the 

National Park Service, in direct support of their maintenance activities. The memorial will be built to current National Park Service standards for environmental sustainability and to conform to District of Columbia water management requirements. 

The Commission will seek LEED Silver certification for the memorial. 

The memorial is separated from its nearest neighbor, the U. S. Department of 

Education, by the 50-foot wide LBJ Promenade. This pedestrian promenade design 

provides an enhanced opportunity for the Department to engage with the public 

through interactive exhibits and other forms of outreach. An overlook at Promenade 

level provides a large, covered gathering space for the Department and for visitors 

to view the memorial in inclement weather. 

The memorial design masterfully creates an allee of trees along the portion of 

Maryland Avenue which formerly traversed the site. The commanding vista along 

the allee to the east directs the memorial visitor’s eye to the dome of the Capitol, 

in part to recognize Eisenhower’s extraordinarily collaborative and productive relationship with Congress. 

E–Memorial 

In March, 2004 the Commission adopted a formal resolution in which it declared 

that the Eisenhower Memorial would be composed of both a physical memorial and 

a living memorial. The living memorial was described as including ‘‘sponsored historical or policy research, publications, public presentations, commemorations or 

programs that will advance and perpetuate the legacy of Dwight D. Eisenhower and 

his contributions to the United States of America.’’ In an effort to further define this 

latter concept, the Commission authorized a grant of up to $400,000 to the Eisenhower World Affairs Institute, then headed by Susan Eisenhower, with a mandate 

to coordinate with the existing Eisenhower legacy organizations and to develop a 

proposal suitable for adoption by the Commission. The report produced by the Eisenhower World Affairs Institute reflected a lack of consensus of the legacy organizations and did not embody actionable recommendations for Commission as to how 

its objective of a living memorial might be achieved. 

41 

In 2007, the six legacy organizations jointly agreed that their existence represents 

the Living Memorial to Dwight Eisenhower and they unanimously supported the 

idea of electronic representation of themselves and their work within the physical 

elements of the memorial. This concept, which we refer to as the E–Memorial, is 

presently being developed. 

The National Eisenhower Memorial will be the first national presidential memorial of the 21st century and the first to incorporate an electronic companion memorial. The Commission has selected the New York City-based, award-winning media 

design firm, Local Projects, to design the E–Memorial. 

The E–Memorial consists of an on-site component and an off-site (website) component. Through a downloaded app, visitors will use their personal mobile devices to 

enhance the visit to the physical memorial. This app will provide a superior educational experience. There will also be resources available for teachers planning a 

visit. National Park Service Ranger commentary will be available for those who 

choose not to use their personal electronic devices. This technology is flexible enough 

to be updated. The Commission is coordinating with the Eisenhower Library in Abilene, Kansas, and the National Archives and Records Administration, to ensure that 

these already-established federal resources have a role in the continued interpretation of the E–Memorial, to ensure that the information remains accurate and interesting. 

Federal Contracting and Oversight 

The U.S. General Services Administration-National Capital Region (GSA–NCR) 

Public Buildings Service is the contracting agent for the Eisenhower Memorial Commission for the above work. The National Capital Region GSA office is designated 

to assist public commissions such as the EMC in the procurement and management 

of the above types of contracts. The Commission’s Design and Construction Management Consultant directly serves GSA staff in executing these responsibilities. 

Funding 

At the outset of the Commission’s activities, a study was undertaken of Presidential memorials in Washington DC. It was determined that there are six national 

Presidential memorials, to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, 

Theodore Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. 

These memorials were principally funded by the government, the most recent of 

which was the FDR memorial which was 89 percent federally funded. Members of 

the Eisenhower family have expressed concerns since the initial days of the Commission that any private fundraising for the Memorial could negatively impact the 

fundraising of the legacy organizations. Initially, it was intended that there be no 

private fundraising for the Eisenhower Memorial. 

As the Commission is a member of the Legislative branch, as opposed to a private 

initiative, it has been entirely funded by federal funds. In 2008, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior advised the Commission that it was expected that there be a private funding component for the Memorial. No specific 

amount was given. In 2011, the Commission hired Odell, Simms & Lynch, a firm 

with fundraising experience for memorials and other public projects, to lead a private fundraising effort. 

The estimated cost for the construction phase of the memorial, including operating 

the Commission, site preparation, construction of the memorial, GSA fees, and a 

construction management firm, is $112.5. The Commission has requested 80 percent 

federal funding, $89.8 million in the President’s budget in FY2011 and FY2012. For 

FY2012, the Commission received one third of its request, $32.9 million to begin 

construction of the memorial. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, we at the Commission—both our Commissioners and staff—are appreciative of the opportunity to come before you today for this discussion of the memorial. As you can see, the Commission has been working for well over a decade 

in a sincere and dedicated effort to memorialize one of our Nation’s great Presidents 

of the 20th century. 

The commission has been faithful to the prescribed GSA processes for both the 

design competition and contracting protocols. It is important to note that in terms 

of both time and money, a large investment has been made. The selection process 

yielded the premier designer and architect of the 21st century to lead this landmark 

effort. 

This has been a deliberative and extensive process from the beginning, with over 

21 public meetings that provided a forum for public comment. The Commission has 

greatly benefitted from the participation of the Eisenhower family via David Eisenhower’s participation as a Commissioner for a decade. As well, members of the famVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 Mar 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\73488.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
42 

ily have appeared at Commission meetings and Frank Gehry has invited family 

members to visit his studio for the purpose of discussing the design. 

The Commission of Fine Arts has unanimously given its approval of this design, 

citing the beauty of the tapestries and the appropriateness of the memorial’s scale. 

As we stand today, the design stage is near completion. 

It is time to build this memorial. 

List of Appended Documents 

1. Frank O. Gehry letter, March 19, 2012 

2. David M. Childs letter, March 16, 2012 

3. U.S. Commission of Fine Arts letter, September 22, 2011 

4. U.S. Department of Education letter, October 12, 2011 

5. Architect of the Capitol letter, October 17, 2011 

6. List of public meetings, as of March 15, 2012 

7. David Eisenhower’s resignation letter, December 21, 2011 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Brig. Gen. Carl W. 

Reddel, USAF (Ret.), Executive Director, Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial 

Commission 

Questions from The Honorable Rob Bishop 

1. How has the commission attempted to reconcile the design concerns of 

the Eisenhower Family? 

The Eisenhower Memorial Commission (EMC) has been making, and continues to 

make, a sincere effort to engage the Eisenhower family to discuss design concerns 

with the designer, Frank Gehry. In fact, as recently as April 16th, 2012, Mr. Gehry 

has offered to meet with the family at their convenience. Frank Gehry has indicated 

that there are still opportunities for the family to provide counsel and input on the 

memorial design. 

The Commission has worked with the Eisenhower family since it was created by 

Congress in 1999 and, for over a decade, very much benefitted from their input. 

David Eisenhower was appointed to the Commission by President Clinton and Commission staff and fellow Commissioners were united in their presumption that he 

represented the family on the Commission until his resignation in December 2011. 

The Commission was consistently assured by David Eisenhower that he represented the family. In fact, in May 2011, Mr. Eisenhower along with his sister 

Anne, participated in a lengthy private meeting in New York with Frank Gehry. 

The design concept of the tapestries representing a Kansas landscape, a statue of 

young Eisenhower, and the bas reliefs representing the President and General, were 

portrayed in a large design model and in a variety of presentation materials that 

were viewed by the family during this meeting. The design concept was fully discussed, including extensive conversations at dinner later that evening. 

At the conclusion of the July 2011 meeting of the Commission, David Eisenhower 

seconded the motion to direct Mr. Gehry to complete the design. Directly following 

the meeting, Commissioner Eisenhower spoke informally with a small group to express his full support of the evolving progress of the memorial’s design. He said that 

he had spoken with his father, John S.D. Eisenhower, and that they were both supportive of the Commission’s progress and its ongoing work with Frank Gehry. By 

that time, design preparation was at the completion of the development stage and 

had progressed into the construction document preparation phase. 

However, in October 2011, Anne and Susan expressed concerns about Eisenhower’s memorialization and attempts were made to arrange a meeting for them 

with Frank Gehry. Due to schedule constraints on both sides, this meeting was set 

for December 1st, 2011. 

On December 1st, 2011, Mr. Gehry came to New York, to meet with David, Susan, 

and Anne Eisenhower. Susan and Anne arrived and said that David would not be 

attending the meeting. Mr. Gehry reviewed the concept guiding his evolving design 

and addressed the concerns of the Susan and Anne Eisenhower, including maintenance issues. Several days later, Anne Eisenhower sent an email to Mr. Gehry stating that the family did not like elements of the design but that it was not up to 

them to make suggestions for adjusting the design to their liking. A week later, the 

Commission was surprised and disappointed when David Eisenhower resigned, stating in previous private communications that he would resign rather than be in public dispute with his sisters. 

Following the meeting with Anne and Susan Eisenhower in December 2011, Mr. 

Gehry and his design team believed they had made significant progress in understanding the concerns of the Eisenhower family and were prepared for additional 

43 

engagement on design elements. They were then confronted with Anne Eisenhower’s 

subsequent statements that the design was wholly unacceptable and that the family 

had no responsibility to propose changes. 

Despite the sisters’ negative response, Mr. Gehry has consistently expressed his 

openness to working with the family and has repeatedly affirmed his availability to 

meet with the Eisenhower sisters. Alternative dates have been offered by Mr. Gehry 

to the family to travel to Mr. Gehry’s studio to see the working models and to listen 

to the family’s concerns. 

Although no visits have been scheduled, Mr. Gehry has remained willing to meet 

with the sisters and has asked them to send him dates when they would like to 

come to his studio. Mr. Gehry has indicated that opportunities remain for the family 

to provide substantive input on the design. On April 9th, 2012, Anne Eisenhower 

responded to Mr. Gehry saying they would not be meeting with him to help develop 

the evolving design. 

Anne Eisenhower’s letter in response to Mr. Gehry’s invitation for the sisters to 

meet with him greatly mischaracterizes several important points. Neither Mr. 

Siciliano nor any member of the Commission staff has stated that there will be ‘‘no 

significant changes in the design.’’ The Commission has supported the design concept, and Senators Inouye and Roberts have expressly solicited the views of the family. In fact, it is because of this willingness to work with the family that Mr. Gehry 

offered to make himself available at the sisters’ convenience and Senators Inouye 

and Roberts encouraged them to do so in a letter dated March 27th. 

Anne’s letter also implies that the family has raised concerns for a significant period of time and that the Chairman and the Commission staff have not been responsive to these concerns. As noted in this response, the major concerns raised by 

Susan and Anne are of a very recent origin. They began in late 2011, yet the Commission had been hard at work with David representing the family as a Commissioner since 1999. The Commission has responded promptly and frequently with offers to meet and address these issues, including the aforementioned meeting in December 2011 and subsequent invitations from Mr. Gehry. 

2. Has a meeting, since the hearing, been scheduled between Mr. Gehry 

and the Eisenhower Family? 

The EMC and Frank Gehry’s staff have worked closely together to coordinate a 

visit for the Eisenhower family to Mr. Gehry’s studio in Los Angeles. An open-ended 

invitation was issued by Frank Gehry to the sisters asking them to suggest dates 

compatible with their schedules. Mr. Gehry wants to be as accommodating as possible, to ensure that the family can travel to Los Angeles to view the refinements 

Frank Gehry has made in response to the December 2011 meeting and their recent 

comments, and to further provide insight, refinement, and advice within the framework of the design. 

On March 27, 2012, Senators Roberts, Inouye and the Commission asked the family to make a trip to Los Angeles in the next sixty days, in an effort to enable the 

memorial to proceed on schedule and on budget. While the tapestry that surrounds 

the memorial and the centralization of the heroic depiction of Eisenhower as General and President remain as elements of the design, Mr. Gehry has indicated he 

wants the family to work with him on other elements of the memorial. 

In addition to Frank Gehry and the Commission’s efforts, Senator Pat Roberts 

and his staff have been working on behalf of the Commission’s Executive Committee 

to encourage, arrange, and schedule Eisenhower family meetings at the Commission’s expense with Frank Gehry and other pertinent parties. 

3. It says in the 2006 meeting minutes that Chairman Siciliano spoke with 

Frank Gehry about designing the Eisenhower Memorial a few years 

prior to that. Being that Gehry was ultimately selected (in 2009), it could 

leave the impression that he was preselected. Was Gehry the preferred 

candidate from the onset? How can we know the competition was fair? 

There was no pre-selection of a designer or preferred candidate. In fact, when the 

selection was approved by the Commission at a Commission meeting in March 2009, 

David Eisenhower stated ‘‘as a Commissioner and a member of the Eisenhower family he could vouch for the integrity and excellence of the selection process.’’ 

The competition was fair and unbiased. It was conducted in accordance with established procedures of federal law and executed by the Central Office of GSA in 

coordination with the National Capital Region. Representatives from the Eisenhower Memorial Commission constituted less than one third of the voting members 

of the Evaluation Board. The other members were selected by GSA Central Office 

and no representatives from the Eisenhower Memorial Commission chaired any of 

the panels. The entire process was overseen by a GSA contracting officer. David EiVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 Mar 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\73488.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
44 

senhower was the only Commissioner to serve on both the non-voting Design Jury 

as well as the GSA Design Evaluation Board. 

4. Why did you simply ask for qualifications and ‘‘design philosophy,’’ but 

not actual designs from architects? 

The RFQ announcement identified a three-stage procurement process under the 

GSA Design Excellence Program. It was a portfolio-based selection. The announcement offers the opportunity for interested parties to ask the Contracting Officer for 

a copy of Volume 1 of the Pre-Design Program by way of further introduction to the 

project. In this way, interested parties do not have to rely on ‘‘the word on the 

street’’ to learn about the project and they cannot contact EMC or any government 

entity concerned with the procurement once the RFQ is out for response. The Stage 

1 submittal is mostly portfolio and resume information required of the proposed lead 

designer and her/his associated firm. 

Evaluation Criteria 

The FBO Announcement included the Stage 1 evaluation criteria which were as 

follows: 

1. Lead designer portfolio [55%] 

2. Philosophy and Design Intent [20%] 

3. Past Performance on Design [15%] 

4. Lead Designer Profile [10%] 

Evaluation Criteria were similarly included in the announcement of each successive evaluation stage. 

Selection Process 

According to the Commission’s Executive Architect, the GSA Report details that 

GSA Central Office was in charge of the memorial designer selection process along 

with the Contracting Officer from GSA National Capital Region. An Evaluation 

Board of 12 members [the only Commission representatives on this board were two 

EMC Commissioners, Rocco Siciliano and David Eisenhower, and the EMC Executive Architect Dan Feil] reviewed the forty-four [44] proposed lead designer portfolios and the other components of the submittals. The Evaluation Board voted on 

a preliminary short list of seven [7] designers and associated firms for further consideration. All votes had equal weight. Stage 2 submittals by this short list of seven 

firms identified the full design team and provided a preliminary vision for the memorial. The preliminary vision is the lead designer’s interpretation of the Program 

in sketch form. They were presented at individual team interviews. The vision is 

not a design concept; that can only be developed once the actual designer and design 

team is selected and under contract. Stage 2 resulted in a final short list of four 

teams which continued to Stage 3. In Stage 3, firms received a stipend and were 

asked to further develop their vision. A Jury of eight [8] Professional Peers and 

Commissioner David Eisenhower reviewed and commented on the submitted Stage 

3 visions to the Evaluation Board. Interviews with the four [4] final short-listed 

firms were held. The Evaluation Board then fully evaluated the final short list and 

recommended the first and second place firms. 

Only three [3] of the twelve [12] member Evaluation Board were EMC Commissioners or staff. Only one [1] Commissioner (David Eisenhower) was a member of 

the nine [9] member Jury. The Evaluation Board was chaired by GSA and the jury 

was chaired by an architect in private practice. Neither EMC Commissioners nor 

staff chaired the panels. GSA Central Office had to approve all panel members and 

invited all participants. Only David Eisenhower served on both panels, the Jury and 

Evaluation Board. Professional Peers are routinely used by GSA on these evaluation 

boards and juries. Additionally, EMC Commissioners Alfred Geduldig and Susan 

Banes Harris were both observers for the evaluation process. This allowed them to 

attend the interviews and the panel deliberations, but not to ask questions of the 

Panels during deliberations. They were non-voting. 

The recommendation of the Panel was also formally reviewed by GSA–National 

Capital Region (Office of Legal Counsel and the Contracting Officer) and a report 

prepared. The report with the decision of the Evaluation Board was signed by each 

member. The recommendation was then forwarded to the Commission, which held 

a Commission meeting on March 31, 2009 to decide whether or not to accept this 

recommendation. 

This is the formal process for this type of federal procurement. It is inappropriate 

to ask for actualized designs for the memorial without providing an opportunity for 

the designer to meet with the appropriate federal review agencies the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC)), the Eisenhower family, and with 

the Eisenhower Memorial Commission. Federal laws including the National EnviVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 Mar 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\73488.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
45 

ronmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act require public 

input during the design process. 

5. How did you publicize that Americans could apply to design the Eisenhower Memorial? 

The competition was advertised on FedBizOpps. This is considered ‘‘required reading’’ for federal business opportunities and is considered normal procedure for federal design and building opportunities. 

The memorial design contract was a public federal procurement and followed the 

Federal Acquisition Regulations. The overall process was administered by the General Services Administration/National Capital Region [GSA/NCR] with the management of the memorial designer selection process by the GSA Central Office. The design project was announced publicly in the Federal Business Opportunities [FBO] 

website. With the approval of the Contracting Officer, notice of the Request for 

Qualifications was also listed by the American Institute of Architects and the American Society of Landscape Architects on their respective websites after it was posted 

on FBO. The announcement was also listed prominently on the EMC website and 

on the GSA website once it was public information on FBO. See also answer #4. 

6. Why did you choose to run the competition via the Design Excellence 

Program despite its difficulties in the case of the National World War II 

Memorial competition, including the public outcry against the initial 

competition? Were you aware of those difficulties? 

The Eisenhower Memorial Commission has very limited direct contracting authority. The National Capital Region of the General Services Administration is set up 

to provide design services contracting for federal commissions such as ours. The 

GSA Design Excellence Program is well-respected within the design community as 

signifying the desire for a high quality design effort. The nature of the GSA Design 

Excellence program was well expressed by William Guerin, Assistant Commissioner 

for the Office of Construction Programs, Public Building Service, U.S. General Services Administration, in the following testimony before the Subcommittee on 

March 20, 2012: 

GSA’s Design Excellence process seeks to commission the nation’s most talented 

architects, and engineers to design projects of outstanding quality and value. We 

use the Design Excellence process to select Architect/Engineer firms for our new 

constriction and major modernizations. These projects aim to demonstrate the value 

of truly integrated design that balances aesthetics, function, cost, constructability, 

reliability, reduced energy consumption, and gives form and meaning to our democratic values. 

The Design Excellence program provides a competitive and streamlined process 

for identifying qualified firms, and then asking a short list of highly qualified firms 

for design proposals that allow us to select the firm representing the best value to 

the government. As part of this process, GSA utilizes the expertise of private sector 

peers to assist in evaluating the firms, ensuring that we benefit from the knowledge 

of a wide variety of individuals. 

In March 2008, EMC conducted a survey of its Commissioners as to whether they 

preferred a portfolio-based competition, such as the one used when the World War 

II Memorial design competition was initiated, or whether they wanted to open the 

competitive process to a broader group, such as was eventually done for the World 

War II project. The pros and cons of both methodologies were discussed with the 

EMC commissioners prior to their polling and they ultimately chose to pursue a 

portfolio-based selection. 

7. Do you think it was sufficient that the Eisenhower Memorial competition was advertised only at FedBizOpps.gov? Did the Eisenhower Memorial Commission seek to maximize interest in the competition? If not, 

why? 

The memorial design contract was a public federal procurement and followed the 

Federal Acquisition Regulations. The overall process was administered by the General Services Administration/National Capital Region [GSA/NCR] with the management of the memorial designer selection process by the GSA Central Office. The design project was announced publicly in the Federal Business Opportunities [FBO] 

website. With the approval of the Contracting Officer, notice of the Request for 

Qualifications was also listed by the American Institute of Architects and the American Society of Landscape Architects on their respective websites after it was posted 

on FBO. The announcement was also listed prominently on the EMC website and 

on the GSA website once it was public information on FBO. 

46 

8. Of the 44 entries the competition received, how many and which ones 

were specifically solicited by the Eisenhower Memorial Commission and/ 

or its agents? 

After the RFQ was published in FedBizOpps and published on other sites as 

noted previously, with the approval of the GSA Contracting Officer, letters were 

sent by the Eisenhower Memorial Commission Executive Architect to thirty architects and landscape architects announcing the RFQ for design services for the Eisenhower Memorial. These were not a solicitation of any kind. This was another 

outreach effort to ensure the Commission received as broad a range of responses to 

the RFQ as possible. 

GSA did not analyze the question of whether any of the recipients of the letters 

in fact responded to the RFQ. 

9. Have you ever made the competition entries public? 

GSA has control over the submissions by prospective designers and has allowed 

the individual designers to release their submissions at their discretion. The Eisenhower Memorial Commission has no authority in this area and we encourage the 

Committee to make this inquiry directly to GSA. 

10. Would you provide the committee with Frank Gehry’s submission? 

The submissions are under the control of GSA and we suggest you make this 

inquiry to GSA. 

11. What official actions, including votes, did the Eisenhower Memorial 

Commission take between its 2007 and 2009 meetings? If, as you stated 

in your testimony, there were no official meetings during that time period, on what authority were those actions taken? 

When the Commission was first created by Congress in 1999, it faced multiple 

challenges of deciding where and what the memorial to General and President Eisenhower would be. After the memorial’s site was approved by Congress and the 

President in 2006, we knew the ‘where.’ The next step was to determine the ‘what.’ 

In order to do this, the Commission undertook the creation of a Pre-Design Program. EMC staff worked with the firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (SOM) to 

develop this Program. Its purpose was to lay out the challenges of the memorial’s 

site and detail the historical legacy of the memorial’s subject to prepare the future 

design firm. 

After the Pre-Design Program was completed, Commissioners would decide 

whether to accept it (which they did), and they needed to choose the process by 

which a designer would be selected. Commissioners and their staff were thoroughly 

briefed on the details and the ramifications of these decisions, both in-person and 

through written materials, and Commissioners agreed to clearly indicate their preferences via poll. 

Commissioners were polled on the following matters: support or oppose the PreDesign Program; select a Manager of Design and Construction among GSA, NPS, 

or Architect of the Capitol; to proceed with a portfolio-based Competition or an Open 

Competition; and whether the project should be open to international designers or 

national designers. 

In March 2008, Commissioners indicated their preference to: 1) support the PreDesign Program; 2) use GSA as the design and construction management services 

provider; 3) proceed with a portfolio-based competition; 4) restrict the project to national designers. 

Once this decision was made, the procurement process was organized and announced publicly. Once the procurement process began, it was the major focus of 

the efforts of the Commission, and due to procurement rules, it was not a subject 

that could be publicly discussed by the Commission. It would have been inappropriate to hold a Commission meeting during this process to discuss the procurement. 

47 

The schedule for the entire process was as follows: 

August 2008—Announcement in FedBizOpps 

October 2008—Stage 1 

Evaluation Board Meeting—44 submittals to 7 

December 2008—Stage 2 

Evaluation Board Meeting—7 to 4 

March 2009—Stage 3 

Jury Meeting—Pros and Cons of Vision Statements 

Evaluation Board Meeting—Selection of Nos. 1 and 2. 

March 31, 2009—Commission Meeting—Selection was approved by Commissioners 

Please note, intervals between Eisenhower Memorial Commission meetings have 

been the following between 2001 and 2011: 3, 7, 14, 5, 9, 9, 12, 3, 3, 6, 16, 20, 12, 

and 16 months. 

12. What unofficial Eisenhower Memorial Commission meetings or assemblies were held between its 2007 and 2009 official meetings? What was 

the business of those meetings or assemblies, and were all Commissioners invited to them? Were those meetings or assemblies held off the 

record, and if so, why? 

As stated above, there were no unofficial meetings or assemblies between 2007 

and 2009. 

13. How much will you pay the Washington, DC government for lost parking revenue? 

The Commission has been working for the past several years with the District’s 

Department of Transportation (DDOT) to determine a fair market value rate to compensate for the permanent loss of revenue from 69 parking meters. We have worked 

through DDOT staff, staff from the Deputy Mayor’s office, and members of the D.C. 

Council, but have yet to determine a precise value. Councilman Tommy Wells’ staff 

has agreed to assist the Commission in determining this amount, but has advised 

that we not pursue this until the Commission attains design approval from the National Capital Planning Commission. 

14. What do we know about the durability of the tapestry? How long could 

it be expected to last without replacement? On what are these estimates based? What will be the annual maintenance cost for the tapestry? 

Since the inception of the project, the Commission has worked with its sponsor, 

the National Park Service, which will operate and maintain the memorial after it 

is completed, to ensure that all elements of the memorial will be maintainable and 

lasting. It is mandated in the designer’s contract that all elements of the memorial 

shall last for a period of at least 100 years. 

The design team has performed material testing for the stainless steel wire proposed to produce the tapestry. Those test results indicate no corrosion to the surface 

of the material when exposed to conditions simulating the environment. The testing 

represents accelerated age testing. 

Further testing along with the National Park Service will be continuing, with a 

series of performance tests using final production of the tapestry itself. The performance tests will provide results for in-situ conditions. The tapestry and supporting 

elements have also been studied in a wind tunnel laboratory. Those results have 

helped the engineers with supporting information in the design of the structural integrity. Maintenance planning will be based upon the performance testing. Maintenance and accessibility plans are considered and incorporated into the planning of 

the memorial. 

Gehry Partners has had many meetings regarding the maintenance of the tapestries, and the design team has created a strategy for accessing all surfaces of the 

tapestries for general cleaning and maintenance. This system will ensure that NPS 

staff can easily access and maintain the tapestries. 

As designer Frank Gehry indicated in his statement to the Committee on March 

19, 2012, EMC, NPS, and GSA have repeatedly ‘‘drilled’’ into the design team the 

importance of ensuring that the tapestries are cleanable, durable, and maintainable. 

48 

15. Typically, memorials under the Commemorative Works Act must have 

all funding in place before construction can proceed. Is that the case 

with the Eisenhower Memorial? If not, why was this accommodation 

made? 

In its FY12 appropriations, Congress decided to fund memorial construction in increments as opposed to a lump sum. To accomplish this, Interior Appropriations 

staff included language in the Commission’s appropriations legislation that ‘‘the 

funds appropriated herein shall be deemed to satisfy the criteria for issuing a permit contained in 40 U.S.C. 8906(a)(4) and (b),’’ which allows the Commission to proceed with construction. 

16. If the Eisenhower Memorial was cancelled tomorrow, what are the outstanding obligations of the commission and the status of the $33 million 

for the fiscal year 2012 appropriation? 

These funds have been appropriated and are in our account. They are being used 

as is designated. Currently, there are approximately $9 million of obligations outstanding. 

17. Would you please submit the bylaws of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission? 

The Commission is not a corporate body and does not operate under a set of bylaws. The Commission, which was established by Congress, operates under the authority of its enabling legislation, P.L. 106–79, as amended by P.L. 110–229. 

18. In the letter you submitted by Frank Gehry, he stated that the artist 

Charles Ray ‘‘is not currently nor has he ever been formally connected 

with the project.’’ In what non-formal ways has Mr. Ray been connected 

with the project? Did he receive compensation for any work he did for 

the Memorial? If so, how much? 

Mr. Ray has never had a formal connection to the project. EMC staff have not 

had any formal, or non-formal, contact or communications with Mr. Ray, nor made 

any payments to Mr. Ray. 

19. What is the status of private fundraising for the memorial? 

In the spring of 2011, through a competition overseen by GSA, the Commission 

awarded a private fundraising contract to Odell, Simms & Lynch (OSL), an accomplished and successful fundraising firm located in Falls Church, Virginia. OSL has 

developed a fundraising strategy which it is in the process of executing. Senator 

Roberts has sought to arrange a meeting of OSL with Anne and Susan Eisenhower 

to discuss the effort. 

20. Did you ever do a feasibility study on the commission’s ability to conduct private fundraising? 

The Commission was urged to undertake a feasibility study by House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee staff in 2008. Upon request, Senator Pat Roberts’ staff 

recently shared this study with the Eisenhower family. It was pointed out to the 

family that the information contained is outdated and does not reflect the current 

market conditions. The Commission’s fundraising strategy is based on the expertise 

of OSL and current market conditions. 

21. When did the full commission vote to formally approve the concept 

design? 

At a formal meeting of the Commission on March 25, 2010, the Commission voted 

to unanimously approve the preferred design concept. This concept was unanimously re-affirmed at a subsequent Commission meeting on July 12, 2011 and directed Mr. Gehry to complete the design as presented to the Commission at that 

meeting. 

22. How many paid employees, including consultants does the Commission 

have? 

As indicated in the Commission’s FY13 Budget Justification, the Commission has 

seven full-time temporary federal employees, and four contract employees, including 

the Commission’s Executive Architect. 

23. Is there a retail component to the design? If so, what are the plans? 

The Park Service will have a small bookstore/ranger station on-site, similar to the 

facilities at the FDR and the MLK memorials. The bookstore operations are conceived by NPS as an integral part of their education efforts. The NPS ranger station 

is co-located within the bookstore space to facilitate this goal. 

49 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

We will next turn to Mr. Howard Segermark, who is the Director 

of the National Civic Art Society. Mr. Segermark, please. 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD SEGERMARK, CHAIRMAN EMERITUS, 

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CIVIC ART SOCIETY 

Mr. SEGERMARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Grijalva, Members of the Subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen. My 

name is Howard Segermark. I am not architect or an artist. I 

worked on Capitol Hill as a staffer for both Republican and Democratic Members. And I am a founder and past Chairman of the National Civic Arts Society, NCAS, a nonprofit organization dedicated 

to education about classical and traditional architecture and art, 

those traditions that the Founding Fathers believed embodied the 

principles of a democratic republic. 

I want to thank the board and members of the NCAS for research and advice on this testimony, and in particularly, our current Chairman, Justin Shubow, and our Secretary, Eric Wind. 

Mr. Chairman, our monuments are of central importance to our 

national identity and historical memory. Controversy is nothing 

new in the history of Presidential memorials; indeed, it has embroiled virtually every single one. To mention the most recent example, it took three separate competitions to settle on a final design for the FDR Memorial. In the first instance, the design was 

rejected because the Roosevelt family objected to it. 

But why is this particular memorial controversy occurring only 

now, relatively late in the planning process? The reason is simple. 

The entire process has flown under the radar, with little public and 

as little congressional attention as possible. 

Edward Feiner, former Chief Architect for the General Services 

Administration, who was involved in the Eisenhower Memorial design guidelines, said, ‘‘It is amazing what you can do when no one 

is looking.’’ Well, we began to look, and the more we dug, the more 

we unearthed several disturbing findings. Given the limitations of 

time, I can mention just a few, but I encourage the Subcommittee 

to follow up on some of these matters. 

First, designer selection process: According to the minutes of the 

very first meeting of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission all the 

way back in 2001, Chairman Rocco Siciliano specifically mentioned 

Frank Gehry as the sort of architect the Commission should consider. Minutes from the 2006 meeting state, ‘‘Chairman Siciliano 

mentioned that he had had a discussion several years ago with architect Frank Gehry, who indicated an interest in a possible design 

of the Eisenhower Memorial.’’ Mr. Siciliano also had had a professional relationship with Gehry on at least three prior occasions. 

It appears that in 2008, the Commission designated Daniel Feil, 

its Executive Architect, as its agent to oversee and direction the design competition. Mr. Feil chose to run the competition under the 

guidelines of GSA’s Design Excellence Program, a program that 

was never intended to be used for memorial competitions. It basically limits the candidates, in this instance, to only 44 hand-picked 

firms. 

Thus, the use of the Design Excellence Program for the Eisenhower Memorial made it impossible to see unknown and untested 

50 

talent, such as Maya Lin, who designed the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. In the 1990s, the initial competition for the World War II 

Memorial was run according to the Design Excellence Program. 

There was a public outcry about the design, and it was changed. 

Adding to our concerns, when the Eisenhower Commission recently released the minutes from its meetings, it did not publish 

the minutes from meetings in 2008 at which the competition was 

discussed. Stranger still, there does not appear to have been a 

quorum at those crucial meetings. What exactly is in those missing 

minutes, and why has the Commission never released the materials submitted by competition entrants? The Commission’s competition cost $2 million and resulted in a colossal design that is now estimated to cost $119 million. And that 

cost does not include the unusually expensive maintenance that the 

tangled steel screens will require forever, assuming the new technology actually lasts. Indeed, projected maintenance costs have not 

been released, if they have even been calculated. 

In the spring of 2011, the National Civic Arts Society, together 

with the Institute for Classical Architect and Art, held an Eisenhower Memorial counter-competition open to all to suggest what a 

traditional, dignified alternative might look like. With a budget of 

under $3,000, we received over 40 entries. We announced the astronomical first of $1,000 and $500 for the runner-up. 

If I had time, I would show that these proposals are not just superior in beauty, but more comprehensible than Mr. Gehry’s confused design. They are harmonious with the plan of the city, and 

their estimated costs are far more reasonable, though NCAS does 

not advocate any specific design. 

The GSA has a reputation of protecting the taxpayer, and the 

Park Service has a history of maintaining our natural heritage. But 

on occasion, circumstances can conspire to produce a real mess. 

This seems to be one of those instances. 

But Congress can act to clean it up. Eisenhower deserves it. One 

remedy is simply: a new competition, one that is open to an unknown architect from, say, Abilene as it is to a ‘‘starchitect’’ from 

Los Angeles. 

I stand ready to answer any questions. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Segermark follows:] 

Statement of Howard Segermark, Chairman Emeritus, 

Director, National Civic Art Society 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, members of the Subcommittee, ladies 

and gentlemen, my name is Howard Segermark, I’m not an architect or artist. I 

worked here on Capitol Hill as a staff members for both Republican and Democratic 

members of Congress and I’ve worked for a number of nonprofit organizations. I’ve 

read a bit about architecture and about what makes a city great, and I was drawn 

to classical architecture. I’m a founder and past Chairman of the National Civic Art 

Society, a nonprofit organization dedicated to education about architecture and art— 

with a view to supporting classical and traditional architecture and art—those traditions that the founding fathers believed embodied the principles of a democratic republic. I want to thank the Board and members of the NCAS for help and advice 

for this testimony, and in particular, NCAS present Chairman, Justin Shubow and 

our Secretary, Eric Wind. 

Mr. Chairman, our monuments are of central importance to our national identity 

and historical memory. 

Controversy is nothing new in the history of our presidential memorials. Indeed, 

it has embroiled virtually every single one. To mention the most recent example, 

it took three separate competitions to settle on a final design for the FDR Memorial. 

51 

The first two officially selected designs were rejected—in the first instance because 

the Roosevelt family objected to it. 

Many people might be wondering why this particular Memorial controversy is occurring only now, relatively late in the planning process. The reason is simple: the 

entire process has flown under the radar with as little public—and as little congressional—knowledge as possible. To quote Edward Feiner, the former chief architect 

of GSA who was involved in the Eisenhower Memorial design guidelines, ‘‘It’s amazing what you can do when no one’s looking.’’ 

Well, we began to look, and the more we dug, the more we unearthed several disturbing findings. Given the limitations of time, I can mention today just a few, but 

I encourage the Subcommittee to follow-up on some of these questions. 

First, designer selection process, including the so-called competition in 2008–2009. 

According to the minutes of the very first meeting of the Eisenhower Memorial 

Commission, all the way back in 2001, Chairman Rocco Siciliano specifically mentioned Mr. Gehry as the sort of architect the Commission should have in mind. He 

mentioned Mr. Gehry again at the 2006 meeting, ‘‘Chairman Siciliano mentioned 

that he had a discussion several years ago with architect Frank Gehry, who indicated an interest in a possible design of the Eisenhower Memorial.’’ 

Chairman Siciliano had had a previous professional relationship with Gehry on 

at least three prior occasions. Most prominently, when Chairman Siciliano was a 

leader of the Los Angeles Philharmonic’s Board of Directors, he served on the Building Committee that hired Mr. Gehry to design the symphony’s new concert hall. 

It appears that in 2008, the Commission designated Daniel Feil, its executive architect, as its agent to oversee and direct the competition, which he chose to run 

by means of GSA’s Design Excellence Program. This was a very strange decision. 

That program was never intended to be used for the selection of designers for monuments, and memorials. Its fundamental purpose has been to select architects for federal office buildings, courthouses, and warehouses. It is important to understand 

that memorials are quite different from buildings—one does not need to be an architect to design a memorial. All it takes is an artist or amateur with a good idea, 

which an executive architect can later bring to fruition. Yet the Design Excellence 

Program is open only to architects—indeed, only architects with a substantial portfolio. 

By contrast, the American way has been to choose designers for memorials not 

just according to actual design proposals but according to entries submitted blindly. 

But as just noted, the Design Excellence Program reverses this by making the designer’s identity and record of paramount importance. Furthermore, competitions for 

national memorials have tended to be open, not closed, competitions, unlike in the 

case here. 

Thus, the use of the Design Excellence Program for the Eisenhower Memorial 

made it impossible to discover unknown and untested talent—such as Maya Lin for 

the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and Henry Shrady for the Grant Memorial. Consider that Eisenhower’s own rise from small-town Kansas to West Point was made 

possible only because the cadet-nominating process was open and democratic. 

Furthermore, as the Commission ought to have known, the history of using the 

Design Excellence Program for memorials does not bode well for it. In the 1990s, 

the initial competition for the World War II Memorial was run according to the program. Due to the undemocratic nature of the competition, there was a public outcry 

against it. As a result, the organizers of the competition backed down and made the 

competition open. Such an outcry did not occur for the Eisenhower Memorial because the competition received so little publicity. 

Amazingly, the Eisenhower competition solicited only 44 entries. This is hundreds 

fewer than the number of entries in open competitions for previous national memorials. Forty-four submissions was a small number even for run-of-the-mill federal office buildings around the same time period. 

The Eisenhower competition appears to have been advertised only in one obscure 

place: FedBizOpps.com. And why did Mr. Gehry bother to enter, when he has said 

on numerous occasions that he does not like entering competitions because he does 

not like losing? 

Adding to our concers, when the Eisenhower Commission recently released the 

minutes from its meetings, it did not publish the minutes from meetings circa 2008 

at which the competition was discussed. Stranger still, there does not appear to 

have been a quorum at those crucial meetings. What exactly is in those missing 

minutes? And why has the Commission never released the materials submitted by 

competition entrants? 

The competition cost two million dollars and resulted in a colossal design that is 

now estimated to cost $119 million dollars. And that cost doesn’t include the unusually extensive maintenance that the tangled steel screen will require for all of perVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 Mar 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\73488.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
52 

petuity—assuming the tapestry lasts beyond 100 years. Indeed, projected maintenance costs have not been released, if they have been calculated. 

In the spring of 2011, the NCAS, together with the Institute for Classical Architecture & Classical America Mid-Atlantic Chapter, held an Eisenhower Memorial 

Counter-competition to suggest what a traditional, dignified alterative might look 

like. With a budget of just $3,000, we received over 40 entries. We announced an 

astronomical prize of $1,000 to the winner and $500 for the runner-up. If I had 

time, I’d show that these proposals are not just superior in beauty and more comprehensible to the average citizen than Mr. Gehry’s confused design. They are harmonious with the plan of the city and blend into the tradition of our presidential 

memorials. And their estimated cost is far more reasonable and in line with previous memorials. NCAS does not advocate any specific design. 

The General Services Administration has massive responsibilities and it almost 

always protects the taxpayer in its purchase of goods, services and buildings. The 

Park Service has a history of maintaining our natural heritage. But on occasion, circumstances can conspire to produce a real mess. This seems to be one of those instances, but Congress can act to clean it up. Eisenhower deserves it. 

Our remedy is simple: a new competition, one that is as open to an unknown designer from Abilene as a ‘‘starchitect’’ from Los Angeles. I stand ready to answer 

any questions I can and the National Civic Art Society stands ready to undertake 

research or respond to requests for expert counsel from artists and architects. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, sir. 

We will next turn to Mr. Cook, who is the President of the National Monuments Foundation, once again, for five minutes. The 

timer is there. We are ready to hear your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF RODNEY MIMS COOK, JR., PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL MONUMENTS FOUNDATION 

Mr. COOK. Chairman Bishop, I am honored to be here to share 

with you my opinions based on 30 years of experience within the 

traditional architect world. The NMF creates self-sustaining destruction landmarks of national historical and aesthetic relevance, 

with a strong focus on interactive technology, in order to teach 

younger Americans in their language. We make history cool. 

We are among the few private organizations that design, build, 

own, operate, and maintain civic assets. We are headquartered in 

the Millennium Gate Georgia History Museum, a 100-foot-tall triumphal arch. This $21 million ensemble is set in a four-acre lakeside park in Midtown Atlanta, surrounded by allegorical sculpture 

and equipped with a high-tech active theater. You may have six 

Millennium Gates for the cost of one Gehry memorial on similarsized sites. 

I was asked by the National Civic Arts Society to judge the alternative competition for the Eisenhower Memorial. I declined their 

invitation, indicating that I thought it my patriotic duty to enter 

the competition instead, and did so with Michael Frank. 

Having studied Mr. Gehry’s design, it was my conclusion that he 

has a distinctive unease with greatness, he is afraid to leave something out, and succumbs to narrative literalism. As Williams College Professor Lewis says, ‘‘Great monuments are simple, lucid, and 

say only one thing: We honor. We endure. We celebrate. We 

grieve.’’ 

I would like to disclose that I am an Emeritus Board Member of 

the Institute of Classical Architecture and Art, a co-sponsor of the 

alternative competition. Michael Frank and I were among the winVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 Mar 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\73488.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
53 

ners. As a result of this issue, should there be another competition, 

I will not enter it. 

In a city that is overflowing with green-scapes and parks, this 

site provides one of the most important urban circumstances to 

provide Washington her principal successful civic square, as called 

for by the McMillan Plan. A ‘‘theater for the automobile,’’ which is 

how Mr. Gehry describes his design, will continue the exodus of inhabitants as soon as they are allowed to leave their workplaces. 

A design must conform with the 1791 L’Enfant and 1901 McMillan Plans, the fundamental zoning codes for the City and the monumental core. No subsequent zoning plan put forth by NPS, NCPC, 

or any other agency has ever replaced them. 

The Gehry plan, having gone through the GSA Design Excellence 

Program, has attempted to compromise this rule. The Memorial 

Commission and Gehry intend to redefine what it means to build 

a memorial, far exceeding the congressional mandate to build one 

to honor Eisenhower’s accomplishments. 

To me, this new literalism is the most important in this hearing. 

We have an accepted rule, and either we stick to it or we throw 

it out. If you go this new direction, we might as well tear down the 

Lincoln Memorial and put a log cabin there. 

Monuments should be built from materials that last for centuries. Mr. Gehry does not typically spec this type of material. It 

is my understanding that the gigantic fence described as a tapestry 

is promoted by the Gehry team as larger than the Hollywood sign. 

In urban environments, acid rain, bird droppings and air quality 

will seriously disintegrate this feature and most likely cause security issues for pedestrians below. The only positive thing I can say 

about it is that most likely very few people would ever go there and 

so there is less chance that a piece of Kansas would fall on someone’s head. 

Trash collects in public spaces. The wind blows and visitors are 

careless. Gusts will blow standard city trash all over the 600-footlong fence. We have to clean our Millennium Gate Park every day, 

and the cost to clean this simple place is expensive. The cost to 

clean the Gehry enormous structure every day will be more expensive. 

Though Eisenhower belongs to all of us, he truly belongs to the 

Eisenhower family, and their opposition must be honored. Successive generations of this family have continued to serve our country, 

and we owe them respect as much for that service as we do for 

their heritage. 

I end with a paraphrase of the General’s letter written in case 

Operation Overlord was unsuccessful. ‘‘Our landings have failed. 

The troops, the Air and the Navy, did all that bravery and devotion 

to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it 

is mine alone.’’ 

This is the character of the man we are attempting to honor. We 

must get this right. The current design is magnificent anti-heroism. Please call for a new and open competition. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:] 

54 

Statement of Rodney Mims Cook Jr., President, 

National Monuments Foundation 

My name is Rodney Mims Cook Jr. and I am President of the National Monuments Foundation. I appreciate the honor of being invited here to share with you 

my opinions based on thirty years of experience within the traditional architectural 

world. The National Monuments Foundation’s purpose is to build monuments, museums, parks and civic spaces for the ages which will uplift the communities in 

which they are built, through a classical approach. The foundation creates self-sustaining destination landmarks of national, historical and aesthetic relevance with a 

strong focus on interactive technology. We make history cool. 

We are among the few organizations that design, build, own, operate and maintain civic assets. I have read that Mr. Gehry thinks there are no great sculptors 

left in the world. I disagree and a number of great works from various global sculptors are identified in some of our images. We are headquartered in the Millennium 

Gate Georgia History Museum, a 100-foot tall triumphal arch based on the Arch of 

Titus in the Roman Forum. This 21 million dollar ensemble is set in a four acre 

park on a lake in Midtown Atlanta, surrounded by allegorical sculpture. 


73488.001.eps
55 

I was asked by the National Civic Art Society to judge the alternative competition 

for the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial. Having studied Mr. Gehry’s design for 

some time, it was my conclusion that, though Mr. Gehry was a gifted architect, I 

believed that his style was ill-suited to achieve the monument required to honor as 

revered and accomplished a person as General Eisenhower. I declined their invitation, indicating that I thought it my patriotic duty to enter the competition instead 

and to encourage my friends to enter as well. I did so with a years-long colleague 

of mine, Michael Franck. 

I would like to disclose that my technology companies, Vizerra USA and VIMtrek, 

through our partner SmartBIM, work in a strategic alliance with Gehry Technology 

on the use of Building Information Modeling to allow buildings and monuments to 

be designed, built and maintained in a high standard of energy efficiency. I have 

enjoyed a friendship with a number of members of the Eisenhower family for years. 

I am an emeritus board member of the Institute of Classical Architecture and Art, 

which was a co-sponsor of the alternative competition. Michael Franck and I were 

among the winners of that competition. As a result of all of these issues, should 

there be another competition, I will not enter it. 

The rules of classicism are hierarchical. Precedent matters and our research of 

General Eisenhower called for a marshal design. We studied some of the greatest 

military leaders in history and tradition for the greatest of them was a triumphal 

column. The tallest ever supports Lord Nelson, in central London, which is 170 feet. 

Nelson saved England. Eisenhower saved England and Europe and hierarchy calls 

for a taller column for the General. At 178 feet, it would have been the tallest commemorative column on Earth. Our design placed him in his preferred simple soldier’s D–Day uniform. The column is surrounded by 8 bands representing his years 

in the presidency. The plaza surrounding the column base is circular and contains 

34 stars corresponding to his being the 34th president. There are five allegorical 

statues atop the fountains surrounding this circular plaza representing Family, 

Education, Progress, War and Peace. The cost is 51 million dollars. 

Cities are very fragile. The Eisenhower Memorial design could successfully 

achieve a renaissance in this precinct of Washington that was marred by Brutalist 

style urban renewal in the mid to late 20th century. In a city that is overflowing 

with green-scapes and parks, this site provides one of the most important urban circumstances to provide Washington her principle successful civic square, as called for 

by the McMillan Plan. A ‘‘theater for the automobile’’, which is how Mr. Gehry describes his design, will continue the exodus of inhabitants as soon as they are allowed to leave their Brutalist office workplaces. A design must conform with the 

1791 L‘Enfant Plan, which was enacted by President Washington, directed by JefferVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 Mar 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\73488.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY

73488.002.eps
56 

son, and came to fruition in the 1901–2 Senate Park Improvement Plan (commonly 

known as the McMillan Plan). 

The L‘Enfant and McMillan plans are the fundamental zoning codes for the city 

and Monumental Core. No subsequent zoning plan put forth by NPS, NCPC, or any 

other agency has ever replaced them. The Gehry plan, having gone through the GSA 

Design Excellence Program, has attempted to compromise this rule. The memorial 

commission and Gehry intend to redefine what it means to build a memorial, far 

exceeding the congressional mandate to build a memorial to honor Eisenhower’s accomplishments. 

The National Monuments Foundation builds monuments from materials that last 

for centuries. Mr. Gehry does not typically spec this type of material. It is my understanding that the gigantic fence that is described as a tapestry is promoted by the 

Gehry team as larger than the Hollywood sign. In urban environments, acid rain, 

bird droppings and air quality will seriously disintegrate this feature and most likely cause security issues for pedestrians below. The only positive thing I can say 

about this is that most likely very few people would ever go there and so there is 

less chance that a large piece of junk would fall on someone’s head. Trash collection 

in public spaces just happens. The wind blows, visitors are careless and here, this 

is particularly a problem. Gusts will blow standard city trash all over the 600-foot 

long fence. We have to clean our Millennium Gate park every day and the cost to 

clean Gehry’s enormous structure, every day, will be expensive. This will be a giant 

trash filter for an entire area. Have you ever forgotten to change your air-conditioning filters for a few months? Mr. Gehry said that the pylons were inspired by 

Eisenhower Interstate Bridge supports. The pylons will need titanic footings to 

carry this weight, so a great deal of the cost is underground. I have heard that the 

pylons are to be concrete, stone and/or metal depending on who you spoke to last. 

Each has maintenance problems, but due to continual design changes, I am unable 

to help you at the present time with pylon issues. 

Fine Arts Commissioner McKinnell said ‘‘[I]f I can be facetious, the tapestry, 

when you and I are long gone, will disintegrate and the columns will be left and 

it will be like [the Roman ruins of] Paestum and it will be marvelous. So I think 

that is wonderful. I seriously think that is wonderful.’’ I have been to Paestum and 

have studied it thoroughly. This will not look like Paestum. This will look like the 

pylon ruins of the Embarcadero highway after the San Francisco earthquake. 

The Gehry memorial is currently described as a 120 million dollar gesture, though 

it changes every time I speak to someone new. Tens of millions have been spent 

to date on a model that is still changing and that very few Americans like. Though 

Eisenhower belongs to all of us, he truly belongs to the Eisenhower family and their 

opposition must be honored. Successive generations of this family have continued 

to serve our country and we owe them respect as much for that service as we do 

for their heritage. The Millennium Gate cost 21 million dollars and has beautiful 

interiors, world-class allegorical bronze sculpture and an extraordinary high-tech 

interactive theater within a four acre park. If you compare the two monuments, the 

annual maintenance cost of the Millennium Gate is $312,000. I can only guess, since 

the plan is always changing, that it would be in the millions, per year, for the Gehry 

memorial. 120 million dollars just to begin this is a giant financial boondoggle. You 

may have six Millennium Gates for the cost of one Gehry memorial, on similar sized 

sites. Regarding Mr. Gehry’s fee, I attach the most recently published Atlanta Gross 

Architectural Revenue list. Perkins and Will tops the list at 53 million dollars, second is TVS at 31 million and they go down from there. These are the annual fees 

of extremely large firms for an entire year. If they got a Gehry-type commission, 

they would only have to design one project a year! 

Gehry, though talented in his style, does not have the inclination to do the job 

the Eisenhower family and the American people need. Our generation will be judged 

in centuries to come by this work, so close to the greatest symbol of democratic government ever built. Do you want to be judged by this? Please call for a new and 

open competition. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Cook. 

Our final testimony will be given by Mr. Cole, who is the past 

chairman of the NEH. Mr. Cole, if you can pull the microphone 

right to you, that will make it easier to hear. 

57 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE COLE, PAST CHAIRMAN, 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES 

Mr. COLE. Thank you very much, Chairman Bishop, Ranking 

Member Grijalva, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for 

asking me to testify today. 

I am a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and on the Board 

of Advisors of the National Civic Arts Society. But this morning I 

speak only as a concerned citizen. My comments are based on my 

long experience as an academic art historian, university professor, 

and author of 14 books on the history of art. 

I will also draw on my seven-year service as Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, where my principal initiatives dealt with the need to improve the teaching and understanding of American history for our young people, something they 

need to become informed, active citizens. 

It is of these young people that I think when contemplating Mr. 

Gehry’s plan for the proposed memorial to Dwight Eisenhower. For 

me, Ike is still a living memory. His role as Supreme Commander 

of the Allied Forces which freed Europe from a great evil, and his 

two terms as President of the United States, are events through 

which I lived. I hate to say this, Mr. Chairman, but I was actually 

walking and not crawling at that time. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COLE. But what about our rising generations who lack this 

firsthand historical memory? What will they know, if anything, 

about this great American? To teach them not only about Ike and 

his deeds, but to give them a sense of his greatness and the debt 

we owe him, is the task of any monument worthy of bearing his 

name. 

This mission is admirably summarized in the 1999 law passed by 

Congress ordering that, ‘‘An appropriate memorial to Dwight D. Eisenhower should be created to perpetuate his memory and his contributions to the United States.’’ Such a monument should therefore memorialize and educate. 

In the execution of these tasks, the Gehry proposal not only fails, 

but fails utterly. I say this for many reasons, but mainly because 

a unifying narrative, a story, if you will, is absent in both conception and in design. Without this, no monument to an individual can 

succeed. 

The Gehry plan is a lot of incongruent things of wildly different 

shapes, proportions, materials, and sizes. There are enormous pillars, misnamed columns. Actually, columns support something and 

have a capital at the top; these do not. There are trees and aluminum mesh tapestries. The tapestries, despite Mr. Gehry’s claim, 

are not usually an integral part of the history of monument. And 

these look more like chain-link fences. And there are inscriptions, 

and two large photo murals, all strewn about in a very large space. 

The result is that the whole is less than the sum of its parts. 

Compounding the problem is the enormity of the planned space. 

Few, if any, of the most successful monuments in the history of art 

are this grandiose, especially in our democratic republic where our 

Presidents, some of whom do not even have memorials, are seen as 

citizens, not super-humans. Two good examples are the Jefferson 

and Lincoln Memorials. 

58 

But the present scheme for the four-acre site of the Eisenhower 

Memorial, filled with such disparate elements, will create diffusion 

and confusion of message, and if realized, will resemble an amusement park rather than a memorial. 

Moreover, like an amusement park, there is no overall narrative, 

no sequential story, and no central focus to guide visitors, particularly the many who will arrive with limited or no knowledge of 

President Eisenhower. The proposed profusion of digital interactive 

displays will be costly, difficult to maintain, and fragile. This socalled ‘‘e-memorial’’ is no substitute for compelling, coherent narrative providing knowledge, content, and inspiration. 

My remedy for the Eisenhower Memorial would be to go to back 

to the drawing board. Institute an open process seeking design, not 

simply qualifications. Solicit the input of the public, and seek a 

plan with a coherent and meaningful message, comprehensible to 

visitors for centuries to come. 

Moreover, I believe, in these hard economic times, something 

that costs the taxpayers upwards of $100 million has no justification. Instead, I would seek a much more modest, less ostentatious, 

and more sustainable solution. 

My only recommendation for the architectural style is that it be 

worthy of the hero it honors. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cole follows:] 

Statement of Bruce Cole, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for asking me to testify 

today. I am a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and on the Board of Advisors 

of the National Civic Art Society, but this morning I speak only as a concerned citizen. 

My comments are based on my long experience as an academic art historian, university professor, and author of fourteen books on the history of art. I will also draw 

on my seven years service as Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, where my principal initiatives dealt with the need to improve the teaching and 

understanding of American history for our young people, something they need to become informed and active citizens. 

It is of these young people I think when contemplating Mr. Gehry’s plans for the 

proposed memorial to Dwight Eisenhower. For me, Ike is still a living memory: his 

role as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces which freed Europe from great 

evil, and his two terms as the President of the United States are events that I lived 

through. 

But what about our rising generations who lack this first-hand historical memory? 

What will they know, if anything, about this great American? To teach them not 

only about Ike and his deeds, but to give them a sense of his greatness and the debt 

we owe him, is the task of any monument worthy of bearing his name. This mission 

is admirably summarized in the 1999 law passed by Congress ordering that ‘‘an appropriate memorial to Dwight [D.] Eisenhower should be created to perpetuate his 

memory and his contributions to the United States.’’ Such a monument should, 

therefore, memorialize and educate. In the execution of these tasks, the Gehry proposal not only fails, but fails utterly. 

I say this for many reasons, but mainly because a unifying narrative, a story if 

you will, is absent in both conception and in design. Without this no monument to 

an individual can succeed. 

The Gehry plan is a lot of disparate things of wildly different shapes, proportions, 

materials and sizes. There are enormous pillars misnamed columns (columns support something and have a capital at the top, these don’t), trees, aluminum mesh 

‘‘tapestries’’ (tapestries are despite Gehry’s claim, not usually an integral part of the 

history of monuments and these are more similar to chain-link fences), inscriptions, 

and two large photomurals, all strewn about in a four-acre space. The result is that 

the whole is less than the sum of its parts. 

Compounding the problem is the enormity of the planned space. Few, if any, of 

the most successful monuments in the history of art are this grandiose, especially 

59 

in our democratic republic where our presidents, some of whom do not even have 

memorials, are seen as citizens not super humans: two good examples are the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials. But the present plan for the four-acre site of the Eisenhower Memorial, filled with such disparate elements, will create diffusion and 

confusion of message and, if realized, will resemble a huge amusement park rather 

than a memorial. 

Moreover, like an amusement park, there is no overall narrative, no sequential 

story, and no central focus to guide visitors, especially the many who will arrive 

with a limited or no knowledge of President Eisenhower. The proposed profusion of 

digital interactive displays will be costly, difficult to maintain, and fragile. This socalled ‘‘e-Memorial’’ is no substitute for a compelling, coherent narrative which provides knowledge, content, and inspiration. 

My remedy for the Eisenhower Memorial would be to go back to the drawing 

board, institute an open process seeking designs (not simply qualifications), solicit 

the input of the public, and seek a plan with a coherent and meaningful message 

that will be comprehensible to visitors for centuries to come. Moreover, I believe 

that in these hard economic times there is simply no justification for building something that costs taxpayers upward of 100 million dollars. Instead, I would pursue 

a much more modest, less ostentatious, and more sustainable solution. My only recommendation for the architectural style is that it be worthy of the great man it honors. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate the panel being here. I will 

also tell you, for the panel, that one of the things we may have, 

there may be written questions that the staff—or Committee, I am 

sorry—the Committee may have of you. If you would be kind 

enough to respond to those after this meeting at your own leisure, 

I would appreciate that. 

We will now turn to questions of the panel for this particular 

group. Mr. Grijalva, do you have questions? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me begin with Mr. Whitesell. Did the Eisenhower project deviate from the process, the memorial process, that is in place? 

Mr. WHITESELL. No, sir. It has followed that process pretty much 

to the letter. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. And General, if I may, I understand you are 

still in the final stages of that design process? 

General REDDEL. Actually, we are in the latter stages of the design process. The design process phase that we are in has been 

going on for two years. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. That is the design process, not the selection 

process? 

General REDDEL. No. It is the design process, to bring it to the 

stage where it can be presented as a final design. So we are in the 

last stages of the preliminary design approval process. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And how is that being worked out with concerned 

parties at this point? 

General REDDEL. Well, as I noted earlier, we have gone through 

a series of public meetings, which have been open to the public, 

and we have incorporated inputs as we receive them along the way. 

We asked for a delay in our appearance before the National Capital 

Planning Commission in order to give us more time to listen to the 

public and to particularly have the views of the family in a more 

complete form. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And we have heard from some of the witnesses a 

consistent point that we need to start over. Just my curiosity: What 

would it cost to start over at this point? 

60 

General REDDEL. Well, the cost to begin over would be a cost in 

both time and in money. I would be happy to come back to you 

with more specific information, but we would be probably talking 

about another minimum of two years and costs of time. That is 

what we have spent at this point. 

If we were to start over with the process, if we were to be conservative, it might be as much as two to three years. We have 

spent, in the design of the Memorial, a $16 million sum of money, 

and I would anticipate that that cost would approximate that. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. The same question, Mr. Guerin. What is GSA’s 

role at this point in the memorial process and in the design process? Was this a new use of the program? 

Mr. GUERIN. It was not a new use of the program. Our role is 

advising the Commission in their activities. We are acting as 

project manager. We are supporting them with staff. And during 

the construction process, we will be supporting them there as well. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Mr. Segermark, thank you for being here today. If you could 

quickly explain to me what your organization’s concept for the Memorial is. And specifically, other than the alternative competition 

which your organization sponsored, did the organization proper 

have a submission to the Eisenhower Memorial competition that 

was going on from the Commission? 

Mr. SEGERMARK. Good question, sir. In fact, those that were entitled to submit something to the Commission were hand-picked by 

the GSA. So an unknown organization—by the way, we are not an 

organization of architects—but an unknown architect could not 

have provided a submission under the rules that they operated in. 

It was not an open competition. 

The designs that were submitted, I think, as I mentioned, show 

that there are alternatives, and great ones, available. And I am not 

saying that any of those submissions should have been adopted. 

But I think you would agree with me that those are more understandable than the Gehry proposal. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Going back to you, Mr. Guerin, who could apply 

for that competition, given the comments that—— 

Mr. GUERIN. To characterize this as a closed competition really 

is not correct. GSA solicited for architects and landscape architects 

to apply for the opportunity. That was a qualifications-based selection, again based on the decision by the Commission to go in that 

direction. 

Any architect could apply for that opportunity. It is somewhat 

self-correcting in that the most qualified firms are the ones that 

apply for something like that. But we did get 44 submissions. We 

evaluated those submissions and short-listed them down to seven, 

and then ultimately to four submissions, then had the opportunity 

to provide a design vision to the selection panel, which gave them 

the opportunity, then, to see what ideas were being proposed by the 

short-listed firms, and helped make the final selection. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And one last question. My curiosity, Mr. Cook. 

You were a judge in this alternative competition that the art society hosted. And were all the designs that were in that competition 

of classical architecture? 

61 

Mr. COOK. Not all. I was not a judge. I actually was asked to be 

a judge. I declined being a judge because I thought they needed as 

many entries as possible. And I was among the winners. And so 

there were a number of designs that were modern. There were a 

number of designs that were deco. There were, I would say, more 

classical than the others, but there was a broad range. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. I yield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. Kildee, do you have any questions? 

Mr. KILDEE. No questions. Just apologize for being late. I had another Subcommittee meeting. 

I know that Congress does not have a great deal of expertise in 

matters like this. But, recognizing that, we do have people who 

have knowledge of things. We have set up a process to make sure 

that what we do there on monuments in the Mall are done correctly. 

And we have never relinquished our authority on that. We have 

always had problems. I was here when the Vietnam Memorial was 

designed and constructed. And we appreciate having a process, but 

at the same time, have not relinquished our authority in this area 

and our input on this. 

I want to thank you for all the work all of you have done. These 

things are not always without controversy and taste, and what 

should be shown about a person or an era is always going to involve controversy. 

I do appreciate all the work that you have done in your various 

responsibilities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. Garamendi, do you have questions? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Jumping into the middle of a controversy is not 

a good place for us to be. But there seems to be a process underway 

that is an iterative process. Ms. Eisenhower, you indicated that you 

have had a meeting with Mr. Gehry, and you were looking forward 

to another meeting. 

From the witnesses, it appears as though there is an ongoing 

process to reach a final design, and that a final design has not yet 

been developed. Is that correct? I guess we ask the Commission Executive Officer. 

General REDDEL. The submission of a final design proposal has 

not been made. That is correct. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. OK. So there is still a process underway to develop that final design, and then the engineering drawings, construction, and so forth beyond that. 

Some have suggested starting all over. It seems to me that is not 

likely to be the path taken, but rather, a path that would, using 

the existing Gehry design or concepts, modify to address the concerns that may exist, would be a more productive path. 

And once again, if any of you would like to comment on that, I 

would be happy to hear from you, including the Eisenhower family 

if they would care to. But it seems as though we ought to be working toward a refining of where we are rather than starting all over. 

I suspect starting all over is probably another 10-year process. 

So anybody that would like to comment here. 

62 

Mr. COOK. I would like to. My Foundation does competitions all 

the time, and we have built numbers of monuments and could organize a competition for something like this in six months. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So you want to start all over? 

Mr. COOK. I think, as I had said in my testimony, that Mr. Gehry 

does not speak the language that the public and the Eisenhower 

family can read. And the cost is—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. I am going to cut you off because 

I got—my question was pretty specific, start all over or work with 

designs. 

I think Susan Eisenhower would like to make a comment. 

Ms. EISENHOWER. Congressman Garamendi, there is a marvelous 

exhibition on at the moment at the National Building Museum. It 

is called, ‘‘Unbuilt Washington.’’ It opened in November, and it is 

going to close at the end of May. But it tells the story of what 

Washington would have looked like if the first design had ever 

been adopted. 

I called the curator of that exhibition and asked how many major 

memorials in this town have ever been built from the first design. 

And he scratched his head a bit, and maybe others at the table will 

have a thought on this, too. But he said he thought probably only 

the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, and Maya Lin had produced a 

rather broad concept. But if that is the case—I mean, think of the 

FDR Memorial. It was not just three redesigns; it was three-plus 

designs before they got to a final plan. 

And so I think that we should not be afraid of looking at this 

issue because we are building something for the centuries and we 

want to get it right. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I really had a dichotomy here, that is, dump 

where we are with Gehry and start over again, or work with Gehry 

and continue forward. So those are really the dichotomy thought I 

would like to present to us. Do you have a view of working with 

Gehry and continuing on, or dump it and go on? 

General REDDEL. I do not think it is—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Excuse me. I am talking to Ms. Eisenhower. 

General REDDEL. Oh, I am sorry. 

Ms. EISENHOWER. Just quickly, we are certainly planning to see 

him again. He is aware of our concerns. He is aware of the substance of my testimony today. And I think it is a very important 

stop to make, not only to talk to Mr. Gehry about what might be 

possible but, far more important, to make sure that this process is 

done in a respectful and courteous way. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. 

Sir? 

General REDDEL. I would like to affirm Mr. Gehry’s availability. 

He is going out of his way, with his many projects around the 

world, to make himself available, and he continues to be in that 

mode. And if you look at his letter for the record, it expresses that 

view in writing, which he has submitted. 

I would like to make one other very brief comment, though, 

about delay. When we began our work, our Vice Chairman, who 

probably knows more about memorialization, has done more for 

memorials in the U.S. Congress than any other member of the U.S. 

Congress, Senator Daniel Inouye, joined our Commission. 

63 

And at one point, someone said, ‘‘We are taking a lot of time 

here.’’ And he said, ‘‘When I joined the FDR Commission, I sat at 

that end of the table. And after 30 years, I sat at that end of the 

table. And we do not want to go through this again.’’ 

And very recently, he brought to my attention the fact that he 

and other members of his generation who served in World War II 

would like to celebrate this Memorial. That was also affirmed by 

his fellow combat veteran, the Chairman. And of course, Senator 

Stevens felt that way as well. 

Delay is not always your friend, and in this case, they have 

looked at me as if I am a spring chicken and have told me to get 

on with it. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I think Anne Eisenhower wanted to—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Garamendi, do you have other rounds of questions that you want to ask? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, then, if this is your last question, we will ask 

Ms. Eisenhower to come up and answer that. If you have more 

questions you have in mind, then we will wait. 

OK. Would you just state—actually, Ms. Eisenhower, let me do 

the first one. Please answer his question, now that you are there 

at the table. 

Ms. ANNE EISENHOWER. If I can answer, I would like to answer 

two questions. 

General Reddel has said that Frank Gehry has made himself 

available to us quite a few times. I would like to point out for the 

record that each time we have been approached for this, we have 

been given one-week notice to either get all four grandchildren together to California, or in the case of the other two defaulting to 

our judgment, the two of us, and we also have very busy schedules. 

But I would like to answer the question that was put to the table 

which I do not believe was properly answered. And the question is, 

is there anything salvageable from the Gehry design? 

The question, at least in our minds, the family’s mind, the biggest problem is probably not only the narrative, which we feel is 

incorrect, but from a sheer design point of view, the scrims. If you 

remove the scrims, which I understand Mr. Gehry is not willing to 

do, then you do not have a whole lot left. You have a little boy sitting on a ledge looking at two bas reliefs, which simply, the narrative is not correct. 

But, from a physical point of view, if you take away the scrims, 

the design is gone. And I think that answers the question. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Ms. Eisenhower. 

Let me ask a couple questions, if I could. Let me start with Mr. 

Whitesell. We will try to go through as many of these as we have 

time for. 

Does the Department have an estimated annual cost to maintain 

this Memorial? 

Mr. WHITESELL. No, we do not. We have talked with the Commission, and we anticipate receiving further information on some 

testing that they are going to be doing on the mesh panels. But we 

do not—— 

64 

Mr. BISHOP. When do you assume you will have a ballpark figure 

for us? 

Mr. WHITESELL. I do not know, sir. But I could get back to you. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Mr. Guerin, if I could ask, a lot has been said 

about the process that is here. I think the design process is going 

traditionally, but certainly the selection process was different, as 

you had, in your words, the streamlined process that came up with 

the short list of firms before you opened it up. 

Can you tell me why you asked for portfolios from these firms 

and not actual designs, as is normally done? 

Mr. GUERIN. The selection process is a qualifications-based selection process. It is based on the Brooks Act to select architects and 

designers, so it requires that we ask for qualifications first. And we 

then had a design vision with the short-listed firms. 

Mr. BISHOP. From the short list only, though? 

Mr. GUERIN. That is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Can you tell me if the fee for Mr. Gehry, as far 

as a percent of the overall project, is in line with other fees that 

have been done for Federal monuments? 

Mr. GUERIN. It is in line with other fees. 

Mr. BISHOP. Can you tell me roughly what that percentage would 

be, not necessarily a dollar amount? 

Mr. GUERIN. It is roughly 10 percent, and is made up of a number of different things, including the testing that is going on right 

now with the scrims. 

Mr. BISHOP. Are you aware of how much money from Fiscal Year 

2012, the appropriation, the 2012 appropriation, has been spent? 

Mr. GUERIN. I do not know that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you have any idea what the obligations from existing contracts would be if they were canceled? 

Mr. GUERIN. Right now, we have, with the architect, about $9,800,000 of contracted work. They have spent about $7.2 million. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

General, if I could ask you a couple of questions. An important 

principle of the Commemorative Work Act is consensus. With the 

concerns that have been raised, especially by the family, can this 

committee conclude that there is any consensus around this design? 

General REDDEL. The input that we have been receiving is at 

variance with some of the opinions you have heard here today. 

When we had our last Commission meeting in July of this past 

year, which included at that time our Commissioner David Eisenhower, the Commission felt that it had consensus. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you still feel that way? 

General REDDEL. Clearly, we do not have consensus today. 

Mr. BISHOP. When did you first become aware that the family 

had serious concerns with the design, and how did the Commission 

attempt to reconcile those concerns? 

General REDDEL. The current dynamic of concern and controversy became apparent to us following the Commission meeting 

of July this last year. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. There are some missing minutes from, 

I think, July 2007 to March 2009. Where are those minutes, and 

can we get a copy of those? 

65 

General REDDEL. There was not a meeting of the Commission at 

that time. And from our viewpoint—— 

Mr. BISHOP. In that two-year time period? 

General REDDEL. Pardon me? 

Mr. BISHOP. In the two-year time period? From July 2007 to 

March 2009, you had no meetings? 

General REDDEL. I believe that is correct. Yes, sir. In other 

words, the business of the Commission at that time did not include 

a full Commission meeting. 

Mr. BISHOP. That is unusual. Why did you choose to run the 

competition by the GSA Design Excellence Program? 

General REDDEL. Simply put, the complexity of this site, which 

was identified in the National Capital Planning Commission’s Master Plan for Memorials, presented us with an unusual challenge in 

urban design. 

I am not an architect, but the size and location of Eisenhower 

Square, which was attractive to us because it fit Eisenhower in a 

particular and powerful personal way, presented a wide range of 

design challenges. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am running out of time, so let me make these very 

quick. Does that process favor large, established firms? 

General REDDEL. I cannot speak to the process. I do not know 

the history of GSA’s experience with that. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am assuming that, obviously, an unknown designer could have been selected. But does that process that we used 

basically make that an unfair reality? 

General REDDEL. I find that correct. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. I do want to say one other thing. We have repeatedly said on this panel that we are not experts in this area. Unfortunately, eight of the 12 members of the Commission are Members 

of Congress, so I certainly hope Congress does have some expertise 

in this area; otherwise, we are all screwed. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you have any other questions? Mr. Kildee, any 

other questions you have? 

Mr. KILDEE. No. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me conclude this by thanking all of you for being 

here. I appreciate the family for being here. And I certainly hope, 

as we go forward with this, that there will be a broad consensus 

of what is going forward. We have one chance to make this correct 

and do it right, and it needs to be there. 

I thank you for your commitment to this enterprise. I think, for 

me personally, I do want to see a very good, a very accurate memorial to General Eisenhower and President Eisenhower. It is important for this community. It is important to do it. Hopefully you can 

cover up what I think is one of the uglier buildings in Washington 

while you are doing it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. But that is beside the point. But the idea of having 

consensus coming up with the design is important. And I realize 

that many times when we have done multiple designs and come up 

with different ideas, it has produced something that is very spectacular. I think World War II is a perfect example of being able to 

66 

do something and do it right. This is another one that I want us 

to make sure that we do it right. 

I appreciate your willingness to be here and to testify, for all of 

you who have been here. And, once again I say that there may be 

questions that the Committee has of witnesses who are here. We 

will submit those to you in writing, and we ask for your written 

response as well. 

With that, if there are no other questions, this committee is in 

recess—is adjourned. Adjourned. Adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

[The David Eisenhower letters submitted for the record follow:] 


73488.008.eps
67 


73488.009.eps

DAVID EISENHOWER ! r 

Dear Mr. President" 

On oecembext, I ~r the attached letter to Rocco SIciliano, the Chairman of the Eisenhower 

Memorial Commlssl statl how honored 1 have been to serve the past eleven years on the 

Commission and expl I 11m reasons for stepping aside at this time. 

Please accep~~om '1111 wife, Julie Nixon Eisenhower, and me, our very best wishes to you and 

Mrs. Obama for a ha~ hollltdy season and a successful New Year. 

Sincerely, 

December 21, 2011 
68 

Æ 


73488.010.eps