,P 96/11:81 9 1 fPUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1

cP4. ,c;4

.41 'kJ

961

GOVERNMENT

Storage

(No. 87-9)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

131-TlijC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

OF THE

TTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

ru- E OF REPRESENTATIVES

IGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON _o

H.R. 3019

A 13] rVIDE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FIREPROOF ANNEX

BUE USE OF THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES

S. 541

AN ACV TO AMEND THE ACT OF JUNE 1, 1948 (62 STAT. 281), TO

EMPOWER THE ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES TO APPOINT

NONUNIFORMED SPECIAL POLICEMEN

H.R. 7477

A BILL TO REPEAL SECTION 409 OF THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF

1949, REQUIRING THE SUBMISSION OF A REPORT TO THE CONGRESS

CONCERNING ELIGIBLE PUBLIC BUILDING PROJECTS

S. 931

AN ACT TO REPEAL THAT PART OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1889, AS

AMENDED, WHICH REQUIRES THAT GRANTORS FURNISH, FREE OF ALL

EXPENSES TO THE GOVERNMENT, ALL REQUISITE ABSTRACTS, OFFICIAL CERTIFICATIONS AND EVIDENCES OF TITLE

H.R. 8303 and H.R. 8357

BILLS TO AMEND THE ACT ENTITLED "AN ACT FOR THE ORGANIZATION, IMPROVEMENT, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK"

H.R. 8355

A BILL TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTIVE AGENCIES TO GRANT EASEMENTS

IN, OVER, OR UPON REAL PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER

THE CONTROL OF SUCH AGENCIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

H.R. 8356

A BILL TO AUTHORIZE REIMBURSEMENT TO OWNERS AND TENANTS

OF CERTAIN LANDS OR INTERESTS THEREIN ACQUIRED BY THE

UNITED STATES FOR CERTAIN MOVING EXPENSES AND LOSSES AND

DAMAGES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

H.J. Res. 500

JOINT RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

TO CONSTRUCT A MEMORIAL TO JAMES MADISON, AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES

AUGUST 10, 1961

Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

74728 WASHINGTON: 1961
• .6 .4.4 ••• y

•• V i

A

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

CHARLES A. BUCKLEY, New York, Chairman

GEORGE H. FALLON, Maryland

CLIFFORD DAVIS, Tennessee

JOHN A. BLATNIK, Minnesota

ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama

FRANK E. SMITH, Mississippi

JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Illinois

T. A. THOMPSON, Louisiana

IRIS FAIRCLOTH BLITCH, Georgia

JIM WRIGHT, Texas

W. R. HULL, JR., Missouri

KENNETH J. GRAY, Illinois

FRANK M. CLARK, Pennsylvania

ED EDMONDSON, Oklahoma

JOHN J. McFALL, California

GRACIE PFOST, Idaho

JOHN YOUNG, Texas

FRANK W. BURKE, Kentucky

HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California

ROBERT E. COOK, Ohio

JAMES C. AUCHINCLOSS, New Jersey

GORDON H. SCHERER, Ohio

WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Florida

JOHN F. BALDWIN, JR., California

FRED SCHWENGEL, Iowa

EDWIN B. DOOLEY, New York

HOWARD W. ROBISON, New York

PERKINS BASS, New Hampshire

WALTER L. McVEY, Kansas

CARLETON J. KING, New York

WILLIAM H. HARSHA, JR., Ohio

JAMES HARVEY, Michigan

JOHN C. KUNKEL, Pennsylvania

LOUISE G. REECE, Tennessee

MARGARET R. BEITER, Chief Clerk

RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Chief Counsel

JOSEPH R. BRENNAN, Fitgineer-Consultant

CLIFTON W. ENFIELD, Minority Counsel

PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama, Chairman

JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Illinois

GEORGE H. FALLON, Maryland

JOHN A. BLATNIK, Minnesota

JIM WRIGHT, Texas

ED EDMONDSON, Oklahoma

JOHN J. McFALL, California

GRACIE PFOST, Idaho

JOHN YOUNG, Texas

FRANK W. BURKE, Kentucky

ROBERT E. COOK, Ohio

II

EDWIN B. DOOLEY, New York

JAMES C. AUCHINCLOSS, New Jersey

PERKINS BASS, New Hampshire

CARLETON J. KING, New York

JAMES HARVEY, Michigan

JOHN C. KUNKEL, Pennsylvania

LOUISE G. REECE, Tennessee
CONTENTS

Page

H.R. 3019 1

H.R. 7477 6

k.R. 8303 and H.R. 8357 7

H.R. 8355 12

H.R. 8356 15

H.J. Res. 500, et al 21 S.541 5

S. 931 10 Testimony of—

Boutin, Bernard L., Deputy Administrator, GSA; accompanied by

Lawson B. Knott, Deputy Commissioner, Public Buildings Service;

J. H. Macomber, Jr., General Counsel; Herbert E. Angel, Director

of Administration; Robert T. Davis, Director of Legislation,

GSA 4

Cannon, Hon. Clarence, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri 7

Carmichael, Dr. Leonard, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution 8

Dodds, Harold W., Chairman, James Madison Memorial Commis- sion 22 Harrison, James L., Public Printer, Government Printing Office 2

Rogers, Rutherford D., Acting Librarian of Congress 34 Smith, Hon. Howard W., a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia 35 Stewart, J. George, Architect of the Capitol; accompanied by Mario E. Campioli, Assistant Architect of the Capitol 27 Additional information—

Breakdown of cost of James Madison Memorial, including under- ground vault and tunnels 30 Stewart, J. George, Architect of the Capitol, letter, September 14,

1961 33

PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1961

THURSDAY, AUGUST 10, 1961

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND 

ashington,D.0 GROUNDS,

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9 :30 a.m., in room 1302,

New House Office Building, Hon. Robert E. Jones (chairman of the

subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. JONES. The subcommittee will come to order. We have a host

of resolutions pending before the committee. I hope that we can take

testimony on all of them. Some of them are not controversial legislation and I hope that we can dispose of all that we have on the agenda

for today.

The first bill is H.R. 3019, introduced by Mr. Burleson, Chairman

of the House Administration Committee, to authorize the Public

Printer to construct a building in the vicinity of a building they already own and occupy. We will come back now to this bill.

(H.R. 3019 follows:)

[H.R. 3019, 87th Cong., 1st sess.1

A BILL To provide for the construction of a fireproof annex building for use of the

Government Printing Office, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled, That there is hereby authorized to be constructed in accordance with plans to be prepared by the Administrator of General Services and approved by the Public Printer, a fireproof annex building for

use of the Government Printing Office, including the mechanical equipment for

the building, connections with the present Government Printing Office buildings

and utilities, interconnections with the Capitol Power Plant in accordance with

plans to be approved by the Architect of the Capitol, access facilities over or

under public streets, other necessary appurtenances or facilities, and such

mechanical and other changes in the present Government Printing Office buildings as may be necessitated thereby.

SEO. 2. (a) To carry out the purposes of section 1 of this Act, the Administrator of General Services is authorized to acquire on behalf of the United

States, by purchase, condemnation, donation, transfer without reimbursement,

or otherwise, such publicly or privately owned real property in the District of

Columbia (including streets and alleys or parts thereof) as may be located in

the area extending west of the property line at the rear of the Government

Printing Office Building Numbered 3, along H Street west of North Capitol

Street to the alley connecting G and H Streets and south to Jackson Alley,

including that portion of Jackson Alley adjacent to the proposed site bordered

on the south by present Government Printing Office property and to the north

by lots numbered 823, 824, 47, 48, 49, 68, 67, and including the "T" shaped

public alley bounded by lots 64, 65, and 66 on the north, lot 67 on the east,

Jackson Alley on the south and lot 68 on the west, in square numbered 624 in

the District of Columbia.

1
2 PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961

(b) Any proceeding for condemnation ordered under subsection (a) shall

be conducted in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Act entitled

"An Act to provide for the acquisition of land in the District of Columbia

for use in the United States", approved March 1, 1929 (16 D.C. Code, secs.

619-644).

(c) The Administrator of General Services is authorized to provide for the

demolition and removal as expeditiously as possible of any buildings or other

structures on, or constituting a part of, such real property as may be acquired

under, or made available for the purpose of this Act.

(d) The Administrator of General Services is authorized to cause the building herein provided for to be constructed pursuant to the applicable provisions

of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 479), but without regard to

the requirements of sections 7 and 8 (a) thereof.

SEC. 3. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Government

Printing Office such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of

this Act, and such sums may be available for transfer to the Administrator

of General Services to remain available until expended.

Mr. JONES. We reported a bill out of the committee on that last

year, I believe. There was objection raised by the Appropriations

Committee, making it necessary for a redrafting of the bill, but we

did not have time to reconsider the proposition in proper form to

save it from objection or points of order that would have been raised

by the Appropriations Committee. The bill is now drafted in regular

order.

We now have Mr. James L. Harrison, Public Printer, Government

Printino. Office, and Mr. Bernard L. Boutin, Deputy Administrator

of the

Printing 

Services Administration.

Mr. Harrison, would you like to come forward and make a justification ? Would you have a seat, please?

We are glad to have you Mr. Harrison. I know this has been a

hard row for you to hoe. You have been uphill and downhill several

times on it.

STATEMENT OF JAMES L. HARRISON, PUBLIC PRINTER,

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir that is true, but I wish to express my

appreciation for the opportunity to appear before you again and

make a further statement concerning H.R. 3019, which, as you said,

was introduced in the House by Congressman Burleson.

The bill, if enacted into law, would facilitate the printing and

binding operations our Office performs for the U.S. Government, and

result in a more economical and efficient operation.

On July 23, 1956, the Joint Committee on Printing wrote to the

Public Printer and stated that it was the consensus of opinion of the

members of the committee that there is an urgent need to find ways

and means to provide facilities that will be more readily available

and economical than those now being used for the storage of paper

by the Government Printing Office, and asked him to make a study

of expanding our present warehouse facilities sufficiently to take care

of all of our storage needs. In order to meet our storage requirements, the Joint Committee had previously authorized us to rent

173,000 square feet of space in the Parr-Franconia warehouse at Franconia, Va., which is approximately 15 miles south of Washington on

Shirley Highway.
PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS—I 961 3

A committee of Government Printing Office officials was appointed

to study our storage needs and to develop the most economical and

efficient means of providing all of the warehouse space needed by the

Office. An extensive study was made at that time by the committee

and recommendations for the annex were submitted as now provided

in H.R. 3019. The matter was also referred to the Comptroller General for study and a favorable report was received, indicating that

the project was in accord with the needs of the Government and would

lead to both monetary savings and intangible benefits in improved

service. The Commissioner of Public Buildings likewise reviewed

these general recommendations and developed a preliminary report,

sketches, and estimates.

Our need for the addition of a fireproof annex building is further

emphasized by the roof ccllapse of the warehouse space we are renting at Franconia on February 15, 1961, which ruined about $55,000

worth of paper and caused disruption to production and delivery

schedules.

I have reviewed the study made by our officials and the General

Accounting Office and firmly believe that the acquisition of a fireproof

annex to the Government Printing Office will further increase our

ability to serve the Government. I hope that your committee will find

it possible to report favorably on H.R. 3019 in order that the way

might be cleared for the construction of this new annex building.

I want to thank you for your interest in this matter and the courtesy which you have extended to us.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Harrison, what estimates have you made as to the

annual savings that will accrue?

Mr. HARRISON. The annual savings, Mr. Jones, as I have noted in a

supplemental report I sent up to the committee, are $274,654. That is

the actual dollars and cents we can put our finger on. There are

many other savings which will be brought about, but which we are

unable to place a dollar value on.

Mr. JONES. What is the distance from the Franconia warehouse to

the building where the printing is done, Mr. Harrison?

Mr. HARRISON. It is about 15 miles. There are many intangible

considerations. If you would like, I have a little listing here of some

of them.

Under normal conditions, it takes approximately 2 hours to make

a round trip from the central office to the Parr-Franconia warehouse.

During the morning and evening rush hours, it is not unreasonable

to assume that up to 4 hours would be required in the event of traffic

tieups. This lost time would not be the case if the warehouse were

adjacent to the central office. Our vehicles spend a considerable

period of time moving back and forth to Franconia. As a result, they

are constantly exposed to accidents, traffic jams, the hazards of night

driving, and breakdowns. This means added mental and physical

strain to the drivers, and extra wear, tear, and maintenance to the

vehicles.

All of the above factors could create delays in effecting mechanical

repairs to operating equipment, which can mean idle employees; delays in effecting deliveries to pressrooms, which means idle machinery

and press crews; and delays in testing and formal release of stock,

which involves a calculated risk if issued under emergency conditions.
4 PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961

The exposure of stock to radical temperature and humidity conditions, while it is in transit, could result in pressroom slowdowns or

additional conditioning time.

We have experienced delivery and pickup delays during adverse

weather conditions, causing additional hardships to our delivery and

warehousing personnel.

Any of the above, or a combination thereof, can cause delays in the

public printing and binding, and overtime in the planning and production processes.

The new warehouse facility would eliminate the double handling

of stock and the inherent risks of accidents, damage to stock, timing,

recordkeeping, and scheduling involved; and free delivery and warehousing personnel for other assignments.

We pay now a rental on the warehouse of $149,828. Our labor

costs for staffing the warehouse are $60,487, or a total cost now of

operating the Parr-Franconia warehousing operation of $316,454.

With this addition to our own building it would be reduced to about

$41,800.

Mr. Jos. Are there any questions?

In the prospectus there is an estimate of $5,250,000. Have you

made an examination of those figures?

STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. BOUTIN, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR,

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY LAWSON B. KNOTT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS

SERVICE; j. H. MACOMBER, JR., GENERAL COUNSEL; HERBERT E.

ANGEL, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION; ROBERT T. DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Bournt. Yes, we have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JONES. Is the General Services Administration satisfied that

they can construct the building for the amount carried in this prospectus?

Mr. 

Mr. 

JONES. 

BotrriN. Yes, sir. Might I say alsoAre there any objections to placing the estimated cost in

the bill, Mr. Boutin? There is no figure setting forth the estimated

cost in this bill which would authorize the construction. Is there any

objection to putting that amount in the bill?

Mr. BOUTIN. We would have no objection at all.

Mr. JONES. You have no objection.

Mr. BOUTIN. No.

Mr. JONES. Are there any further questions?

Mr. WRIGHT. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JONES. Would you consider the amount of the estimated cost of

the building carried in the report to be binding on the General Services

Administration to stay within the dollar limitations?

Mr. BOUTIN. I don't think that there is any question, Mr. Chairman,

but what we can definitely stay within the amount specified.

Mr. JONES. I say, if we put the dollar amounts in the bill that are in

the report, would it be the General Services Administration's opinion

that they had to stay within the confines of that dollar limit?

Mr. BOUTIN. Yes, sir.
PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961

Mr. JONES. Are there any further questions?

[No response.]

Mr. JONES. We will proceed to S. 541, the Senate bill of Senator

McClellan, to empower the Administrator of the General Services

Administration to appoint nonuniformed special policemen.

(S. 541 follows:)

[ S. 541, 87th Cong., let sess.]

BILL To amend the Act of June 1, 1948 (62 Stat. 281), to empower the Administrator

of General Services to appoint nonuniformed special policemen

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled, That the Act of June 1, 1948 (62 Stat. 281),

is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

"SEe. 5. Officials or employees of the General Services Administration who

have been duly authorized to perform investigative functions may be empowered

by the Administrator of General Services, or officials of General Services Administration duly authorized by him, to act as nonuniformed special policemen

in order to protect property under the charge and control of the General Services

Administration and to carry firearms, whether on Federal property or in travel

status. Such officials or employees who are empowered to act as nonuniformed

special policemen shall have, while on real property under the charge and control of the General Services Administration, the power to enforce Federal laws

for the protection of persons and property and the power to enforce rules and

regulations made and published for such purposes by the Administrator or duly

authorized officials of the General Services Administration. Any such special

policeman may make arrests without warrant for any offense committed upon

such property if he has reasonable ground to believe (1) the offense constitutes

a felony under the laws of the United States, and (2) that the person to be

arrested is guilty of that offense."

Passed the Senate May 26, 1961.

Attest:

FELTON M. JOHNSTON, Secretary.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Boutin, would you give a statement on the need

for such legislation?

Mr. BOUTIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee we

feel that there is ,a definite need, in order for the General Services

Administration properly to carry out its functions, for the enactment of this bill.

I could cite just one example, which I think illustrates the need.

That was the gambling activities on the part of, unfortunately, some

General Services Administration employees over in the Pentagon

where, if we had had nonuniformed police, this could have been

stopped before it was. With only uniformed men it is difficult to

work out. If we had had nonuniformed men I am sure we would

have been able to stop this long before.

We have with us our Director of Administration, under whose

jurisdiction this falls. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to

call on Mr. Herb Angel to offer justification for this legislation.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Angel.

Mr. ANGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The General Services Administration has authority for its uniformed guards and for its non-uniformed compliance agents to serve

as special policemen within the District of Columbia. It has such

authority for its uniformed guards outside of the District of Columbia but not for our agents who are not in uniform. This makes it

difficult for us to protect Government property adequately and to

enforce Federal laws adequately in areas where the General Services Administration has police authority outside of the District of

74728-61----2
6 PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961

Columbia, particularly close-by places; for example, in places like

the Pentagon, or over at Suitland, Md., or other nearby installations.

This bill would make it possible for our men to keep suspects under

surveillance, and, if they detected them in a crime, to arrest them

while they had the evidence in their possession. As it is now, our men

have to run the risk of making a citizen's arrest, which, as you

know, is somewhat hazardous; or not making an arrest at all.

Mr. JONES. What is the legal restriction in existing law prohibiting you from making the appointment of special nonuniformed

police?

Mr. BOUTIN. Our authorization, Mr. Chairman, is limited to uniformed police outside the District. Inside the District we have no

problem at all.

Mr. JONES. That is contained under the General Services Administration Act. Is this an amendment to that act?

Mr. ANGEL. It is an amendment, sir, to the act of June 1, 1948

(62 Stat. 281).

Mr. JONES. Are there any questions?

Mr. KING. If a bill of this character were to be passed, I notice it

gives the authority to "carry firearms, whether on Federal property

or in travel status." Does that mean outside of the District?

Mr. ANGEL. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOUTIN. That would be outside the District.

Mr. KING. How about running into State laws that prohibit the

carrying of firearms without a permit?

Mr. ANGEL. We have not encountered that difficulty in connection

with our uniformed guards.

Mr. KING. If they were n.onuniformed guards—what about that?

Mr. BourrIN. Mr. Macomber.

Mr. MACOMBER. That is the purpose of that special provision—to

obviate difficulties with State laws which would prohibit the carrying

of firearms. If they are authorized under Federal law to do so in the

performance of their duties they will not be subject to the prohibition

of State law.

Mr. KING. Otherwise they would be?

Mr. MACOMBER. Yes, sir.

Mr. KING. All right. I see. Thank you.

Mr. JONES. Are there any further questions?

(No response.)

Mr. JONES. Thank you, gentlemen.

The next bill is H.R. 7477, by Mr. Buckley, at the request of the

General Services Administration, to repeal section 409 of the Public

Buildings Act of 1949, requiring the submission of a report to the

Congress concerning eligible public building projects.

(H.R. 7477 follows:)

[H.R. 7477, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To repeal section 409 of the Public Buildings Act of 1949, requiring the submission

of a report to the Congress concerning eligible public building projects

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled, That section 409 of the Public Buildings Act

of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 355) is hereby repealed.

Mr. BOUTIN. Mr. Chairman, may I call on Lawson Knott to offer

the justification for this?
PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961 7

Mr. JONES. Mr. Knott.

Mr. KNorr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The purpose of this bill is specifically to repeal a provision of the

1949 Public Buildings Act which required the submission of reports

by the General Services Administrator and the Postmaster General

to the Congress each year on eligible public buildings projects. With

the passage of the 1959 Public Buildings Act, a procedural charter has

been established whereby the requirements for these agencies as well

as other Federal agencies for their public buildings needs are submitted by prospectus to the committees and acted upon by the committees. We think that this takes the place of that report.

Furthermore, the Public Buildings Act of 1949 requires that a report be made annually on the progress of projects which have been

approved. So within the framework of the 1959 act the need for

buildings is reported to the committee and the progress of construction of buildings is also reported. Therefore we do not think this

1940 reporting requirement needs to be continued.

Mr. JONES. Are there any questions?

(No response.)

Mr. JONES. We have two resolutions before us now, H.R. 8357, by

distinguished colleague, Mr. Cannon, and H.R. 8303, by Representative Bow, which are identical. Both of these colleagues are

members of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

Mr. Chairman, we are delighted to have you with us today. We have

always been aware of your great interest in the Smithsonian and its

progress, welfare, and development, and we are all indebted to you

for your industry and the great care you have given it.

(H.R. 8357 follows:)

[H.R. 8357, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend the Act entitled "An Act for the organization, improvement, and

maintenance of the National Zoological Park"

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled, That section 2 of the Act of April 30, 1890,

entitled "An Act for the organization, improvement, and maintenance of the

National Zoological Park" (20 U.S.C. 81), is amended by inserting immediately

after "administer" the following: "and improve."

STATEMENT OF HON. CLARENCE CANNON, A ME1VIBER OF CONGRESS

FROM 'THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate that tribute.

The bill H.R. 8357 is a bill to amend the act entitled "An act for the

organization, improvement, and maintenance of the National

Zoological Park."

Mr. Chairman, if I might be permitted to digress a minute.

Among the many changes which you and I have seen here in Washington, and one of the most important changes, is the great influx of

schoolchildren, as well as other visitors, to our downtown area and

the Capitol. The number of visitors to our National Capital is increasing at a tremendous rate. When I first came here a number of

years ago we hardly ever saw anybody from back in the interior.

Hardly anybody from home ever came here. Now they are coming
:8 PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 9 6 1

in increasing numbers, to the point where when I had to go to the

'Senate just this last week I could hardly get through the rotunda.

'There were such great crowds of schoolchildren over there.

I might say that, speaking of Champ Clark, when he was here he

facetiously remarked one time that he proposed to introduce a bill

under which the Government would pay the cost of one trip to Washington, the National Capital, for every single citizen. He said he

thought their coming here and seeing the Capitol would make better

citizens of them. Unquestionably I think that these visits to Washington, especially by the schoolchildren all over the country, has a

very salutary influence. The statistics show that when these visitors

come to Washington, all visitors including the children, the greatest

number come to visit the Capitol. They go through the Capitol.

' The next largest number visits the Smithsonian Institution. Down

the line somewhere is the Library of Congress.

When I first came to Washington, the Library of Congress was the

fourth library in the world. It has increased in volume and service

until it is today the first library in the world.

By way of digression, our visitors, especially our schoolchildren,

should be encouraged to go to this great library—this great American

institution—the greatest of its kindS on the globe. But the statistics

'show that the next greatest number after those who visited the Capitol

are those who visited the Smithsonian Institution, and among others

the Zoological Park, which has been for many years under the Smithsonian Institution, and which the Institution has been in a position to

render great service to under its function of distribution of knowledge

among men.

It has become evident, I think, to the most casual observer who has

visited the Zoological Park recently—which is such an attraction not

only to our national visitors but to the entire area—the Greater Washington area—that it is certainly in need of capital expenditures. So

I merely wish to appear before this great committee today with the

urgent suggestion that this obvious need be given careful consideration.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Cannon. We are always

pleased to see the wonderful and delightful Dr. Carmichael. I think

Dr. Carmichael has a special charm over this committee, because every

time he appears he gets exactly what he wants.

Dr. Carmichael, won't you come around, please, sir? We won't

keep you long, but just briefly can you explain to us the change of

one word, I believe it is? Isn't that all the bill does?

• STATEMENT OF DR. LEONARD CARMICHAEL, SECRETARY,

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

Dr. CARMICHAEL. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am happy to say

that I can read to you with the approval of the Bureau of the Budget

a brief page that I think will explain this completely.

• Thank you for your request for the views and recommendations of

the Smithsonian Instiution on H.R. 8303 and H.R. 8357, bills to amend

the act entitled "An act for the organization, improvement, and maintenance of the National Zoological Park."
PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961 9

The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution on May 19,

1961, directed the Secretary to undertake a capital improvement program at the zoo, in annual stages over an appropriate period of time,

to be financed as a part of the regular Federal budgetary program of

the Institution.

This action recognized the need to improve present conditions at

the zoo. These conditions are described briefly in the following paragraphs.

The police headquarters building (1956) is the only structure

erected in the past 20 years. Its condition is satisfactory.

The office building (1805) , lion house (1891) , antelope house (1898) ,

bear pits (1902-10) , and monkey house (1906) should be replaced.

The buildings are old, in poor condition, and obsolete as exhibition

facilities.

The outdoor cages and other exhibit facilities are in fair physical

condition but similarly are obsolete by any modern standard of good

zoo practice, considering exhibition techniques, safety of the public,

and well-being of the animals.

The bird house (1928-36) , reptile house (1931) , elephant house

(1937) , small mammal house (1937), and public restaurant (1941) are

obsolescent, averaging 25 years of age, but can be rehabilitated. Generally, ventilation is poor, heating is not well controlled, lighting is

inadequate, cages are small and deteriorating.

The electrical wiring and distribution system, the steam distribution system, and the boilers need replacement because of age and obsolescence. Sanitary and storm sewers similarly require rehabilitation and extension.

Parking facilities are grossly inadequate to handle the load on

weekends during the most popular visiting season from April through

October.

The existing east-west road from Connecticut Avenue to Harvard

Street and the north-south road from Potomac Parkway to Rock

Creek Park both carry heavy traffic through the zoo. This present

traffic and road system creates a hazard to pedestrians, a police problem, and a major disruption of the natural habitat setting of the park.

The needs of the National Zoological Park include outdoor exhibit

facilities and indoor exhibit and shelter facilities for the animals;

roadways and parking facilities for visitor automobiles and buses;.

separation of automobile and pedestrian traffic; associated public service facilities; operational buildings • visitor transit system; and the

related sewerage, heating, water, and electrical distribution systems.

While it is true that the Congress since 1890 has from time to time

appropriated funds for improvements at the National Zoological

Park, no specific authorization for capital improvements has been

enacted. We are advised that under current practices of the House of

Representatives such an authorization is necessary to assure that appropriations for this purpose would not be subject to a point of order

when under consideration by the House.

A perfecting amendment to section 2 of the act of April 30, 1890,

is therefore recommended. This is the act placing the National

Zoological Park under the direction of the Regents of the Smithsonian

1
10 PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961

Institution and authorizing the Regents to administer the zoo. The

pertinent part of the act, section 2, would then read as follows:

SEC. 2. That the National Zoological Park is hereby placed under the direction

of the Regents of Smithsonian Institution, who are authorized to transfer to

it any living specimens, whether of animals or plants, now or hereafter in their

charge, to accept gifts for the park at their discretion, in the name of the United

States, to make exchanges of specimens, and to administer—

the new words are inserted hereafter—

and improve the said Zoological Park for the advancement of science and the

instruction and recreation of the people. [Amendment is italicized.]

The program of improvements is proposed to be accomplished over

a period of years in order that the National Zoological Park may be

continued in daily operation without general disruption and also in

recognition of national budgetary limitations. It is estimated that

$950,000 will be needed in 1963 and that varying annual amounts in

the next 10-year period will be required for construction. This would

accomplish a very significant improvement in the National Zoological

Park in keeping with its statutory purpose since 1890, "for the advancement of science and the instruction and recreation of the people."

It is therefore urgently recommended that H.R. 8303 or the similar

bill, H.R. 8357, be enacted by the Congress. H.R. 8357 is the bill to

which Mr. Cannon referred in the testimony he just gave.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection from

the standpoint of the administration's program to the presentation of

this report to the Congress.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Dr. Carmichael. It is always a pleasure to

have you.

Dr. CARMICHAEL. It is a very great privilege to be here, sir.

Mr. JONES. Our next bill is S. 931, to repeal that part of the act of

March 2, 1889, as amended, which requires that grantors furnish, free

of all expenses to the Government, all requisite abstracts, official certifications, and evidences of title.

(S. 931 follows:)

[S. 931, 87th Cong„ 1st sess.]

A BILL To repeal that part of the Act of March 2, 1889, as amended, which requires that

grantors furnish, free of all expenses to the Government, all requisite abstracts, official

certifications and evidences of title

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled, That the proviso in the third full paragraph

on page 941 of volume 25 of the Statutes at Large, in the Act of March 2, 1889,

as amended (40 U.S.C. 256), is hereby repealed.

STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. BOUTIN—Resumed

Mr. BouTIN. Again, Mr. Chairman, if I may defer to Mr. Knott

and ask him to offer testimony on it.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Knott.

Mr. KNOTT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the purpose of the bill is to repeal a proviso of the act of March 2, 1889, which

provides that all legal services connected with the procurement of

titles for sites for public buildings other than light stations and pierhead lights shall be rendered by U.S. attorneys, with the further proviso that in the procurement of such sites it shall be the duty of the

Attorney General to request of the grantors in each case to furnish
PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961 11

free of all expense to the Government all requisite abstracts, official

certifications, and evidences of title that the Attorney General may

deem necessary.

If we point up the fact that this relates to public buildings only—

this proviso which requires the Attorney General to require the

grantor to furnish title evidence—then we can immediately see the

purpose of this proposed legislation. We have a situation in which

other Federal agencies of the Government acquire lands for various

other purposes, such as military installations, and flood control reservoirs, and which involve substantial areas of land where they are

empowered—and do, from year to year—ask for and receive appropriations to buy title evidence to proceed with the acquisition of land

to meet their needs. In the single exception of public buildings—

acquisition of sites for public buildings, the grantors are required

to furnish the title evidence.

Mr. HARVEY. What do you mean by title evidence?

Mr. KNOTT. Abstracts of title or certificates of title. This has in

many ways affected our ability to proceed expeditiously with the

acquisition of title through voluntary agreements.

Mr. JONES. Just in the case of voluntary agreements?

Mr. KNOTT. Yes. And actually because this is a requirement in

such cases it frequently results in the necessity to resort to condemnation proceedings, in which event the Attorney General may

proceed without regard to this statute and procure the title evidence.

So that in effect it constitutes a 

Mr. JONES. That is true in cases where the grantor is not able to

show that the conveyances would be free of encumbrances.

Mr. KNOTT. That is right, sir. In all cases of acquisition of property by the Federal Government the Attorney General must render

an opinion in favor of the validity of the title, so that he must have

title evidence in all cases. That being the case, the Government either

procures it or, in this single case, the grantor in a voluntary conveyance, provides the title evidence.

Mr. JONES. Do I understand you to say that the only exception to

the general practice of the Federal Government doing this is in the

acquisition of building sites?

Mr. KNOTT. That is right. That arose by a proviso in an appropriation act in 1889, in which there was some evidence in a particular case that there was a charge to the Government of some $4,000

for title evidence, which was admittedly an exorbitant fee, and

called for this proviso to be inserted at that time.

We do not think this would increase our acquisition costs substantially. It would enable us in a number of instances that we have

encountered to accept donations of property without imposing a

penalty on the grantor. We have actually had cases where a grantor

was prepared to make a donation of an easement but in addition to

receiving no compensation for his property he was required under

this provision of the statute to spend $400 or $500 in order to make

the donation to the Government.

Actually, we think in the total cost picture that this cost now

being incurred by the grantor is in one way or another passed on to

the Government through the price which he is asking. So if we are

in a position to schedule our own timing in acquiring the title
12 PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961

evidence, we are in a position to control our program much better,

and we think with no substantial increase in the cost to the Government.

Mr. JONES. Are there any questions?

Mr. HARVEY. I have only one question. That is, under normal

procedure in the transfer of title, does not the grantor usually have

the abstract and other evidence of title in his possession?

Mr. KNOTT. We will, as we have always done and will continue to

do, always ask him for title evidence he may have, and we will take

that title evidence and provide for any continuation certificates we

need. It is often true that he has the title evidence.

Mr. HARVEY. At least in my experience it is always true that the

grantor has it. My point is, it is silly for the U.S. Government

to go out and purchase a new abstract when he already has it.

Mr. KNOTT. We would not have to do that. In my own experience

in working with agencies of the Government where we could provide it, it was mandatory experience that we inquire of him if he has

the title evidence and we were quite often able to get it.

Mr. HARVEY. I have no further questions.

Mr. JONES. The next bill is H.R. 8355, by Mr. Buckley, which is

a bill to authorize executive agencies to grant easements in, over,

or upon real property of the United States under the control of such

agencies, and for other purposes.

(H.R. 8355 follows:)

[H.R. 8355, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To authorize executive agencies to grant easements in, over, or upon real property of the United States under the control of such agencies, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America, in Congress assembled, That whenever a State or political

subdivision or agency thereof or any person makes application for the grant

of an easement in, over, or upon real property of the United States for a

right-of-way or other purpose, the executive agency having control of such

real property may grant to the applicant, on behalf of the United States, such

easement as the head of such agency determines will not be adverse to the

interests of the United States, subject to such reservations, exceptions, limitations, benefits, burdens, terms, or conditions, including those provided in section

2 hereof, as the head of the agency deems necessary to protect the interests

of the United States. Such grant may be made without consideration, or

with monetary or other consideration, including any interest in real property.

In connection with the grant of such an easement, the executive agency concerned may relinquish to the State in which the affected real property is

located such legislative jurisdiction as the executive agency deems necessary

or desirable. Relinquishment of legislative purisdiction under the authority

of this Act may be accomplished by filing with the Governor of the State

concerned a notice of relinquishment to take effect upon acceptance thereof

or by proceeding in such manner as the laws applicable to such State may

provide.

SEC. 2. The instrument granting any such easement may provide for termination of the easement in whole or in part if there has been—

( a) a failure to comply with any term or condition of the grant, or

(b) a nonuse of the easement for a consecutive two-year period for the

purpose for which granted, or

(c) an abandonment of the easement.

If such a provision is included, it shall require that written notice of such

termination shall be given to the grantee, or its successors or assigns. The

termination shall be effective as of the date of such notice.

SEC. 3. The authority conferred by this Act shall be in addition to, and shall

not affect or be subject to, any other law under which an executive agency may

grant easements.
PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961 13

SEC. 4. As used in this Act—

(a) The term "State" means the States of the Union, the District of Columbia,

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States.

(b) The term "executive agency" means any executive department or independent establishment in the executive branch of the Government, including any

wholly owned Government corporation.

(c) The term "person" includes any corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, or other entity.

STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. BOUTIN—Resumed

Mr. BOUTIN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Knott to do that, once

again?

Mr. JONES. Mr. Knott.

Mr. KNOTT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. The purpose of this

legislation is to place all Government agencies having control over

property in the position of administering that property in the public

interest by granting easements where it is necessary to do so, and

where such action will not adversely affect the Government.

Mr. JONES. Will this bill cure the problem we had down in Macon,

Ga., where we had a bill introduced by Mr. Vinson requiring us to

grant an easement right for a highway or road on Federal property?

Mr. KNOTT. Yes, sir. There is statutory authority now but the

difficulty with many of the statutes that exist now is that they are

keyed to certain specific purposes. Those are specifically enumerated

so that when the purpose of the grant is outside the scope of those

specific purposes or where new purposes are to be served, the existing

statutes do not adequately cover them.

Mr. JONES. Let me ask you a further question. Suppose the executive agency was the Veterans' Administration and they wanted to

grant an easement to Jefferson County. Could the Veterans' Administration under this authority grant to Jefferson County an easement

over that property?

Mr. KNOTT. For highway and road purposes?

Mr. JONES. Yes.

Mr. KNOTT. Actually in the case you perhaps by chance selected,,

Mr. Chairman, the Veterans' Administration already has that authority specifically vested in the Administrator of the Veterans' Administration. So this statute would not replace any of those existing

statutes. This would be in addition to any of the existing authority.

Mr. JONES. Give me an example of an agency that does not have

that authority.

Mr. KNOTT. The General Services Administration does not have

that authority, and it was for that reason we sponsored this legislation.

Mr. JONES. In other words, if you gave that authority you would

have to have a special bill?

Mr. KNOTT. That's right.

Mr. JONES. As we had in the Georgia case?

Mr. KNOTT. There actually is authority through a device under the

Federal Property Act. We could grant an easement, but we have to.

go through a procedural device within the framework of that statute

in determining that that interest in the property we would grant is

excess and then surplus to the Government's needs. This we think is

straining the statute unnecessarily.

74728-61--3
14 PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961

Mr. JONES. Why is the bill drafted to authorize executive agencies

rather than to authorize the General Services Administration, if that

is what it is to do?

Mr. KNOTT. Right, sir. I was about to point out that in the review

process the Bureau of the Budget thought that while the General Services Administration has a need for this statute, it should be sufficiently

broad to enable any other agency, such as the NASA, or any other

agency having property under their control, to grant similar rightsof-way.

Mr. JONES. In other words, the Smithsonian Institution under this

authority could grant easements and rights-of-way that they could

not do if it were limited to the General Services Administration?

Mr. KNorr. That would depend, I suppose, on the language used in

here relating to an executive agency. I am not certain at this moment

whether they qualify as an executive agency.

Mr. MACOMBER. I don't think that the Smithsonian is considered

an executive agency, Mr. Jones. I would not be sure about that.

Mr. JONES. I see.

Mr. BOUTIN. This would actually give uniform authority, Mr.

Chairman, which is now limited to a few agencies. It would make it

uniform to all agencies.

Mr. KNOTT. Even the Department of Defense, which has a rather

broad statute, would find occasions where this statute would take

care of situations not covered by existing statutes. So would the

Veterans' Administration. The Department of Justice has authority

to grant rights-of-way for roadways across public properties.

Mr. JONES. But those are by special acts?

Mr. KNOTT. Those are by special acts.

Mr. JoNEs. Any questions?

Mr. BASS. What is the present law now with respect to agencies

that do not have authority? Who can grant the easements now?

Mr. KNOTT. If they do not have the present authority, in many instances they are not able to do so. Again you could visualize a situation in which the agency might say to the General Services Administration, "This easement is excess to our needs," and if we found no

other requirement for it we might dispose of it as an interest in

surplus property.

Mr. BourriN. We would have to come before the Congress for

specific authority.

Mr. KNOTT. Otherwise, if we did not use that device, we would

have to come to Congress.

Mr. JONES. We had a bill, as I pointed out, that Mr. Vinson introduced, and which was considered by this committee, to give a 4-

foot easement for the construction of a road on Federal property.

This would make such legislation unnecessary, because the General

Services Administration could then make those easements and rightsof-way where they cannot, or are unauthorized at the present time.

Mr. KNOTT. This is often a barrier to the development in the community in which the Government finds itself the holder of property,.

where otherwise progress of private enterprise in the community

is impeded.

Mr. BASS. I see.

Mr. JONES. Are there any further questions?

Mr. BASS. No.
PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961 15

Mr. JONES. Next is H.R. 8356, by Mr. Buckley, to authorize reimbursement to owners and tenants of certain lands or interests therein

acquired by the United States for certain moving expenses and losses

and damages, and for other purposes.

(H.R. 8356 follows:)

[H.R. 8356, 87th Cong., 1st sess.1

A BILL To authorize reimbursement to owners and tenants of certain lands or interests

therein acquired by the United States for certain moving expenses and losses and

damages, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled, That when any land or an interest in land in

the States of the Union, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico or the possessions of the United States is hereafter acquired for Federal

use by the United States by purchase, condemnation, or otherwise, the head of

the executive agency for which the said land or interest in land is acquired is

authorized to reimburse the owners and tenants of such land or interest in land

for expenses and losses and damages incurred by such owners and tenants as a

direct result of moving themselves, their families, and their possessions because

of said acquisition to the extent the head of such executive agency determines

such reimbursement to be fair and reasonable, such reimbursement to be in

addition to, but not in duplication of, any payments that may otherwise be authorized by law to be made to such owners and tenants: Provided, That the total

of such reimbursement to the owners and tenants shall in no event exceed 25

per centum of the fair value of any parcel of land or interest in land, as determined by the head of the executive agency making the payments. No payment

under this Act shall be made unless application therefor, supported by an itemized statement of the expenses, losses, and damaged incurred, is submitted to

the head of the executive agency within one year from (a) the date upon which

the parcel of land or interest in land is to be vacated under agreement with the

Government by the owner or tenant or pursuant to law, including but not limited

to, an order of court, or (b) the date upon which the parcel of land or interest

in land involved is vacated, whichever first occurs.

SEC. 2. The Administrator of General Services shall make such uniform rules

and regulations as he finds necessary and proper for the purpose of carrying out

the provisions of this Act. The head of each executive agency shall perform any

and all acts and issue such orders and directives as he deems necessary to carry

out the uniform rules and regulations issued by the Administrator of General

Services and may delegate the authority conferred by this Act, including the

making of determinations and decisions, to any other officers or officials of the

agency. All functions performed under this Act shall be exempt from the operation of the Administrative Procedure Act of June 11, 1946 (60 Stat. 237), as

amended (5 U.S.C. 1001-1011), except as to the requirements of section 3 of

said Act.

SEC. 3. Funds appropriated or otherwise available to an executive agency for

the acquisition of real property or interests therein shall also be available for

carrying out the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 4. The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any acquisition of lands

or interests therein by the Tennessee Valley Authority or to any executive

agency or situation provided for in (a) section 401(b) of the Act of July 14, 1952

(66 Stat. 624-625), as amended, or (b) the Act of May 29, 1958 (72 Stat. 152).

SEE. 5. The term "executive agency," as used in this Act, means any executive

department or independent establishment in the executive branch of the Government, including any wholly owned Government corporation.

STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. BOUTIN—Resumed

Mr. Bournsr. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call on Mr. Macomber,

the General Counsel of the General Services Administration.

Mr. Jos. Mr. Macomber.

Mr. MACOMBER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this

legislation is proposed by General Services Administration again to

make uniform a law, and to give to all agencies authority that at the
16 PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961

present time only certain agencies have. The Department of Defense

presently has authority stemming back to 1951 to pay moving expenses

of occupants of land which it takes by purchase or condemnation.

The Interior Department has that authority, but the General Services

Administration does not.

We have run into difficulties at times in connection with the acquisition of property, arising from the fact that we .are not able to treat

the persons whose property we are taking as fairly or as generously

as are the other two agencies.

Here again it was recommended, upon review of this legislation at

the Bureau of the Budget, that the authority be made general rather

than be given to the General Services Administration only. This

legislation is patterned after the existing legislation of the Department of Defense and the Interior Department. It permits the payment of moving expenses, including actual moving, insurance, losses,

and damages, and similar expenses incurred in connection with the

vacation of the property. It is provided in the bill that the 

Mr. JONES. How in the world do you compute, let us say, the damages he might suffer as a result of the loss of property?

Mr. MACOMBER. If I understand your question, sir, under the bill

the occupant would be required to furnish a statement of his claim

for the type of expenses covered by this legislation within a year after

the date of his vacating the property, or the date when he agrees or

is ordered in condemnation proceedings to vacate, whichever is the

earlier of the two, and the Government would then review the statement so submitted and satisfy itself that the amounts claimed were

expenses actually incurred and within the scope of the statute.

Mr. JONES. I just don't see how you can take a proper measurement

of damages or losses, by a lessee.

Mr. MACOMBER. The damages or losses referred to there are the

damages or losses to his household goods, for example, in the course

of moving, where he did not carry insurance.

Mr. JONES. Suppose he is going to lose his business as a tenant with

a 10-year lease arrangement. Would he be entitled under this bill

to be reimbursed?

Mr. BOUTIN. Lawson.

Mr. KNOTT. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I interrupt because I have

had some experience with the operation of this statute in the Department of Defense after its enactment. The distinction lies between

those expenses which arise directly as a result of moving, as distinguished from those losses that arise out of the acquisition of property

by the Government. In the case you recite where he loses his business,

this would not be compensable, but if he loses furniture in the course

of moving, or if it is damaged, or if he has a receipted bill which

shows the cost of his moving, or if he is delayed in getting 

Mr. JONES. Suppose the lessee lives in Washington and loses his

business and decides the best thing for him to do is to go to California.

Mr. KNOTT. We actually had such a case arise in some of the moving of cattle from Texas to California.

Mr. JONES. I knew everything else was going to California, but I

didn't know that cattle was.

Mr. KNorr. That's right. This actually happened and they

allowed the cost of shipping his cattle. But they would not allow
PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961 17

the cost of any loss to him, for example, in the price for his cattle

in California, as distinguished from if he had sold them locally.

Mr. HARVEY. Do you mean that cost of shipping the cattle from

Texas to California we pay?

Mr. Knorr. That's right.

Mr. JONES. That was under authority of the Department of Defense statute.

Mr. KNOTT. That is right. And this statute as Mr. Macomber

points out, was patterned after that. Actually, while it sounds like

it might be quite expensive, there is a limitation of 25 percent placed

on the statute. The reimbursement could not exceed 25 percent of

the acquisition price of the property. Actually, the first 4 or 5 years

of experience—and I assume it has not varied materially since then—

showed about 5 or 6 percent as the actual outlay.

Mr. BASS. The answer to the chairman's question then is you would

pay?

Mr. KNOTT. That is right. You would pay.

Mr. BASS. Is that what you do now under the present law?

Mr. KNOTT. This is what the Defense Department does now under

this act, and it is undoubtedly what we would do under the act, if

passed, because it follows the same pattern.

Mr. BASS. The only limitation is 25 percent?

Mr. KNOTT. The only limitation is 25 percent. We would not pay

for his loss of business. This arises out of the acquisition, but not out

of moving, you see. This is merely to cover the impact of moving.

That is all.

Mr. McVEY. I would like to address a question perhaps jointly to

Mr. Knott and Mr. Macomber. It is my understanding this bill would

not apply to Federal-aid highways, to forest highways, and public

land highways, and defense access highways maintained by the State.

Mr. KNOTT. No, sir. This is designed for properties acquired for

Federal use such as military installations, flood control reservoirs, and

reclamation projects, under other statutes, and, public buildings, projects under this bill.

Mr. BURKE. Mr. Chairman, as you know, for some time I have been

very much interested in the problem of the compensation of persons

who have lands taken by various Federal agencies. In the last Congress we had a bill to study the problem generally. We have one

pending now.

I have before me a report from the Bureau of the Burget which was

sent to Senator McClellan as chairman of the Committee on Government Operations in the other body on an identical bill to mine, I

think, which was sponsored by the distinguished Senator Hill. The

Bureau of the Budget recommends favorably on that bill, which is

identical to mine, saying in part I think what you have been saying

here. It is a four-page report and I won't read it all, but it says

in part:

The administration believes there is a real need for a comprehensive and

impartial study of the acquisition of property for Federal or federally sponsored

purposes. While we do not believe it should be assumed that property owners

generally are not adequately reimbursed, it is true that the Government does not

pay landowners for some kinds of expenses which may indirectly be related to

the sale of their property. But it is also known that amounts awarded by courts

generally are substantially more than current market values as determined by

independent local appraisers. These and other pertinent facts should be care-
18 PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961

fully and objectively balanced in fairness both to the property owner and the

general taxpayer. There have been many complaints that amounts being paid

are inadequate and bills have been introduced to provide more liberal payments

for property acquired for specific Federal programs or from specific property

owners. Generally we have not favored such proposals because they would provide a piecemeal solution and would result in varying amounts being paid to

property owners, depending upon which Federal agency happened to take

their property.

The Bureau of the Budget then goes on to recommend a slightly

different kind of commission than the pending legislation proposes.

My question is, In view of this attitude on the part of the administration, is it wise to recommend the passage once again of, call it, a

piecemeal piece of legislation?

Mr. MACOMBER. Mr. Burke, I think I can only say in answer to that

that the Bureau of the Budget advises us there is no objection on the

part of the administration to the submission of this legislation. That

I would indicate a feeling that the need here is sufficiently great to

provide for it, even though it is recognized that there is a need for a

further and more complete study of the whole problem.

Mr. BURKE. I am inclined to agree. For example, it would put the

General Services Administration in the same position as the Department of the Interior.

Mr. KNOTT. That is right.

Mr. BURKE. But a little different from the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. Kwarr. No.

Mr. MACOMBER. No, because while this bill provides that nothing in

it will affect any authority under any other law, the agencies that have

a limited authority under other laws can also exercise the authority

under this bill.

Mr. BURKE. Then this would really in effect give to the Corps of

Engineers—and the chairman is an expert in this field—it would give

the Corps of Engineers the authority to pay severance costs, if you

please, in certain navigation projects that they do not have now?

Mr. JONES. No. Not in severance. They can compute the cost of

the severance damage in the bill.

Mr. BURKE. It would extend the Corps of Engineers' authority to

pay compensation.

Mr. JONES. They have that general compensation now.

Mr. MACOMBER. I think I should correct my statement. The bill

would not give the Corps of Engineers, or the Department of Defense

generally, any additional authority, since it parallels the authority

they have under the 1952 statute.

Mr. BURKE. Wouldn't it?

Mr. MACOMBER. This follows the pattern of the other. The authority in the other acts remains unaffected.

Mr. BURKE. I don't think that this bill is in conflict with this long

opinion that the Bureau of the Budget expressed concerning the

formation of a commission, but I thought we might note that it is

apparently not the opinion of the Bureau of the Budget that bills like

this are the final solution.

Mr. KNorr. I think this is true. The difficulty has been that the

courts have held rather firmly to the view that in the acquisition of

property certain items of valuation may be taken into account, but

other damages are consequential. This comes under the heading of
PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961 19

consequential damages, which nevertheless have an impact on the

owner of property greater than he can bear in some instances, and certainly makes it necessary for us to resort to condemnation proceedings

more frequently than we would otherwise have to do with this authority. It has not been mentioned that a similar, but not parallel statute,

was passed in the Housing Act of 1949, amended in 1956, to provide

the authority there. In those cases it is a specified amount, regardless

of the amount of the loss if any.

Actually, in many cases under this bill there would be no provable

expense incurred by the owner, and in such cases he would receive

nothing.

With bare land, for example, if he had nothing to move, and no

tenants, and no moving expenses

'

there would not be any allowance.

Mr. JONES. Did you have a question, Mr. King?

Mr. KING. No.

Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Harvey.

Mr. HARVEY. It seems to me this language is very broad and I am

not as familiar with the subject as I might be, but I would think our

object would be the same as the object in a court of law, which is reasonably to make this person whole again for the damage we have done

to him. But I cannot conceive of any circumstances where a court of

law would permit recovery for damages, for example, for moving from

Texas to California. To me it is beyond comprehension, and when

we state in the act that this person, either an owner or a tenant, is to

be reimbursed to such extent as the head of such executive agency

determines such reimbursement to be fair and reasonable, that is an

extremely broad grant of authority.

If it is going to be construed as paying damages for moving from

Texas to California, I am not in favor of it. I can't conceive of going

that far with the knowledge I have of this subject now.

Mr. MACOMBER. I would suspect, Mr. Harvey—I am not familiar

with the case Mr. Knott referred to—but there must have been some

very special circumstances.

Mr. KNOTT. I think that is true and it is a universal case, but in all

fairness we must admit it is susceptible to that interpretation, and I

would agree that this is possible.

Mr. HARVEY. Certainly you would agree with me that no court of

law under any modern concept of damages would permit a recovery of

that nature. If we permit a department head to far exceed the

recovery a person would receive in a court of law 

Mr. KNOTT. Mr. Harvey, I think that is just the situation in which

we find ourselves. This being recognized as the case the Congress at

least in 1951 felt that they should provide this authority, and again

as late as 1959. So that in at least three agencies of the Government

now which have far more extensive acquisition problems than does the

General Services Administration, for example, this authority resides

now.

I think one reason why in 1952 the act of 1951 was amended was

to correct a situation that Mr. Wright will recall at Fort Hood, Tex.,

and the adjoining flood control reservoir, where the Government acquired half of a man's property for a military installation and could

compensate him for moving costs, while the rest of the property, which
•

20 PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961

was being acquired for the reservoir project, the Army could not compensate him. There may never arise a situation where we must acquire

land for public buildings and adjoining property must be acquired for

a military purpose. Nevertheless we are confronted with the situation

in which other agencies of Government engaged more extensively in

the acquisition of property may do this now.

Mr. HARVEY. What this would do would be to make that practice

standard. Is that correct?

Mr. KisTorr. That's right.

Mr. HARVEY. So that all agencies could compensate in that same

vague, broad manner.

Mr. KNorr. That is correct. This statute says that the General

Services Administrator will provide regulations which would govern

the payments by all agencies. This provision was inserted at the

suggestion of the House Committee on Government Operations which

considered a similar bill last year and thought this should be done.

This bill was passed by the Senate last year and was held in the House

Committee on Government Operations, but was not reported because

the Congress adjourned.

Mr. MACOMBER. Mr. Chairman, there are two minor items on which

I should like to have a very few moments to comment in connection

with this bill.

Mr. JONES. Yes.

Mr. MACOMBER. The first one, I think, is partially covered by Mr.

McVey's question of a few moments ago, but the point was raised by

the Bureau of Public Roads with us just yesterday that while they

have no objection at all to this bill being made applicable to their

acquisitions of land for Federal use, they wanted us to make it clear

to the committee in our statement that we did not consider that the

bill would be applicable in those cases that arise occasionally where

land that is being acquired for the Interstate System, and which is

ordinarily acquired by the State under a 90-percent grant, is as a

matter of convenience in cases of urgency acquired by the Federal

Government and turned over to the State.

Mr. JONES. I think that the committee time and time again rejected

that proposition and has taken the position that the Bureau of Public

Roads points out.

Mr. MACOMBER. Yes. And one other point I should like to mention

is this: The corresponding bill to this in the Senate is S. 2159. One

of the Members of the Senate communicated with Senator McClellan,

the chairman of the Senate Committee on Government Operations,

which is handling the bill on the Senate side, raising the question as

to whether it would not be desirable to make this authority applicable

to takings by establishments in the legislative branch. enator McClellan addressed a letter to us inquiring whether we saw any objection to the bill being extended to that point, and asking us if we did

not, as a drafting service to draft language accomplishing that purpose.

Mr. JONES. I think, Mr. Macomber, that matter has been before the

House Building Commission, and I understand you all have rejected

that proposition unanimously, Mr. Auchincloss.

Mr. AucHiNcLoss. I think so. I think so. I defer to the Speaker,

who makes the rule.

Mr. JONES. It is only hearsay to me, but I understand you have.
PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961 21

Mr. AITCHINCLOSS. It is hearsay with me. We have not had a meeting on it.

Mr. MACOMBER. We merely want to invite to your attention on this

committee the fact that such a proposal was at least under consideration in the other body. We are not advocating that and did not consider it appropriate for us to take any position, of course.

Mr. McFALL. I would like to say I would be for anything like

that, because I don't think that these people that the Congress takes

property from should be treated any differently than any other Government agency. These shopowners out here are faced with the same

problem that any other shopowners are faced with when the Government takes their land. The Urban Renewal Act has been amended

now so we can get the exact actual cost of your moving expenses,

and you are going to go through changing this law to actual moving

expenses, and the Congress ought to apply the same rule to its own

purchases.

Mr. JONES. Prior to your coming into the committee room, Mr.

Knott pointed out that the Department of Defense had the same

authority with the exception of the Corps of Engineers, and had

utilized it in making reimbursement for damages and losses claimed

by the people they receive the property from.

Mr. McFALL. I think it is perfectly equitable.

Mr. JONES. Are there any further questions?

(No response.)

Mr. JONES. Thank you, gentlemen.

I will repeat what I said earlier. We will go into executive session

after we hear the next witness.

That concludes the pending bills that were scheduled for hearing

this morning.

We will now take up a resolution introduced by Mr. Smith of

Virginia, House Joint Resolution 500.

(H.J. Res. 500 follows:)

[H.J. Res. 500, 87th Cong., 1st sess.],

JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the Architect of the Capitol to construct a memorial

to James Madison, and for other purposes

Resolved by 'the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled, That the Architect of the Capitol, under the

direction of the House Office Building Commission, is authorized and directed

to construct in square 732 in the District of Columbia—

(1) in accordance with plans to be prepared by the Architect of the

Capitol, under the direction jointly of the House Office Building Commission

and the James Madison Memorial Commission established by the joint

resolution entitled "Joint resolution to establish a commission to formulate

plans for a memorial to James Madison", approved April 8, 1960 (74 Stat.

37), a permanent memorial to James Madison; the design of which shall

include a superstructure with basement and be in keeping with the prevailing architecture of the buildings on Capitol Hill; and

(2) in accordance with plans to be prepared by the Architect of the Capitol

and submitted to, and approved by, the House Office Building Commission, an

underground structure for housing the papers of the Presidents of the United

States in the collections of the Library of Congress and other valued documents of the Library of Congress, including such necessary equipment, such

necessary connections with the Capitol Power Plant and other utilities, such

tunnels under public streets connecting such underground structure with the

main and annex Library of Congress buildings, and such other appurtenant

or necessary facilities, such changes in the main Library of Congress building, and such landscaping, as may be approved by the House Office Building

Commission.
22 PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961

SEC. 2. The Architect of the Capitol, under the direction of the House Office

Building Commission, is authorized to enter into contracts and to make such

other expenditures including expenditures for personal and other services, not

to exceed $39,000,000, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this joint

resolution.

SEC. 3. The Librarian of Congress shall have jurisdiction over, and responsibility for the care, operation, and supervision of, the memorial and underground

structure, when completed; except that the structural and mechanical care of

such memorial and underground structure and the care of the surrounding

grounds shall be under the Architect of the Capitol.

SEC. 4. The words "and formulating" in the first sentence of the first section,

the last sentence of the first section, and sections 2 and 3 of the joint resolution

entitled "Joint resolution. to establish a commission to formulate plans for a

memorial to James Madison", approved April 8, 1960 (73 Stat. 37), are hereby

repealed.

SEC. 5. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums, not to

exceed $39,000,000, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this joint

resolution.

Mr. JONES. This is a resolution asking that the House Office Building Commission be authorized and directed to construct the James

Madison Memorial in the immediate vicinity of the Capitol. This is

a bill which would call for the authorization of $39 million. It is

going to take some time to hear this bill. Dr. Dodds, who is a member

of the Commission and a former president of Princeton University,

had plans to leave on Saturday for a trip to Europe, so today we will

take him out of order, since we will not go into this bill at length today. We will therefore take the testimony of Dr. Dodds and accommodate him, so that he will not have his trip delayed.

Is Dr. Dodds present?

(Whereupon a recess was had.)

Mr. JONES. I will repeat what I said earlier, at the beginning of the

hearing. House Joint Resolution 500 was introduced by Mr. Smith of

Virginia. This was to authorize the construction of the James Madison Memorial, authorizing $39 million for it. Since the bill would

require a whole morning to hear testimony on, or perhaps longer, it

was my intention to schedule it for some time next week.

We have with us Dr. Harold W. Dodds the former president of

Princeton University. We are taking Dr. 

Dodds,

out of order since I

have been informed by Mr. Hester, the executive chairman of the executive committee, that you wanted to make your departure for Europe

in the latter part of this week. So I have agreed that we would hear

you out this morning. The testimony you will present to the committee, Dr. Dodds, will be incorporated in the proper place in the report

of our general hearings.

Doctor, we are delighted to have you and to have your great interest

in the project, which means so much to our Nation's Capital. We will

not detain you further and will let you proceed.

STATEM'ENT OF HAROLD W. DODDS, CHAIRMAN, JAMES MADISON

MEMORIAL COMMISSION

Dr. DODDS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, first I

want to express to you my personal appreciation for hearing me out

of order. I am going abroad at the end of the week to fulfill some

earlier contracts, and this act of courtesy is very gratefully received.

On behalf of the members of the Commission as well as myself I

(
PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961 23

express for them, as for me, appreciation for affording me this opportunity.

Mr. JONES. We appreciate your coming because we did not want

to lose the valuable contribution you could make to this matter for

the committee.

Dr. DODDS. Thank you, sir.

From the beginning our Commission desired a living memorial

which would represent and keep alive the principles of representative

government and freedom that Madison did so much to inculcate in our

constitutional system. He was, as you know, termed by his contemporaries, and has been classed by historians, as the architect of the

Constitution.

Since his contributions were so largely in the field of ideas, we felt

that the best way to establish such a memorial was to make it a center

of education and scholarship. The proposal, therefore, incorporated

in the resolution, divides into two parts. One is the above-ground

memorial, which would be the Madison Memorial Library. It will

be a dignified building containing an impressive memorial room and

affording adequate space for displaying valuable exhibits of selected

documents of Madison and his period. We believe that Madison's

services can be dramatized further in a series of three-dimensional dioramas depicting his chief contributions. The National Park Service,

which is in charge of many of our national monuments, has an outstanding reputation for success in such matters. The mezzanine and

second-floor plans provide for offices, catalog room, and reading room

for use of teachers, writers, and scholars.

We believe that the memorial and exhibition space will be effective

with the thousands who will visit it annually, not the least of whom

will be public school students for whom the exhibits will help drive

home basic American principles. As a former teacher of American

government, I cannot imagine anything that would be more impressive

for high school students studying this period of our constitutional development and the principles involved than to see some of the documents and some of the Madison memorabilia and these graphic exhibits.

The other larger part of the project will be an underground annex

to the Library of Congress. We believe that the effectiveness of the

memorial will be enhanced by associating with it the rich and irreplaceable collection of the Library of Congress, consisting of the

papers of 23 Presidents and a wealth of other historic papers and

documents which it possesses.

Accordingly, in cooperation with the Library of Congress we propose an underground space for the custody of these valuable items

with facilities for their use by writers and scholars interested in

various phases of our history. The Library urgently needs more

and better room for the preservation and use of this material which

is of such commanding historic value.

When completed, the whole memorial will be administered by the

Library, which will insure proper maintenance and supervision of the

use of its rare books and documents, except that the structural and

mechanical care of the whole memorial and the maintenance of the

surrounding grounds will be under the Architect of the Capitol.

The site selected, which has the approval of the House Office Building Commission, is on the land to be cleared to the south of the main
24 PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961

building of the Library of Congress across Independence Avenue.

This site not only gives the memorial the significance it deserves, but

makes possible its efficient and convenient administration by the

Library of Congress.

House Joint Resolution 500 provides that the plans shall be prepared by the Architect of the Capitol under the direction jointly of

the House Office Building Commission and the James Madison

Memorial Commission. It will be designed to harmonize with its

neighbors on the Capitol Grounds. Incidentally, it is contemplated

that the style will be one of which Madison would undoubtedly approve himself if he were alive. Construction will be in the hands of

the Architect of the Capitol under the direction of the House Office

Building Commission.

It is the hope of the Madison Commission that House Joint Resolution 500 will receive your favorable consideration.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Dr. Dodds. Are there any

questions?

Mr. Auchincloss.

Mr. AucHiNcLoss. Dr. Dodds, I would like to ask a question off the

record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say as a member of the

House Building Commission I am familiar with this proposal. It

was passed unanimously by the House Office Building Commission.

The bill before us was drafted with the approval of the commission

and the approval of the Parliamentarian, and I think I can speak

for the Speaker that he is enthusiastic for this project.

I have seen the plans and I endorse everything that Dr. Dodds has

said in support of this bill. I think it would be a great addition to

the Hill here, and to the historic interest of Washington.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Auchincloss.

Are there any questions?

Mr. BASS. Dr. Dodds, is this memorial to cost $39 million? I noticed

that in section 5 of the bill.

Dr. DODDS. That is provided in the resolution. Of course, the major

part of that pertains to the Library of Congress and the custody of

its rare documents. It is my understanding that this will come before

you next week, or soon, when the Architect of the Capitol will be here.

Since these estimates are in his hands I do not feel that I am competent to discuss them.

Mr. BASS. You cannot give us an estimate of the cost then?

Dr. DODDS. Well, we have accepted this estimate from him. We

have not challenged that estimate, but he would be the one to explain it.

Mr. BASS. So we can assume the overall cost would be about $39

million?

Dr. DODDS. Yes. I think that is right.

Mr. AucHiNcLoss. If the gentleman will yield, that is the best estimate that the Architect of the Capitol can give us at this time, and I

think it is well within reason.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, personally I would like to be associated with the expressions in support of this joint resolution. I
PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS— 1 9 6 1 25

have had the feeling for a long time that James Madison occupied a

place in the history of our country, and the contribution he made, by

virtue of his connection with the Constitution of the United States,

was of a stature that we had been generally tardy in giving proper

recognition to, here in the Nation's Capital. I think the endorsement and support of a great Virginian, who has made a national

reputation for his careful approach and his caution in terms of expenditures of money—and I am speaking of the gentleman from Vircrinia9

Mr. Smith—I think an endorsement from that kind of authority puts this in a category where I personally feel confident that the

expenditures will be at a level which can be completely justified. I

certainly hope that we can advance this resolution.

Mr. JONES. You are winning friends fast. You had better talk a

little more, Doctor.

Dr. DODDS. James Madison is. I don't think I need to talk.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Dr. Dodds, and we hope you

have a delightful trip.

Dr. DODDS. Thank you, and thanks again for hearing me out of

order.

Mr. JONES. As I said, and I will repeat again, I hope to have the

hearings on the bill sometime next week.

That concludes all of the open hearings and the committee will go

into executive session.

(Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the committee went into executive

session.)

PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1961

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1961

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

SUBCOMMITTEEE ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 1304,

House Office Building, Hon. Robert E. Jones (subcommittee chairman) presiding.

Mr. JONES. The subcommittee will come to order.

The business of the subcommittee this morning is to hear witnesses

on behalf of the joint resolution to authorize the Architect of the

Capitol to construct a memorial to James Madison, and for other

purposes.

Our first witness is Mr. Stewart, Architect of the Capitol. We are

pleased to have you here, Mr. Stewart.

STATEMENT OF J. GEORGE STEWART, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL,

ACCOMPANIED BY MARIO E. CAMPIOLI, ASSISTANT ARCHITECT

OF THE CAPITOL

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have

a short statement I would like to read which is the basis of the testimony.

Mr. JONES. You may proceed.

Mr. STEWART. House Joint Resolutions 500, 501, 502, 503, and Senate Joint Resolution 119—all identical resolutions—authorize and

direct the Architect of the Capitol, under the direction of the House

Office Building Commission, to construct in square 732 in the District

of Columbia a permanent memorial to James Madison, consisting of a

superstructure with basement, and an underground structure to house

the papers of the Presidents of the United States in the collections of

the Library of Congress and other valued documents of the Library.

of Congress; to enter into contracts and to make such other expenditures, not to exceed $39 million, as may be necessary to provide for

construction of the memorial and underground structure. The joint

resolutions also authorize appropriations not to exceed $39 million for

the project; vest the Librarian of 'Congress with jurisdiction and responsibility for the care, operation, and supervision of the memorial

and underground structure

'

when completed; vest the Architect of the

Capitol with the structural and mechanical care of the memorial and

underground structure and the care of the surrounding grounds; repeal the provisions of the joint resolution approved April 8, 1960,

27
28 PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961

heretofore defining the duties and authority of the James Madison

Memorial Commission.

Under the terms of the joint resolutions, the plans for the James

Madison Memorial are to be prepared by the Architect of the Capitol

under the joint direction of the House Office Building Commission

and the James Madison Memorial Commission. Under the terms of

the joint resolutions the plans for thQ_underground structure are to

be prepared by the Architect of the Capitol under the direction of the

House Office Building Commission.

The House Office Building Commission is composed of the following membership: Speaker Sam Rayburn, chairman Representative

Carl Vinson, of Georgia, and Representative James C. Auchincloss,

of New Jersey, members.

The James Madison Memorial Commission is composed of the following membership : Dr. Harold W. Dodds Chairman Dr. Colgate W.

Darden

'

Jr., Clinton M. Hester, and Dr. William T. Hutchinson, appointed by the President Representative Howard W. Smith of Virginia, Representative Richard C. Poff, of Virginia, Representative

Arch A. Moore, Jr.? of West Virginia, Representative John M. Slack,

Jr., of West Virginia Senator Spessard L. Holland, of Florida, Sen-

•ator A. Willis Robertson

'

of Virginia, Senator Wallace F. Bennett, of

Utah, Senator Frank Carlson, of Kansas.

Square 732, in which it is proposed to construct the memorial and

underground structure, lies immediately east of the Old House Office

Building, and is bounded on the north by Independence Avenue SE.,

on the east by Second Street SE., on the south by C Street SE., on the

west by First Street SE. Square 732 actually consists of two city

blocks, being bisected by Carroll Street from east to west. Square

732 was acquired by the Architect of the Capitol in December 1960

as an addition to the U.S. Capitol Grounds, under authority of the

Additional Housing Office Building Act of 1955, and is now under

the control of the House Office Building Commission.

The James Madison Memorial Commission, after consultation with

the House Office Building Commission, agrees that square 732 is the

location most desirable as a site for the James Madison Memorial. In.

this location, the memorial would be adjacent to the Library of Congress and the House Office Buildings and would be a notable addition

to the surrounding structures adjoining Capitol Hill and would add

interest to the vistas from the east plaza of the Capitol. It would be,

in addition, an attraction for the many visitors to the Hill.

It is also greed that it would be highly desirable to locate in square

732 three levels of underground vaults in which to house the papers

of Presidents in the collections of the Library of Congress and other

valuable historic documents in the Library collections.

This latter consideration is of the utmost importance in planning

a third building for the Library of Congress, for which the preparation of preliminary plans and estimates of cost was authorized by

Public Law 86-469, approved May 14, 1960. In preparing the prpliminary plans for the third Library building, it was found that instead of having to acquire four squares on which to construct a building of adequate accommodations for the Library, a building of adequate accommodations can be provided on two squares, provided an

underground vault is constructed in square 732 and -part of the Library

collections, including the papers of the Presidents, is transferred from
PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961 29

the two existing buildings of the Library of Congress to the proposed

vault, thereby affording space for expansion in those two buildings.

In this connection, it is to be noted that the main Library building

was built in 1897 and was enlarged in 1910, 1927, 1930, and 1934, and

that the annex Library building was built in 1939. In June 1902, the,

Library contained 1,114,411 books and pamphlets in the main collection and in the Law Library and 345,511 pieces of music. At present,

the collections comprise over 12 million books and pamphlets; 167,000

bound newspaper. volumes • 16,500,000 manuscripts; 2,563,000 maps

and views; 2,050,000 items Of music; 3,024,000 photographic negatives,

prints, and slides; 584,000 fine prints; 126,000 motion picture reels

109,000 phonorecordings and 190,000 reels of microfilm.

The proposed memorial building will be designed in a dignified

conservative manner to harmonize with the existing classic buildings

on Capitol Hill. It is proposed that there be a portico facing north

with lesser porticos facing east and west and a portico reflecting the

north entrance on the south. The exterior of the memorial is proposed

to be of marble with granite base and the surrounding grounds will

be landscaped in an appropriate manner in order to form a proper

entourage for the memorial.

The general dimensions of the building, as proposed, are 112 feet

north and south, and 192 feet east and west. The building would

contain a gross area of approximately 104,000 square feet.

It is proposed that the ground floor contain in the center an impressive memorial room two stories in height in which it is contemplated

to place a statue of Madison and certain historical exhibits pertaining

to his life. Surrounding this room on the north it is proposed that

there be a public entrance lobby, on the west space for the staff and

vertical conveyors for the books from the vaults, and on the east and

south, exhibit areas, including dioramas illustrative of incidents in his

life. It is proposed that the mezzanine floor around the upper part

of the memorial room have offices for the staff, and that the second

floor have a large reading room with catalog area and control desk

adjacent and private study rooms for scholars. In the reading room,

the Madison papers and other material are proposed to be made available to scholars and other qualified persons. This reading room

would be connected by vertical and horizontal book conveyors to the

underground vault and to the main and annex buildings of the Libraryof Congress, so that any book in the Library collection would be available in this reading room in a short period of time.

The estimated cost of this memorial, including conveyors built-in

book stacks, furniture and furnishings, memorial statue of Madison,

other appropriate decorative sculpture and murals, dioramas, landscaping2 architectural and engineering fees, and administrative expenses, is $15 million.

The underground structure, or vault, as proposed, would consist of

three levels below grade and would be connected to the main Library

building by a tunnel, containing conveyors and book-handling equipment and would have underground access by truck. The superstructure of the James Madison Memorial is proposed to be located above

the central portion of the vault and, as previously stated, would contain the Madison papers, a memorial room, exhibition and reading

rooms, and provisions for research, all of which would be under the

jurisdiction of the Librarian of Congress.
30 PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961

The general overall dimensions of the vault, as proposed, are 355

feet north and south, and 517 feet east and west. The vault would

contain approximately a gross area of 554,500 square feet.

The three underground levels, as proposed, would contain the most

precious possessions of the Library. The items included in the

precious category are the papers of the Presidents, original manuscripts and compositions, and items of great historical importance and

significance. In addition, the vault would contain the blind collection, map collection, rare book collection, music collection, prints and

photographic collections, general storage for collections, and mechanical equipment. The vault would be connected to the Library buildings by tunnel and book conveyors. It is contemplated that the Presidential papers and other rare items will be housed in the vault and

will be made available for study in the reading and study rooms of

the proposed Madison Memorial.

The estimated cost of the vault, including conveyors, book stacks,

map cases, architectural and engineering fees and administrative expenses, and furniture and furnishings, but excluding any cost in connection with the James Madison Memorial superstructure, is, exclusive of cost of tunnels, $23,486,000.

The cost of the pedestrian tunnels connecting the underground vault

with the main and annex Library buildings, including architectural

and engineering fees and administrative expenses, is estimated at

$514,000.

A breakdown of the estimated cost of $39 million for the project

is attached to this statement.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Stewart. Page 7 of your

statement, which contains a breakdown of the estimated cost, will be

made a part of the record at this point.

(The breakdown referred to follows:)

James Madison Memorial, including underground vault and tunnels, square 73z

SUPERSTRUCTURE, INCLUDING BASEMENT

Construction cost 

Landscaping 

Furniture and furnishings 

Architectural and engineering fees and administrative costs 

$12,

1,

1,

000, 000

540, 000

100, 000

360, 000

$15,000,000;

UNDERGROUND VAULT

Construction cost:

(a) Structure (554,430 square feet at $31.60 per

square foot) (8,611,450 cubic feet at $2.04 per

cubic foot) $17,527, 000

( b ) Conveyor 724,000

18,251, 000

Furniture and furnishings:

(a) Map cases and movable book stacks 

(b) Other furniture and furnishing 

2,169, 000

931,000

3,100, 000

Architectural and engineering fees and administrative costs 2,135, 000

23, 486, 000
PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961 31

PEDESTRIAN TUNNELS FROM VAULT TO MAIN BUILDING AND ANNEX

Construction cost (440 linear feet at $1,062 per linear

foot) $467,000

Architectural and engineering fees and administrative costs 47, 000

$514, 000

Total estimated cost of project 39, 000, 000

NOTE.—The foregoing does not include the necessary alterations or expansion of the

Capitol Power Plant to accommodate this project.

Mr. JONES. Any questions?

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Stewart, what was the cost of the Taft Memorial?

I realize there is a different concept involved but I just wondered what

the cost was? Do you know?

Mr. STEWART. I have no figures on the cost but I have comparative

sizes of the three buildings, the Jefferson, Lincoln, and Madison

Memorials.

We made this up [indicating] as a comparison of the three. It

shows the Jefferson, Lincoln, and Madison Memorials.

Mr. JONES. Is that the scale?

Mr. STEWART. Yes. The costs are not quite comparable because of

increased costs in more recent years.

Mr. DOOLEY. This breaks down to about $380 a square foot for the

$39 million?

Mr. STEWART. Not the memorial. The memorial is only $15 million.

Mr. JONES. $23 million is the amount that would be required to

house the activities of the Library of Congress?

MT. STEWART. Yes.

Mr. JONES. And the additional cost would be for the memorial

itself?

Mr. STEWART. Yes.

Mr. JONES. So there would have to be an expenditure of $23 million

to take care of the needs of the Library of Congress even if the memorial were not included?

Mr. STEWART. Yes. That has already been authorized and I have

the plans of this underground vault and the other facilities.

Mr. DOOLEY. Where is this square 732?

Mr. STEWART. That is what Mr. Rooney calls "Ptomaine Row" over

here right to the south of the old Library Building.

Mr. DOOLEY. I see.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Campioli, my assistant, is here and if there is

anything in the way of details you wish, he can go into them.

Mr. JONES. Do you wish to testify, Mr. Campioli ?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. If you wish.

Mr. JONES. Yes, we will be pleased to hear from you.

Mr. CAMPIOLI. I thought you might be interested in seeing the location of the building with relation to other buildings. We have made

this plan which shows the main Library of Congress, the annex, the

Old House Office Building, and the proposed location of the James

Madison Memorial.

The actual area between the street curbs comprising the two buildings is actually slightly greater than in the case of either the Lincoln

or Jefferson Memorials when measured between the curbs.
32 PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961

We have also studied the exterior, and this conforms to the report

of Mr. Stewart. This shows the view as seen from the Capitol

Grounds looking toward the building.

Mr. DOOLEY. It is beautiful.

Mr. CAMPIOLL The Old House Office Building would be in this

location, and this would be all marble around the base [indicating].

This is an aerial view which shows the proposed memorial. This

is the Capitol.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. May I ask this question: Why is not this in

the center of the plot?

Mr. CAMPIOLL We were asked not to push this building too far back

as it would be desirable to see it from the Capitol Grounds. In one

of the former studies we had the building back farther and the corner

of this Old House Office Building would shield it. This is so that

there is a better view of it from the Capitol Grounds.

Mr. AucHiNcLoss. I am glad to have that explanation. That does

not mean I necessarily agree with it.

Mr. JONES. This is the proposed new Library?

Mr. CAMPIOLL Yes.

Mr. JONES. And this is the annex?

Mr. CAMPIOLL Yes.

Mr. JONES. And this is the Folger ?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. This is the Folger and this is the main building.

The fact we were able to put the underground vault in this location

permitted us to keep this building in a two-block location.

Mr. JONES. Is this portion of the photograph in the taking area?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes.

Mr. JONES. How much of that land will be allocated to parking spaces?

Mr. CAMPIOLL I do not think any decision has been made on that.

Mr. STEWART. No parking space is contemplated. If any parking

is provided it would be for the Library as needed.

Mr. JONES. Do you not think the addition of this memorial will

almost require that you have places for people to park?

Mr. STEWART. It is contemplated this new area where the new

building is will be taken for underground parking [indicating].

Mr. JONES. But where will the visitors, the tourists, put their cars?

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. JONES. I think there will be a problem if you do not have parking spaces. You are taking this, too [indicating], are you not?

Mr. STEWART. Just this one block.

Mr. DOOLEY. One square block?

Mr. STEWART. Yes. This area in here was not of sufficient size in

the projection.

Mr. DOOLEY. Will you have an underground passage?

Mr. STEWART. Yes. There is a tunnel that connects all these buildings together with the Old House Office Building.

Mr. CAMPIOLL This is the plan. You see the spaces for the dioramas; and this is the mezzanine. The second floor will have study

rooms. There will be one basement story that will sit on top of the

underground vault. This shows the center large memorial room with

the reading room above it.
PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961 33

Mr. JONES. Thank you, sir.

Mr. COOK. When do you contemplate the new library building will

be constructed?

Mr. STEWART. That will be referred to the Joint Committee on the

Library. After everything is authorized it will take fully 3 years

for the building to be constructed.

Mr. COOK. You are speaking about the memorial?

Mr. STEWART. No, I am speaking about the other library.

Mr. COOK. The space underneath the new Library building will not

be sufficient to house these documents?

Mr. CAm-piou. Not unless we take in two more blocks.

Mr. COOK. Why is that?

Mr. CA1VIPI0LL We have now occupied to the limit the area of these

two buildings without going to the curb. We try to keep the same

setbacks as we have on the present building.

Mr. COOK. How many levels will you have underneath the new

Library building?

Mr. CAMPIOLL We go down five levels, 50 feet.

Mr. COOK. That will be used for what?

Mr. CAMPIOLL Parking, storage, and collections that do not have

to be gotten to as often.

Mr. COOK. If this area were not used for parking, would there be

sufficient space to house the Library documents?

Mr. CAMPIOLL No, because this parking area only amounts to sufficient space for 300 cars.

Mr. COOK. This would be parking area for employees?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, employees in this building.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, this is a copy of a letter sent to you

requesting an amendment covering furniture and furnishings.

Mr. JONES. Without objection, the letter from the Architect of the

Capitol dated September 14, 1961, addressed to me, will be made a

part of the record at this point.

(The letter referred to follows:)

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL,

Washington, D.C., September .14, 1961.

Hon. ROBERT E. JONES,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

House of Representatives.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Through inadvertence, when House Joint Resolutions 500, 501, 502, and 503, identical resolutions authorizing the Architect of the

Capitol to construct a memorial to James Madison and for other purposes, were

drafted, language was not including providing for furniture and furnishings for

the memorial and underground vault.

Accordingly, it is requested that on page 2, line 25, of these resolutions, after

the word "services", there be added the language "and for furniture and furnishings". This amendment is necessary, as an authorization for construction does

not include furniture and furnishings unless specifically provided.

Yours very truly,

J. GEORGE STEWART,

Architect of the Capitol.

Mr. JONES. Is there anything further, Mr. Stewart?

Mr. STEWART. No, sir. We will be glad to give you any other details

or information you may wish.

Mr. JONES. I would appreciate your furnishing any other information members of the committee have asked for.

Our next witness is Mr. Rutherford D. Rogers, Acting Librarian of

Congress. Mr. Rogers, please proceed.
34 PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961

STATEMENT OF RUTHERFORD D. ROGERS, ACTING LIBRARIAN OF

CONGRESS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, sir.

Thank you for affording me the opportunity to comment on House

Joint Resolutions 500 through 503 to authorize the Architect of the

Capitol to construct a memorial to James Madison, and for other

purposes.

The Library of Congress is interested in these joint resolutions in

three principal respects:

(1) .An underground structure, connected with the present Library

buildings would provide space for certain collections of the Library

including the papers of 23 of the Presidents of the United States.

(2) The superstructure would contain special facilities for scholars

engaged in research in the materials mentioned in (1) immediately

above.

(3) The Librarian of Congress would have "jurisdiction over, and

responsibility for, the care, operation, and supervision of, the memorial and underground structure * "."

As you know, the Library is in critical need of additional space. We

have studied this matter very carefully in collaboration with the

Architect of the Capitol and with other experts including associate

architects appointed under authority of Public Law 86-469 to prepare

preliminary plans for a third Library of Congress building. Projecting our needs for a period of approximately 25 years from the time an

additional structure could be completed, we have determined that we

shall require 1,993,260 net square feet of additional space. Inasmuch

as the amount of space proposed for the underground structure of the

Madison Memorial would be only 473,600 square feet, or about 24

percent of the total requirement, I would like to emphasize that al-

.though such space will be welcome it does not eliminate our requirement for a third Library building. Furthermore, even though the

memorial space might become available at a fairly early date, there

is a high priority need for another building for the collections and

activities of the Library of Congress.

There is presently a severe shortage of research facilities such as

those projected for the superstructure of the Madison Memorial, and

this is a very commendable feature of the memorial.

Although we have not sought responsibility for the administration

of the Madison Memorial, we favor the building of a memorial that is

so suitably utilitarian, and because of the research facilities to be

provided in the superstructure, it seems appropriate that the Library

of Congress should be assigned jurisdiction over it.

May I call attention to the wording "other valued documents of the

Library," page 2, line 11 (of H.J. Res. 500). Because of the close

construction that might placed on the word "document" and because

we cannot foresee all the types of library material that it might be

advisable at some time to house in the underground structure, I

suggest that this subparagraph be amended to read "and other materials of the Library * * *"

Mr. DOOLEY. Will you repeat the last words, please?

Mr. ROGFXS. Just the last words?

Mr. DOOLEY. Yes.
PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 9 6 1 35

Mr. ROGERS. "And other materials of the Library * * *"

Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you.

Mr. ROGERS. In summary, the provision of additional space for the

expansion of the Library in the area below the memorial grounds

would be most welcome although—and I cannot emphasize this too

strongly—it does not solve our space problem nor delay the urgent

need for proceeding forthwith with plans for a third Library building. The idea of making the memorial superstructure serve a useful

purpose is most commendable, and the assignment of jurisdiction to

the Librarian of Congress extending his responsibilities in nature as

well as scope is entirely agreeable to the Librarian of Congress. With

the minor change in wording proposed, the Library looks with favor

on this legislation.

Mr. DOOLEY. Is there any documentation in the Library of Congress of the Truman papers and the Roosevelt papers? As I undersand, the papers are in Missouri and in Hyde Park and so on. Are

there any duplicate copies of these papers in the Library of Congress?

Mr. ROGERS. Sir, we are creating at this time a bibliographical tool

called the National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections and this

will contain descriptions, at least in general terms, of materials in

these other repositories.

Mr. KUNKEL. Mr. Chairman, I have another committee and would

like to be excused.

Mr. COOK. Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers.

Any further questions?

The next witness is Congressman Smith of Virginia. Congressman

Smith, we will be glad to hear from you at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD W. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, on behalf of the James Madison Memorial Commission, I want to express

our appreciation of your taking the time, at this very busy time, to

give this matter such prompt consideration as you have. We are

deeply grateful for it.

Mr. Chairman, my statement will be very brief. I am a member of

the Commission and this memorial to James Madison is one that has

been contemplated for many years, of course. James Madison was

particularly famous as the student in the Constitutional Convention

and is known to history as the Father of the Constitution. The idea

is to have a memorial to him that will be significant of his work in

the Constitutional Convention as well as his other great attributes.

It happens that at the first meeting of this Commission I suggested

that it would be wise to have a memorial, if we are going to have one,

that would have some useful purpose rather than being merely an

ornamental memorial. The Commission was very much in favor of

such an idea. And we thought it ought to be on Capitol Hill if an

appropriate site could be had.

There has been a public misapprehension in some quarters about the

cost of this memorial which I think should be made very clear. For

some time it has been very obvious that the Library of Congress just
36 PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS—I 961

has to have additional quarters. So the conception of this matter is

that it shall be not only ornamental so far as the Madison part is concerned, but that the whole enterprise should be a useful and necessary

structure. So, through the kind cooperation of the House Office Buildings and Capitol Grounds Commission, it was arranged that the contemplated additional space for the Library of Congress, which is vitally necessary, should be built in connection with the Madison Memorial so that the underground space—and it is very fortunate that we

have the location close to the present Library where we can have this

underground space for extension of the Library, and, in the present

situation, being underground is a great advantage for the ultimate

preservation of important Presidential papers—but the Library part

of this is some $25 million, whereas this memorial, useful as it is, is

only $15 million out of the proposed estimated expenditure of $40

million. So to say we are building a $40 million monument to James

Madison is a long way from the truth. The monument part is only

$15 million out of the $40 million. I think that should be emphasized

because there has been some public misapprehension about it.

If this is done—and I hope it will be done—you will have the necessary extension of the Library of Congress as well as a useful monument and memorial to James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, which will house his papers and be attractive not only to students

but to the hordes of tourists who come here to visit and learn the operations of our Government.

I think that is all I have to say, and I appreciate very much the

opportunity to be here this morning and hope we can get this thing

moving along.

Mr. COOK. Congressman Smith, what are your views on Congressman Jones' statements with reference to the need for parking space

for the public in this area because of this added attraction on Capitol

Hill?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know what the parking arrangements are but

I would hate to see this block defaced by a parking lot, or any part

of it.

Mr. DOOLEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COOK. Yes.

Mr. DOOLEY. Did the Commission contemplate any public subscription for the Madison Memorial or is it all to be governmental?

Mr. SMITH. The resolution calls for it to be governmental, as all the

other memorials have been. But, as I said before, I think this is the

only monument erected to any of our great men of the past that is,

conceived in the idea that it shall be a useful one.

Mr. DOOLEY. I appreciate that.

Mr. CooK. Any further questions?

Mr. AucHiNcLoss. Mr. Smith, can you tell us whether the James

Madison Memorial Commission is unanimous on this?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. It is?

Mr. SMITH. I think they are enthusiastically unanimous as far as

I know.

Mr. COOK. Any further questions?

Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Smith, I am one Member of Congress who has

held your views in high regard, and it may be presumptuous for me
PUBLIC BUILDINGS BILLS-1 961 37

to ask you this question, but let me say I have told my constituents

that I think it is time that we cut back on all nonessential expenditures, making, of course, all expenditures necessary for defense, and I

am wondering, sir, if you think I can justify voting for this memorial

in view of these feelings I have already transmitted to my constituents? I have considerable doubt, in looking at this, that it is an

essential expenditure. I have heard you on the floor so many times

and have held your views so highly that let me say if I vote for this

resolution it will be because I hold your views in such high regard;

but let me say I still have my doubts.

Mr. SMITH. Let me say I think we have doubts and mental arguments in our minds about many expenditures. Perhaps I am a little

prejudiced, but I think we could well spend some money in trying to

bring to the attention of the American people the fundamental

principles upon which this Government is founded and of which

Madison was one of the outstanding exponents. I believe if our

schools and public institutions would give just half as much attention

to bringing up a generation to carry on the future of this country in

line with and acquainted with the fundamental principles upon which

our Constitution was founded and upon which this Government was

founded, it might bring us back to those fundamental principles of

what our government is about, and particularly what our Federal

Government is about. Our Federal Government was never conceived

by Madison and Washington and those others on the basis of the welfare state. There is a clear conception of the purposes and limitations

of the Federal Government outlined in the life and writings of Madison. If we could educate our people on that so they would take hold

of those principles again

'

it would be the greatest thing we could do

in many respects and also would have its effects on Federal expenditures.

Mr. HARVEY. If we could accomplish that, there would be no doubt

in my mind.

Mr. SMITH. I think it would be money well expended.

Mr. HARVEY. What is bothering me is the deficit which Mr. Dillon

says we will have with us.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Harvey, the deficit has been bothering me a long

time.

Mr. HARVEY. I know it has. That is why I bring it up here.

Mr. SMITH. I think you have a good point, but I have said what

I think about it.

Mr. HARVEY. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I regret I have another committee

and must leave at this time. I would like to leave my proxy for the

Smith resolution.

Mr. COOK. Any other questions?

Thank you very much for appearing, Congressman Smith.

The Chair understands there are no further witnesses to be heard

and the committee will stand adjourned.

(Thereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the hearing on the above-entitled resolution was adjourned.)

0