[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1126,
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
MEMORIAL COMPLETION ACT
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-6
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-076 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Tom McClintock, CA Jim Costa, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Niki Tsongas, MA
Jeff Duncan, SC Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Scott R. Tipton, CO Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Tony Cardenas, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Steven A. Horsford, NV
Steve Southerland, II, FL Jared Huffman, CA
Bill Flores, TX Raul Ruiz, CA
Jon Runyan, NJ Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Mark E. Amodei, NV Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Markwayne Mullin, OK Joe Garcia, FL
Chris Stewart, UT Matt Cartwright, PA
Steve Daines, MT
Kevin Cramer, ND
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Vacancy
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Niki Tsongas, MA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY CNMI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Raul R. Labrador, ID Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Mark E. Amodei, NV Steven A. Horsford, NV
Chris Stewart, UT Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Steve Daines, MT Joe Garcia, FL
Kevin Cramer, ND Matt Cartwright, PA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, March 19, 2013.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 1
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Eisenhower, Susan, Representing the Eisenhower Family........ 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Issa, Hon. Darrell E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Oral statement of..................... 5
Moore, Arthur Cotton, Washington, D.C........................ 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Washington Post and New York Times articles submitted for
the record............................................. 30
Reddel, Brig. Gen. Carl W., USAF (Ret.), Executive Director,
Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission................... 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Letter submitted for the record.......................... 26
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 26
Shubow, Justin, President and Chairman, The National Civic
Art Society................................................ 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Index to Selected Articles, Editorials, and Letters
Critical of Frank Gehry's Eisenhower Memorial.......... 35
Additional materials supplied:
The American Institute of Architects, Press release submitted
for the record............................................. 47
Eisenhower, John S.D., Letter submitted for the record....... 10
Kelley, General P.X., USMC (Ret.), Former Chairman, American
Battle Monument Commission, and Former Commander, U.S.
Marine Corps, Letter submitted for the record.............. 48
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1126, TO FACILITATE THE COMPLETION OF AN
APPROPRIATE NATIONAL MEMORIAL TO DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER. ``DWIGHT D.
EISENHOWER MEMORIAL COMPLETION ACT.''
----------
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, McClintock, Lummis,
Tipton, LaMalfa; Grijalva, Holt, Sablan, Horsford, and Shea-
Porter.
Mr. Bishop. All right. The hearing will come to order. The
Chair notes the presence of a quorum, kind of. So this
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulations is
meeting today to hear testimony on H.R. 1126, which is called
the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Completion Act. Under the
rules, opening statements are limited to the Chairman and
Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous consent to include any
other Member's opening statement in the hearing record, if it
is submitted to the Clerk by the close of business today.
[No response.]
Mr. Bishop. Hearing no objections, that will be so ordered.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. Let me start off with this, if I possibly
could. I would like to start off this hearing by thanking the
witnesses, the members of the Eisenhower family, as well as
others who have a significant appreciation for one of our great
American heroes, Dwight Eisenhower. It is on this occasion that
there are a lot of people who are interested in this, a lot of
attention has been given. Kind of reminds me of a comment made
by Red Skelton as he was commenting about a funeral of a
Hollywood mogul that was especially well attended. And he
simply said, ``Give the public what it wants and it will come
out in droves.'' That may be what we are attempting to do here
today.
I want to make it clear from the outset that I support
completion of a national memorial to President Eisenhower. I
think it is important that I emphasize the word ``completion.''
Because, from the discussions we have had with those who were
very close to this particular project, from the family, from
Members of Congress, I think it is fair to conclude that
funding the current design to completion will be a daunting
task.
Starting in 1999, we have had a process that engaged--I am
actually grateful for the labor that has been put into this
project so far. For many, it has been a labor of love for our
President Eisenhower. And I do want to congratulate the
Commission and the staff for all their work and their
persistence and their dedication to an effort.
However, today we find ourselves in a position that we
hoped would not necessarily be inevitable, and we certainly
hoped to avoid. Tomorrow will mark 1 year since our last
oversight hearing on the Eisenhower Memorial. In that hearing
we faced head on the controversies regarding the design, in
particular, the scrims. Also, the question of the selection
process of a designer. I left that hearing with the assurance
that discussions would occur with the family and with others
and with the designer itself, that perhaps modifications would
be made that could bring the public closer to a consensus on
this design.
Unfortunately, 1 year later, we have no conclusion and you
can actually say that we have concluded that we now could have
saved a lot of time and money if we had just listened to the
Eisenhower family who, at the outset of the hearing, called for
a redesign of the memorial. Taxpayers have now spent $60
million that has been invested in this project to date. And we
are going to spend tens of million more to construct and
complete this kind of project.
So, approvals have been in limbo for over a year. In that
time we have received few assurances about the durability of
the design, even the basic requirement--which is a basic
requirement of the Commemorative Works Act. It has taken months
of study and testing to see if this design can be melded and
manipulated into some specification that can reasonably be
called durable.
One of the goals of the hearing last year was to come away
with a better understanding of the selection process. The
Commission, the GSA, the NPS testified in support of the
process, assured us it was fair. And why shouldn't it be? It is
the same process that was replicated nationwide for a variety
of Federal buildings and projects. But therein lies the
problem. Somewhere along the line we failed to recognize that
this is not a Federal court or a GSA convention hall. This is a
tribute to a man who was noted for his modesty, and the
completion should have been open to everyone.
In reading of the record, the so-called ``open
competition'' ultimately led to an evaluation of four designs.
Four designs, that is it. I can understand why certain
architectural trade associations would be concerned about this
bill. Heaven forbid we upset a process that is heavily favored
in the design of large design firms. But can anyone really
argue that four designs are adequate? Now that the clouds are
clearing and we are beginning to see why this is being called--
we can see why this was being called, even years before I
became aware of the project, a monument to a designer with a
theme about President Eisenhower. That is not the way it should
be.
We need, very sincerely, a new set of eyes to look at the
situation, to clearly review where the money has been spent,
and where the money will be spent in the future, and an effort
to bring even greater transparency to this entire process.
Now, I hope the Committee understands that this is not a
position I take lightly. There is really, in this effort, no
political victory to be had. This is about President
Eisenhower, and a way we can honor a man who led us through
dangerous times, both in the military and in the political
sense. Our goal should be to do what is right by the memory of
Dwight Eisenhower, and take the time necessary to do it the
right way.
Congress is entrusted with this process. And Congress
authorizes different commissions. This Commission needs to be
re-authorized. This is a time to re-look at the way we are
doing things and to re-evaluate where we have been and where we
are going, and where we wish to end.
I was struck by the words of one of our colleagues, who has
since retired, one of the nicest men I have ever know, the
retired Dale Kildee from Michigan, who served on this Committee
for several decades. At our hearing last year he stated, ``I
know that Congress does not have a great deal of expertise in
matters like this. But recognizing that, we do have people who
have knowledge and things. We have set a process to make sure
that what we do there on the monuments on the Mall are done
correctly. And we have never relinquished our authority on
that. We have always had problems, and we appreciate having a
process. But, at the same time, we have not relinquished our
authority in this area or our input on this.'' In fact, it is
ironic that the Majority of the Commission are, indeed, Members
of Congress themselves who have to make a final decision.
So, I agree with what Mr. Kildee said. We may not
necessarily be experts on design and architecture, but we have
a responsibility to conduct oversight and to legislate. In many
respects, we represent the average American who will visit this
particular memorial. And if this design doesn't make sense to
us, then why, on earth, would it make sense to them, who are
the ones actually footing the bill?
This is not a process that we can turn over because of a
name. It is a process that must honor the memory of a President
and a military commander who has done so much for this country
in a way that is consistent with his life, and a way that is
consistent with the purpose of a memorial.
With that, I would now like to recognize the gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Grijalva, for any statements that he may have.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
holding this hearing. We are going to be--I guess we are going
to be seeing a lot of each other the rest of this week, and I
appreciate today all the witnesses taking time to come and talk
about this legislation and, more importantly, the status of the
memorial to a great American.
Almost 1 year ago today we had an initial oversight hearing
on the Eisenhower Memorial. The hearing last year was the first
time I became aware of the family's deep concerns about the
memorial design. The Commemorative Works Act deliberately
limits the involvement of Congress once the memorial has been
authorized. While this is the case, issues have been raised
regarding the use of Federal funding and the function of the
Commission itself.
Following the hearing last year, Secretary Salazar and
several commissioners took a number of steps to bridge the gap
between the design adopted by the Commission and the strong
views of the family. From the testimony that has been submitted
to the Committee, it is clear that the bridge was not built. In
fact, the gap might--may be wider today than it was a year ago.
So, where does that leave us? Chairman Bishop has put
forward legislation that invites a discussion on how to move
forward. While it is clear that something needs to break the
current impasse, I want the Committee to think long and hard
about how we handle this issue and how decisions on the
memorial might impact future memorials and the precedent that
is being set.
I am here to listen today and, again, I appreciate the
involvement of all the witnesses that are going to be before us
today. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared remarks of Mr. Grijalva follow:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. We are
going to be seeing a lot of each other this week. I appreciate all of
the witnesses making time to come talk about this legislation and the
status of the memorial.
Almost one year ago today we had an initial oversight hearing on
the Eisenhower Memorial. The hearing last year was the first time I
became aware of the family's deep concerns with the memorial design.
The Commemorative Works Act deliberately limits the involvement of
Congress once a memorial has been authorized. While this is the case,
issues have been raised regarding the use of federal funding and the
function of the Commission itself.
Following the hearing last year, Secretary Salazar and several
Commissioners took a number of steps to bridge the gap between the
design adopted by the Commission and the strong views of the family.
From the testimony that has been submitted to the Committee, it is
clear that the bridge was not built. In fact, the gap may be wider
today than it was a year ago.
Where does that leave us? Chairman Bishop has put forward
legislation that invites a discussion on how to move forward.
While it is clear that something needs to break the current
impasse, I want the Committee to think long and hard about how we
handle this issue and how decisions on this memorial might impact
future memorials.
I am here to listen today and again appreciate the involvement of
our panel of witnesses.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. Now, we have three
panels that we are going to hear from. The first panel that I
would like to welcome is Congressman Darrell Issa, who is
Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He
is also a member of the National Capital Planning Commission,
so he has a unique responsibility with respect to this
particular memorial.
Chairman Issa, I thank you for being here. I understand you
have your own hearing that is going on across the street, so we
would like to give you 5 minutes for a presentation, after
which we will offer you an invitation to stay with us for the
rest of the hearing if you would like to. I kind of think I
know what your answer will be, but that offer will be extended.
Mr. Issa, I appreciate you coming over here. You are
recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DARRELL E. ISSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And like my former
Governor, I will return, or, ``I will be back.''
The fact is that no hearing today is more important than
this one. The Eisenhower Memorial should be built, and I
believe must be built. But it also has to be built in a way in
which, for the next 100 years or more, the American people will
get meaningful representation of history, the life of this
great general, this great man, and this great President, from
the memorial.
Its position on the Mall, as the Mall fills in, is now, in
fact, going to be pretty unique. There is no question this
monument, this memorial, cannot be built if it is inconsistent
with the views of the people who knew our Commander in Chief
both in time of war and peace as well as his family.
When I took over my position on the board, it seemed like
it was well underway. Shortly thereafter I became aware it was
well underway and not going in the right direction.
I would like to today dispel something. I would like to
dispel the blame that goes to the architect. I don't believe an
architect should ever be held responsible for anything, other
than the proposal which is then accepted or rejected. I believe
that the very steering of the many architectural proposals made
is as much to blame as many would say even the selection of the
architect.
Frank Gehry is a talented and sometimes controversial
architect. His plans are large, grand, and often expensive. But
I am here to say today that, in fact, not listening to the
family, and perhaps a certain level of political inference, not
in a partisan way, but in a political way, put us where we are
today.
The original plans for this memorial had more to do with
capturing the very events, perhaps from childhood, but through
the contribution that uniquely Dwight David Eisenhower made to
us winning World War II, and then winning the peace that
followed. Today, however, the most controversial portion of
this memorial, the most expensive, and the one most questioned
for its durability, is proposed to be simply an image of trees
that are indigenous to Kansas and are also indigenous to
everywhere between Kansas and the District of Columbia. That
doesn't represent a unique contribution.
I don't think you have to be an award-winning architect.
You certainly, as just somebody who can look at the
representation, you can say, ``OK, the trees are interesting,
but are they worth the kind of investment we have already made,
the kind of questions about durability, one in which we may
have to make at least two of them and replace in 30 or 40 years
this very expensive structure?''
Again, this was a decision made without cost being a
concern sufficiently. But also, the question of what is there.
If every inch of the Mall is critical, then every inch of this
memorial must be dedicated to a message, and that message must
be one consistent with the mandate of Congress for recognizing
the contribution of President and General Dwight David
Eisenhower.
Later today you will hear from the family. I have heard
from the family. I have visited the site in Los Angeles. I have
looked at the models. I want to make this Committee aware.
There was a time in which even the controversial backstay
represented the life of Dwight David Eisenhower in a more
personal way. I visited virtually every library and memorial
that I have been able to get to.
And I bring your attention to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's
site. It is a little further off the Mall. And it is more
famous, because, in fact, it steps you through the many years
of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's contribution. I might mention
that his contribution is about the same period as General
Eisenhower and then President Eisenhower. That long period of
time, that period of history, can, in this space, be
represented in a meaningful way, in a non-controversial way, in
one that the family and families for generations to come can
stand behind.
So, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, I want to thank you today
for bringing attention to both the fiscal cost and, in fact,
the controversy that surrounds the current design. I have a
vote on the Commission, but I know one thing. My vote will no
longer be castable before this is built. The timeline is such
that someone will replace me. So, for all of you here today,
and for me and my time of having a vote on NCPC, it is clear
what we have to do is steer this memorial back in the right
direction, ask the question as Americans--and especially for us
older Americans--does this fairly reflect the unique
contribution of this great general, this great President, this
great man, and the time that he lived in and the time that he
made this contribution?
So, I leave you to the next panel. I will return after my
other Committee is over. But what you are doing today is the
most important thing for the Mall and for the District of
Columbia, and for how we view that portion of history that will
be done here this year. And I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for that. I know you
are having another hearing in the other room. If you have the
possibility of coming back, why don't we at that time see if
there is any questions the Committee has for you, and we will
allow you to go and finish your other Committee hearing, and
then hopefully have a chance of coming back.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Would like to ask our second panel
to come up. Actually, I would just like to welcome Ms. Susan
Eisenhower if she would come forward. She is the grand-daughter
of President Eisenhower.
We appreciate your willingness to address this Committee,
again, and to represent the views of your family. It cannot be
easy, but I appreciate what you are doing. We want to welcome
you back here, and recognize you also for 5 minutes.
Is your mic on?
Ms. Eisenhower. It is now.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN EISENHOWER,
REPRESENTING THE EISENHOWER FAMILY
Ms. Eisenhower. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the
Committee, I would like to echo the appreciation you have
expressed with respect to the dedication that has gone into the
process to establish a permanent memorial to Dwight D.
Eisenhower. The Eisenhower family is indebted to Members of
Congress, to the Commission, and to architect Frank Gehry for
the effort that has brought us to this point.
We wish to express our specific thanks to you, Chairman
Bishop and the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today.
On behalf of the Eisenhower family, we are grateful to you,
Chairman Bishop, for the invitation, for introducing a bill to
sustain the momentum on the building of a Eisenhower Memorial
in Washington, D.C. I would like to note that my sister, Anne,
is with us today, also a key figure in our family on this
issue.
On hearing the news of this bill, the Eisenhower Commission
Chairman, Rocco Siciliano, said in an email reported to the
press, ``I am saddened by Congressman Bishop's attempt to
thwart the memorialization of America's greatest general and
President, Dwight D. Eisenhower.'' My family and I respectfully
but emphatically disagree. Congressman Bishop's legislation is
designed to assure a memorial for Dwight Eisenhower, not to
thwart it.
From the moment the current design was adopted, some
individuals have been determined to link the proposed Frank
Gehry design to the very future of the memorial itself. This is
historically unprecedented. This apparent rigidity has damaged
the effort to build this memorial, and the approach has made
adversaries out of stakeholders and alienated even the greatest
supporters of this process.
Mr. Chairman, you and Chairman Issa have been the first to
address this impasse that has, unfortunately, developed. And we
applaud you both for your efforts. We would also like to thank
the cosponsors of your bill.
Continuation of the status quo, as has been pointed out,
will doom the prospect of building a memorial. And you are
right that no consensus on the memorial design has emerged, and
that it is time to go back to the drawing board with an open
process for the redesign of the memorial.
Significant stakeholders believe that the Gehry design is,
regretfully, unworkable. My family, as well as countless
members of the public and the media thinks the design is flawed
in concept and over-reaching in scale. The recent durability
study notes the limited lifetime of the metal scrims, as well
as the potential ice and snow hazard to the public. It also
notes that the current design to meet Presidential memorial
specifications would require a duplicate set of scrims to be
furnished. And, of course, the attendant costs that go with
that. Yet, despite this, there has been an approach to plow
ahead, despite these concerns.
For more than 10 years, my family has raised concerns and
objections, and there has been sort of a sense that any
objection has somehow jeopardized the building of this
memorial. This could not be farther from the truth. The
President's only surviving son, our father, John S. D.
Eisenhower, has been clear about his desire to see a memorial,
but one that reflects his father's values and enjoys a national
consensus. More than once this year he has weighed in--most
recently this fall--in a letter to Senator Inouye, who
expressed some concern about the fact that the family had
concerns about the design.
I would like to just outline five quick points from my
father's letter, which I have furnished this Commission. My
father writes, ``Though creative, the scope and scale of the
Gehry design is too extravagant, and attempts to do too much.
On the one hand, it presumes a greater deal prior knowledge of
history. On the other, it tries to tell multiple stories.''
He also points out in point two that taxpayers and donors
alike will be better served if there is a green, open space
with a simple memorial. He also makes the point that we are
grateful, as a family, for those who have conceived of this
memorial and worked hard for its success. But there is concern
that the Commission has been intent only in convincing us of
the virtues of the present design, ignoring my objections as
articulated by my daughters, Anne and Susan.
And then he further goes on to say that you may or may not
agree with our viewpoint. However, as a family, we cannot
support the Eisenhower Memorial as it is currently designed in
concept, scope, or scale. ``We request that lawmakers withhold
funding the project, in its current form, and stand back from
approving the current design.''
Having said that, the Eisenhower family does support the
effort to revitalize this process. This is now Susan talking on
behalf of my family. There are a number of first steps that
should be taken, and your bill, Mr. Chairman, does address many
of these. First of all, a defunding of the current design and
to put a stop to the expenditures being advanced on this
particular design. Number two, an open and transparent
financial accounting of monies used to date, as well as those
already committed. Number three, a thorough review of the
fundraising studies commissioned in the past, as well as the
current effort underway, so that we can assess the financial
needs of the memorial in the future. And finally, it is just a
thought, but perhaps a non-partisan group could review the
above-mentioned elements and suggest proposed organizational
changes that might be required for building a strong,
responsive commission organization and a national consensus for
this memorial.
Let me close in again expressing our profound appreciation
to you, Chairman Bishop, and to members of the Committee and
Chairman Issa. We appreciate you holding this hearing, and for
your commitment to finding a way to resolve this impasse, and
for the opportunity to participate. We are deeply grateful to
all of Congress for their effort to build a lasting memorial to
Dwight Eisenhower.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Eisenhower follows:]
Statement of Susan Eisenhower, Representing the Eisenhower Family
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee,
I wish to express our thanks to Chairman Bishop and the Committee
for the opportunity to testify today. I would also like to echo the
appreciation we have for everyone--Congress the Eisenhower Commission
and architect Frank Gehry--for their commitment to a memorial to Dwight
D. Eisenhower in Washington, DC.
My sister, Anne, is with us from New York. On behalf of the
Eisenhower family, we are grateful to Chairman Bishop for introducing a
bill to sustain the momentum on the building of an Eisenhower Memorial
in Washington, D.C.
On hearing the news of this bill, Eisenhower Commission Chairman
Rocco Siciliano said in an email reported in the press: ``I am saddened
by Congressman Bishops' attempt to thwart the memorialization of one of
America's greatest generals and presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower.''
My family and I respectfully, but emphatically, disagree:
Congressman Bishops' legislation is designed to assure a memorial
to Dwight Eisenhower, not to thwart it. From the moment the current
design was adopted, some members of the Commission and the staff were
determined to link the proposed Frank Gehry design to the very future
of the memorial itself. This is unprecedented in the history of
presidential memorials. This rigidity has damaged the effort to build a
memorial. The approach has made adversaries out of stakeholders and
alienated even the greatest supporters of this process.
Mr. Chairman, you and Chairman Issa have been the first to address
the impasse that has unfortunately developed. We applaud you both for
your efforts. We would also like to thank the co-sponsors of your bill.
Continuation of the status quo, as you have pointed out, will doom the
prospect of building a memorial. You are right that no consensus on the
memorial design has emerged and that it is time to go back to the
drawing board, with an open process for a new design of the memorial.
Significant stakeholders believe that the Gehry design is,
regretfully, unworkable. My family--as well as countless members of the
public and the media--thinks the design is flawed in concept and
overreaching in scale. The recent durability study notes the limited
lifetime of the metal scrims, as well as the potential ice and snow
hazard to the public. It also notes that the current design, to meet
presidential memorial specifications, would require a duplicate set of
scrims to be furnished--with the additional costs that would entail.
Yet despite all this, the Commission's approach is to plow ahead with a
design that has virtually no support outside of a percentage of the
architectural community--which has understandably rallied more in
defense of architect Frank Gehry than for the specific memorial design
itself.
For more than ten years my family raised concerns and objections
that were ignored. We believe they were never adequately communicated
to all the Commission members. Any disagreement we had with them was
criticized as an attempt to scuttle the building of the memorial. This
could not be farther from the truth. The president's only surviving
son, our father, John S. D. Eisenhower, has been clear about his desire
to see a memorial, but one which reflects his father's values and
enjoys national consensus. More than once this year he has weighed in,
most recently this fall in a letter to the late Senator Daniel Inouye.
I am providing a copy of the letter today, but the key points he writes
are this:
Though ``creative, the scope and scale of it [the
Gehry design] is too extravagant and it attempts to do too
much. On the one hand it presumes a great deal of prior
knowledge of history on the part of the average viewer. On the
other, it tries to tell multiple stories. In my opinion, that
is best left to museums.''
``Taxpayers and donors alike will be better served
with an Eisenhower Square that is a green open space with a
simple statue in the middle, and quotations from his most
important sayings. This will make it possible to utilize most
of the taxpayer expenditures to date without committing the
federal government or private donors to pay for an elaborate
and showy memorial that has already elicited significant public
opposition.''
``Though the members of the Eisenhower family are
grateful to those who conceived of this memorial and have
worked hard for its success, we have come to believe that the
Eisenhower Memorial Commission has no intention of re-examining
the concept, even though there would be ample historic
precedent for it. It is apparently interested only in
convincing us of the virtues of the present design, ignoring my
objections as articulated by my daughters Anne and Susan.''
``I am the first to admit that this memorial should
be designed for the benefit of the people, not our family . . .
You may or may not agree with our viewpoint. However, we as a
family cannot support the Eisenhower Memorial as it is
currently designed--in concept, scope or scale.''
''We request that lawmakers withhold funding the
project in its current form and stand back from approving the
current design.''
The Eisenhower family DOES support the effort to revitalize this
process. Among the first steps might be to defund of the current
design, including zeroing out money for staff expenditures, except to
provide services related to an open and transparent financial
accounting of monies used to date, as well as those already committed.
A thorough review of the fundraising studies commissioned in the past
should also be undertaken, as well as the current efforts underway so
that we can assess financial needs going forward.
To expedite this process, perhaps an effort should be made to
establish a neutral, non-partisan group to review the elements
mentioned above. They could propose the needed organizational changes
required for building a strong, responsive commission that can manage
an open competitive design process and succeed in building a national
consensus on a new memorial design.
Members of my family wish to thank, again, Chairman Rob Bishop and
the Committee for holding this hearing, for their commitment to finding
a way to resolve this impasse and for the opportunity to participate.
We are deeply grateful to all of Congress for their effort to building
a lasting memorial to Dwight D. Eisenhower.
______
[A letter submitted for the record from John S.D.
Eisenhowerfollows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0076.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0076.002
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Eisenhower, and I appreciate you
and the family being here.
I will turn to the panel, see if they have any questions at
this time. Mr. Tipton, you have been--Ms. Lummis, do you have
questions?
Mrs. Lummis. I do, Mr. Chairman. And may I have the
privilege of the floor? Thank you. Hello, Susan.
Ms. Eisenhower. How are you?
Mrs. Lummis. It is nice to see you again. I haven't seen
you since the Buffalo Bill Historical Center Ball. That was a
lovely evening.
Ms. Eisenhower. It was.
Mrs. Lummis. Welcome.
Ms. Eisenhower. Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. We are delighted to see you here. I so agree
with your statements. When I look at the memorial that has been
prepared to Martin Luther King, it is not the Martin Luther
King that I knew and grew up with. The Martin Luther King that
I grew up on was a warm, people-person.
Ms. Eisenhower. Right.
Mrs. Lummis. And the monument that was done to him is cold
and, to me, does not depict him in any way.
So I want to see the President that was the President when
I was born depicted in a way that the American people remember
him. And he was not a grand, sweeping, ostentatious individual.
So I am delighted with your testimony, and in seeing this
memorial reshaped into something that your family is proud of
and that we, as Americans, are proud of, and that we believe
appropriately depicts a memorial to a great general and
President, rather than a memorial to the artist.
So, that in mind, I do have a couple of questions. How
would you describe the memorial commission's treatment of your
concerns?
Ms. Eisenhower. Well, we have expressed concerns over the
course of a very lengthy period of time. We did have a family
member, my brother David, who served on the Commission. He
actually did not vote for this specific design, though added a
voice of assent when the final voting was over. We did, to be
perfectly candid, have some concerns inside of our family as to
how much we should continue to speak up and what role the
family really played in this process. Because my father has
said in his letter that he does not believe this memorial is
for our family, it is for the American people.
But we had many opportunities, regrettably, to find a way
forward between the family and the Commission. And, as I
pointed out in my testimony, the Commission's attitude was
pretty much that if we didn't go ahead with the current design
we wouldn't end up having a memorial at all, which was,
frankly, a terrible position to put my family in, if I could
speak so candidly. We are very respectful that this is a
memorial for the American people, and we want the American
people to have a memorial that speaks to them.
I think we might be in a very different position if the
public hadn't been so very strongly against this design. This,
by the way--I agree with Congressman Issa--has nothing to do
with the talent of Mr. Gehry. But it so happens, as you pointed
out, that this particular design does not convey a leadership
opportunity here. Eisenhower led the country during very
difficult times and, frankly, a period of financial austerity.
And you know, it is not really appropriate, in our view, that
something so grand and so out of scope should describe somebody
who managed and modernized this country, and to move us forward
during difficult times.
So we have been increasingly saddened by our relationship
with the Commission. We, of course, support their work. But
there, as far as I understand, no Presidential memorial that
has ever been built that has been built over the objections of
the family, number one. And, number two, there has never been a
Presidential memorial ever built on the original design. So it
is historically consistent for us to be looking at this design,
and yet we were put in a very awkward and uncomfortable
position. We would very much like to work with the Commission
if we could get this process straightened out.
Mrs. Lummis. Well, thank you, Susan. And I love Frank
Gehry's work. But I do agree with you that this particular
design----
Ms. Eisenhower. Right.
Mrs. Lummis [continuing]. Is not it. So I am looking
forward to continued testimony and thoughts in this regard.
Thank you so much for being here.
Ms. Eisenhower. Thank you so much.
Mrs. Lummis. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. I understand my friends on this side of the
aisle--do any of you have questions for this witness?
The gentleman from California is recognized if you have
questions.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
express my appreciation to the Eisenhower family. It is pretty
neat to be in a position to speak to you or with you here.
Ms. Eisenhower. Thank you.
Mr. LaMalfa. And so, the humility you have shown here,
wanting to have this process be reflective of what General and
President Eisenhower really stood for, I think, is very
valuable.
People would say, yes, the President belonged to all the
country, he belonged to all the American people. But I think it
is extremely important that also who he is, who his legacy was,
needs to have great weight placed upon it by your family here
and who he was, because you would hate to go by and have that
memorial be something that is way beyond who you say he is and
who I believe he was. I was only a few months old when he was
still President, but I was a very avid reader of his efforts in
World War II and some of the things he innovated for our
country post-World War II.
And so, I think the Gehry effort is a great one. But again,
we define, as a people to the architect a parameter here. And I
think this Committee would be very wise to reflect what those
parameters are with a heavy weight toward the family on that.
So, I don't really have a question, just a commendation to
you. And please hang in there and stay active in this. There is
no reason to shy away. So thank you all.
Ms. Eisenhower. Well, I am most grateful to you. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman LaMalfa. Congressman
Holt.
Dr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is good to see
you. Thank you for coming. I certainly appreciate the
responsible way that the family has approached this,
recognizing that the family has a stake in this, as does the
general public, as do generations to come.
I am a great admirer of our witness's grandfather. My
father was involved in a campaign with General Eisenhower. My
mother served in the Eisenhower Administration, appointed by
the President. As a boy, I met the President and liked the man
very much. But more, I have just admired the way he used his
power as general, as President. And I have been eager for the
day when we would have a suitable memorial to him, something
that would honor him and draw this generation, the younger
generation, and future generations in to learn more about him.
I have followed the debate here over the years, and I
understood some of the family's objections of the earlier
designs. It seems to me that it has evolved in response to
those. And you know, there is no accounting for taste, but I
sort of like the design we have now. And it does seem to do
what I would want done for the memory of General, President
Eisenhower.
And so, I wonder if there aren't some more changes possible
that can make it more suitable to everyone. I am sure Ms.
Lummis talked about the Martin Luther King Memorial. I might
talk about the Second World War Memorial, which leaves me
unimpressed. But I am sure there will always be some
dissatisfaction about any memorial.
I think there have been real improvements made here. So
what I wanted to ask you, if I may, Ms. Eisenhower, is what do
you mean by an entirely new design? What do you mean by
``fundamentally wrong''? Are there changes to what we have in
front of us that could make it satisfactory to you?
Ms. Eisenhower. Thank you very much for your comments. And
I am delighted to hear that your mother served in the
Eisenhower Administration. That is really wonderful.
First of all, I think we, my sister and I--and my sister,
who is with me today, is a designer, she is an interior
designer. And we spent a lot of time during this year--we spent
a lot of time meeting with Frank Gehry, meeting with the
Secretary of the Interior to discuss what, if any, changes
could be made that would make a difference. And I know that
Frank Gehry--I don't think it is a secret, but he is absolutely
committed to these scrims.
Now, I think there is no question that it is a very
innovative technology that he has developed. It is a bit of a
miracle that you can actually weave metal in that fashion. But
I think I agree with--I know I agree with Congressman Issa when
he says that the backdrop here reflects deciduous trees that
are not distinctive necessarily to Kansas or anywhere else. And
it is such an expensive element of the memorial that it seems
to us that that investment should be made in a different way.
Also, I think the durability design is a very sobering
thing. I also consulted with some experts here in Washington. I
was told a year ago that we would have to have a duplicate set
of scrims kept in storage to be brought out every time the
other ones had to be repaired. Since this is one-of-a-kind
technology, it means that a factory is going to make this and
never make anything like this again. And so, in order to be a
permanent memorial, we are going to--we, with this design,
would have to have a duplicate set, which raises the cost of
this significantly.
And I think, as innovative as the design may have been, it
was more reflective of a different time in our Nation's
history. I guess that is the other way I would answer you. We
are, again, back in a period of austerity, much like the 1950s
after World War II. I am proud of the fact, by the way, that
the Eisenhower Administration actually balanced the budget
three times in 8 years and managed to work on paying down the
wartime debt.
Mr. Bishop. Don't gloat.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Eisenhower. And I think that is part of the message
here, that a memorial that is so grandiose and so large in
scale sort of misses the point of what his story can offer the
American public.
I hope I have answered your question.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, I appreciate that.
Dr. Holt. Thank you. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. McClintock, did you have any
questions?
Mr. McClintock. Yes. First, with the respect to the design
of the memorial, our national memorials are for the ages. They
are supposed to stand the test of time, not showcase faddish,
avant-garde, experimental designs. And with respect to the
design of this memorial, I think the lawyers have a phrase for
that: ``Res ipsa loquitur,'' the thing speaks for itself.
What I am far more concerned about is the appallingly bad
judgment that has brought us to this point. Bad process
ultimately produces bad policy. The result of this Commission's
work is just appalling. And I want to know how we came up with
such a monstrosity, and what we need to do to redesign this
decision-making process to be sure that this kind of outlandish
result is not repeated with respect to the Eisenhower Memorial
or, for that matter, any of our future memorials.
Ms. Eisenhower. Well, thank you very much. I would just
like to speak to that very briefly. And I am sure you will have
an opportunity to also pose this question to other testifiers.
But I do think that the process--we lost an opportunity on
the first round to open up this process broadly, so that all
Americans who are architects or even studying architects would
have an opportunity to compete. Look at what Maya Lin provided
for this country, the Vietnam Memorial, which is exceptional,
and she was a student at Yale at the time. So I do think an
open process is very important.
But I would also say an open administrative process. We
have discussed this with my brother at great length. I mean I
think the record will show that they had very few meetings, and
most of the business was handled by telephone and other written
kinds of votes. There is nothing more important than the
dynamism of getting people into a room and actually hashing out
ideas, because it is very easy to allow more dominant
Commission members to prevail under those circumstances.
I do believe that there is a strong possibility that all
the Commissioners had no idea of my family's objections. And
our concerns about how the process was put together were voiced
repeatedly over those 10 years. And I have a feeling that the
full Commission did not know this because of the way the
meetings were conducted.
So let me just close this idea very quickly. I came up with
sort of a wild, probably unworkable idea. But I did serve as
a----
Mr. McClintock. It couldn't possibly be any worse than the
process that has brought us to this point, so feel free.
Ms. Eisenhower. Well, here is a wild idea. I served for
2\1/2\ years on the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear
Future. That is part of my day job. And, of course, that
Commission was brought together to try and break the impasse
over the issue of spent fuel at U.S.-based reactors. And I was
very impressed by the idea of getting an outside group in to
kind of examine everything and make some recommendations.
So, my final recommendation--it is just a wild idea--might
be to get a group of individuals who have not been part of this
process to look at the way the Commission was organized, to
look at a number of managerial issues. It could help us avert a
situation like this in the future.
Mr. McClintock. Well, again, I just want to express my
opinion. Before we redesign the Eisenhower Memorial, which I
believe is absolutely essential, we first need to redesign the
process that produced this monstrous perversion of a great man,
a great achievement, and a great life.
Ms. Eisenhower. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. If there are no other questions, we
want to thank you for your testimony. Obviously, we would like
to invite you to stay. If you need to go, you need to go.
We would ask you if you would be willing to respond to
written questions that may come back to us.
Ms. Eisenhower. It would be my pleasure.
Mr. Bishop. And once again I want to express my
appreciation for you being here. I just want you to know I have
an additional burden on me on why we have to come up with a
good memorial and do this process properly. The grandfather of
my chief of staff was your grandfather's Secretary of
Agriculture for both terms.
Ms. Eisenhower. Is that----
Mr. Bishop. He told me I got to do this right. So, one way
or the other, we are going to get it done.
Ms. Eisenhower. That is great, thank----
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Eisenhower.
Ms. Eisenhower. Thank you very much----
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate you and your family's testimony.
Ms. Eisenhower [continuing]. Chairman Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. At this time we would like to bring up the
third panel, which will consist--I need to get my glasses for
this--Mr. Arthur Cotton Moore, who is a respected architect in
this community, Brigadier General Carl Reddel, who is the
Executive Director of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial
Commission, and Mr. Justin Shubow--if I pronounced that
properly--who is President of the National Civic Art Society.
We appreciate all of you being here.
I am assuming everyone here has been through this drill
before, so you understand the clock is before you which will
give you the time that remains for your comments. We would ask
you--obviously, your written testimony is made part of the
record. We ask you to limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes
and then we will go through a round of questions.
At some point in the next few minutes, I am going to have
to go to another meeting I have at the Capitol. I will ask Ms.
Lummis in a couple of minutes if she will take over. And so, if
I leave in the middle of your testimony, I will apologize in
advance. It is nothing personal, I will come back, as well.
So, if I can just go from left to right, General Reddel, if
we could ask you to go first, then Mr. Moore, then Mr. Shubow.
Is that proper?
Mr. Shubow. It is Shubow.
Mr. Bishop. Shubow. I am sorry. The emphasis was wrong. I
apologize for that.
If we can ask you to go first, General, you have 5 minutes.
We would like to recognize you at this time.
STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. CARL W. REDDEL, USAF (RETIRED),
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER MEMORIAL COMMISSION
General Reddel. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Carl Reddel,
formerly of the United States Air Force, and now privileged to
serve as the Executive Director of the Eisenhower Memorial
Commission.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the opportunity
to be here. I look forward not only to offering my own
thoughts, but to hearing those of the other distinguished
members of this panel. I am also pleased to have the chance to
respond to any questions the Subcommittee may have. I have
submitted written testimony that provides further detail to
augment these oral remarks.
With your permission I would like to submit for the record
a letter from General P.X. Kelley, former commandant of the
Marine Corps, and former Chairman of the American Battle
Monuments Commission. General Kelley now chairs the Advisory
Committee of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission, and he is with
us today.
I would like to also note that we have with us today
Commissioner Alfred Geduldig.
As you know, the legislation establishing the Commission
ensured congressional direction and control by having four
Members of the House and four Members of the Senate appointed
to the 12-member Commission. The Commission has benefitted
immensely from their leadership and direction, especially from
the three World War II veterans who served under General
Eisenhower. They have provided a living bridge with the past,
and a passionate commitment to sharing Eisenhower with future
generations.
Sadly, we are without our former Commission Vice-Chairman,
the late Senator Daniel Inouye, a World War II Medal of Honor
recipient for valor. No Member of Congress was as selflessly
devoted as Senator Inouye to the memorialization of great
events and leaders in American history, including his
leadership of the FDR Memorial Commission. Senator Inouye
continually urged us to move faster, and repeatedly asked me
that we dedicate the memorial while he was living. I salute the
Senator, and regret that we were not able to carry out his
wishes.
Since our last hearing only exactly a year ago today, the
Commission has paused at the request of some Members of
Congress and of the Eisenhower family, while completing the
memorial design phase. This pause has provided the opportunity
for the Commission to meet with the Eisenhower family and with
Members of Congress who have publicly voiced objections to the
memorialization.
Some of the design changes that have been made are
reflected in the images shown on the screens in this room. Most
importantly, these images reflect the presentation of General
and President Eisenhower in heroic-sized, independent statuary,
in place of the more subtle, baas relief images shown in the
past. The refinement of the images you see here continues, and
the Commission must now present these changes for the review of
the approval agencies.
Elements of controversy continue. The proposed
memorialization has both strong supporters and vocal critics.
The historical record suggests that great iconic architecture
is controversial. Witness the emotional disputes over
representing our first President with an obelisk. Henry Bacon's
design of the Lincoln Memorial is too grandiose for a humble
man born in a log cabin. And the FDR memorialization debate
over placing President Roosevelt in a wheelchair.
Previous iterations of Frank Gehry's design have both been
praised by the Commission of Fine Arts and derided by others.
History will judge if it is brilliant and if it becomes part of
the historical fabric of the Capital and the Nation. In the
meantime, our government has set up a method for guiding us
through this process, and we have been well-served by it. The
Eisenhower Memorial Commission has worked closely with its
sponsoring agency, the National Park Service, and has
benefitted from the management of its contracts by the General
Services Administration, as well as benefitting from GSA's
administrative and management experience with large building
projects. These relationships have developed over a 12-year
period of careful, deliberate work by the 12 commissioners
benefitting from the input received at 22 public meetings
during the 2-year design phase.
The Eisenhower Memorial Commission supports Mr. Gehry's
proposed design changes. He immersed himself in the life and
legacy of Dwight David Eisenhower as General and Supreme
Commander of the Allied Forces in a horrific World War, and as
President of the United States at an unprecedented time of
global tension and nuclear threat.
The design developed by Mr. Gehry and approved by the
Commission masterfully met the challenges of a complex urban
site, which he integrated and defined with artistic depictions
of the Kansas landscape. The result is the creation of a
beautiful urban park within which the Eisenhower Memorial
resides.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to provide this information.
The Commission has been working persistently, vigorously, and
sincerely in a dedicated effort to appropriately memorialize
one of our Nation's great Presidents in the 20th century. We
have an excellent and inspirational design, and we have a solid
plan for the way ahead.
We believe this memorial will serve to educate and motivate
young and old American citizens and international visitors. I
am happy to take questions, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of General Reddel follows:]
Statement of Brig. Gen. Carl W. Reddel, USAF (Ret.), Executive
Director, Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission
The Commission in 2012 and 2013
Since our last hearing, the Commission has been busy completing the
memorial design phase. The memorial site, which was approved by
Congress on May 5, 2006 (PL 110-220) is a disparate parcel which must
be combined into a whole site prior to it becoming a unified square
fitting of a presidential memorial. This site, through it is listed in
the top three to be developed in National Capital Planning Commission's
Memorials and Museums Master Plan, is a difficult site for a memorial.
The design developed by Frank Gehry and approved by the Commission
masterfully met the design challenges of the site while creating an
appropriate, permanent national memorial to General and President
Eisenhower, as mandated by the Commission's authorizing legislation.
In 2012, the Commission planned to take the preferred memorial
design to the National Capital Planning Commission (which along with
the Commission of Fine Arts is responsible for approval of the design)
for preliminary approval. Due to opposition that surfaced in the public
domain during the latter part of 2011 and early 2012, the Commission
directed the design team to meet with individuals who had expressed
reservations, including members of the Eisenhower family and members of
Congress.
In meetings throughout 2012, including private meetings with
designer Frank Gehry, Senator Pat Roberts, a member of the Commission's
Executive Committee, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the Eisenhower
family had several opportunities to provide direct input regarding
potential changes in the memorial design. Mr. Gehry made a number of
modifications to the design in response to comments he received, such
as the portrayal of Eisenhower in statuary of historic size within the
Memorial core. Senator Roberts, along with other key members of the
Commission, made extensive efforts to mediate concerns of the
Eisenhower family.
Concurrently, the Commission sought to use its available federal
funds wisely, and the design team continued developing the memorial's
construction documents, which are now over 90 percent complete. In
addition, the Commission staff made progress, along with the General
Services Administration, in construction procurement developing the
electronic memorialization, pursuing the private fundraising campaign,
and meeting with Commissioners on memorial quotations. These actions
were intended to avoid the prospect of significant delays and attendant
expense that would inevitably arise from stopping development activity
while further feedback was sought on the memorial design.
About the Eisenhower Memorial Commission (EMC)
The Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission is a bipartisan
Commission created by Congress. It is charged with establishing a
national, permanent memorial to Dwight D. Eisenhower to perpetuate his
memory and his contributions, specifically his service as Supreme
Commander of Allied Forces in World War II and as 34th U.S. President.
This memorial will be of the highest caliber, joining other Washington,
D.C. landmarks such as the Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt
and World War II Memorials. It will honor Eisenhower's memory and
celebrate his achievements, inspiring and educating all who visit. All
of the Commission's activities contribute to realizing this goal.
The Commission was created on October 25, 1999 by Public Law 106-
79. As amended, the law states, ``The Commission may establish a
permanent memorial to Dwight D. Eisenhower on land under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior in the District of
Columbia. . . .''
The Commission consists of twelve members, including eight Members
of Congress.
Appointed by the President:
Rocco C. Siciliano, Chairman (Beverly Hills, CA)
Alfred Geduldig (New York, NY)
Susan Banes Harris (Potomac, MD)
Vacant (Previously filled by David Eisenhower, 2001-
2011)
Appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
Vacant (Previously filled by Daniel K. Inouye, 2001-
2012)
Jack Reed (D/Rhode Island)
Pat Roberts (R/Kansas)
Jerry Moran (R/Kansas)
Appointed by the Speaker of the House:
William (Mac) Thornberry (R/Texas)
Vacant (Previously filled by Leonard Boswell, 2001-
2012)
Michael Simpson (R/Idaho)
Sanford Bishop, Jr. (D/Georgia)
These Commissioners, from New York to California, Rhode Island to
Texas, and of course from Kansas, are charged with carrying out the
mission to construct the memorial. Commissioners are appointed by
either the Speaker of the House or President Pro Tem of the Senate, in
consultation with the Majority and Minority Leaders of their respective
bodies; or by the President of the United States. All twelve of these
individuals were chosen by the government to carry out the public
mission of memorializing General and President Eisenhower.
Senior Leadership
Chairman Rocco Siciliano is a World War II combat-decorated
infantry veteran who served as Special Assistant to President
Eisenhower for Personnel Management.
Senator Daniel K. Inouye was Vice Chairman from 2001 until his
death in late 2012. He was a World War II Medal of Honor recipient for
valor and continuously represented Hawaii in the United States Congress
since President Eisenhower signed its statehood into law in 1959.
Senator Inouye, former Chairman of the FDR Memorial Commission, modeled
the EMC's legislation on that previous Commission. Having served on
that Commission for over four decades, Senator Inouye drew on his
background and expertise on presidential memorialization throughout his
service as Vice Chairman of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission
Commission Staff
Executive Director Brig. Gen. Carl Reddel, USAF (Ret.), served as
President and CEO of the Eisenhower World Affairs Institute (EWAI)
following his retirement from the United States Air Force, where among
other responsibilities he was a Professor and Head of the Department of
History at the United States Air Force Academy. Gen. Reddel joined the
Commission in June 2001.
The Commission is staffed by temporary federal employees in
accordance with legislation passed in May 2008 (P.L. 110-229). Brig.
Gen. Reddel, the Commission's Executive Director, leads the core staff
of eight full-time temporary federal employees and one full-time (the
Commission's Executive Architect) and two part-time contract
consultants.
Site Selection
In 2005, the Eisenhower Memorial Commission (EMC) completed its
review of 26 potential sites for the National Eisenhower Memorial.
During this process, at the request of Senator Ted Stevens, the
Commission pursued the possible joint development of the memorial with
existing plans for a new headquarters of the United States Institute of
Peace. Ultimately a proposed joint development arrangement negotiated
by the Commission and its Special Counsel, in consultation with the
Eisenhower family, was deemed not acceptable by the family and the
Commission pursued other possible sites. In November 2004, following a
request of the Eisenhower family, the Commission pursued establishing
the memorial inside the Yates Building (the Auditor's Building) at the
corner of Independence Avenue and 14th St. NW. However, when the matter
came before the Commission in March 2005, Commissioner David Eisenhower
stated it was not appropriate to put a memorial for one person inside a
building named for someone else and that site was no longer pursued.
In June of 2005, after exhaustive investigation, the EMC selected
its preferred location--a potentially remarkable four-acre site at the
base of Capitol Hill and one of the top twenty sites in Washington,
D.C. designated by the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) for
a future memorial. This site at the intersection of Maryland and
Independence Avenues, SW, between 4th and 6th Streets, is prominent,
accessible, and has strong thematic connections with Eisenhower.
All of the neighboring institutions were influenced by Eisenhower's
presidency. He created the precursor to the Department of Education,
immediately adjacent to the site's southern border. He also created the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, whose work is
highlighted at the National Air and Space Museum across the street to
the north of the site. The site also boasts a stunning view of the U.S.
Capitol along the Maryland Avenue view corridor, reflecting
Eisenhower's exceptional respect among all Presidents for the authority
of Congress.
In May 2006, Congress and the President approved P.L. 109-220,
selecting Eisenhower as an appropriate subject for a memorial within
Area I, the prominent area of the Capital reserved for memorials of
pre-eminent historical and lasting significance to the Nation. In
September 2006, both the National Capital Planning Commission and the
Commission of Fine Arts voted on and approved the Commission's
preferred location as the future site of the Eisenhower Memorial. The
site has been informally named ``Eisenhower Square.''
In 2007, the EMC contracted with Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP
(SOM) to create the Pre-Design Program to communicate to the
prospective designer what the National Eisenhower Memorial should be,
including goals, requirements, constraints, and opportunities. This
effort included interviews with Commissioners, scholars, authors,
Eisenhower family members, Eisenhower contemporaries, and many others.
Selection of Frank Gehry and the Preferred Design Concept
In 2008, the Commission engaged with the General Services
Administration's Design Excellence Program for design team procurement.
As agreed to by the Commission, the competition was open to any U.S.
citizen with a design portfolio. The initial request for proposals
garnered forty-four submissions, with four design teams advancing to
final consideration.
Following the GSA design team procurement recommendation, on March
31, 2009, the Eisenhower Memorial Commission unanimously selected
world-renowned architect Frank Gehry of Gehry Partners LLP as the
designer for the National Eisenhower Memorial. Frank Gehry is one of
the world's most celebrated architects, and has won the American
Institute of Architects (AIA) Gold Medal, the Pritzker Prize, Britain's
Royal Gold Medal, Japan's Praemium Imperiale, the Order of Canada, and
the National Medal of Arts.
In January 2010, the Commission announced its selection of the
Gilbane Building Company for design and construction management
services. Gehry Partners and Gilbane's contracts were finalized at the
outset of 2010, marking the official beginning of the design process.
On March 25, 2010, the Commission chose the preferred design
concept for the National Eisenhower Memorial out of four possible
options. The design selected encompasses a world-class memorial and
civic space including time-honored memorial elements of sculpture, bas
reliefs, tapestry, and quotations in materials which will endure
through the ages. From the outset, these included large representations
of the General and President.
During the design phase, Frank Gehry immersed himself in General
and President Eisenhower's life, traveling to Abilene, Kansas for a
first-hand education on the life of his subject at the Eisenhower
Presidential Library and Museum. The design team also worked with
Eisenhower historians and the senior co-editor of the Eisenhower
papers, Professor Louis Galambos, of Johns Hopkins University, to
ensure that the design elements were historically accurate and true to
their subject.
Memorial Design Phase: 2010-2012
On March 25, 2010, the Commission convened to unanimously choose
the preferred design concept for the Memorial out of four possible
options. This design encompasses a world-class memorial and civic space
combining stunning, never-seen-before elements and time-honored
elements of stone and statuary.
In 2010 and 2011, the Commission and design team successfully
completed several rounds of meetings with federal review agencies--the
U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), the National Capital Memorial
Advisory Committee (NCMAC), and the National Capital Planning
Commission (NCPC) (see Appendix I). The design team continued to refine
the preferred design concept and alternatives throughout this time,
culminating in the endorsement by the Eisenhower Memorial Commission of
Frank Gehry's progress on their preferred design in July 2011.
Throughout much of 2011, the design team conducted significant
research and testing on potential materials and vendors for the
memorial's stunning tapestries, to great positive effect. In late
summer 2011, Eisenhower Memorial Commission and CFA and NCPC
Commissioners and staff viewed and evaluated tapestry samples from
three separate vendors. The Commission hung the best of the tapestry
`mock-ups' on-site in late August and again in September, receiving
near-universal acclaim for their transparency and beauty, along with
respect for the determination of the design team to get this important
feature of the design correct.
In September of 2011, the Commission of Fine Arts unanimously
approved the memorial's design concept, noting that the scale was
correct, and expressing great enthusiasm for the development of the
design and the artistic quality of the tapestry mockups. They further
noted that the sophistication of the design and the proposed artistic
treatment ``will transform the site and the context of adjacent federal
buildings.''
The stunning tapestry mock-ups also earned admiration from the U.S.
Secretary of Education, who welcomed the memorial as a new neighbor in
a letter wholeheartedly endorsing the memorial design in October 2011.
The Architect of the Capitol also expressed its support for the design
in a letter that same month, applauding the Commission's ``decision,
courage, and commitment of time'' to work within the Section 106
process to better the design.
The Commission and design team participated in a series of NEPA/
Section 106 meetings throughout 2010 and 2011, named for the section of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), which requires
federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings
on historic properties. The 106 process concluded with a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) in March 2012, which outlines agreed-upon measures that
the agency will take to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on
historic attributes. A parallel process also addressed the impact of
the memorial design on the environment through the Environmental
Assessment (EA). The Memorandum of Agreement is necessary before the
National Park Service (NPS), the memorial's sponsoring agency, can
issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which is the result
of the EA. This must occur before NPS can issue a construction permit
for the memorial, and before NCPC can approve the memorial's design.
This process enables public comment provided by any interested parties,
including memorial neighbors, the government of the District of
Columbia, and the public, whose comments were considered carefully by
the design team.
In March 2012, the FONSI was issued. This issuance of the FONSI
allowed the National Park Service, the memorial's sponsor, to take the
Commission's preferred design concept to NCPC to obtain preliminary
approval. Throughout the design phase, the Commission and design team
worked to mitigate potential obstacles in attaining design approval,
keeping Commissioners, their staff, and the staff of the House and
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior and the Committee on
Natural Resources informed during this process.
Although extensive testing on the durability of the materials used
for the memorial was always a requirement, this testing was moved up in
the design and construction schedule to respond to requests made by the
NCPC. The design team performed these tests in consultation with the
National Park Service and NCPC staff and at the request of NCPC. The
initial study of tapestry engineering and testing data has found that
the stainless steel materials are satisfactory. The next stage of
testing on the welds will be presented to NCPC prior to final approval.
As a Congressional commission, EMC and design team staff have met
with and been particularly responsive to members of Congress,
responding to formal and informal requests for information, including a
Committee on Natural Resources-Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests,
and Public Lands hearing in March 2012. Throughout 2012, the Commission
provided fulsome responses to inquiries regarding its activities and
the evolution of the memorial design, and has welcomed every
opportunity to meet with interested parties, hear comments on the
proposed memorial, and address issues that have arisen.
Congressional and Presidential Commissioners played a direct and
important role during this time, and EMC staff continues to work in
concert with them and their staff to enable communication and feedback.
In a May 2012 meeting, the Commissioners endorsed moving forward with
the preferred design that was unanimously agreed-upon in 2011. As an
on-going process which commenced in 2012, Commissioners have also
provided input to staff on the initial stages of determining quotations
for the memorial.
The Commission intends to continue its constructive and positive
engagement with District of Columbia leaders, including Eleanor Holmes
Norton, the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development Victor
Hoskins, and Councilman Tommy Wells, who represents the district within
which the Memorial site is located. In 2013, an economic impact report
was prepared which estimated the financial gain for the District as a
result of the memorial. The report, prepared by Dr. Stephen Fuller and
Agnes Artemel of George Mason University's Center for Regional
Analysis, concluded that the memorial will generate $30.1 million in
annual visitor spending in the District that would not have been spent
in the District in absence of the memorial. This would generate $39.1
million a year to the District Gross State Product.
The Commission also continues to cooperate with agencies at the
federal level, including its on-going partnership with the Department
of Education (DoEd) to establish an attractive and useful promenade
between the memorial and the main entrance of the neighboring Lyndon B.
Johnson building. Commission staff has maintained coordination with
officials from Secretary Duncan's office and GSA in order to enhance
and activate the area adjacent to the memorial. This work builds on the
letter the Commission received from Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
in October 2011, which expressed his pleasure at the memorial design
and ``the great potential for public engagement that the memorial will
bring'' to the DoEd, including enhancements such as space and
facilities for new exhibits, meetings, events, and even retail. In 2013
and throughout the construction phase, the Commission will continue to
work with the DoEd to bring this plan to reality.
The Commission also works in partnership with the National Archives
and Records Administration and the Eisenhower Presidential Library and
Museum in Abilene, Kansas. This relationship enables the Commission to
benefit from established federal resources in order to ensure that the
memorial is an authentic representation of the Eisenhower historical
legacy.
Over the years, taxpayers have created a superb data base in the
Eisenhower Library. Eisenhower's national memorialization will enable
the sharing of this existing resource with the nation and the world.
This partnership continues to be particularly useful as the Commission
develops the E-Memorial, which is the on-site and off-site electronic
memorialization of the president and general. The Commission expects
that, once the memorial is completed, its prominent presence in the
nation's capital will draw further attention to the library, cementing
the reciprocal relationship between both entities. E-memorial
development was a priority for the Commission in 2012, and the first
phase of the E-memorial, focusing on the Commission's website, has
already been completed.
The National Park Service, the memorial's sponsor, continues to
play a key role in completing the design phase of the memorial and
moving onto the construction phase. The completion of the FONSI in 2012
and the attainment of preliminary and final approval from NCPC in 2013
are necessary prior to ground-breaking. NPS and the Secretary of the
Interior have played an active role in moving the National Eisenhower
Memorial closer to fruition. In 2012, the NPS commissioned a Total Cost
of Facility Ownership report which concluded that the expected cost of
memorial operations and maintenance is comparable to the Martin Luther
King, Jr. Memorial. NPS' leadership in sponsoring the memorial at NCPC
and CFA approval reviews will ensure that memorial construction
continues without delay in 2014 and 2015.
Description of the Memorial Design
The National Eisenhower Memorial in Washington, DC uses the
traditional memorial forms of sculpture, bas relief, tapestries,
realistic images and quotations, to honor Ike's unparalleled
achievements in behalf of his country. For over 1,000 years, societies
have employed these classic elements to recognize and memorialize their
great leaders. In the design for this first presidential memorial to be
built in our 21st century, Frank Gehry, America's foremost architect,
has designed a memorial which speaks to Ike's great achievements while
recognizing his humanity.
Unlike other presidential memorials in Washington, DC, the
Eisenhower Memorial will be located within a new urban park space,
flanked by District streets. The Eisenhower Memorial is set within four
acres of new parkland directly across from, and south of, the National
Air and Space Museum. The memorial honors Eisenhower's achievements as
the Supreme Allied Commander in World War II and as the 34th U.S.
President in heroic-scale free standing bronze sculptures and bas
reliefs on monumental stone blocks. Quotations from some of his most
memorable speeches will be inscribed on nearby walls. Completing the
powerful sculptural composition, a human-scale realistic statue of
Eisenhower as a young man will be looking out to the images of the
great military leader and president he will become. The setting for the
memorial is elegantly created by an 80-foot tall limestone-clad columns
supporting woven, stainless steel tapestries, which depict the Kansas
plains where he grew up and where he developed the values and character
which helped guide him to greatness.
Pedestrians will arrive at the site from all four corners of
Eisenhower Square, entering by passing under one of the tapestries, and
converging in the center at the memorial itself. The positioning of the
stone sculptures and bas reliefs and the quotations wall create an area
for quiet contemplation within, but separate from, the more active
urban civic space. The memorial visitors will be able to talk to
National Park Service rangers to learn more about Eisenhower. Group
seating areas are provided throughout the site for school groups to
gather and participate in presentations and discussions with their
teachers.
The memorial is separated from its nearest neighbor, the U.S.
Department of Education, by the 50-foot wide LBJ Promenade. This
pedestrian promenade design provides an unprecedented enhanced
opportunity for the Department to engage with the public through
interactive exhibits and other forms of outreach. An overlook at
Promenade level provides a large, elevated gathering space for the
Department and for visitors to view the memorial.
The memorial design masterfully creates an allee of trees along the
portion of Maryland Avenue which formerly traversed the site. The
commanding vista along the allee to the east directs the memorial
visitor's eye to the dome of the Capitol, in part to recognize
Eisenhower's extraordinarily collaborative and productive relationship
with Congress.
E-Memorial
In March 2004, the Commission adopted a formal resolution in which
it declared that the Eisenhower Memorial would be composed of both a
physical memorial and a living memorial. The living memorial was
described as including ``sponsored historical or policy research,
publications, public presentations, commemorations or programs that
will advance and perpetuate the legacy of Dwight D. Eisenhower and his
contributions to the United States of America.'' In an effort to
further define this latter concept, the Commission authorized a grant
of up to $400,000 to the Eisenhower World Affairs Institute, then
headed by Susan Eisenhower, with a mandate to coordinate with the
existing Eisenhower legacy organizations and to develop a proposal
suitable for adoption by the Commission. The report produced by the
Eisenhower World Affairs Institute reflected a lack of consensus of the
legacy organizations and did not embody actionable recommendations for
Commission as to how its objective of a living memorial might be
achieved.
In 2007, the six legacy organizations jointly agreed that their
existence represents the Living Memorial to Dwight Eisenhower and they
unanimously supported the idea of electronic representation of
themselves and their work within the physical elements of the memorial.
This concept, which we refer to as the E-Memorial, is presently being
developed.
The National Eisenhower Memorial will be the first national
presidential memorial of the 21st century and the first to incorporate
an electronic companion memorial. The Commission has selected the New
York City-based, award-winning media design firm, Local Projects, to
design the E-Memorial.
The E-Memorial consists of an on-site component and an off-site
(website) component. Through a downloaded app, visitors will use their
personal mobile devices to enhance the visit to the physical memorial.
This app will provide a superior educational experience. There will
also be resources available for teachers planning a visit. National
Park Service Ranger commentary will be available for those who choose
not to use their personal electronic devices. This technology is
flexible enough to be updated. The Commission is coordinating with the
Eisenhower Library in Abilene, Kansas, and the National Archives and
Records Administration, to ensure that these already-established
federal resources have a role in the continued interpretation of the E-
Memorial, to ensure that the information remains accurate and
interesting.
Federal Contracting and Oversight
The U.S. General Services Administration-National Capital Region
(GSA-NCR) Public Buildings Service is the contracting agent for the
Eisenhower Memorial Commission for the above work. The National Capital
Region GSA office is designated to assist public commissions such as
the EMC in the procurement and management of the above types of
contracts. The Commission's Design and Construction Management
Consultant directly serves GSA staff in executing these
responsibilities.
Funding
At the outset of the Commission's activities, a study was
undertaken of Presidential memorials in Washington DC. It was
determined that there are six national Presidential memorials, to
Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt,
and John F. Kennedy.
These memorials were principally funded by the government, the most
recent of which was the FDR memorial which was 89 percent federally
funded. Members of the Eisenhower family have expressed concerns since
the initial days of the Commission that any private fundraising for the
Memorial could negatively impact the fundraising of the legacy
organizations. Initially, it was intended that there be no private
fundraising for the Eisenhower Memorial.
As the Commission is a member of the Legislative branch, as opposed
to a private initiative, it has been entirely funded by federal funds.
In 2008, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior advised
the Commission that it was expected that there be a private funding
component for the Memorial. No specific amount was given. In 2011, the
Commission hired Odell, Simms & Lynch, a firm with fundraising
experience for memorials and other public projects, to lead a private
fundraising effort.
The estimated cost for the construction of the memorial, including
operating the Commission, site preparation, construction of the
memorial, GSA fees, and a construction management firm, is $114.8. The
Commission has requested 80 percent federal funding, approximately $90
million. For FY2012, the Commission received one third of its request,
$32.9 million to begin construction of the memorial. Because
preliminary approval from NCPC is delayed until later this year, the
EMC does not need FY 2013 construction funds.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we at the Commission--both our Commissioners and
staff--are appreciative of the opportunity to come before you today for
this discussion of the memorial. As you can see, the Commission has
been working for well over a decade in a sincere and dedicated effort
to memorialize one of our Nation's great Presidents of the 20th
century.
The commission has been faithful to the proscribed GSA processes
for both the design competition and contracting protocols. It is
important to note that in terms of both time and money, a large
investment has been made. The selection process yielded the premier
designer and architect of the 21st century to lead this landmark
effort.
This has been a deliberative and extensive process from the
beginning, with over 23 public meetings that provided a forum for
public comment. The Commission has greatly benefitted from the
participation of the Eisenhower family via David Eisenhower's
participation as a Commissioner for a decade. As well, members of the
family have appeared at Commission meetings and Frank Gehry has held
several meetings with the family, particularly over the last year, to
obtain their input, and has made changes to the design as a result.
The Commission of Fine Arts has unanimously given its concept
approval of this design, citing the beauty of the tapestries and the
appropriateness of the memorial's scale. As we stand today, the design
stage is near completion.
It is time to build this memorial.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0076.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0076.007
Commitments and Obligations from the FY12 Design and Construction
Appropriation ($8.7M expended out of $30.9M received)
Extension of design phase due to delay with review
agency coordination and approvals [National Capital Planning
Commission (NCPC) and Commission of Fine Arts].
Historic Preservation Act-Section 106
Consultation Process.
Testing of tapestry and stone as required by
NCPC and NPS. (Tapestry testing of this magnitude is
typically a construction phase expense. This testing
was moved forward into the design phase at the request
of NCPC).
Continuation of design and construction document
preparation as a result of agency delays.
Preparation of additional three-dimensional
study and presentation models for agency review and
approvals. o Preparation of artist's and engraver's
mock-ups and maquettes
Installation of additional stone mock-ups at the
request of NPS. These mock-ups are typically done
during the construction phase.
Revisions to construction contractor procurement
process.
Cost estimating and scheduling.
Extended project management and contract
administration.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, General.
Mr. Moore?
STATEMENT OF ARTHUR COTTON MOORE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Moore. Yes. My name is Arthur Cotton Moore. I am----
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Moore, can you pull that closer to you? And
once again, pull it closer to your mouth. It is not easy to
hear.
Mr. Moore. Yes, thank you. I am an architect and planner in
Washington, and I come here in defense of the historic plans of
the Nation's Capital, which I think are threatened by the
present course of the Eisenhower Memorial. Next, please.
It is a planned city, and there are two grand plans, the
L'Enfant Plan and the McMillan Plan of 1901. One of the things
that both these plans stressed was two grand radiating avenues
radiating out from the Capitol. One, we know, is Pennsylvania
Avenue. The other is Maryland Avenue. And the--go to the next
one, please--you can see that the armature of the city is very
clearly depicted in this slide. Could we go to the next one?
One of the things that L'Enfant did, he specified very
clearly what would be the width of the streets. And so,
underlined up there at the top is that these two--only these
two--grand avenues would be 160 feet wide. Can we go to the
next one?
And the McMillan Plan of 1901 came and said this was the
right way to go, this was the important thing. Maryland Avenue
was very important, and it should be 160 feet wide. Can we go
to the next one?
What we are presented with, however, is that, instead of
160-foot-wide avenue through here, we have what is called a 50-
foot cartway. The dominant elements are these large columns and
these screens or tapestries. Can we go to the next one? The
model clearly shows what is there, what is being proposed, a
box. And this is, of course, very inhospitable to the grand
boulevard that L'Enfant and McMillan proposed.
Let's go to the next one. In fact, what it does is, in
fact, it cuts off the left arm of the grand plan. And,
therefore, we think it is inappropriate. Let's go to the next
one. What we thought we were going to get was a grand avenue,
just like Pennsylvania Avenue. And, of course, we are not
getting that. Let's go to the next one.
One of the things that is a problem with Maryland Avenue is
the trains have run down using the bed of Maryland Avenue. But
in 1990 we showed how you could build Maryland Avenue above the
tracks. And I've got a--next. Here is actually Maryland Avenue,
the portion we have built. It is 160-feet wide, and it works
quite well, and it is, of course, focused on the Capitol. Let's
go to the next.
And the various planning bodies agree with this and have
supported this--to build Maryland Avenue all the way to the
Capitol. Let's go to the next one.
Now, what I would like to show you very quickly are two
alternatives. If, in fact, the inner section of Pennsylvania
Avenue and Constitution Avenue work very well, as you probably
all know, and if you repeated that as a mirror image for
Maryland Avenue and for Independence Avenue, you would get what
is shown in the lower part of that slide. Now, go to the next
one.
What they would do is, although there would still be plenty
of land south of Maryland Avenue, I like this new pattern,
having two sections, because there are two roles that President
Eisenhower was known for, Supreme Allied Commander, and a very
successful two-term President. Let's go to the next one.
This is, basically, a suggestion from the Eisenhower family
that perhaps a statue, or something much more simple would be
something appropriate. In this case, I have shown two statues,
one of them expressing the role of the Supreme Allied
Commander, and one as President. And these would, of course, be
an excellent gateway to the brand new Maryland Avenue, which is
so much a part of the L'Enfant and McMillan Plans. Let's go to
the next one.
And, indeed, these two elements could be linked under
Maryland Avenue--let's go to the next one--which is much like
the National Gallery West Wing and the National Gallery East
Wing. Let's go to the next one.
A second alternative, just to show that we don't have to
stick with this site, this is the contemplative area--let's go
to the next slide--which is very close to the World War II
Memorial. Let's go to the next slide. The idea being here that
there might be still two statues, one of them as general,
facing the World War II Memorial, and a second one as
President, facing the White House. And this could take place on
a map, done in paving, of the world, indicating the major
battles of the Second World War, and this could serve as a
history lesson for generations to come. Let's go to the next
slide.
So, whether it is that, or this one, or some other one, it
is clear that there are--let's go to the final slide--it is
clear there are very many opportunities to not destroy the
historic plans of Washington. And I rest my case on that, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
Statement of Arthur Cotton Moore, FAIA, Washington, D.C.
Ladies and Gentlemen: I thank you for this opportunity.
I appear before you today with only one goal: To defend and protect
the L'Enfant Plan--which is on the National Register of Historic
Places, thereby preserving the openness of Maryland Avenue and its 160
foot wide vista of the Capitol.
Washington was created as a completely planned city. Its first
plan, by Pierre L'Enfant in 1791, was validated, reinforced, and
enriched by the McMillan Commission in 1901. Together they form the
planning constitution for our Nation's Capital.
The basic framework of the L'Enfant/McMillan Plans was a mall
extending from the Capitol westward to the Washington Monument,
bracketed by two grand radiating diagonal boulevards: Pennsylvania
Avenue, extending from the Capitol to the White House, and Maryland
Avenue, extending from the Capitol to the Potomac River, the principal
means of commerce in the early days of the Republic. L'Enfant not only
laid out the streets and avenues of the Capital--he also specified the
width of the streets, specifically calling for Pennsylvania and
Maryland Avenues to be the broadest in the city: each 160 feet wide.
George Washington was intimately involved with the planning of the
Capital. There exists not only a painting of the Father of our Country
with the L'Enfant Plan spread out on a table before him, but the letter
he signed, sending the Plan to the Senate and the House of
Representatives for approval.
In 1900, largely at the instigation of the American Institute of
Architects, the McMillan Commission was formed, and after much study,
it found the L'Enfant Plan to be the best and proper basis for the
development of our Nation's Capital. The Commission concentrated on
more of a three-dimensional elaboration of L'Enfant's Plan, doubling
the size of the Mall to include the sites for the Lincoln Memorial and
the Jefferson Memorial. All the McMillan amplifications of L'Enfant's
Plan were done strictly within its spirit, geometry, and
specifications.
Incredibly, the current proposal for the Eisenhower Memorial does
not respect this august planning heritage. Contrary to the requirements
of the 106 process, this historical background clearly played no role
in the site selection and design development. Also, while the 106
process calls for real alternatives to be considered, only three
variants on a single theme have been offered--and each has giant
columns (supporting large metal screens), forming a dominant box which
denies the diagonal nature of Maryland Avenue as the mirror sister of
Pennsylvania Avenue.
Only one variant allows any semblance of a vehicular street, and
that was a narrow road. There is a constant reference to a 50 foot
cartway, or vista, which is consistently encumbered with objects right
where the 160 foot grand avenue is supposed to be, pursuant to the
Historic Plans. It should be noted that streets in non-federal Colonial
Georgetown are wider than this cartway by 10 feet. In any case, the
models show that the dominant elements form an enormous rigid box
completely denying the diagonal nature of Maryland Avenue as the mirror
sister of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Importantly, from the inception of the city, for the last 213 years
of development in this section of the Southwest, none of the hundreds
of millions of dollars' worth of public and private buildings, have
been allowed to encroach into the 160 foot right-of-way of Maryland
Avenue. The Eisenhower Memorial would be the first project to do that,
and it would clearly violate the letter and intention of the Historic
Plans, and make a dead-end discontinuity for Maryland Avenue.
Although emphasized in both the L'Enfant/McMillan Plans, Maryland
Avenue is the major missing element, because in 1901, in order to get
the train stations off the Mall, Congress gave a perpetual-use right
for the trains to run down Maryland Avenue. For almost 200 years, no
one was able to figure out how to bring Maryland Avenue to reality with
the trains there.
In 1986, I proposed a solution to this conundrum in the Washington
Post: Because the trains ran in a ditch under the north/south streets,
I realized that Maryland Avenue could be put in as a structure above
the trains, connecting directly with the north/south streets. (As the
Architect of the Portals Development, I put in a section of Maryland
Avenue, proving the viability of the scheme, which has a host of
benefits including greatly improved access, security and new land for
development. The Portals' prototype can be extended to realize a fully
completed Maryland Avenue.)
The DC Office of Planning has recently incorporated this program in
its Small Area Plan for the Southwest, which has been adopted by the
City Council--and--the National Capital Planning Commission has
recently incorporated it in its Framework Plan and its Eco-District
Plan.
In order to distinguish real alternatives, as called for in the 106
process, rather than the minor variants presently being offered by the
Eisenhower Commission, I would like to proffer two alternatives:
(1) The first begins with the idea that Maryland Avenue and
Independence Avenue should come together in a fashion which is the
exact mirror of the intersection of Constitution Avenue and
Pennsylvania Avenue to the north. In each case, the diagonal avenue
would be dominant as L'Enfant specified. The intersection of
Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues works quite well for traffic, and
it could be assumed to work equally well at the intersection of
Maryland and Independence Avenues. Furthermore, the symmetry
fundamental in the L'Enfant/McMillan Plans would be maintained.
Although there could be many different concepts with this layout, I
would like to offer one as an illustration. The Eisenhower family has
expressed an interest in a more modest proposal, principally featuring
a statue. In this example, in my power point, I show two statues
representing the two major roles in which Dwight Eisenhower served our
country: One as Supreme Allied Commander for the European theater in
World War II, and the other as a two term President of the United
States.
The two statues could serve as a gateway to Maryland Avenue as
entrance sculptures, much as has been done elsewhere at important
points like at the entrance to Memorial Bridge. The paving around the
statues could list or represent his extraordinary achievements in each
of these roles. The two areas around the statues could be linked under
Maryland Avenue just as the National Gallery West Wing is linked to the
East Wing under Fourth Street. This underground connection would afford
an opportunity for further exhibits about his life and service to our
country.
(2) Another alternative which demonstrates the possibility of a
new site altogether, could be at the contemplative area northwest of
the World War II Memorial. This site, which is virtually never used,
could contain the two statues expressing his two major roles as General
and as President, with the one as General facing the adjacent World War
II Memorial, and the other as President facing the White House. The
paving around the statues could represent the world, and piezoelectric-
activated lights could show the key battles of the war. Since there are
fewer and fewer remaining veterans of that war to explain this
significant conflict, this could serve as a history lesson for
generations to come.
In any case, these are two real alternatives that rely on simple
statues and paving, and are far more modest and less costly than the
variants on a single theme proffered by the Memorial Commission. More
important, however, is that these proffered alternatives conform to--
and do not violate--the L'Enfant and McMillan Plans.
With respect and gratitude,
Arthur Cotton Moore FAIA
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0076.003
ARTHUR COTTON MOORE FAIA
ACM is a sixth-generation Washingtonian, a graduate of St. Albans
School, Princeton University, and Princeton University School of
Architecture.
He is a national award-winning, internationally recognized
Architect, Preservationist, and Planner. Since 1965, ACM has practiced
in 38 cities across the United States, and has received over 70 Design
Awards, including two National Residential Design Awards from
Architectural Record Magazine, and three National AIA Honor Awards.
ACM projects have been published in over 2,700 articles in
magazines and newspapers throughout the United States, Europe,
Scandinavia, and Japan, and have been included in many books. His
buildings have been in group architectural exhibitions at the Cooper-
Hewitt Museum, Columbia University's Center for the Study of American
Architecture, and Columbia University's Avery Library Centennial
Archive Exhibition, ``Contemporary Architectural Drawings.''
He has served on design award juries throughout the country,
including regional and state AIA programs, as well as the country's two
most prestigious--the National AIA Honor Award Program, and the
National Progressive Architecture Magazine Design Award Jury. He is one
of 600 Architects around the world included since 1980 in all editions
of the British compilation ``Contemporary Architects,'' recognizing
20th/21st century Architects on an international level.
ACM has traveled to 113 countries, several multiple times, to
photograph and study their Architecture, and has written on
Architecture, urban affairs, preservation, and art.
He has lectured widely at universities and professional
conferences, including several lectures at the Smithsonian Institution,
where in 1978, he gave a four-part series entitled ``The Architecture
of the Absurd.'' In 1979, he gave the Annual Guest Lecture at Trinity
College in Dublin. In 1982, he gave the Henry Hornbostel Memorial
Lecture at Carnegie-Mellon University, and in 1985 was honored by the
Hirshhorn Museum with an invitation to give a Retrospective Lecture on
his work, marking the 20th anniversary of his practice.
ACM has had solo painting exhibitions in New York, Chicago,
Washington, and Paris, and has participated in group painting shows in
New York and Cologne. His travelling museum exhibition, ``Visions of
the Future,'' was shown in museums in Prague and Poland. His
``Industrial Baroque'' furniture series was awarded Architectural
Record Magazine's 1990 Award for Excellence in Design.
His first book, ``The Powers of Preservation,'' which focused on
his historic building work and urban planning projects, was published
by McGraw-Hill in 1998. His next two books, to be published in 2013,
are ``Interruption of the Cocktail Hour,'' (a Washington yarn) and
``Washington Comiks,'' a book of paintings of our nation's capital.
www.arthurcottonmoore.com
______
Mrs. Lummis [presiding]. Thank you for your testimony. And
now, Mr. Shubow, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JUSTIN SHUBOW, PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN, THE
NATIONAL CIVIC ART SOCIETY
Mr. Shubow. Distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I
would like to thank you for inviting the National Civic Art
Society to testify today. As a nonprofit dedicated to the
classical and humanistic tradition of public art and
architecture, we believe our monuments play an essential role
in defining our national identity and crystalizing our historic
memory.
Regrettably, the current proposed Eisenhower design is not
up to the task. We thus recommend an open, democratic, and fair
design competition that is respectful of the public interests.
How did we get to this turning point? The initial error was
the decision to use GSA's Design Excellence program. That
program was created to select licensed architects for the
design of Federal courthouses and office buildings, not
memorials. In fact, the very creator of Design Excellence,
former GSA chief architect Edward Finer, strongly urged the
Eisenhower Commission not to use the program for the memorial.
The decision to use the Design Excellence program was an
utter reversal of our tradition of public competitions for
national memorials. And, if I may correct the Chairman, no
actual design was submitted in the competition. The final four
were so-called design visions, which are still secret to this
day. Instead, the emphasis was on the entrants' prior works,
firms, and reputation, all factors that favor the architectural
elite.
One does not need to be an experienced architect to come up
with a brilliant memorial. One can be a student, a sculptor, an
amateur. Not only was the selection process severely restricted
as to who could enter, it was a closed process that solicited
only 44 entries. This is hundreds fewer than the number of
entries and open competitions for previous national memorials.
The result of the closed, exclusionary memorial competition
was the strange choice of Frank Gehry. Whatever his merits as
an architect, he has never built a memorial. The result is a
grandiose, deconstructionist design that is now estimated to
cost $142 million. Made of industrial--and it is made of
industrial steel cables that Mr. Gehry's firm has described as
a shroud. Whether or not it is permanent, it does not appear
permanent.
The design is entirely discordant with our tradition of
Presidential memorials. It also violates the urbanism of
Washington, D.C., as Mr. Moore demonstrates in his testimony.
Mr. Gehry's plan has been widely opposed by leading architects,
pundits, and critics of all aesthetic and political
orientations. We encourage you to visit our Web site,
civicart.org, where you can find a compilation of 70 articles
and editorials against the design.
In short, the memorial is irredeemably wrong in its
process, aesthetics, and cost. Congress has no choice but to go
back to the drawing board and pass a bill to ensure that we
build Eisenhower the monument he deserves.
What, then, must that memorial be? Monuments are civic art
that calls us to solemnly reflect on who we are and what we
value. They are heroic in scale, timeless, durable, and
dignified. They present an idea to aspire to, rather than
present mundane reality. They must be made of noble materials,
such as marble and bronze, not industrial materials such as
concrete and steel. Monuments ought to be clear and unequivocal
in their meaning. They should evince a few simple ideas in a
way that is graspable by ordinary Americans. They must be
legible without a guide or key, and certainly without a visitor
center or an iPad. Monuments are statements, not question
marks.
A traditional man of old-fashioned virtue, President
Eisenhower disdained modern art and architecture, which he did
not believe represented the taste and values of the American
people. He warned in 1962, ``We see our very art form so
changed that we seem to have forgotten the works of
Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci. What has happened to our
concept of beauty and decency and morality?''
America can and will build Eisenhower a monument that will
prove his fears unfounded. The talent to do so is here. Now is
the time to find it. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shubow follows:]
Statement of Justin Shubow, President, The National Civic Art Society
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, members of the Subcommittee,
I would like to thank you for inviting the National Civic Art Society
to speak today. As an educational nonprofit dedicated to the classical
and humanistic tradition in public art and architecture, we believe
that our most important monuments play an essential role in defining
our national identity and crystallizing our historic memory. Civic art
and architecture is the mirror in which the civilization sees itself.
One year ago it was conventional wisdom that the design of the
Eisenhower Memorial was a done deal, a fait accompli soon to be
cemented with quite real facts on the ground. But what has been
groundbreaking is the surge of attention from Congress and the public.
The more they have dug and discovered, the more they have got behind
the wrecking ball aimed at Frank Gehry's avant-garde design--a design
that has turned out to be more fragile than anyone could have imagined.
How did we get to this point? Any memorial competition is only as
good as its professional adviser. In this case, that adviser was Daniel
Feil. The Eisenhower Commission hired Mr. Feil as its executive
architect and appointed him its agent to run the design competition.
Mr. Feil is an urban planner who is best known for working on mega-
projects such as Reagan National Airport. To the best of our knowledge,
he has never worked on a memorial.
Mr. Feil chose to run the competition according to the General
Service Administration's Design Excellence Program. This was a
fundamental mistake since that program was created to select licensed
architects for federal office buildings and courthouses. It was never
intended for memorials. The very creator of Design Excellence, former
GSA chief architect Edward Feiner, strongly urged Mr. Feil not to use
the program for the Eisenhower Memorial.
The decision to use Design Excellence represents an utter reversal
of our tradition of competitions for national monuments and memorials.
Whereas formerly we held competitions of designs, Mr. Feil ran a
competition of designers. At no point in the competition was an entrant
required to submit an actual proposal for the memorial. Instead the
emphasis was on the entrants' portfolio, resume, and reputation--all
factors that favor the architectural elite. While this might be
appropriate for hiring an architect to design a federal office
building, it makes no sense for a memorial. One does not need to be a
licensed architect to come up with a brilliant design for a memorial.
One can be a student, a sculptor, an amateur. When Maya Lin won the
open, blindly reviewed competition for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial,
she was an unknown college student. A present-day Maya Lin could not
even have entered the Eisenhower competition, let alone won.
Not only was the competition limited to licensed architects with
substantial portfolios, it was a closed competition that solicited only
44 entries. This is hundreds fewer than the number of entries in open
competitions for previous national memorials. It was also a secretive
process. To this day we do not know the identities of all the entrants,
we have never seen what Mr. Gehry submitted, and we do not know who sat
on the evaluation board.
The former chief architect of GSA is not the only distinguished
opponent of the competition. Another is Paul Spreiregen, who is
arguably the leading expert on design competitions, and who literally
wrote the book on the subject. Mr. Spreiregen served as an adviser for
design competitions in Washington, D.C., including the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial and the World Bank Headquarters. He has vociferously objected
to the Eisenhower competition. He wrote in the Washington Post, ``Why
weren't all American designers given the opportunity to submit
proposals for the Eisenhower memorial? The method for doing that is a
very well-organized and well-managed open-design competition. The
Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the Pentagon 9/11 Memorial, the 9/11
Memorial in New York City and the Gateway Arch in St. Louis are ample
evidence of the reliability of open-design competitions. The design
process for the Eisenhower memorial should have been open to all. It
still can be, if the Gehry design is rejected.''
In the 1990s, when the commission overseeing the National World War
II Memorial competition held a closed competition nearly identical to
that in this case, there was widespread public outcry and the original
competition was scrapped in favor of an open one. The Eisenhower
competition has ended up in exactly the same situation. Failing to
understand the past, the Eisenhower Commission was condemned to repeat
it.
It is true that Robert Ivy, CEO of the American Institute of
Architects, submitted a letter to this Subcommittee announcing that the
trade organization opposes the proposed bill. The letter says that AIA
neither opposes nor supports the design, but rather asserts that the
process that chose it should not be overturned. (Note that the letter
does not disclose that Mr. Ivy was one of the members of the evaluation
board that selected Frank Gehry as the designer).
How ironic is it, then, that the guidelines in AIA's own Handbook
of Architectural Design Competitions would strongly encourage the
competition for a project of national importance to be an open, blindly
reviewed process in which entries are publicly displayed. The actual
competition violated all of these guidelines. To quote the handbook:
Open competitions are appropriate under the following
circumstances:
The nature of the project suggests that all
architects have an equal opportunity to be selected on the
basis of design merit
The project requires the widest exploration of
potential solutions made possible by an open competition
[...]
Exhibitions [of entries] provide a fine opportunity to
stimulate public consideration of architectural design. They
also help to stimulate the competitive spirit of participants.
Knowing that their work will be displayed along with that of
their peers can be a stimulus to competitors. For all these
reasons, as full a presentation as possible of the submissions
should be attempted.
Note that the AIA handbook was made possible by a grant from the
National Endowment for the Arts, and thus the guidelines have even
wider scope than the interests of the trade association.
The result of the poorly run, undemocratic Eisenhower Memorial
competition was the bizarre choice of Frank Gehry, an architect known
for his deconstructionist style, project-cost overruns, and prior
design flaws. In the 1990s, before Design Excellence came into
existence, Mr. Gehry said, ``My name was put up for a courthouse, and
the General Services Administration that runs the government buildings
just laughed at the idea.'' On another occasion he said, ``The American
government won't even hire me to do anything. In fact we submit for
courthouses every once in a while, and we get funny letters back, and
people on the selection committee, the GSA guys, just guffaw to think
of someone like me doing the project.''
As one might expect, his Eisenhower design's style, form,
materials, content, scale, and scope are totally anathema to and
discordant with the National Mall and the Monumental Core. Indeed,
Gehry has repeatedly stated his rejection of harmony as a principle of
architecture and urban planning. Furthermore, his incredibly expensive
Memorial is ugly and offensive to the eye according to the standards of
the L'Enfant and McMillan Plans as well as traditional and current
public standards of beauty. The largest element of the Memorial's
design is a gargantuan ``tapestry'' of industrial steel cables. The
screen is larger than the iconic Hollywood sign in Los Angeles. Viewed
close up, the coiled steel resembles the snakes on Medusa's head. We
fear that the tapestry would come to be called the ``iron curtain.''
The main ``tapestry'' and two smaller ones nearby are supported by
ten enormous pillars (so-called ``columns'') 80-feet tall and 11-to-12-
feet in diameter. The towers are so large that Gehry has admitted,
``They are almost buildings. . . . [T]hey are huge in this scheme. So
they are more like buildings.'' The oppressively sized pillars would
make visitors feel like ants.
Opponents of the highly unpopular design include the entire
Eisenhower family along with George Will, David Brooks, David Frum,
Ross Douthat, George Weigel, Pulitzer Prize-winner David Shribman, and
former NEH Director Bruce Cole. Newspapers that have come out against
it include the New York Post, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the Topeka
Capital-Journal, the Washington Examiner, and the Kearney Hub (of
Nebraska). Articles in opposition have appeared in The New Republic,
the Wichita Eagle, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Cleveland Plain
Dealer, National Review, the Weekly Standard, the Washington Post, the
Baltimore Sun, the Boston Globe, Human Events, Foreign Policy magazine,
and many more.
Opposition has come from across the political spectrum, and from
architects and critics both congenial and opposed to Modernist
architecture. As a supplement to our testimony, we have included an
index of over 70 selected articles, editorials, and letters critical of
the Eisenhower Memorial. An 190-page compilation of those articles can
be found at our website, www.civicart.org.
In addition to the criticism of Gehry's design, the durability of
the experimental structure--a cable wire mesh held in tension between
the giant pillars--has been called into question by the government's
materials experts. In the most recent technical report submitted to the
National Capital Planning Commission, the Department of the Army's
expert recommended that an identical set of duplicate tapestries be
built to serve as enormous spare parts when the tapestry becomes
degraded or damaged. This would entail spending tens of millions of
dollars beyond the $142 million the Memorial is already estimated to
cost. The government's experts have even warned of the possibility of
dangerous snow and ice falling on visitors.
In short, the Memorial design and process have been wrong in their
aesthetics, wrong in their economics, and wrong in their physics. And
perhaps Representative Darrell Issa's House Oversight investigation
will find that the process was wrong in its ethics.
Congress now has no choice but to go back to the drawing board and
pass a bill to ensure that President Eisenhower gets the Memorial he
deserves. We must keep in mind that the client here is not the
congressional Eisenhower Commission but the Congress that created it.
Ultimately, however, the client is the American people. Nothing could
be more democratic than an open competition that provides opportunity
for comment from both Congress and the public.
Sadly, the bill under discussion today must make explicit what used
to be assumed without question. Consider the act creating Flight 93
National Memorial, which commemorates the flight's passengers and crew.
Congress explicitly stated ``For the purposes of this Act, the
terrorists on United Airlines Flight 93 on September 11, 2001, shall
not be considered passengers or crew of that flight.'' That Congress
was felt the need to insert this language shows that something has gone
terribly awry among the artistic and architectural elite.
What then are the universal requirements of a monument? Monuments
are civic art that cause us to solemnly reflect on who we are and what
we value. They are heroic-sized, timeless, and possess grandeur. They
present an ideal we aspire to rather than warts-and-all reality. Sacred
and transcendent, they inspire instead of demoralizing us. They must
honor, not merely remember their subjects. They must be made of noble
materials--such as marble and bronze--that have proven their durability
over millennia, not industrial materials such as steel and PVC piping.
Monuments are permanent and must appear permanent, unlike a scrim or a
shroud. Monuments ought to be clear and unequivocal in their meaning:
They should evince a few simple ideas in a way that is graspable by
ordinary Americans. They must be legible without a guide or key, and
certainly without a visitor center or iPad. Monuments speak to us even
without signage. You can be inspired by a monument even if you do not
know who is represented or what that person did. Monuments are not
museums and they should not try to tell stories. They are not inkblots
that leave things to the interpretation of the visitor. Monuments are
statements, not question marks. Maya Lin rightly said that her
intentionally ambiguous Vietnam Memorial is an ``antimonument.''
In addition to satisfying all of these requirements, the Eisenhower
Memorial must continue our Founder's classical vision for the nation's
capital as embodied in the L'Enfant and McMillan Plans and the design
of our core buildings of government. The memorial must harmonize with
the best of our tradition of presidential memorials, the National Mall,
and the Monumental Core. There is no better way to honor Eisenhower the
general, the president, and the man than in the unmistakably American
idiom that the American people love and cherish.
A traditional man of old-fashioned virtue, President Eisenhower
disdained Modernist art and architecture, which he did not believe
represented the taste and values of the American people. He warned in
1962, ``We see our very art forms so changed that we seem to have
forgotten the works of Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci . . . What
has happened to our concept of beauty and decency and morality?''
America can and will build Eisenhower a monument that will prove
his fears unfounded. The talent is there. Now is the time to find it.
______
Index to Selected Articles, Editorials, and
Letters Critical of Frank Gehry's Eisenhower Memorial
Compiled March 27, 2013 by the
National Civic Art Society
www.civicart.org ★ [email protected] ★ (202) 670-1776
904 Massachusetts Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20002
A PDF file containing all of these articles can be found at our
website: www.civicart.org
Exact location:
http://www.civicart.org/Eisenhower/
Articles_Critical_of_Frank_Gehry_Eisenhower_
Memorial.pdf
Belz, Herman; An insult to Ike; Baltimore Sun, June 11, 2012
Bethel, Tom; A Monstrosity, Not a Monument; The American Spectator,
December 2011-January 2012 Issue
Bevilacqua, Matt; Washington's Monument Problem; NextCity, February 10,
2012
Blackson, Howard; Eisenhower Memorial controversy puts focus on urban
design; Better! Cities & Towns, March 29, 2012
Bootsma, Erik; Why a classical memorial better honors Eisenhower;
Greater Greater Washington, June 9, 2011
Bromund, Ted; Ordered Liberty and Controlled Chaos; Commentary
Magazine, March 7, 2012
Brooks, David; The Follower Problem; The New York Times, June 11, 2012
Brussat, David; The Eisenhower memorial flap; Newsday, March 12, 2012
Cooper, Robbie; What Wasteful Spending? $90M Spent (so far) on a
Memorial That Hasn't Been Built; Urban Grounds, March 27, 2013
Campbell, Robert; Pressing pause, for cause, on the Eisenhower
Memorial; The Boston Globe, October 13, 2012
Cheaney, Janie; The proposed Eisenhower memorial reflects a nation that
has forgotten greatness; World, January 30, 2012
Editorial Board; Some don't like Ike's memorial; The Topeka Capital
Journal, January 13, 2012
Cohen, Richard; With Eisenhower, art does not imitate his life;
Washington Post, April 9, 2012
Cole, Bruce; Doing Right by Ike: Let's give him the memorial he
deserves; The Weekly Standard, July 2-9, 2012, Vol. 17, No. 40
Crosby, Greg; Do They Really Like Ike?; The Tolucan Times, April 5,
2012
Driehaus, Richard; It isn't too late to get the Eisenhower Memorial
right; Washington Post, March 27, 2013
Eisenhower Family, Letters asking NCPC to halt Frank Gehry's Eisenhower
Memorial, January 9, 2012
Ferguson, Andrew; Re-Gendered Ike; The Weekly Standard, March 12, 2012
Frank, Jeffrey; Rescuing the Eisenhower Memorial; The New Yorker, March
25, 2013
Frum, David; Redesign the Ike Monument; Daily Beast, February 21, 2012
Greenberg, Paul; I Still Like Ike; Arkansas Democrat Gazette, December
14, 2012
Grenfell, Milton; Rybczynski is wrong on the Eisenhower memorial;
Better! Cities & Towns, April 9, 2012
Grenfell, Milton; A test for the Eisenhower Memorial; Better! Cities &
Towns, May 23, 2012
Gunther, Paul; Designing an Eisenhower Memorial On The Mall In DC;
Huffington Post, February 7, 2012
Hauenstein, Ralph; Honoring Ike--a veteran's perspective; Stars and
Stripes, August 8, 2012
Hopkins, Christopher; How Should We Remember Ike?; National Journal,
April 20, 2012
Howard, Sabin; What happened with Frank Gehry on the Eisenhower
Memorial; Sabin Howard Sculpture, December 7, 2012
Hudson, Audrey; Monumental Mistake: Eisenhower Memorial; Human Events,
May 2012
Jost, Daniel; Monumental Prices; Landscape Architecture Magazine, June
20, 2012
Joynt, Carol Ross; A Q&A With Susan Eisenhower About the Fight Over Her
Grandfather's Memorial; Washingtonian, January 8, 2012
Kabaservice, Geoffrey; Why Won't the GOP Stick Up For Dwight
Eisenhower; New Republic, March 7, 2012
Editorial; Ike earned his memorial, but make it fit the man; Kearney
Hub, March 13, 2012
Knight, Paul; Architecture, urbanism and the Eisenhower Memorial;
Better! Cities & Towns, August 15, 2012
Krier, Leon; Eisenhower Memorial, Washington, DC; Metropolis Magazine,
February 14, 2012
Langdon, Philip; Honoring Ike--and adding appropriately to the nation's
capital; Better! Cities & Towns, March 10, 2011
Langdon, Philip; The trouble bedeviling the Eisenhower Memorial;
Better! Cities & Towns, February 8, 2012
Leigh, Catesby; Monstrosity on The Mall; National Review, June 21, 2012
Lewis, Michael; Decline of American Memorials; Impris, April 2012, Vol.
41, No. 4
Lewis, Roger; Gehry's design for Eisenhower memorial misses the mark;
The Washington Post, January 30, 2012
Lewis, Roger; Gehry's Eisenhower Memorial design needs to be rethought;
The Washington Post, April 6, 2012
Lungren, Daniel and Aaron Schock, Letter to NCPC rejecting Eisenhower
Memorial design, February 27, 2012
Maggie; $62M Spent on Eisenhower Memorial Not In Existence PLUS $2M a
Year for STAFF SALARIES Since 1999; Maggie's Notebook, March
18, 2013
Malouf, Dan; Gehry Eisenhower memorial actually not daring enough?;
Greater Greater Washington, March 26, 2010
Mantyk, Evan, New Design Could Save Troubled Eisenhower Monument; Epoch
Times, December 12, 2012
McCrary, Lewis; Eisenhower and the Art-Architecture Complex; The
National Interest, March 27, 2013
Mercer, Marsha; The Eisenhower memorial is a monumental headache;
TriCities, July 16, 2012
Mills, Nicolaus; Rethinking the Eisenhower Memorial, what is a fitting
tribute to Ike?; The Guardian, July 4, 2012
Neff, Blake; Another Monumental Dispute on the Mall; New Criterion,
October 24, 2011
Editorial Board; More like Ike; New York Post, March 17, 2013
O'Brien, Kevin; Diminishing Eisenhower in D.C. memorial; Cleveland
Plain Dealer, January 12, 2012
Pogrebin, Robin; Eisenhower Memorial in Criticism Barrage; The New York
Times, March 19, 2013.
Quigley, Bernie; `Deconstruct' the Eisenhower memorial committee, The
Hill, March 21, 2012
Roche, Sam; Consider MIT, etc., and halt Ike memorial plan; Providence
Journal, September 26, 2012
Roche, Sam; Time to Start Over on the Eisenhower Memorial; Roll Call,
January 21, 2013
Roche, Sam; A Way around the Eisenhower Memorial Impasse; Metropolis
Magazine, November 11, 2012
Roche, Sam; Flawed Selection Process Mars Eisenhower Memorial;
Huffington Post, June 12, 2012
Roff, Peter; I Like Ike--Just Not His Planned Memorial; U.S. News,
February 22, 2013
Roff, Peter; Consensus: The Design for Ike's Memorial Has Got to Go;
U.S. News, March 22, 2013.
Schoenberg, Irving; Ike--and Me; National Review, July 14, 2012
Scruton, Roger; Monumental Egos; The American Spectator, April 2012
Shribman, David; Which Ike to like?; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February
12, 2012
Shubow, Justin; Let's Not Politicize The Eisenhower Memorial;
Huffington Post, March 1, 2012
Shubow, Justin; A video-game Eisenhower Memorial?; The Daily Caller,
October 24, 2012
Shubow, Justin; Frank Gehry's `Eisen Curtain' must not descend upon the
National Mall; The Daily Caller, October 12, 2011
Smith, Brandon James; Memorial design mocks Eisenhower's legacy; The
Wichita Eagle, January 13, 2012
Smith, Marion; Postmodern Memorial Will Strip Eisenhower's Legacy; The
Founry, March 1, 2012
Sullivan, Gregory; The brilliance of Dwight D. Eisenhower; Times of
Trenton, March 14, 2012
Taxpayers Tab; The Least Expensive Bill of the Week; National Taxpayers
Union Foundation Taxpayers Tab Issue #10, March 22, 2013
Thadani, Dhiru; A misshapen memorial to President Eisenhower; Better!
Cities & Towns, July 6, 2011
Tobin, Jonathan; Why Don't They Like Ike?; Commentary Magazine,
February 20, 2012
Walt, Stephen; Who likes Ike? Not Frank Gehry; Foreign Policy, February
7, 2012
Editorial Board, Ike doesn't deserve ugly 'iron curtain'; Washington
Examiner, June 2, 2012
Weigel, George; Gehry's Ghastly Eisenhower Memorial; National Review
Online, January 10, 2012
Will, George; Eisenhower Memorial misses the man; The Washington Post,
February 17, 2012
Wind, Eric and Erik Bootsma; The Problems with Gehry's Eisenhower
Memorial; First Things, March 29, 2012
Wind, Eric and Jack Carlson; The Nation Mall's Monumental Mess;
American Thinker, October 29, 2011
Wind, Eric and Jack Carlson; Ike wouldn't like it; New York Post,
September 21, 2012
Winters, Michael; The Eisenhower Memorial Controversy; National
Catholic Reporter, February 16, 2012
Wolf, Franck; Letter to NCPC rejecting Eisenhower Memorial design,
February 10, 2012
______
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Shubow, and thank you,
gentlemen, one and all.
The Chairman will yield to herself for 5 minutes for
questions.
First of all, Mr. Shubow, when you look at the design, do
you see a statement of national identity and the
crystallization of history that you suggest should be the goals
of a national monument?
Mr. Shubow. As Mr. Gehry has repeatedly stated, the main
design element are the enormous tapestries, which are held by
giant pillars 80 feet high and 11 to 12 feet wide. Those
pillars are so big, they are larger than the columns inside the
National Building Museum, which are among the biggest in the
world.
What is on that ``tapestry''? It is steel, spindly trees
without leaves. What does that mean? It is permanent winter.
And I think we can all agree that the allegory for that is
death. So thus, when I look at trees without leaves, that could
be any landscape in America, and overwhelmed by oppressive
pillars. No, I do not see what Eisenhower represented, and I do
not believe that the American people would even understand what
is supposed to be represented.
Mrs. Lummis. Well, I stopped one day at Eisenhower's home
in Kansas, and there are these massive oaks that are just very
beautiful, in full leaf when I was there. And I would agree
that depicting trees in the winter is not the scene that my
mental image creates.
Here is a follow-up question, and this is more with regard
to the process. Again, for Mr. Shubow, can you explain the
connection between the inappropriate process that you believe
was used to select the Eisenhower Memorial design, and the
subsequent failure of the design to generate support among not
only people like me, the Eisenhower family, and other
commentators that you have heard?
Mr. Shubow. That is an excellent question. Perhaps one of
the main reasons this memorial is barely on the public's radar
screen, let alone Congress's radar screen, is that the entire
competition was run secretly. No plans or so-called visions
have ever been publicly displayed.
As you may know, the Eisenhower Memorial Commission has
included, as a supplement to its testimony, a letter from the
American Institute of Architects' CEO. The irony is--and the
CEO is opposing the bill at issue today--the irony is,
according to the AIA's own handbook of design competitions,
they encourage, for works of national importance, public
consideration of architectural designs, so that the public gets
involved and excited. And, of course, that would improve the
fundraising.
Mrs. Lummis. And that is in the AIA's own official
guidelines?
Mr. Shubow. Yes, you can find it online.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Shubow. At this time I would
yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Grijalva, for questions.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I get a better
understanding, these questions will probably be--some will be
for the whole panel, this first one is for the entire panel.
In Chairman Bishop's legislation, it has a provision that
essentially overturns the entire Commission membership, and the
bill also prohibits Federal funding. Finally, the Chairman's
bill requires a new design. And can this all be accomplished in
3 years? That is a question for one or all.
Mr. Moore. How long? Excuse me. How many years?
Mr. Grijalva. Three.
Mr. Moore. I certainly believe so.
Mr. Grijalva. Sir? General?
General Reddel. From the experience of watching the
Commission work, the complexity of the process, the
Commemorative Works Act requirements, and the review and
approval process, I believe it would be extremely difficult to
do that.
Mr. Shubow. I would say if you look at the competition that
was held for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, it was a very
simple competition. In fact, the program was just 36 words. In
this case, we have three different booklets that goes on for
dozens and dozens of pages. So, what I am----
Mr. Grijalva. That is the--I am not done yet, thank you.
Mr. Shubow. OK.
Mr. Grijalva. Unless we over-reach and change the process
itself in the legislation, then we are still dealing with that
process and that time line. Am I correct, General?
General Reddel. The way I have come to understand the
process, the process has become complex and appropriately
deliberative, especially in recent years, the last couple of
decades, the competition for space, highly prized space, the
need to deliberately think in terms of serving the public for
all time perpetually. And, as a result of that, the review
process is complicated. And the requirements are there and in
place. So, it is not appropriate, and would be very difficult
to circumvent or to accelerate through that process.
In the Commission's case, they first had to decide what an
appropriate concept was, where it should be, looked at 26
alternative sites, and so on. So it is a very complicated
process.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me follow on that. I think most of us
would agree that the Commemorative Works Act has worked well in
proving this rigorous approval process and the siting and the
design of new memorials that you mentioned, General.
And this is for the entire panel. And no one on this
Committee is even suggesting, I don't think, amending that
process. And instead, I think most of you all want a new
design. That seems to be the issue. So, help me understand
this, is it a breakdown of the process, or is it a personality
breakdown?
General Reddel. I believe each one of us might have a
different response to that.
Mr. Grijalva. Just go to----
General Reddel. First of all, I would like to assure the
Committee members here today that the Commission took very
seriously the legacy and attempted, at its very outset, to
mobilize, in fact, this country's very best expertise in
Eisenhower, to codify that, and to bring it to a stage where it
could be appropriately given to an artist to develop. So that,
the mention of the legacy, was taken very seriously.
My own professional background as former professor and head
of the Department of History at the Air Force Academy tilted me
in that direction, and we went to General Goodpaster, we went
to the editors of the Eisenhower Papers. We went to, literally,
the world's expertise to specify those elements.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Sir? Mr. Moore?
Mr. Moore. Yes. Well, I won a competition to do the Library
of Congress. And we actually--in 3 years, we not only won the
competition, but we did the whole design. So----
Mr. Grijalva. OK, thank you.
Mr. Moore [continuing]. I think that 3 years is quite a lot
of time.
Mr. Grijalva. I appreciate that. Sir?
Mr. Shubow. As for the process, what it has given us is a
design that is widely unpopular, incredibly expensive, probably
not permanent. And so, therefore, that is why we are at this--
--
Mr. Grijalva. So you would suggest that the process is the
problem, not the personalities.
Mr. Shubow. Well, I would think that there are actually
multiple problems here.
Mr. Grijalva. Would you----
Mr. Shubow. The process is easily the initial one.
Mr. Grijalva. So you would suggest this legislation should
not only undo the membership of the Commission, defund it from
a Federal site, but perhaps go as deep as changing the process
of the Commemorative Act?
Mr. Shubow. No, I don't believe we should change the
Commemorative Works Act.
Mr. Grijalva. Oh, OK.
Mr. Shubow. It explicitly says in its purpose that the
design should reflect a consensus of the lasting national
significance of the subjects involved. And it is----
Mrs. Lummis. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Shubow. OK.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you so much. Next we go to Mr.
McClintock, the gentleman from California.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Madam Chairman. The Ranking
Member's concern that this bill will delay construction of the
memorial, I think it needs to be pointed out that this memorial
is likely never to be completed in its current form, because it
will never be funded in its current form. This requires us to
step back and redesign the process in a manner that will
produce an appropriate design.
General Reddel noted controversies involving the design of
the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, of the Washington
Monument, with the implication that, well, these are just
normal controversies, it is an affirmation of the design. Well,
I would say to General Reddel that if I were to place pictures
of the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, the Washington
Monument, and this design together, and asked the question,
``Which thing doesn't belong with the others,'' the answer is
self-evident and intuitive, which I think speaks volumes of how
inappropriate it is.
Mr. Shubow, you mentioned what a memorial should be, the
principals that should guide the design of any of our memorials
and monuments here in Washington. And it was beautifully
stated. Would you mind restating it, or--if you have that there
in your text? Otherwise, I have the printed copy; I will read
it.
Mr. Shubow. Well, there are multiple----
Mr. McClintock. Well, let me just point you to the
paragraph. ``Monuments are civic art that cause us to solemnly
reflect on who we are and what we value.'' Do you have that in
your text?
Mr. Shubow. I do, and I am quite glad, actually, that you
specifically mention that, because the Eisenhower Memorial
Commission has repeatedly said that this memorial is primarily
intended for children. In effect, they are describing it as a
tourist attraction, a theme park. If you even look at their
renderings, there are children playing with kites. There is
going to be the so-called eMemorial, where people are
encouraged to pull out their iPods, their iPads, and other
electronic devices to use augmented reality to look around the
memorial.
Mr. McClintock. Let me----
Mr. Shubow. When you go to the Lincoln Memorial, there is
no need for any of that.
Mr. McClintock. Your point is well taken. But what I really
want to focus on are the words that you spoke, which I think
are just a beautiful description of what we ought to be
focusing on. You said that, ``These monuments are heroic-sized,
timeless, and possess grandeur. They present an ideal we aspire
to, rather than warts-and-all reality. Sacred and transcendent,
they inspire instead of demoralizing us. They must honor, not
merely remember their subjects. They must be made of noble
materials, such as marble and bronze, that have proven their
durability over millennia, not industrial material, such as
steel and PVC piping. Monuments are permanent, and they must
appear permanent, unlike a scrim or a shroud.
``Monuments ought to be clear and unequivocal in their
meaning. They should evince a few simple ideas in a way that is
graspable by ordinary Americans. They must be legible, without
a guide or key, and certainly without a visitor center or iPad.
Monuments speak to us even without signage. You can be inspired
by a monument, even if you do not know who is represented, or
what that person did. Monuments are not museums, and they
should not try and tell stories. They are not ink blots that
leave things to the interpretation of the visitor. Monuments
are statements, not question marks.''
That is the most beautiful description of what we ought to
be focused on that I have seen. I think that in whatever future
legislation we adopt, this ought to be the preamble of it. I
want to commend you for the most clear-headed statement I have
seen on this subject, and I would leave off as I began, that
these memorials are meant for the ages to stand the test of
time.
Mr. Shubow. Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. McClintock. And now we will go
to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Holt.
Dr. Holt. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am trying to understand
really what the problems are here. I am not sure that I have
heard that this is wildly unpopular. There are certainly some
people who have strong objections to it. But I have also heard
comments in favor of the design, or something like the current
design. There is no--and I want to make sure that we are not
just getting into warring designs.
Mr. Moore, you have presented something that would be at
Constitution Park, replacing some of the grove of trees there,
I believe. There are other designs possible. And it is worth
noting that the designs in Washington, the monuments that we
have, and memorials, are very different: Washington and Lincoln
and the Korean War and Martin Luther King and Freedom Plaza.
And so, I am trying to understand whether the problem is
with particulars, and everybody has different particular
objections, and whether it can be brought into more complete
acceptance by changing some of those particulars. Whether it is
just that Maryland Avenue is not as grand now as L'Enfant
intended, and nor is it as grand as Pennsylvania Avenue is. And
I am sure the Maryland delegation here and the Minority leader,
Ms. Pelosi, would love to have Maryland Avenue as grand as
Pennsylvania Avenue. But that is a problem that exists apart
from this monument.
Is the objection that the trees don't' have leaves? Is the
objection that the panels are too high and boxlike? So can we
fix this by putting leaves on the trees and satisfying more
people? Or making sure the panels are not rectilinear and
perhaps lower--I don't know. But we could be redesigning this
forever. And, as I said earlier, I am eager to see a memorial
worthy of this great American.
And, by the way, I mentioned earlier that my mother had
served in the Eisenhower Administration. She turns 100 years
old this year. She remembers the President fondly, and said to
me just last night that we do want to respect the concerns and
the wishes of the family. But she also acknowledged, as has the
family, that this belongs to ages into the future, and not just
the family.
So, let me ask you, Mr. Cotton, in the short time I am
allowed now, is it that the panels are too high and too
boxlike? If this design were moved to Constitution Park in
place of that grove of trees, would you object to the design?
Or is it what it does to Maryland Avenue that offends you?
Mr. Moore. Yes, I would like to answer that. Basically, the
panels and the columns could even be redesigned to allow
Maryland Avenue to go through.
Maryland Avenue has actually been endorsed by the National
Capital Planning Commission----
Dr. Holt. It would help me understand it better if you
answered the question.
Mr. Moore. Yes.
Dr. Holt. If this design were moved to Constitution Park,
would that remove your objections?
Mr. Moore. It would, it would, because I think that what we
are trying to do here--and I was only showing you alternatives
that don't interfere with the historic plan of Washington----
Dr. Holt. Well, I found your alternatives attractive.
Mr. Moore [continuing]. Which has been around for 213
years.
Dr. Holt. I understand that.
Mr. Moore. And there has been no incursion into the 160-
foot reservation for Maryland Avenue. So it can be realized
exactly as L'Enfant and McMillan--and we intend to do that.
Dr. Holt. Thank you. Well, I have not allowed enough time
for other comments. I just go back to remembering the fierce
objections to Maya Lin's design of the Vietnam Memorial. I mean
fierce objections. It is now highly regarded, and a place of
reverence, even. So I think maybe there is a lesson there.
Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Holt. And there is definitely a
lesson here, because as we have gone along just the dais here,
I like the concept of keeping Maryland Avenue's original
orientation open and available. Some others here not so much. I
don't like the way that Martin Luther King was depicted in that
memorial, others do. Some like this design, I'm not really
smitten with this design for the Eisenhower Memorial. So even
just among the people here, you see the kind of diversity of
opinion that makes these things so difficult.
So, not myself being terribly artistic, I am going to
switch to the dollars for my next round of questioning. General
Reddel, of the $30 million in taxpayer dollars that were
appropriated in December 2011 for construction--and I
understand that in front of this Committee about a year ago the
Commission stated that $9 million had been obligated--how much
has been spent? And what was it spent on? And is there any
left?
General Reddel. The money you are referring to that was
given to us for design and construction remains basically there
with, I believe, something like $7 to $9 million having been
expended in support of completion of the design activities
preparatory for construction.
Mrs. Lummis. OK. And could you tell me what that entails?
What goes into preparation for construction? Is it design
drawings?
General Reddel. Well, I would like to answer that question
technically and correctly. And in order to do that, it would be
best, really for me to try to get back to you, ma'am with the
details on that.
Part of the effort here and the monies expended have been
tied to the delay in the process as we have made an effort to
bring us completely as possible to an end of the design process
itself. And----
Mrs. Lummis. I would be most grateful for a complete
accounting of that $30 million to date, and planning was
curtailed in order to accommodate discussions such as the one
we are having today. Might that be provided to this Committee?
General Reddel. Of course, yes. Yes, indeed, ma'am. We can
do that.
Mrs. Lummis. And I would like to visit about the lack of
transparency in the process. What is the goal of avoiding
transparency?
General Reddel. Well, first of all, I would like to suggest
that there has been no conscious effort by the Commission to
avoid transparency. The Commission has complied from the very
beginning with the Commemorative Works Act, the other
provisions for hearings. The 22 meetings we had on a regularly
scheduled and publicly available basis over the 2 years of the
design process I put forward as an example of what is a public
process.
The degree to which people began to participate in that
process or make contributions in that process on their own
volition is a matter up to them. Some individuals did not
participate in all those 22 meetings. Some came, some did not.
But I bring that point up because there has never been a
concern by the Commission to be secretive or not to share the
results.
And I would like to suggest that even our Web site today is
an effort to put the facts forward as best we can. The minutes
of all of our meetings are available there. And, in fact,
people can judge for themselves by reading those minutes the
degree to which we were deliberate, informed, and tried to
benefit from the history of the past.
The other thing is that we were benefitting, I believe,
from an unusual amount of breadth and bipartisanship in the
effort to do the memorial right for this great American. And I
bring that up in part because I didn't know Senator Inouye had
done so much for memorialization. And his advice was extremely
important for us. And he would be the last individual to say
somehow we should be secretive in the process. At the same
time, on the Republican side, from the day that Senator Ted
Stevens was involved, now with Senator Pat Roberts from Kansas,
there has been a real effort to try to share as much as we can
the results of our work.
So, the sense that it was a closed-door process is, from my
viewpoint, as you can gather, not fully correct.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, General. And I will look at your
Web site.
I might also ask both of our other witnesses to respond, as
well. Mr. Moore?
Mr. Moore. Yes. Me, I have attended. And in conjunction
with Judy Feldman, who is the Chair of the Coalition to Save
our Mall, we have been attending the 106 process, the historic
preservation process.
One of the dictates of that process is to consider the
historic context that you are putting your memorial in. And, in
fact, the historical context is the great plans of Washington,
L'Enfant and McMillan. So, we feel that was not regarded, and
we have said so at the 106 meetings.
Mrs. Lummis. Thanks, Mr. Moore. My time has expired. And so
I want to just give Mr. Shubow 10 seconds to respond to the
same question, as well.
Mr. Shubow. Sure. I would stress that there are no minutes
from the crucial meeting at which the Commission chose Frank
Gehry. When the Commission was asked about this, they said they
had no official meeting at that time.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. And pardon me for asking questions in an
attempt to gather information about the consequences, intended
or unintended of the legislation or the precedence that might
be set. Because as we rush this forward, questions will remain.
And one of them, some have called on this panel and others,
for the end of Federal funding for the memorial in addition to
a new design. So if we amend the original authorization to
reflect these two changes, no funding, new design, what then is
the oversight role for Congress? I can begin with you, General,
if you don't mind. They are tied to--well----
General Reddel. Well, I gather we are dealing with
hypotheticals here.
Mr. Grijalva. Hypothetical would be that this legislation
moved forward and passes and is signed by the President. A
series of hypotheticals.
General Reddel. Well, in realistic effect, it would set
aside the cumulative work of the congressional Commission,
which was tasked by law to do what it has done. My impression
is it would set that work, the invested money, taxpayer money,
and time--the Commission expended $10 million over the period
of time to come to terms with where the memorial should be, and
the direction that it should take, given the diversity and
complexity of the President-and-General's legacy. That work and
the subsequent work would be, in effect, limited, curtailed,
and delimited in a very real, real way. In other words, to set
that effectively aside.
And the other thing I would point out is there has been a
considerable continuity of effort with the commissioners
through time. They have learned about the process, they have
learned from each other. They have come to terms with the
complexity of dealing with these things. And so, that
experience would, from my viewpoint, be set aside. And that
would not be insignificant.
Mr. Grijalva. OK, thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Lummis. OK. Mr. Holt.
Dr. Holt. Thank you. I didn't allow time for the General or
Mr. Shubow to answer my earlier question, whether you think
that there are a finite number of specific changes that could
be made to the design before us to make it acceptable to
obviously not everybody, never everybody, but to the principal
objectors.
Mr. Shubow. I would say that the design is not salvageable.
Dr. Holt. Not salvageable. OK.
Mr. Shubow. Putting aside what is on the tapestries, any
structure of this kind, if you look at it close, looks like
Medusa's head. You have never seen photos of the tapestry up
close. The only way I found them was digging at the Commission
of Fine Arts. They are giant steel cables. It looks like
something you would find on a bridge.
In addition to that, I would note that being a steel
``tapestry,'' it is likely that it will end up being called The
Iron Curtain, which I believe is not appropriate as an
Eisenhower----
Dr. Holt. Yes, I had read the family's objections that
tapestries were what are found in structures in totalitarian
countries. I guess I don't understand that.
But General, what possibilities do you see of further
changes in the existing design to address--and in part you
might talk about some of the changes that have been made to
bring it to this point.
General Reddel. Right. Well, in addressing that question--
--
Dr. Holt. To address objections.
General Reddel [continuing]. I am, of course, as you might
imagine, hesitant to speak for the architect himself, and I
don't pretend to do that. So I will give you my view in an
effort to respond openly and candidly to your question.
My impression of the architect is that he has a method and
a process which is unusually open and flexible that he listens
repeatedly to inputs, and that he does make significant
changes. I did attend the meeting that he held in New York City
in December 2011 as an initial effort on his part with Susan
and Anne Eisenhower as representatives of the family, and
watched at that meeting where, from my viewpoint, he very
consciously chose that he would address the question of not
giving enough significance to the General and the President, in
terms of his greatness. And he quite literally moved away from
the baas relief images that he had, and created the
independent, heroic-sized statuary, which continues to be under
additional refinement.
He has listened, I believe, very carefully to the
descriptions of the time and seasons of the year, as they are
reflected in the artistic work of the tapestries themselves. In
contrast to some of the things you have heard today, the
Commission of Fine Arts was emphatic about its belief that he
had achieved the artistic effect they had, in effect, directed
him to achieve.
So there are, really, obviously, two sets of opinion in
this. And I have gone on with my view of his flexibility as an
artist and as an architect, because I believe he does listen,
and that he has made repeated efforts to have people visit him
at the studio. Congressman Issa, who was with us earlier, you
may recall said that he has visited the studio and taken a look
at this. To my way of thinking, that door has always been open
and is open today.
Dr. Holt. Another question, General. How many commissioner
vacancies are there, currently?
General Reddel. We currently, with Senator Inouye's
passing, now have a total of three. So we have a Presidential
vacancy. We also have a senatorial vacancy. And then,
Congressman Boswell from this chamber was our last----
Dr. Holt. And this legislation would create all vacancies.
One commissioner would be able to continue, I guess. Is that a
correct interpretation of the legislation?
General Reddel. Yes, the commissioners are not term-
limited, as it now exists. In other words, they----
Dr. Holt. And this would--I see.
General Reddel. They have continued.
Dr. Holt. Another thing that I am--and it is maybe not for
you, any of these witnesses, to clarify. As I read the bill, it
says a design would be selected for the memorial, as an
alternative.
So, it doesn't necessarily mean that this design is in the
trash heap. There would be another choice. There is alternative
A, which exists now. This would require that there be selected
an alternative to the current design, which, as I read it,
would be alternative B. It surely would delay things, but it
might not require junking what exists.
Anyway, the only thing worse than art designed by a
Committee is art designed by a Congressional committee.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Holt. So I hope we can find a way to bring this to
general acceptance so that we can have a memorial to this great
American. And----
Mrs. Lummis. Those were fine summary remarks, Mr. Holt.
Dr. Holt. I think that is the end of my time. Thank you,
Madam Chair.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. I would
like to thank you gentlemen and gentlelady for your valuable
testimony and patience, and the Members for their terrific
participation. Members of the Subcommittee may have additional
questions for the witnesses, and we ask you to respond to these
in writing.
General, you have already heard my request for a full
accounting of the $30 million.
And we look forward to receiving that. The hearing record
will remain open for 10 days to receive these responses.
If there is no further business, the Subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[A press release submitted for the record by The American
Institute of Architects follows:]
THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
Press Release:
Architects Issue Statement Opposing House Bill Eliminating Funding for
Eisenhower Memorial
Contact: John Schneidawind 202-626-7457
[email protected] http://tmtter.cpSAIA_Media
For immediate release:
Washington, D.C.,--March 15, 2013--The American Institute of
Architects (A1A) today issued the following statement in opposition to
the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Completion Act, introduced Wednesday
by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah). Among other things, the legislation would
mandate an alternative to architect Frank Gehry's design for the
Eisenhower Memorial and would eliminate further federal funding for the
project.
Please attribute the following statement to AIA Chief Executive
Officer Robert Ivy. FAIA:
``Representative Bishop's legislation allows Congress to exercise
governmental authority in a wholly arbitrary manner that negates the
stated selection process It is nothing more than an effort to
intimidate the innovative thinking for which our profession is
recognized at home and around the globe. We intend to vigorously oppose
it.''
``The AIA doesn't offer any assessment on whether the Eisenhower
Memorial Design is good or bad. The Congressman says the intent of his
bill is to seek consensus around a design for the memorial. We wonder
how his bill can achieve that stated consensus when it specifically
bans the current design proposal.''
______
[A letter submitted for the record by General P.X. Kelley,
USMC (Ret.), Former Chairman, American Battle Monument
Commission, and Former Commander, U.S. Marine Corps, follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0076.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0076.006