[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 24, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6284-S6285]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

          CONCERNS WITH THE SELECTION OF THE RAINBOW POOL SITE

 Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I submit for the Record a letter 
from Richard Longstreth, first vice president for the Society of 
Architectural Historians and professor of american civilization at 
George Washington University to the chairman of the Commission on Fine 
Arts, J. Carter Brown, regarding the site selection for the proposed 
memorial to World War II.
  Professor Longstreth, editor of ``The Mall in Washington, 1791-
1991,'' is deeply concerned, as am I, by the selection of the Rainbow 
Pool site as the location for a proposed memorial to World War II.
  I deeply support honoring those who served our Nation during the most 
pivotal event of the 20th century, as does the professor. I would even 
argue, Mr. President, that a memorial is not enough. That a museum is 
necessary to tell the complete story to future generations of our 
victory over the Axis Powers and our defeat of Nazi Germany. This a 
story that must be told and retold.
  But I am deeply opposed to the selection of this expansive, 
reflective space at the key axis of the National Mall, lying between 
the Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument as the site of a memorial.
  The idea of constructing a 50-foot-high, 7.4-acre memorial on this 
site--smack in the middle of the National Mall--is quite troubling. Any 
structure of such size and magnitude would forever alter the openness 
and grandeur that is America's front lawn.
  Professor Longstreth states in his letter: ``The whole meaning of one 
of the greatest civic spaces that exists anywhere in the world today 
will be irreparably cheapened by any proposed scheme for a major 
memorial on this site.''
  I could not agree more.
  Just as disconcerting is the idea that a World War II memorial 
constructed on this site will have to be closed on the Fourth of July 
weekend, as ruled by the National Parks Service, for safety reasons 
related to the fireworks display.
  This does not make sense.
  As the Commission on Fine Arts, National Capital Planning Commission, 
and the Secretary of the Interior continue their deliberative process 
concerning this proposed memorial, you will hear more from me in the 
coming months, Mr. President. Especially, as my office continues to 
monitor the process of the environmental and urban impact studies yet 
to be conducted on this site.
  That is right, Mr. President this site was selected without any 
studies conducted on the impact on The Mall or the city. Currently, the 
Council on Environmental Quality is reviewing my request for 
information on the urban and environmental impact on this site. I will 
keep the Senate informed as to how this process progresses.
  The letter follows:

                                                        Society of


                                     Architectural Historians,

                                        Chicago, IL, June 9, 1997.
     J. Carter Brown,
     Chairman, Commission of Fine Arts, Pension Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Brown: As a scholar of the built environment, an 
     officer of the Society of Architectural Historians, and 
     editor of The Mall in Washington, 1791-1991, I am writing to 
     express my very strong personal opposition to current plans 
     for the World War II memorial. My objection lies not with the 
     design. In the abstract I consider the design to possess the 
     sophistication and dignity called for in a work of this 
     nature. I also admire the members of the design team, one of 
     whom I count as an old friend. Rather it is the site that is 
     inappropriate, so much so that I believe this ranks among the 
     very worst proposals ever made for the monumental core. 
     Nothing--from John Russell Pope to Maya Lin--would be 
     suitable at the proposed location.
       The basic arguments against the site have been made, often 
     eloquently, by others in recent months. From the practical 
     standpoint, the location on a major artery--one that cannot, 
     and should not be closed if the Mail is to remain a part of 
     this city--will prove a logistical nightmare that could never 
     be solved adequately, no matter how many egregious 
     encroachments were made to what is now grass and 
     pedestrianways.

[[Page S6285]]

       As a matter of design, the memorial would introduce a major 
     focal point at a location never intended to have one and 
     would constitute a serious deviation from the McMillan Plan--
     indeed, a grotesque deviation, the likes of which we have 
     heretofore never seen come to fruition. The extent of space 
     between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial, as 
     well as the distinctness of its two parts, separated by 
     Seventeenth Street, represents more than an apt 
     representation of the vastness and complexity of American 
     space; it is an essential open ground for those two symbols 
     of America's greatest leaders and of American greatness. Any 
     substantial intervention, especially one on the scale of the 
     proposed memorial, would hideously violate that order, 
     detracting from both the established landmarks and also from 
     itself. The Mall is not a commercial pleasure ground--despite 
     some attempts to make it one. The whole meaning of one of the 
     greatest civic spaces that exists anywhere in the world today 
     will be irreparably cheapened by any proposed scheme for a 
     major memorial on this site.
       Perhaps most significantly of all is the terrible symbolic 
     message conveyed by siting a memorial to any war on the 
     Mall's primary axis. It may be argued, of course, that World 
     War II had transcendent importance for the nation and its 
     position internationally, but no war should be accorded so 
     pivotal a place in the national capital. Is this not more a 
     siting characteristic to dictatorships--Napoleon's Paris; 
     Hitler's Berlin? Any number of messages can be read into this 
     locational strategy, the great majority of them distasteful 
     for a democracy.
       I would like to end on a personal note, for while I was 
     born after World War II, it was very much a part of my youth. 
     My father served with distinction as executive officer, then 
     as commanding officer, of two Naval repair bases in the South 
     Pacific. Early on I learned from him and from others how 
     important that conflict was and how profoundly it had 
     reshaped the world. It sickens me to think of an event of 
     this order of magnitude degraded by what appears to be a 
     press for expeditious resolution. The site of the memorial 
     should not spark the kind of amazement and anger it is doing 
     from reasonable, well-informed, and intelligent people all 
     over the country. The legacy deserves better. Cannot the 
     imagination and resourcefulness be found to place this 
     memorial in a really magnificent site, fully appropriate to 
     its place in American history?
           Sincerely,
                                               Richard Longstreth,
         Professor of American Civilization, George Washington 
           University, First Vice President.

                          ____________________