[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12694-S12695]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of H.R. 2979, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will read the report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2979) to authorize acquisition of certain real 
     property for the Library of Congress, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the legislation before us would authorize 
the Architect of the Capitol to accept a gift of approximately 41 acres 
of property and buildings in Culpeper, Virginia for use by the Library 
of Congress as a national audiovisual conservation center. The purchase 
price of this facility is $5.5 million. The private foundation which 
has offered to purchase this property and donate it for the Library's 
use has also agreed to provide the Library with an additional $4.5 
million for the renovation of this property, making a total gift of $10 
million. The renovations to the property will be made by the Architect 
of the Capitol, as approved by the appropriate oversight and 
appropriations committees.
  The Library's film collection is currently stored in several Library 
or government-leased sites. With this gift,

[[Page S12695]]

the Library intends to consolidate the storage of its audio-visual 
collection, specifically its acetate film collection. However, the 
facility at Culpeper cannot currently house the nitrate-based film 
collection. While I will not object to passage of this legislation, I 
am concerned by both the manner in which the Library presented this 
issue to Congress and by a number of precedent-setting issues this gift 
raises which have not been fully aired.
  It is my understanding that the Library first identified the Culpeper 
property as a potential site for storage of a portion of its film 
collection several years ago. And yet, this legislation before us today 
was shared with my office only last week, and was introduced in the 
House and Senate over the week-end. While it is not unusual this time 
of year to see legislation flying past the Congress on its way to the 
White House for signature, this measure raises a number of concerns 
that should, and could, have been fully debated by those who ultimately 
will be responsible to the taxpayer for the cost of its maintenance and 
upkeep in the years to come.
  First, and most importantly, is the issue of whether the government, 
particularly the Library, should be in the business of acquiring real 
estate. It is rather ironic that this is being proposed at a time when 
the leadership in the Congress is calling for privatization of many 
legislative branch functions and the sale of certain legislative branch 
properties. It is particularly true of this property which includes 
about 41 acres, but insufficient buildings and improvements to house 
all of the Library's audiovisual collection. I don't want to assume 
what the Library plans to do with all this property, but I got a pretty 
good idea by reading the study the Library commissioned from Abacus 
Technology Corporation.
  The current buildings on the Culpeper property can house only the 
acetate film collection. In order to consolidate the nitrate film 
collection at the Culpeper site, the Abacus study recommends 
constructing new buildings to house the nitrate collection. And how 
much would such facilities cost? Over $16 million over the next 4 
years. But a hefty building and expansion program is not all that is 
planned for these 41 acres. The Abacus study describes the Library's 
vision with regard to this audiovisual center as offering, subject to 
the approval of Congress, a cost-effective conservation service for 
other libraries and archives. Whether this will require additional 
buildings or is included in the Abacus cost estimates already is not 
disclosed.
  A second concern that this issue raises is the ultimate cost to the 
taxpayer of accepting this gift. According to the Abacus study, the 
total cost for renovating, maintaining and expanding the Culpeper 
property over the 25 year life cycle of the facility is $47 million. 
Other alternatives identified by Abacus and the Library range from 
about $54 million to $86 million. However, the Abacus study does not 
include cost estimates for the Architect of the Capitol for the on-
going maintenance and repair of the 41 acres of grounds and buildings 
that would now be owned by the government.
  Thirdly, as currently structured, it is not clear how this property 
and facilities will be managed. By statute, the Architect of the 
Capitol is responsible for only the structural work on buildings and 
grounds of Library property, including the maintenance and care of the 
grounds and certain mechanical equipment. Since this site is over 70 
miles away from Washington, it may require that the Architect 
physically locate maintenance personnel there. But the Architect will 
not manage these 41 acres and buildings--that will now be the 
responsibility of the Library--hardly a task they have much experience 
with. Moreover, as my colleagues know, the Library has its own security 
force. Presumably, this facility will also need to be secure. However, 
in recent years, there have been discussions about the possibility of 
transferring certain exterior security functions of the Library 
security force to the Capitol Police. I'm not sure I want our Capitol 
police responsible for taking care of the security of 41 acres in 
Culpeper.
  I appreciate the pressure the Librarian feels to raise private funds 
to provide core Library functions. However, any gift that the Librarian 
solicits ultimately becomes the responsibility of the American 
taxpayers. Before we saddle them with the maintenance, upkeep, and 
overhead of additional federal buildings and prime real estate, there 
should an opportunity to fully air these issues. Changes I sought in 
this legislation will do that, even if after the fact.
  Being from Kentucky, I know better than to look a gift horse in the 
mouth. But being from west Kentucky, which is hog country, I also know 
a pig-in-a-poke when I see it. The Library may not be asking the 
American taxpayers to accept a pig-in-a-poke, but with all the 
unanswered questions, this Culpeper property is pretty darn close to 
it. I'll be sticking close to the farm over the next year, and as 
provided by this legislation, will be looking for answers to these 
questions before approving improvements and expansions on this gift.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
considered read the third time, and passed, the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table, and that any statements be placed at the 
appropriate place in the Record.
  The bill (H.R. 2979) was read the third time, and passed.

                          ____________________