on national civic arts society. this morning i speak only as a concerned citizen. my comments are based on my long experience as academic artist historian, university professor and author of 14 books on the history of art. i will also drawn on my seven years chairman national endowment for humanities. my principle initiatives dealt with the need to improve the teaching and understanding of american history for our young people. something they need to become informed active citizens. it is of these young people i think when contemplating mr. gary's plan for the proposal memorial to dwight eisenhower. for me, ike is still a living memory. his role as supreme commander of the allied forces which freed europe from great evil and two terms of president of the united states are events through which i lived. i hate to say this,

mr. chairman, but i was actually walking and not crawling at that time. what about our rising generations who lacked this firsthand memory? what will they know if anything about this great american? to teach them not only about ike and his deeds but to give them a sense of his greatness and the debt we owe him is the task ofmy monument worthy of bearing his name. this mission is admirably summarized in the 1999 law passed by congress ordering that, quote, an appropriate memorial to dwight d. eisenhower should be created to perpetuate his memory and his contributions through the united states. unquote. such a monument should therefore memorialize and educate. in execution of these tasks the gary proposal not only fails but

fails ulterly. a unified narrative, a storing if you will, absent in both conception and in design. without this no monument to an individual can succeed. the gary plan is a lot of incongruent things of wildly different shapes, proceed portions, materials and sizes. enormous pillars, misnamed columns. actually columns support something that have a capital at the top. these don't. there are trees and aluminum mesh tapestries. tapestries, despite mr. gary's claim, are not usuallily an integral part of the history of monument. these look more like chain link fences. and there are inscriptions and too large photo murals, all

strewn about in a very large space. the result is that the hole is less than the sum of its parts. come po compounding the problem. few successful monuments are this grandiose, especially in our democratic republic where our presidents, some of whom don't even have memorials, are seen as citizens, not super humans. two good examples are jefferson and lincoln memorials. the present scheme for the four acre site of the eisenhower memorial filled with such desperate elements will create confusion and confusion of message. and if realized will resemble an amusement park rather than a memorial. like an amusement park, there is no overall narrative, no sequential story and no central

focus to guide visitors, those with limited or no knowledge of president eisenhower. the proposed profusion of enter active displays will be costly, difficult to maintain and fragile. this so-called, quote, evenlgts memorial, unquote, is no substitute for narrative, providing knowledge, content and inspiration. my remedy for the eisenhower memorial would be to go back to the drawing board, institute an open process seeking design, not simply qualifications, solicit imput of the public and seek a plan with a coherent and meaningful message, comprehensible to visitors for centuries to come. moreover i believe in these hard economic times something that cost upwards, the taxpayers

upward of $100 million is -- has no justification. instead i would seek a much more modest, lesses on ten tashs and more sustainable solution. my only recommendation were the architectural style is that it be worthy of the hero it honors. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate the panel being here. also tell you for the panel that one of the things we may have, there may be written questions that staff -- or committee, i'm sorry, committee may have of you if you would be kind enough to respond to those after this meeting at your own leisure, i'd appreciate that. we'll now turn to questions of the panel for this particular group. do you have questions? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me again with mr. witzel. did the eisenhower project

deviate from the memorial processes in place? >> no, sir. it's been -- it has followed that process pretty much to the letter. >> okay. and the question -- general f i may, i understand you're in the final stages of that design process. >> actually, we are in the latter stages of the design process. the design process phase we're in has been going on for two years. >> okay. that's the design process, not the selection process? >> no, it is the design process to bring it to the stage where it can be presented as a final design, so we're in the preliminary -- the last stages of the preliminary design approval process. >> how is that being worked out with concerned parties at this point? well, as i noted earlier, we've

gone through a series of public meetings, which have been open to the public, and we've incorporated inputs as we've received them along the way. we ask for delay in our appearance before national capital planning commission in order to give us more time to listen to the public, particularly have the views of the family in more complete form. >> and we've heard from some of the witnesses. consistent point that we need to start over. just my curiosity. what would it cost to start over at this point? >> well, the cost to begin over would, a cost in both time and in money. i'd be happy to km back to you with more specific information, but we'd be probably talking about another minimal of two years and cost of time.

that's what we have spent at this point. if we were to start over with a process, if we were to be conservative, it might be as much as two to three years. we have spent in the design of the memorial a $16 million sum of money. i would anticipate that that cost would aproximate that. >> same question, mr. gern. what's gsa's role at this point in the memorial process and in the design process, was this a new use of the program? >> it was not a new use of the program. our role is advising the commission in their activities. we are acting as project manager. we are supporting them with staff. during the construction process will be supporting them as well. >> thank you.

>> thank you for being here today. if you could quickly explain to me what your organization's concept for the memorial is and what your organization sponsored, did the organization proper have a submission to eisenhower memorial competition that was going on from the commission. >> good question, sir. in fact, those that were entitled to submit something to the commission were hand-picked by gsa. so an unknown organization, by the way, we're not an organization of architects, but an unknown architect could not have provided a submission under the rules they operated under. it wasn't an open competition. the designs that were committed, i think as i mentioned, show that there are alternatives and

great ones available. i'm not saying that any of those submissions should are been adopted but i think you'd agree with me that those look and are more understandable than the gary proposal. >> okay. >> going back to you, mr. gern, who could apply for that competition, given the comments -- >> to characterize this as a closed competition really isn't correct. gsa solicited for architects and landscape architects to apply for the opportunity. that was a qualifications-based selection, again based on the decision by the commission to go in that direction. any architect could apply for that opportunity. it is self-correcting in that the most qualified firms are the ones this apply for something like that. we did get 44 submissions. we evaluated those submissions and short-listed them down to seven and ultimately to four

submissions that had the opportunity to provide a design vision to the selection panel which gave them the opportunity then to see what ideas were being proposed by short-listed firms and helped make the final selection. >> one last question, my curiosity, mr. cole. you were the judge in this alternative competition that the art society hosted and were all the designs that were in that competition of a classical architecture? >> not at all. i was asked to be ay. i declined to be a judge because i thought they needed as many entries as possible and i was among the winners. there were a number -- there were a number of dines that were modern.

there were a number of designs that were deco. there were more -- i would say, more classical than the others but there was a broad range. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> just apologize for being late. i was at another subcommittee meeting. i know that congress does not have a great deal of pert tease in matters like this, but recognizing that, we do have people who have knowledge of things. we have set up a process to make sure what we do with monuments in the mall are correct. we have never relinquished our authority on that. we've always had problems. the vietnam memorial was designed and constructed and we

appreciate having a process but at the same time we have not relinquished our authority in this area and our input on this and i want to thank you for all the work all of you have done. these things are not always without controversy. i do appreciate all the work that you have done and your various responsibilities. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> jumping into the middle of a controversy is not a good place for us to be, but there seems to be a process under way that's an itterative process. mrs. eisenhower, you indicated

that you've had a meeting with mr. gearry and looking forward to another meeting. from the witnesses it appears there's an ongoing process to reach a final design and that a final design has not yet been involved. is that correct? i guess we ask commission executive officer. >> the submission of a final design proposal has not yet been made. that is correct. there is still a process under way to develop that final design and thenniering drawings, construction and so forth beyond that. so, some have suggested starting all over. it seems that's not likely the path to be taken but, rather, a path that would be using the

existing gearry design or con accepts, modified to address the concerns that may exist would be a more productive path. if you would like to comment on that, i'd be happy to hear from you, including the eisenhower family, if they would care to. seems we ought to be working toward a refining of where we are rather than starting all over. i suspect starting all over is probably another ten-year process. anybody that would like to comment here. >> i would like to. i could -- my foundation does competitions all the time. we have built numbers of monuments and could organize a comp fi competition for something like this in six months. >> so, you want to start all over? >> as i had said in my testimony that mr. gearry does not speak the language that the public and the eisenhower family can --

>> thank you, thank you. >> and the cost -- >> my question was very specific. start all over or work with designs. i think susan eisenhower would like to make a comment. >> there's a marvelous exhibition at building museum called unbuilt washington. and it -- it opened in november. it's going to close at the end of may. but it tells the story of what washington would have looked like if the first design had ever been adopted. turns out -- i called the curator of that exhibition and asked how many major memorials in this town have ever been built from the first design. he scratched his head a bit and maybe others at the table will are a thought on this, too. he said he thought probably only the vietnam veterans memorial and mylan had produced a rather

broad concept. but if that's the case, think of the fdr memorial. it wasn't just three redesigns. it was three-plus designs before they got to a final plan. so, i think that we shouldn't be afraid of looking at this issue because we are building something for the centuries and we want to get it right. >> i really had a dichotomy here, which is dump with gearry and start over again or work with gearry and continue forward. those are really the dichotomy i would like presented to us. do you have a view of working with gearry and -- >> i don't think -- >> excuse me. i'm talking to susan eisenhower. >> quickly, we were certainly planning to see him again. he's aware of our concern. he's aware of the substance of my testimony today. and i think it's a very important stop to make. not only to talk to mr. goorry

about what might be possible but far more important to make sure that this process is done in a respectful and courteous way. >> mr. gearry has gone out of his way to make himself available. he continues to be in that mode. if you look at his letter for the record, it expresses that view in writing, which he has submitted. i would like to make a brief comment about delay. when we began our work, our vice chairman who probably knows more about memorialization, has done more for memorials in the united states congress than any other member of the united states congress, senator daniel inawe joined our commission and at one point someone said we're taking a lot of time here. he said when i joined the fdr commission, i sat at that end of the table and after 30 years, i sat at that end of the table and we don't want to go through this

again. very recently he brought to my attention the fact that he and other members of his generation who served in world war ii would like to celebrate this memorial. that was also affirmed by his fellow combat veteran, the chairman. of course, senator stevens felt that way as well. delay is not always your friend. in this case they look at me as if i'm a spring chicken and told me to get on with it. >> thank you. >> did you have other round of questions that you want to ask? then, if this is your last question, we'll ask miss eisenhower to come up and answer that. if you have more questions in mind, then wait. okay. would you just -- actually, mrs. eisenhower, would you please answer his question, now

that you're there at the table. >> answer -- >> please. >> i would like to answer two questions. general riddle has said that franc gearry has made himself available to made himself available to us for quite a few times. i'd like to point out for the record that each time we've been approached for this we've been given one-week notice to get all four grandchildren together to california or in the case of the other two defaulting to our judgment, the two of us, and we also have very busy schedules, but i would like to answer the question that was put to the table which i don't believe was properly answered, and the question is there anything salvageable from the gehry design? the question, at least in your minds, the family's mind, the biggest problem is probably not only the narrative which we feel is incorrect but from a design -- sheer design point of view the scrim images, if you remove the scrim images, you

don't have a whole lot left. you have a little boy sitting on a ledge looking at two relief. simply the narrative is not correct. from a physical point of view, if you take away the scrim images, the design is gone, and i think that answers the question. >> thank you, miss eisenhower. >> we'll try to go through as many of these. does the department have an estimated annual cost to maintain this memorial? >> we have not. we've talked to the commission and we anticipate receiving further information on some testing that they are going to be doing on the -- the mesh panels. >> when do you assume you'll have a ballpark figure for us? >> i don't know, sir, but could i get back to you. >> okay. if i could ask, a lot has been said about the processes here. i think the design process is going traditionally but certainly the selection process

was different as you had in your words the streamlined process that came up with the short list of firms before you opened it up. can you tell me why you asked for portfolios from these firms and not actual designs as it normally done? >> the selection process is a qualification-based selection process based on the brooks act to select architects and designers so it requires that we ask for qualifications first and then we had a design vision with the short-listed firms. >> from the short list only. >> that's correct. >> okay. >> can you tell me if the fee for mr. gehry as far as a percent of the overall project is in line with other fees that have been done for federal monuments? >> it is in line with other fees. >> can you tell me roughly what that percentage would be, not necessarily a dollar amount. >> it's roughly 10% and is made up of a number of different things, including the testing that's going on right now with the scrims. >> are you aware of how much money physically from 2012, of

the 2012 appropriation has been spent? >> i do not know that. >> do you have any idea what the obligations from existing contracts wobble if they were cancelled? >> right now we have, with the architect, about $9.8 million of contracted work. they have spent about $7.2 million. >> thank you. general, if i could ask you a couple of questions. an important principle of the commemorative work act is consensus. with the concerns that have been raised, especially by the family, can this committee conclude that there's any consensus around this design? >> the input that we've been receiving is at variance with some of the opinions you've heard here today. when we had our last commission meeting in july of this past year, which included at that time our commissioner david eisenhower, the commission felt that it had consensus. >> do you still feel that way? >> clearly we do not have

consensus today. >> when did you first become aware that the family had serious concerns with the design and how did the commission attempt to reconcile those concerns? >> the current dynamic of concern and controversy became apparent to us following the commission meeting of july this last year. >> thank you. >> there are some missing minutes from i think july 2007 to march 2009. where are those minutes, and can we get a copy of those? >> there was not a meeting of the commission at that time, and from our viewpoint -- >> in that two-year time period? >> pardon me. >> in the two-year time period, from july '07 to march '09 you had no meetings? >> i believe that's correct, yes, sir. in other words, the business of the commission at that time did not include a full commission meeting. >> why did you -- that's unusual. why did you choose to run the competition by the gsa design excellence program?

>> simply put, the complexity of the site which was identified in the national capital planning mission commission's master plan for memorials presented us with an unusual challenge in urban design. i am not an architect, but the size and location of eisenhower square, which was attractive to us because it fit eisenhower in a particular and powerful personal way, presented a wide range of design challenges. >> i'm running out of time so let me make these very quick. does that process favor large established firms? >> i can't speak to the process. i don't know the history of gsa's experience with that. >> i'm assuming that -- that obviously an unknown designer could have been selected, but

does that process that we use basically make that an unfair reality? >> i find that correct, yes, sir. >> all right. i do want to say one other thing. we have repeatedly said on this panel that we are not experts in this area. unfortunately, 8 of the 12 members of the commission are members of congress so i certainly hope congress does have some expertise in this area. otherwise we're all screwed. do you have any other questions? mr. kildee, any other questions that you have? >> no. >> let me -- let me conclude this by thanking all of you for being here. i appreciate the family for being here, and i certainly hope as we go forward with this that there will be a broad consensus of what is going forward. we have one chance to make this correct and do it right, and it needs to be there. i thank you for your commitment to this enterprise. i think for me personally i do want to see a very good, a very accurate memorial to general eisenhower and president eisenhower.

it's important for this community. it's important to do it. hopefully you can cover up what i think is one of the uglier buildings in washington while you're doing it. that's beside the point, but the idea of having consensus coming up with the desire is important, and i realize that many times when they have done multiple designs and come up with different ideas, it what is produced something that is very spectacular. i think world war ii is a perfect example of being able to do something and do it right. this is another one that i want us to make sure that we do it right. i appreciate your willingness to be here and to testify. for all of you who have been here, and once again, i say that there may be questions that the committee has of witnesses who are here. we'll submit those to you in writing, and we ask for your written response as well. with that, if there's no other questions this, committee is in recess. is adjourned, adjourned, adjourned.

this past october, frank gehry, the architect behind the proposed eisenhower national memorial, spoke at the national archives about the ideas behind his design. he was joined by his collaborator, theater artist robert wilson. this is about an hour. >> thank you for the introduction. i know how much you're looking

forward to this great program we have this evening. my remarks will be brief. but as a representative of the eisenhower memorial commission, i'm happy and pleased that tonight we have with us three commissioners, chairman sicilianio from beverly hills, california, commissioner alfred godelburg from new york city and commissioner susan harris from washington, d.c. i see around the room other distinguished supporters that the eisenhower legacy and the president and general's memorialization. i regret that there isn't time to recognize more of you. i would like to thank the archivist of the united states for adding this evening's event to the memorialization of this great general and this great president. as someone that dabbled in