common legacy we want to leave for future generations. thank you very much. >> miss eisenhower, thank you very much for your comments. we'll have questions from the panel. mr. grijalva, if you have questions first? >> thank you, mr. chairman. miss eisenhower, if i may, and thank you so much for being here. >> thank you. >> in your statement, you reported, you stated that the family is committed to playing its role in assure that the process and the design reflect an open and transparent process. for the edification of myself and the committee, could you please identify where the process was not open or transparent? >> well, i think -- i mean this would take an exhaustive review of the documents, but i think that the situation that has appeared in the paper has not been completely accurate. members of the eisenhower family

from the outset have expressed concern about the scope and scale of this memorial. the original idea was actually to put a simple statue at the eisenhower executive office building. this was our family preference in the beginning. and so this has evolved a great deal. to say that the eisenhower family had gone along with every aspect of this process would not be correct. and we found it important to correct the record. i think you'll hear from others who have their own views on this. so i will leave the rest of that question to be answered by others. >> mr. garamendi, do you have questions? >> i have a couple, if i could. could you just briefly summarize why the family believes president eisenhower would have rejected this design? >> well, first of all, he was a very modest man. he would have expected something of far less dramatic, far

less -- he would have wanted something on a smaller scale, i believe. this is an enormous thing. i did mention the metal scrims, which i think are really at the heart of the difficulty we have here. it was only until relatively recently the people began to focus on the size of these things. these metal mesh curtains are actually 80 feet high. this is theize of an eight-story office building. and everyone visiting the memorial will be dwarfed by these edifices. i don't think he would understand it, and i don't think that it would appeal to him because he was well-known not to have much time for modern art. and as a matter of fact, my sister anne and i could tell you a funny story about riding along the gettysburg countryside with him, both on different occasions with grand dad saying that he hated billboards. i didn't add billboards to my

list of concerns about these metal mesh tapestries. but i think this would not be in keeping with any style he would really understand. >> do you or the family think there are elements of the gehry design that are, for lack of a better word, salvageable? >> i think we welcome the opportunity to talk to mr. gehry again. we had a very cordial meeting in december. the time frames for everybody's schedule were so constrained that it was extremely difficult to see him before this hearing. but certainly any redesign does not preclude talking to mr. gehry about being the person to do that. but i think this is -- you know, this is to be determined i think in the coming weeks. >> let me ask one last question. 2/3 the family has a position on the funding of this memorial, the commission's testimony infers that private funding for the memorial would detract from private funding of other eisenhower legacy organizations. do you have a position on that? >> yes.

mr. chairman, in my lengthy submission to this committee, i went into that issue a bit. but over the last years, and maybe this is where i can make a comment again about the earlier question about openness and transparency, we had a much better interactive process between the eisenhower memorial commission staff and the eisenhower legacy organizations. this has crumbled in recent years. and i think this kaindicates the is a lot of work to be done going forward, and i think this is going the require significant cooperation and agreement. >> are there other questions from the committee? if not, we thank you. as i said, your written testimony will be in totality in the record. thank you for taking the time to join us here today. >> thank you again very much. >> now i think i have room at the panel for everyone else who may be there. can i call up for the next panel mr. steven whitesell, who is the

regional director of the national capital region for the parks service and the department of the interior. m mr. william guerin. i hope i did not pronounce that. >> just right. >> with the general services administration. retired brigadier general carl reddel from the air force who is executive director of the eisenhower memorial commission. mr. howard who is the director emeritus of the national arts society. mr. rodney cook junior who is president of the national monuments foundationment and mr. bruce cole who is the past president for the endowment of the national humanities. and we barely got you in there. once again, the same rules will apply. your written testimony will appear in its entirety in the record. we ask for oral comments this time to supplement the written

testimony. again, the clock in front of you, i hope you can all see it there, has a timer on it. the yellow light means you have a minute left. we would ask you to stay within the five-minute guidelines so we can leave this room before we have to be evicted from it. 10 with that, mr. whitesell, if we can just start from my left, looking down, and go down the row. five minutes each, if you're prepared, we would love to hear from you. >> mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the dwight d. eisenhower memorial. in 1999, congress authorized the dwight d. eisenhower memorial commission to consider a memorial to our 34th president. that commission is comprised of 12 commissioners, including eight members of congress and previously a member of the eisenhower family. as a result of this commission's work in 2002, congress authorized the commission to establish the eisenhower memorial.

since that time, the national parks service has worked closely with the commission to establish the memorial in accordance with both the authorizing legislation and the commemorative works act. in our experience, the subjects of memorials can provoke strong emotional responses. because while many may agree on the value of commemorating a particular person or event, they may not all agree on the form that commemoration should take. the direction provided by the congress in the commemorative works act has been highly beneficial in guiding decision-making by memorial sponsors and federal agencies in determining both the location and the design of memorials. in the case of the eisenhower memorial, these federal agencies are the national park service on behalf of the department of the interior, the national capitol planning commission, and the commission on fine arts. the process is a rigorous and sometimes lengthy public process

which can require multiple consultations on the selection of a site and on the design of a commemorative work as the design concept undergoes refinement, as well as extensive environmental and historic preservation compliance. the national parks service works closely with sponsors to navigate this series of studies and reviews. ultimately, a memorial will be constructed only if it is approved by these three entities, and the memorial sponsor has met qualifications imposed by the commemorative works act for the issuance of a national parks permit to begin construction. in 2006 the commission was authorized to locate the memorial at maryland and independence avenue southwest between fourth and sixth streets. a national parks service environmental assessment with public involvement was released in june of 2006. reviewed by the national capitol

memorial advisory commission, selection of this site was approved by the commission on fine arts and the national planning commission in depth of 2006. the national parks service has continuously facilitated the work of the eisenhower memorial commission to develop the design in response to input received during the public review and approval processes, and has worked diligently on the environmental and historic preservation compliance documentation. the eisenhower memorial commission is responsible for the design in addressing any concerns regarding the design from all sources, which includes the public and members of the eisenhower family. in september 2011, the national capitol memorial advisory commission was consulted on the design and the commission on fine arts granted conceptual approval for the overall configuration of the memorial. also in september, the national park service released a second

environmental assessment for public review on the environmental effects of the design. the national parks service executed a memorandum of agreement under the national historic preservation act regarding the treatment of historic properties affect by the memorial with the eisenhower commission, the national capitol planning commission, the general service administrations, the d.c. state historic preservation office and the advisory office on historic preservation. on march 6th of 2012, the national parks service issued the finding of no significant impact, which is a determination that the memorial completed as of the current schematic design, will not have a significant impact on the environment. the memorial was scheduled to go before the national capitol planning commission on april 5th, 2012, at which time the national parks service and the eisenhower memorial commission would seek preliminary design

approval. on march 14th, the eisenhower memorial commission asked that this review be deferred in response to recent concerns about the design. the national park service is honored to play a role in the establishment of commemorative works in our nation's capital. the process as directed by congress has worked very well, and we expect that the eisenhower memorial will ultimately be a source of pride for our entire nation. mr. chairman, this concludes my statements. i would be pleased to respond to any questions you or any other members of the subcommittee may have. >> thank you. i appreciate it. mr. whitesell from -- no, you just spoke. thank you. mr. guerin from the gsa, pleased to have you here. same thing. >> i can give him another chance if you want. good morning, chairman bishop, ranking member grijalva and members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the proposed dwight d. eisenhower memorial. gsa is honored to play a role in

helping the eisenhower commission to create a memorial to president dwight d. eisenhower. his long career of noble service to our country is and should be a sense of inspiration to the american people. the commission was tasked with creating an appropriate permanent memorial to perpetrator wait his memory and his contributions to the united states. gsa has assisted the commission with issues related to the acquisition of office space, human resource support, financial and accounting services, legal and contracting support, and our role expanded as the commission's vision became clear. given our experience and expertise, the commission asked gsa to help select both a design firm and a construction contractor for the memorial. at the request of the commission, we used our proven design excellence process to select the design firm. this competitive and streamlined process seeks to select the most qualified designers to support federal design commissions. we seek to contract with the nation's most talented

architects, landscape architects, and engineers to design projects with outstanding quality and value. as part of this process, gsa utilizes the tease of private sector peers to assist in the evaluation of proposals and design firms, ensuring that we benefit from the knowledge of a wide variety of individuals. at their request, gsa worked with the commission to develop a highly qualified aev evaluation board of 11 members from the commission, the gsa, the eisenhower family, as well as private sector peers and a variety of design in architectural areas. the board used a three-stage process to make its selection. this included evaluating the past work of firms submitting proposals, then developing a first list of firms to be invited for interviews, and finally reviewing proposals of detailed design visions for the memorial. in august 2008, gsa issued a request for qualifications, opened to all design firms to submit portfolios of their work. there were 44 responses to this request.

the panel convened, reviewed the submissions, and selected seven highly qualified firms based on the evaluation criteria outlined in the frq. the seven firms were interviewed, and from these interviews the panel chose four firms to submit design visions based on guidance provided by the panel. these four firms were crook and sexton architects, gehry partners llp, marvel's architects and pwp landscape architecture. all four firms were asked to provide a design vision for the eisenhower memorial. the vision was to be based on the site and urban context, the eisenhower memorial requirements and criteria, and the eisenhower memorial philosophy and aspirations. a jury composed of design peers and led by a professional competition adviser evaluated the submissions. the written report of findings and recommendations were submitted by the jury to the evaluation board. the evaluation board reviewed

the jury's findings as well as vision concepts. they selected gehry architects as the partner for the memorial. a contract with gehry partners was pursued and design began in january 2010 and is currently in process. it is worth noting that approval for a memorial of this importance in such a prominent location is a deliberate process that engages a variety of consulting bodies. any proposed monument or memorial to be located on federally owned land in the district of columbia just undergo a rigorous review process with ample opportunity for public review and input. as an agent of the emc, gsa's role was to administer the process that helped select the highly qualified design firm. a series of review processes of level local agencies and commissions which included the opportunity for public review and comment. in addition to providing staff and support services on a reimbursable basis, and administering the selection of a

design firm for the memorial, gsa is involved in a few other ongoing activities of the commission. for example, the commission requested our assistance in administering the construction contract. we are also working in partnership with the national park service to provide a portion of the land that will eventually house the memorial itself. we have been and continue to stand by to assist with other projects as they arise as the project moves forward. in to conclude, the gsa is proud of our efforts to assist the commission in memorializing president eisenhower. whether through staff and support services, administering design and construction contracts, or providing land on which to guild, gsa looks forward to assisting and bringing this project to fruition. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and i welcome any questions you might have. >> thank you, mr. guerin, i appreciate that. next turn to the executive director of the commission. once again for five minutes if possible. thank you. >> chairman bishop, ranking member grijalva, members of the subcommittee, thank you for

inviting me to be here today. before i begin my testimony, i'd like to point out the presence of three technical experts in the hearing room in the event you which to draw on their expertise, dr. don bene, who is an expert on eisenhower, and co-editor of the eisenhower papers. professional richard striener of washington college who is an expert on the president and executive architect daniel file for questions with regard to the commission's liaison with gsa, which you just heard about on contract design and construction of the memorial. it is a privilege to be here for a number of reasons. formally of the united states air force, now executive director of the eisenhower memorial commission, i'd like to introduce three commissioners who are with us today, commissioner boswell who you recently just heard from, member of the house, of course. commissioners alfred seated behind me, and susan baines

harris who was appointed by the president. our congressional colleagues, senator daniel inway, senator pat robert, senator jack reed, representative mac thornberry, representative mike simpson, and representative sanford bishop. our chairman is rocco siciliano. i understand that the purpose of this hearing is to discuss the eisenhower memorial. while some may be here to express a design point of view, which may be legitimately different from the commission's viewpoint, i'm here to answer your questions about the memorialization process to the best of my ability, and to demonstrate what the proposed memorial is and what it is not. in my extended statement for the record, you'll see how we worked with congress and numerous government agencies such as the national parks service, gsa, ncp, the commission of fine arts, the district of columbia, and many others. since the passage of the legislation establishing the commission, the memorial designer has been bound by law to memorialize both the 34th

president of the united states and the supreme commander of the allied forces in world war ii. i'd like to direct your attention to four images that will appear on the screens in front of you. these are the central focal points of the memorial represented by the two dominant sculptural elements in the memorial, monumental, heroic-sized stone blocks with realistic bas relief images of two of the most famous photographs ever taken of eisenhower. the first image which you see here is a photo taken on the eve of d-day, when general eisenhower went to speak to the 101st airborne, believing that the division will incur severe and heavy casualties on the following day. president eisenhower then later chose to send the 101st airborne to little rock, arkansas, to enforce the desegregation of schools. the second stone bas relief image, which you see here comes from a portrait taken by yusef

karsch called the elder statesman, which shows president eisenhower with his hand on the globe. this represents his position as the most international of all o presidents and how he presided over at sethe assent of the uni states. these are the leading contenders, not necessarily the final selections made by the 12-member commission and must be approved by the commission of fine arts and the national planning commission. in the center on or near a lower wall will stand the eisenhower sculpture which you see here. in a small circle, not sure you can see that. we will attempt to point it out right -- the screen doesn't pick it up. i apologize for that. this sculpture is yet to be determined in terms of eisenhower's depiction and age. frank gary addresses this in his letter for the record to the chairman and the ranking member. it has never been a barefoot

boy. that term comes from eisenhower's own words in his homecoming speech in kansas in 1945 when he began the speech with this sentence and i quote, because no man is really a man who is lost out of himself all of the boy. i want to speak first of the dreams of a barefoot boy, end of quote. the designer's vision is that a young eisenhower will be looking out at what he is to become a great general and a great president. these monumental heroic sized images of general and president eisenhower in eisenhower square will be framed as you see here by three transparent, 65-foot-tall, stainless steel tapestries depicting a great plains landscape of kansas. artistically rendered as you see here. this will be the only national presidential memorial placed in a very difficult urban park setting, but this is a superb site, surrounded by institutions directly related to eisenhower's

presidency and will be directly accessible to millions of visitors. how did we get here? as the former professor and head of the department of history at united states air force academy, i have come to believe that over the 11 years the commission has been working on this memorial at the public interest and support for the memorialization that the commission has enjoyed is based on the increasing public and professional knowledge of the depth, breadth and diversity of the eisenhower legacy. my personal interest and professional involvement with the eisenhower legacy go back to my service in the united states air force. from the beginning of the commission's work in 2001, we have been directly involved with the best possible expertise on eisenhower, such as the scholars, johns hopkins university, who carried out the publication of 21 volumes of papers of eisenhower. one of those editors, is with us today. my colleagues and i are a small staff of eight people. we partner with general services

administration to accomplish much of our work. from the beginning we have been transparent, public and legally bound by federal law. in the design process over the past two years we have been the subject of 23 public review meetings, listed in my statement for the record, open to all constituent seicies and members the public. we've incorporated a wide range of design discussions. this meeting will be number 24 over the past two years, averaging once a month. this careful, process has been under way for each phase of our work. a matter you can judge for yourself, by reading the online version of the minutes of our 15 commission meeting that we have held. how are we funded? when the commission began its work, it was -- >> general, can i ask you to quickly sum up here. your red light is showing. for a while. >> we have benefited from the eisenhower family participation

in our 15 commission meetings over the years. especially from david eisenhower's as commissioner for more than ten. his family insights, scholarly, historical knowledge and contributions to the evolving design process were important. since david resigned his position as commissioner in december, 2011, one of our commissioners from kansas senator, senator pat roberts as a member of the executive committee has engaged in conversations with susan and ann eisenhower to help ensure complete understanding of their views and to explore creative ways to respond positively to their concerns. we support, senator and congressman boswell member of the executive committee. may i close? by complimenting you on bringing attention to something important for our country, visit some important roots. general and president eisenhower was important to our transition. now at the beginning of the 21st

century we are asking how do we remain true to our self and founding promises to secure liberty and freedom for all. the proposed national eisenhower memorial should be part of the answer for all the young and the old who will visit the site. thank you. >> thank you. next turn to the director of the national civic arts so sigh teed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> ranking member, members of the subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, my name is howard segermark, i am not an architect or artist the i worked on capitol hill here for a staffer, staffer for both republican and democratic members. i am a founder and past chairman of the national civic arts society. ncas, a nonprofit organization, dedicated to education, about classical and traditional architecture and art. those traditions, that the founding fathers, believed embodied the principles of a democratic republic. want to thank the board and

members of the ncs for research and advice on the testimony and our current chairman, and our secretary, mr. chairman, our monuments are of central importance to our national identity and historical memory. controversy is nothing new in the history of presidential memorials. indeed it is, embroiled, virtually every single one. to mention most recent example, it took three separate competitions, to settle on a final design for the fdr memorial. in the first instance the design was rejected. because the the roosevelt family objected to it. but why is this particular memorial controversy occurring, only now? relatively late in the planning process. the reason is simple. the entire process, has flown under the radar, with little public and, as little congressional attention as possible. edward finer, former chief architect for the general services administration who was involved in the eisenhower memorial design guidelines said

"it's amazing what you can do when no one is looking. we began to look. and the more we dug, the more wewe we unearthed findings. i can mention a few. i encourage the subcommittee to follow up on some of the matters. designer selection process. according to the minutes of the first meeting of the eisenhower memorial commission. all the way back in 2001, the chairman, specifically mentioned frank gary as the sort of architect the commission should consider. minutes from the 2006 meeting state, chairman ciciliano mentioned a discussion several years ago with frank gary who indicated an interest in a possible design of the eisenhower memorial. he also had had a professional relationship with gary on at least three prior occasions. it appears that in 2008, the commission designated, its executive architect, as its agent to oversee and direct the

competition design competition. he chose to run the competition under the guidelines of gsas design excellence program. a program never intended to be used for memorial competitions. it basically limits the candidates in this instance, to only 44 hand picked firms. the use of the design excellence program for the eisenhower memorial made it impossible to see unknown, untested talent. such as the the designer of the vietnam veterans memorial. in the 90s, it nishl cthe initi competition for world war ii memorial was run, and there was a public outcry about the design and it was changed. adding to our concerns, when the eisenhower commission recently released the minutes from its meetings it did not publish the minutes from meetings in 2008 frngts at which the competition was discussed. stranger still does not appear to be a quorum at crucial meetings.

what is in the missing minutes? why has the commission never released the materials submitted by competition entrants? the commission's competition cost $2 million and resulted in a colossal design that is now estimated to cost $119 million. a net cost doesn't include the unusually expensive maintenance that the steel screens will require forever. assuming the new technology actually lasts. indeed, projected maintenance costs have not been released if they have been calculated. in the spring of 2011, the national civic arts society with the institute for classical art, held an eisenhower counter competition open to all to suggest what a traditional, di night tie edi -- alternative may look like. we received 40 entries. we announced the astronomical first prize, $1,000, and $500 for the runner up.