these propos they're harmonious with the plan of the city. their estimated costs are far more reasonable. the gsa has a reputation of protecting the taxpayer. and the park service has a history of maintaining our national heritage. on occasion, circumstances can conspire to produce a real mess. congress can act to clean it up. eisenhower deserves it. one remedy is simple. a new competition. one that is open to an unknown architect from, say, abilene as to a starchitect from los angeles. i stand ready to answer any questions. thank you. >> next, mr. cook, president of the national monuments foundation. once again. for five minutes. the timer is there. we are ready to hear your testimony. >> chairman, bishop, i am honored to be here to share with

you my opinions based on 30 years of experience within the traditional architecture world. the creation of self-sustaining destination landmarks of national historical and aesthetic relevance with interactive technology inned or tire teach younger americans in their language. we make history cool. we are among the few private organizations that design, build, own, operate, and maintain sieve uk assets. we are headquartered in the millennium gate, georgia history museum, 100 foot tall arch. this $21 million ensemble in a four-acre lake side park in atlanta surrounded by sculpture and a high tech theater. you may have six millennium gates for the cost of one gary memorial on similar sized sites. i was asked by the national civic art society to judge the alternative competition for the memorial. i declined their invitation indicating that i thought it my patriot uk do tic duty to enter.

and did so with michael frank. having studied mr. gary's design it was my conclusion he has a distinctive unease with greatness, is afraid to leave something out and succumbs to narrative literalism. as williams college appropriate fessor says, great monuments are simple, lucid and says one thing, we honor, we endure, we celebrate, we grieve. i would like to disclose that i am a board member of the institute of classical architecture, and art, co-sponsor of the alternative competition. michael frank and i were among the winners. as a result of this issue should there be another competition, i will not enter it. in a city that is overflowing with green skacapes and parks ts provide one of the most important urban circumstances to provide washington her principal civic square as called for by the mcmill an plan. a theater for the automobile, which is how mr. gary describes his design will continue the

ex-dufs inhabitants as soon as they're allowed to leave their work places. a d the fundamental zoeng code zon. no subsequent zoning plan put forth by any other agency has ever replaced them. the gary plan having gone through the gsa design excellence program, has attempted to compromise this rule. the memorial commission and gary intend to redefine what it means to build a memorial, far exceeding the congressional mandate to build one to honor eisenhower's accomplishments. to me this new literalism is the most important part in this hearing. we have an accepted rule. and either we stick to it or we throw it out. if you go this new direction, we might as well tear down the lincoln memorial and put a log cabin there. monuments should be built from materials that last for centuries. mr. gary does not typically

respect this type of ma tefrment tefrment -- material. the gigantic fence is promoted as larger than the hollywood sign. acid rain, bird droppings and air quality will disintegrate this feature and likely cause security issues for pedestrians below. the only positive thing i can say about it is that most likely very few people would go there. and so there is less chance that a piece of kansas would fall on some one's head. trash collects in public spaces. the wind blows and visitors are careless. gusts will blow, standard city trash, all over the 600-foot long fence. we have to clean our millennium gate park every day. and the cost to clean this simple place is expensive. the cost to clean the gary, enormous structure every day will be more expensive. though eisenhower belongs to all of us, he truly belongs to the

eisenhower family. and their opposition must be onored. family have continued to serve our country. and we owe them respect, as much for that service, as we do for their heritage. i end with a paraphrase of the general's letter operation overlord was unsuccessful. our landings have failed. the troops, the air, and the navy, did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. if any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone. this is the character of the man we are attempting to honor. we must get this right. the current design is magnificent anti-heroism. please call for a new and open competition. >> thank you, mr. cook. our final testimony will be given my the past chairman of the neh. if you can pull the microphone

right to you. and make it easier to hear. >> thank you very much, chairman bishop, ranking member, members of the committee thank you for asking me to testify today. i am a senior fellow at the hudson institute and on the board of advisers of the national civic arts society. but this morning i speak only as a concerned citizen. my comments are based on my long experience as an academic artist, historian, university professor, and author of 14 books on the history of art. i will also draw on my seven years service as chairman of the national endowment for the humanities, where my principal 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 its if these young people that i think when contemplating mr. gary's plan for the pro posed 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 a great evil, and his 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 crawing at that time. but what about our rising generations? who lack this firsthand historical 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 tass tick of a task of any monument. this is summarized in the 1999 law passed by congress ordering that, quote, an appropriate memorial to dwight d. eisenhower to perpetuate his memory and

contributions to the united states. unquote. such a monument should therefore memorialize and educate. in the execution of these tasks, the gary proposal not only fails, but fails utterly. i say this for many reasons. the unifying narrative, story if you will is 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, proportions, materials and sizes. there are enormous pillars, misnamed columns, actually columns support something that have a capital at the top. these don't. they are trees and aluminum mesh tapestries.

tapestries despite mr. gary's claim are not usually an integral part of the history of monument. these look more like chainling fences. and there are inscriptions and too large photo murals all strewn about in a very large space. the result is that the whole is less than the u.s. its parts. compounding the problem is the enormity of the planned space. few, if any of the most successful monuments in the history of art are this grandio grandiose, especially in our democratic republic where our presidents, some of who do not have mep momorials are seen as citizens not super humans. two good examples, the jefferson and lincoln memorials. but the present scheme for the four-acre site of the eisenhower memorial filled with such disparate elements will create

diffusion and confusion of message. and if realized will resemble an amusement park, rather than a memorial. more over, like an amusement park there is no overall narrative, no sequential story. and no central focus to guide visitors. particularly the many who will arrive with limited, or no knowledge of president eisenhower. the pro posed profusion of digital interactive displays will be costly. difficult to maintain. and fragile. this so-called -- e-memorial, unquote, is no substitute for compelling, coherent, 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 the input of the public, and seek a

plan with a coherent and meaningful message, comprehendible to visitors for centuries to come. i believe in these hard economic times, something that costs upwards of the taxpayers, upwards of $100 million is -- has no justification. instead, i would seek a much more modest, less ostentatious and more sustainable solution. my only recommendation for 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 the staff, the committee, the committee may have of you if you would be kind enough to respond to those. after this meeting, at your own leisure, i would appreciate

that. we will turn to questions from the panel for this group. do you have questions? >> enthusiastic, mr. chairman. let me begin. did the eisenhower project deviate from, from the process, the memorial process that's in place? >> no, sir. it has followed that process pretty much to the letter. >> okay. and the question -- general, if i may, i understand you're still in the final stages of that design process? >> ak sthactually in the latters of the design process. the desoon pign process has bee going on for two years. >> that is 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 are in the preliminary --

last stages of the preliminary design approval process. >> how is -- how is that being worked out with concerned parties at this point? >> well, as i noted earlier, we have gone through a series of public meetings, which have been open to the public and we have incorporated imputs as we received them along the way. we ask for a delay in our appearance before the national capital planning commission in order to give us more time to listen to the public, particularly have the views of the family in a more complete form. >> and we have heard -- heard from some of the witnesses. a 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 be a cost in bothnd in money. i'm -- i would be happy to come back to you with more specific information. but we would be probably talking about another minimal of two years and costs 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, $16 million sum of money. i would anticipate that that cost would approximate that. >> same question, what's gsas 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. and, during the construction process we will be supporting them there as well. >> thank you. awe thank you for being here today. if you could quickly -- explain to me what your organization's concept for the memorial is. and specifically, did other than the alternative competition, which your organization sponsored, did the organization proper have a submuission to th eisenhower competition that was going on from the commission? >> good question, sir. in fact, those that were entitled to submit something to the, to the commission, were hand picked by the gsa. so, an unknown organization, by

the way, we are not an o. of architects, an unknown architect could not have provided a submission under the rules. it wasn't an open competition. our -- the designs that were submit i'd think as i mentioned, show that there are alternative and great ones available. i am not saying that any of those submissions should have been adopted. but i think you would -- agree with me that those look and are more understandable than, than the gary proposal. >> okay. going back to you, who could apply for the competition given the comments? >> to characterize this as a closed competition really is incorrect. 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 xhcommission to go in that direction. any architect could apply for that opportunity. it is somewhat self-correcting in the most qualified firms are the ones that apply for something like that. we did get 44 submissions the we evaluated the submissions and short listed them done to seven. then ultimate low 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, what idea were, were being prosed by the short listed firms. and helped make the final selection. >> one last question -- my curiosity, you were a judge in the alternative competition that the art society hosted. were all the designs that were in that competition of -- of classical architecture? >> not all. >> i was not a judge.

i was asked to beep a judge. i declined being a judge. because i thought they needed as many entries as possible. i was among the winners. so, there were a number -- there were a number -- of -- of designs 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. >> okay. yield. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. kildee do you have any questions? >> no question. apologize being late. i was at another subcommittee meeting the i know congress does not have a great deal of expertise in matters look this. but we, recognizing that, we do have people who have knowledge of things. we have set up a process to make sure that what we do there, monuments on the mall are done

correctly. and we have never relinquish our authority on that. we have always had problems. i was here when the vietnam memorial was designed and constructed. we appreciate having a process. at the same time, we -- we have not relinquished our authority in this area too and our input on this. i want to thank you for all the work all of you have done. these things are not -- always without controversy. and aced and what should be shown about a person or an era, always going to involve controversy. i do appreciate all the work that you have done in your various responsibilities. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. kildee. do you have questions?

>> jumping into the middle of a controversy is not a good place for us to be. but, there appears to be a process under way that is an iterative process. mrs. eisenhower, you indicated that you have add a meeting with mr. gary and you were looking forward to another meeting. from the witnesses it appears as though there is an ongoing process to reach a final design and that a final design is not yet been developed. is that correct? i guess, the commission executive officer? >> the submission of a final design proposal has not been made. that is correct. >> so, there is still a process under way to develop that final design and then the -- the engineering drawings, construction and so forth beyond

that. so i'm -- some have suggested starting all over. it seems to me that's not like low to be the path taken. but rather a path that would, using the existing gary design or concepts, modify to address the concerns that may exist would be a more productive path. and once again, if any of you would loike to comment on that. i would be happy to hear from you. including the eisenhower family if they would care to. it seems that we ought to be working toward a refining of where we are rather than starting all over. i suspect starting all over is another ten year process. so anybody would loike to commet here. >> i would luke ike to. my foundation does competitions all the time.

we have built numbers of monuments and could organize a competition for something look this in six months. >> you want to start all over? >> i think as i had said in my testimony that -- mr. gary does not speak the language that the public and the eisenhower family can read. >> thank you, thank you. i am going to cut you off. my question was pretty specific. start all over. or work with designs. i think, susan eisenhower would look to make a comment. >> congressman, there is a marvelous exhibition on at the moment at the national building museum. it's called unbuilt washington. and it opened in november it is 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. it turns out, actually, i called the, the curator of that exhibition and asked how many major memorials in this town have ever been built from the

first design? and he scratched his head a bit. maybe, others at the table will have a thought on this too. but he said he thought probably only the vietnam veterans memorial, and had produced a rather broad concept. but if that's the case, i mean, think of the, fdr memorial. it wasn't just three redesigns it was three plus designs before they got to a final, final plan. and 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. that is dump where we are with gary and starred over. or work with gary and continue forward. those are the like to present. do you have a view. working with gary or dumb p it d

move on. >> we are planning to see him again. he is a ware of our concerns. he is a ware of the substance of my testimony today. i think it is a very important stop to make. not only to talk to mr. gary about what might be possible, but far more important to make sure that this process is done u in a respectful, courteous way. >> i would look to affirm mr. gary's availability. he has gone out of his way with many projects around the world making himself available. he continues to be in that mode. if you look at his letter for the record it expresses that view in writing.he h submitted. i would look to make one other 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, joined our commission. at one point, some one said we are taking a lot of time here. and 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. and 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, and of course, senator stevens felt that way as well. delay is not always your friend. in this case they have looked at me look i am a spring chicken and told me to get on with it. >> thank you very much. >> chairman, i think -- >> do you have other rounds of questions? that you want to ask?

then, if this is your last question, we'll ask ms. eisenhower to come up and answer that. if you have more questions in mind then wait. >> okay. >> would you just state, mrs. eisenhower, would you please answer his question now that you are there at the table. >> is this working? i would look ike to answer two questions. the general said frank gary made himself available to us quite a few times. i would look to pound out for the record each time we have been approached about this we have been given one week's notice to get all four grandchildren together to california or in the case of the other two defaulting to our judgment, the two tough us. and we also have very busy schedules. i would look to answer the question that was put to the table that i don't believe was properly answered. the question is there anything salvageable from the gary

design? the question -- at least in our mind, the family's mind, the biggest problem is probably not only the narrative, which we feel is incorrect, but from a sheer design point of view, the screens, if you remove the screens, which mr. gary is not willing to do. you don't have much left, you have a little boy on a ledge looking at two bass reliefs. simply the narrative is not correct. from a physical point of view, if you take away the screens, the design is gone. i think that answers the question. >> thank you, mrs. eisenhower. >> let me ask you, let me start. we'll try to go through as many of these as we have time for. does the department have an estimated annual cost to main taint mmain -- maintain the memorial? >> no we do not.

we have expect further information on testing they will do on the mesh panels. >> when do you assume you will have a ballpark figure for us? >> i don't know, sir. i cap get back to you. >> a lot of has been said about the processes here, i think the design process is going traditionally, certainly the selection process was different as you had in your word, the stream mrin pline process that with the short list of firms before you opened it up. can you tell me why you asked for portfolio from the firms and not actual designs as is normally done? >> the selection process is a qualifications based selection process, based on the brooks act, to select architects and designers. so it requires that we ask for qualifications, first, and we then had a -- design vision, with the short listed firms. >> from the short list only? >> yecorrect. >> can you tell me if the fee for mr. gary, as a percent of the overall project is in line

with fees for other monuments. >> it is. >> can you tell me roughly, not necessarily a dollar amount? >> it is roughly 10%. and is made up of a number of different things unclueding the testing that is going on right now. >> are you aware of how much money from fiscal year 2012, appropriation, 2012 appropriation has been spent? >> i do not know that. >> do you have any idea what the obligations from existing contract would be if they were canceled? >> right now we have, with the architect about $9,800,000, of contracted work. they have spent about $7.2 million. >> thank you. >> general, if i could ask you a couple questions. an important principle of the work act is consensus. with concerns raised especially by the family can this committee conclude there is any consensus around this design? >> the input that we have been