« PreviousContinue »
Deputy Chief Trollinger and Richard Brandon of the Architect's Staff have consulted in this matter, and since work on the 1980 FY Budget is underway, I respectfully request that every consideration be given to requesting that the Architect include in his budget a request for funds for these nine additional x-ray units.
LANGUAGE CHANGE REQUIREMENT Mr. BENJAMIN. You are also requiring a language change and we may as well get into that at this point.
Mr. WHITE. The language change was because the authorization for the security system was in an appropriations bill, and anything that adds to the security system as such would require, in effect, a language change to increase the authorization as well as just the funding. That is the purpose of this.
Mr. BENJAMIN. The original authorization was $5.772 million. How much will this exceed that authorization by?
Mr. WHITE. The original was $3 million and some, Mr. Chairman, and the present limit is $5.7 million. It was added to over the years as the system was added to.
Mr. BENJAMIN. How much do you want to add?
Mr. WHITE. We would be adding this $893,500, so that on page 5.27 you will see the language which indicates that it is increased by $893,500. In other words, we are increasing it by the amount of this request. If this amount should change, then of course that language would change.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS RESTORATION Mr. BENJAMIN. Explain the $3.5 million for temporary partitions for the main Library of Congress Building. What is the total cost of restoration? Is there a plan? What projections, if any, do you have for the Thomas Jefferson Library Building? Primarily, is there a plan and what are we talking about in total cost, including all the attendant costs that we now learn are associated with any kind of a move?
Mr. WHITE. This project was initiated as a result of what appeared to be a desirable goal, which was to take the opportunity of restoring the main Library Building to its original condition upon 4,000 people moving out and leaving only 500 within the building, or numbers of that order of magnitude in any event.
TEMPORARY PARTITIONS HIDE ARTISTIC FEATURES The building has, over the years, had a great many temporary partitions installed and ceilings dropped and other changes made to it, really destroying the appearance as well as some partial destruction of some of the art work that is in the building, in addition to its original structural and architectural significance. So we reprogrammed some funds several years ago, two years ago I believe it was, in order to make a preliminary study of what would be involved. This request is a result of a report made on the basis of that study.
A UNIQUE NATIONAL TREASURE We are estimating at this point, on a preliminary basis, the amount necessary to bring the building back to its original architectural condition, including repairing the damage that has been made to some highly decorated surfaces—there are various frescoes, mosaics and ornamental plaster in the building. It is a fantastic building, and unique in terms of its decorative art and architec
ture. As such, it is a national treasure, and we think it should be preserved.
PRESENT ESTIMATE OF RESTORATION COST The total amount that appears to be required to do that is in the neighborhood of $20 million. That is our present guess, and the present request is for an amount of money to perform some initial work as well as to prepare drawings and specifications from which a final determination can be made prior to the appropriation of any funds for that purpose. These funds would enable us to prepare the kinds of drawings and specifications which would lend some credibility to that present estimate.
I might say in that regard that that $20 million is based upon the work being done by outside contractors. We think we can probably save $3 or $4 million by doing it in-house. The reason I say that is that this does not include some moneys which will have to be spent for the modernization and upgrading of the life safety characteristics of that building from the fire standpoint.
FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS The Library had a fire protection survey made, which requires the expenditure of a considerable sum of money. We have not finalized on whether we agree with what the report says or not, but it is a number of millions of dollars for that building, something like $4.5 or $5 million.
Mr. BENJAMIN. Is that part of this $20 million?
Mr. WHITE. That is not part of the $20 million, but as I say, I think if we were to try and do it in-house we probably could do both for the $20 million. I say that from our experience on Annex No. 2.
When we provide the information for the record, we are going to provide a comparison on that basis, which we have been recording as the work progresses.
[The information appears on pages 1987-1988.]
Mr. BENJAMIN. You are talking about $20 million, and conceivably you could incorporate about $4.5 million worth of fire safety expenditures, if you agree with the report, which you have?
Mr. WHITE. That is correct; we have not yet reviewed the report in detail.
Mr. BENJAMIN. What about the Thomas Jefferson Building? Mr. WHITE. This particular request does not include any funds for the Thomas Jefferson Building. This is solely for the main building.
Mr. BENJAMIN. But we can visualize that coming down the path?
Mr. White. Maybe. I think it is important to consider the Library's intended use. It turns out that the Library's intended use is very compatible with our desire to restore the building to its condition in 1900. Their proposal is described in these justifications. There may be someone here now from the Library who could speak to that.
[The following additional information was provided for the record:)
The Librarian and his staff have advised that the plans for the Thomas Jefferson Building do not anticipate any uses other than those originally appropriate. The building has been used heavily in the past twenty years and has been overcrowded, but its general condition and planned uses will not require any extensive renovation work. A specific study has been conducted of the life-safety situation in that building (as in the main Library Building) and the consultant's recommendations will require improvements estimated to cost between $5,500,000 and $6,000,000. This amount may change after review of the recommendations. Some funds (up to $500,000) may be required over the next few years for renovation work that has been deferred during the period of heavy usage, and the Library intends to request funds for some new furniture in the existing buildings. The total cost of renovating and restoring the two Library Buildings, including the estimated $11,000,000 for essential life-safety improvements and costs for furnishings, would thus be about $26,000,000.
RESTORATION TO ORIGINAL USE Mr. BENJAMIN. We do have representatives. I do not know if they are prepared to speak to it.
Mr. BERRY. I think we certainly support the request. The Librarian did approach the Architect and asked his support in this endeavor.
I think Mr. White's statement that the intention of both parties are toward a mutual objective of restoring the building to its original use, and it is true that these uses are compatible with what the Library plans for the Library main building.
Mr. BENJAMIN. Does the Library have a master plan?
When you say restore it to its initial use or intended use, I do not think any of us around here are old enough to realize what the original use was. Do we know where you are going in terms of that building, the Thomas Jefferson Building, when you say intended to restore it to its original use.
PUBLIC USE INTENDED Mr. BERRY. I suspect the best way to describe it, Mr. Chairman, is that there were large areas of the building that were originally designed for and used for exhibit purposes, the large public spaces, and these are the first areas in which the Library and the Architect have planned for declarations. These are areas intended for public use. The remaining use of the building at the time it was opened at the turn of the century was largely for public reference reader use, and that is the intention that the Librarian foresees.
Mr. BENJAMIN. We have a combination of the James Madison Memorial Commission and the Library of Congress and we got into this joint venture that is about to open. You apparently had a master plan at that time as to where you wanted to go. At least you worked that out with the Joint Committee on the Library.
Have you done anything in updating that so we know where you are going now?
Mr. BERRY. Yes, sir, I think in broad outline that is one of the tables that we submitted for the record last week.
NEED FOR ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS Mr. BENJAMIN. We would like more than a broad outline. I think one of the reasons for the increase in costs for the James Madison Building is the number of changes ordered. We start talking about changes in Library services in broad terms, as we always do in the Congress, and everybody adds to it. Then, the Architect has been more than accommodating, and as a consequence we just pay more for it.
We would like to see where you are going and we would like the Architect, if he agrees where you are going, to match that up with dollars and cents and a time schedule. I do not think this committee is about to embark on any project just looking at a very small part of the iceberg and let it drift on, as many of these projects have been doing. We just can't. We are not in those times anymore.
Mr. BERRY. If we go back to the time that the Madison Building was proposed, the third building, one of the principal objectives to be achieved by the additional Library building was the return of the main building to its original intended purpose.
VARIANCE OF OBJECTIVES Mr. BENJAMIN. We do not dispute the objective. In fact, I can only speak for myself, we are probably in sympathy with the objective. Our problem is one of practical planning and understanding.
We want to know what you are doing. You may talk "library” language. He may talk of "architectural” language, and when I look at that record of a couple of years back, I cannot ascertain what they were trying to do. So somebody is going to be looking at this, as you come back and start asking for additional money.
I want them to know that we had some insight on what you were going to do and we approved that before we launched into it. So I am asking you to determine what you are planning to do. On both buildings, I do not think it is just the main Library Building. I think you are going to have to look at the Thomas Jefferson Building, also.
We just had testimony from some of your employees through their union representatives that there is a fire hazard there. They also described that as being in the Thomas Jefferson Building.
Mr. White has indicated to us that there is a fire study of at least the main building and I presume probably the entire Library complex.
Mr. BERRY. That is right.
Mr. BENJAMIN. We have not put a dollars and cents figure on that. He indicated it is $4.5 million. We have not squeezed that in anywhere and I think probably first and foremost we had better worry about fires and safety of the employees.
What I am getting to is, we have to have something more than what you are giving us now to go on. Whether it is $3.5 million, or $350,000 or $35,000 to launch this, we are not going to launch anything where anyone can indicate in any way that this subcommittee has given tacit approval without looking down the line as to where we are going.
Let me yield to Bob Michel at this time. Mr. MICHEL. On that point, Mr. Chairman, regarding the original purpose of that Library, I remember when I first came down here to Washington I used to see the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Gutenberg bible, and a few other things down there that are now in the Archives someplace.
in the berg bible, ested to see the ember when"; regarding