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.

You say we are going back to the original. I want to know, does that include that? I really have no idea.

OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT LOCATION

Let me get on to Mr. White. Since we had Governor Peterson here this morning, I would like to ask a question regarding the location of the Office of Technology Assessment. The preliminary master plan for Capitol Hill stipulated that Congress should not go east of 2nd Street, is that correct?

Mr. WHITE. The preliminary indicates that, that is right.

Mr. MICHEL. Yet because of space needs, the Office of Technology Assessment is renting most of a large building at 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Southeast.

My question is, will the final master plan, which is due later this year I understand, in August

Mr. WHITE. Yes, it will. It will show where space can be provided in an appropriate way from the planning standpoint. The concept of not going east of 2nd Street, of course, had to do with permanent structures. The leasing of temporary space was not really contemplated as a restriction.

In terms of master planning, as you know, it is really a growth management process, and it tells you what the physical effects will be of growth, and perhaps that then affects the means by which you decide to grow or not to grow since you can see the consequences of it in terms of environmental impact, in terms of transportation impact, the socio-economic impact on the neighborhood to the east, and all of these kinds of things.

POTENTIAL FOR RENTAL SPACE PRESSURE

Mr. MICHEL. You say the master plan is still being lived up to in spirit, I guess, if we just go beyond Second Street and rent space. Then that raises with me the question, will we be creating a tremendous economic pressure for rental office buildings in that residential neighborhood?

Mr. WHITE. This is a policy judgment, of course, on the part of the Congress. It either has to build space or lease it, if space is needed. Of course, if it does not build, and it should not lease beyond Second Street, then it will have to lease someplace else. I presume that certain activities, like the Office of Technology Assessment, would be less than convenient if they were located at 16th and K, for example.

I presume that is the reason for locating nearby, so that there is geographical proximity and therefore convenience for travel and personal contact.

PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL SITE

Mr. MICHEL. Mr. White, what gives now with respect to that property down there where old Providence Hospital has been leveled? What are we going to do with that?

Mr. WHITE. As you know, some funds were provided for the regrading of it.

Mr. MICHEL. Right.

Mr. WHITE. And in accordance with legislation, it will be turned into a green park area on an interim basis, until such time as the

35-533 - 79 56 (Pt. 2)

Congress decides what to do with it. Again, that is part of the master plan which will make a recommendation as to what should be done with it. At the moment it is felt not to be a desirable location for a major building of some kind, not only because of the surrounding neighborhood-

Mr. MICHEL. Was there not some discussion of a parking lot? Mr. WHITE. There was some discussion of a parking lot on the part of the Congress. I think the people living in the area did not consider that a very desirable use.

Mr. MICHEL. When you say a level and green area, how extensively are we talking about that? You can either seed that to grass or you can put in walkways, foundations and all kinds of things. Mr. WHITE. It is a minimal kind of thing. We have a drawing here to show the plan. It is basically going to be in grass, a few trees and shrubs, again on the basis that something ultimately will be done to it rather than leave it vacant.

ADEQUACY OF FUNDING

Mr. MICHEL. And how much money do we have in this year's request for implementing that? I guess we supplied you what, $375,000 in the supplemental?

Mr. WHITE. That is correct.

Mr. MICHEL. Is that amount sufficient to do what seems to be represented here on the chart?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, as a matter of fact we have had the fortuitous circumstance of having the bids come in for considerably less than we had anticipated, so that up to now we have only spent $219,000. I think it will more than cover us, and we will have some funds left over which can be returned to the Treasury or reprogrammed. Mr. MICHEL. Whose responsibility, after we once get a few trees and grass and paths, is it to maintain that?

Mr. WHITE. That becomes a part of the Capitol Grounds responsibility to maintain, since it is Capitol Grounds by law. Therefore, we have a request for some additional help in our annual recurring maintenance costs for the Capitol Grounds, to cover the people who will have to go there and mow the lawn.

Mr. MICHEL. Besides mowing the lawn, there is shrubbery and trees.

Mr. WHITE. We will provide the shrubbery and trees from our own nursery, so we will not have to buy that.

As you say, it is not only mowing lawns. If something dies over the winter, we have to replace it, but that is part of our regular ongoing activity.

Mr. BENJAMIN. What is in the middle?

CROSSWALKS

Mr. PINCUS. Just paving.

Mr. BENJAMIN. How big is the center?

Mr. PINCUS. The center is around 16 feet in diameter. Basically it is a diagonal cross-walk design.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Is there going to be lighting in it?

Mr. PINCUS. No other than the lighting in the perimeter around the neighborhood.

Mr. MICHEL. There are no benches provided for sitting like at Lincoln Park?

Mr. WHITE. We have not planned that at the moment. We could easily do that if it looked desirable.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I do not think he was suggesting that.

Mr. MICHEL. I just wanted to know what that initial amount was buying us there or getting us, or if you had exceeded your original estimates.

Mr. WHITE. No, we have been very fortunate in this particular instance and we hope our fortune will continue.

Mr. BENJAMIN. That includes the paving in the estimate you gave us?

Mr. PINCUS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BENJAMIN. That is total cost?

Mr. PINCUS. Yes, sir.

SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION

Mr. BENJAMIN. Completion date?

Mr. WHITE. It is now at this stage of leveling, as indicated by the photograph and as soon as the warm weather comes along, we can complete it. It will probably take until a couple of months from now. We have to depend on the weather at this point.

Mr. PINCUS. There is topsoil on the lot now.

Mr. WHITE. It is ready, in other words, for planting.

Mr. MICHEL. On the question of grounds around the Capitol and those persons responsible for keeping up the maintenance, how many people are detailed to that?

Mr. PINCUS. There are 80 employees.

Mr. MICHEL. How many?

Mr. PINCUS. 80 employees, which includes a plumbing crew, a trash-hauling crew, tree surgeons, gardeners and laborers. There are approximately 26 gardeners that maintain the Capitol grounds.

SNOW REMOVAL

Mr. MICHEL. How about when we had this snow removal, who does that?

Mr. PINCUS. Capitol Grounds crew.

Mr. MICHEL. That is the Capitol Grounds?

Mr. PINCUS. The Capitol Grounds crew in supplement with the snow removal contract. We have a snow removal contract that goes to bid every year.

Mr. BENJAMIN. How much is the snow removal contract?

Mr. WHITE. It is a contract for so much an hour once we ask for them. We do not have a contract to pay them money if their services are not requested.

Mr. BENJAMIN. It did snow though.

Mr. WHITE. It did.

Mr. BENJAMIN. How much is it going to amount to?

Mr. WHITE. We are going to be asking for additional funds in the supplemental.

Mr. PINCUS. For removal of the two snows that we had, the contract ran approximately $24,000.