PAGENO="0001" NATIONAL VIS!TGR CENTER ACT OF 19~3 (90-il) HEARINGS 13~Q~E TIlE SUBOOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS OP THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETIETH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SEPTR1\IBER 12 AND 13; OCTOBER 11 AND 12, 1967 Printed for the use of the Conunittee on Public Works GOVERNMENT DEPOSIT~ PROPERlY OF RUTGERS, THE STATE U COLLEGE OF SOUTH JERSEY LtBRJ\R1 CAMDEM, N. J.. 08102 0 N0V29196? U.S. GOVERNMENT rRINTING OFFICE 85-894 WASHINGTON : 1967 PAGENO="0002" COMMITTEE ON PUBLIO WORKS GEORGE H. FALLON, Maryland, Chairman JOHN A. BLATNIK, Minnesota ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama JOHN C. KLTJCZYNSKI, Illinois JIM WRIGHT, Texas KENNETH J. GRAY, Illinois FRANK M. CLARK, Fennsylirania ED EDMONDSON, Oklahoma HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California WM. JENNINGS BRYAN DORN, South Caroliaa DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana RAY ROBERTS, Texas ROBERT A. EVERETZ Tennessee RICHARD D. McCARTHY, New York JAMES KEE, West Virginia JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey EDWIN W. EDWARDS, Louisiana JEROME B. WALDIE, California ROBERT B. JONES, Alabama JOHN C. KLUCZYNSI~I, Illinois JOHN A. BLATNIK, MInne~ota. JIM WRIGHT, Texas DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina RAY ROBERTS, Texas JAMES KEE,West Virginia EDWIN W. EDWARDS, Louisiana HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey JEROME R. WALDIE, California WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Florida WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio JAMES R. GROVER, Ja., New York JAMES C. CLEVELAND, New Hampshire DON H. CLAUSEN, California ROBERT C. McEWEN, New York JOHN J. DUNCAN, Tennessee FRED SCHWENGEL, Iowa HENRY C. SCHADEBERG, Wisconsin M. G. (GENE) SNYDER, Kentucky ROBERT V. DENNEY, Nebraska ROGER H. ZION, Indiana JACK H. McDONALD, Michigan JOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT, Arkansas JAMES R~. GROVER, Ja., New York BOBERT~C. McEWEN, New York WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Florida JOH~I J. DUNCAN, Tennessee FRED SCHWENGEL, Iowa HENRY C. SCHADEBERG, Wisconsin ROBERT V. DENNEY, Nebraska JACK H. McDONALD, Michigan JOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT, Arkansas II STEPHEN V. FEELEr, Clerk C0MMRITEE STArS' RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Chief Counsel Josxrn H. BRENNAN, Engineer-Consultant CLIPTON W. ENnELD, Minority Counsel ST~trr ASSISTANTS DOROTHY BEAM, Executive $taff Assistant MERIAM BUCKLEY ERLA S. VOUMANS ANNa KENNEDY RANDAL C, TEAGUE STERLYN B. CARROLL STEI~I~.A 5~'AULDING SuBcoMMirrEn ø~ PUBLIC BuI~nTNGs AND GRouNDS KENNETH J. GRAY, Illiuois, Chairman PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Page H.R. 12603 Testimony of- Annunzio, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois 4 Arata, Clarence A., executive director, Washington Convention and Visitors Bureau 61 Avery, George A., chairman, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission 142 Coon, Charles C., assistant vice president, Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade 51 Coopersmith, Mrs. Esther, member of the National Visitor Center Study Commission, Washington, D.C 242 Dawson, Donald S., Esq., on behalf of 0. Roy Chalk, president, D.C. Transit System, Inc., special counsel; accompanied by Manuel J. Davis, Esq., counsel, D.C. Transit System, Inc 161 Erlenborn, John N., Member of the House of Representatives from the State of Illinois 139 Gude, Hon. Gilbert, a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland 39 Jennings, Lewellyn A., chairman, Federal City Council 48 Jessup, Claude A., president, Eastern Continental Trailways Bus Sys- tem 57 Knott, Lawson B., Jr., Administrator, General Services Administra- tion; accompanied by Loy M. Shipp, Jr., Deputy Assistant Com- missioner for Space Management, and Karel Yasko, Special Assist- ant to Commissioner, Public Buildings Service 7 McKibben, Virgil T., assistant regional manager, Eastern Greyhound Lines 58 Mollison, Brig. Gen. James A., chairman, Public Affairs Committee, Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade 54 Mulligan, M. C., president, Washington Terminal Co 25 Owen, Thornton W., president, Terminal Committee, Inc., Wash- ington, D.C 42,66 Pickle, Hon. J. J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas 16 Powell, William J., Esq., executive vice president and general counsel of the U.S. Visitor Center Founding Corp. and the American Foun- dation for World Trade Studies, Inc.; accompanied by Cameron Hartwell Pulley, chairman of the boards of directors; Dr. Alvin C. Loewer and Warren Sargent, architects; John B. Funk, engineer; and William J. Muth, director of public relations - 100 Prentiss, Maj. Gen. Louis W., chairman, Project Planning Com- mittee, Federal City Council 49 Toohey, William D., chairman, Government Relations Committee, National Association of Travel Organizations 22 Troutman, John, director for plans and programs, National New Career Center, Washington, D.C 244 TJdall, Hon. Stewart L., Secretary of the Interior; accompanied by T. Sutton Jett, Regional Director, Park Service; Robert L. Plavnjck, AlP, urban planning consultant, Washington, D.C.; and Seymour Auerbach, of Cooper & Auerbach, AlA, architects, Washington, D.C 80 III PAGENO="0004" IV CONTENTS Additional information- Page American Motorist, letter and article 274 Brotzman, Hon. Donald G., a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, statement 268 Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, letter.. - - - 273 Capitol Hill Southeast Citizens Association, Inc., letter 273 Doggett, Leonard B., Jr., president, the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade, extended remarks 56 Downtown Progress, letter and summary of study 276 Flynt, Hon. John J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, statement 268 Hodgson, James B., Jr., representative, Hill Restoration Society, etc., testimony 250 Kieppe, Hon. Tom S., a Representative in Congress from the State of North Dakota, statement 65 Letters from Congressmen and Senators: Bartlett, E. L 38 Brown, Garry 36 Dorn, Wm. Jennings Bryan 36 Eilberg, Joshua 38 Ellender, Allen J 38 Findley, Paul 36 Friedel, Samuel N - 37 Gonzalez, Henry B 37 Hathaway, William D 36 Holifield, Chet 37 Kelly, Edna F 38 Percy, Charles H 39 Scott, Hugh 39 Macy, John W., Jr., chairman, U.S. Civil Service Commission, letter - 35 Meridian House Foundation, letter and statement by Philip Lamer Gore, president 271 National Capitol U.S.O., letter and statement of Henry W. Clark, vice president 252 National Industrial Exposition & Transportation Center, Inc., articles of incorporation and certificate 74 National New Career Center Development program, etc 244 Pan American Liaison Committee of Woman's Organizations, Inc., letter 271 Public Law 757, re franchise for D.C. Transit, etc 233 United Service Organizations, Inc., letter and material 256 U.S. Court of Appeals, No. 20975, etc 153, 164, 175 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact, joint resolution 184 Washington Sightseeing Tours, letter 275 Widnall, Hon. William B., a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, statement 40 PAGENO="0005" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1967 HOUSE O~ REPRESENTATIVES, StJBcoMMIrrJ~ ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS OF THE CoMMIrr1~E ON PUBLIC W0EKS, Wa8hington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.rn., in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Kenneth J. Gray (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. GRAY. The Subcommittee on Public Buildkgs and Grounds of the House Committee on Public Works will please come to order. The Chair would like to welcome all of you here this morning and thank you very kindly for coming. We will conduct open hearings starting today and continuing pos- sibly for 3 or 4 days on H.R. 12603, by Mr. Gray of Illinois; H.R. 12686, by Mr. McClory; H.R. 12693, by Mr. Pickle; H.R. 12752, by Mr. Leggett; H.R. 12760, by Mr. Widnall; H.R. 12770, by Mr. An- nunzio; H.R. 12778, by Mr. Matsunaga; H.R. 12784, by Mr. Schwengel and Mr. Mayne; H.R. 12823, by Mr. Eiiberg; H.R. 12825, by Mr. Er- lenborn; ER. 12828, by Mr. Farbstein; H.R. 12831, by Mr. Kleppe; H.R. 12845, by Mr. Heistoski; H.R. 12866, by Mr. Grover; H.R. 12870, by Mr. Rodino; and H.R. 12885, by Mr. Henderson, and several identi~ cal Senate bills introduced by our colleagues in the other body. This act, if enacted, will be known as the National Visitor Center Act of 1967. (H.R. 12603 follows:) [HR. 12603, 90th Cong., Srst sess.] A BILL To supplement the purposes of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 479), by authorizing agreements and leases with respect to certain properties In the DistrIct of Columbia, for the purpose of a national visitor center, and for other purposes Be it enactet~l by the senate oiiui Honse of Representatives of the United E~flate8 of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "National Visitor Center Act of 1967". Sac. 2. The Administrator of the General Services Administration and the Secretary of the Interior, on behalf of the United States, are authorized to negotiate and enter into agreements and leases with the Washington Terminal Company, the owner of the property in the District of Columbia known as Union Station, for the use of portions of such property for a national visitor center and for a parking facility in connection therewith. Sac,. 3. (a) The agreements and leases authorized by section 2 of this Act shall be subject to the following terms and conditions: (1) The Washington Terminal Company shall agree to undertake such alter- ations of the existing Union Station Building as the Secretary of the Interior deems necessary to provide adequate facilities for visitors, but the total cost of such alterations shall not exceed $5,000,000; (2) The lease of the Union Station Building to the United States shall com- mence upon completion of such alterations and shall be for a teym of not more than twenty years; 1 PAGENO="0006" 2 NATIONAL VISITOR C~ENTER ACT OF 1967 (3) The Washington Terminal Company shall undertake the construction of a parking facility, including a vehicular access ramp thereto, to accommodate approximately four thousand vehicles in the airspace immediately northerly of existing Union Station Building, at a total cost not to exceed $11,000,000, which facility, upon completion, shall be leased to the United States for a term of not more than twenty years; (4) The Washington Terminal Company shall construct a new railroad ter- minal in the area immediately northerly of such parking facility; and (5) The aggregate cost to the United States of the leases entered into under this Act may not exceed $2,935,000 annually~ (b) The agreements and leases authorized by section 2 of this Act shall be subject to such other terms and conditions as the Administrator of the General Services Administration and the Secretary of the Interior prescribe. SEC. 4. The Secretary of the Interior shall administer the property leased under this Act in accordance with the statutory authority available to him for the administration of the national park system. Szc. 5. In connection with his responsibilities to administer any areas in the Mall and its vicinity in the District of Columbia which contain points of in- tensive visitation or interest, the Secretary of Interior is directed to utilize the authority in the Act of May 26, 1930 (40 Stat. 382), as amended and supple- mented, to provide transportation of visitors by the United States when the Secretary deems such action advisable to facilitate such visitation and to Insure proper management and protection of such areas, The Secretary is also directed to make provision for such transportation of visitors to the National Visitor Center established pursuant to this Act. SEC. 6. The District of Columbia shall not, during the term of any lease en- tered into by the United States and the Washington Terminal Company pur- suant to this Act, include in the assessed valuation of the leased properties for tax purposes any increase in value by reason of the improvements made on such properties by said company in meeting its obligations under any lease or agree- ment made pursuant to this Act. SEC. 7. (a) In connection with the construction of the parking facility con- templated by this Act, the District of Columbia shall, upon the request of the Administrator of General Services Administration, transfer to the said Admin- istrator any real property under its jurisdiction which may be necessary to pro- vide vehicular access to California Avenue. (b) Any alteration in the existing traffic pattern in Union Station Plaza neces- sitated or made desirable by reason of the parking facility shall be made only after prior consultation with the Architect of the Capitol. SEc. 8. Notwithstanding the execution of any agreement or lease pursuant to this Act, the Secretary of the Interior is directed to make a continuing study of the needs of visitors to the Washington metropolitan area, including therein the necessity and desirability of different or additional visitor centers, and to report to the President who shall submit to the Congress such recommendations as he deems appropriate. SEC. 9. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. Mr. GRAY. The Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds held extensive hearings last year on the need for establishing a Na- tional Vlsitor Center in our Nation's Capital. After hearings, it was the consensus of this committee that a Study Commission should be established to further study the need for a Visitor Center and/or Centers~ and the Congress enacted last year a Public Law settting up a 21 -member Commission to study the need for a Center, inspected sites and other matters relating thereto and report back to Congress. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Vice President, and the President of the United States, combined, appointed a 21- member Commission. This Commission is composed of: The Secretary of the Interior, Hon. Stewart Udall, who is Chairman of the full Commission. Hon. Kenneth J. Gray, Democrat, of Illinois, Chairman of the Subcommittee to Select a Site or Sites. PAGENO="0007" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 3 Senator Joseph Tydings, of Maryland, Chairman of the Sub- committee on Parking and Transportation. Hon. `Fred Schwengel, Republican of Iowa, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Information and Materials for the Center. Also on the Commission: Mr. Carlisle H. Humelsine. Rev. Walter E. Fauntroy. Mrs. Jack Coopersmith. Senator Alan Bible, Democrat, of Nevada. Senator Gaylord Nelson, Democrat, of Wisconsin. Senator Hugh Scott, Republican, of Pennsylvania. Senator Strom Thurmond, Republican, of South Carolma. Senator Howard H. Baker, Jr., Republican, of Tennessee. Congressman John C. Kluczynski, Democrat, of Illinois. Congressman J. J. Pickle, Democrat, of Texas. Congressman William C. Cramer, Republican, of Florida. Congressman George V. Hansen, Republican, of Idaho. Hon. Lawson B. Knott, Jr., Administrator of GSA. Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Secretary of Smithsonian. Mrs. James Rowe, Jr., National Capital Planning Commission. Mr. William Walton, Fine Arts Commission. This 21-member Commission held extensive meetings throughout the city, including on-the-site inspections of a number of proposed sites for a National Visitor Center. Helping in a big way was the National Park Service and other Government agencies, and we came up with recommendations that will be submitted to Congress in printed form by September 15. I am sorry to say that the printer has not completed the printing of the Commission's recommendations for to- day's hearings, but we do expect those reports by the Commission to be available by the end of this week. We felt that since the need is so great and time is growing short for this legislative session, we would begin the hearings today and, when the printed report is available, we expect departmental wit- nesses, including Mr. Udall, the Secretary of the Interior, to come forward and to give us a detailed report concerning the Commission's recommendations. In order to facilitate the matter, we felt we would start hearings on all of the bills this morning and hear as many wit- nesses as possible, and then have the Secretary of the Interior, who is chairman of the full Commission, wind up the hearings as soon as possible. Briefly, if I may, I would like to state that of all the sites that the Commission inspected, it was the unanimous opinion of the Commis- sion that the now existing Union Station held the best hope for a National Visitor Center, and before we start the hearings I want to call your attention to the map over on the far side of the room. We will be referring to that map in some of the testimony. Briefly, it was proposed by the Commission that we not purchase but enter into a lease arrangement with the Washington Terminal Co. to take over Union Station, with the owners of Union Station providing the $5 million with which to renovate the station to suit the needs for a National Visitor Center, to provide at least $11 million for parking to accommodate a minimum of 4,000 vehicles, and also to construct and own a new train station that would fit in very nicely with the various modes of transportation that will be provided. We hope to have a heli- PAGENO="0008" 4 NATIONAL VIS'IPO~ OENPER ACT 01? 1967 port for s~hèduied helicopter service to N~tiona1, Dulles, and Friend- ship Airports on the roof A station for the subway will also be at Union Station We expect to have a leg off the Center Freeway for sur face transportation By having ample parking elevated over the tracks, we feel we can eliminate a lot of congestion on the streets of Washing ton and be able to accommodate all of the traffic in that area very nicely. The first witness we have this morning is a distinguished colleague of mine from Illinois. I deeply appreciate his coming this morning. He has another meeting. We shall hear from him first. I would like to welcome my good friend and colleague from Illinois, Congressman Frank Annunzio Will you please come forward ~ STATEMENT OP HON PRANK ANNUNZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP ILLINOIS Mr GI~Av We appreciate your consideration in appearing here, Con gressman Annunzio Mr. ANNUNZIO. My name is Frank Annunzio. I represent the Seventh District of Illinois. Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee today, and I should like to commend the distinguished members of this subcommittee, as well as my outstanding colleague from Illinois, lion. Ken Gray, who is chairman of this subcommittee, for the thoughtful consideration you are extending to the problem of a visitor center for the Nation's Capital I want to congratulate Chairman Gray for the wisdom and fore- sight he has exercised in introducing H R 12603, which, if enacted, would provide a National Visitor Center for the District of Columbia I recently introduced H R 12770, which is identical to Chairman Gray's bill, and I appear here today to express my enthusiastic support for a National Visitor Center. The District has been long in need of organized assistance for the millions of visitors who come here each year from all the States of the Union and many countries of the world. Washington, D.C., is the most popular tourist attraction in the United States. This Nation's Capital has become the capital of the free world. Each year, thousands of foreign visitors come here to see our Government at work Each year, hundreds of high school classes save and work to come to Washington for their senior trips There is so much to see in this city that it would take weeks of 12-hour days to see it all. Washington is full of history-from Ford's Theater to the Eternal Flame atop the hill in Arlington. She is a beautiful, wide, and impressive city, with white buildings sparkling in the sun and their flags waving proudly in the breeze. She offers history and cultural events and excitement and inspiration Here, the Go~rernment of the most powerful Nation in the world, and the most free, carries on its daily business under the eyes of its citizens. For many people, both our foreign visitors and our fellow citizens, their trip to Washington is a pilgrimage they will make but once in a lifetime. I am sure that all of us would hope that the visit of each of our guests is a si~iccessful one-an educational, enjoyable, inspirational experience. PAGENO="0009" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 ~apllg The problems t: us who have attel the ( and a need a i~, the use of portions of Union a parking 1~t. Passage of the ~ would be a great forward step guests, and not like strangers. Passage of I[LR. 12603 would mean Station, which is an unusual landma-~1- ing facilities within ~. ~f Capi~ be necessary to distort the I y of the Hill complex. I a new railroad station. Our visitors would be able to begin their stay in Washington with a welcome. They could leave their cars, collect information and make their plans at the beginning of the day, in pleas- ant surroundings and within sight of interested, helpful guides. We need look only as far as Williamsburg, Va., to see how successful a visitor center can be. For many years, in Williamsburg, the Williams- burg Information Center has made trips to that historic Virginia area more meaningful and more enjoyable for millions of visitors. Our Visitor Center here in Washington would do more than offer information and a drinking fountain. Silently, it would say, "We're glad you're here. It's your Capital, and your city, and we hope you have a pleasant stay." The Center can make our visitors guests, not strangers. Financial objections to the development and construction of a Na- tional Visitor Center have been met, and H.R. 12603 offers a com- promise that should alarm no one. Under the provisions of H.R. 12603, $19.5 million will be spent by the Union Station owners with no Federal funds involved in construction or renovation. After im- provements are made, the General Services Administration will lease the building, and a good portion of the lease payments can be recouped from parkin.g fees and the sale of goods and services. Today, there are those who worry about the attitude of youth, about world opinion toward the United States of America, about the lack of patriotism in this country. We have the opportunity to help to make a visit to Washington, D.C., exciting, educational, and inspiring. That's a good place to start an attempt to revitalize national pride. Our Government is the most democratic, most free in the world. Let's allow our visitors to see that. Again, I want to express my appreciation for this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee, and I want to say that I support the ~National Visitor Center Act of 1967. This is a good bill, a strong bill. It presents answers to several problems we shall have to solve in the immediate future and, therefore, it deserves early enactment. Mr. GRAY. Thank you very much, my distinguished cOllengue, for PAGENO="0010" 6 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 that very forthright and enlightening statement We deeply appre ciate your appearance here this morning. Are there any questions? Mr. WRIGHT. May I simply say to our colleague, we are grateful for his coming and being with us and presenting this statement, which is clear cut and persuasive and also very eloquent. We appreciate his being with us. Mr. ANNIXNZIO. Thank you very much. Mr. GRAY. Thank you very much. I should like to call now Mr Lawson B Knott, Jr, the distrn guished Administrator of the General Services Administration, who I understand is accompanied by Mr Loy M Shipp, Jr, Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Space Management of the Public Build ings Service Mr CRAMER Before Administrator Knott testifies, Mr Chairman, as a member of the Study Commission, along with the gentleman from Iowa, he having done more of the work on the Commission, as far as his subcommittee is concerned- Mr. GRAY. You were both very valuable members. Mr. CRAMER. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. 1 appreciate the leadership given to the Study Commission, not only by its Chairman, Secretary tTdall, but also by the distinguished chair- man of this subcommittee, Congressman Gray, who spent tireless and endless hours and efforts to try to pull this thing together and to come up with something that would make sense and be feasi~le in a year when spending cuts are being made in many places, to devise some- thing that could possibly attract the support of the Congress. I want also at this time to express my appreciation to the witnes~, Lawson Knott, for his cooperation. The work of the Commission is one of the most cooperative and productive efforts, accomplished with- in a short period of time, in my experience in Washington. I also would like to express to Mr. Schwengel, my colleague, my appreciation for his effort. Incidentally, he was one of the first, 7 or 8 years ago, to propose a Visitor Center for Washington. Mr. (JRAY. The gentleman is eminently correct. Mr. CRAMER. That, and the cooperation on the Commission on a bipartisan basis, indicates the interest on all side's, for finding a solu- tion to this very perplexing problem of `what to do to provide neces- sary information and services to visitors to the Nation's Capital-the Capital, after all, being representative of the people themselves, and they being entitled properly to `see what is going on here and how Washington operates and thus, I hope, become more interested' in it. The solution presented is a very fine one, and one which makes sense, certainly, to `this Member of the House. It has the valuable aspect of preserving Union, Station `and of providing facilities close to the Capitol and the rest of Washington. It will be fascinating to see the things developed out of this Corn- mission study ~nd which we hope will receive the action of Congress. This is the beginning of an effort to pay proper attention to the needs of visitors in the Nation's Capital. I congratulate the chairman, the other members of the Commission, and, in particular, the witness who Is now before us. Mr. GRAY. Let me again state how glad I am to have had the oppor- tunity to have worked with the distinguished gentleman, the ranking PAGENO="0011" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 7 minority member on the full Committee on Public Works, the gei~le- man from Florida, and also the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Sehweu~ç1. They both have been very helpful along with the other members ôcf the Commission. As you haVe stated so eloquently, this has been à~ bipartisan effort, and we have not had one word of dissent. This has \ been a mutual undertaking to try to solve many very serious prob- lems. The problem of what to do for visitors coming to our Nation's Capital goes back more than 100 years, and it has grown progres- sively worse every year. I am sure, when the full hearings of this Commission are printed later this week and made available, one's imagination will be stag- gered at some of the frustrations the American people and foreign visitors have experienced in coming here. For example, we found in our studies that the average stay in Washington for visitors is less than 2 days, mainly because they can- not find a place to park. They are frustrated on how to go about seeing all of the facilities around Washington. Even in their aver- age 2-day stay, tourists combined spent here last year almost $400 million. You can see what an economic impact this can make on the National Capital, and certainly it would save a lot of our pres- ent Federal payment if we were able properly to accommodate the people so they could stay 4 or 5 or 6 days as they intended when they came. This legislation and the need for a Visitor Center has far-reaching implications, not only economically but because of the image this Nation's Capital should present to this country and the people around the world. I did not want to go into detail because Mr. tTdall will present the full Commission report when it is printed later On this week or sometime next week, but since the gentleman from Florida commented, I want certainly to agree with everything he has said, except where he refers to the gentleman from Illinois now in the chair. With that, we will now recognize the very distinguished Admin- istrator of the General Services Administration, who is a valued member of the 21-member Commission and who was a real inspiration and help the Commission. We now recognize you, Mr. Knott, and thank you very much for coming. Mr. WRIGHT. Perhaps it might be in order at this point to ask unanimous consent to include in the record the statements of any tther Members of the Congress who may not be able to appear in person and testify. Mr. GRAY. Without objection the letters will be inserted later. Mr. GRAY. We will now hear from Mr. Knott. STATEMENT OP HON. LAWSON B. KNOTT, JR., ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY LOY M. SHIPP, JR., DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER POfl SPACE MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE; AND KAREL YASKO, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILD- INGS SERVICE Mr. KNOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As always, `Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear before your sub- committee, particularly today, to discuss I1.R. 12603, a bill to supple- PAGENO="0012" 8 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 ment the purposes of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 479), by authorizing agreements and leases with respect to certain properties in the District of Columbia, for the purpose of a national visitor center, and for other purposes. As you indicated, I have with me Mr. Loy M. Shipp, Jr., Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Space Management of our Public Build- ings Service, who has been looking into the value aspects of the prop- erty in question. Also, I have with me Mr. Karel Yasko, who sat in for me many times in the subcommittee hearings which you chaired. The purpose of the bill is to provide for a National Visitor Center to be located in the present Union Station in Washington, D.C. The objectives of the National Visitor Center for Washington are well outlined in the act (Public Law 89-790) which created the Study Commission of which I am a member. These indicated a Center which would provide information and assistance to visitors and students com- ing to the Nation's Capital, facilitate their enjoyment and apprecia- tion of the many cultural and historical features to be found here, and provide special services to visiting groups and assistance to for- eign visitors, parking and local transportation. Of the several sites investigated and studied for the Center, the Union Station offers the means for implementing such a facility in the short period required for conversion and with no capital outlay by the Government. ~ Among the many features of the Nation's Capital is the plan of the city based on that prepared by Pierre L'IEnfant and developed by others over the years. One of these groups was the McMillan Commis- sion, which in its plan of 1901 indicated the location of a railroad station for Washington which would eliminate the station and tracks which crossed the Mall. By relating the Union Station, which was completed in 1907, to the Capital, it dramatized the ~ rnifica Capital to the visitor who now enters ~ r~ area at over 20 million a year, about 75 1 period of time. By 1970 this number is expecteL lion, and in 1980 over 35 million. While other means of transportation - struction of the Union Station, the locatio an important planning p~ ~ in f~ Ii 1 ~1 iii and infor~ ers who ~ . .~ varied i~Jes of today's transp ion. ~ facilities for 4,000 vehicles to be provided over the tracks and n~ of the present condourse will per- mit many of the 75 percent who arrive by private automobile to store their vehicle during their stay and travel about the city by convenient public transportation. By renioving these automobiles from the city's traffic, one urban problems can be eased. We support the objectives of }T.R. 12603, but believe that it would be more appropriate and effective if the role of GSA in connection with the negotiation and execution of the agreements and leases be consultative rather than as an executive agency. The bill would pro- vide that plans for alterations of the Union Station Building shall be I PAGENO="0013" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER~ ACT O~ 1967 `9 approved by the Secretary of the Interior and `that he shall be ~çle]y responsible for the management of the leased property, including\the offering of transportation services for visitors to and from the cen~ter and points of intensive visitation and interest in the District of Colu~i- bia. It is therefore recommended that references to the Administrato~r of the General Services Administration and the Secretary of the In- terior on lines 5 and 6, page 1, and lines 8 and 9, page 3 of the bill be changed to refer to the Secretary of the Interior after con~ulting with the Administrator of General Services. GSA has undertaken, as a member of the Study Commission, a study of the station building and the proposed site of the parking facilities for the purpose of estimating a fair rental for these prop- erties However, pending a firm agreement as to the location of the proposed new terminal facilities and certain other details, we ques tion whether it is advisable to fix the annual rental limitations as pre- cisely as proposed in the bill. We suggest, alternatively, that the bill be revised to provide that the annual rental may not exceed the fair rental value determined by appraisal and in no event exceed $3 million. Mr. Chairman, this, in brief, is my statement concerning the bill. As you know, we had a relatively short time to comment on the bill. We have furnished the committee with a report which was cleared with the Bureau late yesterday. We hope that will be helpful. In essence, it provides much the same as my statement here. We would be glad to answer any questions or to come back after the full report has been printed and published, as we had hoped would be done before this hearing, and supplement any statements at that time. Mr. GRAY. Thank you, Mr. Knott, for a very fine and concise state- ment. We certainly will consider the suggestions you have made. As I understand your statement, you would rather be on a basis of con- sulting with the Secretary instead of having the authority to enter into agreements as Administrator of GSA. Is that not essentially your request Mr. KNoTT. Yes. Mr. GRAY. You wish to be a consultant to the Secretary of the Interior rather than being a party to the contract. Mr. KNOTT. These matters in the bill are joint enterprises, and I find it difficult to jointly carry out between two agencies the same function. I think it better to vest in the head of one agency the author- ity that this bill would provide. Mr. GRAY. I think you are eminently correct, not only for that reason, but also by virtue of the fact that the Park Service would re- quest in their annual budget request the funds with which to operate the center, If you had joint responsibility for entering into agree- ments, you might have joint responsibility for requesting the funds, and this would be a complicated procedure We certainly will take that into consideration. There is one question I would like to ask concerning the fair rental value. We will have the president of the Washington Terminal Co. here later this morning, but it is our understanding that on the exist- ing facilities they have figured about a 5-percent return on investment and about 6-percent return on the capital they will have to borrow. As General Services Administrator, you, of course, have jurisdiction over the Public Buildings Service which is constructing at the present PAGENO="0014" 10 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 time several hundred million dollars worth of public buildings, and also leasing buildings all over the country for Government use Would you consider this to be a fair return on the railroad's investment, or would you say it is a low or high return? How would you class a 5-percent return on the investment they now hold and 6 percent on the amount of money they want to borrow? Is this a reasonable rate for the Government? Mr. KNOTr. This is difficult to determine. This is one reason that we made the recommendation. As it unfolds, we might very well agree with them. Let me say this in explanation of why we find it difficult to agree at this time. It is not entirely clear from our investigation whether the entire building will be used as a visitor center and whether the ter- minal will be at the lower level or whether the terminal will be a separate buidrng It is also not exactly clear as to where and what ac cess will be provided on the north side for the parking These are de tails that can be developed and may not vastly affect the rental value in any case. I think it would in terms of how much space in the original building is used. To get back to your question as to whether the formula. is one which we would endorse, I may say our biggest difficulty with the formula is that it contemplates that the interest rate of 6 percent will be over the entire period of the lease, which I believe is 20 years, whereas GSA's approach to it would be that the interest would be on the unamortized balance of the investment for each succeeding year. Mr. GRAY. We wanted to try to get for the Congress, and particu- larly this committee, as close an estimate as possible as to what this was going to cost on an annual rental basis. Mr. Mulligan, president of the Washington~Terminal Co., who will appear later, set this down and said that if this money could be bor- rowed fOr less, that saving would be passed on to the Government. I was merely using 6 percent as a reference. Knowing what you are hav- ing to pay generally on leases all over the country, I thought maybe you could give us a comparison as to whether 6 percent is a reasonable amount of return for the investment. Mr. KNOTT. We had attempted to make an appraisal but, as I say, because of the uncertainties of some of these unknowns we were not able to complete, and this is why we suggested a more flexible formula which would base the rental ultimately-you see there are contracts to be worked out and there needs to be some flexibility in executive au- thority that carries this out to take care of unknowns and unforeseen events, with some limitation, of course. Mr. GLtY. Let me, if I may, Mr. Knott, phrase my question a little differently. If you are considering leasing a building worth, let's say, $20,000, some place for Government use, do you not generally figure say 10- percent gross on the investment? In other words, you pay maybe $200 a month for that type of facility. What I am trying to get in the record is what is a fair gross figure for rental. What is the figure-9 percent, 10 percent, 11 percent? Mr. KNOTT. Nine percent is what we try for. This is our general guideline. Mr. GRAY. Nine percent? Mr. KNOTT. Nine percent, yes. PAGENO="0015" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 11 Mr. GRAY. So if we get a lease on the Union Station for 5-percent return, we are getting a good deal by those standards? Mr. KNOTT. It depends again on what it encompasses. Mr. GRAY. I am talking in. generalities. If you figure 9-percent of gross and we could get a 5-percent rate on the existing facility, ~iis would be a fair and reasonable rental? Mr. KNOTT. Right, and our 9 percent assumes full taxation. Mr. GRAY. I realize you cannot comment specifically. I am trying to, get some general figure for the record. You usually figure 9-percent return? Mr. KNOTT. Right. We have a statutory limitation in the Economy Act which provides that we may not exceed 15 percent, but we have never-~--- Mr. GRAY. Gone that high? Mr. KNOTT. Except very unusually. That is 15 percent of the ap- praised fair market value. There again, fair market value you get into it. This is per annum rental. We feel that is a liberal allowance and have no difficulty in staying within that, well within that limitation. Mr. GRAY. It is your feeling that this committee would be acting in the best interests of the Government to put a maximum in but to leave the exact figures up to negotiation between the Secretary and the owners of the Washington Terminal Co.? Mr. KNOTT. I think so. Mr. GRAY. We wanted to get as close as possible on estimates so we would not have another inflated proposition where we come and say we think it is going to be this, and when it is enacted and they come back to the Congress for a request for rental funds we find it is much in excess of what we told the Congress. Mr. KNOTT. I agree it is desirable to do that wherever it is possible. But, if we were in the same position in constructing buildings, with increased building costs these days, I think we would be back before the committee almost every week with changes. So the Public Build- ings Act wisely provides for a 10 percent override over the estimated cost. So there needs to be some kind of flexibility and that is all we are trying to suggest here. Mr. ~ I might say that the figure we are using is $2.9 million and you suggest $3 million as a maximum so our figures are very close. Mr. KNOTT. I just rounded it out at $3 million, that is all. Mr. GRAY. So there is no great area of disagreement here at all? Mr. KNOTT. No. You could use your figure as a limitation. Mr. GRAY. Are there any questions? Mr. ROBERTS. I would just like to compliment the gentleman for his statement and the job he is doing. This is one agency where you can call down and ask for a straight answer, and in a few minutes or a few hours they will call you back and give you the answer to your question, and I appreciate it. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Wright? Mr. WRIGHT. I would like to agree with the comments of Mr. Roberts. I have been impressed with the GSA's responsiveness to Members of Congress. I would like to thank GSA officials for their cooperativeness, their willingness to work with us as always. They have done a thoroughly creditable and workmanlike job in this task, PAGENO="0016" 12 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 and I would like to compliment and commend Mr. Knott for his splendid administration of a very effective agency. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Grover? Mr. GROVER. I would also like to compliment Mr. Knott and say it is very unusual to find a Federal Administrator move to divest him- self of authority. It is somewhat indicative of the very responsible way the gentleman has done his job. You have suggested to amend the bill to provide the determination of fair rental value by appraisal? Mr. KNorr. Yes. Mr. GROVER. Who would make that appraisal? Mr. KNOTT. I would assume this would be made by an independent appraiser employed by the Secretary under contract. GSA could per- form that service for the Secretary. We would have no difficulty in doing that. Mr. GROVER. There was some discussion before of how that fair rental value would be determined. I suppose since this is a very unique situation, including air space and leasing and rebuilding of a new terminal, that you will not find a comparable situation. Mr. KNOTT. Right. It is a difficult appraisal problem because it is a special-purpose facility, but to appraisers there are three techniques employed in the appraisal process and they serve as checks and bal- ances one against the other. One is market data approach. This as- sumes a comparable facility. This assumes two houses alike or some- thing of that kind. You do not have that there, but you do have land that can be valued on a square-foot basis. Then you have a building that you can determine to what extent it contributes to the value of the land or detracts from the value of the land. Here you get into the cost-less-depreciation approach. This again would let you more closely approach the problem here. Cost less depreciation then becomes a factor of appraisal techniques that is more applicable here than market data. The third one is the income approach, ~ business enterprises where income is the where the property itself may have little v~ the income is significantly large. This would have a 1 on t Mr. GROVER. One further question. On the appraisal it would be your recommendation that the spe- cific authority be given to the Secretary to have an independent ap- praiser. Would you advise whether he has that authority, or should it be in the bill? Mr. KNOTT. I think he has that authority, and I have seen many pieces of legislation that do specifically provide that the Secretary shall determine the fair market value by independent contract ap- praisers, or words to that effect. Mr. GROVER. That is all. Mr. GRAY. Let me ask you this, would we be running some risk if we took, let's say, "comparables" as we call them, and found that instead of valuing this property at $19 million or so, they would come back and say the land is worth $30 or $40 million? If we base the legislation solely upon estimated value and the in- dependent appraisers come in and give us a much higher figure, would we not be subjecting ourselves to a higher rental if it is provided in the law we abide by the appraisal? PAGENO="0017" VISITOR CENTER ACT~ or 1967 13 Mr. KNOTT. But you would have a limitation under the language I have suggested-the appraised fair market value. Mr. GRAY. This is for our own benefit and guidance, but I was ad- dressing my remarks to the danger of putting in the legislation that the rental would be contingent upon the appraisal. If we do that we may be getting ourselves into a higher rental. Do you not see that danger if some appraiser comes back and sa~ this property, within two blocks of the Capitol, is worth $30 million and thinks the amount of rental should be based upon that fair market value? Mr. KNOTT. I suggested in my statement the fair market value, but in no event to exceed $3 million. Mr. GRAY. Yes. I am not against the appraisal. I would hope this committee would not write in that we would base our rental strictly upon the appraised value of the property because, if it is more, then we would be subject to paying more. If we put a limitation in as you propose, this would protect us. Mr. KNorr. Yes. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Cramer? Mr. CRAMER. To solve this problem that has just been discussed: would you not also insert before fair market value, "not to exceed the fair market rental value, subject to negotiation," as well as not to ex- ceed $3 million? Mr. KNOTT. I believe that is in my statement, that the bill be revised to provide that the annual rental may not exceed the fair rental value determined by appraisal and in no event exceed $3 million. Mr. CRAMER. I think that answers the question of flexibility. Mr. KNOTT. Right. Mr. CRAMER. Your recommendation is that GSA only be consulted, not to make recommendations or approvals. Is that right? Mr. KNOTT. That is right. Mr. CRAMER. Do you see any problem then with the language on page 4, line 5, relating to the assessed valuation of the leased proper- ties not including for tax purposes, any increase in value by reason of the improvements made on such properties by said company? You think it is a proper function of the Congress to write such language in the bill; is that correct? Mr. KNo'rr. We think they could so legislate; yes. Mr. CRAMER. Section 8 of the bill suggests continuing studies relating to the needs of visitors to the Washington area, including therein the necessity and desirability of different or additional visitor centers, and to report to the President and the President to the Congress. That does not, however, in any way commit the Congress in the future, does it? It means Congress shall consider the matter as it seems fit through future authorizations; is that correct? Mr. KNo~rr. That is right. Mr. CRAMER. It is not a commitment on the part of the Congress to approve additional centers in any way, is it? Mr. KNcvrr. I do not read it as committing them. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Schwengel? Mr. SCUWENGEL. First I want to join in paying tribute to Mr. Knott for appearing here, not only for his statement, which is a very good summary of his studies and thoughts, but for the work that he and his staff along with the Secretary have done in preparation for this hear- 85-894----67-2 PAGENO="0018" 14 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 ing and for the contributions made to th~ full `Commission. You have been a wonderful help and inspiration in this. The Secretary of the Interior, I note, has been a real leader and a real help and has given great inspiration, from the fact he has this feeling himself, to every member of the committee. We should pay him tribute. I would say also that the leadership of Mr. Gray went far beyond the call of duty from the very beginning, and all of the members of the Commission who could not be there had their representatives there, and I thought we had the benefit of your great experience throughout. I think you made a very good contribution. Speaking as an amateur historian momentarily, if I may-I have been accused of this and I accept it especially if you underline the word "amateur"-I want to say this is a great day for me and it ought to be for all of those interested in American history because finally this Nation of ours is concerning itself with a program that is designed for the preservation of the thing we call America. I know of no place in the world where people can learn about free- dom and what freedom has done better than they can learn it here in this complex we call our Capitol. So this is a great `thing we are identi- fied with in this program. We can do this in these times without in- creasing of cost of government in cooperation with what we call free enterprise, which is what we are alining ourselves with in this propo- sition before us. We are building on plans that were early made and evolved through and with free enterprise. This is a good thing to note. Let me call attention to something that was said by a man who ad- dressed a joint session of the Congress, a private citizen who never served in public office, Carl Sandburg, who said, and I paraphrase him, he said, "Whenever a nation forgets its hard beginnings, it is beginning to decay" He concluded that we had some really rough, tough, hard beginnings. With this project we are not forgetting. We are beginning to remind our people of the sacrifices that made this Nation, and this is to the good. Here finally, because of what we are doing, students are going to come and they are going to learn something about the grand design of the place we call our country. They are going to learn to understand its basic philosophy and be better able to build for the future. I say to the members of the committee that, if we want to do some- thing about the un-Americanism so evident in many places in America today, there is no better way or place to do it than right here in Wash- ington with this kind of a project. You show me an extremist in Ameri- ca and I will show you a person who does not understand American philosophy and the American way of life. So we are doing some great and noble things as far as our own people to understand, and more im- portantly for the people of the world who can come here to this country and better understand America. They will appreciate it because before they will leave they will see something of themselves because what we build here was built from the experience of other people. Mr. Chairman, I am going to have a statement later on which will involve some suggestions, but not before I talk to you, Mr. Knott, and they relate to the manner of managing of this headquarters. It is some- PAGENO="0019" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 15 thing we ought to talk about and we ought to have it part of th~e record in this hearing. I thank you for this time. Mr. Gi~r. Thank you again, Mr. Schwengel, I want to reiterate what I said earlier. You were a very valuable member of the Commission and your words are very timely. I am sure when the Congress acts upon this, and I hope favorably, that the things you have been saying for years will finally come to pass concerning the great need for a national visitors' center. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, on page 12, subparagraph 1 of section 3 of the bill: The Washington Terminal Company shall agree to undertake such alterations of the existing Union Station Building as the Secretary of the Interior deems necessary to provide adequate facilities for visitors, but the total cost of such alteration shall not exceed $~ million, Does any other language of the bill in any way permit the Secretary of Interior or obligate through him the U.S. Government to pay for anything that he might "deem necessary" in excess of $5 million? Direct expenditure by the Government, in other words? What is in there is intended to be the total. Does that accomplish that purpose? Mr. KNOTT. I think, certainly, reading this subsection, it is limited to what the Washington Terminal undertakes to do with an upper limita- tion on what it will be obligated to spend in the determination of the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. CRAMER. I wanted to get that as a matter of record. Thank you very much. Mr. GRAY. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Penney. Mr. PENNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the GSA, and I like the language in the bill. I think it is an excellent bill. On page 3, line 6 through 9, I am wondering if the witness could tell us whether or not if we would strike out the part about the Sec- retary of the Interior and GSA negotiating and entering into a lease on page 1 of the bill, section 2, and leave in the part on rage 3, lines 6 through 9, he would like to have GSA prescribe conditions. I think this Congress is turning over to the executive branch a lot of discretion and I want the GSA in there. Along with your recom- mendations of being in a consulting status, would it be all right to leave in lines 6 through 9 on page 3, but strike out the entering and negotiating on page 1? In other words, I would like to have GSA help prescribe the condi- tions of remodeling. Mr. KNOTT. These lines are on page 3 from 6 through 9? Mr. PENNEY. Yes, where it says: The agreements and leases authorized by section 2 of this Act shall be subject to such other terms and conditions as the Administrator of the General Services Administration and the Secretary of the Interior prescribe. Mr. KNOTT. I have no problem with that. Mr. PENNEY. That is all right. You would be willing to have that? Mr. KNOTT. Yes. Mr. PENNEY. I would like to leave that in. I thought from the state- ment you wanted all reference to GSA out of there because you thought one executive branch of the Government should handle the situation. PAGENO="0020" 16 NATIONAL VISITOR. CENTER ACT OF' 1967 Mr. K~o~r. I was thinking primarily, as I am sure you understand, of the administrative problem of fixing responsibility. Mr. DENNEY. I understand that, but your Department has so much experience in setting up rules and regulations and conditions and terms, I would like to have your Department in there, too. I think it will make a better bill. Mr. KN0rr. We will be glad to make our contribution, although we think they are expert in operating concessions. Mr. DENNEY. So it is your recommendation that as far as striking out to get at one executive branch, we strike out GSA in section 2, line 5, and that would primarily take care of your objection? Mr. KNOTr. I believe that is right; yes, sir. Mr. GItAY. Let me say I think this is a very forthright suggestion, and I am sure the subcommittee in executive session will consider it. Are there any other questions? If nc~t, we thank you again very much for coming and for the contribution you have made to this legislation, Mr. Knott. Mr. KNOm Thank you. Mr. GiiAY. I see we now have our very distinguished friend and eel.. league from Texas, Congressman Pickle, in the room. As I stated earlier, Congressman Pickle was very helpful as a member of the Commission, having been appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. At this time, Mr. Pickle, we are delighted to welcome you before the committee and again thank you for your very wonderful work as a member of the Commission. You may proceed in your own way. STATEMENT OP HOI~. J. J~. PICKLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP TEXAS Mr. PICILE. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much and I want to return the compliment, so to speak, and express my appreciation to you and Mr. Cramer and Mr. Schwengel for the great work you have done on this Commission. I have filed with the committee, with your permission, a statement of my position on this measure, which is in support of the bill as I have cosponsored it I would like, however, to make two points in connection with the testimony submitted (Prepared statement of Mr. Pickle follows:) STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN J. ~T. PIcKLE Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning. The subject under consideration is H R 12603 the National Visitor Center Act of 1967. Over almost the past year, I have had the honor to serve on the National Visitor Center Commission established to find solutions to the problems of tourist congestion in the Capitol area I concur in the solution set out In H R 12603 and in fact have co sponsored identical legislation H It 12693 I believe you are au eady familiar with the provisions of this approach and accordingly will not take your time to go over them again My feeling on the bill is that the solution proposed there is the best balance we can strike now between what is most desirable and what is financially and practicably feasible. Still, I would like to take this opportunity to elaborate on some other thoughts I have had on the subject. Ideally, it seems that we should utilize the greatest advantage already exist- ing in the major touiist area the Mall This advantage is the close proximity of PAGENO="0021" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 adequately s lug out as v is the center r be redu ~l ai ~ tour ere a n Mall to the other highlights. I realize there are difficulties involved in this scheme. In a to of construction, it would be much more expensive to the Government. This is the major reason I have supported the Union Station proposal. Still, in seeking a solution to this problem, I believe that the ideal solution must not be confused with the optimum solution; the ideal must not invaribly be sacrificed simply because a cheaper, more convenient alternative presents itself. And it is for this reason that I have taken this time to explain my thoughts on the alternatives facing us. The facility needed most of all, however, is an adequate and appropriate visitors center here in the Capitol ]3uilding itself. Some 50 million visitors an- nually come to the Capitol-and It is embarrassing to have so little conveniences for them. No center, no resting facilities, practically no restaurant capable of handling large groups, few drinking fountains, no parking space, almost no restroom facilities. The West Front of the Capitol i~ closed off, as visitors are stopped on the balcony by a sign: "Dangen-No Visitors Allowed". Mr. Chairman, this Is a deplorable situation. As soon as possible we should provide for adequate facilities in the Capitol. I hope we can utilize the West Front first floor or ground level and construct a beautiful and useful visitors center there-or at least somewhere in the Capitol. Several satellite centers will be needed over the city, but the Capitol ought to be Number One. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the chance to be with you this morning. Mr. PrcKu~. As a practical matter, I think all the Congress would possibly support would be the bill before us. As the chairman well knows, I was one member of the Commission who favored a different approach, and it is my position in these two fields I would like to leave with the committee this morning. Of course, I would have preferred a large visitors' center on the Mall in the neighborhood of 14th, 15th, and 16th just in front of the monument. It seems to me that is the nerve center of the Capital visitors and that is within walking distance of everything except possibly the Lincoln Memorial and the Capitol. I think those two points could be connected underground, by mono- rail or some type of conveyance perhaps we do not know about now, and you could move people back and forth. I am hopeful some day we can have a center like that in that area. It is recommended by some national srchitects who made a con- siderable study on this. Practically speaking, I do not think that the Congress could or would approve that at this point. The second point I would like to leave with the committee is, I am hopeful one of the first emphases to be given by this committee of the Congress would be a visitors' center at the Capitol. To me this is a No. 1 consideration as a Member of the Congress that we ought to pass. PAGENO="0022" 18 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 I spoke out for this 2 years ago, and as a new Member of Congress then I was appalled by the treatment generally received by visitors in the CapitoL I apologize for being late and am sure this was mentioned to the committee, hut surely we do envision ot I icr sa~ ellites throughout the city, and I am hoping the first priority would be given to one in the Capitol itself, perhaps on the west front, but a large effective, ade. quate and appropriate visitors' center in the Capitol ought to be the first consideration that we give. We give our visitors here rather shabby treatment. We more or less leave them to themselves to thrust about. This is deplorable and I am hoping we can address ourselves to that when we have the funds and when conditions permit. Mr. GRAY. Let me state I could not agree with the gentleman more. And commenting on your last statement first, let me say that when the Commission's recommendations are printed and presented to the Con.. gress, I am sure that they will include not only the need for this initial visitor center at Union Station, but also the satellites to which the gen- t]eman has referred. In addition to the Capitol, the Arlington National Cemetery now has in its budget request funds for establishment of a satellite visitors' center at the national cemetery and they will orientate the people as to the individual places to visit and other information about Arlington. If the west front is extended as the gentleman advocates, I am sure this would be an ideal place for a Capitol visitors' center. We certainly do not intend to preclude in this legislation the need to study and es- tablish other visitors' centers. I am glad the gentleman brings up that point because I think it is very important. The gentleman, being the very fair-minded and very outstanding Member that he is, I am sure realizes that this was a compromise con- sidering the very tight budgetary situation where no Federal funds would be involved and if we did go on to the Mall with new construc- tion it would require a very large outlay of Federal funds. I think Congress now is against any large spending for this type of proposal. So all in all, we deeply appreciate the position taken by the gentleman and appreciate his support. and his efforts. rilbis is not. some- thing that just happened. The gentleman spoke to me shortly after coming to Congress about the need for a visitor center and we appre- ciate the great contribution you have made up to this point. Mr. PICKLE. Thank you. Mr. Gii~y. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Wright. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, let me commend my friend and col- league, Mr. Pickle, for his always incisive and original, thoughtful, constructive approach. I suppose most of us who have been here at the Capitol for some time have permitted the comfort of familiarity to blind us to the lack of familiarity which accompanies the. typi- cal visitor t.o our Capitol. It is easy also for Members of Congress to forget, though they should always remember, that this is not our Capi- tol, it belongs to the people. They are entitled to come and see it; it is their property. They are entitled and by all means should have a great feeling of pride and proprietary interest in it. I quite thoroughly agree with the gentleman that it is difficult, for a visitor who has not be.~n here before to find an orientation to know PAGENO="0023" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 19 where things are It is hard frequently for people to find a place to eat Our cafeterias and restaurants are crowded with Congressmen and staffs and our individual guests It is difficult sometimes for a person to find a restroom in the Capitol It strikes me these things really ought to be corrected While this particular bill is not the vehicle by which to correct them, I am glad the gentleman has brought them to our attention because I think we ought to move with some dispatch to get those items corrected And I believe this is a step in the direction of recognizing the responsibility we all hold to the millions of visitors who come to their Nation's Capital. I think the gentleman performed a real service bringing these thoughts to our attention. Mr. ROBERTS. I would agree with the comments of my colleague from Texas; I have worked with the gentleman for a long time. Mr. GROVER. I want to compliment my good friend from Texas. I think he has put his finger right on the pulse of this problem. I, too, have found myself embarrassed having constituents of mine come down from New York to find that very, very willing reception maybe in the Congressman's office, but to find any of the conveniences that one would normally expect just simply not available when you travel these many, many miles to the Nation's Capital. I think perhaps the Congress over a period of years has been short- sighted in this regard. It does indeed leave somewhat of a bad taste with our constituents when they come these many miles to visit here. But the gentleman's discussion was. very frank and very much to the point and I concur with him. Mr. PICKLE. Thank you. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Cramer? Mr. CRAMER. I want to compliment the gentleman for having ren- dered very fine service on the Commission. He appreciates the prob- lem we all have as to what Congress might reasonably do under our present spending problems. I think his testimony is to be commended. Mr. PICKLE. Thank you very much. Practically speaking, that is all we could get. Mr. SCHWENGEL. I want to pay tribute to the gentleman also, and recall to the committee the fact I agree with him on the other question you mention. 1 felt iilso this was not the ideal place to have a visitors' center for the District, but it is a valuable and practical and possible beginning now or very soon. I had much the same experience you did in coming to the conclusion you did that this is a good place to start providing something. I also agree with you about having a place in the Capitol where people can come to get information so somebody can help them to learn and understand. The west front, as I would recall to the mem- bers' attention, calls for the building of an auditorium which would hold up to a thousand people. I can envision a plan where we can provide a place for student groups to come and persons appear before those people briefly, or maybe we can have an intercom field `syst~m where a Congressman can be in his office and be interrupted just briefly to talk to people and make himself avaih~ble to questions by viçleo intercom system that we could provide at very nominal cost, I believe it would be a very valuable arrangement. PAGENO="0024" 20 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 I share `the experience with you on the committee. We have had many private visits about the possibilities for visitors. I know the man's deep feeling ahout this and want to commend him and say it has been an honor to serve with him. Mr. `CRAMER. I am trying to think the thing through as to who will be administering this and who will ha've the say-so on what kind of piograms will be shown, to what extent will they be representative of the executive and legislative and possibly judicial branches of our Federal Government. In reading the bill, I see no provision whatsoever for a contmua- tion of any commission of any kind or any consultative group repre- sentative, in particular, of Congress. I would like to also suggest to the chairman of the subcommittee as to what the thinking is with regard to a continuing voice by Con- gress in the makeup of the program itself. I, for one, voted for this particular Union Station recommendation because we have a facility close enough to the Capitol to be of value to the Congress as well as the executive. Mr. GRAY. I think this is a very important point and it is going to be my suggestion I would say to the gentleman from Florida we set out some guidelines, calling for reports directly to Congress, and par- ticularly this committee would be further consulted on the establish- ment of these satellites. And if the committee were constrained to do so, I would `see no objection in amending the Public Buildings Act to where GSA and the Secretary of the Interior would submit to us a prospectus, as we do on public buildings, for any further authoriza- tions of additional satellites. I might say here at the Capitol the Speaker of the House and the Capitol Buildings Commission would, have the authority for the estab- lishment of adequate `space without any additional legislation. The same thing would apply over in the Senate. And any satellites estab- lished elsewhere of course would require specific authorization. Mr., `CRAMER. I appreciate that response as it relates to additional facilities. What I am concerned about is a continuing voice by Con- gress over how this particular facility is going to be operated. Mr. GRAY. I misunderstood the gentleman. In that connection, I would have no objection to writing a proviso in stating that they should submit annual reports to Congress, and possthly the present 21-member Commission could be maintained for that purpose. Mr. `CRAMER. I think some consideration ought to be given to pro- viding `specifically for a continuing voice by Congress in the operation of the Center. Mr. GRAY. I think that is a very forthright suggestion, and I would certainly entertain an amendment to the bill to that effect. Mr. SCHWENGEL. This is a very good point the gentleman from Flor~ ida brings up, and I think the gentleman from Texas would agree. I have worked out a bill that provides an Information Center and Edu- cation `Center in the Capitol that is before the House Administration Committee. In this bill we include the Members of the Congress from both sides and people who understand history and understand some- thing about the proper interpretation of history to guide the manage- ment of the Information Center. This might be a guideline we put in PAGENO="0025" NATION~AL VISITOIt CENT1~E ACT OF 1967 21 this bi] lie wh t yot nsbu `L~s commL. ~ or L ~ee o ation or final judgement on j i it shoi to have a continuing committee in Congress itself ~ voice in cooperation with people who are authorities in t~ Mr. GRAY. I might say, in that connection, I would not wrong with keeping this 21-man Commission intact as an ~ Commission We could write that in the bill Mr. SCHWENGEL. That would be one very good s Mr. CRAMER. Whatever program is available s~ representative of the executive and legislative and possibly j branches of the Government, and the way to assure that equal repre- sentation would be some sort of an advisory group, perhaps a con- tinuation of the Commission, or maybe a different advisory group. Mr. GRAY. I think that is a very forthright suggestion and I think we should consider writing something in the bill. Mr. PICKLE. May I add my general endorsement to those expressed by Mr. Cramer. I have also been impressed, I might say, with the practical hardnosed, ha~rdheaded approach with which the Depart- ment of Interior and GSA have addressed themselves to this particular proposal. I am confident they will give to the Congress and American people a good leadership. In addition to that, I think it would be well to have an Advisory Commission or continuation of the Commission so that Congress would have a voice, and I certainly concur. Mr. GRAY. Thank you very much. Mr. Johnson of California. Mr. JOHNSON of California. I want to commend Mr. Pickle for his statement here and his work as a member of the Commission. I am glad to see this legislation moving forward. I also agree with the gentleman from Florida that Congress should have a further look after this particular bill is passed and we set up the initial Center, which is very much needed. But if created by Con- gress, Congress is responsible for what they place in it. There should be some oversight, some continuation of the Commission, or an annual report back to the Congress so the Congress could take action if they see fit to. The visitors now coming here certainly need a Center. If created, I think it should be operated as a Visitors Center to benefit the visitors. A lot can take place in a Visitors Center that can affect many people. I think we should see that it is a true Visitors Center. Mr. GRAY. Thank you very much. I might say that we will have a very exciting model of what we propose at Union Station when the Secretary of Interior does testify, we hope later this week or sometime next week. Congress provided only $10,000 last year and the Interior Department engaged the serv- ices of a planner and he has come up with a very exciting model. I hope all of you will be able to see it when presented at the time the Secretary testifies. PAGENO="0026" 22 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 I think it speaks very well for what we propose down at Union Sta- tion. Are there other questions? Again we thank all you. Mr. PICKLE. May I make one other statement? In expressing the hope we have a Visitor Center here in the Capitol, I suggested the west front might be the appropriate place. The appro- priate committee might determine some other location at the Capitol. But whether or not it is on the west front, since this is the Committee of Public Works I hope the committee keeps in mind the very great urgency of doing something about the west front of the Capitol. I think it is personally embarrassing to bring a group of people to the Capitol, approach the west front, and be stopped by a sign that says "Danger-No visitors allowed." This condition has existed for over 2 years. This is unthinkable and surely we ought to reach some kind of agreement between the architects and historians and those interested in seeing visitors and do something about that west front. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Pickle. Our next witness this morning will be Mr. William D. Toohey, chair- man of the Government Relations Committee of the National Associa- tion of Travel Organizations, from Chicago, Ill. Mr. Toohey, will you please come forward? On behalf of the committee we want to welcome you and thank you for coming. You may proceed in your own fashion. STATEMENT OP WILLIAM D. TOOHEY, CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OP TRAVEL ORGANIZATIONS Mr. T00HEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Public Build- ings and Grounds, my name is William D. Toohey~ I am executive vice president of the Tourism Council of Greater Chicago, Civic Center, Chicago, Ill. I submit this statement in my capacity as chairman of the Government Relations Committee of the National Association of Travel Organizations. NATO, as we will refer to our organization, is headquartered at 900 17th Street NW., Washington, D.C. NATO was founded in 1941. To- day NATO represents all components of the U.S. travel industry. Membership in our travel industry trade association includes the State travel offices, the District of `Columbia, the Virgin Islands, the Com- monwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, city and area travel promotion organizations, public carriers, accommodations, travel at- tractions, automobile clubs, petroleum firms, newspapers, magazines, and other businesses having to do with selling and conducting travel and serving the traveler in the United States. The purpose of our association is to increase travel to and within the United States, and this purpose, of course, is accomplished by making all modes of travel within the United States easy, enjoyable, and educational. PAGENO="0027" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 23 To encourage our citizens to travel in thi~ country NATO also whole heartedly supports the "Discover America" campaign NATO Execu- tive Director James C Gross, who is present here this morning, serves as special assistant to Mr Robert E Short, chairman of Discover America, Inc At present NATO is coordinating the staffing and operation of a U S travel information booth in the U S pavilion at Expo 67 At this facility we have gathered materials from each of the States and a staff knowledgeable concerning visitor attractions in the United States. Visitors to the U.S. pavilion can get an introduction to enjoy- able and educational experiences awaiting them in the States. We strongly support a National Visitor Center in the Nation's Capital that would provide orientation to past and present Washing- ton, D.C., and would offer information on the variety and attractive- ness of all our States and possessions. By encouraging visitors from abroad and U.S. citizens to discover all of America, the Visitor Center would contribute to our Nation's economic growth. The travel industry now ranks third in its economic contribution to our Nation, generating over $30 billion annually. In every State travel is one of the top three income producers. The com- bined payrolls of 12 of the Nation's largest companies are equal to only one-half of this country's annual tourist expenditures. The stimulation of travel within this country creates employment for Americans in all levels of our work force. Hundreds of thousands of new jobs for the unskilled and the semiskilled, the very people we are trying to help under other Federal programs, is aided through development of the U.S. travel industry. In addition, a traveler who visits a community pays taxes-sales tax, cigarette tax, gas tax, lodging tax, and entertainment tax, and more tax-and this is almost clear profit to an area because the traveler is not a major tax consumer in the area in which he is visiting. Recognizing the new dollars that travel pours into their States, State travel director members of NATO are anxious to make known their States' special appeal that facilities at the National Visitor Center should provide such opportunity. By encouraging the discovery of all America~ the National Visitor Center would develop in the foreign visitor an empathy for America, as well as contributing to our own citizens' sense of national pride. The foreign visitor, as he travels the States, will see the great America our citizens of different religions and colors and countries have built. They will watch us working together today to build a better America for us all. And this lesson will not be lost on our own citizens as they travel the States. We the people of the United States need to discover America. We need to see and share the common herit- age and aspirations which can cement us together as Americans. In recognition of the importance of encouraging domestic travel, Congress in 1965 passed a joint resolution calling upon the President to issue a proclamation urging our citizens and those of other lands to travel in the United States. This the President has done each year since. The establishment of a National Visitor Center would enhance these efforts to increase domestic travel. PAGENO="0028" 24 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 The NATO Board of Directors unanimously passed the following resolution in support of a National Visitor Center in Washington, D.C. In part, the resolution reads: Whereas it is a matter of national policy to encourage greater knowledge of the benefits of travel within the United States as expressed by the Congress and by the establishment of the Discover America program; and Whereas it is in the national, interest to provide services and information in the Nation's Capital about the fifty States; Therefore, the Board of Directors of the National Association of Travel Orga- nizations supports the concept of a National Visitor Center in Washington, D.C. as a vital service to the traveling public, and offers its assistance in the establishment of such a center, and counsel in its operation. The degree to which a National Visitor Center could make a visit more meaningful to the Nation's Capital and to our States can be appreciated if we each let our mind go back to our first exposure to the visitor center maintained at colonial Williamsburg, Va. Viewing the film there sets the mood and meaning for us as we tour to witness history remadein this splendidly restored city. NATO finds acceptable the proposals for the National Visitor Cen- ter to be located in Union Station as outlined in H.R. 12603. Both H.R. 14604 and S. 3031 of 1966 called for: 1. "* * * exhibits and displays by the individual states * * ~" and 2. "~ * * specialized information and assistance to foreign visitors to facilitate and encourage their travel throughout the United States." We believe the Union Station site could provide the necessary space for States to present their stories, if not individually, then perhaps on a regional basis, such as NATO has delineated for the United States. Union Station could bring under one roof all methods of transporta- tion. Since about 85 percent of the tourists come by car, the parking facility outlined in H.R. 12603 is vitally necessary. H.R. 12603 has the strength in it which made America great. It pro- poses a working relationship between government and industry in creating a National Visitor Center. Such a center will not only benefit Americans, but foreign visitors as well. NATO respectfully recommends, due to its members' vast experi- ence in the U.S. travel business, that it be officially included in such a working coalition, at least in an advisory capacity. Further, NATO is prepared to discuss at the appropriate time the matter of staffing and operation of the National Visitor Center. The National Association of Travel Organizations pledges its sup- port to these goals. Thank you. Mr. GRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Toohey. That is a very fine statement and I am sure if this legislation is enacted and the National Park Service is given the responsibility for operating the National Visitor Center, they will welcome advice from the National Associa- tion of Travel Organizations. Although the National Park Service has had years of experience in dealing with visitors, this is a unique project so I am sure they will welcome your counsel and advice. You touched on something I mentioned briefly in my opening state- ment, and that is that last year it was estimated the visitors to the District of Columbia spent $400 million, and much of that went to help the tax base of the District of Columbia. At the present time the Federal Government is paying to the District of Columbia in lieu PAGENO="0029" NATI0N4~J VJ would have a I District of Columbia residents, which would more than pay t~. of maintaining this Center. I appreciate your testimony. Are there any questions of Mr. Toohey? We thank you very much, Mr. Toohey, and would you pass on to your associates in the National Association of Travel Organizations our sincere thanks for this very informative testimony here this morning. Mr. TOOHEY. Thank you. Mr. GRAY. Our last witness this morning is Mr. M. C. Mulligan, the president of the Washington Terminal Co., a man who has been very, very cooperative with the 21-member Study Commission over the past several months and sincerely negotiated with us and his asso- ciates an agreement that we believe is in the best interest of the American people as well as the owners of TJnion Station. I would like to call Mr. M. C. Mulligan, and I notice he has with him Mr. Shaw, the manager of the Union Station. Again let me thank you for coming and you may proceed in your own fashion. STATEMENT OP M. C. MIJLLIGAN, PRESIDcENT, WASHINGTON TERMINAL CO. Mr. MULLIGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My statement is very brief. My name, as you mentioned, is M. C. Mulligan. I am here today as president of the Washington Terminal Co. to testify regarding H.R~ 12603 and its companion bills. Let me state as the outset that my com- pany endorses the purpose of this legislation. The Washington Terminal Co. is the owner of Washington Union Station and its related passenger terminal facilities. The company con- structed these facilities pursuant to a mandate from Congress em- bodied in the acts of February 12, 1901, and February 28, 1903. The purpose of these statutes was generally to combine the then existing separate terminal facilities of the Baltimore & Ohio and the Pennsyl- vania Railroads, as well as to eliminate railroad operations at street- grade level in the District of Columbia. Congress provided that the Terminal Co. be owned equally by the Baltimore & Ohio and the Pennsylvania Railroads, but that the facili- ties be made available for the use of the other railroad lines reaching the District of Columbia, namely the Chesapeake & Ohio, the Rich- PAGENO="0030" 26 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 196 ~ mond, Fredericksburg & Potomac, and the Southern Railway. The Union Station building, which is primarily the subject of the legisla- tion now before this subcommittee, was constructed in its present form in~der the provisions of the 1903 statute which included the express requirement that the building be "monumental in character." As has been brought out, the legislation now before this subeom- mittee is the resñlt of a study authorized by Public Law 89-490, ap- proved on November 7, 1966. This Public Law established a 21-mem- ber Study Commission to investigate plans and sites to provide in- creased service for visitors to Washington, D.C. Specifically, as I recall, the Study Commission was charged with presenting a report to the Congress which would recommend a site or sites, estimate the cost, and include preliminary plans and specifications. The report to which the Chairman has referred will, as I understand it, cover all three of those areas. Since four members of this subcommittee served on this Study Commission, which, I understand, has determined to recommend that Union Station be leased by the Government for use as a National Visitor Center, I am sure you know more about what you recommend than I do. As I understand it, it is to implement this recom- mendation that H.R. 12603 and related bills have been introduced in the present Congress. The plan embodied in the proposed legislation contemplates that the Washington Terminal Co. or its nominee will raise the funds neces- sary: (1) for alteration of the present Union Station building into a National Visitor Center, (2) for construction of a large parking facil- ity to the north of the present building with suitable access for vehi- cular and pedestrian traffic, and (3) for construction of a new station building for the use of the railroads. The U.S. Government would undertake to lease the converted Union Station building for use as a National Visitor Center, and also to lease the parking facility, each for a term not to exceed 20 years, and it is contemplated that the leases with the Government would provide the basis for borrowing the money necessary to carry out the project. The leases would obligate the Government to operate and maintain the leased facilities and to pay an annual rental to the owners. The plan further contemplates that the amount of the rentals paid to the owners would represent, in each case, only the sum of a percent age applied to value of the properties and the cost to the company of borrowing the necessary funds for remodeling the present station and conStruction of the parking facility. It is also my understanding that the lessor would be protected against any increase in real estate tax liability or increase in other financial liability which might arise as a consequence of the leases to the Government of the properties and improvements contemplated under this legislation. Such plan is ac- ceptable to the Washington Terminal Co. As the members of this subcommittee are aware, the report of the National Visitor Study Commission has not yet been released. There- fore, I respectfully request permission, Mr. Chairman, to file a fur1~her statement for the record, if appropriate, after there has been an op~ portunity to review the report Mr. GRAY. Without objection that request will be granted. Mr. MULLIGAN. In June 1965, a joint committee of the National Capital Planning Commission listed Union Station as one of 20 his- toric landmarks ~s hich contribute significantly to the national cul PAGENO="0031" NAtIONAL VISITOR CENT1~R ACT OF 1907 27 tural heritage and which "must be preserved." Also included in that group of 20 were the White House and the Capitol. Legislation of the nature proposed here would not only preserve this landmark but fulfill an important public need. Accordingly, the terminal company will use its best efforts to implement legislation, if passed by the Con- gress, along the lines of the plan now being considered. In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me express my appreciation for the opportunity of appearing before this distinguished legislative body, and let me pledge my support of the efforts to formulate and carry out a plan to utilize Union Station in making the concept of a Na- tional Visitor Center a reality. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Mulligan. Again I want to state for the record how cooperative you personally have been to the Study Commission, and also Mr. Shaw, the manager of Union Sta- tion. This has been a long and difficult task in trying to work out a solution to our problems, and I would like to ask you for the record whether or not Union Station per se has not served its usefulness as a railroad station because of changing modes of transportation, and if this station is not utilized for a visitor center there may be the real possibility in years to come that you will have to sell this station and build a smaller Union Station, thereby losing this national monument? Mr. MULLIGAN. That is correct. Basically, the station complex, em- bracing a total of 300 acres of land, represents a plant in total which far exceeds the requirements for railroad operating purposes. A smaller station and a contraction generally of the area is clearly indicated. As a business matter, we would raze the monument, but sometimes there are considerations which transcend business con- siderations. But this would be, from a business standpoint, our best course of action. I heard Mr. Knott's testimony, and he stated quite accurately some of the techniques of real estate appraisal. He did not, however, allude to a fourth category which in the trade is known as "highest and best use." Now, the figures adding up in this bill to the $2.9 million were developed on what I consider a most conservative basis. The land value-and I make this statement on the basis of outside qualified expert advice-the land is worth $74 a square foot, the land alone. Now this is a matter upon which experts will disagree, having in mind that certain of the pertinent facilities such as the railroad terminal and some communications facilities in the basement would continue to be required and used in railroad operations, so I discounted that $74 a square foot to $60 a square foot, and multiplying that by 330,000 square feet I get $19.5 million, which is what could reasonably be expected as a realization from the sale of that land if there were no monument on it. Mr. GRAY. It is my understanding that you have used a 5-percent figure as return on your investment for the land value. You heard the Administrator of the General Services Administration testify that in our average leasing arrang~unents around the country he uses from 9 to 15 percent. Is it not correct that you have used a 5-perce~it for- mula on the land value as the return on the leased property? Mr. MULLIGAN. That is correct, and I want to make it clear we have ascribed no value-I repeat, no value-to the station itself. Mr. GRAY. To the so-called monument? PAGENO="0032" 28 NATIQNAIA VISITOn CENT~E'R ACT OF 19 67 Mr. MULLIGAN. To the so-called monument or landmark. Mr. Gn~u~. Or to the improvements? Mr. Mur~LIGAN. That is right. We have ascribed no value to the improvements on the land. Now, I say this because it is a fact, and I wrestled hard with the question of trying to place a value on the monument, and I consider it is incalculable. Therefore, the lease, as we visualize it, would not include in the valuation base any amount representing the present station. We would expect to include in the value base `the $5 million or less that might be spent for new improvements, but nothing for the existing improvements. Mr. `GRAY. The new improvements would be in connection with the visitor center? Mr. MULLIGAN. Yes. Mr. GRAY. And you would provide up to $11 million for the parking facility and $5 million for remodeling the existing Union Station, and $3.5 million for a new railroad terminal, making a total invest- ment of $19.5 million plus the existing investment plus the air rights over the tracks, and the aggregate cost to the United States for the leases would not exceed $2.9 million a year for a term of not more than 20 years? Mr. MULLIGAN. That is right. Mr. Chairman, I think we should recognize that all of these figures are ceilings, they are maximum figures. Mr. Gi~&Y. You would have no Gbjection to this committee writing in that the exact figures would be determined through negotiation but not to exceed $2.9 million? Mr. MULLIGAN. I would prefer to go with Mr. Knott's figure of not to exceed $3 million. Mr. GRAY. We are talking about less than a $100,000 a year differ- ence. Mr. MULLIGAN. Yes. the point, sir, is this: I don't think any of us know now precisely what the $11 million will buy. Hopefully, it will buy 4,000 spaces. It might well prove that it would be a few more. My own guess is it will be less. So that if the $11 million will only buy 3,000 spaces, that is what it will buy. I know you understand, Mr. Chairman, a's do the other members who served on the Study `Commission, there is ample additional area, up to 300 acres, but I think this should be clear, we get `as the parking facility what the $11 million will buy. Still to `be worked out as `to design would be the new `station facility. We continue to recognize that this is the Nation's Capital and `that passengers arriving by train should have an adequate facility, and we intend to provide one, and the present thinking of ours and your consultants is `that the new station facility would be incorporated in what you can imagine will have to be a very massive `structure. Mr. Grt~Y. For parking? Mr. MULLIGAN. Yes. Mr. GRAY. You contemplate that visitors arriving by automobile or by train or by subway or by helicopter would go through the Visitor Center. This would be a part of the overall complex. Mr. MULLIGAN. Definitely. Mr. GRAY. But not in the existing structure? PAGENO="0033" NATIONAt~ VTSIPOt~ CE~TEI~ M5T OF 1967 2G Mr. MULLIGAN. It would be incorporated physically hi th~ p~rkin facility. Bear in mind that to shoot for 4,000 parking spaces woul require, depending somewhat on how the ramps are laid out, a total of 1,400,000 square feet. The new station would, we think, require pos- sibly 150,000. So it tucks in there very nicely and it~ precise location would be dictated by that which is optimum from the standpoint of all uses. Mr. GuAY. Any further questions? Mr. Gnoviu~. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has discussed the basis for an appraisal. I would like to be reassured on the record that the basis for the fair market value and for the appraisal will in no eveht take into consideration the values of the existing building but would be predicated on the land value? Mr. MULLIGAN. That depends on what the assignment is as given to the appraiser. A qualified appraiser-~a~d I had one of the otttstand- ing ohes in the country appraise the property for us at the time the Smithsonian Institution made a study concerning the possible uSe of the station area for a transportation museum and/or a Visitor Cen- ter-now real estate appraisals, with which I have some experhrnce, are far from an exact science. I am not trying to evade your question. I think we are prepared to stand on a value of the land as determined by a qualified appraiser or more thafi one. If some appraiser were to report that in his judgment the land was only worth $16 million, I would not be able to buy that. Mr. GRAY. What you are saying is that in your best judgment the value you have set on the property in the proposed lease arrangement is just for the land, and if they wanted to include the building you would have no objection? Mr. MULLIGAN~ No objection. Mr. CIIAMRE. Will the gentleman yield? Congress would most probably have an objection~ if an appraisal came in that substantially exceeded the approximate $19 million figure. So as I see it, our practical problem is how do we tie down in the report or otherwise a figure of approximate value of $19 million. It should be thoroughly understood the present station will not be in- cluded if the value is approximately $19 million. Mr. G~r. I think the sole value of the appraisal proposed by the Administrator of the General Services Administration is to make sure the Government will not be cheated. It is only in an advisory capacity that they would make such an appraisal and the memorandum of agreement is based on the figure of approximately $19.5 million. If we make an appraisal and it comes to more, the gentleman does not intend to ask for an additional rental payment. Is that right? The gentleman is prepared to stand on the recommendation he has made based on his estimate of value. So that if GSA came back and said their appraisal shows your property is worth $25 million, the gentleman would not expect to come back and ask for additional rental, would you? Mr. MULLIGAN. Just as the Congress would be unhappy with an appraisal report that showed the property worth $30 million, so would my management if I committed us to $19.5 million. Mr. ~ But if they come back and say it is worth $16 million, would the gentleman come down in the rental payment? This is a two- way street. We both could be in trouble. That is why I felt we ought 85-894-67---3 PAGENO="0034" 30 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 to have an appraisal to be used as more or less a guideline, but you should not ask for an additional rental based on an increase in the ap- praisal, and we should not ask you to make a substantial reduction in the rental amount if the appraisal showed less value. In other words, if we write in the bill $2.9 million based on your estimated value of the land. and not the building, and later on some appraiser says it is worth more, would you have any objection to our using these figures as a maxi- mum and any additional savings would accrue to the Federal Govern- ment? That is what Mr. Knott proposes, that any such savings would accrue to the Government. That is why he wants to use the maximum amount. Mr. MULLIGAN. That is quite coi~rect, Mr. Chairman. Let me put it also this way-but before I go to the second point I want to make it clear we use 6 percent per annum as the estimated cost of borrowing. Mr. GRAY. This is just for the new improvements? Mr. MULLIGAN. It would be using, again, the numbers we have talked about~-$11 million for the parking facility, $5 million for remodeling of the station. Now, I would hope we could borrow for no more than 6 percent. I would be delighted if we could borrow for less. Mr. ~ But if it is less the savings will accrue to the Govern- ment? I want the record to show that. Mr. MULLIGAN. The record should show if the interest is less the sav- ings would be reflected in the rental, but, on the other side of that coin, if the interest rate is mOre there would be an increase reflected in the rental. Mr. GRAY. I felt we should reach a compromise both on the appraisal and the amount of money because these are funds of the taxpayers and our Commission wanted to get as near ~as we could to the exact figure. In your best judgment this morning the figure of $2.9 million would be a fair and reasonable annual rental to the Federal Government for these improvements and the present facility, and in your judgment this would not vary very much one way or another? Mr. MULLIGAN. That is correct. Mr. `GRAY. Any further questions? Mr. GROVER. On page 2 of your statement, the last two sentences, you say: It is also my un4erskanding that the lessor would be protected against any in- crease in real estate tax liability or increase in other financial liability which might arise as a consequence of the leases to the Government of the properties and improvements contemplated under this legislation. I have two questions: What other financial liability do you have in contemplation other than tax liability? Mr. MULLIGALT. We `have none specifically in contemplation, and I would like to make this point, if >1 may : The Terminal Co. does not seek to escape payment of the taxes to the District which it is paying, and those aggregate approximately-real estate taxes I am talking about no'w-$350,000 a year. However, this project is being undertaken by the Government. Left to our own devices we would not build a parking facility for 4,000 vehicles. And we think, in all fairness, since we are undertaking this at your request, and since we are predicating our rental on what I think is a very modest rate of return-if we had started out at `the beginning talking 7 percent no heads would `have fallen to the floor- PAGENO="0035" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT O~ 1967 81 Mr Gi~oviii~ I am troubled by your language "other financial li ability." Are you talking about increased insurance cost or what do you have in mind? Mr. MULLIGAN. We don't have a thing in mind, sir. It is a broad escape clause, a protective clause. Mr CRAMER Will the gentleman yield ~ We struck that out It is not now in the bill. Mr. GROVER. When you refer to improvements, the new terminal is also contemplated You don't mean to get an exemption from taxation on the new terminal, do you ~ Mr MULLIGAN We would pay taxes on the new passenger station Mr GRAY Will the gentleman yield ~ Is it not a fact that the Wash ington Terminal Co. paid this year `better than $300,000 in taxes? Mr. MULLIGAN. Yes, sir. Mr. GRAY. And if the gentleman would continue under this ar- rangement to pay the District of Columbia those taxes, it was his feel- ing if he added in the taxes on the improvements it would be in thb lease. We felt it would be better to keep the rental payments lower and the Washington Terminal `Co. will continue to pay `the assessed valua- tion they are now paying? Mr. MULLIGAN. Yes. In other words, we will continue to pay taxes on a station as we are today. Mr. CRAMER. Will the gentleman yield? Is it your understanding that the language relating to taxes and increased value by reason of improvements made on the property, that there shall not be an in- creased assessed valuation, refers to all improvements including para- graph (4) for a new railroad terminal as well as those constructed for the Federal Government? Mr. MULLIGAN. No, sir. Mr. CI~Mrirt. The bill as drafted says: The District of Columbia shall not, during the term of any lease entered into by the United States and the Washington Terminal Company pursuant to this Act, include in the assessed valuation of the leased properties for tax purposes any increase in value by reason of the improvements made on such properties `by said company in meeting its obligations under any lease or agreement made vur- suant to this Act. You will note it refers to the assessed valuation of "leased proper- ties"? Mr. MULLIGAN. Yes, sir Mr. CRAMER. The new terminal facility will not be a "leased prop- erty"; is that correct? Mr. MULLIGAN. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. Therefore, the increased valuation of the new term- inal facility could result in an increased assessed valuation and this bill would not preclude the District of Columbia from making such an increased assessed valuation? Mr. MULLIGAN. As written that is correct, and that is one of the matters I would cover in my supplemental statement for the record. Mr. CRAMER. Would the bill as drafted cause any change in maxi- mum figure for annual rental? Mr. MULLIGAN. No. Mr. CRAMER. The bill as drafted specifically would not permit any addition. That is the top limit? Mr. MULLIGAN. Y6s. PAGENO="0036" 32 NATIONAL V1~IPOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Mr. CRAI~ER. Do you think that would cause a serious problem? Mr. Mui~mAN. Again, sir, may I put it to you this way: We would not plan to go out and construct a new station if we were not going to turn over the present station to you. We might possibly close por- tions of it surplus to the need and reduce the cost of operation to a level consistent with actual use iii a railroad operation, but there has been no contemplation on the part of the Terminal Co. to build a new station unless it disposes of the old. Mr. CI~MER. Would the gentleman have any objection to lifting the taxation on existing facilities if the Government takes over? Mr. MULLIGAN. Well, subject to the advice of tax counsel I think that might be a possible solution. Mr. Cit&~ij~. It is something we could consider. Mr. `GRAY. I would like to see this stay on the tax rolls. I would not like to ask Congress to exclude taxes. But, as the gentleman said a moment ago, if we put in additional taxes on these government im- provements, then the annual rental the government will have to pay will be increased. We could exclude the facility used by the Govern- ment and tax the new facility. Mr. CuAMER. I gather from the discussion, in order to accomplish what the gentleman l~as said, this would require some amendments. Mr. Gn~y. I appreciate the gentleman's observation. Mr. CRAMER. I do not know whether I would agree with the policy or not. Obviously, it would require some amendment. The other question I had relates to the $5 million for improvement in the station itself, and the $10 million or $11 million for parking space. What contract-letting procedure will `be used? I gather from the manner in which the bill is drafted that the actual contract- letting for the improvements is not a function of the Department of the Interior or GSA; is that correct? It would be a private enterprise function. Mr MULLIGAN We would be willing to do it We had assumed that we would be expected to do it. We would be very happy if the Gov- ernment chose to do it. Mr. CRAMER. What contract-letting procedure would you contem- plate if the bill remained in its present status, that is, private enter- prise letting the contract? The Federal Government's interest would be to achieve the lowest possible cost basis, by competitive bid or otherwise. Mr. MULLIGAN. Frankly, sir, I had not reached that point in my thinking. I had assumed two things, of course. First, as far as alter- ations to the station, we will carry out whatever you tell us you want done Coming to the parking facilities and a new station incor porated in it, obviously there must be complete agreement between our engineers and the Government's engineers as to design and speci- fications I would expect to consult the authorities in the executive brancli-I guess it is GSA and the Secretary of the Interior-relative to their procedures for letting contracts of this kind. Mr. GRAY. Putting the question simply, since we are pressed for time here, would it not be your purpose, if the delegation of authority were given to you, to advertise on a competitive bid basis for the con- struction works? Mr MULLIGAN Answering the question today, "Yes" PAGENO="0037" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT 01? 1967 Mr. GiL&y. I think that is what the gentleman from to have on the record, the fact that we would ~ possibly could for the amount of money availal competitive bid basis. Mr MULLIGAN That is correct I would further expect, gentlemen, that we received with GSA, if GSA is the proper with them on that to be awarded, because in t ~ matter we are as the Government's agent, really, and we want to do it the way you think it should be done as far as letting construction or renovation bids is concerned. Mr. CRAMER. The reason I raised the question is that I think it obvious that somewhere in the report or in the bill it should be provided that the contract letting and contract bidding and adver- tising, et cetera, ought to be handled in consultation or in cooperation with or with the advice of the GSA or the Secretary of th~ Interior, or what have you, to make certain there will be the lowest possible bid in order to get the maximum amount for the dollar spent. I notice in paragraph 1 on page 1 relating to alterations of exist- ing buildings, that the alterations to the station shall be as the Secre- tary of the Interior deems necessary within that $5 million limitation, but in relation to parking facilities there is no such requirement, except that he provide parking space for approximately 4,000 vehicles. I was wondering if there were any reason that the Secretary of the Interior was left out or GSA was left out of the determination of the nature of those facilities. Mr. MULLIGAN. I have no knowledge on the question, sir. Mr. CRAMER. You would not object to including a similar provision in paragraph 3? Mr. MULLIGAN. No, sir. Mr. GROVER. How many of these parking spaces, which you say may run between 3,000 and 4,000, would normally be taken up by the transient personnel going from trains and parking cars? Mr. MULLIGAN. A very small percent. Mr. GROVER. Approximately. Mr. MULLIGAN. I would think the maximum might be 100 a day. Mr. GROVER. A further question. Do you have a lease on the existing restaurant? Mr. MULLIGAN. Yes, sir. Mr. GROVER. What is the term of that lease? Mr. MULLIGAN. It has 3 more years to go. Mr. GROVER. Is there a renewal clause? Mr. MULLIGAN. No. Mr. GROVER. Would you supply to the committee information in re- gard to the net income to the Terminal Co. from the lease? Mr. MULLIGAN. I can give you the total. I can give you the break- down, also. If you like, Mr. Chairman, I could offer for the record a list showing for the year past, 1966, the breakdown of total revenues from conces~ sions, including the restaurant, which aggregated approximately $375,000. Mr. GROVER. Is that gross or net? Mr. MULLIGAN. That would be net, sir. PAGENO="0038" 34 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER. ACT OF 1967 Mr. GRAY. There is a great potential here, with millions of visitors, for the Government to recoup these rentals, because they netted $375,- 000 last year just from the trade of a small number of people coming in by train. Mr. CRAMER. Any earnings would be recouped by the Federal Government? Mr. MULLIGAN. The answer is "Yes," as the matter has now evolved. All costs of operation and maintenance would be borne by the Govern- ment, and all revenues would accrue to the Government. Mr. CRAMER. Have we made any exploration into the possibility of borrowing this $5 million and $11 million at less than 6 percent? Mr. MULLIGAN. No, sir, we have not. Mr. GRAY. What is that? Mr. MULLIGAN. The question is, had we sought to borrow money, and the answer is no, we have not. Mr. CRAMER. Have you made any explorations as to whether you could borrow it at 6 percent? Mr. ~MULLIGAN. To the extent that we have some qualms about it. Is there some Government agency that might loan it to us at 4 percent? Really? Mr. CRAMER. No. You are not a farmer, and we are not an REA. Mr. GRAY. If you were a foreign visitor, you could get it a lot cheaper. Any other questions? Let me again thank all the committee members, and also the wit- nesses, for coming this morning. We will recess now and reconvene at 10 a.m. tomorrow with another list of witnesses. Thank you very much. (Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to recon- vene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, September 13, 1967.) PAGENO="0039" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 WEDNESDAY, SEPTRMBER 13, 1967 HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SuBcoMMrrrES ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS OF THE COMMIT11~E ON PUJILIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:16 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Build- ing, Hon. Kenneth J. Gray (chairman of the subcommittee) presidin Mr. GL&Y. The committee will please come to order. Off the recor (Discussion off the record.) Mr. GRAY. The Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds of the House Committee on Public Works is sitting this morning in con- tinuation of hearings on }LR. 12603 and related bills, to supplement the purposes of the Public Buildings Act of 1959, by authorizing agree- ments and leases with respect to certain properties in the District of Columbia, for the purpose of a National Visitor Center, and for other purposes. The act would be known as the National Visitor Center Act of 1967. I might announce for the record that in addition to the bills intro- duced previously, on yesterday five House bills and four Senate bills were introduced: H.R. 12823, by Mr. Eilberg; H.R. 12825, by Mr. Erlenborn; H.R. 12828, by Mr. Farbstein; and H.R 12831, by Mr. Kleppe. And on the Senate side, 5. 2391 was introduced by Senator Tydings, Senator Thurmond, Senator Scott, and Senator Baker. These are all identical bills upon which we are holding hearings for the second day today. Prior to cailing the first witness, I would like to read a letter into the record: DEAR Mu. CHAIRMAN: I am most pleased with the considerable progress being made in behalf of the National Visitor Center, progress which is further facili- tated by your introduction of and scheduled hearings on 11.11. 12603. Having been invited to comment on HR. 12003, I must refer to the judgment of the experts with regard to leasing arrang~ments between the Washington Terminal Com- pany, the Ueneral ~ervices Administration, and the Department of Interior. This is an area outside the operating jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commis- sion. Therefore, we have no special skills or experience on which to make judg- ments or recommendations. We do, however, support the renovation and use of Union Station as a National Visitor Center. Also we have a continuing interest in the Center's proposed program content. We look forward to working with you, members of your subcommittee, and members of the Visitor Center Study Com- mission, in developing a program that will be truly inspirational and educational, one that will prove worthy of being ~m first step for every visitor to the Nation's Capital. Sincerely yours, JOHN W. MACY, Jr., Chairman, U.& C'tvi~ service Commission. 3~s PAGENO="0040" 36 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 There are also a number of additional letters received from House Members. They are too numerous to read, but I would ask, without objection, that they be inserted in the record at this point. (Letters referred to follow.:) CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., August 26, 1967. Hon. KENNETH GRAY, Member of Congress, Washington, ILC. DEAR KEN: Many thanks for your thoughtfulness and courtesy in bringing me up to date on the Commission studying the need for a National Capital Visitors Center. You have done a splendid job as Chairman of this Commission and I com- mend you also for your introduction of HR. 12603, authorizing a lease agree- ment with the Washington Terminal Company. I look forward to discussing this great possibility with you in the near future in person. With warmest personal regards and highest esteem, I am Sincerely, WM. JENNINGS BRYAN D0EN, Member of Congress. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C. August 29, 1967. Hon. KEN GRAY, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR KEN: Thank you for your letter of August 24 regarding the National Capital Visitor's Center. I appreciate your bringing me up to date on the progress of the Commission established to study the need for this Center, and I shall study your bill, HR. 12603 carefully with a view to introducing an identical measure. Best regards. Sincerely, WILLIAM P. HATI~1AWAY, U.S. Congressman. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REI'RESR1~TTATIVEs, Washington, D.C., August 31, 1967. E~on. KENNETH GBAY, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, Rayhurn Building. DI~AR KEN: Thanks for the information about the Visitor's Center. congratu- lations on your effective leadership in this regard. About four years ago I proposed that we get in action to establish such a center and it is gratifying to see the progress you are able to report. I will look forward to the pleasure of discussing this with you personally one of these days. Sincerely yours, PAUL FINDLEY, .I~epresentative in Congress. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED S~ATgS, Ho~sn o~' REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., September 5, 1967. Hon. KEN GRAY, U.S. Hoi~~se of Reprçsentatives, Rayburn House Office BuiZ~i~zg, Washington, D.C. Dn~ KEN: Thank you very much for your letter of August 24, 1967, con- cerning the introduction of your legislation which authorizes the General Serv- PAGENO="0041" NAflONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 37 ices Administrator and the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a lease agree ment with the Washington Terminal Company Although I do not plati to introdtice legislation on this subject at this time I recognize the seriousness of the problem you describO ~ind will be happy to lend my support toward reaching a w&rkable solution as ~uickl~ as possible With best regards, Sincerely, GAiiRY BROWN. CoNunass OF THE UNITnD STATES, Housa OF REPIiRSENTATIVES, Wasiwnyton D (1 2eptesiiber~5 1967 Hon KEN Giiax Chairman House Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds Public Works Committee Rayburn Office Building Washington D C DEAR C0LLEArnE I appreciate your detailed letter outlining some of the recommendations made by the 21 member commission to study the need for a National Capital Visitor's Center together with a copy of your bill, ILE. 121308, which will make this Center a reality. As you know, I have been very much interested in this project since its inception and I am particularly pleased to note that provisions have been made for a heliport to be constructed on top of the Center. It was good of you to send this information to me. I certainly look forward to receiving the Commission's recommendations around the 15th of this month. In the meantime, you can count on my support for HR. 12603 when it comes to the floor of the House for action. Warmest regards. Sincerely, SAMUEL N. FRIEDEL. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., September11, 1967. Hon. KENNETH J. GRAY, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR KEN: I very much appreciated your letter of August 24th concerning H.R. 126013, a Bill which you have introduced to create a National Capital Visitors Center. I think that the financing arrangements which have been made for the Center are sensible, particularly if the annual lease payments can be repaid from parking fees and the sale of goods and services. I am not in favor of expensive new Federal facilities in Washington at this time which would contrast sharply with our efforts in other needed areas of the economy. I will be happy to join you in co-sponsoring this Bill, as I am certain it will be of interest to the constituents of my District who' visit Washington each year. Sincerely yours, CIIET FIOLIFIELD. CO~NGRES'S 011 THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., September13, 1967. Hoti. KEN GRAY, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR KEN: Thank you very much fer your letter concerning H.R. 12603. I compliment you on the tremendous work you have done on this Commission and in this respect. Best wishes, HENRY B. GONZALEZ. PAGENO="0042" 38 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Houss OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C. September 14, 1967. Hon. KENNETH J. GRAY, Rayburn~ House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR KEN: Thank you for your letter concerning HR. 12603 to authorize the General Services Administration and the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a lease agreement with the Washington Terminal Company. I agree with your objections concerning the inadequate facilities for tourists visiting Washington, and I want you to know that I will do all that I can to assist you. With very good wishes. Sincerely yours, EDNA F. KELLY. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Housn OF. REPEESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., September 15, 1967. Hon. KENNETH J. GRAY, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR KEN: In accordance with the request contained in your letter of August 24, 167, I am pleased to enclose a copy of my bill, H.R. 12823, which I introduced in support of your bill, H.R. 12603, to supplement the purposes of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 479), by authorizing agreements and leases with respect to certain properties in the District of Columbia, for the purpose of a national visitor center. With best wishes. Sincerely, JOSHUA EILBEEG. U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, Washington, D.C., August 28, 1967. Hon. KEN GRAY, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN GRAY: Thank you for your letter of August 24, concerning H.R. 12603, a bill authorizing agreements and leases with respect to certain properties in the District of Columbia, for the purpose of a National Visitor Center, and for other purposes. I appreciate your sending me this explanation of the work of the Congressional Commission created last year to study the need for a National Capital Visitor's Center. The work accomplished by the Commission is certainly impressive. You may be assured that I will study the proposals offered by the Commission and should H.R. 12603 reach the full Senate for action, it will have my full consideration. With kindest regards and best wishes, I am, Sincerely yours, ALLEN J. ELLENDER, U.S. Senator. U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, D.C., August 29, 1967. Hon. KENNETH J. GRAY, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, House of Representatives, Washington, D~C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE GRAY: Thank you for your letter of August 24 detailing the steps which have been taken to establish a National Capital Visitor's Center at Union Station. You and the other members of the Commission wh~ have studied the Washington visitor problem are to be commended on the progress thus far. I am pleased that you have introduced a bill which will authorize the General Services Administrator and the Secretary of the Interior to lease the remodeled Union Station from the Washington Terminal Company. You may be assured of my belief in and support of what you are trying to do. Sincerely yours, B. L. BARTLETT. PAGENO="0043" RATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT ~ 1 1 9~\7 39 U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., August 29, 1967. Hon. KENNETH J. GRAY, Rayburn House Office Buildiing, Washington, D.C. DEAR KEN: Many thanks for your letter of August 25, regarding the proposed National Visitors' Center. I shall be happy to get in touch with my Senatorial colleagues on the Na- tional Visitors' Center Commission with a view to having your bill, HR. 12603, introduced in the Senate. Best personal regards, Sincerely, HUGH SCOTT, U.S. Senator, U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, Washington, .D.C., September 12, 1967, Hon. KENNETH J. GRAY, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR KEN: Thank you for your recent letter in which you bring us up-to-date about the work of the commission to study the need for a National Capital Visitor's Center. I was pleased to learn of the progress the commission has made and of the suggestions it has proposed. I commend you and the other members of the commission for doing such a fine job in this area and I wish you every success. Sincerely, CHARLES H. PERCY, U.S. Senator. Mr. GRAY. The first witness scheduled this morning is our esteemed colleague from the Washington metropolitan area, Congressman Gil- bert Gude, of Maryland. We are delighted to have you with us this morning, Mr. Gude, and. would you please come forward. I appreciate your interest in taking time out of your busy schedule to be with us this morning. You may proceed in your own fashion. STATEMENT OP HON. GILBERT GUDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP MARYLAND Mr. GUDTE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee to discuss legislation of importance to the Nation and to the National Capital area. I wish to commend the chairman for his leadership in bringing to~ether in this legislation the various elements of the plan for the National Visitors' Center. H.R. 12603 provides the Congress with the opportunity to assist in bringing real dignity to an impor~ tant part of the economy of our National Capital. Previous witnesses have pointed out the sizable financial dollar volume of trade which tourism brings to Metropolitan Washington. A much greater contri- bution can be made, both financially and educationally, by the estab- lishment of the Visitors' Center. More than 80 percent of the area tourists arrive here in unorganized, unscheduled groups with no reliable guidance. It is these visitors for whom the Center will furnish such valuable assistance. By such a Center, the National Capital, which offers so many great attractions to its citizens as well as to world travelers, can provide appropriate direction to, and interpretation of, the historic and cultural points of PAGENO="0044" 40 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1 9~ 7 the area in a manner of dignity and reliability worthy of the name of Washington, D.C. Our guests will understand better the fabric of history and govern- ment which they observe. With a warm reception they will wish to stay longer, or to return again. Not competing but complementing our great Capital are points be- yond the District of Columbia. In my own Congressional District the famous Chesapeake and Ohio Canal provides a panorama of American history in the magnificent natural setting of the Potomac Valley; and hospitable world-famous dining places await the travelers. These and many attractions of neighboring Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia, as well as other points of interest on the eastern seaboard are as much a part of visits to the Washington area as some of the Capital landmarks. Virginia's Williamsburg, Stratford, and Fredericksburg, and Maryland's Annapolis and Fort MeHenry, and Harpers Ferry in West Virginia could well be included as part of the documented tourist information which will be featured at the Visitor Center. Certainly these additional historic attractions of the surrounding States from the erad~~ of democracy, with the fine restaurants and lodging facilities of 1~he~area, will only increase the enjoyment and extend the stay of all the visitors. This opportunity for the updated utilization of the refurbished Union Station, so long a part of the Capital Plaza and its plan, is a logical and practical development because of its central location for transit and rail facilities, freeway accessibility, the 4,000 parking spaces, and the frequency of bus service. These facilities and the related planning will provide the area with a system of sensible traffic patterns for tourists. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this legislation, which has the support of a special 21-member commission established by the Congress last year to study such a Center~ merits favorable consideration of this subcommittee and the Congress. Thank you, sir. Mr. GRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Gude. That was a very infor- mative statement, and we appreciate the contribution that you and your constituents are making to the great metropolitan area of Wash- mgton. Thank you for your consideration. Mr. Guni~. Thank you. Mr. GRAY. The statement of Hon. William B, Widnall, New Jersey, will be inserted here. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. WILLL&M B. WIDWALL OF Nzw Jzasav Mr. Chairman, thank you for thi~ opportunity to testify on. the legislation now before your Committee to establish a National Visitors' Center on the site of the Union Station here in Washington, D.C. As you know, I have long advocated the use of the station as a visitors' center and warmly endorse the proposal now under consideration. My own support for this type of project goes back to 1963. In the 88th Congress and again in the 89th Cungreas, I proposed legislation which sought to save Union Station from the fate of the bulldozer and wrecker's hammer by providing that it become a transportation museum and visitor's center. In this Congress, I have introduced HR 12760, similar to HR 12603, introduced by our colleague, Rep. Kenneth Gray (D-I1l.), to acquire union PAGENO="0045" NA~TIO~AL VIS1i~OR C~NTEE ACT O~' 1967 i rec~ r aver a city ~s a center to the traV( the most profitable use of time. s ne L grows as t r of ors mounts yearly, and more people are in need of such elementary information as what to see and where to go. As a proposed Visitors Center, Union Station offers several advantages. First, its size; second, its location; third, its beauty; and finally, the reIativel~r inex- pensive cost to the taxpayer to convert this impressive and imposing edifice into a reception center for the millions of Americans and citizens from other nations who visit this world capital each year. In the early years of its existence, period pieces noted that Union Station, "contains in the passenger concourse the largest room in the world under one roof." Recent D.C. guidebooks suggest that this fact may still be true, noting that in comparison to New York's Penn and Grand Central Stations, the Union Station concourse is almost as large as the two combined'. That the size is ade- quate to handle `the daily crowds anticipated to the Visitors Center is evidenced by the fact that during World War Ii, the Station handled over 100,000 persons per day; up to 175,000 on b'o1i4ays~ It was closed only once due to over-capacity and that was on December 24, 1944, when an estimated 250,000 persons jammed the Station. As further prQOf of its size, the Station once served as the dining facility for 3,000 persons~ In 1930, when the engineers at the Third World Power Conference were in need of a hail l~rge enough to permit a sit~down dinner for all of the delegates, only Unipu Station was large enough and the waiting room was converted for the banquet. Union Station is ideally located fbr a Visitors Center. It has been called at various times, the "gateway to the city," "gateway to the Nation," and by one magazine, as ". . . the grandest front door in the world." Surely, there is no more imposing or appropriate introduction to the citadel of democracy, and the seat of our Nation's Government, than the vista of the Capitol with its majestic dome that greets the visitor as' he emerges from the main door of `the Station. It is as breathtaking to the uninitiated as to those of us who have focused on it in awe throughout `the years. Long recognized as a building of great beauty in its own right, the Union Station was hailed as "the most beautiful building architecturally in America," by the American Architect magazine when the building first opened. And over the years this vast Roman palace of shining white l3erthel granite with its central pavilion modeled after the Arch of Constantine has been cited as' an inspiring example of `the true conformation of function and design. In the style and the use of materials it is both ornamental an'd useful. As such, the White House consultant was prompted to note: "Union Station is a significant land- mark with historic and esthetic value to the National Capital, and as part of our Capital's' heritage, it should be preserved," For this reason alone, many have asked that Union Station* be saved from the fate suffered by New York City's Penn Station, I have received letters from such organizations and groups as Downtown Progress, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the Commission of Fine Arts, to name a few, all of whom concur on the One! point that Union Station ought to be preserved. And most agree that a fitting use of this stately and dignified structure would be as a Natioual Visitors' Center. A final `argument in behalf of the proposal before this COmmittee is the low cost of the project. Assuming there is agreement that a National Visitors Center is a necessity, the comparative cost between demolishing an existing strneture to n~ake way for a new one and renovating an existing building to serve the purpose PAGENO="0046" 42 wA~o~v~ v1s~roR CENTER ACT OF 1967 ~1ew~e little room for discussion.. The latter edorse Is far less expensive. Add to this. the factor that the ~expense of renovation and upkeep will be rOcovered with .a nominal charge to users and. the taxpayer as well as the tourist is obtaining an excellent bargain. S. * Equally, significant, to my mind, is the contribution of the railroads to the renovation. It is a commendable gesture on the ~art of the Washington Terminal ~Ooinpany, and its parent organirations-~the B&O-C&O and. the Pennsylvania Railroad But it is also a fitting conclusion to a marriage of private and public funds that began with the building of the Station when the generoOs financing 1of Union Station by the railroads was applauded as "the finest example on record of a conscious and costly cooperation on the part of railroad companies to beautify a great city Similar sentiments can be expressed today In conclusion, I earnestly hope that this Committee will act favorably upon this proposal. I believe such action by this Committee will not only preserve a historic landmark, but also alleviate the need for a pavilion to welcome the visitor to our Nation's capital. S Mr. GRAY. Our next witness will be Mr. Thornton W. Owen, presi- dent of the Terminal Committee, Inc., Washington, D.C. Mr. Owen, would you please come forward. We are delighted to see you this morning, and appreciate your patience and appreciate your coming. S `STATEMENT OP THORNTON W. OWEN, PRESIDENT, TERMINAL COMMITTEE, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. OWEN. My name is Thornton W. Owen, and I am president of the Terminal Committee, Inc., a nonprofit civic organization estab- lished several years ago for the purpose of developing a permanent industrial exposition and transportation center in Washington. May I say that we are most grateful for this opportunity to appear before your committee to compliment you, Mr. Chairman, and the mem- bers of your committee on the wise selection of the Union Station for the Visitors Center. Such a center fulfills a lOngfelt need in the Nation's Capital and is of great advantage not only to Washington but to the Nation as a whole. S We feel that this opportunity to appear is most timely as the civic `groups represented here have long been working on a project which we believe is not only entirely compatible with the interest of H.R. 12603, but that both complement the other and that together they offer far more advantages to Washington. On the easels are maps showing both the Union Station and the lo- cation of our project at Mount Vernon Square. We propose to build on the latter a permanent industrial exposition above ground and a trans- portation center below. The latter will consist of separate terminals for interstate and suburban buses, 3,500-car parking, direct under- ground connection to the subway at Eighth and G Streets, as well as connection by escalators to the local buses on the city streets. By all means we agree that school buses and chartered buses bringing groups of visitors to Washington should go to the Visitors Center. What we are planning is permanent underground terminals for the regularly scheduled bus lines. I believe that the representatives of the two major interstate lines, Continental Trailways and Greyhound, will confirm the difference between these two categories, as well as the urgent neces- sity of new terminals for their constantly increasing traffic voiume~. We have done much work, and at considerable expense, in develop- ing the many phases of our projeèt; we believe it is practical and of PAGENO="0047" NATIONAL VISITOR CENThR ACT OF 1967 4~ material benefit not oniy to Washiugton but, as a permanent exhibit of our industrial resources, to the Nation as a whole. We have retained the nationally known firm of architects, Helimuth, O'Bata & Kassa- baum of St. Louis, for the purpose of assuring th~t this great ~ompIex will add to the beauty and dignity of the Nation's Capital. The Terminal Committee has established a subcommittee com~ posed of Col. W. H. Press, executive vice president of the board of trade; Gerald A. Siegel, vice president of the Washington Post, and John W. Thompson2 vice president of the Star, as the nucleus of the organization that will coordinate with industry on their requirements for space. We have studied H.R. 12603 carefully and are unable to find any points of conflict with the complex we propose. I wish to take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to coi~igratulate you on th~ cacre and forethought which has been given to the Visitors Center, a most wel- come addition to Washington. We need here, with our millions of annual visitors, the Visitors Center, as well as a permanent industrial exposition, with the most modern facilities for rail, bus, and plane. We have tried to make this presentation as comprehensive but as short as possible in the hopes that we will have the opportunity to answering your questions. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate your courtesy in being permitted to comment briefly after the statements of the others pre- pared to testify. Mr. GRAY. Yes, Mr. Owen, we would be delighted to either hear them orally or you can submit those statements for the record, whatever you choose to do, if we have the time. I want to congratulate you on your statement; and, if I may ask you a few questions for the record: First, this seems like a very ambitious program, and I wonder what it represents in the way of dollar investment. Have you placed any price tag on this proposal? Mr. OWEN. The total investment would be about $200 million. It would be done by private enterprise, would not entail any Federal subsidy. Mr. GRAY. What means would you use to raise this amount? Mr. OWEN. We have been in contact with industry and also of course the transportation people are involved. We would raise the equity money, which we estimate to be necessary, around $20 million or $25 million. The balance would be financed through insurance com- panies, through a mortgage. Mr. GRAY. How would you amortize this project? Mr. OWEN. Be amortized through the rental. Mr. GRAY. Through what? Mr. OWEN. Amortized through the rental of the exposition space and the commercial revenues on the ground floor. Mr. GRAY. How far would this be from Union Station? Mr. OWEN. This project extends from H Street on the south, you know where Mount Vernon Square is, I am certain, and it extends from Mount Vernon Square, New York Avenue, Massachusetts Avenue on the north, southerly to H Street. Mr. GRAY. About a mile away? Mr. OWEN. About a half a mile away. Union Station is roughly at North Capitol Street, probably a block east of North Capitol. We PAGENO="0048" 44 NAT10NI~.L ViSI'~OR V~N~R MYT OF 1967 a~e si~ biocks west o~ Noi~th Capitol, so it is about seven or eight bl~s. Mr. Ui~. Where are you in your planning? Are you in the pre~ limitiary planning stages? Mr. OWEN., We have had work shetched to general plans. In other words, plans outlining the are~is involved, and we have appeared before the National Capital Park and Planning Commi~sion; but because they envision all bus terminals, all air terminals being in the Union Station Visitor Complex, they have ~ot as yet given us a nod to pro. ceed, and have not included us in their 1985 plan. And they envision everything coming to Union Station, which we feel is impractical. Mi?. (h&r. I wou}d. 1~hin1~ olfliand that with 15 to 20 million visitors a~ year, that w~ might best need some place else for transportation, be- eanse we are going to generate an awful lot of traffic just for visitors. Mr. OWEN. As you are probably well acquainted with the fact that there are two bus terminals, one at 11th and G, on New York Avenue, and one directly opposite, there is a bus terminal for Trailways~ and between the two of them they have about 9 million people a year. If you are there during the rush hour, it is quite a problem. Mr. GRAY. One other question. Has this plan been submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission? Mr. OWEN. Yes, it has. Mr. Git~y. What is their feeling? Mr. OWEN. Their feeling is that they have not included this type of thing in their 1985 plan; the feeling, as I mentioned earlier, that the buses and the airlines should all go into the Union Station complex. Mr. ~ One center? Mr. OWEN. That isright. Mr. Gn~t~. Where does this put you now? I am not being critical. Would you be able to proceed if in ~act the National Capital Planning Commission should notg&ve their blessing? Mr. OWEN. No, we would not. In order to put this project over, it involves about eight city squares, and in order to assemble it we would have to have the right of eminent domain, which would mean going through the Redevelopment Land Agency. We would have to present the plan to the District of Columbia Commissioners for a public hear- ing, and then the Redevelopment Land Agency would come in the pic- ture and condemn the land, after which we would reimburse them for cost of the land, and the NCPPC has to give approval. Mr. G1t~Y. I am not arguing for or against putting all this trans- portation complex in Union Station, but where you propose private enterprise to do it, it seems to me that National Capital Planning Com- mission may be proposing the Government do it. Mr. OWEN. I would think so. If they went through their plan with Union Station,. the Government would naturally be footing the bill for a transportation complex. Mr. GRAY. All you would need for your private enterprise people to spend the $200 million would be the right of eminent domain? Mr. OWEN. We would have to have the NCPPC approval, and of course we would have a public hearing before the District of Columbia Commissioners. Mr. GRAY. I might say in that connection that. it. is my understanding that the National Capital Planning Commission has not rea]]y come to any resolution about where the National capital transportation PAGENO="0049" N~TION~L VI~]~O~ CF~NTER A~~T OF 1967 45 complex should be, because this is one of the ~bjeetions that wtts raised this weelc by the Bureau of the Budget, that the President had ordered. such a study, but it had not been completed Mr. Owi~c. That is correct. They have not made such a study as far as we can find out. They suggested that we move this south of H Street and west of Ninth Street If you are acquainted with the area physi cally and dollarwise, it would be impossible to do it, being very ex- pensive ground, this particular area is very blighted Mr GEAY Are there any questions ~ Mr SOHWENGEL Yes Mr Gu~r Mr Seliwengel Mr SCHWENGEL I have listened with avid interest to your testimony, and I did not frankly get all of it, so I hope you fux msh us ~ ith a copy. Mr. OwEN. We will do so. Mr. SCHWENGEL. I would like to look at it in more detail. I have been intrigued because you say you can, or did I understand you to say that you can raise $200 million? Mr. OWEN. We can finance it. In other words, we can raise equity money and the next will be borrowed money. Mr. SOJIWENGEL. And this is going to be around. H Street and- Mr. OWEN. H Street on the north boundary, extending northerly to Massachusetts Avenue, Mount Vernon Square, and New York Avenue, Sixth Street on the east, and 10th Street on the west. Mr. SCIIWENGEL. How many acres, roughly? Mr. OWEN. Roughly about 750,000 square feet in that site. Mr. SCHWENGEL. And how many cars will that hold? Mr. OWEN. This development will be three floors underground. The lower level would be the interstate buses. The second level would be the local suburban buses. The upper level would be a concourse. There would be, in between these levels, parking for 3,500 cars. Mr. SOHWENGEL. You, of course, realize that 3,500 cars is not any- where near enough for the traveling public? Mr. OWEN. We realize that, but it is a physical impossibility to put that many more in there. Mr. SCUWENGEL. Also this is going to be a new bus `terminal? Mr. OWEN. Yes, sir. Mr. SCHWENOEL. To take care of the regular bus business? Mr. OwEN. That is correct. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Plus the charter business or the buses `that come in with groups, just to visit the Capital? Mr. OWEN. Charter buses would not come in here. This would be strictly interstate buses on scheduled routes. Mr. SCHWE~tGEL. And the chartered buses- Mr. OWEN. Chartered buses who would bring passengers, school groups for instance, it is our understanding that they would continue to use `the Union Station complex where the Visitor Center is. Mr. SCHWENGEL. What are you asking for? You are not opposing `the Union Station- Mr. OWEN. We think we complement it. Mr. SCHWENGEL. You would complement it? Mr. OWEN. Yes, sir. Mr. SCHWENGEL. This installation? Mr. OWEN. We `believe so. 85-~894---67----4 PAGENO="0050" 46 ~APTONAL VIStTOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Mr. SCHWENGEL. Let me suggest to you that you pursue your ob- jective. I have a feeling that as time goes on and as we evolve and unfold and complete the program we have in mind, that some~ of us have in mind, that we are going `to `attract not 15 million but 20 or 25 million people a year to this complex. So we are going to need every- thing that you can produce `through private enterprise. Mr. OWEN. Thank you, sir. We have visions `that this will tie in with surface buses at Seventh and Ninth `Streets, that will go through `the complex, and likewise it will tie in with the subway system. We have been in communication with `the Metropolitan Was:hington `Transportation Authority, and that can be worked out. Mr. SOHWENGEL. Mr. `Chairman, I think `this man has' some good ideas, and I `think he ought to be encouraged. I think it ought `to fit in with the total plan. I am aware, as you must be, that the Union Station will finally become not a major, but one of the majors at most, but it could be an important satellite to the total program for the Visitor Center in the future. Mr. OWEN. As you mentioned, there will `be o'ther visitor centers throughout the Washington metropolitan area. Mr. SCHWENQEL. Do you have any, plans to furnish a headquarters for people who would come by bus, by your bus, to visit the District, to be oriented before they go on tour of the Capital, so you would not be adding to the problem of Union Station for instance? Mr. OWEN. I believe such service would be available. In connec- tion with the industrial exposition. We have planned auditoriums for that particular purpose, to educate the public who come to `this city, and there are many of them, not only `the public but the foreign visi- tors themselves, how the American industry works, and free enter- prise system. Mr. SGHWENGEL. Would you be willing- I am talking about the Visitors Committee-for this committee to become a permanent com- mittee to deal with the problem of visitors, to fit into a total program as a part of the Visitors Center Committee program? Mr. OWEN. We would certainly--- Mr. SCUWENGEL. Or Interior Department, whoever supervises it. Mr OWEN We would certainly be able to cooperate Mr. SOHWENGEL. That would mean consulting with us on providing space for visitors, maybe an auditorium where they could see a movie before a tour. Mr. OWEN. That could be worked out. Mr. SCIIWENGEL. And facilities where they could get transporta- tion from that site. Mr OWEN We have an auditorium planned for this particular contract. Mr. SCUWENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for coming here and giving us. this idea. I had heard some rumors about some other plans, and I guess this must be because of the rumor I heard. Mr. GRAY. Mr. McEwen. Mr. MCEWEN. Mr. Owen the buildings that are in this area now, they would be removed? Mr OWEN Yes, sir, they would be removed PAGENO="0051" NATIONAL Vt&TOR C~TE1~ ACT or 1 * 67 47 Mr. MCEWEN. Would there be anything above ground? Mr. OwEN. Yes, sir. Mr. MCEWEN. How many stories? Mr. OWEN. About eight. Mr. MCEWEN. About eight stories? Mr. OWEN. Yes, sir. Mr. MCEWEN. Would this be office btiildings or what? Mr. OWEN. This would be the industrial exposition space, which would be leased to industry. Mr. MOEwEN. I see. What about yo~1r roads serving this center? Mr. OWEN. There would be one street in here which would be closed, that would be I Street. Seventh and Ninth Streets would go through the Center. There happens to be, if you are acqttainted with the area, a difference in elevation between the north leg and the south leg of about 15 feet. So the present buses which are on those surface streets would go directly under the lane running out from the higher elevation, and emerge at the other end and connect with the subway and the inter- state and suburban buses by escalator underneath. Mr. MOEWEN. You envision this as serving the suburban buses coming into the city, the interstate buses- Mr. OwEN. And local buses. Mr. MOE WEN. All of these buses would have to usecity streets? Mr. OwEN. They do, except this ~ould take the interstate and some of the suburban buses off of the streets. In other words, we will use the center leg access. In communication with the Bureau of Public Roads it is feasible to bring an underground connection from the center leg to the east boundary of our project. Mr. MOE WEN. The center leg-. * Mr. OWEN. That is the red lines [indicating]. Mr. MOEWEN. Indicated red on your map? Mr. OWEN. Yes, sir, coming through I Street, running directly into the facility, which will not be on the surface at all, cut down the run- ning time for these interstate buses for as much as 15 minutes between here and New York. Mr. MOEWEN. I wanted to ask a question, will copies of this ~map be included in the record? Mr. Gi~p~y. Do you have that on a smaller scale? Mr. OWEN. Yes. We have considerably more detailed presentation which we could have shown, but it will take about 40 minutes to do that, colored slides and so on. Mr. GRAY. Do you have this in, say, about 8 by 10 size? Mr. OWEN. Yes. Mr. GRAY. Without objection we will include it in the record at this point. Mr. OWEN. We will submit it to you. (For Mr. Owen's extended remarks see p. 67.) Mr. GRAY. I think this would be very helpful. Mr. MOEWEN. That will have the same designations and colors as this which we are referring to? Mr. OWEN. More detailed than that, sir. Mr. GRAY. Very fine. Mr. OWEN, I notice you are accompanied by Mr. L. A. Jennings, chairman of the Federal City Council, and Maj. Gen. Louis W. Prentiss, Federal City Council. PAGENO="0052" 48 ~AT~ONAL V1SI~OR ~NT~ A~T OF 1967 Would these gentlen~eu plea$e come forward. We will take Mr. Jennings first. STATEMENT OP LEWELLYN A. IENNINGS~ CB~IRM~N, PEDEL~L CITY G~UN~IL Mr. JENNINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the subcom- mittee, my name is Lewe&lyn A. Jennings and I am chairman of the Federal City Council. As you may be aware, Mr. Chairman, our civic organization supports the major proposals which are of civic benefit to the Nation's Capital. May I compliment you, Mr. Chairman, on the selection of the Union Station as the Visitors Center. lEt is one of the most beautiful build- ings in Washington. Lying as it does at the end of one of our most impressive avenues, it is indeed a most fitting site for the millions of annual visitors to Washington. We therefore agree that such a Center as provided for in IELR. 12603, would prove to be a most advantageous addition to the city. We have been strong supporters of the National Exposition and Transportation Center described by Mr. Owen. We agree with him that a National Exposition and Transportation Center, in conjunc- tion with a nearby Visitors Center located in Union Station, would prove to be assets of great value to the Nation's Capital. The site selected for the National Exposition and Transportation Center is one of the most dilapidated sections of downtown Washing- ton's business district. Its revitalization through this project will have a most beneficial effect on the whoie area. We know that a permanent industrial exposition is favored by national industry-~and what better place than in the Capital of our great Nation. The complex lying as it does on both sides of the proposed Eighth Street MaJ1 will add much to the beauty of the city, and in particular to the Pennsyl- vania Avenue project with which it is also entirely compatible. From a practical standpoint, such a National Exposition, which will attract millions of annual visitors, requires a great transporta- tion interchange. Otherwise, it would result in hopeless street con- gestion. There is not room to put such a National Exposition and Transportation Center in the Visitors Center, nor is such a major at- traction planned as part of Iil.R. 12603. In fact, it would be most diffi- cult to find space for the 3 million square feet required, yet such an exposition is certainly an equally attractive feature for the visitors to Washington. I fully agree with Mr. Owen that these two great features, the Visitors Center and the National Exposition, are mutually compati- ble, that both are extremely beneficial in the development of the city and will materially add to the vitality of the Nation's Capital. I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to express the views of the Federal City Council on the advantages to Wash- ington as set forth in H.R. 12603, and to what I believe is its com- panion project which we also completely endorse. Mr. GRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Jennings, for a very fine statement. Did I understand you to testify just now that the proposed Indus- trial Exposition Center that you have outlined here, and Mr. Owen PAGENO="0053" NATIONAI~ VISITOR CENTE!R ACT OF 1967 49 has outlined this morning, ~will encompass something like 3 million square feet~ Mr JENNINGS Yes As a matter of fact, I would say it is probably in excess of that, but on the conservative side it would be 3 million square feet. Mr GRAY The Union Station is just in excess of 300,000 ~ Mr JENNINGS Yes, it is a large project Mr. GRAY. Very large project. Mr. JENNINGS. Eight floors. I might say that we, at our own expense, have had some architects, possibly this will come out of statements made by my colleagues, but architects have done some preliminary work, and at one time, while it was considered it would be 5 million square feet, but this is a very large project. (Extended remarks follow:) EXTENDED REMARKS TO THE STAmMENT OF LI~EWYLN A. JENNIN4aS, CHAXRMAN OF THE FEDEEAL CITY couNcIL On behalf of the Federal City Council, I wish to thank the committee for the courtesy and interest given me during my testimony ~n September 13, 1967. I am most pleased to avail myself of their unanimous consent to extend my remarks, as follows: The site selected for the Exposition and Transportation Center has a very small residential population and contains a considerable number of transients. In one of the blocks there is no occupied housing. In a very considerable por- tion of the site, houses have already been demolished and the land is used for surface parking. Since this is one of the older portions of Washington, the great percentage of remaining houses date from 1885 or earlier. Under such circum- stances the relocation problem will be minimal. As the committee is aware, ordinarily this becomes a major factor when *an area is rehabilitated by a major undertaking. The areas adjacent to the site, particularly east and north, across Mt. Vernon Square, are low cost housing. The project will require several thousand em- ployees. This will enable those living In these areas to walk to work, a matter of considerable importance to those with lower lncom~s. At present, 7th Street near Mt. Vernon Square is considered unsafe, particu- larly after dark. The Exposition and Transportation Center will be ablaze with light and active until midnight. This will radically improve the whole area as well as the nearby business district. The library at Mt. Vernon Square is a beautiful building. A new library is be- ing built do~vntown and this one will be abandoned. It would be my hope that this building~ could be retained and possibly turned over to the Smithsonian, so that historical exhibits could be shown from time to time, In conjunction with special displays by various industries in the Exposition Center. Mr. GRAY. I might say in that connection that I am very familiar with fllellmuth, O'Bata & Kassabaum, and they do very good work. They are designing the air museum here on the Mall, and they designed the ma~dmum security Federal prison in my congressional district. They do very fine work. All right. General Prentiss, we are glad to see you this morning. You may proceed in your own fashion. STATEMENT O~F MAL GEN. LOUIS W. PRENTISS, CHAI~AN, PROJECT PLANNING COMMITTEE, PEDERAL CITY COUNCIL General PlizN'rlss. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, my name is Louis W. Prentiss and I am chairman of the Project Planning Committee of the Federal City Council. ll.E. 12603, setting up a Visitors Center in Washington, is a great step forward and I can but confirm the PAGENO="0054" 50 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 highly favorable comments of those who have preceded me today. I wish to compliment you, Mr. Chairman, on your excellent choice of a site at the Union Station and of your wise provision for adequate parking facilities. New terminal facilities for the forthcoming high- speed trains are further proof of the care and foresight which has gone into the provisions of this bill. As you may know, in the early 1950's I was Engineer Commis- sioner of the District of Columbia and the experience I then acquired with the problems of Washington has given me a deep and lasting interest in the development of our Nation's Capital. In my opinion, the Visitors Center and the project endorsed by the civic groups and presented here today together give our city advantages possessed by no other nation's capital. These two prime improvements are wholly com- patible and each augments the other. I refer again to the maps discussed by Mr. Owen. The center leg which is now under constructioii, and the proposed underground terminals in the exposition transportation center, will afford an un- usual opportunity to relieve traffic congestion and at the same time provide desparately needed new facilities for both interstate and sub- urban buses. The subway station at Eighth and G Streets and the one at the Visitors Center will be less than 5 minutes apart in traveling time, thereby providing convenient transportation facilities between the two projects. While none of those who have so far testified have made mention of the growing needs of the airlines, I believe there is a definite prob- ability that as our plans further develop it will be possible to utilize these terminals and the center leg for the future mass transportation of passengers to airfields to board the 500-passenger planes which to- day are still on the drawing boards. The idea being they would be assembled there and transported di- rectly in one move to the 500-passenger plane. The center leg will be connected by underground accesses to the terminals under H and I Streets. This will remove virtually all the interstate buses from the city streets and at least 60 percent of the suburban buses. I know of no other solution to the downtown traffic congestioii which could behalf as effective. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for the opportunity of testifying on H.R. 12603, the Visitors Center, and on. this project which I am convinced is its natural concomitant. Mr. &ii~i'. Thank you, General Prentiss. Your contribution as a member of the Board of Commissioners of the District is well known, and it is refreshing to see someone continue to have an interest in the Capital City. And we deeply appreciate your coming this morning. We appreciate your testimony. Do I understand that you would support the airlifting of people from the Visitors Center to the outlying airports through scheduled helicopter service from Union Station? General PRENTISS. That would be a detail that the engineers of your project would have to work out. I was mentioning the transpor- tation of people by bus from the bus terminals to the airports for these 500-passenger planes. Mr. Giw~. I misunderstood what you said. I knew you mentioned the lifting of people. I thought you meant, when you said lifting, ver~ tical lifting. PAGENO="0055" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 51 General PRENTI55. No; I would like to say also that I am a native- `born Washingtonian, and the only one who has ever been the Engineer Commissioner and native born, both. My family has lived here since 1789,' so I have roots around here. (Extension remarks follow:) EXTENDED REMARKS TO STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL Louis W. PRENTISS USA (RET.) I wish to thank the committee for the attention accorded me in my testimony of September 13, 19417. The unani'mou~ consent granted to extend my remarks gives the opportunity for me to include the following suggestion. I believe from the comments of the chairman and other members of the com- mittee that the great advisability of separating two such great traffic generators, the Visitors Center, and the Exposition and Transportation Center, was given full recognition. During the hearing there was discussion of the delay in our project which had resulted from the National Capital Planning Commission not having yet made a transportation study. This study was to be based on their concept of a unified transportation center at the Union Station. Inasmuch as separation of the Visi- tors Center and the Exposition and Transportation Center appears most logical for many reasons, including as a most important factor elimination of traffic congestion, may I suggest that the transportation study I refer to above could be materially curtailed. All that is actually required now is assurance of practicality of vehicular access to the Visitors Center. Our traffic studies for our project which contemplate use of the Center Leg, are developed in principle and need but refinement of detail. For example, we have already been assured that the Center Leg will absorb with- out difficulty the additional traffic we will impose upon it, Much time and very considerable government funds can be saved by such cur- tailment. It is my hope that the committee will give consideration to this suggestion Mr. `Gm~y. Are there any questions of General Prentiss or any of his associates? Thank you very much, all three of you gentlemen, for coming this morning. The next `witness will `be Mr. `Coon, assistant vice president of the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade. Mr. Coon, we are delighted to see you this morning. We appreciate having you here this morning. You may proceed. STATEM~NT OP CHARLES C. COON, ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON BOARD OP TRADE Mr. COON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members `of the committee. I `would `like to express the sincere regrets of our president of the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade, Leonard B. Doggett, Jr., for his inability to be with you this morning. He had every intention of `being here, and asked me `t'o he sure to record his regrets at this time. If I may, I will proceed with his statement. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, you may be aware of the keen interest that the board has always had in the tourists and visitors coming to Washington. This is one of our main industries here and I am glad to say increases in volume each year. We have long felt the need for a focal point for these welcome visi- tors and believe the Visitors Center at the Union Station, as contained in H.R. 12603, is a most necessary addition to Washington. May I add, Mr. Chairman, that we, as well as the others present, know of the time PAGENO="0056" NATIONAL VISITOR CRNTRn AOT OF 1967 and study you have given this matter and all of us wish to express our sincere appreciation for the practicality of your solution. I also feel that the proposed exposition and transportation inter- change, which we fully support, is entirely in accord with the Visitors Center as contained in the bill on which we are testifying. We became extremely interested in this proposed exposition and transportation interchange when we confirmed the great interest of national industry in a permanent exposition in Washington. Several meetings were held with industrial leaders a~d it was established that they preferred a downtown location provided there was assurance of easy access by both private and public transportation. This exposition will not be a trade mart; it will be an exhibition of the latesl in Ameri~ can ingenuity in modern methods and machinery. As such it will be a living example of the depth and strength of our country's industrial economy. This will be most impressive to the millions of our citizens, school children, and foreign visitors coming each year to Washington. Our organization has always `been interested in the acute parking problems in Washington. With 4,000 parking places at the Visitors Center, and 3,500 in this project, 7,500 off-street parking sites will relieve at least some of the present need. We are equally inte~rested in business conditions do~wntown. There is no question that business is now drifting west, but the major retail establishments are all located immediately adjacent to this site. We know that this project will have a profound impact on the revitalization of this area. `Of equal im- portance is the elimination of downtown street congestion which has already reached the saturation point. The removal of the interstate buses from the city streets, the replacement of the present inadequate terminal facilites, and the provision for the ~f1rst time of modern com- muter bus facilities will all combine to make a lasting and needed improvement to Washington. One point I should like to bring to your att&ntion is `the close rela- tion between this exposition and the Smithsonian Institute. The latter shows the development of American ingenuity from &~rliest times to the present. The exposition shows that this perfection of every `type of mechanism still goes on; that America is a young, healthy, growing industrial nation and has lost none of its skill in providing better living and more employment for its citizens. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the `opportunity of appearing before your committee on these two matters which mean so much to Wash- Ington, and I appreciate your accepting me in place of the president of the board of trade. Mr. GRAY. Thank you very much for a very fine statement. On yes- terday I announced that the tourists are spending on `the average of $350 to $400 million a year here in Washington. I also announced for the record that the National j~ark Service in their studies show that the average tourists stays less than 2 days, primarily because of the frustration of no place to park, et cetera. On that basis, if we were to consider that we could get the Visitors Center established and allow people to park their cars, they could see Washington in an orderly manner, and, say, if we could double their stay to an average of 4 days, this could mean an additional $400 mil- lion to the merchants and the people in the Washington area spent by tourists. PAGENO="0057" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 53 And just figuring the sales tax, entertainment tax, at least, let's say, across the board of 4 lx~rcdnt, this could coni~eivably bring into Wash- mgton an additional $16 million pei~ year jUSt ~ii taxes. lou can see that the aiiniial rental payii~ent would be only $2.9 million so I think that is is very conceivable to agree that the addthoiial taxes alone, brought into the Metropolitan Washington a iea woul ci more than pay the lease arrangement for this Visitors Center. Would you agree with that statement, Mr. Coon ? Mr. COON. This sounds reasonable to me, Mr. Chairman, although I am not an authority Qu the project at hand. Mr. Gn~&y. I am talking in round figures. Mr. COON. May I toss one comment in the hopper here, as long as you have touched on this. I spent a number of years traveling in the United States for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States and dealt with individual chambers of commerce around the country. And I am impressed by the fact that if any of these cities that I am familiar with had any opportunity at all to get hold of a project which promises $200 million worth of priyate investment, the agencies of the city and everyone, interested would certainly do everything possi- ble to get this kind of investment. And I hope the committee will encourage this project on that basis, if none other, because its economic contribution to the District of Columbia at this time would be particularly apropos, I think. Mr. GRAY. I might point out that the U.S. Travel Agency says that 10 tourists staying overnight every night, 365 nights, equals 100,000 people working in a factory, the payroll would be equivalent, just 10 people staying each night for a full year. You can see that, if we have the proper accommodations where a lot of people are coming here and are not disillusioned after a day or so and if we had the facilities of keeping them here, this could be untold millions of dollars in addi- tional revenue, which would certainly be good for the business people and your people on the Washington Board of Trade. Also, very important is the fact that last year our annual payment to Washington was over a hundred million dollars. This comes from all the taxpayers all over th~ Nation, and it is in lieu of taxes because of the large number of Government buildings we have here; so, if we bring in more taxes to the people in the District of Columbia, this means less money we have to take out of the. Treasury to pay the District of Columbia, so I think the amount of rental here is infini- tesimal, compared to the potential income in taxes to the District of Columbia through increased tourist trade. This is substantiated by the U.S. Travel Agency. Mr. CooN. I think both of these opportunities are tremendous oppor- tunities for the economic development of Washington. You will prob- ably recall that the Board of Trade is thoroughly in support of lifting people from downtown Washington by helicopter to our airports. Mr. GRAY. I might state in that connection that the CAB has far more applicants to start this service than we even dreamed possible. They have 13 applicants, including 11 major airlines. So I think our dream that we share is going to come true, that we will get this service. We hope ~o, very soon~ .. . Thank you again, Mr. Coon. Are there any questions at all of Mr. Coon of the Washington Board of Trade? PAGENO="0058" 54 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 19 67 Thank you very much. We appreciate your help and we appreciate your coming this morning. Our next witness will be Gen. James A, Molhson, chairman, Public Affairs Committee, Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade. STATEMENT OP BRIG. GEN. NAMES A. MOLLISON, CHAIRMAN, PUBLIC APPAIRS COMMITTEE, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON BOARD OP TRADE General MOLLISON. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is James A. Mollison and I am chairman of the Public Affairs Committee of the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade. As have the previous witnesses, I thoroughly concur in the advan- tages that a Visitors Center will confer on Washington This city is more than the Capital of the United States; it is in effect the capital of the free world. A Visitors Center housed as it will be in such a monumental building, in such attractive a setting is a most fitting and needed' additioirto Washington; therefore, Mr~ Chairman, I' can only add my support to such a concept as set forth in H.R 12603. For several years previously I have been chairman of the trans- portation committee of the board of trade. The growth of our city has been almost phenomenal and farmlands of but a few years ago are now not only individual houses but great apartment developments. The number of commuters pouring into the city daily is greatly in- creasing. Virtually all of this public transportation is by suburban bus- lines yet there is no terminal for such buses and their patrons must wait in the open in all weather. One terminal point is on Pennsylvania Avenue, another on 11th Street. Both these congest the traffic. With the completion of the new FBI building on the north side of the avenue, the Federal Triangle across from it, plus the number of others whose destination is downtown, a solution must be found for this transporta- tion congestion and inconvenience to our citizens. `The exposition trans- portation project of the civic groups provides modern terminals for commuters, and through the use of the center leg will take about 60 percent of these buses off the city streets as well as materially reducing their schedules. The present subway plan provides ideal redistribution to all of down- town as well as to the Visitors `Center. It might be said that as the sub- way expands in future years there will be less space required for suburban terminals. This is true and the space now planned for their use can be, from the studies that have been made, easily diverted to other uses. Washington is estimated to. have a population of 4 to 5 million by the year 2000 and from studies we have made there will always be alternate uses available in~ the exposition transportation project. May I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to have ex- pressed my support for the Visitors Center. I also hope that is my re- marks I have been able to at least indicate the close~ co-relation between it and that `of the civic groups in Washington, D.C. Mr. Gn~r. Thank you, General Mollison; that was a very fine state- ment. We appreciate the support the Washington Board of Trade is giving this proposal. PAGENO="0059" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 55 Are these any questions from any of the members of the committee? Mr. SOHWENGEL. I have an observation that I want to make. I am in complete sympathy about what all of you have said about the ad- vantages of this Visitors Center to Washington, D.C., and to the people here. This is grand and fine, and I hope you all become million- aires as a result. But I would hope all of you would say that you are doing this for the people who come here who need to learn about this great complex. I would like to have all of you reflect on your statements and add to that thought. I would not want the Nation to think that you people are all doing this for your own benefit. All of us, I think, should have the attitude we are doing this for the Nation's benefit and the people who come here, who need a place to park, who need to have a better opportunity to see the facilities, and the opportunity here to learn. This I know is what you are thinking about, but you ought to say so. General M0LLI50N. I agree with you, sir. I think we should because if we can make this a pleasant place to visit, we will get more visitors. Mr. SCUWENGEL. That is right. You do not have tcr talk about the advantages, the advantages will come with the service you give. General M0LLI50N. That is right. (Extended remarks follow:) EXTENDED REMARKS ~IO STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. JAMES A. MOLLISON (RETIRED) I am very pleased with the attention given me In my testimony of September 13, and appreciate the opportunity which the unanimous consent of the com- mittee gives me to extend my remarks. Many factors regarding traffic require- ments have been given serious thought in the Exposition and Transportation Center project. There will be a car reservoir area inside the cothplex to prevent lines of cars on adjacent streets waiting entrance for parking, and thus con~ gesting traffic. Likewise there will be sufficient exits in order that there will be no traffic stoppage in rush hours. Provision will be made for those buses, prin- cipally suburban, which wish to travel on the city streets instead of the Center leg. Facilities will be included for trucks servicing the exhibits, stores, and restaurants in the building. Of importance is the planning of pedestrian movement, between levels, for the infirm or handicapped. I make reference to all of the above to assure the com- mittee that we are including such features in our initial designs. There is, however, one point regarding this complex that has not yet been mentioned. It will be, to my knowledge, the largest practical fall-out shelter in the country. While naturally it is hoped it will never be needed for this pur- pose, such shelters cannot be improvised in the threat of imminent attack, 3~et due to its design of three underground levels, it is particularly adaptable for such a purpose. Megaton H~bombs achieve maximum effect by air bursts, the optimum height depending on the size of the bomb. Ground bursts blast tre- mendous craters, far deeper than the lowest level we plan, but do not cause so widespread destruction. While an air burst through its fire ball, its lethal rays and the hurricane winds it causes, would be instantly fatal to anyone on the surface, these effects are minimized underground, even if the burst ~vas directly overhead. This would be by sheer chance. The Exposition and Transportation Center is within running distance of eighty to one hundred thousand people. Once inside, their chances of survival would be tremendously increased. The availability of access to the subway, or even the Center leg, if the latter can be cleared, would also offer an opportunity for evacuation after the attack. The entire complex is to be built with commercial funds; the underground structure as a fall-out shelter would be at no cost to th~ government, Wt~ would be happy to work with the appropriate agencies so that emOrgency use could be made of the underground areas for this purpose. PAGENO="0060" 56 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 EXTENDED REMARKS OF LRONARR B. D000ETT, JR., PRESIDENT, THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE The unanimous consent of the Committee to extend my remarks is genuinely appreciated. I would like to make reference to certain programs for the better- inent of Washington in which our organization is taking the leadership. We have made clear our support for the proposed "Exposition and Transporta- tion Center" and the Visitors Center at Union Station. I would like to point out some ver~' important additional benefits to our National Oapital which will flow from the construction and operation of these facilities. The Board of Trade is fully committed to programs designed to generate em- ployment opportunities and strengthen the economic health of Metropolitan Washington based upon a dynamic and progressive central city. We are deeply tnvolved in developing ways to provide new job opportunities for all of our citizens. The Exposition and Transportation Center will provide several thousand such new opportunities, We believe the health of this city de- pends upon maintaining a mutually beneficial balance between private business development and the expanding needs of the United States Government in its Federal City. In view of the steadily growing federal establishment from a physi- cal and land use point of view, the Board of Trade believes that a project with the potential of the Exposition and Transportation Center should be welcomed with open arms. The creation of jobs in large quantity without the use of federal funds is difficult to achieve in our non-industrial area and the Exposition and Transportation Center is, in our judgment, a tremendous opportunity to do just that. We want to emphasize that in the midst of a host of critical problems facing this urban area, we believe the prospect of several thousaiid new jobs, many of which would be open to our disadvantaged citizens, is a big "plus" factor that should not be overlooked. Equally of importance is the great need to expand the tax base of the District of Columbia. The new District Government is faced with a host of critical prob- lems and virtually every effort to solve them requires huge amounts of tax dol- lars. We understand the annual real estate tax alone on the Exposition and Trans- portation Center is estimated at $3,500,000 per year, a very substantial sum. For example, this figure is two and one-half times the 1966 tax revenue realized from the Southwest Urban Renewal Area, a federal urban renewal project begun in the District of Columbia in 1954. It is more than two and one-half times as much money as is being recommended for vocational education operations in D.C. in the 1968 budget. Therefore, in a city where about half the land area is not on the tax rolls and where the need for revenue is so urgent, the Board of Trade be- lieves that every reasonable opportunity to generate tax dollars should be en- couraged. The Exposition and Transportation Center represents, as far as we know, the largest single proposal for completely private development that has ever been made in the District of Columbia. The Board of Trade has, throughout its 78-year history, recognized and sup- ported the predominant federal interest in Washington. Both the Visitors' Center and the Exposition and Transportation Center will be facilities of national impor- tance. This city belongs to all the citizens of the United States. The Visitors' Center and the Exposition and Transportation Center will be imaginative addi- tions to Washington serving all the millions of people who will come to visit their National Capital. Indeed, if we do not provide adequate visitors' facilities and greatly improve the transportation system of our city, it may well be that within a few years the Nation's Capital will not be considered a convenient and attrac- tive city to visit. I appreciate the opportunity to present this additional testimony in support of the proposed Visitors' Center and the Expositiop and Transportation Center. Thanic you. Mr. SCHWENGEL. All of you ought to speak more of this and think more ~f this. Mr. Gi~r. Very good point from the gentleman from Iowa. The next witness is Mr. Claude A. .Jessup, eastern chairman, Con- tinental Trai}ways Bus Systems. I am delighted to se~ you, Mr. Jessup, and appreciate your coming tliismornrng. PAGENO="0061" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 57 STATEMENT OP CLAUDE A IESSUP, ?RESTI~tNT, ~ASTThN CONTThIENTAL TRAILWAYS ~T5S: S~ST~lVXS Mr. JEssup. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the sub- committee, my name is Claude A. Jessup, and I am president of the Eastern Continental Trailways Bus Systems Our corporation and that of Greyhound Lines are the two major interstate busline~ in the country Beside our regularly scheduled operations w~ charter buses from all parts of the country to many groups for many purposes A great number of these Visit Washington and heretofore had had no destinations in the city save hotels or motels. I am completely in accord with the concept of a Visitors Center as proposed in H R 12603 and consider this will provide an excellent opportunity for these groups to secure full information upon their arriVal in the city. While this is not specifically mentioned in the bill, I respec~tfuIly suggest that chartered buses, of all lines, debark at the Visitors Center upon their arrival I do not believe that this ~ ould unduly congest the traffic situation on the station plaza, or the immediately adjacent streets I feel for these reasons that H R 1260~ will fill a long needed and necessary improvement to Washington. Beside our chartered service we also have regularly scheduled bus service to all parts of the United States. We, and Greyhound, carry a tremendous number of passengers on these scheduled runs. Our annual number of passengers initiating, terminating, or passing through Washington amounts to 4 million. This requires an average of 360 individual buses arriving Or departing daily from the city. Each of these buses is 8 feet by 32 feet in dimension, or 320 square feet, So many buses on the streets around the Union Station would absorb so much of the available street surface as to result in very heavy congestion. If added to this were the Greyhound buses, it becomes apparent why we also are in complete agreement with the transportation exposition project which has been endorsed by the civic groups of Washington as set forth here today. Our buses require loading docks for both passengers and baggage. It is not unusual for a bus to dock for 30 minutes or more. Yet due to our growing Volume of business our present terminal facili- ties in Washington are completely inadequate. We have a daily prob- lem to find space for arrivals and departures and holidays but multi- ply our difficulties. The terminals planned for the project being pre- sented to your committee will solve our constantly growing needs for many years in the future. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that you are aware of the history of the New York Port Authority bus terminal. As originally built, this was considered to be adequate for an indefinite period. Within a few years it became necessary, at more than the original cost, to rebuild it to more than double its original size. The Washington project has not made this mistake, and equally important has provided for direct access without street congestion. Since buslines offer the lowest cost public transportation facilities between cities, our patrons generally use other public transportation to and from our terminal. Therefore, the transportation interchange concept to suburban buses, the subway, and local buses is of prime importance to us also because of the convenience it oITer~ our customers. PAGENO="0062" 58 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 In cqnclusion, Mr. Chairman~and members of the committee, may I be permitted to congratulate you on the proposed Visitors Center and to express the hope that in my testimony I have been able to show that the terminal exposition project fits in with your deter- mination to improve Washington and the growing need for better terminals, both rail and bus, in the Nation's Capital. I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to appear before the committee to repeat my support of the Visitors Center for the benefit of all the people who are coming to Washington. Mr. GRAY. Thank you very much. That is a very fine statement and we appreciate it immensely. We think they are compatible and can complement each other, the bus system and the need for serving the people who come here to visit the Nation's Capital.. (Extended remarks follow:) EXTENDED REMARKS TO STATEMENT OF CLAUDE A. JESSUP OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1967, PRESIDENT, CONTINENTAL TRAILWAYS EASTERN LINES I wish to thank the committee for the unanimous consent which permits me to extend my remarks and to express my appreciation for the consideration given me in my testimony of September 13, 1967. It is my hope that between the representative of Greyhound and myself we have been able to show the volume of passengers the bus lines carry annually. We have become an integral part of the public transportation facilities of this country, and each year we are faced with further expansion to meet the demands of the public. No one knows better than we that every form of transportation, rail, plane, and private car, as well as buses, is also equally needed. We wel- come the development of the high speed trains and the growth of the airlines. There is enough business for all of us, and there is more to come. I consider the use of the Visitors Center for chartered buses and school buses a most excellent idea, and one that could be advantageously copied by the other centers of tourist attraction in the United States. Both Greyhound and ourselves have had much experience with such spe- cialized services, and if we can be of assistance in any respect in aiding the practical development of these facilities at the Visitors Center, I am sure Grey- hound will join with us in making this experience available to you. Mr. GRAY. Our next witness is Mr. Virgil T. MeKibben, assistant regional manager, Greyhound Lines, Inc. He will present testimony for Mr. H. Vance Greenslit, chairman of the board of Greyhound Lines, Inc. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. GRAY. Back on the record. STAThMENT OP VIRGIL T. MeKIBBEN, ASSISTANT REGIONAL MANAGER, EASTERN GREYHOUND' LINES Mr. MCKIBBEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Virgil T. McKibben, assistant regional manager, Eastern Greyhound Lines, Division of Greyhound Lines, Inc.., and I am repre- senting Mr. H. Vance Greenslit, chairman of the board of our corpo- ratiGn, who regrets his inability to be present, as he is out of the country. As stated by Mr. Jessup of Continental Trailways, we also charter a large number of buses to groups. H.R. 12603, providing a central point where visitors can initiate their tours of such a landmark as, PAGENO="0063" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 59 Washington, appears to us to provide an example which might well. be imitated by other main tourist centers in the country. We respect- fully suggest that `buses handling such touring groups should be per- mitted to make the Visitors Center their first stopping place. We are very much interested also in the proposal of the Washington civic groups for an exposition and transportation interchange on the site selected by them. From a transportation aspect, we feel that this offers a practical solution to our constant and increasing concern of inadequate' terminal facilities here and the growing congestion of traffic on the downtown streets. Our buses are large; they have to be. We know we add to traffic congestion and this makes it worse for the citizens of Wasl~pgton, as well as ourseli~cs. It is som~~hat defea~ng to arrive at the outskirts of the city on schedule, and be 30 minutes late by the time you reach our terminals. The use of the center leg, the consequent elimination of traffic congestion, and equally adequate terminal facilities will enable us to improve our service considerably. If the 5 million annual passengers per year we carry, plus the 420 individual buses' to and from Washington, are added to the figures given by Mr. Jessup, this results in 9 million bus passengers annually and 780 total daily number of buses. Taking these off the city streets would be of great benefit both to the citizens of Washington, as well as ourselves. From our national experience we can do nothing but applaud, Mr. Chairman, your Visitors Center as set forth in H.R. 12603. This will be a model for other cities to follow. So, also, will be the proposal of the Washington civic groups, and I hope in this brief statement I have been able at least to indicate the interrelationship between the two. On behalf of Mr. Greenslit, myself, and our corporation, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to present our views. Mr. GRAY. Thank you, Mr. McKibben. That was a very forthright and very fine statement. I noticed you testified to the fact that 9 mil- lion bus passengers come to Washington each year. Would you hesitate to guess about how many of those are through passengers and how many right stay here for a visit? I am talking about visitors versus the intrastate or interstate passengers. Mr. MCKIBBEN. Of course Washington is quite a visiting center, as you know, and it would be a little difficult without checking the records. I would like to ask Mr. Jessup what percentage you think. Mr. JEssUP. Washington is a `destination city. Mr. GRAY. You would say a majority of them would stay some time- Mr. JEssup. I would sa,y 85 per'~ent. Mr. MCKIBBEN. I would say about 10 percent were through. Mr. GRAY. Ten percent would go on through and 90 percent would stay. The reason I asked that question, we are thinking seriously of putting in at least eight ramps leading into the parking area, four in and four out, and making provisions for a very high ceiling on the ground level in order to accommodate a large number of buses, because, we feel that with the escalator system that we would propose in the' upper levels of the parking garage, it `would be very easy for the private car owner to get out of his car and come down the escalator. We could carry large vehicles on the ground level, and it would be much better. I was trying to get some reading as to how many buses, and what per- PAGENO="0064" 60 NA~1ONAL VISITOR CENTEIk AC1~ OF 1967 centage of people who come here by bus would be potential Visitors. Do you think it would be a large number, those who come here by bus are probably coming to stay a short period, and would do some sight- seeing? Mr. MQKIBBEN. Yes; that is true. Why I gave that figure, I believe our figure would be like 10 percent, Mr. Jessup s~üd 15---~we run a number of trips that bypass Washington on ou~ New York-Florida service that circle around. Mr. Ga~&y. Those that come here generally are coming to the city for a ~risit of some duration, otherwise he could hare taken a through bus. Mr. MCKIBBEN. I did not put in our prepared statement the num- ber of chartered buses we operate into this area~ which would give you some idea of the number of people that come here. I took this from our 1~J66 records. We have to report our mlle~ to the Utilities Com- mission in the District, and we operated 4,441 charter buses into Wash- ington, in and out of Washington, last year. Mr. GnAY. 4,400. Mr. MOKIBBEN. Which we reported to the District of Columbia Commission here. Mr. GRAY. When you say we, are you referring to all of your affiliates all over the country? Mr. MOKIBBEN. No, we, Greyhound Lines, Inc. Mr. GRAY. Let's say I have a school group in West Frankfort, Iii., my hometown, and they call the nearest affiliate and they charter a Greyhound bus and they come to Washington. Mr. MCKIBBEN. That's counted in there, those charters into Washington. Mr. GRAY. What is your average bus capacity per bus? Mr. MOKIBBEN. The average would be 38. Our bus seats from 37 to 43. Mr. GRAY. Let's say, average of 40 and 4,400 buses- Mr. MOKIBBEN. That was chartered, you understand, special buses bringing groups into the District. Mr. GRAY. That number probably increases each year, does it not? Mr. MGKIBBEN. One year it was down a little when we had the little disturbances, and it was anticipated at that time, but usually it is on the increase. Our business has been increasing each year. Mr. GRAY. All the time. An questions at all of Mr. McKibben? We thank you very much. You have been very helpful to our deliberations. Mr. MCKIBBEN. Thank you. (Extended remarks follow:) EXTENDED REMARKS TO STATEMENT OF II. VANCE GImENSLIT, `CHAiRMAN, GREYHOUND LINEs, INC. (As REPRESENTED BY VIRGIL T. MCKmBEN) I am most pleased to have the opportunity to extend my remarks due to the unanimous consent of the Committee and appreciate the interest and courtesy already given me at the meeting on `September 13, 1967. Under the provisionS of the Bill under con's'ideration~ the railroads are to build new terminals at the Visitors' Center site. Pheir present terminals were built in the early years uf this century, and I am sure the railroads will `make many changes to improve efficiency and convenience of their patrons. The above equally applies to Continental Trailways and ourselves in the Exposition and TransportatiOn Center. Not only are our present terminals in PAGENO="0065" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 61 Washington completely inadequate for our present volume of traffic, but they are also obsolete. We look forward to the opportunity of participating in the design- ing of these new terminals to provide the maximum in operation and comfort for our patrons. In fact, this is the objective of both interstate lines in order that these facilities may serve as a model for the other major cities of the country, and what better place than in the nation's capital. I have been informed that Mr. Jessup has offered the experience of Continental Trailways in assisting in the design of the facilities for chartered buses at the Visitors' Center. We also will be glad to join with them, and if either or both of us can be of help~ we would appreciate your calling on us. Mr. GRAY. The next witness is Mr. Clarence Arata, executive director of the Washington Convention and Visitors Bureau, Washington, D.C. Mr. Arata, we are certainly happy to have you this morning, and appreciate very much your con hug. ~`PA9I]~MENT OF ULARE~WE A. ARATA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, U A ~UThI~AN CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU Mr. ARATA. Mr. ( ~h~u.riua ii and n icuil eis of the suhcon in ijt tee. my name is Clarence A. Arata, executive du.etoi.~ of the Wa~hington (`au- vention and Visitors Bureau. The. office of our organizat on is iocated at 1616 K Street NW., Washington, D.C. rphe Washington Convention and Visitors Bureau has been in con- tinuous operation since 1931 and is the only agency, public or private, primarily responsible for the promotion of the visitor and convention traffic into this area. The bureau is a nonprofit organization, supported financially by over 1,200 business firms in the metropolitan area which supply 90 percent of our funds, and the District of Columbia govern- ment, which furnishes the remaining 10 percent. I am also first vice president of the National Association of Travel Organizations, a nationwide trade association acutely interested in furthering travel to and within the United States and the proper accommodation of those who do travel. A representative of this orga- nization is also submitting a statement today in support of H.R, 12603. Because of our ~ ery close relationship `~ ith visitors, either as tourists or as convention delegates, we are keenly aware of the need for a visitor information facility Our bureau, therefore, has con stantly urged and supported efforts to establish a visitor infoimation center in the District of `Columbia. While we make some efforts to furnish information to visitors, we know tha.t most visitors to this area do not reecive a good indoctrination of the entire meaning of a trip to Washington and its many historic and currently meaningful points of interest. Our bureau publishes and distributes millions of pieces of literature annually for the benefit of our visitors, and we have in circulation perhaps the finest film available on the Washington area. Not only are our literature and films available in English, but also in foregn Fin guages in order to attract foreign visitors as well But we know that the big void in properly welcoming and indoc- trinating our visitors is the lack of a central visitor center which could and should prepare the visitor for a memorable experience when coming to the great National `Capital area. Further, in the current concept of a truly "national" visitor informa- tion facility, the millions of visitors who come here could be intel ligently informed by exhibits, films, and displays on the attractions 85- 894-67-----5 PAGENO="0066" 62 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 of every State, territory, and possession of the United States as well as the District of `Columbia. It is a recognized fact that travel stands third in this country as an industry. One needs only to look at the tremendous increase in pleasure visitor and convention traffic in the Washington `area. Prior to World War II, visitors here numbered between 1 and 2 million per year. In 1~50, tourists and convention delegates numbered about 3,300,000. In 1960, this figure increased to 71/3 million. In the last several years, we have had the large total of over 9.5 million pleasure and convention visitors. Undoubtedly, this will increase to 15 and even 20 million within a relatively short time. These will be purely tourists and convention delegates. The pure business visitors, of course, increase these figures by additional millions. This is more than purely commercial business. The opportunity pre- sented by this city-to teach all our visitors the true fundamentals of democracy as exemplified by the shrines, memorials, and by the day- by-day democratic processes-is one we should not let pass. Most often the visitor to Washington does not have more than a few days to spend here, particularly for sightseeing. Many of them go away without having had the chance to get the most meaningful results from their visit. Only through a National Visitors Center equipped with literature of all types-with motion pictures and slides describing the major high- lights of this area and of the entire country-with well-informed guides to properly orientate the inquisitive visitor-with panoramic visuals leading the visitor to his principal interests-with intelligently presented information to the hundreds of thousands of students- with dramatic displays and information to the ever-increasing num- ber of visitors from overseas-only with this kind of service can the visitor be properly rewarded. We assume from the language and the tenor of H.R. 12603 that the need for and the desirability of a visitor information center has al- ready been established in Congress. As this committee well knows, desirable locations for a visitor cen- ter in Washington are fast disappearing. H.R. 12603 grasps an exist- ing structure which could be relocated over the vast railroad tract area adjacent to Union Station. A new station could be built which would be much more efficient and more adaptable to current and projected railroad passenger needs. This would then release the present Union Station structure for such alterations as would be required to provide the ~ Visitor Center. In view of the fact that there are few desirable locations I Center, Union Station seems to offer the best site, assuming, o: that the parking facilities and the access roadways suggested ~. Gray's bill are an integral part of the entire project. Traffic in Washington, as in all major cities, is a real problem. `i patterns around the Union Station area should and must be thoroi thought out and solutions reached by the best traffic experts ava not only for the present but for the long-term use of the pro~ visitor facility. PAGENO="0067" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 63 With the traffic problems solved, and with the necessary structural changes made, the National Visitors Center will become a monument to this forward-thinking Congress. I would like to add these final points in favor of the IJnion Station site: 1. Union Station is an already established landmark in Washing- ton; 2. From an architectural standpoint, it is recognized as a magnifi- cent structure; 3. It commands one of the most impressive views in the city by day and by night; 4. It would seem to provide an easy flow of traffic within the building; 5. It has good proximity to the major points of interest in Wash- rngton; 6. It has sufficient interior area to provide the necessary services to visitors; 7. It has good freeway accessibility; 8. It has good rapid transit accessibility; 9. It has superior railroad accessibility; 10. Bus transportation can be brought to it; and 11. It is convenient for air transportation facilities. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we appreciate the opportunity to ap- pear before you in support of H.R. 12603. I again want to congratulate you on your forward-looking concept of this Visitor Center and appreciate the opportunity to appear be- fore you today. Mr. GRAY. Thank you, Mr. Arata. That was one of the most de- tailed and informative statements we have had in our hearings. It has special meaning since it comes from a representative `of the Wash- ington Convention and Visitors Bureau, who has been grappling with this problem for many years. Let me ask you `this: If the legislation that is proposed should be- come law and the National Park Service should take over the Na- tional Visitors `Center, woi,~ld it not still be feasible for the Washington Convention and Visitors Bureau to provide some of the literature which would `speak directly for the people in Washington in such a Center? In other words, we would hate to lose the service of this long-estab- lished group. Have you been handling this particular problem in Washington and `do you foresee in this proposal, a place for the Wash- ington Convention and Visitors Bureau? Mr. A~TA. I certainly do, Mr. Chairman, and as a matter of fact, we are currently providing the National Park Service at their roadside information `stands, of which they have several now, with the literature that is given to those people who stop by the roadside stands and in- quire about points of interest in Washington. Mr. GnAY. So you would not only expect to keep your interest but expand upon the work you have been doing and you conceive be- tween the National Park Service running this and the Washington Convention and Visitors Bureau. PAGENO="0068" 64 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Mr. ARATA. None whatsoever. As a matter of fact, again we col- laborate pretty fully with the Park Service and as you perhaps know, `supply many, many Members of Congress for their own use several types of literature to give to their constituents who visit their office here. Mr. GRAY. I am delighted to hear you say that because I certainly applaud the work you people have been doing with the meager means you have. You need a facility to gather all of these people together which your group, of course, has not had the responsibility to provide. Mr. ARATA. I was interested in your statement before, Mr. Gray, about the tax returning directly to the District of Columbia from vis- itors' expense and the people in the District Building, the budget peo- ple, have given us information that just now our current $413 million, and it is that figure now, $413 million, are spent by tourists and conven- tion delegates in this area, somewhere between $15 and $16 million now ~goes directly back to the District of Columbia in taxes. Mr. GRAY. Fifteen to sixteen million? Mr. ARATA. Yes. Mr. GRAY. The round figures I used of $16 million were correct; $400 million and 4 percent tax which comes to about $16 million. Mr. ARATA. Correct, sir. Mr. GRAY. And that tends to be substantiated by the budget people in the District of Columbia ~ Mr. ARATA. Just hotel room tax alone, which has now increased to 5 percent, the next fiscal year it is estimated to be about $2.5 or $3 million, the yield out of room tax which is, of course, basically largely made up of tourists and convention people. Mr. GRAY. I am glad to hear that my guesstimate was that close. Are there any questions? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Schwengel of Iowa. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Arata, I am very glad to see you here. You, of course, know of my interest in what you have been doing and the work you have done for a long time. Eight years ago, this year, some of your people-maybe you were in that group-sat down and talked about it, the advisability, the feasibility, of a Visitors Center at. that time. Your people helped me draft the original bill introduce" ~r this. Mr. ARATA. Yes. Mr. SCHWFNGEL. For this I want. to say I you. I want you to really know that you doing some planning and work. Also, those of Congress, and the executive depa.i for the service you have offered, 1 it is flE people who come here. I know of the hundreds of thousai of literature you send out to be provided and ask for que gestions, and in this you have been of invaluable help. Mr. ARATA. Thank you. Mr. SCHWENGEL. You have made a very fine contribution. I was interested in your statement here, too. I want to coma 1 1 the literature, the thoughts, the ideas you cxpounde. vision you have demonstrated in your statement. Mr. ARATA. Thank you. PAGENO="0069" NATIONAL IrOd statement of Hon. Tom S. i(leppe STATm~ENT 0]? HON. ToM S. J~LET?PE I am happy to lend my support to H.R. 12603 and related bills to establish a National Capital Visitors Center here in Washington, D.C. I have long been ~orieerned With the growing eoh~estion in the Metropolitan nrea, with the result- ing inconvenience to both the residents of this City, and the ~nillions of visitors that arrive every year at this mecca of America. I have looked forward with anticipation to the report of the commission that was set up to study the need for such a center, and am hopeful that the Congress will enact legislation making the plan a reality in the near fitture. To that end, I was pleased to introduce H.R. 12831 (which is similar to H.R. 12603), a bill to establish a National Capital Visitors Center to be located in the present Union Station. As proposed, the National Capital Visitors Center would provide a better organized transportation system between the many historic sites in the area. It would also provide visitors with the ease and convenience of having at their disposal a focal point to plan their vacations in the Capital. Without some snCh focal point within the city, many visitors remember our Capital as a place where the monuments were too spread out; where ground transportation between points was insufficient; where what transportation there was, was congested and inconvenient ; and where the parking and parking tickets were a problem. These problems will be minimized once the National Capital Visitors Center is in operation. I have no doubt that once the National Capital Visitors Center becom~s a reality, more visitors will come to Washington, their stay will be more enjoy- able-and probably extended, and they will leave with only a heightened im- pression of the Nation's Capital-both as a national historical center, and as a modern and organized city. Mr. GL&y. Since that concludes our list of witnesses, I understand Mr. Owen would like to come back and sort of recap some of the testimony made by his association. Mr. Ow1~N. If I may, very briefly. Mr. Gp~&~. We are happy to recognize again, Mr. Owen. PAGENO="0070" 66 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 SUMMATION ~Y THORNTON W. OWflT-Resumed Mr. OWEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in our testimony we have endeavored to give you as brief, yet as comprehen- sive a description of our project as possible. Needless to say, our studies into d~tails have gone far further than this. In fact, we have a slide and taped presentation which we did not show in order to conserve your valuable time. The maps which we had prepared for this meeting were purposely designed to eliminate unnecessary details. We are in the hopes that from our statements here we have been able to demonstrate how effectively and without duplication our proj- ect is the counterpart of the Visitor Center as contained in H.R. 12603. If we have, this will give us particular encouragement in our effort to modify the decision of the National Capital Planning Commission of October 13, 1966. At that time they advised us that their proposed 1985 comprehensive plan for Washington envisaged that the major transportation center, including interstate buses, be located in the immediate vicinity of the Union Station, and suggested we move the exposition and parking features south of H Street and west of Ninth Street, Your Visitors' Center, as contained in H.R. 12603, does not en- visage any unified transportation center at the Union Center. More- over in the area they suggest, we would cause serious traffic congestion and no solution would be found for the interstate bus companies, or for any suburban terminal. The center leg is under construction and land has been acquired at least to Massachusetts Avenue. The use of the arterial freeway is an integral part of our plan. Under these circumstances if your committee agrees with us that our project will be `of benefit to Washington, we are prepared to return to the National Capital Planning `Commission requesting a new hearing. We are now prepared to answer the questions which we hope our presentation `has aroused sufficient interest on your part for you to ask. In line with what you mentioned earlier, Mr. Ch'airman, with re- gard to taxes, I might point out in our prepared statement we have estimated the increased real estate taxes from this project, over and above our current produced `by the existing improvements in the area, would amount to $3.5 million per year, based upon the present basis of `assessments and taxation. Mr. GRAY. Even if you took off the tax base, some of the `so-called substandard homes and `business places in this area, the new con- struction and new investment would- Mr. `OWEN. This would `be in addition to what is now produced. Mr. GRAY. In addition to, or over and above what is paid now. Mr. OWEN. Yes, sir. Mr. GRAY. In the aggregate of $3.5 million. Mr. OWEN. Not inclusive of any sales taxes, payroll taxes, and things of that type, employment taxes. Mr. GRAY. Of course, this committee would not be in the position of supporting the plan without public hearings, and some expression of interest by the individual members. I will address your recom- mendation to the National Capital Planning Commission, and ask that PAGENO="0071" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 67 they complete their studies as soon as possible, those studies that were ordered by the President in February of this year, so they could come to some resolution as to whether or not they felt they wanted to rec- omniend that this be done at Union Station or whether they want to leave it up to private enterprise-which I personally favor. By them coming to some resolution, would expedite your consideration, at least let you know where you are. Because as I understand, you are pretty much in the clark now as to what the city planners want to do about proceeding with your private plan. Mr. OWEN. As you know, most planners, if it is not their idea, it isn't any good. You may or may not know the Federal Aviation Agency was considering an airport terminal in downtown, which in- cidentally, would have been diagonally opposite where we planned. But, however, they would go in the residential area, meaning moving housing and we talked with their general counsel and they are per- fectly willing to work with us and create an airport terminal here as well as on top of the building. And they also did this with Dulles and Friendship. Mr. GRAY. You are referring to the ticket offices, are you not, the gathering portion? Mr. OWEN. Ticket office as well as the gathering of the passengers to go to and from the terminal. It will go eventualy through the Federal system, by short connection and use of Washington Railroad tracks, they can get into Dulles and another connection from Pennsylvania Railroad, a short connection into Friendship, and eventually through the subway system as planned, the rapid transit, will go into National. There will be an interchange between the bus people, the cars and air transport. Mr. GRAY. Right. We are figuring on advocating a heliport on top of Union Station for the airlifting of people who want to travel by air, hut as you know, only a~bou't 17 percent of the people iwho travel go by air, so I don't think this woufid be in competition at all with the buslines and surface transportation, but one would complement the other and provide a more rounded service. So `I don't `think we would get into conflict. Thank you very much, Mr. Owen. You and your group `have been very helpful and we thank you very much for the great enlightenment you have brought to this subject `and for your support we are indeed grateful. Mr. OWEN. We appreciate an oipiportunity `to ~ppear. (Extended remarks follow:) EXTENDED REMARKS TO STATEMENT OF THORNTON W. OWEN I greatly appreciate the court~sy of the subcommittee In their unanimous con- sent to allow `me, `and the officers of the other civic groups that accompanied me, to eXtend their remarks. In accordance wIth the sage comments of the Hon. Fred Sehwengel at the meeting on September 13, 1&67, I wish to emphasize that the EXposition and Transportation Center we propose is, like the Visitors Center, for the nation as a whole rather than primarily for the benefit of the citizen of the Metropolitan Washington area. The permanent industrial exposition will be national, the terminals and the parking areas serve :the visitors to Washington. That we have been able to in- PAGENO="0072" 68 NATIONAl PAGENO="0073" PAGENO="0074" 70 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Both Interstate bus, suburban bus, and parking levels connect with the center leg of the inner loop by tunnels under I Street. Above ground we have been, able to take advantage of the land contour which is some fifteen feet lower at H Street than at Mt. Vernon Square. A pedestrian level, completely separate from any vehicular traffic, will cover the area, at street level at the Square, and with escalators and stairs at H Street. Seventh and Ninth Streets will run through short tunnels under the pedestrian level. These, due to the land elevations, will be short, daylight tunnels, and the local buses will have cut-back loading platforms in the project to avoid traffic congestion. Attached is a sketch showing the pedestrian level (marked "0"). The first floor above the pedestrian level will be for retail stores with accesses by elevators to the industrial exposition ~n five floors above. Above the 3,700,000 sq. feet of exposition area will be approximately 1,580,000 sq. feet of office space on two floors. Originally some interest was expressed by the government in leasing this space; however, as our discussions with industry continue, we find that they are most interested in office space above their exhibits. The preliminary architectural concept visualizes a huge arcade over 8th Street with fountains, grass, benches, and bushes-in short, a pleasant place for people to come for relaxation. Attached is a sketch of this arcade (marked "D"). This carries out the general plan of WashIngton using 8th Street as a pedestian mall from Penn- sylvania Avenue to Mt. Vernon Square. Attached is a sketch of this plan (marked "E"). Particular attention is being given to the appearance of the above-ground ~structure in order that they will add to the beauty and dignity of Washington. PAGENO="0075" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 71 PAGENO="0076" 72 NATIONAL VISITOR CENT~R ACT OF 1 ~6 7 In the accompanying illustrations it will be noted that we have not drawn any perspective of the total complex though we have several designs in various stages of development. This structure will have a profound effect upon, the appearance of the downtown area, and therefore we wish to develop our plans further prior to completion of our drawings. The huge translucent arcade over 8th Street to which I refer above appears to have very considerable merit, and I hope that it will be an integral feature of our design. Gross square footage above ground Total aross This results in net square footage of 4,500,000 sq. ft. In response to questions from the committee, the following is a ~ of the total square footage in the complex. Square feet Ground floor 740,000 Exposition (2d to 6th floors inclusive) 3, 700,000 Offices (7th and 8th floors) 1, 580, 000 6,020,000 Gross square footage below ground Each sublevel is 1,000,000 sq. ft. x 3=3,000,000 sq. ft. This results in a net square footage of 2,375,000 sq. ft. Therefore, the total area above and below ground is: Gross, 9,080,000 sq. ft. and Net, 6,875,000 sq. ft. Two corporations are necessary, a commercial corporation to build and operate the entire complex, and a non-profit corporation composed of industry to set policies for the exposition areas, arrange for special displays, and, among many other matters, to issue a high grade quarterly brochure distributed nationally and internationally. This will include articles on the Visitors Center and the other points of Interest to encourage visitors to come to Washington. Our preliminary costs and revenue figures indicate that this great project can amortize over a reasonable term of years, pay operating expenses, and return PAGENO="0077" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 73 approximately $3,500,000 in additional real estate taxes alone, to say `nothing of other taxes t~ the District and Federal government. It is obvious that rental ñgures must he comparable with those existing elsewhere in the country, or leases cannot be obtained. For this reason, the operating corporation cannot be unreasonable in its demands nor make an undue profit. As a living example of industry and commercial exterprise which has made our rountry so great, it is felt that the best example for this project would be prF~rate commercial financing; therefore there will be no request for Federal funds. We must, however, have the use of eminant domain to acquire so large a site. This requires the approval af the National Capital Planning Commission. Statutory authority now exists for such pui.poses and we will reimburse the agency for land acquisition. ~\`ir. (hair. We originally had scheduled a very distinguished member of the ~1-meinber Commission to study the need for a visitors center, Mrs. Jack (to'opersmitli, l)Ut she h~is been notified that `Mr. Hummel- Sime, who is president of Colonial Williamsburg, would like to ai~pear and since he also is a member of the Commissioii, she would defer this morning until the next hearing. She is here in the hearing room, but wants to ~ii~iiear later. We aPP1e~iate very much the consideration of both of the commissioners to come back. 1 also want to announce at the conclusion of the hearing this morn- ing that we will have departmental witnesses, and the 21-melnl)er Com- mission who studied the need for a visitors center ~will submit the writ- ten report. It is by law scheduled to be presented by the 15th of this month. It is at the printers now. As soon as it is printed and presented to Congress, the departmental witnesses will be able to come down and testify. So we expect to adjourn the hearings now, and reconvene them, we hope, very' soon. Mr. SCHWENOEL. Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAY. Yes, Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SCHWENGEL, If I may, first I want to commend the chairman for making the observation that different modes of transportation ought not to appear in competition with each other. I think they together have a responsibility and they do really compliment each other. So it was a very valid point. Also, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the unanimous consent for any of those that appeared who may want to extend their remarks, may be able to do so. Mr. GRAY. Yes; that is a very good suggestion. Are there any other questions and comments of the committee members? As we conclude the second day of hearings, I want to thank all of the subcommittee members for their fine attention and all of the wit- ne.sse.s and repeat that ,we thank you very much on behalf of the committee. With that, we stand adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, it has been called to my attention that certain papers ought to be made a part of the record at this point for consideration by the members of this subcommittee and committee. On October 25, 1965, articles of incorporation of the "National Industrial Exposition & Transportation Center, Inc." were filed with the Office of Superintendent of Corporations and duly certified by the Office of the Recorder of Deeds for the District of `Columbia. PAGENO="0078" 74 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTRR A~T OF 1967 Among the board of directors of this corporation are the follow- ing individuals who testified before us today: Thornton W. Owen, ~who testified today as the president, Terminal Committee, Inc., Wash- ington, D.C.; Llewyln A. Jennings, who testified today as the chair- man, Federal City Council; Gen. James A. Mollison, who testified to- day as the chairman, Public Affairs Committee, Metropolitan Wash- ington Board of Trade; Claude A. Jessup, who testified today as the president, Eastern `Continental Trailways Bus System; and Gen. Louis W. Prentiss, who testified today as the chairman, Project Plan- ning Committee, Federal City Council. There are five other members of the board of directors of this corporation. The three incorporators of this corporation are L. A. Jennings, Thornton W. Owen, and Gen. Louis W. Prentiss. Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of those who are interested in this legislation, I request that the articles of incorporation, and the certi- fication thereof, for this corporation be made a part of the hearings at this point. The National Industrial Expositioti & Transportation Center, Inc., is a stock corporation founded, among other things, with the objective of "promotion, construction, ownership, and operation of a permanent industrial exposition and transportation center." (The certification and articles follow:) OFFICE OF RECORDER OF DEEDS Co1IEoIi~TIoN Divisiox, WASHINGTON This is to certify that the pages attached hereto constitute a full, true, and complete copy of Certificate and Articles of Incorporation of National Industrial .FJ~j'position ~i Transportation Center, Inc., as received and filed October 25, 1965, as the same appears of record in this office. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of this office to be aflla'ed, this the 31st day of October A.D. 1967. PETER S. RIDLEY, Recorder of Deeds, D.C. By NATHANIEL GROSMAN, Assistant f~Iuperintendent of Corporations, D.C. OFFICE OF RECORDER OF DEEDS CERTIFICATE This is to certify tbat all applicable provisions of the District of Columbia Business Oorporations Act have been compiled with and accordingly this cer- tilicate of Incorporation in hereby issued to National Industrial Exposition & Transportation Center, Inc., as of October 25, 1965. PETER S. RIDLEY, Recorder of Deeds, D.C. By ALFRED GOLDSTEIN, &~perintendent of Corporations. OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF CORPORATIONS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Filing Fee, $20,000. Indexing Fee9 $2.00. Initial License Fee, $10.00. ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPOSITION & TRANSPORTATION CENTER, INC. We, the undersigned natural persons of the age of twenty-one years or more, acting as incorporators of a corporation under the District of Columbia Business PAGENO="0079" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 75 Corporation Act adopt the following Articles of Incorporation for su4~h corpora tlon FIRsT: The name of the corporation is National Industrial Exposition & Trans- portation Center, Inc. Szcoi~ o The peribd of its duration is perpetual THIRD The purpose or purposes for which the corporation Is organized are To purchase, take, receive, lease or otherwise acquire, own, hold, use, develop, manage invest in improve and otherwise deal in and with and sell, convey mortgage pledge lease exchange transfer and otherwise dispose of lands, real estate, real property, chattels real, and estates, interests, rights and equities therein without limitation. To build, purchase, take, receive, lease or otherwise acquire, own, hold, use, maintain, alter, repair and improve, manage and sell, convey, mortgagge, pledge, lease, exchange, transfer and otherwise dispose of buildings, structures, works and improvements of all kinds; to plan, establish, furnish, decorate, equip, improve, maintain, lease, sublease, sell, convey, exchange and transfer space, offices, rooms, suites and apartments; and to manufacture, purchase, or other- wise acquire, own, use, install, maintain, repair, operate and deal in and with, and sell, mortgage, pledge, lease or otherwise dispose of fixtures, improvements and furnishings of all kinds and any articles, materials, machinery, equipment and property used for or in connection with any business or property of the corporation. To engage in the business of managing, supervising and operating real property, buildings and structures; to negotiate and consummate for itself or for others, leases and other contracts with respect to such property to enter into contracts, either as principal or as agent for the furnishing, maintenance, repair or improvement of any property managed, supervised or operated by the corpora- tion; to furnish management, and other services and to engage in and conduct, or authorize, license or permit others to engage in and conduct, any business or activity incident, necessary, advisable or advantageous to the ownership of prop- erty, buildings, structures and facilities, managed, supervised or operated by the corporation, which includes, but it not limited to, the power to construct, es- tablish, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire, and to own, bold, operate, provide and maintain, and to mortgage, sell, let, lease or otherwise dispose of exhibition facilities of all kinds and descriptions, business and cultural centers, theaters, balls, parking facilities, restaurants, transportation facilities, auditorium, build- ings, plants, factories, workshops, studios, stages and offices necessary, useful or incidental to the establishment, promotion and maintenance of exhibtions, trade shows and expositions intended to stimulate industry, business and commerce, national and international. In general, to carry on any other business connected with or incidental to the foregoing objects and purposes, and to have and exercise all the powers conferred by the laws of the District of Columbia upon corporations formed under the District of Columbia Business Corporation Act. FoURTH: The aggregate number of shares which the corporation is au- thorized to issue is 41,000, divided into two classes. The designation of each class, the number of shares of each class, and the par value, if any, of the shares of each class, or a statement that the shares of any class are without par value, are as follows: . Par value per share or statement that Number of shares Class Series (if any) shares are without par value 1,000 40,000 A common B common ~1 1 FIFTH: The preference, qualifications, limitations, restrictions and special or relative rights in respect of the shares of each class are: No stockholder shall pledge, hypothecate, sell, assign, transfer, or otherwise dispose of any share or shares of stock of this corporation, nor shall the executor, administrator, trustee, assignee or other legal representative of a decreased stockholder pledge, hypothecate, sell, assign, transfer or otherwise PAGENO="0080" 76 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 dispose of any share or shares of the stock of this corporation without first offering in writing addressed to this corporation by registered mail said share or shares of stock for sale to the corporation and the corporation shall have the right to purchase the same at any time within thirty (30) days after the receipt of written notice of said offer. If the corporation fails to purchase all of the shares so offered for sale, within such thirty (30) clays, then the Secretary of the corporation shall notify the other stockholders of such class of stock of the corporation that all or the remainder of such stock, as the case may be, is available for purchase and the other stockholders of such class ~f stock of the corporation shall have the right to purchase ratably, in proportion to their respective holdings, all or the remainder of such stock, as the case may be, at any time within thirty (30) days after receipt of said notice from the Secretary of the corporation. If any stockholder of such class of stock fails to purchase his proportionate share of the shares of stock so offered within such thirty-day period, then the remaining stockholders of such class of stock shall have the right to purchase his proportionate share ratably, according to their respective holdings, at any time within an additional thirty (30) days from the close of the previous option period. If the corporation or the remain- ing stockholders of such class of stock shall fail to purchase all of said shares so offered for sale during the respective thirty (30) day periods, then the owner or holder thereof shall have the right to transfer such shares to whomso- ever he determines, but at a price not less than the price to be paid by the corporation or the other stockholders as hereinafter provided. The purchase price of said share or shares, whether purchased by the corporation, the other stockholders, or partly by both, shall be equal to the book value of said share or shares as of the last day of the month next preceding the month during which said offer is made to the corporation. En computing the book value of the stock, no evaluation shall be given to the good will of the corporation or to any unrealized appreciation or depreciation of assets. Compliance with the terms and conditions herein set forth in regard to the sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of the shares of stock of this corporation shall be a condition precedent to the transfer of such shares of stock on the books of this corporation. SixTH: The corporation will not commence business until at least One Thou- sand Dollars has been received by it as consideration for the issuance of shares, SEVENTH: Provisions limiting or denying to shareholders the preemptive right to acquire additional shares of the corporation are: The preemptive rights of shareholders to subscribe to additional issues of shares of stock of the corporation, whether now or hereafter authorized, are fully preserved and are not denied or limited in any way, and each shareholder of the corporation shall, upon the issue or sale of shares of authorized but unissued stock, whether now or hereafter authorized, have the right to sub- scribe to and purchase such shares in proportion to the number of shares owned by each. EIGHTH: Provisions for the regulation of the internal affairs of the corpor- ation are: At each annual meeting for the election of directors, the holders of the Class A Common Stock, voting as a class shall be entitled to elect Class A Directors, and the holders of the Class B Common Stock, voting as a Class, shall be entitled to elect the Class B Directors as provided for in the By-Laws. The number of Class A Directors shall, at all times, constitute a majority of the total number of directors. In the event that a vacancy should occur in the Board of Directors, the vacancy shall be filled by the vote of the directors of the class of stock in which such vacancy occurred. On any other corporate action requiring the vote of shareholders, approval by the affirmative vote of both Glass A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock voting as separate classes shall be required. In all other respects, the Class A Common Stock and the Class B Common Stock shall be equal, as though they constituted a single class of stock. NINTH: The address, including street and number of the initial registered office of the corporation is 918 16th Street, N.W., C/o C. T. Corporation System, Washington, D.C., 20006, and the name of the initial registered agent at such address is C. T. Corporation System. TENTH: The number of directors constituting the initial board of directors of the corporation is ten and the names and addresses, including street and rmm- PAGENO="0081" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 her, of the persons who are to serve as directors until the first annual meetir shareholders or until their successors are elected and shall qualify are: Names and addresses (All Washington, D.C.) Daniel W. Bell, 3816 Gramercy Street, N.W. L. A. Jennings, 1503 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Thornton W. Owen, Suite 700, 1111 E Street, N.W. General James A. Mollison, 5104 MacArthur Boulevard, N.W. General Louis W. Prentiss, 525 School, S.W. F. Elwood Davis, 800 17th Street, N.W. Edward C. Baltz, till E Street, N.W. William II. Press, 1616 K Street, N.W. James C. Wilkes, 1401 K Street, N.W. being all class A Directors. Name and address: Claude A. Jessup, P.O. Box 951, Charlottesville, Virginia being the Class B Director ELEVENTH: The name and address, mc] incorporator is: Name and address: L. A. Jennings, 1503 Pennsylvania Avenue Thornton W. Owen, Suite 700, 1111 E Str General Louis W. Prentiss, 525 School Street," Dated: October 22, 1965. L. A. JENNINGS, THORNTON `W. OWEN, Gen. Louis W. PREINTISS, Incorporator8. (Whereupon, at 11 :40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.) 85-894-67----6 PAGENO="0082" PAGENO="0083" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:09 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Build- ing, Hon. Kenneth J. Gray (chairman) presiding. Mr. ~ The committee will please come to order. The House Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds of the full Committee on Public Works is privileged to sit this morning in continuation of public hearing on H.R. 12603, by Mr. Gray. Mr. GRAY. Last year the Chair had the privilege of sponsoring H.R. 14604, which became Public Law 89-790, which created a 21-member study commission to study the needs, sites and plans for a Visitor Center in the Nation's Capital. I am proud to say that the Congress named the very outstanding and able Secretary of the Interior, the Honorable Stewart L. Udall, to head this 21-member Commission. The Commission d~liberated for several months and reported back to the Congress on September 15, 1967, their findings and recommendations. I am very pleased to announce that we are fortunate in having as our first witness this morning the very able and outstanding Secretary of the Interior, who `will, on behalf of the 21-member Commission, report to the committee on the `Commission's recommendations. I understand the Secretary has a number of officials with him. At this time I would like to call the Secretary to come forward--and, Mr. Secretary, we are certainly delighted to have you with us this morning. We deeply appreciate the time, energy, and intelligence you have displayed in this matter. I think you can tell from the large number of Congressmen on both sides of the aisle who have introduced this legis- lation that it is a vital subject, which is one of interest not only here in Congress but throughout the Nation. I might say that we have had hundreds of letters and telegrams, and phone calls, from people who are really enthused about, finally, after all these long years, we are about to provide facilities to accom- modate the millions of visitors who come to Washington each yçar. So I want to congratulate you on your fine work and recognize you now to proceed in your own fashion. After your statement has been made, if you would li1~e to introduce the other accompanying witnesses, we would be delighted to have you do so. You may proceed. ` PAGENO="0084" 80 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 STATEMENT OP STEWART L. UDALL, SECRETARY OP THE INTE- RIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY T. SUTTON ~ETT, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PARK SERVICE; ROBERT L. PLAVNICIC, AlP, URBAN PLANNING CONSULTANT, WASHINGTON, D.C.; SEYMOUR AUERBACH, OP COOPER & AUERBACH, AlA, ARChITECTS, WASHTh1~GTON, D.C. Secretary IJDALL. Thank you very much. I have a prepared statement. I would like it to appear in the record, and I will summarize the main points of it, if I may. Mr. GRAY. Yes, that will be fine. (Prepared statement follows:) STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the Department of the Interior recommends enactment of legislation which would authorize the establishment of Union Station as a National Visitor Center under the administration of this Department. Such action by the Congress would make possible the renovation of historic Union Station and the provision of facilities to assure the visitor a meaningful and inspired stay in his Nation's Capital. The use of Union Station for this purpose is consistent with its monumental character and its location. The McMillan Plan of 1901 envisioned the structure as a gateway to the Nation's Capital from which the visitor sees the historical dome of the United States Capitol Building as he enters the city. rrhe City of Washington offers an unrivaled variety of sights: the Capitol, White House, Supreme Court, monuments, museums, and parks. Excellent lodging, dining, shopping, entertainment and recreation facilities are offered. But above all, to our citizens Washington is the heart of the Nation, for here is located the seat of the Federal Government; here the Nation's leadership copes with the major problems; here significant decisions of national and inter- national importance are made. To visit Washington is to sense the excitement of today and to see the lasting evidence of our heritage. In November 1960, the Congress created a Study Commission to make a full and complete investigation and study of sites and plans to provide facilities and serv- ices for visitorn and students coming to the Nation's Capital. I had the honor to serve as Obairnmn of this Study ~om,m&ssion. Serving with me on this Commis- sion were six members of the House of Representatives, including the distin- guished Chairman of your sub-committee, the Honorable Kenneth J. Gray; six members of the United States Senate; and a number of distinguished citizen representatives. The Study Commission divided itself Into three subcommittees. The Sub-Coin- niittee to Consider a Site or Sites, Chaired by Representative Gray of Illinois, studied a number of sites where such a Visitor Center might be located. It was the vieW of the subcommittee. and the full Commission, that the projected nicrease in visitation to this city over the next Ui years would require iiiore tlutii one facili. ty to meet the (lenlan(1 of the millions of visitors from the United States and abroad. The Subeomniittee on information and Interpretive Programs, chairel by Representative Fred Schwengel of Iowa, and the Subcommittee on Transpor- tation and Parking. (haired by Senator Joseph 1). Tydings of Maryland, a1s~o gave much time and attention to these aspects of visitor accommodations and their reports to full Coniinission were also approved. Jnforniaticni has been gained also from experiments conducted in recent years by the National Park Service of this Department. Kiosks were placed at strategic points in the monumental area to i~rovi " miation for the visitor. Informa- tioii stations were placed along majnr I "-`-`~"~ Washington for a six- week period to determine visitor use of s and the types of informa- tion they requested, During the fall of a six-week experiment was con- ducted with an interpretive shuttle transportation service in the Mall area. A general orientation program on the Nation's Capital, the Washington Briefings for Young Americans, developed at the suggestion of the Vice President, were pre- sented as pilot programs at the Departmental Auditorium. In each experiment, records were made of the type of questions asked, the information and service provided, and the reaction of the visitors. PAGENO="0085" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 81 Moreover, during 1966, we invited a group of business and civic leaders to work with us in improving the visitor experience in Washington. Information gained from interviews with these citizens and other authorities in Washington familiar with the problems of visitors, both from the point of view of seeing the many im- portant places in the Nation's Capital and from the point of view of the interest of the business community, has also been utilized in assessing the Visitor Center question. There were approximately ten million visitors in Washington in 1965 for edu- cation and pleasure. In 1976, attendance in excess of eighteen million may be ex- pected. Daily attendance even now may vary from a low of 8,500 to a high of 65,000; however, during the busy April through August period, the daily attend- ance varies from a low of 30,000 to a high of 138,000, with holiday or special event ieaks of approximatcly 150,000. Visitor center facilities of great magnitude are clearly needed. Mr. Chairman, the National Visitor Center Study Commission has prepared to report to the Congress as required by the act of November 7, 1966. The report summarizes' the studies already made of the need for a National Visitor Center in the Nation's Capital. Union Station was the choice of the full Commission for a major Visitor Center. In the long-range plan it offers an unusually favorable opportunity to launch a program to meet the critical need of providing better visitor service in the Capital City. The Commission has also employed a consult- big firm. to study improvements to the Union Station area which would make it suitable for a National Visitor Center and provide adjacent parking accommoda tions. These consultants are present and have with them architectural drawitigs showing how the Union Station might be treated to provide these services. The drawings also show the recommended parking structure which is to be located over the tracks to the north of Union Station. Thank you very much. Secretary TJDALL. I would also point out, Mr. Chairman, that the Vis;itor Center Study Commission had a mandate to make a report to the Congress. We have done that and I am sure the committee, if it has not already done so, will want to make that ofhcial report a part of the record. Mr. GRAY. Yes. Mr. Secretary, it will be printed in its entirety in the record. Secretary TJDALL. Mr. Chairman, I should like to, before beginning, commend in particular the chairman of this subcommittee, and also the gentleman sitting at his right, who is an old friend of mine, for their leadership and keen interest in the effort that not only made the legis- lation possible to set up the National Visitor Center Study Comnns- sion, but the very fine work that was done implementing this~ study. I think all of us who live in Washington are aware of the fact that in terms of providing the right kind of facilities for the citizens of this country and the citizens of the world who come to this great Capital to see its. public places, its monuments, its places of historic interest, many of us have commented how inadequate the present facilities are, how frustrating it often is for the visitor. And I think all of the members of the Study Commission had a v,ery strong feeling that with the right kind of Visitor Center keyed in with a transportation system, shuttle bus or minibus, whatever you want to call it, that we could tackle this job and make visiting of this Nation's Capital a delight. I think that seeing Washington should be fun; it shouldn't b~ frus- trating. I think the American people who come here shou~Id Je able to understand what they are seeing, because a Visitor Center is an educational endeavor if it is done right. We are not only e~xplnin- ing where things are, but we are interpreting them; we are helping people understand the history of their country and understanding the PAGENO="0086" 82 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 meaning of the things they see, so that this has been a broad endeavor, tackling what has been, I think, one of the very serious lacks. I personally think it ought to be as much fun to see Washing- ton as it is to see Colonial Williamsburg or Disneyland or any- thing else. We ought to and we can construct a Visitors Center facility and a transportation system so that those Americans and people from abroad who come here can easily and readily, and with delight, see this Capital and the wonderful places here. So this is our begin- ning point, and I know the members of this committee share the Commission's desire to see this end result. The Study Commission, Mr. Chairman, divided itself into three subcommittees, as you well know. We had a subcommittee to study a site or sites-I think this was the key subcommittee-and the chair- man of this subcommittee presided over it. A number of sites were studied. It was the view of this subcommittee, and the full Com- mission concurred, that the projected increase in visitation to this city over the next 15 years would, in the long run, require more than one facility to meet the demands of the millions of visitors who will come here. The Subcommittee on Information and Interpretative programs, chaired by Congressman Fred Schwengel of Iowa, and the Subcom- mittee on Transportation and Parking, chaired by Senator Joseph Tydings of Maryland, also gave much time and attention to these aspects of visitor accommodations, and we keyed these reports to- gether into the final report of the full Commission. The main conclusion of the Commission was that the logical place to build the first Information Center and large parking facility was the Union Station, which is of course located in a very convenient and appropriate place to serve as a Visitors Center. Union Station was the unanimous choice of the Commission. We have, as part of our final study on this, retained consultants and I want them to make a presentation here in just a moment that will give the committee a very clear cut idea of what kind of Visitor Center we would have, what kind of facilities would be provided, how the whole thing would function. And I think this will be a very exciting and very promising beginning, and particularly when we key this in with a convenient parking facility and key it in with a minibus service that will run a constant path near the main monuments in the city, where we will have a service by which the city is interpreted to people not only in the Visitor Center itself, but in the transporta- tion facilities which are provided. I think this can make Washington really come alive to the visitor and make it an exciting experience for any American. Mr. Chairman, in our official report, I would like to call the atten- tion of the committee to two or three suggested amendments to the legislation. It is our feeling that in order to give us adequate flexibility for the future, the Secretary of the Interior should have authority to purchase and invest Federal money in the improvements as well as the authority to enter into a lease arrangement. We just feel that it is better to have all the options available for the future. We further suggest, conôerning the figure of $2,935,000 annually as a lease figure, that rather than writing this in the legislation, we PAGENO="0087" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 83 would propose substitute language that would say, "the fair rental value of the property leased." This does not mean we have any argu- ment at the present moment with the figure as being reasonable, but we think that this should be negotiated rather than written into the legislation. Mr. GRAY. If I may interrupt you at this point, Mr. Secretary- Secretary IJDALL. Yes. Mr. GRAY (continuing). Of course, as you know, in recommending a fixed figure, we were trying to give the Congress-~who, I might say, is a little bit concerned about expenditures at this time-~some idea of what this lease will cost. Is it your feeling that the Department would be in a better position actually when they sit down and negotiate this lease if we merely put down a ceiling and leave the exact amount to negotiation? Secretary TJDALL. This is our common practice. Of course, we lease a lot of land, a lot of buildings, in my Department, and I think the general directive to us, or broad authority, is to' pay whatever a fair rental is. This means we are going to have to negotiate it out. I would have no objection at all to the committee indicating, if that is its view, that the committee considers a figure of this kind a bargain and rea- sonable or whatever its view may be. But I think when we get down to determining it precisely, that this ought to be negotiated rather than be written into law. Mr. GRAY. Yes; I agree. Secretary TJDALL. I am not saying we personally have any views it is too high or too low, `either, but it is simply that from the standpoint of sound business procedure for the Government- Mr. GRAY. What would be your feeling of leaving it up to the Secre- tary as `to the amount, but putting a ceiling, say, of $3 million annually, which would give you some latitude when you negotiate? Secretary UDALL. That would be another way to do it, and I would not have any serious objection to that. Mr. GRAY. This was suggested by Mr. Knott, the General Services Administrator. He recommended we put a ceiling of $3 million annually, but leave the exact amount up to you. Secretary UDALL. This would give the Congress some assurance of what it is buying and what this program would cost. Mr. GRAY. When you actually sit down, if you get more than 4,000 parking places contemplated within the $3 million ceiling per year, you certainly would have that right, and I am sure would be inter- ested in getting all you can. So you would have no objection to writing in a ceiling, so long as we leave the negotiations up to the Department? Secretary UDALL. That is correct. Mr. GRAY. Fine. Thank you. Secretary UDALL. Mr. `Chairman- Mr. GRAY. Mr. Secretary, I hate to keep interrupting, but we are trying to develop these points as we go along. Mr. Sch'wengel, from Iowa. Mr. SCUWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have several questions on that $3 million, or up to $3 million obligation. We would recover a good share of that fro'm the services and rentals income from the establishments in that Center. Is that not true? PAGENO="0088" 84 NATIONAL VISITOR CENThR ACT O~ 1967 Secretary UDALL. Let me have Mr. Sutton Jett, who is the Regional iDirector of the Park Service, answer. I would rather have him put this on the record. Mr. SCHWENGEL. The reason I asked this question, is that I do not think the impression ought to be left that this is necessarily going to cost taxpayers $3 million a year. Mr. JETT. Mr. Chairman, at the present time, Washington Terminal Co. realizes $359,000 from its own concession operations in the IJnion Station. While we made no economic feasibility study of this proposal, if you assume we would have an average of 2,000 automobiles parked in a 3,000- to 4,000-car parking garage per day, this would develop $730,000 a year. If we should average 2,500 automobiles a day, it would amount to $~20,000 a year, which would give you a total of $1,261,000 on the basis of the present use of Union Station, that is, so far as the concessions are concerned. And it would be expected, certainly, that the use of the Union Station would increase greatly if the Visitor Center were located there. Mr. WRIGHT. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GRAY. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Wright. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Go ahead. Mr. WRIGHT. I am not sure I understood the figures on which you predicated your assumption concerning parking. You said if we had 3,000 cars a day? Mr. JETT. No, sir. If we had an average of 2,000 cars a day through- out the year, this would, at $1 a day- Mr. WRIGHT. At $1 a day? Mr. JETT. Yes, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. That is the point I was trying to identify. I do not think we should charge a high price. I think $1 a day would be about right. Mr. JETT. Yes, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. We are not in business to niake money olr the tourists, really. One of the problems of Washington has been finding a place to park at less than excessive cost. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Jett, do you not believe you are being a little con- servative? If you have 4,000 parking places, a visitor comes in at 9 o'clock in the morning, visits the Capitol, he leaves ; somebody else comes in in the afternoon. In all probability you will rent th~t space two or three times during a 24-hour period? This could be at least double or triple of your estimate. Mr. JETT. Yes, sir. I think I am being conservative. It is anybody's guess how many, but at theselevels this is what it would, produce. Mr. GRAY. Right. Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SCHWENGEL. On page 30 of this fine brochure that you produced is a floor plan of space. I have several questions about that. First, let's call attention to the railroad storage shops, railroad ~acili- ties, that are made available, and the transit, station. It seems to me that is a large percent of that area given over to the railroad company. Now, is it envisioned that they will pay us rent, then, on this space? Mr. JETT. This would not be contemplated, Congressman Schwengel. I think that, again, as the Secretary has indicated, these things would be the subject of negotiations, the spaces even, when you get down to the matter of developing a lease agreement. PAGENO="0089" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 85 Mr. GRAY. Will the gentleman yield on that point? This represents air space that the railroads now own, so really they would not be pre-empting any of the 330,000 square feet that are en- compassed in the existing monument, as we call it, the existing station at the present time? Mr. SCHWENGEL. This is the basement plan. Mr. Jierr. I am sorry, I thought this was the basement. Mr. SCHWENGEL. This is not air space; this is actual space here. Mr. GRAY. The Commission in their long deliberations with Wash- ington Terminal CoW, had never taken into account the so-called tunnel and basement area. We were talking about the station from the ground up, which encompasses two floors, the ground-level floor, the concurse, the so-called waiting room, and the second floor space. But, of course, this is a matter that will be subject to negotiation certainly. Secretary UDALIJ. I think the answer Congressman Schwengel wants, as you will find when the designers present their report in a moment, is that we do not, in terms of this first. phase at: least, contemplate needing this basement area, and therefore presumably this wo~ild be available if the railroad needs it during this first phase of the project. Mr. SCHWENGEL. If the railroad uses it, then they would be paying us rent, some comparable fair rent, for the space. Secretary UDALL. Well, it might be that that is the way you would work it out, or you would reduce the rent that we pay. I mean this would be something that you would neogtiate. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Something negotiable? Secretary UDALL. Yes. Mr. SCITWENCEL. I raise the question because actually, as I under- stood when we were. negotiating, the whole area, basement and all would be given to the Government-the question was raised at one point, what areas are involved. As I understand it, the answer I got was, of course, all of it in that area would be subject to our control. Secretary UDALL. I would presume this is the way that we would want it, and that the railroad would want us, too, to have the entire present Union Station be under our control and management. But I mean we would work these details out. And I think you will see when the plan is presented how the whole thing would mesh together. Mr. GRAY. You may proceed, sir. Secretary UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I have one or two other points; I would like to get to the presentation, then take any further questions maybe after you have seen the presentation. Our report does not take a specific stand with respect to the tax arrangements, and we defer to the views of thet Commissioners of the District of Columbia on this matter. We understand the District of Columbia Commissioners are opposed to the provisions that would exempt the improv~ment from ta~a- tion. That is another problem the committee has got to consider. I am simply saying we are not taking a position on that issue. I would like to have Mr. Plavnick, who is our consultant, and his associate, Mr. Auerbach, make their presentation quickly, and then we can take any further questions at that time. Mr. GRAY. Yes, Mr. Secretary. . Would you please state your name for the record? PAGENO="0090" 86 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Mr. PLAVNICK. Yes, sir. My name is Robert L. Plavnick, planning consultant, Washington, D.C. Mr. Chairman, if I may take a moment to introduce the remainder of our consulting team, I would appreciate it. Mr. GRAY. We would `be delighted. Mr. PLAVNICK. IU~irst is Mr. Clark Thomas, Mr. Robert Morris- Mr. GRAY. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.') Mr. PLAVNICK. Mr. Seymour Auerbach, of Cooper& Auerbach. I would just briefly like to make a couple of brief comments, and then Mr. Auerbach can explain the slides and we will hold the light for 1 second. I believe in preparing this report, we had three objectives: first, to present the views of the variotis subcommittees and the committees; second, to provide the Commission with a design program which met the budget limitations that had been suggested by the Study Com- mission; and third, to provide you with an insight of the physical design that could be expected to make the Union Station into a viable and attractive Visitor Center. If we may turn off the lights now, we can proceed into a brief session, if it is all right with you. First, Mr. Chairman, just to orient everybody [slide] the Union Station is in the upper right corner. We here want to show the rela- tionship `to the Mall, to the proposed mass transit system, as you can see in the lines that cross through the area, and also to emphasize the Commission's recommendations as `to why `the Visitors Center was picked, the relationship of the Visitors: Center to the transportation system, the historic quality of `the building, the relationship to the places of interest at the Mall, the Capitol-and `the second slide, please. [Slide.] As we get a little more microscopic, you can see the relationship of the proposed garage and its size to the existing building. `The facility can easily be related to the proposed center leg free- way, w'hich is now under `construction, through the local street sys- tem, and a redesign of the Union Station Plaza. I think one of the importan't points here is that we feel that `the 4,000- car garage, approximately 4,000-car garage, can be adequately served by the street system without additional ramps `to other local streets within the area. `The entire circulation system can be off the front of the building. I think we feel as a group that thi's works extremely well as a visitor center. At this point, Mr. `Chairman, with your permission, I would like Mr. Auerbach to proceed, explaining the steps we have gone through and `the design scheme that we have in the brochure before you. Mr. GRAY. Yes, will you please come forward. State your full name for the record, please. Mr. AUERBACH. My name is Seymour Auerbach, partner of `Cooper & Auerbach, architects in Washington, D.C. Mr. `Chairman, is it possible for me to use the pointer at the screen? Mr. GRAY. Yes. I am sure we can hear you. Mr. AUERBA~H. I guess the best way to explain the facilities that we have designed and the way they will be given is to sort of review PAGENO="0091" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 87 the problems that we saw, the opportunities we garnered from the various circumstances presented us and how they fit together. One of the first opportunities that presented itself was the fact that traffic survey indicated that we could approach the building from the front, rather than having some of the tourists from out of town coming in through some of the rather industrial sorts of streets that lie behind the station. We thought it would introduce them visually to the old landmark in quite a respectable manner. Also in investigating the existing building, we found the architec- ture of the concourse, the portion at the rear of the building, which at the present time extends to this point [indicating], did not really match the basic building and some historical investigation indicated, and some consultation with various archeological experts, indicated to remove those ends of the concourse would not damage the building. We were then presented with the fact all the people using the Visi- tor Center would now be entering it from the rear rather than the front, and this became sort of an inversion use of the building. [Slide.] We then, from these points, decided by removing the ends of the con- course, we could keep all the ramps on our own property, on the rail- road property, avoiding any complication with the District of Co- lumbia Highway Department or Capitol Grounds, or what-have-you- right in one package. There will be service around to the back. And by removing the proposed 4,000-car garage from the building, we could create a rather broad esplanade, or garden, and introduce the visitors to the Visitor Center in a respectable, gracious manner. [Slide.] This is a cross-section that cuts right through the building complex. You can see how the various elements relate one to another, including a railroad station. We feel the railroad station will be generating visitors by excursion trains. People from the Northeast Corridor, rapid rail system, will be coming into Washington in increasing numbers. We feel that fa- cility should be incorporated as carefully and as graciously as pos- sible into the whole. So we took the 4,000-car garage, we moved it 90 feet from th~ existing building, about the width of `the typical District of ~olumbia street, and raised it up in the air 45 feet, to provide a shed for the new railroad station. In `other words, the garage is way up in the air and it becomes a shed in a contemporary manner, somewhat reminiscent of the old railroad sheds of Europe. The railroad station ticketing and passenger facilities are in the midlevel above the tracks and below the garage. Other advantages besides the involvement of all elements of one entity is an economic one~ We are thle, for instance, to provide a roof for the railroad station by using the garage. [Slide.] In the plan, this is the plaza in front of the existing landmark. We have taken off that much concourse from either side [indicating]. We have created the esplanade. The ramps come up to Union Station level at this point and this is the garage itself, being four levels covering that much `of the track area [`indicating]. [Slide.] ` This is a `side view of the model, which is on the table, and I think it is a way to introduce us to just sort of a trip through the building if we were a tourist coming to the city, coming off the Center Leg Free- PAGENO="0092" 88 ~ATI0NAL V1~ITOR cENThR ACT OF 1967 way, as I explained earlier, around the plaza, up the ramp on this side of the building, which is the east side- Mr. GRAY. This would be a four-lane ramp? Mr. ATJERBACIL This is a four-lane ramp that divides into three that serviceS the railroad station and three that receive parking instructions. Mr. GRAY. One way in each direction? Mr. AURREACII. One way up on this side, one way down on the other. Mr. GRAY. Fine. Mr. AUTERBACH. Coming up the ramp-if you were going by taxi or by private automobile to the railroad station, you would peel off at this point [indicating]. The tour buses would peel off at the next side turn, double-height section of the parking structure that will accommodate them. And then the private automobile would proceed up the ramp. Three other decks would service private cars. [Slide.] Once up on deck, it becomes this rather massive parking area, which is typical of fourth- and third-floor parking. It handles 1,148 cars per level: Visitors would have to find their way to an esca- lator system at the center, which takes them down, eventually to the first level of parking, which has 690 cars and 116 buses. At that point there is a more spacious area left where visitors can collect there, before descending down the escalator past the railroad station level to the esplanade. [Slide.] Now, this is somehow out of sequence, but this is a view of the railroad shed that would be created by raising the garage to a 45-foot level. This level here [indicating] is the ticketing area. You can see the expansioi~ the more gracious aspect of the railroad station can achieve. Mr. GRAY. The visitor at that point would not have to go through the train station; he would be able to `go from the parking level directly down `into the esplan'ade, and then into the tourist center? Mr. AUERBACH. That is right. If I could back off again-[shde]-- these escalators coming from the visitors parking area bypass the railroad station. Mr. GRAY. This is `the point. Mr. AUERBACIa. There is another escalator or stair which can take the nerson from the railroad Station down `to the esplanade, Mr. GRAY. You would also have I or 2 escalators. Mr. `SCHWENOEL. I would like to ask a question. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Sch'wengel. Mr. SCHWE~GEL. This bus area, where the' buses go, the ceiling will necessarily have to `be higher than ~vhere the cars go; is `that no't true? Mr. AUERBACH. Y~s, sir. Mr. &IITWRNGEL. Because of some figures that I have seen on the future bus traffic to this area, I think maybe it `might he well for you to `consider putting those buses on tqp so t'hat you will have an expand- ing facility and you can reduce your total height maybe, and so you can make room for as many as you may need, for all the `buses `coming. Mr. ATIERBACrI. That is certainly worth con'sidering. Mr. SCHWENGEL. I would suggest your rethinking this question on where ~Ou park th'~ buses. Mr. AUTE1~BACH. Yes, sir. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Also I think it would `be e'asier to `control `the traffic with the `groups and direct them from buses. They will be under a PAGENO="0093" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 89 supervisor and it would be accommodating people `to come in a `tourist car and have them in a favored position, rather than the ~people coming by bus, and without penalizing people who come by bus, too. Mr. AITERBACIL I would like to point out in regard to buses, Con- gressman `Schwengel, the 116 buses generate over 4,000 ~peoiple, whereas the 3,000 cars generate between 6,000 and 9,000. The proportion of visitors that the bus deals with per square footage is quite a bit larger. Mr. GRAY. Particularly as the trend is now for the double-decker, the larger buses. Mr. WRIGHT. These 116 buses- Mr. AHERBACH. Yes, sir. Mr. WRIGHT (continuing). Will these be buses originating from various `places, or will `they be buses coming from out of town `to bring those people here, or will they be essentially buses for `the purpose of taking a visitor on a somewhat circular `tour `around the city? Mr. AHERBACH. No, sir. This is bus parking for out-of-town excur- sion buses. Mr. WinGIIT. Excursioll buses? I see. Mr. AUERBACH. Yes. Mr. WRIGHT. 1 understand. These are ctzarter buses, people having charters to come to Washington? Mr. AIJERBACH. That is right. Mr. WRIGHT. AU right, thank you. Now, where will the buses be boarded that are planned for the pur- pose of taking people on a route that will permit their dropping off at certain key points of interest, scenic tourist interest? Mr. AUERBACH. Those buses are out in front of the building. After the visitor comes from his parking point through the building and the facilities- Mr. WRIGHT. But what you contemplate here for 116 buses is simply space for out-of-town buses that have come to WasliingtGn? Mr. AUERBACH. That is right. [Slide.] Here is a closer view of the model showing the esplanade and the escalators in which the visitor, having parked, will come off the parking area. That is a 44-foot-high elevator in this design and it is rather a key part of the orientation program in that for that peri- od of travel on the escalator, the visitor is in a sense trapped. He can- not get off and he can be introduced, through radio, recording devices and graphic devices, as to what will be found in this building that will help him make his visit more pleasant~ rather than causing him to go to a directory that might or might not he read. So this is a key link in the movement of the visitor into the city of Washington. [Slide.] This is just simply another view of the esplanade, hut with the garage having been removed to show the relationship of the escala- tor to the railroad platform, the railroad facilities. [Slide.] Once down the escalator, the visitor lands in the espla- nacle under a vast cover, which is open to the weather but protected from precipitation, and he is proceeding at this time into the building through the concourse. The concourse is a long, rather grand space that we felt should not have too much architectural junk put in it. [Slide.] What we put in there is in keeping with the space as it is. Yet we should advertise what is in the concourse for the visitors' facilities. So we decided to put first a cyclorama under which the PAGENO="0094" 90 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 visitor would walk in this general path [indicating], but he need not stop if he wishes to continue on and is disinterested in it. That cyclo- rama will probably show film of maybe 5 minutes' duration with con- stant cycling showing the visitor around Washington to the site~ of his interest, and also pointing out to him that there are other film orienta- tions available in two pair of theaters to either side of the cyclorama in which would be historical films or films of various orientations, either on alternating starting times, to accommodate group capacities, or four different films. Mr. Git~r. This area is to be on the concourse as we know it now, where we actually board the train? Mr. AITh~RBACH. This is right. This is where the railroad gates presently stand [indicating]. Mr. GRAY. Right. Mr. AtTFARBACH. [Slide.] This is a view of the cyclorama. Again it is enclosed in green glass, so the film that is bein~ shown on the inside can be faintly visible from the outside, advertising itself, and also giving a lightness to the structure we put in there. Mr. Witmnp. When you get in this area, the area where presently you board the train, you leave the building and go out on the track? Mr. AUELREACH. That is correct. Where these piles stand is the point presently at which you leave the cover of the building and go out onto the platform. Mr. WRIGHT. The platforms are back this way [indicating]? Mr. AUERBACH. The platforms are out this way [indicating]. Mr. WRIGHT. And it is in that area that the new station will be built, is that right? Parking garage? Mr. AUERBAQH. Sir, they are 90 feet over. In other words, from this line [indicating] over to a point 90 feet away is simply a garden giving air and light to the space between the parking structure, under which is the railroad station, and the new Visitor Center. Mr. WRIGHT. I understand it. Thank you. Mr. Gii~y. You may proceed. Mr. AUERBAOH. On either side of this will be two pair of movie theaters, represented here, and shown as we conceive of them being transparent or gray glass, acoustically treated. But when you are walking on the outside, you can see some activity on the screen and be enticed to go in. Mr. GRAY. While we are on that, there are two reasons for thinking of the glass in both theories, is that not correct? No. 1, it would be much cheaper just to enclose the theater with glass rather than have very high ceiling partitions? Second, to be able to keep this beautiful architecture that is now in this concourse area. Is this not the main reason for not altering or chopping up like partitions the exising con- course area? Mr. AUERBACH. Yes, sir. With the other third, when the visitor comes into the concourse, he will see five screens at work and it becomes, you know, a vigorous cinemagraphic activity. Mr. GRAY. It would be much more economical than trying to put partitions in and change this large high ceiling area? Mr. AtTERBAOH. Yes, sir. We feel there should be as minimal archi- tecture in this building as possible. The grand old building would stand on itself. We have to enclose a theater, obviously, and this is the most minimum way it could be done. PAGENO="0095" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 91 Mr. GRAY. I just wanted to point it out to my colleagues, because some of these have not seen the graphs before. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright. I like this plan. What problems do you encounter, however, with respect to acoustics, the tone of the audio portion in connection with the theater? Mr. AUERBAOH. I have to admit that we have not gone through elaborate studies. In this rather preliminary conceptual stage, we have not gone through elaborate laboratory tests. Mr. WRIGHT. You do not think it is going to pose any big problem? Mr. ADERBAOH. No. What we thought we would use is really "Twin- mill," a thermal insulating glass made of two sheets of glass, each light gray, which makes it even that much more opaque and better visually, and I think that would be enough to take care of the acoustics. Up in the ceiling here you can see a very lightweight, what we call space frame, in which will be inserted acoustic panels that would also aid in muffling the sound. Mr. WRIGHT. Very good. It just occurred to me high ceilings might conceivably create some acoustical freak situations; you might be standing over here and hearing the audio portion back yonder. Mr. AUERBACH. The ceiling in this particular concourse is notorious for that. As a matter of fact, it is against the law to have a brass band or any loud noise in there now. Mr. WRIGHT. But you think we can control this and keep it down? Mr. AUERBACH. Yes, sir. Mr. ~ You do not envision the ceiling for the theaters being anywhere near as high as the ceiling for the concourse, do you? Mr. AtTERBACH. No, sir. There would be a subceiling to take care of acoustics. Mr. GRAY. That is the point I wanted to make. Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SCHWENGEL. On the matter of auditoriums, I am glad to note you have at least four auditoriums. Can you now tell us what the size of those auditoriums will be? Accommodating how many people? Mr. A1IERBACH. They each seat 500, sir, so that would take 2,000 people at a seating. We had at one point considered one of them being 750 seats. We made a decision on our own, essentially, to reduce them all to 500. Mr. GRAY. With a 15-minute film, 8,000 people an hour, 8 hours a day- Secretary UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out one thing, too, to members of the committee, that we can do in a very exciting way with these theaters, We will want to produce some films; we will want to do this in a very creative way. For example we might have one film, let's say 15 minutes, that would be on the dapitol. It would show where the Congressmen's offices are located, what is in the Capi- tol, what they can see on the tour, and could explain in a very fine educational way not only where facilities are located, but the historical aspects. In fact, you could have several different films explaining different things, and depending upon what a person was going to see that par- ticular day, they could shop around and see film. And I think if we do our job right, and if you will give us a little money to do it at the PAGENO="0096" 92 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 right time, we can come up with some films that will be absolutely first rate and will tell a real story and help educate the visitor, again sort of to make it easy for him to see the Capitol, for him to understand what he is going to see, for him to know where he wants to go, and make the experience much richer than it is. With so many people today, they arrive, they do not know where they are going, they do not imow what they are seeing, and they wander around, really lost most of the time. Mr. GRAY. That is a very good point, Mr. Secretary, and it is cer- tainly conceivable you might have three or four different subjects be- ing shown simultaneously. Secretary TJDALL. That is right. Mr. GRAY. For example, we are soon going to celebrate our 200th birthday. W~ might have a film just relating to that, the birth of our country and this sort of thing. It is conceivable, having four separate theatres, you could be showing different subjects and giving the visitor a choice. I think this could be very exciting for the visitors. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. SCHWENGEL. Gentlemen, before we finally agree on even the size of the auditorium, we ought to counsel with people who have had ex- perience in this field. I am thinking now particularly of Williamsburg. Williamsburg has a lot of traffic down there, but they have nothing as compared to the kind of traffic we will have here. I would like to suggest that four theaters that are going to show a lot of different film will not be anywhere near what we will finally need. I su~'gest two things: that we not make up our mind now as `to the size of the auditorium and, second, that when we finally design them, we take advantage of all experience that is available, and there is a lot of it-not only at Williamsburg, but those people who put on these theater shows, demonstrations in the world fairs. The Walt Disney out- fit has tremendous experience we could benefit from, and I think we should try to do that. Also there is an economic way to do this and an uneconomic way to do this. I think the auditoriums, tw~ of them ought to go together and the other two auditoriums go together. Have one central area having all the films and pictures from there. In Williamsburg, for instances~ they have two auditoriums and they have what they call a central projection room operation. So I hope we will benefit from all experience available. Mr. AIJERBACH. Yes, sir. In that line I wothd like to say at this point that each pair is coupled around one projection room, and we have had the delightful opportunity of meeting Mr. John Harper, from Williamsburg. He has been of great help. We have not gone iuto the capacities with any, you know, statistical analysis at this time, but the arrangement of the theaters and their operation are patterned after Williamsburg. Secretary TJDALL. Congressman, Mr. ,Jett tells me in most of their planning, that they are keying it to 1976, which is of course the year of our 200th anniversary. This will be a big year in Washington. We expect the visitation to go way up. We are trying to key most of the planning we see here today so we can take care of this very large influx that will come that year. PAGENO="0097" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 93 Of course, with the growth that occurs after that, we are going to need all the facilities that we can provide. Mr. Gn~&r. Mr. Secretary, that is a very good point. You may proceed, Mr. Auerbach. Mr. AUERBACH. Thank you. [Slide] IF'rom the concourse, the visitor then proceeds through to what is now the main waiting room. We named it the main hail. Again it is a grand space designed by Mr. Burnham which we think should not be encumbered by foreign sort of architecture. What we propose is that a screen be placed in the floor, and this will be a screen which is a moving map of the Oistrict and its environ- ment. It can zoom in on }Tains Point or the Capitol area, ~howing where Congressmen have their offices-most people think they have them in the `Capitol Buiidin~. It can describe various interpretative tours around the city. It might evolve into a little helicopter ride around a particular area, to really show the visitor, as his last stop in the building before he goes out, let him avail himself of the various transportation facilities, that he is here and it i's easy to get there, and again it is photographically done and should be exciting. Again it is permissive; if someone wishes to avoid it, he can go around it. I think this is important. Besides that, there are a variety of necessary information bo~tlis and tour booths, and whatnot, scattered around the building in the hail: lounge off to this end, a space which is presently the tu±eting area, which w~li in the future be the link between this building and the D.C. Rapid Transit, which station will be at the end of the building [indicating]. Mr. Gii~&i~. Mr. Wright of Texas. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, what I am suggesting at this point gets into the next phase of the operation rather than planning. I think perhaps it is well to take this into consideration. I believe it would be very useful to have a separate time or system of buses for `these tourists, whether it is operated by `Transit or the Inte- rior Department, or by whom they are operated. Drivers of the buses should be importuned to be extremely patient, allowing the people who are using this to see the Capital. Sometimes visitors are utterly baffled, lost, and do not know where they are~ I feel sure they would not get off at the right point. Take the situation where buses are operated on a frequency of the transit system, where people do not get a transfer if they do not ask for it and drivers rather dislike to answer questions. I think `we have to recognize that either they have a driver who is as patient as a school bus driver, or have a hostess aboard, or someone of this nature, who could take time and be patient with them, and not hurry them or give the impression they are stupid because they do not know where they are. I just throw that out right now because It think it will come to that eventually. Mr. SGHWENGEL. Mr. Wright, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. Mr. SOHWENGEL. Here again we can benefit from Williamsburg where they have facilities to plan these trips ahead of time with school principals or instructors, or tour guides, or organizations. 85-894---67-7 PAGENO="0098" 94 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 I think the very valid point ought to be in the, record here, this is a problem that we ought to recognize-and not only a problem but an opportunity. We ought to take this opportunity to give service here and help simplify their visits here. That is a very good point. Mr. Gii~1~. A very forthright suggestion. You may proceed. [Slide.] Mr. A1JERBACIL I think now we go very rapidly through a series of plans of the various floors of the building, the exisiting landmark, to see how the facilities are arranged. The concourse with all its photographic `theaters range here lindi- cating], the visitor coming through to the main hail, Around it are disposed rest facilities, cafeteria and iestaurant, rec.epHon theater where groups from some State might meet with their Congressmen or might be connected by closed-circuit `TV with the Capitol. This is a special reception room. There is a special student reception, students being probably the most numerous and important as groups; where they can come in and be given these special `treatments sinular to the TJSO for servicemen, Incidentally, we have taken the men's and women's rooms to these locations [indicating]; they are here presently. and we have moved them to the back of the building, so these windows could now be opened up and a view of the Capitol be gained across the park, `tYnion Station Plaza and the Capitol. Mr. Gii~y. Before we leave that slide, how many `people do you envision can get into this reception room at one time? Mr. AUEEBACH. About 250 or 300, sir, depending on whether it is fixed theatrical seating or what. Mr. GRAY. Standing room would be much more than that? Mr. AtTERBACIL Yes, sir. Mr. SORWENGEL. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gi~y. Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SCHWENGEL. What provisions are made for foreigners to receive them? Do you have a special reception room where foreigners can come? Mr. AUERBACH. One of these places will also be `set out to accom- modate them, probably a small one since it is really an office for interpreters. Probably only one of the theaters need be equipped with multiple interpretation, because the foreigner can be guided to that theater and the whole building need not be centered for that. Mr. GRAY. But you do envision, though, an interpretation service? Mr. AUERBACH. Yes, sir. Mr. GRAY. So that if a person comes here or even a large group comes here from a foreign country, visiting our people or our town, they could see a movie that would be translated for them? Mr. AUERBACH. Yes, sir. That again would be part of the program- ing of the facilities over and beyond the design of the building. Mr. GRAY. What I mean is they would call the Director of the Center and make arrangements? They would not just walk in and find this type of service? Mr. AUERBACTI. I would have to defer to Mr. Jett on that question, sir. . Mr. JErr. I think they could, Mr. `Chairman. I think one of these theaters we will have equipped with earphones for translation of the PAGENO="0099" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 commentary. This was included in Congressman Schwengel's prograri~t in the committee's report, and we would expect to- Mr. GRAY. This would be available at all times, then, without sp&- cml arrangements? Mr. JETT. Yes, sir. Secretary TJDALL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express the hope, too, because I think we ought to be hospitable to people from other countries, I think we `ought to make it just as pleasant for them. I am sure with the use of modern communication media, electronics and so on, that in 5 or 10 years from now, we have for people, let's say, who do not `speak English at all, not only participation interpretativ~e facilities, but maybe when they go on a tour bus, you could have th~ sort of thing they have in the National Gallery now, where you can put on a headset and you are told in your language what you ` are seeing as you go along. I think we ought to have this kind of care and pride in what we do' so that the foreign visitor enjoys it just as much as the American. Mr. GRAY. I agree with you implicitly. Mr. AUERBACTI. I would like to go up one floor. At this point we have a hostel, On the upper floors, on the mezzanine we have a nursery and infirmary, which would take care c~f short stays for the babies while mom and dad go to spend an hour in the Capitol and then come back, or maybe it could be expanded to broader service than that. But I think all of us who are fathers know that that could be an invaluable service. Also the usual infirmary, taking care of those unfortunate victims of a fall or what-have-you. On the upper floor, on the second floor we have the tTSO facilities, which are removed from their present location, but they are enlarged in the doing. Mr. Gii~~. Let me interrupt you at that point, if I may, because we do have a TJSO witness coming, and they are very much concerned. They will have, you say, more space than they have now? Mr. AUERBACH. Yes, sir. Mr. GRAY. I think that is a very vital part of our tourist facilities program. You know, a lot of our servicemen will be coming in by train. If we have the facilities there for them, I think this would be a very, very important part of our overall tourist service. Mr. AUERBACH. Not only will it be larger, sir, but its entrance can `be gained from the main hall at this point [indicating], rather than from the side entrance that is presently available to the TJSO. Mr. GRAY. We can assure the witness who will appear later they will have improved facilities? Mr. AIJEREACH. Yes, sir. Another point is that they will be adjacent on the second floor to such things as the Youth Hostel and short-stay hotel. The Short-stay Hotel is similar to the Air Wayte at the National Airport. That is a heck of a convenience to the serviceman. He may be able to catch a catnap after being on the train all night, or what have you. I would like to point out at this time that the budget for reworking the building, in response to the $5 million limit that we were told, has left out the trains and rest facilities and the student hostel, and. those things which would be ht~ndled on a different basis. I think Secretary Tldall can go into that in more detail. PAGENO="0100" 96 NATIONAL VISIT~DR C~D~L~R ACT OF 1967 Mr. GItAT. I think this is a good point to make now as to why we should not tie the hands of the Secretary in negotiation, but merely put a maximum ceiling. In negotiating, maybe some of these addi- tional facilities could be made available and still stay within the $3 million a year annual rental payment. Mr. AUERBACH. Yes, sir. I am sure opportunities will present themselves. [Slide.] Going up again, this is an extension on the third floor of a similar facility; on the west end, the employee and administrative facilities to run the Center. [Slide.] And again we get down to the basement, which was the subject of discussion earlier. Our understanding was the building was to be leased from the ground up. We have, however, felt the need for projection space for the film diarama, which is in the floor of the main hall. We also needed shops ~ud maintenance space to care for exhibits of various sorts. The railroads use this space [indicating] extensively, particularly for mail. In the design and layout of this entire complex, we came to a rather tough item, because the mail handling is over on this side [indicating]. As you know, the U.S.. post office is on that side, con- nected by an elaborate, ex-pensive conveyor system, much of which is in this area [indicating]. And I think in the design of it, if that conveyor had to be moved to another location above and taken out of this basement, it would be a severe penalty on the budget. They are in there. So we feel this is all the space that is necessary in the basement. Mr. WRIGHT. The conveyor operation would go under the parkway, or would it be under the main station? Mr. ATJERBAOH. It is in the basement, essentially the basement of the concourse. This is this space in here [indicating], and there are through tracks, as you well know, that go on south to Florida. The conveyors come across above the street on this side [indicating], from the post office through the bridge, they then fall down through a variety of conveyor devices to this lower level, and they go across this way [indicating]; they go down into a tunnel that goes under the through tracks, they come back up on this side [indicating], and they feed into an elaborate conveyor switching mechanism that services something like 7 or 8 post office or mailtrucks and conveyors feed right into them. Mr. WRIGHT. Physically they would be below the concourse? Mr. AtTERBAOH. Yes, sir. Mr. SCHWENGEL. On that point, I am amazed to be introduced to this new plan here. I thought all this area would be ours. Now, another thought comes to me-I can see the necessity, of course; we have to keep up the operation of the mails facilities, we do not want to interfere-b-ut this becomes an additional expense, these changes you are talking about become additional expense. I think they should not be charged to us. They are going to be an improvement for the railroad and for the Government, and they should not be charged to the Visitor Center. Can you propose some other way to finance this? PAGENO="0101" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 97 Mr. AUERBACII. I am sorry, I find that a difficult question to ~uswer at this time, except to say the way it is presently arranged, there is wily one conveyor that need be moved. If the Post Office facilities and the railroad facilities were displaced from the basement, we would be in- volved in the moving of about four or five major conveyor5. Mr. SCHWENGEL. My point is I do not think we ought to ask the visitors who are going to pay for this in parking fees~ and so forth, to have to pay for this facility, this change, this improvement. This will be for the Government and/or the railroad to handle; that finance should not be part of the expense of this total project. Mr. GRAY. Let me propound this question: If we leave it as it now exists, will we be preempting any space that we might need? In other words, would we need that vacant space for the National Visitor Cen- ter? Why not just leave them as they are now and not disturb the basement at all? Mr. AUEREACII. If I can go back to a previous plan and show you where it presently rests, I think you might see the problem. [Slide.] At the moment the mail conveyor comes across from the post office on a bridge into this end of the concourse [indicating], and at that end of the concourse there is a great contrivance of chutes and belts. It then goes back this way and it goes along on the edge of the con- course above head to about this point [indicating]. At this point it falls down again to the chute system, through a conveyor that feeds out on this track. From that point on it then proceeds at a lower eleva- tion, almost head high-just barely above head height-over to this area where all the parcel post is gathered, and then eventually down by ramps and chutes to the mailhandling facilities at the lower level. If that were to be left, that would be a rather mechanistic, indus- trial sort of thing to have in the entrance of the Visitors Center. I think it has to be removed. The railroads I understand are willing to give us this track as a mail handling track to facilitate this. Mr. GRAY. I am referring to the usable space in the basement. Can you see any useful purpose for that space for the Visitor Center? Mr. AnEEBACrE. No, sir. Mr. GRAY. You are talking about the unsightliness of having these overhead conveyors. I am talking about th~ existing space in the base- ment. If we were to say tomorrow we will move all this out, do you see any purpose for that space for the Visitor Center? Mr. AtTEEBACH. No, sir. Mr. GRAY. That is the point. I think these conveyors should be moved at the expense of someone other than the Department of the Interior. I am sure the Post Office and railroad will do that. [Slide.] Mr. AuinuiAon. Well, this is the exiting really from the Visitor Center after availing themselves of facilities, orienting themselves to the Center. The visitors will come out the splendid front of Mr. Burn- ham's Union Station, take several tour shuttles or various conveyances to various areas of the city. From this end of the building they can have direct access to the rapid transit system if they so choose. [Slide.] I will leave this on in case there is any question. Thank you. Mr. GRAY. Are there any questions on my right? PAGENO="0102" 98 NATIONAL VISITOR ~ENTRR ACT OF 1967 Are there any questions on my left? Well, thank YOU very much for a ~rery fine presentation. I certainly want to commend you for very outstanding work. As you know, the basic legislation on the study only required the Department to report the preliminary sketches and preliminary draw- ]fl~5. I think you certainly have gone far beyond what we had expected, nnd we congratulate you for it~ Mr. AtTERBAOH. Thank you. Mr. PLAVNICK. Thank you, sir. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Secretary. Secretary UDALL, Mr. Chairman, I am sure the members of the committee, after seeing the visual presentation here, have a much clearer idea of what the potential is, what a very fine facility this would be, what type of service we can provide for the people who come to this city. And I think the other real service that the Commission rendered, and particularly the subcommittee that the chairman chaired, was to show that if we did it as proposed, it would not be an enormously expensive public works project; that we can, through the type of arrangement that we hope. can be worked out-and apparently can be worked out with the railroads-do this and do it right, and yet have the cost be modest, and that is the note I wanted to conclude my statement on. Mr. GRAY. As usual, Mr. Secretary, you have outdone yourself; you have gone far beyond what I am sure all of us expected, and we again want to commend you and your subordinates, particularly Sutton Jett and his associates, in the National Park Service, and the consul- tants that you hired to assist you on what I might say was a very meager budget. Congress only allowed a paltry $10,000 to do all that you have seen presented here, which is a little bit ridiculous when you see the millions of dollars we spend on what I consider to be much less worthy causes. I think we have to salute the Secretary for doing this kind of job on the budget of $10,000, which is even a little ridicu- lous to have mentioned. Secretary UDALL. We should thank the designers who have worked on it, because I suspect they have some time invested in this and we really owe them some special thanks. Mr. GRAY. I agree with you. I Any questions on my right? Any questions on my left? Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SOIEEWENGEL. Yes. First I want to comment and echo what the chairman has already said and say in addition that I am glad to see you again, Mr. Secretary. You recall when we first met, it was in the 84th Congressional Club. It is wonderful to see you, a member of our club, in such a responsible commission. Secretary TJDALL. We have other members of that club here today, too. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Right. MT. ~ If the gentleman willyield, I would say that is where the Secretary got his good training. Mr. SCUWENGEL. So we of the 84th Club feel in some way we reflect in your glory and accomplishments~ I want to commend you highly for them. PAGENO="0103" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 99 Secretary TJDALL. I am glad, if I may say so, to see my colleagues of the 84th Club gravitating to positions of power and seniority in the Congress. Mr. GRAY. Well, thank you again, Mr. Secretary, and all of you. Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SORWENGEL. I have a question. On the matter of the rental, had you given thought or do you con- sider it advisable maybe to have an option to buy under certain cir- cumstances? Is that envisioned ~ Secretary UDALL. This is proposed in an amendment which we have suggested, that that option should also be available to the Federal Government if at some future time this is in the public interest and we can work out an agreement that would be satisfactory to the Congress. Mr. GRAY. In that connection, Mr. Secretary, I would like to make the record very clear; as you know, as I mentioned earlier, we do have serious budgetary problems from several quarters. It would not be your intention now certainly forus to go to the floor and ask for a lease arrangement with any view in mind in the very foreseeable future of actually using taxpayers' funds to purchase this facility? This is not your intent, to recommend we give you this authority? This is not an attempt to get lease authority with the intention to buy? Secretary UDALL. I think we should say for the record, make this very clear, this first phase that we envision with the presentation we made here today, that we think the lease arrangement is a very good arrangement and probably if the Government wants to consider out- right purchase at all, this would be 10,, 15, or 20 years away. Mr. GRAY. I want to make that clear. I do not want someone on the floor saying, "Really you say lease here, but I am sure you intend to spend $25 or $50 million of taxpayers' money." This is not envisioned at all? Secretary UDALL. This is not envisioned in the whole first phase. Mr. GRAY. Fine. Thank you very much. Mr. SCHwENGEL. One other question, Mr. Secretary. I want to com- ment first, I am happy that the Interior Department's people like you are in charge, more or less supervising and managing this operation. In that connection, I would like to say, in addition, what the Interior Department and the Park Service have done, especially through Mis- sion 66, has been a tremendous contribution to better understanding of our heritage. I do not know any better way to reveal this than through the park areas and recreation areas; they are part of the Government system. It is having its influence in the States. They are following the same pattern. Right now iowa is developing a project and studying some- thing the Federal Government has done in Park Service. This is fine. Now, on to a question: My experience indicates Members of the Congress have a tremendous interest far beyond anything I could imagine in the history of the heritage of our country, and I am won- dering if you would have any objection to having a continuing com- mittee from the Congress to work as sort of a board of consultants or advisers, so they cannot only help you in this way, but reflect the interest and experience of the Congressmen as it relates to the problems of the visitor? Would you have any objection to having that written in? PAGENO="0104" 100 NATIONAL VISITOR CE.NTE;R ACT OF 1967 Secretary UDALL. I not only would have no objection, I would thinli this would be very useful to have a regular_-I would say relatively small, do not get it too large so it is unwieldy, but oversight committee that would be Members of Congress who would particularly keep in touch with developments and would be constantly advising with us and making suggestions, and would be sort of the interpreters to the Congress of what we are doing. I think this might be very helpful. Mr. GRAY. That is a very good suggestion, Mr. SCHWENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAY. Again, Mr. Secretary, let us thank you tremendously for your wonderful work in this connection. I might say, as you leave, that of the hundreds and hundreds of letters and witnesses that have appeared during these hearings, we have not had one single person appear or submit a statement in opposition to the Commission's recommendation, which I think is a great salute to the Commission. Secretary UDALL. Fine. Thank you. Mr. GRAY. Thank you very much. The next witness will be Mr. William J. Powell, executive vice president and general counsel of the American Foundation for World Trade Studies, the U.S. Visitor Center Founding Corp., Washington, Mr. Powell will be accompanied by Mr. Cameron Uartwell Pulley, chairman of the boards of directors of the American Foundation for World Trade Studies, Inc., and the U.S. Visitor Center Founding Corp.; Mr. John B. Funk, engineer and former director of the Mary- land Roads Commission; Dr. Alvin C. Loewer and Mr. Warren Sar- gent, of the architect-engineering firm, Loewer, Sargent & Associates, of Kensington and Baltimore, Md.; and Mr. William J. Muth, director of public relations. Will you just please come forward. We appreciate your patience in waiting and certainly thank you very much for coming. STATEMENT OP WILLIAM I. POWELL, EXE~UTIv~, VICE PRESI- DENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL OP THE U.S. VISITOR CENTER POUNDING CORP. AND THE AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR WORLD TRADE STUDIES, INC., ACCOMPANIED BY OANERON HARTWELL PULLEY, CHAIRMAN OP THE BOARDS OP DIRECTORS, DR ALVIN C. LOEWER AND WARREN SARGENT, ARCHITECTS; JOHN R PUNK, ENGINEER; AND WILLIAM I. MUTH, DIRECTOR OP PUBLIC RELATIONS Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before your subcommittee today to discuss H.R. 12603, a bill to supplement the purposes of the Public Buildings Act of 19459, by authorizing agreements and leases with respect to certain properties in the District of Columbia, for the purpose of a National Visitor Center, and for other purposes. I have with me today Mr. Cameron Hartweil Pulley, chairman of the boards of directors of the American Foundation for World Trade Studies, Inc., and the U.S. Visitor Center Founding Corp. PAGENO="0105" RATIONAL VISITOR C~NTER ACT O~' 1967 101 I also have with me Dr. Alvin C. toewer and M:r. Warren Sargent- this is Dr. Loewer and this Mr. Sargent- Mr. GRAY. The gentlemen may have seats here if you care to. We may have qi1iestions. If you would like, you may sit up here at the table. Mr. POWELL (continuing). Who are members of the architect-en- gineering firm, Loewer, Sargent & Associates of Kensington and Baltimore, Md. With us also is Mr. William J. Muth, who has been very helpful to us in public relation matters, and Mr. John B. Funk, engineer, who was formerly the director of the Maryland Roads Commission. Mr. Funk will become vice president and administrative engineer of the U.S. Visitor Center Founding Corp., in which capacity he will have complete supervision and direction of all engineering and con- struction of the building complex which we propose as an addition to the National Visitor Center as conceived, by Chairman Gray and expressed in his bill H.R. 12603. I would like to say a word about Mr. Funk's background. lie has accumulated some 30 years' experience in private and governmental engineering projects since graduating Phi Beta Kappa in civil en- gineering from Washington and Lee University. lie has developed subway systems while working with the American Bridge Co., and then working with the 11. K. Ferguson Co., of Cleveland. For 10 years he was a consulting engineer for a number of small cities until he became chief engineer of the State of Maryland, to supervise the designing and building of 90 public buildings, including schools, hos- pitals, sanitoriums, stadiums, and other functional buildings. For 8 years he was director of public works for rapidly expanding Baltimore County, and for 8 years he was chairman-director of the Maryland State Roads Commission directing the building of $800 million of roads and freeways, including the Baltimore and Capital Beitways. I might also say that Mr. Funk was one of the originators of the whole concept of freeway systems with interchanges, and so forth, and in fact design the first interchange in the east here. Besides, he has served on or headed a number of important boards and commissions, including' the Maryland State ?lanning Commis- sion, Baltimore Regional P~lanning Commission, Greater Washington Transportation Board, a Joint Committee on Urban Transportation and chairman on the Committee on Organization and Administra- tion of the Highway Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. Mr. Funk would approach this job under his original idea of an urban concept team, where he would have the experience and knowl- edge of all professionals-engineers, architects, and even psycholo- gists-pooled together in order to make a freeway system, an urban community, or whatever project he might be working on-in this case an addition to the Visitor Center-more perfect. Messrs. Funk, Loewer, and Sargent are available to answer tech- nical questions from members of the committee. Concrete solutions to such problems as how to adequately provide for the huge numbers of visitors pouring into the Nation's Capital today and how to adequately provide for the staggering geometric PAGENO="0106" 102 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 increases of these visitors as each year passes, are solutions which are difficult to come by on a "nuts-and-bolts" bas;is. The factors and interests involved are so diverse, complex, and multi- tudinous that great intelligence, imagination, perseverance, and com- promise ability are required in order to finally formulate a practical and concrete solution which will satisfy all interests and at the same time provide for these large numbers of visitors not only the basic necessities and comforts but a truly memorable and meaningful visit to one of the world's greatest centers of government-their own. In Cha.irman Kenneth Gray, these required characteristics abound, and the manner in which he has pursued a practical solution to the problem can only be admired and lauded. He is faced with a problem of present urgency, a truly adequate solution to which would cost a huge sum of money, at a time when the costs of our Government are already astronomical. Yet he has been able to formulate, activate, and continue to forge a practical plan whereby the costs to our Government will be truly nominal, yet the result of which will be an admirable and concrete first step toward coping in a meaningful way with the rapidly increasing numbers of visitors. It is our opinion that the proper site has been chosen for the Center with its already existing monumental structure designed as the "Gate- way to the Capital" after the triumphal arches of Rome. The American Foundation for World Trade Studies, Inc., comes here today with its subsidiary, the U.S. Visitors Center Founding Corp., to offer a plan which will supplement and complement the fine work of Chairman Gray, the chairman of the subcommittee, and the study commission as we have seen already outlined in the previous testimony. The American Foundation for World Trade Studies, whose name is perhaps misleading in that its members quickly discovered at the outset, some 9 years ago, that to study trade is to study in depth the social, economic, and political institutions of geographical areas, and more important is to study ways and means of improving and develop- ing educational systems, and having become intrigued with the possi- bilities attendant upon the idea of a National Visitor Center, ~began a year and a half ago to work out a comprehensive plan where it could make a significant contribution to such a center and at the same time implement its plans of long standing for the creation of an Electronic Education and Information Center. To carry out the administration of the activities designed to aid in the building of supplemental Visitor Center facilities for the use of the Federal Government, we formed a second nonprofit corporation, the U.S. Visitor Center Founding Corp. With completely private capital, and without one penny of con- gressionally appropriated money, the founding corporation would build an additional 7,000 parking spaces adjacent to and immediately behind the 3,000 to 4,000 parking spaces proposed to be built by the Washington Terminal Co., and beyond that the founding corporation would build a large building extending to L. Street over the railroad tracks and on the vacant corner of L and First Streets. The first floor of this large building would join the planned "espla- nade," be reached therefrom by a number of escalators, and consists PAGENO="0107" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF I ~ 67 103 of about 1,600,000 square feet of prime exhibit space with a high ceiling. This floor would be the first level above the railroad tracks and would vastly extend the National Visitor Center as presently proposed, providing a continuous exhibit space from the front of the existing terminal building all the way back to L Street. The immediate and complete use of this floor, of 1.6 million square feet gross, would be given to the National Visitor Oenter by the found- ing corporation, except possibly for a relatively small double-decked area of about 150,000 square feet on which would be built the new and modernized terminal facilities. Our studies indicate, however, that the new railroad terminal f a- cility could and perhaps should be constructed in the area shown on plate 3 in the printed statement, except one floor lower. This would be possible without infringing upon the Mail Handling Building area, since the roof of that building is at the same level as the floors `of the concourse and esplanade. This would `allow the entire first floor to be used by the Department of Interior for the purposes of the National Visitor Center as a nat-j ural extension from the esplanade. It would also allow the omission of the "escalators to tracks" shown in plate 3 of this printed statement, since train passengers would be able to reach their train platforms on the same level as that of the terminal offices where they would have bought their tickets. This plan would also allow enlargement of the esplanade area as indicated on plate 3. Moreover, the "ramp up" shown on plate 3 would be practically level with California Street from which it originates. Egress from the terminal facility for automobiles and buses could be either via a second "flat ramp" back to California Street, lanes of the same ramp enlarged, or via the first parking floor and the west ramp. However designed and engineered, this proposal would bring about a much-needed redevelopment of this mail-handling building corner. The very old and delapidated building would be razed and rebuilt in the process of putting in foundations-with perhaps more efficient and additional mail-handling facilities for the Post Office Depart- ment, at no cost to the Government, The `addition of this 1,600,000 square feet crf ~rithe exhibit space to the National Visitor Center and the additional 7,000 parking spaces would allow the present accomplishment of stated objectives which could not be accomplished `by the' Center as~ presently conceived: First, Public Law 89-790 calls for provision for "exhibits and dis- plays"-and I am quoting-"by the individual States, territories, pos- sessions, `and the District of Coluinbia'v~dth respect to'their histor~y, re- sotircès, scenic attractions~ and othe~apprcpriate matters." This large additional space would be ample for these individual displays and with a large amount of space temaiiiing to provide ~for more thorough and instructive exhibits of the Federal Government and the' Nation's Capital, as well as' ample space for acco'mniodating the large projected increases in m~mbers of visitors. Moreover, it is an understanding that the Smithsonian Institution has warehouses full of first-class Ameri~ cana exhibit material which it has no place to show. Some of this space could be `used to great advantage for selected exhibits from this source. Second, the Study Commission report recoffimendations state, "At the earliest date, consideration should be given to expanding the park- PAGENO="0108" 104 NATIONAL VISF~OR CENTER ACT OF 1967 ing garage to its maximum capacity, as controlled by the access ramps from Union Station Plaza." The parking problem would be solved by our additional 7,000 spaces, especially in view of additional ramps which would be constructed in other sections of the new building in coordination with the District of Columbia and Federal road planners. The 7,000 parking spaces would be arranged on eight floors, which would be directly behind the presently proposed four floors containing 3,000 to 4,000 spaces. The new building beginning behind all parking and extending to L Street would have six floors in addition to the exhibit floor donated to the Visitor Center. Five of these would be leased out and the sixth would be occupied by the Electronic Education and Information Cen- ter. A brief statement of its functions is included herein-that is, in the printed statement-and without repeating it here, I will ask the chair- man that it be printed in the record of these hearings. Mr. GRAY. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. POWELL. Suffice it to say here that this Center will have three functions: First, the creation and dissemination of educational and vocational training courses throughout the United States utilizing the most modern and efficient techniques and methods, both electronic and otherwise; second, the gathering, storing, retrieving, updating, and transmitting upon inqUiry information which will be useful to business and government relative to the social, economic, political, gov- ernmental, and legal conditions and development existing in all coun- tries of the world-this information will be stored in a computer sys- tem-and third, the conduct of research in both the hardware and soft- ware used in accomplishing the first two functions. On the top floor of the new building we would establish a convention center and provide two large rooms of convention hall proportions-a facility badly needed in Washington. One of the large rental floors could be made available for chanceries of those foreign governments needing space, although we would be guided in this by the State De- partment's policy and wishes. The American Foundation for World Trade Studies, Inc., would set up its outside information-gathering facilities immediately and begin its work for the Electronic Education and Information Center so that by the time the building is completed, in 3 years' time, the education and information programs will be ready for immediate implementa- tion. This entire program will be primarily financed by the issue of the 5-percent bonds of the U.S. Visitor Center Founding Corp. pursuant to a negotiated underwriting agreement with a large underwriting firm in New York. The firm with which we have discussed this matter advises us that this project is feasible from an underwriting standpoint under certain eonditions. We must make these bonds as attractive to investors as any municpal bond by having the interest we would pay on them made tax exempt to the purchaser thereof. This can only be achieved by Federal legis- lation, and we are asking that this bill be amended to include such a provision. Mr. ~ Let me interrupt you there, Mr. Powell, if I may. You are asking, then, if this venture goes forward, that you be treated as a municipality? You are going to provide a public service by making a large number of square footage of floor space available PAGENO="0109" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 105 for public use, that you require no taxpayers' funds, but you would need tax-~exempt bonds the same as a municipality? Mr. POWELL. I hesitate to say we want to be treated as a munici~ pality, because it is a private, though nonprofit, corpo~ration. I am just comparing the fact-.---- Mr. Git&r. Maybe the question is not clear. Mr. Powi~u~. The fact the bonds would be exempt would be similar to bonds of municipalities that are issued to build similar projects for the public. Mr. GRAY. This is what I had reference to; you want similar treat- ment as the municipalities is what I had reference to. Mr. POWELL. Yes. Yes. Such an exemption is completely justified when the following is considered: First, the donation of the large additional space of 1,600,000 square feet to the National Visitor Center, a fair rental value of $10,520,000 pe~ year. Second, the provision of a critically needed additional 7,000 park- ing spaces to make a total onsite availability of 10,000 automobile spates and parking for 116 buses. We will, however, have to have a nominal charge for parking in the 7,000-space area. We are anticipat- ing a charge of $1.50 or less per car for all day parking. Third, the principal activities in the new building will be a non- profit education and information center and a nonprofit international club. Fourth, the founding cooperation would pay real estate taxes to the District of Columbia government of $2,758,000 per year. This would amount to thout $52,413,000 over the 23-year bond amortization period and should far more thanpay for the road, freeway, and str~et rearrangern~nt for `easy ingress and egress to the National Visitor Center, as well as modernizing the depressing underpassess on H, K, and L streets. Fifth, the new building complex would place a sizable wedge of redevelopment in an area in very urgent need of it embarrassingly close to the Capitol. This new building and its activities would un- doubtedly cause a spate of further redevelopment in the surrounding area, including yet further additional parking, hotel facilities, and so forth. Sixth, of the total number of square feet of building constructed, not counting parking, only about one-half would be devoted to the pro- duction of rental income. The other half would be utilized by the Na- tional Visitor Center and the Electronic Education and Information Center at no charge. Total area would be 10,539,400 square feet; total rental area would be 5,800,500 square feet and a rental rate of $6 per square foot is anticipated. Seventh, the tax exemption of the bonds cannot be argued to cost the Government money, because without the exemption, there would be no bonds and no interest income at all~ since this project cannot be done on this basis without the bonds being tax exempt. Moreover, it cannot be argued that investors would invest in taxable income- producing securities if they did not invest in these bonds, because the money which will be invested in these bonds most likely would be put into other tax-exempt municipals if it were not invested here, PAGENO="0110" 106 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 I might also say that th~~ total issue of bonds would be only three- tenths of 1 percent of the total issue of tax-exempt bonds now out- standing, which are about $1.5 billion. MOreover, since the greatest part of the administrative budget- that is, our budget-is for salaries, the income taxes therefrom will generate a large new source o~ Federal r~venue. I would like to give a brief visual presentation at this point after which I will give a final justification for the bonds being treated as municipals. Mr. Gii~r. You iflay proceed. Mr. POWELL. I hav& a few slides to show. You can get a better pic~ ture of what we are proposing. Mr. SCHWENGEL. May I raise a question? Mr. GRAY. He wants to show some slides, then we may ask questions. Mr. SCHWENGEL. All right. Mr. PowInL. Could I have the lights dimmed? [Slide.] Here you can see a rough sketch of the cross section of the pro- posed addition. I should point out at the outset that this building is certainly not architected or engineered, although the vertical and horizontal information on these plates is accurate. The present building is indicated by this blue-shaded area. The larger of the two domes is your main building; the smaller dome behind it is the long concourse. Now the Study Commission proposes to build these additions, indi- cated by the yellow-shaded areas, and that includes the esplanade and the 4,000 parking spaces behind, plus the new terminal, which would be built in this area [indicating]. Our proposal is to add the parking spaces behind the 4,000 parking spaces and build the building there behind those parking spaces as seen running back 2,100 feet. Of that new building, we would donate to the Visitor Center the red area floor [indicating]. It is drawn here with a 20-foot ceiling. In fact, the vertical information is a 30-foot c~iling above the trains might be able to be left, a 20-foot ceiling of this large exhibit floor, and the other floors 10 feet apart with two large floors here in the building itself, and of course a helicopter facility on top. Now, the Study Commission plan at present has the escalators run- fling from the esplanade up to the first floor parking. I do not want to confuse you by this plate. We have shown it here coming in a floor lower. [Slide.] I might also point out these are very preliminary suggestions, of course, even more preliminary than the well-developed Study Comrn mission's report. Now, this shows a sketch of the area as it presently exists. This is the existing station, this is the long concourse here, and the tracks begin right behind the concourse [indicating]. Now, these tracks [indicating] would be moved, under the Study Commission plan, back to about the point of my pencil, and the espla- iiade would be built in here. The ends of this concourse building, about, 100 feet off of each end would be removed in order for the ranws to be built there. The yellow- shaded area shows the part of the concourse that would be removed. PAGENO="0111" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT 1967 107 The t*o ramps proposed in the Study Commission report are this ramp and this ramp [indicating]. This ramp would ba for ingress and this ramp would be for e~'ress. And of tourse these bratmh~s hei~e in- dh~ate the Study Commission's traffic flow in front of th~ hew terfrunal facility and out over he1~e and out the outgoing ramp. These are the connections to the POst Office Building, which is right across the street in this direction [indicating] and you can see here the mail-handling buildings, which is a building over which we would pro- pose including part of this new building. The new building would come all the way out to here [indicating] and down to L Street, and over this property too, over the railroad tracks. Since we would redevelop this entire corner, we think it might be better to have a ramp coming in from that side, which would allow an enlargement of the esplanade of the Study Commission in this area around this corner, since there would not be a ramp here [indicating], although this is a matter which could be studied with a new hypothesis of developing this corner. [Slide.] This plate shows th~ floor built in. This is the esplanade planned by the Study Commission, and this shows how it could be extended around the corner here. These are the theater groupings here. This is the cyclorama and this is your planned floor screen for- Mr. Git~&r. Diorama. Mr. POWELL. What do they call it ~ Mr. ~ Diorama. Mr. PowELL. Diorama. The Study Commission plan calls for two escalators here [indicat- ing]. I have drawn in three more here and three more here [indicat- ing]. This is thought to be made necessary by the fact that we are giving this entire floor, running a large distance back, for an extension of the Visitor Center. There would probably have to be more means or ingress and egress to that area. Mr. GRAY. Are you proposing the Government pay for these escala~ tors or would that be part of your plan? Mr. POWELL. That is all part of our plan. Any expense involved with the connecting of our facility to the Study Commission's facility would be paid by us, and of course the connection, the mode of connec- tion would be subject to discussion and approval by the Planning Committee and the Fine Arts Commission, and so forth. Now, this picture here shows the mail-handling building area, which is here [indicating], and shows a new terminal office space here [indi- cating] in the corner, which would not interrupt this large space behind the presently proposed Center. Mr. GRAY. That plan has been changed, I understand, and they now plan to have the entire railroad facility underneath the parking facility. Mr. POWELL. Oh, is that a fact? Mr. G&~r. Yes. Mr. PowELL. In that case there would be no problem. There would be no problem in any case. Here the railroad terminal is shown on the same level as the Study Commission, with the escalators down, and one escalator leading down here to the lower track level. PAGENO="0112" 108 NATIoNAL visn'ou CENTER ACT o~' i ~ 67 Now, as I pointed out a little while ago, this facility could be pla~ced one floor lower than it appears here inasmuch as the roof of this mail-handling building is at the same level as the ground of the esplanade and the floor of the concourse, and of course one floor lower than the track level in this area [indicating]; hence, if it were put one floor lower {s1id~] you would simply have that entire space as the first part of the additmu to the Visitor Center which we are proposing. Of course, ~t would be much larger than this. It would run all the way down to L Street and we would build this floor only~ after con- sultation and approval by the Secretary of the Interior and whoever would be setting up exhibits. Because oftentimes certain exhibits re- quire changes in the height of the ceiling in various areas and so forth; so it would have to be- Mr. GRAY. Please give for the record the number of square footage of floor space you would envision giving to the Visitor Center. Did you say 1.7 million? Mr. POWELL. 1.6 million. That is gross, however. That has to be reduced. Mr. GRAY. That would be a sizable area. The entire building we see there in the Union Station is only 330,000 square feet. Mr. POWELL. That is correct. You would be able to have as much or more than 10,000 square feet of exhibits for each State, possession, and the District of Columbia, which would be spaces 100 feet by 100 feet, and still only use up a half million square feet of the 1,6 million. Mr. GRAT. When you say give the space, are you envisioning any type `of admission fee `to get into this facility~ Mr. POWELL, No, sir. No admission fee at all. I have a schedule of economic analysis of how the finances of it would work, so you can `see that-_.~ Mr. GRAY. I would like to have all that submitted for the record. We certainly do not have time to go into details concerning all of it today, but I would like to put it al~ in the record so all the members will have a chance to study the economic aspects of the proposal. Mr. POWELL. I will ask, `then, `that that material in the printed statement simply be included in the record. It is all spelled out with cash flow. Mr. GRAY. We will print your entire statement, including the eco- nomic justifications, in the record in full. (The document follows:) STATEMENT or WILLIAM J. POWELL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE UNITED STATES VISITOR CENTER FOUNDING CORPORATION AND THE AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR WORLD TRADE `STUDIES, INC. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before your SRbeornmittee today to discuss HR. 12603, a bill "To `sRpplemen't `the pur- poses of the Public B4lildings Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 479), by authorizing agree- ments and leases with respect to certain properties in the District of Columbia, for `the purpose of a national visitor center, `and for o'ther purposes." I have wi'th me Mr. Cameron H'artwefl Pulley, `Chairman of the Boards of Di- rectors `of the American Foundation for World Trade Studies, Incorporated and the United States Visitor Center Founding `Oorpo~~,ion. I also have with me Dr. Alvin C. Loewer `and Mr. W~irren Sarge~t of the Architect Engineering Firm, Loewer, Sargent and AsSociates of I~ensington and ~a1thpo~e, Maryla~d. PAGENO="0113" NATIONAI~ VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 109 With us also is Mr. John B. Funk, Engineer and former Director of the Mary- land 1j~oads Commission. Mr. Funk will `become Vice President and Administrative Engineer `of the United States Visitor Center Founding Corporation, in which capacity he will have complete supervision and direction of all engineering and construction of the building complex which we propose as an addition to the Na- tional Visitor Center as conceived by Chairman Gray and expressed in his bill, }LR. i2~03. Messrs. Funk, Loewer and Sargent are available to answer technical questions from members of the committee. Concrete `solutions to such problems as how `to adequately provide for the huge numbers of visitors pouring into the nation's capital today and how to adequately provide for the staggering geometric increases of `these visitors as each year passes, are solutions which are difficult to come by on a "nuts and bolts" basis. The factors and interests involved are so diverse, complex and multitudinous that great intelligence, imagination, perseverance and compromise ability are required in order to finally formulate a practical and concrete solution which will satisfy `all interests and at the same time provide for these large numbers of visi- tors not only the basic necessities and comforts but a truly memorable and mean- ingful visi't to one `of the world's greatect centers of goverument-4beir own. He is faced with a problem of present urgency, a truly adequate solution to which would cost a huge sum of money, at a time `when the costs of our govern- ment are already astronomical. Yet be has been able to formulate, activate and continue `to forge a "nuts and bolts" plan whereby the costs to our government will `be truly nominal yet the result of which will `be an admirable and conc'rete first step toward coping in a meaningful way With the rapidly increasing numbers of visitors. It is our opinion `that the proper site has been chosen for the center with its already existing monumental structure designed as the "Gateway to the Capital" after the triumphal arches of Rome. The American Foundation for World Trade Studies, Incorporated, comes here today with its subsidiary, the United States Visitor Center Founding Corporation to offer a plan which will supplement and complement the fine work of Chairman Gray and his Subcommittee and `the Study Commission created by Public Law 89-790 to study possible visitor facilities. The American Foundation for World Trade Studies, who'se name is perhaps misleading in that its members quickly discovered at the outset, `some nine years ago, that to study trade is to study in depth the social, economic, and political institutions of geographical areas, and more important is to study ways and means of improving and developing educational systems, and having become intrigued with th'e possibilities attendant upon the idea of a National Visitor Center, began a year and a half ago to work out a comprehensive plan whereby we could make a significant contribution to such a center and at the same time implement our plans of long standing for the creation of an Electronic Education and Information Center. To carry out the administration of the activities designed to aid in the building of supplemental visitor center facilities for the' use of the federal government, we formed a second non-profit corporation, the United States Visitor Center Founding Corporation. With completely private capital, and without one penny of congressionally appropriated money the Founding Corporation would build an additional 7,000 parking spaces adjacent to and immediately behind the 3,000 to 4,000 parking spaces proposed to be built by the Washington Terminal Company, and beyond that `the Founding Corporation would build a large building extending to "L" Street over the railroad tracks and on the vacant corner of "L" and First Streets. The first floor of this large building would join the planned "esplanade", be reached therefrom by a number of escalators and would consist of about 1,600,000 square feet of prime exhibit `space with a twenty foot ceiling. [See Plate 1 herein.] This floor `would be the first level above the railroad tracks and would vas'tly extend the National Visitor Center as presently proposed, providing a continuous exhibit space from the front of the existing terminal building all the way back to "L" S'treet. The immediate and complete use of tbi~ floor would be given to the National Visitor Center by the Founding Corporation, except possibly for a relatively small double-deck area of about 150,000 `square feet on which would be built the new and modernized terminal facilities. [See Plate 3 herein.] 85-894-67-----8 PAGENO="0114" 110 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Our studies indicate, however, that the new railroad terminal facility could and perhaps should be constructed in the area shown on Plate 3 e~rcept one floor lower. This would be possible without infringing upon the Mail Handling Build- ing area, Since the roof of that building is at the same level as the floors df the Concourse and Esplanade. This would allow the entire first floor to be used by the Department oi~ Inter~ br for the purposes of the National Visitor Center as a natural extension from the Esplanade. It would also allow the omission of the "escalator tracks" shown in Plate 3, since train passengers would be able to reach their train platforms on the same level as that of the terminal offices where they would have bought their tickets. This plan would also allow enlargement of the Esplanade area as indicated on Plate 3. Moreover, the "Ramp up" shown on Plate 3 would be practically level with California Street from which it originates. Egress from the terminal facility for automobiles and buses could be either via a second "fiat ramp" back to California Street, lanes of the same ramp enlarged or via the first parking floor and the West Ramp. However designed and engineered, this proposal would bring about a much- needed redevelopment of this Mail Handling Building Corner (the very old and delapidated building would be razed and rebuilt) with perhaps more efficient and additional mail handling facilities for the Post Office Department, at no cost to the government. The addition of this 1,600,000 square feet of prime exhibit space to the Na- tional Visitor Center and the additional 7,000 parking spaces would allow the present accomplishment of stated objectives which could not be accomplished by the center as presently conceived. 1. Public Law 80-790 calls for provision for "exhibits and displays by the in- dividual States, territories, possessions and the District of Columbia with re- spect to their history, resources, scenic attractions, and other appropriate mat- ters." This large additional space would be ample for these individual displays and with a large amount of space remaining to provide for more thorough and instructive exhibits of the Federal Government and the Nation's Capital, as well as ample space for accommodating the large projected increases in numbers of visitors. Moreover, it Is an understanding that the Smithsonian Institution has warehouses full of first class Americana exhibit material which it has no place to show. Some of this space could be used to great advantage fOr selected exhibits from this source. 2, The Study Commission Report recommendations state, "at the earliest date, consideration should be given to expanding the parking garage to its maxi- mum capacity, as controlled by the access ramps from Union Station Plaza~" The parking problem would be solved by our additional 7,000 spaces, especially* in view of additional ramps which would be Constructed in other sections of the new building in coordination with the D.C. and Federal road planners. The 7,000 parking spaces would be arranged on eight floors, four floors of which would be directly behind the presently proposed four floors containing 3,000 to 4,000 spaces. The new building beginning behind all parking and extending to "L" Street would have six floor~& in addition to the exhibit floor donated to the Visitor Center. Five of these would be leased out and the sixth would be occupied by the Electronic Education and Information Center. A brief statement of its functions is included herein, and without repeating it here, I will ask the Chairman that it be printed in the record of these hearings. Suffice it to say here that this center will have three functions: (1) the creation and dissemination of educational and vocational training courses throughout the United States utilizing the most modern and efficient techniques and methods, both electronic and other- wise; (2) the gathering, storing, retrieving, updating, and transmitting upon in- quiry, information which will be useful to business and government relative to the social, economic, political, governmental and legal conditions and develop- ment existing in all countries of the world; and (3) the conduct of research in both the hardware and software used in accomplishing the first two functions. On the top floor of the new building we would establish an International Club with memberships available on a completely non-discriminatory basis and provide two large rooms of convention hall proportions, a facility badly needed in Washington. Memberships would be made available to Ambassadors and their staffs at no charge. PAGENO="0115" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 111 One of the large rental floors could be made available for chanceries of those foreign governments needing space, although we would be guided in this by the State Department's policy and wishes. The American Foundation for World Trade Studies, Inc. would set up its outside information-gathering facilities immediately and begin its work for the Electronic Education and Information Center so that by the time the building is completed (in three years time), the education and information programs will be ready for Immediate implementation. This entire program will be primarily financed by the issue of the 5% bonds of the United States Visitor Cbnter Fonuding Clorporation pursuant to a negotiated underwriting agreement with a large underwriting firm in New York. The firm with which we have discussed this matter advises us that this project is feasible from an underwriting standpoint under certain conditions. We must make these bonds as attractive to investors as any municipal bond by having the interest we would pay on them made tax exempt to the purchaser thereof. This can only be achieved by federal legislation, and we are asking that this bill be amended to include such a provision. Such an exemption is completely justified when thefollowing is considered: 1. The donation of the large additional space (1,600,00 square feet) to the National Visitor Center, a fair rental value of $10,520,000 per year. 2. The provision of a critically-needed additional 7,000 parking spaces to make a total on site availability of 10,000 automobile spaces and parking for 116 busses. We Will, however, have to make a nominal charge for parking in the 7,000 spaces area. We are anticipating a charge of $1.43 per car for all-day parking. 3. The principal activities in the new building will be a nonprofit educa- tion and information center and a non-profit International 4Olub. 4. The Founding Corporation would pay real estate taxes to the District of Columbia government of $2,758,604 per year. This would amount to about $52,413,476 over the. 23-year bond amortizatiOn period and should far more than pay for road, freeway, and street rearrangement for easy ingress and egress to the National Visitor Center, as well as modernizing the depressing underpasses on "II", "K" and "L" Streets. 5. The new building complex would place a sizeable wedge of redevelop- ment . in an area in very urgent need of it embarrassingly close to the Capitol. This new building and its activities would undoubtedly cause a spate of further redevelopment in the surrounding area, including yet further additional parking, hotel facilities, etc. 6. Of the total number of square feet of building constructed, not counting parking, only about one-half would `be devoted to the production of rental income. The other half would be utilized by the National Visitor Center and the Electronic Education and Information Center at no charge. [Total area: 10,539,400 square feet; total rental area: 5,800,500 square feet] A rental rate of $6.0t~ per square foot is anticipated. 7. The tax exemption of the bonds cannot he argued to cost the government money, because without the exemption there would be no bonds and no interest income at all, since this project cannot be done on this basis without the bonds being tax-exempt. Moreover, it cannot be argued that Investors would invest in taxable income-producing securities if they did not invest in these bonds, because the money which will be invested in these bonds would be put into other tax-exempt municipals if it were not invested here. I would like to give a brief visual presentation at this point after which I will give a final justification for our bonds being treated as municipals. [Visual Presentation] [1. Plates] [2. Budgets] Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the final reason I would give for making the interest on the bonds of the Four~ding Corporation tax-exempt is that we propose to give this entire building and parking spaces together with all fketures and maintenance equipment to the United States Government when the bonds have been amortized, which should be 19 years from .the completion date. Along with the building we would also be giving to the United States Govern- ment a built-in annual net income of $22,633,063 plus whatever rent we would PAGENO="0116" 112 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 pay on the Electronic Education and Information Center and International Club floor. And within two years from that time the Government would have more than enough money from this new source alDne to purchase the remaining Union Station property. The benefits our proposal would bring to the Washington Terminal Company and the railroad companies would be as follows: 1. We would pay $5000,000 to the Washington Terminal `Company for the air rights and other rights necessary in order to accomplish the proposed construction. 2. We would pay $136,500 (at $15 per square foot) for the corner property at "K" Street presently occupied by a gasoline service station. 3. We would be willing to have our eontractor~ build `the new terminal to the Washington Terminal Company's specifications for the projected $3,500,000, as well as the spaces for 3,036 cars and 116 busses and ramps for the projected ~11,000,000. This `would virtuafly guarantee the ability to pres- ently fix the rental ra'te at some figure between the projected $2,900,000 and $3,000,000. If these cost estimates turn out to be too low, the difference can easily be absorbed by us due to the size of our program. 4, We would completely rebuild the building presen'Uy leased to the Rail- way Express Company by `the Washington Terminal Company at no charge, thereby substituting modernized facilities `for a very outdated building. 5, In the process of incorporating the power plan in the new building, we would modernize that `facility at no charge, If it would be feasible to convert the source of energy in that plant from `coal to either natural gas or oil, the immense brick smoke stack could be eliminated. 6. If excavation is required `for foundations, then we `would elevate all of `the track platforms when they were replaced. This work would be done in a `staggered manner so as not to `seriously interfere with terminal operations. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I wan't to `thank you for this opportunity to be heard, and, if `there are no questions, this concludes my statement. Pno~eosnn AMENDMENTS TO HR. 12603 A BILL To supplement the purposes of the Public Building Act of 1959 (72 Stat. 479), by authorizing agreements and leases with respect to certain properties in the District of Columbia, for the purpose of a national visitor center, an~ for other purposes Page 1, line S. After the word, "with," insert, "(1)" Page 2, line 2. After `the word, "Station," insert, "and (2) the United States Visitor Conter P~oun'din*g Corporation, a ncm~pr~fit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, and, by a contract `to purchase, the owner of certain air rights above the Union Station property, * * *" Page 2,. line 3, Strike the word, "property," and insert `the w'ord, "properties" Page 2, line 4. After the word, "therewith," add, "and for other purposes." Page 3, lines 1 and 2, Strike all after the' word, "terminal," and add, "in an area `other than `the existing terminal building, to be mutually agreed upon; and * * *,, Page 3, line 7. After the word, "Act," insert, "with the Washington `Terminal Company" Page 3, between lines 9 and 10. Insert, "(c) The agreements authorized to be negotiated and entered into by Section 2 of this Act with the United States Visitor Center Founding Corporation shall be subject to the following terms and conditions: (1) The United States Visitor `Cen'ter Founding Corporation shall agree to undertake at its own cost and expense the planning, financing, construc- ting, owning, and managing of a building complex within `the areas and spaces for the purchase of which it has contracted with the Washington Terminal Company, as well as on the property on the corner of "L" and First Streets, Northeast, which the Federal Redevelopment Land Agency is hereby directed to sell to the United States Visitor Center Founding Corporation at a price not to exceed $15.00 per square foot. (2) The United States Visitor Center Founding Corporation is authorized to extend its building across that part of "K" Street bordered by the rail- PAGENO="0117" NATIONAL VISITOE CENPEI~ ACT OF 1967 113 road tracks oii the east and the north-south building line on the east side of First Street, Northeast, at its own cost and expense. (3) The United States Visitor Center Founding Corporation is authorized to issue bonds or other evidences of indebtedness, in such amounts, and with such provisions, and to be issued, redeemed, re-issued, used, donated, ex- changed, or sold at private or public sales, and with such due dates or callable periods, and for such purposes, as the directors may, from time to time, determine to be in the best interests of the corporation and to be necessary or desirable to achieve the objectives and to carry out the purposes of such agreements and the purposes of the corporation,- (a) with total amounts outstanding at any one time of not to exceed Three Hundred Fifty Million Dollars, and (b) with interest at the rate or rates of not to exceed five per centum per annum, tax exempt, payable annually; provided that, during the first five years after the first issue of such bonds or other evidences of indebtedness, such interest may be deferred and accumulated, or may be paid currently out of principal and reimbursement to principal be made thereafter out of earnings; and (c) such bonds or other evidences of indebtedness shall be registered. (4) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to purchase such bonds or other evidences of indebtedness of the corporation out of any trust funds or accounts or other moneys not appropriated, under his jurisdiction. In like manner, any trust funds, accounts or moneys, not appropriated, under the jurisdiction of any Federal Department or Agency may he used to pur- chase such bonds or other evidences of indebtedness of the United States Visitor Center Founding Corporation. (5) The United States Visitor Center Founding Corporation shall make available to the United States Goverhment the entire floor, which shall consist of at least 750,000 square feet, oil the floor level next above the. level of the railroad tracks, within its building complex, for exhibit purposes or other purposes, without cost or expense to the United States Government, except for cleaning maintenance and electrical power~ for a period of thirty years from its completion within the building complex, and the United States Government shall administer this property in accordance with statutory authority available for the administration of the national park system~ (6)At the end of the thirty-year period from the completion and opening of the building complex, or at the time when all funded or bonded indebted- ness is fully paid, whichever occurs first, the United States Visitor Center Founding Corporation shall convey in fee simple absolute to the United States Government all real property it then owns, consisting of land, build- ings, fixtures, air rights, and improvements thereto, all of which will consti- tute the said building complex. (7) The United States Visitor Center Founding Corporation shall pro- vide within its building complex at least 7,000 parking spaces ~which shall be adjacent to the parking spaces constructed by the Washington Terminal Company. (8) Although the Income of the United States Visitor Center Founding Corporation, as a charitable non-profit corporation, is not taxed by the Fed- eral Government under existing provisions of the law exempting such non- profit corporations, should a question arise with regard to the taxability of any part of its income, It shall be determined to be exempt from such tax. The United States Visitor Center Founding Corporation, shall also be exempt from all District of Columbia personal property tax and sales tax, but it shall pay all assessed real property taxes. (9) The United States Visitor Center Founding Corporation shall transmit to the President and to the Congress annually and at such other times as it deems desirable a comprehensive and detailed report of its operations, activities and accomplishments under such agreements and the provisions of this Act. PAGENO="0118" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER PLATE I C 2)100 PARTIAL SECTION DETAIL 1 7000 CARS 4000 CA~S ~ EX/~DIM& BUILDIM~ 337' -220' PAGENO="0119" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 115 PAGENO="0120" I. PAGENO="0121" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 117 U.S. VISITOR CENTER Economic analysis Annual operating income after 4th Year: (a) Rental from 5~/2 levels (no rental from Electronic Educa- tion and Information Center or National Visitor Center) 80 percent of 5,381,300 square feet at $6 per square foot (10 percent vacancy rate) $25, 275, 000 (b) Electronic Education and Information Center operations-- 10, 000, 000 (e) Parking (space for 7,000 cars; $11,111,111 at $1.43 each)_~ 11, 111, 111 (d) International Club dues 1, 875, 000 Total annual income 48,261,111 Annual operating expenses: (a) Founding Corporation administrative 6, 550, 000 (b) Electronic Education and Information Center 1, 650, 000 (c) Parking ~` ~ 444 (d) District of Columbia real estate taxes 2, 758, 604 (e) Bond interest 2 17, 500, 000 Total annual operating expenses 32, 903,048 Net annual income before charges 15, 358,063 Bonds are to be retired as follows: 10th year 100,000, 000 20th year 130, 000, 000 23d year 120,000, 000 Total issued - 350, 000, 000 Additional income from donations, concessions, accumulated earnings, International Club. 2 Interest becomes less as bonds are amortized. Estimated costs (3 years) 1. For 71/2 floors, including foundation; consisting of 10,539,400 square feet: Total structure $221, 327, 400 A. & B., legal (8 percent) 17, 706, 192 Total construction costs 239, 033, 592 2. Purchase of air rights over tracks 5,000, 000 3. Purchase of K St. corner from Washington Terminal Co., and L St. corner from Federal Redevelopment Land Agency 1,572, 000 4. Electronic Education and Information Center, 3 years 17,950, 000 5. American Foundation for World Trade Studies, Inc. 24,580, 000 6. U.S. Visitor Center Founding Corporation, administrative 10,200, 000 7. Public relations - 3,000, 000 8. Interest on bonds, 2 years 15, 000, 000 9. UnderwrIting 7,000, 000 Total estimated costs for 1st 3 years 323, 335, 592 Casl~ flow Year 1: Income: Bond issue $100, 000,000 Total 1st year income 000,000 PAGENO="0122" 118 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Cash flow-Continued Year i-Continued Expense authorizations: (a) Founding corporation: A. & E. legal Administrative Purchase ol! air rights and land (b) Electronic education and information center: Administrative 1, 6~0, 000 11. & D. 1,000, 000 Equipment 1, 000, 000 Total 3, 650, 000 (c) American Foundation for World Trade Studies, Inc.: Facilities and administrative Equipment Projects 5, 010, 000 4, 150, 000 1, 800, 000 Petal 10, 960, 000 1, 000, 000 2, 000,000 Total 1st year expenses 37 435 096 Cash on hand beginning of 2d year 62,465,914 Year 2: Income: ____________ Bond issue 130, 000, 000 Total 2d year income 130, 000, 000 Total 192, 564, 914 Expense authorizations: (a) Founding corporation: A. & E. legal (`/2) 8, 853, 096 Administrative 3, 400, 000 % construction (total of $221,327,400) 110, 663, 700 Total 122, 916, 796 (b) Electronic education and information center: Administrative It. & D. Equipment $8, 853, 096 3,400, 000 6, 572, 000 Total 19, 825, 096 (d) Public relations (e) Underwriting 1,650, 000 1, 000, 000 10, 000, 000 Total 12, 650,000 (c) American Foundation for World Trade Studies, Inc.: Facilities and adminstrative 5, 010, 000 Projects 1, ~ 000 Total 6, 810, 000 (d) Public relations 1, 000, ooo (e) Interest on bonds 5, 000, 000 (f) Underwriting 2, 600, 000 Total 2d year expenses 150, 976, 769 Cash on hand beginning of 3d year 41, 55~, 118 PAGENO="0123" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 119 18,956,250 10,000,000 11,111,111 - 40,067,361 - 64,231,779 Cash flow-Continued Year 3: Income: Bond issue $120,000,000 Total 3d year income 120,000,000 Total 161,588,118 Expense authorizations: (a) Founding corporation: Administrative 3,400,000 ~ construction costs 110,663,700 Total 114,063,700 (b) Electronic education and information center: ad- ministrative 1,650,000 (c) American Foundation for World Trade Studies, Inc.: Facilities and administrative 5,010,000 Projects 1,800,000 Total 6,810,000 (d) Public relations 1,000,000 (e) Interest on bonds 11,500,000 (f) Underwriting 2,400,000 Total 3d year expenses 137,423,700 Cash on hand beginning of 4th year 24,164,418 Year 4: Income-Partial Operations-lst year open: (a) Rents (75 percent full) (b) Electronic education and information center (c) Parking Total 4th year income1 Total ____________ Expenses: (a) Founding corporation: administrative (b) Electronic educationa and information center (c) American Foundation for World Trade Studies, Inc. - (d) Parking (e) Interest on bonds - 6,550,000 1,650,000 6,810,000 4,444,444 17,500,000 Total 4th year expenses 36,954,444 27,277,335 Cash on hand beginning of 5th yi~r ____________ Year 5: Income: (a) Rental 5~/2 levels (see economic analysis) _~_.. 25, 275, 000 (b) 1~lectronic education and information center 10, 000, 000 (c) Parking (see economic analysis) 11, 111, 111 (d) International club dues 1, 875, 000 Total 5th year income 48, 261, 111 Total 75, 538, 446 I This figure would be increased by $15,000,000 of International Club Membership fees (7,500 memberships at $2,000 per membership). PAGENO="0124" 120 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Oa~s1i, flow-Continued Year 5-Continued Expenses: (a) Founding corporation $6, 550, 000 (b) Electronic education and information center 1, 650, 000 (e) Parking 4 444 444 (d) D.C. real estate taxes 2, 758, 604 (e) Interest on bonds 17,500, 000 Total 5th year expenses 32,903,408 Cash on hand beginning of 6th year 42, 635, 398 Years 6-10 inclusive: Income 241, 305, ~ Expenses -ft14, 515, 240 Net income years 6-10 -. 76, 790, 315 Total 119, 425, 713 Retire 1st bond issue of $100,000,000 -100, 000, 000 Cash on hand beginning of 11th year 19,425,713 Years 11-20 inclusive: Income 482, 611, 110 Expenses ~279, 030, 480 Net income years 11-20 203,580, 630 Total 233 006, 343 Retire 2d bond issue of $130,060,000 -130, 000, 000 Cash on hand beginning of 21st year 93,006,343 Years 21-23 inclusive: Income 144, 783, 333 Expenses -64,200, 144 Net income years 21-23 80,574,189 Total 173, 580, 532 Retire 3d bond issue of $120,000,000 -120, 000, 000 Cash on hand beginning of 24th year 53, 580, 532 All Bonded indebtedness retired: Annual income 36, 386, 111 Annual expenses -13, 753, 048 Annual net income 22, 633, 063 2 Expenses are decreased by the Interest on the 1st bond issue of $5,000,000 per year. `Expense~ are further decreased by the interest on the 2d bond Issue of $6,500,000 per year. AMERICAN FOUNDATION POE WORLD TRADE STIYDEES, Ixc. Annu~l budget Physical equipment: Office furniture, equipment, etc $150, 000 Library equipment, stacks, microfilm facilities, video equip- ment, etc 500, 000 Books, records, manuscripts, maps, etc.. 1, 000,000 Electronic equipment: data storage and retrieval equipment, computers, and other hardware 2,500, 000 Total for physical equipment 4, 150, 000 PAGENO="0125" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 121 An~nua1 budget-Continued annual expenses: Rental for branch office facilities - $350, 000 Salaries Officers, directors and assistants 360, 000 Accountants (3) 50,000 Secretaries-lO at $10,000 each, 5 at $5,000 each 150, 000 Interpreters, translators * 250, 000 Total 810, 000 Foreign operations: Foreign information operating staff: 2 British Commonwealth 2 E.E.C. (Common Market) 2 E.F.T.A. 2 Eastern Europe 2 U.S.S.R. 2 Near East 2 Africa 2 Far East & South Asia 2 Latin America 2 U.S.A~ 20 at $17,500 each 350, 00 Foreign offices-9 at $60,000 eacb_~ 54~0, 000 Total 890, 000 2, 050, 000 Software (contracted programs, salaried systems analysts and pro~ grammers, including research and development contracts on optical scanners and other needed hardware) - 1, 860, 000 Projects (country by country socio-economic studies and development of long-range planning for world trade and development of under- developed countries-GO countries per year, with annual up-dating. To `be coordinated with foreign information operating `staff)____ 1,800, 000 Office supplies _~~_ 100, 000 Publications, subscriptions, reports, surveys, studies, etc 200, 000 Telephone and telegraph 50,000 Travel (U.S. and foreign) 000, 000 Insurance (2 percent on $5,000,000) 100, 000 Maintenance on equipment (1 percent on $5,000,000) - 50, 000 Total, annual expenses 6,810,000 ELECTRONIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION CENTER or THE AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR WORLD TRADE STuDIEs, INCORPORATED This center will have three functions: (1) the creation and dissemination of educational and vocational training courses throughout the United States utilizing the most modern and `efficient techniques and methods, both electronic and otherwise; (2) the gathering, storing, retrieving, updating and transmitting upon inquiry, information which will be useful to business and government relative to the social, economic, political, governmental and legal conditions and development existing in all countries of the world; and (3) the conduct of research in both the hardware and software used in accomplishing the first two functions. As a part of the Electronic Education and Information Center there will be established a central "registrar" for a nationwide network of facilities at more than 100 accredited universities and some 800 junior colleges (both public and private). With these facilities at their disposal, manufacturers, merchants, and tech- nical, professional and trade associations, will be provided with "custom-built" training programs of the highest academic standards: (1) for their own personnel, and (2) for the personnel of their distributors, retailers and customers. PAGENO="0126" 122 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 This will make training programs available for all industries, to develop essential skills and abilities in any business function: (1) for any number of students, (2) on flexible weekly schedules (instruction after hours), (3) in virtually every important U.S. city, and (4) at low per capita costs. More Ameriëans had jobs in July, 1967, than in any other month in history. A record 76.2 million persons were working-4.6 million more than a year ago. All major sections of the economy show the recent pickup. Government and other economists are encouraged-particularly with respect to prospective ability of the labor market to absorb 8.6 million young people. Enter the man in the "gray collar". It is a new term to differentiate service workers from blue-collar production workers and white-collar office workers. There are 25 million "gray-collars" in the growing service industries in the U.S. By 1975, economists predict that the total number of jobs will increase by 18%. Here is their forecast of the needs: percent Professional-technical workers up 54 Clerical workers up 37 Service workers up 35 Of the children born in 1944: 19% left school before the 11th grade, 30% did not finish high school, 35% entered college, but only 7% were graduated with a bachelor's degree. This means that 8 of every 10 boys and girls were available to fill jobs which did not require a college degree. Only 1 out of the 8 received any occupational training in the public schools. Moreover, 70% of today's 23-year-olds had no job training in school and have not completed a college education. Yet nearly 80% of all jobs available in the U.S. require some vocational or technical skill. Only now are public schools acknowledging that they were wrong to over- emphasize academics at the expense of vocational education. To make up for the past neglect, schools across the country are today putting in equip- ment, upgrading vocational faculties, giving more vocational guidance to good students, and beginning to work more closely with advisory teams from labor, business and industry on the local level. For example, "schooling for skills :" (1) Allentown, Pennsylvcwtia High Schools, George N. Edison, Director specialized in vocational education (2) J. M. Wright Technical School-Stamford, Connecticut, John Kerp- char, Director-a comprehensive high school-is one of fourteen area vocational-technical schools (3) Milwaukee Vocational, Technical and Adult Schools, Dr. George A. Parkinson, Director since 1932-35,000 students-1,800 courses-Si Advisory Committees to assure jobs-132 programs "Considered the finest in the land." We are indebted for much of the above material to Cynthia Parsons of the Christian Science Monitor, who visited around the U.S. in the prepara- tion of 10 articles on vocational education, which appeared in the Monitor recently-the 10th on August 15, 1967. How do we tackle and solve this problem nationwide? We are convinced that the major part of the problem is local administration. There are known to be some 2,000 different organizations, of all types and of varying degrees' of competence turning out "programs" by the hundreds all over the U.S. A few, a very few, are the work of competent educators and businessmen with the new idea of "business in education". But we know of no other "program" than this one of ours which would make available training programs with the highest academic standards for all industries to develop essential skills and abilities in any business function: (1) for any member of students, (2) on flexible weekly schedules (instruction after hours), (3) in virtually every important U.S. and one Canadian city, and (4) at low per capita costs. PAGENO="0127" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 123 Here are some examples of problems met using the same techniques we would use, and the results: 1. Leaders of progressive railroads conclude that their executives should have a keener appreciation of community affairs and be better equipped to participate in them. The problem is given to this Foundation. Launched for 350 railroad executives through 16 universities is a training program to ac- complish this objective. Result: By preparing their executives to participate in community affairs, this program has better equipped them to perform the essential job of selling. 2. An alert group of manufacturers, disturbed lest they were fast losing position in a shifting market, realized that their distributors needed better familiarity with certain new business practices They asked for help. instructional materials were prepared and a "pilot" course was started in New York. Yet, even before the pilot course was completed, urgency of the situation demanded that the training be initiated across the Nation. As far as proven instruction techniques and train- ing aids were developed in New York, they were rushed to instructors in partici- pathig universities. Result: Within a matter of weeks trained personnel Of 278 distributor organi- zations were better serving old customers and eagerly finding new ones. 3. Leaders of the hardware industry determined that hardware retailers needed to know better store management ancj how to sell more effectively. A spe- cial course in hardware retailing was set up. Selected personnel from wholesalers and retailers were enrolled. Result: Today, 251 better equipped and better informed hardware merchants meet the demands of the Nation's hardware industry. 4. The bankers concluded that many of their customers, proprietors of small businesses, could profit from instruction in management, in marketing and in fi- nance, and that the local banks' sponsorship of such courses would be beneficial. Courses to meet this need were scheduled widely by participating universities. Hundreds were enrolled. Result: The Nation's banks contributed significantly to better management of hundreds of small businesses, while the banks themselves accrued benefits of greatly strengthened customer relations. It is not enough to pass laws and make rules and regulations to solve such problems as "schooling for skills", and then to neglect to create uniform and con- sistent programs and actually implement them on local levels, but rather to expect that the problem will be solved by paying out large sums of money to scattered and uncoordinated groups, and by providing manual training only, without also providing some basic schooling in reading, writing and arithmetic. It is not enough to work up "welfare-operated training programs" in the hope that such operated programs will remove the poor from relief rolls. Moreover, work-relief or welfare-operated training programs are not proving very effective, as reported by Eve Edstrom in the Washington Post, September 4, 1967, page 4. A study, prepared for Senator Clark's Poverty Subcommittee was made by Sar A. Levitan of the George Washington University, who is also a consultant for the Ford Foundation in this general field of "war on poverty programs", points out that 3 of every 4 enrollees never completed their assigned courses of training, which seems to suggest that "participants placed little value in the training they received" and that welfare agencies are ill-equipped to train and place workers in jobs. These welfare agencies seem to have "trouble in getting people into training, in keeping people in training, and in finding jobs for them at the end of training." These welfare-operated programs seem to deteriorate "into old-fashioned work- relief projects which did give the poor money to eat on, but did not equip them with skills to become self-sufficient." "Official data from the Welfare Administration", Levitan reported, "revealed that only 1 out of every 4 enrollees received formal vocational education and that only one-third of former participants received adult basic education or high school equivalency training." He reports further that: "It would appear, moreover, that in many cases the quality of the training or education was of doubtful merit . . There is little reason to believe that (the program) has improved the employability of a significant proportion of the first 150,000 persons enrolled." Levitan concluded that the fact that only 1 in every 4 participants completed training suggests that the enrollees were insufficiently motivated or found the training worthless. It is not surprising, he adds, that persons choose a "safe" relief check over training, particularly when that training is likely to lead to a job that would provide no more income than the relief check provided. PAGENO="0128" 124 NAPIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 These training programs, it appears, are not based on adequate course inateriab or high academic standards. They are not taught by properly trained and qualified teachers, and they are not taught in accredited schools. "Schooling for skills" will never be effective until these conditions are corrected. The American Foundation for World Trade Studies, Inc., through it~ develop- ment of the Electronic Education and Information Center, proposes to correct these conditions by the professional development of unitorn~i and coordinated course materials of the highest academic standards to be taught to students at local levels throughout the United States by qualified professional teachers at hundreds of schools, colleges and universities throughout the United States utilizing the very latest and most efficient electronic devices and the most effec- tive teaching aids. Such courses would not only supply a great amount of prac- tical manual knowledge, but would also include in the mix, discrete amounts of basic schooling in reading, writing and arithmetic, nil presented in such a way as to stimulate interest and create motivation with an eye to keeping a student in th,e course, however slowly he might progress. It is anticipated that the courses will have a great amount of built-in pro- fessional presentation which, when added to the professionalism of trained high school teachers, business school teachers, junior college and unhrerstty professors and instructors, will bring about the desIred result. The hundreds of sehool~based facilities are outlets, or arms, so to speak, reaching out to vir~ tually every important U.S. eity and to all students who wish to take voca- tional training. There are some 3.6 million young people coming into the labor market annually who need some kind of "schooling for skills" to prepare theta for good jobs at good pay. It is true that a much greater attention is flow being paid to thin educational situation than was the case a few years ago. Today there are some 5,430,611 students (Office of Education preliminary 1966 figures) taking some kind of vocational training under some kind of Federal ansistance, reported state by state as follows: Alabama 107,080 Alaska 3,058 Nevada New 11, 723 Arizona 38,013 Hampshire New 7,322 Arkansas 97, 898 Jersey New 65,950 California 451, 792 York - North Carolina 461, 113 Colorado 60,320 North 200,027 Connecticut 83, 723 Ohio 18, 870 Delaware 9,282 Oklaboma 209,420 District of Columbia 10, 118 76, 523 Florida 277,018 Oregon 44, 805 Georgia 193, 879 Pennsylvania Rhode Island 187, 243 Hawaii 17, 529 South Carolina 8, 374 Idaho 19, 501 South Dakota 126, 668 Illinois 150, 383 Tennessee 17, 311 Indiana 79, 121 Texas 107, 314 Iowa 76, 594 Utah 466, 045 Kansas 48, 785 Vermont 51, 043 Kentucky 80, 592 Virginia 18, 151 Louisiana 103, 778 Washington 189, 178 Maine 21, 791 West 143,987 Maryland 120, 166 Virginia Wisconsin 37, 121 Massachusetts 72,023 Wyoming 173, 826 Michigan 196, 733 Guam 6, 608 Minnesota 178, 519 Puerto Rico 1, 464 Mississippi 100, 857 Virgin Islands 92, 210 Missouri 81, 485 10, 121 Montana 12, 430 Total Nebraska 35 713 5, 430, 611 This is good as far as it goes, bult it does not go far enough to meet the ever- growing urgency in this educational field-these 3.6 million boys and girls coming into the labor market annually deserve a better chance than they now have to prepare themselves for a better and more rewarding life here in this Nation, which generally has reached a pinnacle never `before attained in the history of the world. These programs will become a princi~ial product of the Electronic Education and Information Center in Washington. The `other two products of which will be Information and Research. All three will be produced in a well-equlppe~ center PAGENO="0129" NATIONAL VISITOR, CENTER ACT OF 1967 125 where there wtll be radically new ways to retrieve it and to make ~t available to people-a new world of electronic convenienceS ~n books and information through remote inquiry and at~toniatiC catalogue search. it will be an electronic and computerized information center, ~ to: 1. Educational Institutions 2. BusinesS 8. Trade 4. Research organizations 5. Professional and educational organization's 6. Banks 7. Chambers of Commerce 8. LibrarIes 9. Govei~nme'Ttal Agencies, Federal and State io. Individuals and the public at large. The services of `the "E & I" Center will help signifteantly to serve `the Nation's growing needs for education and informi~tiou facilities. Mr. POWELL. Yes, sir. Now, `the only revenues we would develop, and out of which wo Would pay off the bonds and the interest, would he a nominal charge for p'arkin~g of $1.50 or less ~er car for all-day parking for the 7,000 spaces, plus we plan to have more parking spaces, (probably under- ground, at the L Street end of this. Mr. GRAY. Since we are talking about 4,000 spaces primarily for visitors, you possibly would envision some of this space being used by `the Government employees who work in the proximity ,of this area? Mr. POWELL. Oh, yes. Anyone `who wants to come park there. Mr. `GRAY. How would your $1 to $1.50 corn~pare, say, with the park- ing lots downtoiwn that are privately operated? Mr. POWELL. It wouid be much, nmch less expensive. Parking lots downtown run anywhere from $37 to $50 a `month on a monthly basis, and for all-day parkffig well over $2. Mr. GRAY. So if a Government employee parks 5 day's a week for 4 weeks, he would only, pay $25 to $3Q hare to park in your facility, compared to more than' $37 he is paying now `on a monthly basis downtown? Mr. POWELL. Pha4 is correct. That is correct. Mr. GRAY. Of course, holidays and other things off would be sub- tracted from it. Mr. POWELL. Yes, sir. And of course the only reason charges are made at all is we do have to generate enough revenue to pay off the bonds and the interest for having built this project. ,, ` Mr. GRAY. What other charges besides the parking lot would you envision? Mr. POWELL. The only other charge would be a rental of the several floors above this floor. Mr. GIt~&Y. You do not envisionany individual charge to visitors who might want to go in and see exhibit space ~ Mr. POWELL. None whatever. We would have nothing' to do with that. Mr. G1r~Y. Now, I, for one, would `certainly not want to see any kind of attraction adjacent to this Visitor Center that would gouge the visI- tor. This is one of the complaints we have now, visitors come to Wash- ington, they plan to stay a week, but stay only 2 days on the average because they find it so e~pens1vC; one has to pay $3 or $4 a day to 85-894-~~-~ PAGENO="0130" 126 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 park his car if he can find a place This is one of the reasons we are trying to provide this facility, in order that we can show our great Capitai here~ riot only to domestic but foreign visitors, without them being overcharged. They can come here, park their car, see free ex- hibits, and we even hope some parts of this shuttle service can be free to the Capitol, so we are trying to move in the directiori of less cost with more to see and learn. I want to make it clear for the record you do not envision admission fees, et cetera, for the first floor. Mr. PowELL. We anticipate absolutely no admission fees or any other charge to any visitor of any kind or nature whatsoever. Mr GRAY You are talking about the Income to amortize your bonds Irom corporations that m4ght w~uit to display their goods and seivices here, or that might waitt tôrent offiôe space and this type of thing? Mr. POWELL. That is true. The rental and also any attraction. For example, if we did want to set up on one floor a trade exhibit, and so forth, we would expect to have to get approval of that from the Secre- tary of the Interior, because we realize that you do not want any paral- lel attraction which may disrupt or in any way detract from the Visitor Center itself. Mr. Gii~~. What do you envision, Mr. Powell, as the total cost of this proposal that you are making? i~ir POWELL The total cost-I have a sheet here which will show that very clearly. Mr. GRAY. We will look at that, We are running a little late in time. (Slide.) Mr. POWELL. Your 71/2 floors, including the foundations, would be a total number of square feet of 10,539,000, whiph would be $239 mil- lion. The purchase of the air rights over the tracks we have at $5 mil- lion. That figure was arrived at by making it in direct proportion to the cost in New York City of the square footage over the railroad tracks in Manhattan there. Now, it is adjusted because of the fact that in Manhattan, they could build over that space about 24 floors of building, whereas here we have to keep our height down. The present zoning that part of Washington is 90 feet, so we cannot get the same vertical develop- ments that they could in New York. So we took a proportion, approxi- mate proportion of the price paid for this type of square footage, air rights, that was paid in New York City. Mr. GRAY. We are talking about a total package of $323,335,592? Mr. POWELL. That is right. Mr. Git~x. And you feel that just from renting office space and not more than $1.50 for parking would amortize that type of project? Mr. PowRLr~ Yes. I have that analysis here-(slide)-which shows the annual operating income after the fourth year; that would be when it would be completed. The rental from 51/~ levels would be $25,275,000 a year at $6 per square foot. Now, of course, the total gross square footage of 10.5 million has been reduced by 80 percent to allow for elevators, escalators, hallways, skylights, and so forth. And then we have taken a 10 percent reduc- tion of the rental rate appli~d to that figure ftS a continuing vacancy rate and come up with $25,275;000 income from rental. PAGENO="0131" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 127 Mr. GRAY. How does your proposed rental per square foot for ~offlce space compare with the average neW bu~1thLrig ~roun~d Washington ~ Mr. Poww~. I would say it is vrery favorable. I know from my Own office space we are paying well over $7 a sq~uare foot~ but of course that is good space. But I would say that you will not md good office space for anything under $5. Mr. GRAY. Have you had any research group or any detailed study as to what the potential would be for filling up this facility? Mr. POWELL. We have had and we find that there are so mnny vari- ables in it, you cannot come up with an explicit prediction that you can expect to turn out exactly as predicted. However, the space would be prime. It would be located in a very central location. It would have the benefit of parking right outside the door. It would also have the benefits of public transportation right on the premises And all of these factors we feel would enable us to rent the space without much trouble at all, especially when you consider the demand for space, the increasing demands for rented space in Washington. Mr. GRAY. What is this, a 25-year amortization? Mr. POWELL. We have a 23-year amortization period. Mr. GRAY. 23-year? You envision paying the District of Columbia approximately $50 million in taxes alone? Mr. PowELL. Around $52 million. That was based on taking the cost of the building and applying a 65 percent rate to that, and then 21/4 percent taxes. I believe that is the way real estate taxes are figured. Mr. GRAY. You are not asking for any type of moratorium on real estate taxes for the public? Mr. PowELL. None whatever. None whatever. It would produce enough money for the District to certainly-well, more than do its share in any street rearrangement to accommodate ramps, and so forth. There will be other income items. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GRAY. Yes; the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SCHWENGEL. I realize what you say, you want to pay for the expenses, the cost of rearranging streets, and so forth Then that does not help the District any at all in handling ~onie of their problems. Their problems would be increased with this kind of in~taliation. I want to say, parenthetically, I am not againnt what you are trying to do; I just want to raise some questions here. Mr. POWELL. Yes. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Because I know how starved this District is and how much it needs money for, schools and a lot of other things. It seems to me you are asking for special eonsideration as far as property tax is concerned. Mr. POWELL. Asking what? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Special consideration as far as property tax. You are giving the District enough money to pay for the extra cost of building roads and facilities in connection with this for this Opera- tion, and not contributing anything to the Distriot general tax funds; is that right? Mr. POWELL. Congressman Schwengel, I beg to correct you on that statement. PAGENO="0132" 128 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 W~, first of all, except and have computed in our construction costs th~ cost of the entire building ramps, reconstruction of the under- passes at IT, I~, and L Streets, under our construction costs. When I make the point that the $52 million or the $2.7 million a year would be"more than ample, I mean more by hundreds of percents. Mr. GRAY.. Let's put it another way. How much do' you envision will be the cost to the District of Columbia for widening streets and accom- modating 7,000 cars to be brought in? Mr. POWELL. Yes. Whatever rearrangements might have to be made completely outside of this construction of ramps and access and all that, we would pay for all of that. So the $52 million is not considered a budget which is expected to be fully expended, or anywhere near it, because of this project being built. In fact, the $52 million is thought of as a contribution to the general revenues of the District of Colum- bia and for the purpose of education and schools and whatever else the District needs the money for. Mr. Git~r. You feel this would be a great benefit to the District of Columbia? Mr. POWELL. Oh, absolutely. Mr. GRAY. In the way of funds? Mr. POwELL. We also have about a $19 million contingency fund within the allowable issuable bonds to take up additional costs which might-as you know, they frequently occur in projects of this nature. Mr. GRAY. Let me ask you a frank question. Do you think you could get the financial, interests, the bonding people to underwrite such an undertaking as this? Mr. POWELL. We are told that we have that. All we need is `an ex- emption on the bonds and we will get the financing. This, has all been discussed. Mr. GRAY. So the' financiers feel that there is some merit to this proposal? Mr. POWELL. Who does?. Mr. GRAY. The financiers who will underwrite this feel there is some merit to the plan? Mr. POWELL. Yes. Mr. GRAY. You have studied it in depth to know `this is not some wild scheme? Mr. POWELL. Absolutely. We .have conferenced in New York with large underwriting firms, and particularly one, and they advise us that under certain conditions, that this is very feasible, and they are anxious to help, do a syndicating of the underwriting for these bonds. They tell us that they would like to see us, during the 3 years the building is being built, begin to' get contingent lease contracts and do everything that we can in order to help them in placing the bonds. Now, these bonds would, in all likelihood, be placed in large blocks, with insurance companies and other large institutions. They would probably not be sold to the public at large, though they might be. It would be up to the underwriting syndicate how they would be placed or sold. But the arrangements have already been made for that. PAGENO="0133" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 129 Mr. GRAY. For the record, let me ask you a question. If this plan were not found to be feasible or economically justified after it went in, who would lose? Mr. Pow]~mL. I did not quite catch that. Mr. GL&Y. I said if this plan were to be implemented and your revenues were not sufficient to amortize the bonds, who would lose, the bondholders? Mr. POWELL. We do not envision anyone losing for the simple reason if we got into a situation like that, we would simply-~--- Mr. GRAY. Stretch out? Mr~ POWELL. No, refinance and issue an additional issue of bonds to take up the slack in revenues. Mr. GRAY. What about stretching out the repayment period? Mr. POWELL. Or possibly stretching out the repayment period on the bonds already issued. You see, these bonds are contemplated, the first issue of $100 million would only be for a 10-year maturity; the second issue-and they would not necessarily be issued in exactly these amounts, but for planning purposes they are broken up into three basic groups. Mr. Ga~&y. You can understand what I am getting at I am sure. No one on this committee of Congress wants to be any part of a so-called "white elephant." Mr. POWELL. Absolutely not. Mr. GRAY. Before we would want to even consider a plan of this magnitude, we would want to have some assurance that this is workable and it is a private enterprise, and it would not in any way effect the visitor who comes here in the way of charges and it would be a benefit, not a detriment. I think these are legitimate questions to put on the record. Mr. POWELL. Absolutely. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Powell, what kind of interest would you have to pay for this money? Mr. POWELL. Up to 5 percent, not to exceed 5 percent. Mr. SCIIWENGEL. How would you answer criticism that is bound to come that the bonds you sell for this operation, which is a free-enter- prise venture, would be tax exempt, while the operation just below, the railroad company and all their institutions, have been paying full property tax and have not had bonds tax exempt? Mr. POWELL. The principal answer to that is as soon as the bonds are amortized, we would deed this whole building and the property over to the U.S. Government. Mr. GRAY. At the end of the 23-year period? Mr. POWELL. At the end of the 23-year period, or if we had to `stretch out the payment of the bonds for another 3 or 5 years, then whenever the last bonds would `be amortized, we would turn over this- I have forgotten the figure-$292 million property to the U.S. Government. Mr. GRAY. What assurance could we have of that, Mr. Powell? Mr. POWELL. Well, our suggested amendment to your bill would simply-it is not really an amendment, it is an addition, clauses to effectuate this plan; it contains a clause which specifies in' the law that that shall be done. PAGENO="0134" 130 NATIONAL VISITOn CENT~ER `AOT OF 1967 Now, If the mechanics would be preferred of having us deed to an escrow agent at the very outset the building, we would be very happy to do that. But the thing that justifies the tax exemption on the bonds is; No~ 1, the immediate use; first of all, the fact that not a penny of con- gre~ssional appropriated money will be used to build the building; secondly, we would be giving- Mr. GRAY. What liabilities would the Federal Government have, being a so-called partner to this type thing, accepting it at the end of' the amortization period? Would there be any contingent liabilities on the part of the Federal Government in any way in case the bonds are defaulted? Mr. POWELL. In no way whatsoever. In fact, the Federal Govern- ment would not be a partner; it would `be a donee, and it would be donated the free use, without any rental charge, of the large floor im- mediately as an immediate extension of the Visitor Center. Mr. UnAY. So this could be somewhat similar to what we are doing' on the Mall for Mr. }]Iirshhorn; we are putting up a facility and he is giving the Government a contract. If we provide housing, he will give us $25 million to $50 million worth of art and sculpture. Would this be similar, by Congress giving authority for issuance of tax-free bonds for this concession, at the end of the amortization period, you, a nonprofit corporation, will give to the Government the ent~rQ property once it is paid off? Mr. POWELL. Yes, we would. And then our interest, which would be the Electronic Education and' Information Center on one of the floors,. we would then `begin to pay rent to the Federal Government. Not only would the Government receive the entire building the own- ership of the building; along with it, the Government would receive' a built-in annual net revenue of $22 million a year. Mr. GRAY. I want to be frank in stating, this sounds so good' that it seems ~ilrnost impossible to be true. What is the real motive? Is your group trying to establish this type' of facility to make sure that there is adequate space for viewing ex- hibits and additional `ol4tce' space.? What is the real motive behind it? Mr. POWELL. The real motive is that of the American Foundation for World Trade Studies, who feels that by working hand in hand with Government in this project, to, in effect,'help give a supplemental and additional facility to the Visitor Center, can within th.e same fi- nancing finance its own nonprofit educational project, which is the preparation of educational courses on a computerized and electronic basis for dissemination throughout the United States through a net- work of more than 800 junior colleges and 100 universities and other facilities, where these vooational courses and other educational courses could be given. Mr. GRAY. You feel there is a luck of this kind of activity? Mr. POWELL. There is no question., there is not only a lack, there is' a dire need for these courses as any casual research will reveal. The educators with whom we have spoken concerning this project are most excited' about the possThilities. of it. This is our interest We want within this financing picture to come up with enough money to put together the two..pronged interest of ours, which is an educational program and an informational program. We also want to PAGENO="0135" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 i31 work with Mr. Ryan, and the World Peace Through Law group, who is now planning to put all of the laws of all of the nations into com- puters. This is the type of information gathering and storage which we do on the information side. We would also put into the data stor- age system not only all the laws of the nations, working with other groups in the same field so there would not be a conflict or duplication of effort; we would put administrative regulations, Supreme Court decisions, economic data on every foreign country and the United States, into this computer and make it available on a nominal per inquiry charge, which would be part of the revenues shown there under Electronic Education and Information Center. Mr. Gu~y. Let me ask this, Mr. Powell-we would certainly not want to dilute or take from the National Visitor Center what we pro- pose in the legislation before us-would you or your group have any objection whatsoever if the committee saw fit to add this amendment that you propose on the tax-free bonds, would you have any objection at all that plans on this building would be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for his approval, since it is so close to the Government's proposed center? `Mr. POWELL. We not only would have no objection, we would see no other way than to do so. We expect the building, first of all, to be architected by top archi- tects. We would expect this building naturally to have to be completely approved and endorsed in design and function by not only the Secre- tary of the Interior, but also the National Oapital Planning Commis~ sion and by the Fine Arts Commission and the Congress. Mr. GRAY. It should be compatible, being this close to the existing facility. Mr. POWELL. Absolutely. And it certainly can be made compatible,~ because this property, this area slopes off behind the main building so that you will not have a height detraction from the existing build- ing on the front-with a building-'-~-- Mr. GRAY. You are talking now about c~clusive air rights? You are not talking about any buildings on the surface at all; you are talking about air rights over the tra~cks behind the station? Mr. POWELL. That is all. Only the air rights. Mr. GRAY. What assurance do you have that the railroads will give you these air rights? Mr. PowELL. We do not have an indication they will. We will work on the matter if it appears we can get the tax exemption on the bonds~ Mr. GRAY. I would strongly suggest you have negotiations with them, because it would be an exercise in futility for this committee to con- sider such an amendment and then only find that the railroads were not interested in selling these air rights. There would be no purpose whatsoever. So I suggest between now and- Mr. PowEtL. Let me put it this way, the railroad would be willing, probably-I am surmising that the railroad would certainly be willing to sell the air rights if they knew that we would get the bond, the tax exemption provision on the bonds, and that this thing was going to be a real project rather than a planned one. Mr. GRAY.. I think we would need some indication from them they would be agreeable if the amendment were adopted, you see. PAGENO="0136" 132 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Mr. Pownu1. Yes. It is just a `matter of negotiating between the parties to determine the interest. Mr. Gm~v. `Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SOUWENGEL. I have several questions and comments. First, I am thrilled with the idea and prospect here. I am glad you came before us `with this idea for us to consider. But I see some ques- tions that need to' `be raised. One, I think we need to study to see whether or not, with this extra parking space and extra traffic generated to that area with the facilities we are envisioning for the visitors, these are going to be adequate to take care of the extra people it is going to draw in there. It seems to me we are going to tax the facilities to the limit with what we have, what we are generating now. So I have two questions: One is, you will have to establish and show we can handle in the cyclorama, and so forth, emanating from the Visitor Center going out over the area into the capital area, TV area, that it is not going to crowd the situation and complicate things. I think that is one thing we need to be sure about before we move, and I think we do not have those studies. We certainly ought to have the studies and some assurances we can handle the crowd in those facil- ities that will come as a result of this extra traffic that you are going to generate there for visitors. Now, the other-4 presume you are not ready to answer that question. Mr. POWELL. I would like to `have Mr. Funk give the answer to that. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Funk. Mr. FUNK. If you do not mind, C~rngressmen, with regard to the Visitor Center, I happen to be-and I have talked to many people all over this country with regard to this general concept, and there is great enthusiasm concerning a Visitor `Center for Washington. Washington today is looked upon not only as the capital of the United States, but as the capital of the world. There is a great interest in all of the various monuments and the monumental things that peo- pie see in Washington, so people want to see these things. But I think Washington has been derelict in providing a method by which they can see them. Now, it is true we have a National Airport, which is overcrowded; we have the Dulles Airport, which is way out in the boondocks at present; we have Friendship Airport, which is sort of away, too. We have railroads, which are rapidly growing rusty you might say, the rails are growing rusty. And we have the highway system, which takes care of maybe two out of three or three out of four of the visitors who come to Washington. But these highways are crowded. This freeway access into Washington is a very difficult thing at present, so that peo- ple just do not seem to want to come to a place where they are having all these harassments insofar .as accessibility is concerned. So our proposal is that we provide this accessibility along with the Center when they get there, and the accessibility is a two- or three- pronged affair. It provides for not only the great Interstate System, which the Congre~ss has built, but it also provides for the parking facility when thej get here, and it provides for the courteous type of treatment which people should have when they get here. Mr. SOJIWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Funk is missing my point completely. PAGENO="0137" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 133 I am greatly in favor. of this Visitor Cen~ter. I have been a pro- moter of it. You do not have to sell me on the Visitor Center. My only point is this, with the addition you are proposing, can we, with planned facilities, handle the extra crowd? That is my question. I do not need a lecture on whether or not we need a Visitor Center. Mr. FUNK. Well- Mr. SOHWENGEL. We sure do need it. I suggested it 8 years ago. Mr. FUNK. I beg your pardon if I missed your point. But my point is this, that we are now starting to experiment with the rapid rail system, which comes into Union Station, which will bring a great amount of people. This comes into this particular point. Our freeway system is being tied in close to this point, so the freeway `accessibility is becoming available. This will provide heliport services from the various airports, which will come into ths particular point. So that all of the various transportation facilities are being tied into the Union `Station area. Mr. Ga~y. Mr. Funk- Mr. SOHWENGEL. I am sorry, Mr. Funk, you are still missing it. Mr. PowELL. I think if I may- Mr. SOHWENGEIJ. All I am saying is you are going to bring 7,000 more cars. Mr. FUNK. You mean getting them out? Mr. Git~r. What about the ingress and egress into `the facility for the 7,000 parking areas? Mr. SCHWENGEL. That is one `thing I had in mind. But also can we, I think, with what we now have, the 4,000 cars coming in there a day or room `for 4,000 cars-~we may not be able to handle all the people in the four `auditoriumswe have planned. Mr. GRAY. You will have an answer later? Mr. FUNK. There will have to be a complete traffic study made and this study will have to be not only a present `study, but a continuous study, to determine as `the-well, let's say the glamour of `this rapid rail system picks up as we hope it will, as the subway system picks up its customers, and as we pick up the various types of improvements in air service, how this builds into it, this will have to be a continuous thing. `So that as people find that the accessibility becomes better and better, then we have no fear about this Visitor Center becoming more popular and more popular. Mr. SCHWENGEL. I have no question. My only point is', can we handle the crowd that comes there and give them the kind of treatment that I think they ought to have before they start visiting the monu- ments around? Mr. POWELL. If I may say at that point, pointing to the picture on the wall (slide) you see `the large area, which I will overlay with blue here, is the area of that one floor of 20-foot high ceilings, or how- ever high `they want it. That would be donated immediately upon the completion of tihis `building to the Visitor Center. Our founding corporation `would pay all the costs of heat, air con- ditionrng-we would probably separately meter the electricity, since there might be a great number of exhibits there, and we would expect the Department of the Interior, w'ho would take, it over, to completely furnish th~ cleaning and that sort of maintenance. Otherwise it would be `completely donated space. PAGENO="0138" 134 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Now, this is 1.6 million square feet. We do not envision 1.6 million square feet of just e~hibits. You would probably want to have film theaters, maybe a restaurant-or restaurants. We also envision M this end of the building [indicating] a whole separate ramp system, which would come out onto L Street, possibly K, or possibly H Street here. Mr. GRAY. If I could interrupt you here, this would take care of people concerned with the regular traffic. There would be the addi- tional automobiles generated by 11,000 automdbiles, 7,000 in your f a- cility and 4,000 in ours. Do you envision this could be built coming in from hack ramps? In other words, you would envision helping the situation and not causing additional congestion by the construction of your own ingress and egress ramps, is that not true? Mr. PowELL. That is true, that that would have to be worked out. We have not made a complete traffic circulation study of how these ramps would be. Mr. GRAY. What I am getting at, if you come in from the front with these four main ramps and park in our Government-owned parking~ facility that we hope will accommodate 4,000 vehicles, there is no way you could get from there on up to your other parking area. Mr. POWELL. Let me just interject, sir, to say there would be, we certainly do plan ramps all the way from L Street here running back to these 7,000 parking spaces. Mr. GRAY. I am talking about the front plaza of Union Station into the Government-owned parking facility, you would not have ramps leading into your parking facility; is that not true? You would have a separate entrance entirely, which would come off either K or L Street in the back? Mr. POWELL. We could do it that way if it was desired to be done that way. Mr. GRAi. The reason I mentioned that, Mr. Plavnick and some of the others have indicated the present traffic studies indicate that about 5,000 vehicles a ~day is all that we can carry in front of the Union Station Plaza. Mr. POwELL. I understand. Mr. Gi~aY. So our concern, the concern of the gentleman from Iowa and myself, would be if you build 7,000 parking places, you have 4,000 Government-owned, that is 11,000; the existing streets in front of Union Station would not accommodate those. Mr. POWELL. This is true. Mr. GRAY. So the point I am making is you would not envision com- pounding that problem, but merely go the backside of K or L Street with your own entrances for your separate facility? Mr. POWELL. Absolutely. However, under whatever plan the Secre-- tary of the Interior might come up with, we would like~ to make the 7,000 spaces available in some way, whether from the back or front or both, to the visitors. Because our whole project here is geared'toward making a significant contribution to the Visitor Center as an acidi- tion to the facilities already conceived by yourself and your Com- mission. Mr. GRAY. Out of the $300 million plan, do you have any idea how much you have allowed for ramp access, ingress and egress? PAGENO="0139" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1 9~ 7 135 Mr. PowELL. We bav~ done tl~is~-~--~ Mr. Giu~r. For example, if I can interrupt you there, we have ai- lowed $1 million in our estimates for 4,000 parking spaces for ramps. Do you have any idea what has been estimated to be the cost of your ramps? Mr. POWELL. Yes. We have approximately a $25 million authoriza- tion, budget authorization, for the construction of ramps. And other contingencies. Mr. GRAY. The reason I mention this, do you feel that you have ade- quately allowed enough to take care of this problem that is going to be created by your venture? Mr. POWELL. We feel that we have not only adequately allowed for the ramps, but also for the complete renovating of the tunnels by way of creating a foundation for the building. Mr. GRAY. I might mention in February of this year, the President ordered the National Capital Planning Commission to make a com- plete transportation study. I would suggest you have someone in your group be the liaison officer and consult with these people and find out if the studies have progressed far enough to give you any idea as to what they envision is going to be the need in this whole area 10 or 20 years from now. This has been ordered by the President personally. I would think certainly you could get valuable information from that source and maybe let them know what you are contemplating, so~ this could be added into their projections. Mr. POWELL. This whole project, Mr. Chairman-I would describe it as a private corporation with public accountability. We, of course, would have to coordinate and create liaison with all interested agencies of both the District of Columbia government and a Federal govern- ment. This is a preliminary outline to show what we except the costs would be, to show what we feel we can do for the Visitor Center, and at the same time help our educational program. Once we generate the interest in this type of operation between our private foundation and the government via this committee, then of course we would be willing,. having generated interest, to begin to spend money on elaborate studies of the traffic flow and the rest of the entire project. But since we are in a preliminary posture, we have come up with a preliminary plan. We do not have thousands of dollars to ~o out and. spend with absolutely no indication that you want to do this with us.. Mr. SCITWENGEL. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gn~y. Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Have you checked with the people who have been working on the details of this parking for this Visitor Center-namely,. the Park Service people here-on your plan? Have you checked with them at all? Mr. POWELL. We have not checked with them. As I say, we are even preliminary to that. We knew we had to get a tax exemption on the bonds in order to get the thing underwritten. So we thought the first place to come was here. We do know whom to contact in these various agencies, however, and we certainly would be in immediate contact with them by way of coordinating the entire project once we have generated interest from you. Mr. G1t4~y. I would suggest you do that, though. PAGENO="0140" 136 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Mr. SCHWENGEL. Also when you come back, come back with some solid studies, if you have a chance to come back-and I hope I can hear more about this-on what your installation is going to do to the accommodations for visitors who come here who want to visit the capital city, TA. So I think we can say we are glad to have this idea, these plans, this discussion, which stimulates more than casual interest I would say. I think you are not at any stage with your plan where we can say "OK." I think we need to probe this and consider it, andY you need to coordinate your thinking and your ideas with the Park Service in particular. Then I think before we can seriously consider it, we would have to have definite assurances you do have the kind of money this `calls for. This is an amazing figure. I find it hard to believe right now it is going to be very readily available. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Powell, let me say you have been a very thorough witness and have a very forthright proposal here, and certainly one that should demand our attention. I assure you it will. We have several meetings going today and some of the subcommit.~ tee members could not be here, but I assure you, with the entire state- ment and proposal in the record, it will be read with interest, and I assure you and your associates we are interested and we will con- sider this matter very thoroughly before making any final decision. I might also point out publicly that we are in a big hurry to get this legislation out in order that the Park Service and the Terminal Co. can get busy with the plans. I assure you as the sabcommittee chair- man, we can give this matter thorough airing as a separate bill, and if it is not added to the present bill, we certainly will give you your day in court to be heard further. I think certainly all of us encourage private enterprise to come in and to develop these facilities instead of using the taxpayers' funds wherever possible and wherever feasible. So we do thank you and your associates very much for coming. We do have a quorum call on the floor. That is why I have had to cut you a little short. We have a rollcall going on and we have to recess the committee very shortly. But we would be glad to hear any comments from any of your associates before we recess and will be glad to hear them very briefly. Mr. Mtrrii. I have a question I would like to ask the Chair. Mr. PoWELL. All right, Mr. Muth. Mr. Gn~&y. Would you state your name for the record, sir. Mr. Mu'ru. William ~J. Muth, M-u-t-h. Mr. GRAY. Yes. Mr. MUTH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address this question to the Chair, if I may be so privileged, sir. How much time do we have to bring to this honorable committee the documentation which the gentleman has suggested you would re- quire, such as the documentation of a letter of intent on the financing? I am sure that we could not get a better or more qualified traffic man than John Funk, the former director of State Roads Commission of Maryland. Mr. GRAY. It would be a very difficult question to answer. So long as Congress is in session and so long as the committee has time, we could call a meeting at any time. There certainly would be no time limit. PAGENO="0141" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 137 My point is we are in a hurry to get out basic legislation because we are anxious to proceed with this matter that we have bad under con- sideration since last year. Mr. PowELL. Let me say this, we certainly would not want to inter- pose any complicating factor to getting the present first phase under- way. I certainly appreciate the chairman's point of view on that. Perhaps it would possibly be a better plan to get the first phase underway and continue our work on this proposed addition, because it is an addition. Mr. GRAY. The Chair and the committee will be receptive to any further communications from your nonprofit organization. Mr. PowELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAY. Thank you very much. Does anybody have any further questions~ Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your very forthright testi- mony. I want to publicly announce that we had originally scheduled Mr. George A. Avery. Is Mr. Avery here? Mr. AVERY. Yes, sir. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Avery, we can follow one of two courses. We can have you submit a statement for the record, or we will be glad to hear you as the first witness tomorrow if you would like to come back. It isupto you. Mr. AVERY. I would like to come back tomorrow, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if I could ask, instead of the first witness, if I could be one of the later witnesses? We have a hearing at 10 o'clock, at the Transit Commission. Mr. GRAY. We would be glad to accommodate you on that. Mr. AVERY. I will be up about 11 o'clock. Any time after that. Mr. GRAY. I would suggest if you would come a little earlier-we would hope to conclude with public witnesses by 11 and go into executive session tomorrow before the meeting of the House by 12. Say between 10:30 and 10:45? Mr. AVERY. Either I will be here or I will ask somebody else to come. Mr. GRAY. I deeply appreciate your accommodating us. We are try- ing to hear everyone, but we do have these time problems. With that, the subcommittee will stand adjourned until 10 a.m., on tomorrow. (Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to recon- vene at 10 a.m., Thursday, October 12, 1967.) PAGENO="0142" PAGENO="0143" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT O~ i~67 THURS~4Y, OCTOBER 12~ 1967 Hou~~ or REFRENT~TIVBS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BtiLniNGs AND GROUNDS TUE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC `WoRKs, Va~hi~gton, D.Q. The subcommittee met at 10:16 a.m., in room 216~T, Rayburn Build- ing, Hon. Kemieth T. Gray (chairman) presiding. Mr. GRAY. The Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds will please come to order. The subcommittee is in open hearings this morning in consideration of H R 19603, and related bills, to supplement the purposes of the Public BuiicUiigs Act of 1959 by authorizing agreements and leases with respBct to certain pruperties in the District of Columbia for the purpose of a National Vwtor Center and for other purposes If en acted into law, it will be known as the N~tional Visitor Center Act of 1967. This is the fourth day of hearings. I notice in the room this morning we ]`ave one of our very distin- guished and able colleagues from Illinois, Congressman Erlenborn We will be 4eiighted to hear you first this morning. Let me on behalf of the subcommittee welcome you and thak you very much for coming. STATE~&ENT OP RON. J~ORN N. ERLEN~ORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN OONGRZSS PROM `~E STATE OP ILLINOIS Mr. EULENBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have copies of my statement here. Mr. Gittr. Thank you. We will be glad to pass them out. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to file my statement for the record and I will just summarize `very briefly. Mr. GRAY. You may proceed in any manner you so choose. (The prepared statement follows:) STATEMENT 01? HoN. Jom~ N. EnLENnOEN Thank yen, Mr. Ohairman and members of the committee, for the oppor- tumty to appear before you In support of H R 12603 and the several identical bills including my bill H H 12825, to be cited as the National Visitor Centei Act of 1967." It is anticipated that 15 million tourists will visit our Nation's Capital during 1967-an arerage of more than 40,000 a day! They come-~-Amer1cane and visitors from foreign countries alike-~to gain the insptratiOn' we have felt in itlewing our country's memorials `to Lincoln, 139 PAGENO="0144" 140 ~~TIONA~IS,ITp~E CENTER ACT OF 1987 Washington, and Jefferson; to see our government at work; to seek a better understanding of the meaning of the American dream, of what makes America. And I think most experiencO~what they seek; but along with it, they experience a nightmare of frustrations: Where to parkJ Where to get a sandwich on Capitol Hill? How to make the most o( their limited hInds a-nd----ttfrie"anrF still see all there is to see? Hardly a visitor to my office-and some days it seems that all 40,000 of our Capital City's visitors stop at my office-fails to utter these frustrations in one way or another. ~j4o~t ~ue~tbem. For mest, it is a. Q~ee m-a-11~etinie event, `a family affair ~`~`~llanned. n~nths in advance, with'b~~eathlesa countdown to' the day of arriving here. T~ey find a beautiful city, built to be the seat of ~iur national government;. an~Fsuspect that many have contemplated, as- have you and I, that the men P-who planned it and who have seen it grow during the past 18 decades must have had prophetic vision of the greatness which was to come to these United States;. but how sad that so few aloJ~g `the way $4 the foresight to envision the 20th. centuryii~tsiou (which I highly recommend) of American families and visitors from afar inteht upon seeing our Nation's Capital. From almost my first day in Congress, it has been a source of embarrassment and a thorn, in my side that we allow the enthusiasm of our guests to be dimmed : and thwarted by what are sheer frustrations and not mere petty annoyances, I was heartened last year when Congress wisely enacted legis'ation creating a Commission to study the need for a National ~Cápital Visitor's Center. The findings of that study are embodied in the legislation being eonsidered today. Enactment of this legislation will go a iong.way toward eliminating these frustra- tions and making a visit, to Washington the memorable experience it should be. With enactment of the Natiopal Visitor Center Act, of 19~7, the conveniently located Union Station Will be converted by its owners, the Washington Terminal Company, into a visitor's center which will be leased to the Administrator of'tbe General Services Administration and the secretary of the Interior on behalf of the United States. The Center will contain needed restaurant facilities. It will contain movie theaters where our visitors will be able to view a documentary film that will assist them in planning to see the sights in an orderly, comfortable, all-inclusive fashion. `The Washington Terminal Company Will, provide 4,000 parking `places. These,, combined with a bus service from the Center to the Capitol and arOund the mall, will solve the where-to-park dilemma of our visitOrs aud relieve the traflic con- gestion that affects us all, be we visitors, yesld'Onta, or commuters. . - The railroad terminal of Union Station will ~be replaced `by the WTO with `a rapid rail train station to be constructed underneath the new garage, - Thus we see this plan serving many worthwhile purposes: It will bring to our vjsitors the service they deserve, the welcome feeling we want them to know,, It will bring millions of dollars more income to our Capital City. It will reduce the amount of our Federal payment to the city. it will do all this `and ~et it will NOT add to the already strained budget of our Federal government-No Federal funds are involved in the 19% million dollars estimated cost for the renovation of the Union Station and the construction of facilities in' the Center, the 4,000 parking- space garage, and the new train and rapid rail station under the garage. The 19½ million dollars will be spent by the Washir~gton Permihal Company, and the lease payment of 2.9 million dollars the U.S. Government will make to the WTC will he recouped from parking fees and the sale of services, and goo~js. I am convinced that ER. 12603 is a necessary, sound, and realistic approach for meeting our responsibility to the millions of people who we want to know the wonder and marvel of our Nation's Capital. I believe this Committee and the Congress will agree. Thank you. Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you. I thank you for the opportunity to appear befQre you. today' in' support of H.R. 12603 and the several identical bills~ -ii~eluding my'- bill, ILR. 12825, to be cited as the "National Visitor Center Act of' 1967." - It is anticipated that 15 mjllion tourists will visit our Nation's~ Capital during' 1967, an average of more than 40,000 a day. We all know that they come from all parts' of this country and from all over the world. They experience great frustration. I think that all of us: PAGENO="0145" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 141 have heard the comments of visitors who come into our office as to their problems of finding `a place to park, a restaurant to get their j meals, and the other frustrations that they face because of the lack of proper facilities for visitors here in our Nation's Capital. I think with the passage of the bill now pending before this subcommittee, these frustrations will be brought to an end. I think that the work of the committee that led to the drafting of this bill is to be complimented, because they have fashioned an answer to this problem of the visitors to our Nations' Capital that J' will not haVe a great impact on our Nation's budget, which is of I course being strained to its utmost. I think that the agreement contemplated herein between the owners of the Union Station and the U.S. Government for the construction of the Visitor Center and its operatio~is will provide the necessary facilities without great expenditure of our national budget funds. I trust this subcommittee will give due consideration to this bill. I hope it will pass and I hope as a result of this, in the near future, we will have happy constituents in our offices thanking us for the facilities that we furnish them. Thank you, Mr. GrtAY. Well, thank you very much for a very fine statement, and I certainly want to thank my distinguished friend and colleague from Illinois for introducing his bill on this subject. I might say that we certainly have bipartisan support for this legislation, not only in this committee and in the House, but also in the other body. We have had several Members of the Senate intro- duce identical bills. This is a bipartisan measure and I hope we can move to passage in this spirit of cooperation. It is a very serious problem, as you so ably pointed out in your statement. Are there any comments on my right? On my left? Mr. WRIGHT. I join my chairman in complimenting our distin- guished colleague. We appreciate your coming. Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you. S Mr. ~ Thank you very much. At the conclusion of the hearings on yesterday, there was one witness remaining that had not been heard, Mr. Avery. I am wohdering how your time schedule is, sir'? We have one other witness, if you do not mind, we would like to run ahead. Are you pushing for any- S Mr. AVERY. Mr. Chairman, I have a room full of lawyers waiting br me back at the Transit Commission. We are starting the D.C. ~~ransit case today. S Mr. Gi~. Fine. Well, go right ahead. We will take you, sir. You were so patient, I would not want ~o further impose on you., Mr. AVERY. I would be willing to wait all day, but I feel badly about the people back at the Commission. Mr. ~ Fine. We have Mr. George A. Avery, Chairman of the Washington Metro~ politan Area Transit Commission. S Mr. Avery, again on behalf of the comrn~ttee, I want to say how thankful we -are for your patience yesterday. The Secretary of the Interior, you know, took more than an hour and we ran a little behind. We had you scheduled for testimony on yesterday. But I do appreciate 85-894-67-10 PAGENO="0146" 142 NATIONAL VISITOi~ CENTER AcT OF 1967 so much you coming back and we de~p1y apprecia~t~ your consideration in appearing here before this committee. You may proceed in your own fashion. STATEME~ OP GEORGE A. AVERY, CHAIRMAN, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT COMNISSION Mr. Avrnr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be able to appear ~ It was a pleasuie to cit and listen yesterday to the fine plans that have been made by the Commission and by the Secretary for the Center. I am the Chairman of the District of Columbia Public Service Corn mission, and also Chairman of the Washington Metropolitan Area. Transit ~Yommission, and it is in this latter capacity that I appear be- fore you today. I would like first to give you some background facts concerning the Transit Commission and concerning some previous Commission actions which involve the subject matter of the bills in question. The Transit Commission is an agency of the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, created when the three jurisdictions entered into an interstate compact, the Washington metropolitan area transit regulation compact. Congress gave its approval to the District of Columbia to enter into this com- pact and consented thereto by Public Law 86-794, enacted in 1960. The purpose of the compact was to concentrate in one agency the regulation of transportation of persons for hire in the Washington metropolitan area. Succinctly stated, under the provisions of the compact, no person, with certain exceptions which will be discussed later, may engage in transportation for hire in the District of Columbia and its surround ing. suburban area, without first obtaining a certificate of convenience and necessity from the Commission and without being subject to the regulation of the Commission with regard to its rates and services The primary objective of the legislation you are considering today is to authorize designated representatives of the United States to lease Union Station for the purpose of converting it into a National Visitors Center, with attendant facilities Our interest and concern with the bills does not involve those sections thereof which concern the Visi- tors Center, although as a citizen and a resident of the area, I heartily express my own personal approval of the concept In my official capa city, however, I am concerned only with section 5 of the bills, whi~4?. contains certain language concerning transportation. Section 5 does not Concern itself solely with the Visitor Center but with the transportation of visitors in the Mall area of the Dis trict. Such transportation has been the subject of much dis~~ssi~~ and litigation in recent months and you cannot understand the import of section 5 without some knowledge of that litigation So, I should like to take a few minutes to explain it to you. In March of this year, the Interior Department entered into a con tract with a private concessionaire and to provide transportation on the MaJl and instructed their concessionaire that it would not be neces sary to obtain a certificate of convenience and necessity from the Commission. PAGENO="0147" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 143 The Commission had previously informed the Interior Department of its conviction that the concessionaire's operation was covered by the compact. To settle the question, the Commission brought an action in the TJ.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in which it asserted that the Interior Department's concessionaire must obtain a certificate from the Commission. The end result of that litigation was a decision by the court of appeals that, while the Interior Depart- ment could enter into a contractual arrangement with a concessionaire, that concessionaire must comply with the provisions of the compact. Thus, the court rejected the Interior Department's position that it had exclusive jurisdiction over transportation on the Mall and held, in- stead, that dual jurisdiction existed. In so ruling, the court rejected the Interior Department's argument that transportation by Interior's concessionaire was transportation "by the United States" and thus within the specific exemption in the compact, which exempts trans- portation by the Federal Government and by the other signatory governments. With this background I believe you can now see the problems raised by section 5 of H.R. 12686 and its related bills. Section 4 fully em- powers the Secretary of the Interior to enter into any concession arrangements necessary to administer the Visitors Center. Section 5 may seek to go beyond that. If the language is enacted, the argument might be made that the rulings in the litigation on the Mall shuttle, which I have just de- scribeci, had been overruled by this bill. It might be said either, No. 1, that this language provides a new basis for an assertion of exclusive jurisdiction by the Secretary o~ the Interior; or, No. 2, that this lan- guage brings Interior's concessionaire within the exemption in this compact of transportation "by the Federal Government." If the De- partment is seeking, under section 5, to reverse the holding of the court of appeals in the Mall sh~ttle case, certain problems are raised which you should consider. First, there is serious question whether enactment of this section would accomplish that objective. As the committee is undoubtedly aware, the Commission's jurisdiction is vested, not solely through an act of Congress but by means of an interstate agreement between the Legislatures of Maryland and Virginia, as well as by the Congress, on behalf of the District of Columbia. It is doubtful that the jurisdic- tion conferred by the compact as approved by Congress could be divested through the unilateral act of one of these legislative bodies. Since the impact of this bill on existing provisions of the compact would be unclear, enactment of this section might only lead to further litigation and serious delay. There is, of course, a much more important question than the some- what legalistic matter I have just discussed. Assuming that the pur- pose and effect of section 5 is to exempt transportation on the Mall from our jurisdiction and transportation between the Mall and Union Station from the jurisdiction of the Transit Commission, it is the Com- mission's view that this would be a very unwise policy to adopt. It would, of course, completely reverse a policy adopted by Congress just 6 years ago. Thus, the very purpose of the compact, when it was first enacted, was to unify the regulation of transportation of persons for hire in the Washington metropolitan area under one regulatory agency. PAGENO="0148" 144 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Indeed, in the preamble of the congressional consent to the compact it is stated "Divided regulatory responsibility is not conducive to the development of an adequate system of mass transit for the entire metropolitan area, which is in fact a single integrated, urban community." Nor would the transportation thus exempted be a minor exemption. It is perfectly obvious that the transportation encompassed within the language of section 5 could become a very substantial factor in the overall transportation picture in this area. In the litigation concern- ing the Mall shuttle, it was established that the Mall currently is visited by about 12 million people annually-and the Congressman who just preceded me stated Washington will be visited this year by about 15 million visitors, and we know that the number will increase substan- tially in future years. I do not know how many visitors annually are projected for the Visitors Center. I should make it very clear at this point that the Commission is not objecting to the kind of transportation envisaged by section 5. Rather, it is asserting only that such transportation should be subject to the same jurisdiction as all other transportation in the metropolitan area. Nor do we assert exclusive jurisdiction. We recognize, as we rec- ognized in the litigation concerning the Mall shuttle, that the Secretary of the Interior has statutory power to enter into contracts with conces- sionaires and to impose contractual obligations upon such concession- aires. It is our position only that such concessionaires are, and should continue to be, also subject to the obligations imposed upon them by the compact. Of course, if the transportation is performed by the Federal Gov- ernment itself, it would be exempt from the jurisdiction of the Com- mission by reason of the express provisions of the compact to which I previously referred. If this is what section 5 of the bill is intended to authorize, we respectfully suggest that the language should be clarified to make this explicit. In summary, we have sought to express our views here because of the possibility that, upon enactment of section 5 of the bills before you, it would be argued that Congress had overthrown the holding of the court of appeals in the MaZZ sh~ttZè case as to the Commission's jurisdiction over concessionaires of the Interior Department. It is our belief that if this is the purpose of the legislation, it would not accOmplish that result since unilateral amendment of the compact is impossible. It is furthOr our belief that it would be unwise to seek fo accomplish that result. Accordingly, we would hope that the language of section 5 would be deleted. Alternatively, if you feel that it is appropriate to in- clude in the legislation some language authorizing transportation by concessionaires on the Mall, and between the Mall and the Visitors Center, we would hope that you leave no doubt that such transporta- tion is subject to the provisions of the compact. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAY. Well, thank you, Mr. Avery, for a very clear statement, As you know and as you point out, this is a complex problem and it was not the intent of the Chair certainly to circumvent the powers of the Commission in introducing this legislation containing section 5. PAGENO="0149" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 145 What we have here is a unique situation where the Secretary of `the Interior contends that he has authority, statutory authority, to enter into a contract with a concessionaire for transportation around the Mail. However, as you know, Congress is a separate entity entirely and he has not claimed and certainly knows he does not have the authority to grant a concessionaire to run around the Capitol. All of us know that one of the first places people are going to go when they leave this Visitor Center at Union Station is the Oapftol. So what we really were seeking to do in section 5 was to give the Secretary authority not only around the Mall, but also on the Capitoi Grounds, Now, frankly, I am going to confess my ignorance. I did not realize, since this was Government property, tha~t any concessionaire would have to obtain permission from the Commission. It is only 6 years old and it is not something we have been dealing with every day. For that omission and oversight I apologize. What we are really seeking to do here is not to circumvent, as I said2 your authority, or even the courts, in setting out this route, but to give the Secretary clear power that he would need in order to prop- erly operate the shuttle service. Because to bring 5,000 to 6,000 vehicles in every day to the Visitor Center and give them an incentive to get out of their car, whidh is what we are trying to do to avoid `conge~taon, we definitely need public transportation fast and dependable. Now, whether it is interpretive shuttle service by this concessionaire that Mr. Udall has entered into an agreement with or whether it is the existing company `here in Washington, ID.C. Transit, this committee is not interested in that particular question or argument. We are merely interested in seeing that the Secretary ha's the power to provide this ty~pe of shifttle service. Because `it `is an integral part of the Visitor `Center, I think you will agree that for every busload of 80 people that we can put in a bus, we are eliminating 20 `to 30 vehicles off the streets. This is good for every- body. This is good for commerce and trade here in the Di~triot by allowing more people to come in that can park and want to shop. It will eliminate the congeStion of the `tourists, who `certainly are clogging the ~treets and who have no `place to park. It `would allow tourists to enjoy their visits to our historical places of intereSt. Our constituents often call us; their cars have been hauled off when they parked on the streets where parking was prohibited. So I am sure you will agree it is desirable and imperative to have public transportation around the Mall to all these facilities. The question is what is the best way to approach it. There :is a strong feeling on this committee, that I certainly share, th'at we ought to, if we charge for parking at the Visitor Center, give free `bus service as far as the Capitol. So if we follow your suggestion here and require a concessionaire to come to your Commission and ask for free bus service, I am wondering if this would not set a more dangerous precedent with other people who are appearing before your Commission for certificates of convenience and necessity? I wonder if thi's would not make more of a dangerous precedent than for Congress just to exempt the Commission from any authority relating to this specific need for strict service to go to the Capitol and around the Mall. Mr. AVERY. I really do not think it would be a dangerous precedent, PAGENO="0150" 146 NATIONAL VTSI~OR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Mr. Chairman. For one thing, what you are discussing is a very unique situation. There is, after all, only one Capitol and one Visitor Center, and I think everybody recognizes and we certainly recognize, as I tried to indicate in my statement, that the transportation you envisage here is a very good thing and should be provided. If it were provided as free transportation between the Visitor Center and the Mall, I would not regard it as raising any serious problem as precedent for the Commission as for the very uniqueness of the situation that you are dealing with here. What we are worried about- Mr. GRAY. On page 3 of your testimony, you say: While the Interior Department could enter into a contractual arrangement with a cencessionaire, that concessionaire must comply with the provisions of the Compact. So I am looking downstream thinking, well, if we give authority to the Secretary to enter into a contract with the concessionaire and we all feel that we should have free bus `service from the `Center as far as the Capitol, and then the concessionaire goes to the `Commission `and asks for that authority, then according to your own statement here, they must comply with the provisions of the compact. The compact may not have any provision for any type `of free `bus service. Then we run into the situation where `Congress `has `spoken, we feel this is what we should do, give free bus service to the `Capitol; and then you come back and make a ruling, `we are sympa'thetic but we feel that this would be setting a precedent where somebody in Alexandria might say, "Well, I think we ought to give free bus service from the court- house up to some other place in Alexandria, and Congress did it so why can't we do it? So I am iookin~ at this from your `standpoint as doing a good job with the Commission, that this might set a more `dangerous precedent than if we just exempt this particular route from any consideration of the `Ctnunission, which certainly would not then set any precedent beca'use Congress is speaking for a specific problem and a specific location, which, as you point out, i's unique. We only `have one Capitol and we only have one Visitor Center per Se. Mr. AVERY. Well, if I could say tw'o things to that: First of all, if it was strictly free transportation, if there was a separate line going say from the Visitor Center to `the Capitol, buses just running on that route and it was free, in the first place, that would not be subject to our jurisdiction, that particular line; becau'se the compact says only that we have jurisdiction over transportation for hire. Of course, if it is free, it is not transportation for `hire. Mr. GRAY. What we have been thinking, frankly, as an incentive to get people out of their cars, was to take a portion of the parking fee and `subsidize this leg of the journey. In other words, if we charge, say, $1 to park for a 24-hour period at the Visitor Center, they can take the stub for that parking ticket and that would be admission to the free `bus `service. This could be used even for the Capitol employees and other Government workers. If we have off periods and someone here could not find a place to park and wanted to park `his car, he could get a free ~us ride to work. So we felt that actually it `would be really sub- sidized service. PAGENO="0151" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 147 It just would not make a lot of sense to ha1ve `a bus which could hold 80 passengers haul 40 free and have another bus with 40 on it coming up here for hire This would be an uneconomical thing to do They should all ride on the same bus. The question is, How are we going to collect it? My thought was we could take a portion of the parking fee and pay for that particular part of the service that was going to be provided free. So this is why it is such a unique situation and so complex that I am wondering if the provision of the compact would even be able to take care of this type of situation. And that is the thing we are fearful of, if we go ahead and authorize this Center-the railroad has put up $19.5 million of their money to build this, then we get into a hassle such as the one now in court between your Commissioxi and the Sec- retary of the Interior, and as a result we would be stymied and would have no transportation. That is the thing we are trying to avoid. We are not trying to circumvent any of your authority whatsoever, but it is a unique situation and I think the public interest here must be served first. With all due respect to the compact and with all due respect to the Commission, the public interest I think is paramount and these other matters are secondary. Mr. Aviuiy. Well, that really touches on the second point that I wanted to make, and that is if you enacted legislation along the lines you are discussing indicating that what you want is the Secretary to provide free transportation to the Capitol, and if the concessionaire then came to the Commission for the necessary authority to do that, frankly it is inconceivable to me that the Commission would ignore specific language enacted by the Congress expressing the desire to have this. So frankly I cannot~- Mr. Gi~r. It is inconceivable? You have to admit you are in litiga- tion now with the Secretary of the Interior and he quoted certain statutory authority that he had, and the Commission was not willing to accept that authority that he had, so it is just conceivable if you ignore the Secretary, you could ignore Congress if it was in a gray area. I am not saying you would do it deliberately; but if your authority was not clear, or our authority is not clear, then conceivably it could be a gray area that is subject to litigation. Mr. Aviinr. That is true if it were a gray area. There was a disagreement between us and the Secretary, between his jurisdict:ion and our jurisdiction, and the court in fact ended up say- ing we are right, so that I am forced to agree if the matter were left gray, we might get into a dispute. But if you enact this language that made clear your intent, there would not be any gray area. Mr. ~ That was the point I was getting at. Why would the Commission ob~ject if we wrote into the act exempting just this, and not the general transportation at all but just exempt this particular one from the Commission's jurisdiction, since it is a compaèt between the District, Maryland, and Virginia. The purpose, as I understand it-and I voted for it in 1960-was to give you the authority to coordi- nate transportation needs of all these areas. But I do not think that Congress intended in setting up this compact that we would not have jurisdiction here on our own &overnment property. 1 yield to the gentleman from Texas, then I will get to you, Mr. Penney. PAGENO="0152" 148 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 19 67 Mr. WRIGHT. I' am just a little curious, what was the basis of your action against the Interior Department? Was it simply that you felt the Department had failed to comply with the law that you are charged with administering by refusing to come and ask you for a certificate of convenience and necessity? Mr. AVERY. Yes. Mr. WRIGHT. Is this all that was involved? Or did you have some more pronounced objection to their operating this little shuttle? Mr. AVERY. No, Mr. Wright. Of course I cannot now and we have never taken a position publicly on what we would say about the de- sirability of the service. That is a matter which I cannot comment on, because it has got to come before the full Commission. But what we were saying, what we said to the Interior Department was that the concessionaire was a person engaged in' transportation for hire in the Washington metropolitan district and, therefore, we had no choice but to take the position that the compact applied to it. Now, the Secretary had two arguments. He referred first to certain statutory provisions which gave him exclusive jurisdiction over the Mall area of the District of Columbia, and he referred to the exemption in our compact of transportation by the Federal Government. We carefully considered his arguments and we thought that his posi- tion on the law was not so clear that we felt we should accept it. So that in order to clarify the law, we brought an action in the court and tried to expedite it as quickly as we could to get the question settled. Now, the court, as it turned out, agreed with our interpretations of the acts investing the Secretary with jurisdiction over the park areas and with our interpretation of the exemption, and held: Yes, this was transportation for hire by a person in the Washington metro- politan district, and therefore the compact had to be complied with. Mr. WRIGHT. I believe that you raised an interesting point and have served the Commission well by bringing this to our attention in order that we may determine what we wish the legislation to do- whether expressly to subject this to your jurisdiction, or expressly to exempt it. If it were subjected to your jurisdiction, what would be the ques- tions you would want to have answered from a concessionaire? What will be the area of your determination? Mr. AVERY. We1l,~n the first instance, Mr. Wright, the first ques- tion that `comes up is in the proceeding for a certificate of convenience and necessity. The question in that "proceeding is: Is there a need `for the service? Would the public ~onvenience and necessity be usefully served by the institution of this service? Mr. WRIGHT. Now, if the Congress directs in legislation that serv- ice of this type be provided, would this still confer upon you, in your judgment, a need to make a determination that there is a public con- venience and necessity to be served? Would you be obliged to hold a judicial ~nquiry to find out whether or not it should be done if Con gress has directsd that it be done? PAGENO="0153" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 149 Mr. Avru~. Well, I have thought about that question, Mr. Wright, and I would like to express my own personal opinion on it. I cannot bind the Commission, because there are three members of the Com- mission and our decisions go by majority vote. But my own pre- liminary thinking on that question is that I find it inconceivable if the Congress had directed that such transportation be provided, I find it inconceivable for the Commission to make a finding that it i~ not in the public interest and it suits the public convenience and necessity. In other words, I would think that that question would be practically foreclosed by a congressional enactment directing that the service be instituted. Mr. WRIGHT. What about the Interior Department? Mr. AVERY. There was no congressional enactment directing the Secretary of the Interior to provide transportation on the Mall. Mr. WRIGHT. Would it not have been a simple thing for your Com~ mission to have had a hearing and issued a certificate of convenience and necess:ity to the Secretary? Mr. AVERY. Yes, that would have been very simple. But the Interior Department directed their concessionaire not to come to us. We never had a chance to. The Secretary took the position that they did not have to come to us, so they were just about to start their operation without ever having to come to us at all. Mr. WRIGHT. You cannot give a certificate without an application for a certificate? Mr. AVERY. That is right, and they refused to apply. Mr. WRIGHT. I do not want to get us into a jurisdictional squabbi~ and I think maybe it is useful that you have come. Now let me say what I hope this legislation will do. I hope it will direct the creation of such a system of limited transportation-limited. not in numbers of people it would carry, but limited in the places it can go-not competitive with, but supplementary to the existing public transportation of the area. I hope that it will be distinguishable from the existing public trans- portation in the area. Whether or not the concessionaire might be ap- propriately the present D.C. Transit Co., if it wants to become a con~ cessionaire-I can see it might be the best one-but I would hope that these buses would be distinguishable from the company's regular buses; that they would operate on a precise and specific run for the con- venience of tourists and visitors to our town. I think this service would be different in essential character frOm that which is provided so efficiently by the existing transportation facilities; that which presently exists is primarily for the benefit of people who live here and work here and shop here on a regular basis. They know what bus they want to catch. They know where to go, on what corner to stand, in order to catch the bus that goes to a certain location. But a visitor does not know this. I would hope that a separate and distinct form of transportation would be provided for these visitors, so that they might pay once and be entitled to make a circle, let us say, getting off wherever they wish~ getting back on, and continuing on the circle. PAGENO="0154" 150 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 I would envision it as being similar, in effect, to that which exists at Williamsburg-similar perhaps to that which exists at the world's fair at Montreal or other places. So that these visitors, for a nominal fee, would be able to ride to the various points' of particular interest, such as the Smithsonian, the Cupitol, the Monument, perhaps the Elipse behind the White House, and back. I would like it possible for those people to ask questions. I would like for someone to be on that bus to answer their questions. I would be very, very much opposed to anyone's `operating the bus who would be impatient with their questions. Now, of course you say you cannot speak for the Commission. I would like to see this done, and I would like to see it done cheaply, inexpensively for visitors. Now, before I decide as a member of the committee whether I would desire to make this system subject to the jurisdiction of your Com- mission, I think I would like to know the attitude of your Commission with regard to that concept. Mr. AVERY. Well, let me say this, Mr. Wright, first of all, what you describe sounds very much like the interpretive shuttle service the Secretary wants to start on the Mall. Practically every characteristic of it you described is practically what the Secretary had in his con- tract to provide the service on the Mall. I do not think anybody listening to you could reach any conclusion other than this would be a very desirable thing to have. The Commission, my colleagues on the Commission, and I hope my- self, are very devoted to the public interest and trying to see to it that the public is adequately served. It seems to me the kind of reasons you just stated and kind of serv- ice which you just described, which sounds very attractive and very persuasive, it seems to me that if that kind of proposal were made to the Commission, I cannot see any basis on which the Commission would say no, this is not in the public interest, or this does not suit the public convenience and necessity. Now, that is just my own personal off-the-cuff opinion and I cannot now give you an answer as precisely what the Commission would do; but I am giving you my personal reaction to the kind of thing you are describing and I am suggesting the members of the Commission are sworn to uphold the public interest. And if this is so obviously in the public interest, it seems to me not too difficult to figure out what the Commission would do. It would be the end result of a proceeding in which there would be adversary parties involved, and you cannot in advance of that hear- ing give any kind of absolute assurance as to what the Commission would finally determine. Mr. WRIGHT. I appreciate your elucidation of that. Mr. AVERY. We just were never given a chance on the MaZZ case, because they chose to try to go around us. Now, in fact, one of the things we said in our brief in the court of appeals, that you might be interested in knowing, was that in deter- mining the question of whether the public interest and necessity re- PAGENO="0155" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 151 quired the inst;itution of a service like the Mall shuttle, it seemed in- conceivable that the opinion of the Secretary of the Interior, who was charged with administering the Mall and making it attractive to visitors, would not weigh extremely heavy with the Commission. So if the Secretary came in to us, or his representative came in to us, and testified, "I administer the Mall and I have made a determination that this is what is required," it just seems to me that the regulatory process being what it is, that would weigh very heavily with the Commission, Mr. WIUGHT. I think it may be quite useful-this obviously needs clarification by Co~igress. I do disagree with what appears to be one of your summary con- clusions wherein you say, referring to the possibility of exempting this particular type of transportation from the compact authority: It is our belief that if this Is the purpose of the legislation, It would not ac- complish that result since unilateral amendment of the compact is impossible. Of course, you recognize that the Congress making the determination in this specific area, from the compact and subsequent legislation which created the compact, would come under the doctrine of preemption and we could very well do that if we wanted to ~ Mr. AVERY. I think an administrator like myself, if he had a re- curring nightmare, it would be the nightmare to have to come before Congress and tell them maybe they cannot do something. But, frankly, I have to say, as a lawyer, that I think there is a real question as to whether you can do it unilaterally. The compact is an agreement between three parties like any other compact. Mr. WRIGHT. One of them being the District of Columbia, one of them being the State of Maryland, and one of~them being- Mr. AVERY. One of them being Virginia. And all three legislatures of those entities-the legislature of the District being Congress-~have agreed to that. I am not sure one party can change it unilaterally. Mr. WRIGHT. I am not proposbig one of the three parties change it; I am proposing the Congress o~E the United States, under whose au- thority the compact was initially agreed- Mr. GRAY. If we decided to pull out the District of Columbia, which is a Federal city, you would have' Maryland and Virginia left. You would not have a leg to stand on if Congress wanted to undo what it did 6 years ago, or any portion of it. As the gentleman from Texas said, if we wanted to amend what we did 6 years ago, Congress would certainly have authority. Without Congress authority, you would not have a compact. That is what a compact means and as for, getting together and working out common interests. Mr. AVERY. Mr. Chairman, suppose the Legislature of Maryland passed an act saying that they are going to exempt `from our jurisdic- tion transportation between Rockville and Silver Spring. I just do not know whether that would effect that result or not. I think it is a dif- ficult question. PAGENO="0156" 152 NATIONAL VISITOR C~ENTER ACT OF 1967 Mr. GRAY. That is a different matter entirely. I am sure you would not contend the Congress of the Unite.d States would not supersede any particular action of an individual State. If you are arguing when we pass a Federal law, any States could get together and any legislature undo that law, we would not have too much national legislation if that could happen-you know, in some States in particular. Mr. AVERY. What I am suggesting is an interstate compact may be different. I hope I never have to pass on the question. I see a problem as a lawyer. Maybe it would accomplish that result, but I think that somebody could raise a question as to whether it does or not. Mr. WRIGHT. Under the Articles of Federation you are right, but- Mr. AVERY. I think a compact is different from ordinary legislation. It is kind of like a contract between the United States and two States. Maybe one party can withdraw from that contract unilaterally, but I am, not sure. Mr. GRAY. I do not think anyone questions, even with the liberal views of the Supreme Court, I do not think they would rule Congress could not have a right to legislate on Federal property. I do not think anybody would say that. I yield to Mr. Penney. Mr. PENNEY. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about abstract matters here, I would like to ask the witness, do you have a copy of the com- pact in your office or here? Mr AVERY I have my own copy with me and my General Counsel, Mr. Cunningham, has got one. Mr. DENNEY. Do you have a copy of the memo opinion, if there was one, from the appeals court? Mr AVERY Yes, sir I think we have 50 copies of that that Mr Cunningham could distribute. Mr DENNY Mr Chairman, I would like to suggest, and ask unani mous consent, that the compact and the. memo opinion be inserted in the record at this point. We have counsel on this subcommittee and we also have attorneys here, and we are talking about an interpretation of an agreement and opinion by this witness I think we should have the benefit of the foundation and we may be able to work out some language that defi- nitely would preserve in the U.S. Government control over its own property, which I thmk is something Mr Wright is bringing out Mr GRAY I think it is a very good suggestion Without objection, we will leave the record open if you would like to submit a copy. Mr. AVERY. We have it. I thought you would like that, Mr. Chair- man, and we brought the material with us and we will make it avail- able right now. (The material follow:) PAGENO="0157" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 153 UNITED SPATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DI1STRIOT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT SEPTEMSER TEEM, 1966 CIVIL No. 793-67 (FILED JUNE 30, 1967) No. 20,975 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT COMMISSION, APPELLANT No. 20,976 WASHINGTON SIGHTSEEING TOURS, INC., APPELLANT No. 20,977 BLUE LINES, INC., AND WHITE HOUSE SIGHTSEEING CORP., APPELLANTS No. 20,978 D.C. TRANSIT SYSTEM, INC., APPELLANT V. UNIVERSAL INTERPRETIVE SHUTTLE CORPORATION, (A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION), APPELLEE Before: FAirY, SenIor Circuit Judge, and DANAHER and RORINSON, Circuit Judges, in Chambers ORDER Whereas a majority of the Court are of the opinion that the various relevant statutory provisions, Construed in relation one to the other, especially in view of the physical location of the Mall in the Metropolitan area of the District of Columbia, do not afford authority to the appellee Universal Interpretive Shuttle Corporation validly to engage in such transportation for hire in the Mail area as is contemplated by the contract between the Secretary of the Interior and appeilee dated March 17, 1967, more fully described in the complaint, without a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission authorizing such transportation, and Whereas it is deemed that the interests of the parties and of the public would be better served by this prompt disposition of the appeals rather than to delay decision the formulation and issuance of elaborating opinions, though Li m~ ~e cc ~t reserves th'~ ~ to file later, in opinion or state- that. But here we have ~. Service, who wants to promote the public interest. 85-894 O-67----11 PAGENO="0158" 154 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER A~T OF 1967 My question to you is this now: How would the objective the Sec- retary wanted to attain with promotion of this service be improved or enhanced by his coming to you with his proposition? Mr. AVERY. Well, before the whole controversy got started, when we first read of what the Secretary was planning to do, we went to the Sec- retary-actually to one of his assistants-and pointed out the prob- lem, pointed out to him that there was this Compact that we had taken an oath to uphold, and we felt an obligation to pursue our re- sponsibilities under the compact and suggested that the best thing to do would be to discuss a way in which to expedite a proceeding before the Commission where the requisite determinations of the compact would be made. The Secretary's representatives just did not-well, to put it bluntly, I think they thought I was crazy. They just said, "Well, that is absolu- tely ridiculous. You cannot possibly have any jurisdiction here. This is national park ground and we have complete jurisdiction over it." And I said, "Well, I am very sorry, you know, I just cannot accept that idea, and so now let's talk about how to get a determination of it in court on an expedited basis as fast as we can." The last thing I wanted to do was to find the Commission in the posi- tion of blocking the institution of the Service. Mr. SOHWENGEL. That was the result temporarily? Mr. AVERY. Unfortunately that was the result. And then the court- you know, you always start to wonder whether you are crazy or not- and the court finally said no, you are right; you, the Commission, are right. That is the way the law is. The law is that the compact applies to this service. It was just recently that was decided by a three-judge panel. The Interior Department asked the full nine-panel bench of the superior court to reconsider that and they refused. So the entire nine- panel bench has held what we said was the law was in fact the law. Mr. SCHWENGEL. In the meantime, they have not been able to accom- modate the visitors? Mr. AVERY. Unfortunately the service never got implemented, be- cause the Secretary chose to pursue the court case and the court service could not be instituted. Mr. SOHWENGEL. So you actually blocked public service? That was the effect of your interference? Mr. AVERY. To my great chagrin, the answer to that is "Yes." Mr. SCHWENOEL. Now let me ask you this: Based upon the record, how long does it take your Commission to respond to applications? On the average. Mr AVERY Well, I think `~ certification proceeding could be corn pleted in-well, I do not know, 60 days. I would say 60 days. That is giving everybody a chance to be heard and giving the `Commission time to write its opinion Under our rules we have to give 25 days' notice before the hearing can start. That is the one fixed time period. But even that, we could shorten that time. But that is the one fixed time period, 25 days. Then we could have the hearing, whatever length of time that would last, and then whatever brief period of time it takes to get out an opinion. PAGENO="0159" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 155 Mr. SCflWENGEL. I think what the Secretary-I have not talked to him about it, I just follow the newspapers, I might say with some dis- gust on the part of people involved in Government who do not sense properly the public interest that you say you must uphold. Here is a great, great capital area that people just are hungry to visit, and we have done through the years such a poor job of accom- modating them, making it easy and interesting. Here we have a de- partment of the Government, of which you are a part, conscientious, dedicated I am sure, that is handicapping an opportunity to serve these people. It would seem to me that you could have assured the Secretary, "Look, we will cooperate with you completely, get something going now and then make some adjustments," instead of holding it up 60 days. Mr. Avi~aiy. Mr. Schwengel, first of all, the thoughts you have ex- pressed are precisely the very thoughts that went through my own mind. It was the most undesirable position I could possibly find myself in, throwing a roadblock in that service. What you suggested I say to the Department of the Interior is precisely what I did say. I went down there and pleaded with them to get together with us and cooperate with us in trying to expedite whatever proceedings would be necessary for the Commission, so that compliance with the compact would not provide any roadblock to the institution of this service. The Secretary of the Interior is the one that refused to even come to us. He instructed his concessionaire to have nothing to do with us. Mr. SdHWENGEL. I think he was very conscientious in his approach to the problems of the Park Service. He has a great desire to serve the public interest. I know some of the pressures he is under. I know some of the pressures I receive in Congress from people who are coming here, who are almost frantic. So here is a man who wants to promote the public interest within the law-and he is not circumventing, any- thing that I can see or doing something that is cirèumventing the law as I see it, basically, or doing something that is not in the public interest. Mr. DENNY. Will the gentleman yield ~ Mr. SCHWENGEL. And I would hope that somebody would sense the problem here and have a little better spirit of cooperation to reach the goal that must be attained. Mr. Avr~ity. I can assure you, Mr. Congressman, that the. Commis-~ sion, if it ever does get involved in proceedings relating to this direct- ly, will expedite it to the maximum extent possible. We feel very badly about the delay that has occurred already and we certainly are interested in expediting to the maximum extent possi- ble whatever proceedings are necessary before our Commission relat- ing to this service. Mr. DENNEY. Will the gentleman yield ~ Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. Mr. DENNEY. Mr. Avery, I see on page 7 of the compact that any signatory may withdraw from the compact upon 1 year's written notice to that effect to the other signatories. In the event of a with- drawal of one of the signatories from the compact, the compact shall be terminated. PAGENO="0160" 156 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF i 967 It would be simple for us to just write in this law the District of Columbia would wish to withdraw, and maybe we would get a~n amendment to this compact that we could take care of our own property. Do you not think that might be the answer to the thing? Mr. AVERY. I am glad you pointed that language out. I had intended to point it out when the chairman was questioning me about Con- gress power to withdraw. There is the language in there as to how the Compact could be terminated. I frankly would hate to see- Mr. DENNEY. I do not see any problem; if we cannot get together with the Commission, there is an out, is that not true? Mr. AVERY. There is an out you say? Mr. DENNEY. There is an out for the District? Mr. AVERY. Oh, yes. All of the parties can withdraw on a year's notice. Mr. DENNEY. This is not a question of personalities or jurisdiction. We have a problem; we want to accomplish a result. We can go to the Commission and say this is what we want, or we can go to Virginia and Maryland and say this is what we want to do. We can draw an amendment to that, get it approved, and put it right in the bill; can we not? Mr. AVERY. No question about that. There is one problem, and that is that the Maryland and Virginia Legislatures will not be in session until 1968 now. Mr. DENNEY. Do they have continuing authority under this com- pact? I think they do. They gave their different agencies authority to amend. There is an amendment provision in here. I think, Mr. Chairman, we are just talking about something we will talk about when we mark up the bill and settle it that way. Mr. Gm~Y. Any other questions? Mr. SCHWENGEL. One further oJ?erational question. I think what the Secretary is going to do here in this District is what people at Williamsburg do. They have a bus service there. As I understand it, they have a very comparable operation, the type of operation the Secretary wanted, with the exception of the Virginia law requiring they have to have safe equipment. I do not think the Virginia Commisèion has any jurisdiction at Williamsburg. Mr. AVERY. I could not answer that, Mr. Schwengel. I do not know how Virginia works. Mr. SOHWENGEL. I think this is true. This is a comparable situa- tion. The Secretary saw the need, and based upon the record of your Commission, he wanted to avoid delay and get something moving and going. Mr. AVERY. You say based upon our record-not our record as a delayer I hope. I think we have expedited a great number of matters before our Commission. I think there would not have been any prob- lem of delay if they had come before us and accepted our theory of jurisdiction. I think that service probably would have been instituted long ago. If I may just make one final point, I firmly believe that it would be unwise to have a transportation system in the heart of the city, PAGENO="0161" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 157 transporting millions of people annually, that is completely outside the entire regulatory scheme for the rest of the city. That is the reason why I would hope, whatever you do, you do not completely exempt it from our jurisdiction. I think there is one further point on that that when I look ahead disturbs me, and that is the precedent of this. You spoke about the precedent, Mr. Chairman. If we decide that the Secretary of the Interior needs to have an exemption so that he can run a service with a private contract-I would like to emphasize that-we have no jurisdiction when the Government itself is providing the service, but what you are talking about here is another private operator who is running up and down the streets of this city picking up anybody who wants to get on. If the Secretary of the Interior can decide he needs a service like that to fit his purposes, similarl~, the Secretary of Defense might come in here one day and say, "I need service between the Pentagon and such and such a place, and I would like to have an exemption from the Commission to provide that service." Mr. GRAY. The difference is he owns the buses. Mr. AVERY. If he owns the buses, it is exempt from our jurisdiction. Also you can only ride on that bus if you are an employee of the De- partment of Defense. But I see a route opening up here whereby you could emasculate the existing transportation system and leave my Commission, the Transit Commission-which is charged with the re- sponsibility of having a rational, unified, well-working transportation system for the whole city-unable to carry out its responsibility be- cause so much has been carved away. Mr. GRAY. Have you thought of this, 78 percent of the visitors who come here come by automobile? And did you ever stop to realize if these people parked their automobiles, we are really going to be aid- ing and helping the public transportation system? This is what we are trying to do. If we get them out of their automobiles down at Union Station- 78 percent, keep this in mind,, come by car-then you still have to sub- tract the number that come by train and by air, so this leaves an in- finitestimal amount of people that come by bus, so to speak. So if we get these people to park their cars and they come up to the Capitol, let's say on free bus service, and then they pay, to go on down to Washing- ton Monument, and they get into the downtown area, then they are going to take p~b1ic transportation in all probability. So I think this is going to be tremendously helpful to the people you regulate. Mr. AVERY. I `agree, Mr. Chairman, we do not oppose the service you talk about. I think that is a good idea. Mr. GRAY. I ~ot the impression you felt if we had a separate service for the shuttle, it would jeopardize- Mr. AVERY. No, I did not say a separate service would jeopardize it. I said a separate service not subject to our jurisdiction would jeopar- dizeit. Mr. GRAY. What the gentleman from Texas is pointing out, and with which I agree, if we do have a shuttle service, provided by D.C. Transit or whoever provides it~ if we have separate colored buses and this sort of thing, if a person is in the Smithsonian and is looking for that shuttle service, he `does not get on a bus going out to Wheaton, Md. PAGENO="0162" 158 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Mr. AVERY. I do not oppose that concept. I think witnesses from D.C. Transit are appearing and they may oppose that concept. We took this position repeatedly throughout the Mall shuttle case in court: We are not asserting here that any particular person should have the right to do this. All~we are asserting is that whoever has that right, whether it be somebody separate-and I think a lot of reasons have been stated here this morning why it should be somebody separate -whatever it is should be subject to our jurisdiction so that a major segment of the total transportation in this city is not completely out- side of the jurisdiction of the Commission. This is the problem we got into in the Mall shuttle case. We were regarded and many of the papers wrote it up as though we were op- posing the proposal of the Secretary. We have never opposed the pro- posal of the Secretary; we have said it has got to be subject to our jurisdiction. Mr. SORWENGEL. But net effect is it has been held up 60 days? Mr. Avia~y. It has been held up longer than 60 days. They wanted to start it around the first of June and it has never gone in. That was not because of any proceeding before the Commission; it was because of the Secretary's refusal to have his concessionaire come to the Commission and the necessity therefor of going into court. I might say that we-my general counsel, Mr. Cunningham, who is accompanying me today-repeatedly told the court and told all the other parties in that proceeding that we would expedite that case to the maximum extent possible and we wrote and filed our brief in the shortest possible time and we scheduled the oral arguments in the shortest possible times, in an effort to expedite that court case because I felt very keenly the sentiments that you have expressed, that here was the Commission charged with upholding the public interest and seeing to it that transportation is adequate, holding up a service that certainly appears to be very desirable. Mr. SCHWENGEL. I think it would have been better to let them go ahead and then work out the difficulty later. Mr. GROVER. Will the gentleman yield? My question, do you have a procedure for a temporary certification pending final certification? Mr. AVERY. Yes, sir. Mr. GROVER. Did the Secretary apply for temporary certification? Mr. AVERY. He did not come to us at all. It could have been done under temporary authority probably; I never looked into that, be- cause he never applied. But we do have authority under our compact to issue a temporary certificate immediately, and then look into the matter more fully within a specified number of days and issue a per- manent certificate. We never had the opportunity to do it. Mr. Git~y. Since the Secretary is not here. I think he feels that Congress had given him the authority in the National Park Act and that if he did allow this concessionaire to come to the Commission, he would be setting a precedent that could be used in court in all na- tional parks throughout the country, so I think this was more than just this particular case per Se. Mr. AVERY. I think that is exactly right, Mr. Chairman. The Park Service saw more in it than this particular problem. PAGENO="0163" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 159 Mr. GROVER. Mr. Chairman, may I make a further remark? Mr. Gii~~. Yes, you may. Mr. GROVER. And observation. At `the present time I think we are greeting 50,000 visitors per day. Now, if all those visitors went to the Visitor Center to get on these buses you would have, if you got 50 people on a bus, you would have 1,000 buses--and that is a lot of buses. So I think the gentleman's arguments are not `totally without merit; this would have a tremendous impact on the traffic situation in the city. Mr. Avi~atY~ One thing more I would like to say. I think you alluded to it, Mr. `Chairman. You suggested if you had the parking over there and free serVice to the `Capitol, some of `the employees here might use it. This is a point I think that ybu ought to keep in mind also about that service and about the Mall shuttle service. The way that it is going to be set up is you do not have to prove you are a visitor to Washington to get on it; anybody who wants to drop money in the fare box can get on it I think it is very possible that many, many people who are residents of the city of Washington will be using both the Mall shuttle service, if `that goes in, and this service that is talked about here between the Mall and TJnion Station. And again, this to me is an argument- Mr. Gii~y. Would this not be an alleviation of automobile congestion on the streets? Or are you just interested iii buses? `Mr. AVERY. No, sir; we- Mr. GRAY. Are you interested in the orderly flow of traffic? Mr. AVERY. Yes, sir. Mr. GRAY. You are supposed to be interested in all facets of `trans- portation problems. Mr. AVERY. Yes, sir. Mr. GRAY. What we are trying to do, my friend, is get rid of thou- sands of vehicles cluttering up the streets by visitors. Have you ever come across the Fourteenth Street Bridge at 7 or 8 o'clock in the morning? Have you ever `tried to get on Pennsylvania Avenue during rush hour? This is what we are trying to alleviate. Let's not just talk about buses; let's talk about the common interest and what is good for the city and all the people. Mr. Aveuy. I agree absolutely. Mr. `G1~&Y. If we can get 20' C'apit:ol Hill people to park their cars and get in one bus, we are eliminating 15 to 20 cars. Mr. AVERY. I think it is a great idea. I am not opposing that. I am not saying do not let only visitors ride; I think that is fine. Let any- body who wants to get on it get on it. B'ut what I am saying is it has a very close tie-in with the transportation system that we do have the responsibility to regulateS, and it makes no sense to me to have this system entirely outside our regulation. It seems to me it would emascu- late our powers. Mr. GRAY. I am certainly not against regulatory bodies, but the Secretary wanted to provide this year a shuttle service, and because of being in court with you people, the public has suffered. This is the thing I am trying to avoid. I am not interested in these `other side effects. I do not want this committee, and I am sure I speak for most or all members,, to pass this kind of legislation that is going to end up in PAGENO="0164" 160 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1 967 a legal hassle that might taken 10 years to resolve and, in the mean- time, we are sitting here with a big visitors facility and no way to carry the visitors. Mr. AVERY. I have the same concern. You ought to be sure all legis- lation you pass should not be subject to that. I might add, it is not just the Commission that is involved there; there are any number of parties who could bring that litigation. D.C. Transit could start that litigation and the `Commission could find itself in the middle of it willy-nilly. You might say, you, `the Commis- sion, understands what we want to do and therefore you had better not start any litigation; but that would not scdve the problem. Anybody that would be adversely affected could probably think of a way to start the litigation. I am sure D.C. Transit could think of a way to start the litigation. Mr. GRAY. They have a financial interest and your Commission should have the public interest. Mr. AVERY. Yes, sir. Mr. GRAY. There may be a big difference between a financial interest and public interest~ Mr. AVERY. What I am suggesting is if you are not careful in just how you draft it, you may find yourself in the position of what you talked about. Litigation is over now. The issue is settled. I hope the Secretary will now come to us and apply for a certificate for the Mall service and the problem is over and we can get going on it. Mr. GRAY. I certainly want to commend you for your interest in defending your Commission, I think it is admirable, although I can- not agree with all of your statement. I think the public interest is paramount to some of the statements you made here about regulation, but we certainly want to commend you for coming and for taking this interest in behalf of your people. It is very admirable. Mr. AVERY. Thank you very much. Mr. GRAY. Any other questions or comments? Thank you very much, Mr. Avery. Mr. AVERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportu- nity to appear before you. Mr. GRAY. Our next two witnesses are very distinguished attorneys in the District of Columbia, Mr. Manuel J. Davis and Mr. Donald S. Dawson. Will you please come forward. Mr. Dawson is special counsel for the D.C. Transit System, Inc., representing Mr. 0. Roy Chalk, president of the D.C. Transit System, Inc., and Mr. Davis is counsel of the D.C~ Transit System, Inc. I want to apologize profusely to both of you gentlemen for being tardy in getting you on. I know you both had commitments early this morning and we appreciate very much your patience. But we hope m.a~be the colloquies that have taken place just preceding your testi- mony may be a little enlightening to you gentlemen-I did not say "agreeable"; I said "enlightening." We are delighted to see both of you here. You may proceed in your own fashion. PAGENO="0165" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1907 161 STATEMENT OF DONALD S. DAWSON, ES4., SPECIAL COUNSEL, ON BEHALF OF 0'. ROY CHALK, PRESIDENT, D.C. TRANSIT SYSTEM, INC.; ACCOMPANIED BY MANUEL J. DAVIS, ESQ., COUNSEL Mr. DAWSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Donald S. Dawson. I am special counsel for the D.C. Transit System and I am appearing here at the request of Mr. 0. Roy Chalk, the president of the company, who wanted to be here but unfortunately, because of the illness of his wife, was prevented from doing so. Mr. Manuel J. Davis, counsel for the company, is at my left. Mr. GRAY. Let me state, Mr. Chalk has sent two very able repre- sentatives. The committee knows Mr. Dawson was an assistant at the White House during the Truman administration and is held in very high regard. We are delighted to see both of you. Mr. DAWSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a prepared statement that I would like to ask permission to insert in the record and I will paraphrase it. Mr. GRAY. Without objection, it will be included in full. (The prepared statement follows:) STATEMENT OF DONALD S. DAWSON, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR D.C. TRANSIT SYSTEMS, INC. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Donald S. Dawson. I am Special Counsel for D.C. Trasit System, Inc. and I am appearing at the request of Mr. 0. Roy Chalk, President of the Company, who was planning to be here but is unable to do so. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning to testify on H.R. 12686, the "National Visitor Center Act of 1967". Let me make it clear at the outset that D.C. Transit is in favor of the general purpose of this legislation. Each year millions of visitors come to our capital city to view its numerous national buildings, monuments, memorials, and museums. According to the estimates of the National Park `Service some 15 million visitors are expected this year, a figure which is expected to grow to 35 million by 1980. These visitors are in dire need of a place to go for information on sightseeing, rooms, and restaurants, for parking cars, and for temporary rest from the rigors of traveling. Any sightseer who has ever' tried to park his car in the Mall area, the chief tourist attraction, will wholeheartedly support the proposed construction of a parking facility adjacent to the visitors center. As operator of the primary public transportation system in the Capital, Mr. Chalk desires that I assure you that a special minibus shuttle service or any other needed service, offering frequent de- partures, will be provided by D.C. Transit from such parking facility to the Mall area to encourage visitors to leave their cars at the National Visitor Center thereby reducing the growing traffic congestion in downtown Washington. D.C. Transit is deeply concerned about Section 5 of this bill, however. This section has no direct bearing on the general purpose of H.R. 12686 of authoriz- ing the construction of a National Visitor Oenter and a parking facility `ad- jacent thereto This section seemingly is an attempt to circumvent a recent de cision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a recent executive memorandum and a congressionally approved transportation compact Additionally this section may well result in an infringement of D C Transit s congressionally approved Franchise depriving the Company of sorely 7needed revenues. In Wa8hington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, et al. vs. Universal Interpretive $huttle Corporation, Cases Nos. 20,975-8, the `Court of Appeals con- sidered, among other things, the authority of the `Secretary of the Interior under PAGENO="0166" 162 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 19 67 the Act of May 26, 1930, 46 Stat. 382, which is cited in Section 5 `of H,R. 12686 (page 3, line 18). This Act authorizes the Secretary to contract for services pro- vided the public in the national park~. The Secretary had contracted with Uni- versal for the provision of a for-hire shuttle service on the Mall, a part of the national park sy~tem under the Secretary's jurisdiction. It was contended by the Secretary that such operation does not require certification by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission pursuant to the requirements of the Wash- ington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact, approved by Act of Sep- tember 15, 1960, 74 Stat. 1031. Such contention consisted of three premises: The first, that the Compact does net apply to any national park areas under the Sec- retary's jurisdiction; the second, that the proposed service will actually be oper- ated by the Federal Government which is specifically excepted from the Compact; the third, that the Secretary has statutory authority to `operate a for-hire trans- portation service. By a decision of June 30, 1967, `the Oourt of Appeals rejected such premises, holding that Universal's operation could not validly be conducted without a cer- tificate from the Transit Commission. A petition for `rehearing en bane was denied on October 3, 1967. I have copies of this decision with me should the members of the Subcommittee desire them. This decision makes it clear that the Transit Commission has paramount regulatory jurisdiction over for-hire motor carriage of passengers performed anywhere within the Washington Metropolitan Area. The language of Section 5 appears to attempt a circumvention of the Court of Appeals decision to which I have just referred by directing the Secretary, when he deems it advisable, to "utilize the atahority in the Act of May 26, 1930 * * * to provide transportation of visitors by the United States * ~` `p." Such language, if enacted, might well be construed by the Courts as constituting a Congressional authorization for the Secretary to operate, through contractual arrangements, for-hire transportation services on and to Federal enclaves under his jurisdiction in the Di'stri~t of Columbia. Such construction would exempt these services from the application of the Compact and the jurisdiction of the Transit Commission. The effect of such exemption would be in derogation of the basic purpose for which the Oom'pact was enacted. As noted on pages 2-3 of Senate Report No. 1906 of `the 86th Congress accompanying H.J. Res. 402, The compact accomplishes a very simple and basic objective, but a most impor- tant one. In effect, the compact centralizes to a great degree in a single agency * * * the regulatory powers of private transit now shared by four regulatory `agencies. It will make possible the regulation `of such transit within `the metropoll'tan area without regard to the boundaries of political jurisdiction * * ~`. The compact is directed to the improvement of privately owned transit, not only through cen- tralization of regula'tion, but also by creating machinery for the consideration on a regional basis of traffic problems related to `transit service. As a practical matter, the ability of the Transit Commission to regulate transit service and alleviate traffic congestion will be substantially impaired if it has no control over passenger operations on the Mall and to the contemplated Na- tional Visitor Center at Union Station. The same compartmentalized regula- tion will exist that the Compact was intended to replace. Section 5 of HR. 12686 will also contravene the administrative guidelines established' by the Presidential Memorandum of March 3, 1966 and the accom- panying Budget Bureau Circular No. A-76 to determine when the Government should provide services for its own use. I have prepared copies of these docu- ments for the convenience of the Subcommittee and, with the Chairman's per- mission, will hand them out now. As noted in paragraph number 2 of the Circu- lar, the guidelines are "in furtherance of the Government's general policy of relying on the private enterprise system to supply its needs". Several instances are specified under paragraph number Son pages 2-6 of the Circular as justifying a departure from such general policy. None of these instances is applicable to the provision of public transportation on the Mall and to the visitor center. In this connection, Mr. `Chalk desires to assure the Subcommittee `that D.C. Transit stands ready, willing and able to provide any transportation services needed by the Secretary for the accommodation of visitors to the Capital. There is simply no reason for the Secretary to be directed by the Congress to disregard the mandate of the President expressed in his Memo of March 3, 1966 and Budget Bureau Circular No. A-76 of the same date. PAGENO="0167" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 163 Section 5 of H.R. 12686 will also result in an infringement of D.C. Tran~t's Oongressiona~ Franchise, Act of July 24, 1956, 70 Stat. 598. Section 3 of ~e Franchise protects the Company against unnecessary competition from any source, public as well as private. Accordingly, if the Secretary, without first ob- taining a certificate of public convenience and necessity as required by Section 3, provides transportation service on the Mall or to the visitor center at Ufiion Station over a given route on a fixed schedule, he would be violating D.C. Transit's Franchise. Independent of all the legal reasons that D.C. Transit has offered you for its opposition to Section 5 of H.R. 12686, there is a very practical reason for such opposition. If the Secretary is directed to provide public transportation services in the Mall area and to the National Visitor Center at Union Station, D.C. Transit will be deprived of substantial revenues-fares which it would have collected had it not been for the competitive service of the Secretary. I tell you gentlemen in all sincerity that D.C. Transit cannot afford to lose these or any other revenues. Management of the Company, notwithstanding every effort for economy and efficiency, has found it necessary to apply for three separate fare increases in the last two years to meet rising costs. Tbe third such application was just filed this past September 1, 1967. An income statement accompanying such application indicates that for the 12 months ended May 31, 1967 the Com- pany earned only a 2.05% rate of return on operating revenues of approximately 34 million dollars. The Company cannot survive for long without financial relief in the form of either higher fares or government subsidy. Under these circum- stances it would be most damaging to the financial plight of the Company to have any of its existing traffic siphoned off by the Secretary. Some idea of the extent of the revenues that D.C~ Transit would stand to lose by enactment of `HR. 12686 can be found in the Court of Appeals case to which I referred earlier. An exhibit in this case indicated that the proposed shuttle oper- ations on the Mall under contract with the Secretary would cost the Company over a million dollars in annual revenues. It should also be realized in passing that to the extent the financial soundnesS of D.C. Transit's mass transportation operations is allowed to be impaired through the performance of competitive services by the Secretary, the ability of the `Company to provide effective "feeder" lines for the forthcoming subway system is correspondingly affected There is one other matter :that I want to comment upon. The second sentence of Section 5 directs the Secretary to provide `transportation "to the National Visitor Center." There is no geographical limitation upon the scope of the Secretary's operation to the visitor center. He could conceivably operate between Union Sta- tion and any point or as many points in the District as he desired, whether `or not such points were part of the national, park system under the Secretary's jurisdiction, For all of the reasons I have just discussed D.C. Transit opposes Section 5 of H.R. 12686 and recommends that it be deleted from the blll in its entirety. I want to thank you `again in the behalf of D.C. Transit System, Inc. for this opportunity to appear before you today. PAGENO="0168" 164 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No, 20, 975 September Term, 1966 Civi]. 793.67 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, Appellant No. 20,976 Washington Sightseeing Tours, Inc., ~d&aLeScOUrtotMpea;~ Appellant fOr the Distrct of Co~umb~ Ciccutt No. 20,977 flLE~ JU~ 1967 Blue Lines, Inc., and White house Sightseeing Corp., Appellants CLE~K~/ No. 20,978 .:.~ D.C. Transit System, Inc., Appellant ~ ~ `~~* 1 : Universal Interpretive Shuttle Corporation, (a California corporation), Appellee Before; Fahy, Sonio~ Circuit Judge, and Danaher and R~binson, Circuit Judges1 in Chambers, ORDER Whereas a majority of the court are of the opinion that the various relevant statutory provisions, constz'ue~ in relation one to the other, especially in view of the physical location of the Mall in the Metropolitan area of the District of Coluin~ bia, do not afford authority to the appellee Universal Inter-. pretive Shuttle Corporation validly to engage in such transpor~ tation for hire in the Mall area as is contetoplated by the con-. tract between the Secretary of the Interior and appollee dated March 17, 1967, more fully described in the complaint, without a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission authorizing such transportation, and PAGENO="0169" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 165 ~)*W~~ ~ ~f roR.THE D$STRICT or COLUMSIA CiRCUIT No. 20,975 September Term, 1966 20,976 Civil 793-67 20,977 20,978 Whereas it ~.s deemed that the interests of the parties and of the public would be better served by this prompt dispo- sition of the appeals rather than to delay decision pending the formulation and issuance of oiaboratiiig opinions, though each member of the court reserves the right to ~ilG later, in opi~iOfl or statement form,liis more detailed reasons for his position, The orden of the ~1s~rict Court of the 1st day of cay, 1967, dismissing the compia~nt nnd denying the ;etition for injunction and declaratory _~eliof in reversed, nod the cause is remanded so that approp~iate further procoad~ng5 and relief consistent with this order may be granted. is so ordered. Circuit Judge Robinson, being of o1~on the o:der of the District Court should be affirmed, dissont~. PAGENO="0170" * 166 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Office of the White House Press Secretary IMMFDIATE RELEASE THE VTI-IITE HOUSE IVIARCH 3, 1966 MEMORANDUM FROM THE PRESIDENT TO HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES. Each of you is aware of my determination that this Administration achieve maximum effectiveness in the conduct of day~Co~day operations of the Government. must seek in every feasible way to reduce the cost of carrying out g0vem~ mental programs. But we must remember that our budgelary costs -- our current out-of..pocket expenditures -- do not always provide a true measure of the cost of Government activities, This is often true when the Government undtrtakes to provide for itself a product or a service which is obtainable from commercial sources. At the same time, it is desirable, or even necessary, in sOme instances for the Government to produce directly certain products or services for its own use. This action may be dictated by program requirements, or by lack of an acceptable commercial source, or because significant dollar savings may result. Decisions which involve the question of whether the Government provides directly products or services for its own use roust be exercised under uniform guidelines and principles. This is necessary in order * to conduct the affairs of the Government on an orderly basis; * to limit budgetary costs; and * to maintain the Government's policy of reliance upon private enterprise. At my direction the Director of the Bureau dl the Budget is issuing detailed guide" lines to determine when the Government should provide products and services for its own use. These guidelines are the result of long study, based on experience over the, past six years since the current guidelines were issued. Each of you is requested to designate an assistant secretary or other official of comparable rank to * review new proposals for the agency to provide its own supplies or services before they are included in the agency's budget; review experience under the new guidelines; and * suggest any significant changes to the guidelines which experience may indicate to be desirable, I do not wish to impose rigid or burdensome reporting requirements on each agency with respect to the new guidelines. However these guidelines will require that appropriate records be maintained relative to agency commercial or industrial activities. I am also requesting the Budget Director to report to me from time to time on how the new directives are being carried out, and whether experience suggests changes in the guidelines or in agency reporting requirements. /5/ Lyodon B, Johnson PAGENO="0171" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 167 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT BUREAU OF THE BUDGET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20503 March 3, 1966 CIRCULAR NO. A-76 TO ThE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS ANI) ESTABLISHMENTS SUBJECT: Po'icies for acquiring commercial or industrial products and services for Government use 1. Purpq~. This Circular replaces the statement of policy which was set forth in Bureau of the Budget Bulletin No. 60~-2 dated September 21, 1959. It restates the guidelines and procedures to be applied by exec~ utive agencies in determining whether commercial an4 industrial products and services used by the Government are to be provided by private suppliers or by the Government itself. It is issued pursuant to the President's memorandum of March 3, 1966, to the heads of departments and agencies. 2. Polic!y1. The guidelines in this Circular are in furtherance of the * Government's general policy of relying on the private enterprise system to supply its needs. In some instances, however, it is in the national interest for the Government to provide directly the products and services it uses. These circumstances are set forth in paragraph 5 of this Circular. No executive agency will initiate a "new start" or continue the operation of an existing "Government commercial or industrial activity" except as specifically required by law or as provided in this Circular. 3. DefiAt~t~P.~.. For purposes of this Circular: a. A'~ew star.~ is a newly established Government commercial or industrial activity or a reactivation, expansion, modernization or replacemant of such an activity involving additional capital investment of $25,000 or more or additional annual costs of production of $50,000 * or more. Consolidation of two or more activities without increasing the overall total amount of products or services provided is not a "new start." b. A Government commercialor indu rial activi~ is one which is operated and managed by an executive agency and which provides for the Government's own use a product or service that is obtainable from a private source. . c. A private commer~q so~~ is a private business concern which provides a commercial or industrial product or service required by (No. A-76) PAGENO="0172" 168 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 agencies and which is located in the United States, its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 4. ~ This Circular is applicable to commercial and industrial products and services used by executive agencies, except that it a. Will not be used as authority to enter into contracts if such authority does not otherwise exist nor will it be used to justify departure from any law or regulation, including regulations of the Civil Service Commission or other appropriate authority, nor will it be used for the purpose of avoiding established salary or personnel limitations. b. Does not alter the existing requirement that executive agencies will perform for themselves those basic functions of management which they must perfotm in order to retain essential control over the conduct of their programs. These functions include selection and direction of Government employees, assignment of organizational responsibilities, planning of programs, establishment of performance goals and priorities, and evaluation of performance. c. Does not apply to professional staff and managerial advisory services such as those normally provided by an office of general counsel, a management and organization staff, or a systems analysis unit. Advisory assistance in areas such as these may be provided either by Government staff organizations or from private sources as deemed appropriate by executive agencies. d. Does not apply to products or services which are provided to the public. (But an executive agency which provides a product or service to the public should apply the provisions of. this Circular with respect to any commercial or industrial products or services which it uses.) e. Does not apply to products or services obtained from other Federal agencies which are authorized or required by law to furnish them. f. Should not be applied when its application would be inconsistent with the terms of any treaty or international agreement. 5. Circumstances under which the Gove~ent,may~ pr2vide ~ commercial or industrial product or service for itson~q~ A Government commercial or industrial activity may be authorized only under one or more of the following conditions: a. Procurement of a product or ~ervice from a commercial source would disrnpt ormateriall~ delay an an~~y's program. The fact that a commercial or industrial activity is classified or is related to an agency's basic program is not an adequate reason for starting or continuing a Government activity, but a Government agency may provide a product or (No. A~76) PAGENO="0173" NATIONAL VISITOR CHNTER ACT OF 1967 169 service for its own use if a review conducted and documented as provided in paragraph 7 establishes that reliance upon a commercial source will disrupt or materially delay the successful accomplishment of its program. b. It Is ~ fq~r~ the Government tocondu~t~~ a co~c~i~L9! indutrQ~V~f2~ pqp~p~. comba~p jp~, inçLvj~.~~an~. it ret~a ~ ~o g~~ip ~L~-~-1~ mobilization readinQ~. c. Astsfa~cto! y me~ ala ~ ~~jae ~ Agencies' efforta to find satisfactory commercial sources should be supplemented as appropriate by obtaining assistance from the General Services and Small Business Administrations or the Business and Defense ServiCes Administration. Urgency of a requirement is not an adequate reason for starting or continuing a Government commercial or industrial activity unless there is evidence that commercial sources are not able and the Government is able to provide a product or service when needed. d. Tj~ c~d~ p e~e Is available from ~ ipderala . Excess property available from other Federal agencies should be used in preference to new procurement as provided by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, and related regulations. Property which has not been reported excess also may be provided by other Federal agencies and unused plant and production capacity of other agencies nay be utilized. In such instances, the agency supplying a product or service to another agency is responsible for compliance with this Circular. The fact that a product or service is being provided to another agency does not by itself justify a Government commercial or industrial activity. ~ ~ may be authorized if a comparative cost analysis prepared as provided in this Circular indicates that the Government can provide or is providing a product or service at a Cost lower than if the product or service were obtained from commercial sources. However, disadvantages of starting or continuing Government activities must be carefully weighed. Government ownership and operation of facilities usually involve removal or withholding of property from tax rolls, reduction of revenues from income and other taxes, and diversion of management attention from the Government's primary program objectives. Losses also may occur due to such factors as obsolescence of plant and equipment and unanticipated reductions in the Government's requirements for a product or service. Government conintercial activities should not be started or continued for reasons involving comparative costs unless savings are sufficient to justify the assumption of these and similar risks and uncertainties. (No. A-76) 85-894 0 - 67 - 12 PAGENO="0174" .170 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 6. Cost comparisons. A decision to rely upon a Government activity for reasons involving relative Costs must be supported by a comparative cost analysis which will disclose as accurately as possible the difference between the Costs which the Government is incurring or will incur under each alternative. Commercial sources should be relied upon without incurring the delay and expense of conducting cost comparison studies for products or services estimated to cost the Government less than $50,000 per year. However, if there is reason to believe that inadequate competition or other factors are causing commercial prices to be unreasonable, a cost comparison study will be directed by the agency head or by his designee even if it is estimated that the Government will spend less than $50,000 per year for the product or service. A Government activity should not be authorized on the basis of such a comparison study, however, unless reasonable efforts to obtain satisfactory prices from existing commercial sources or to develop other commercial sources are unsuccessful. Cost comparison studies also should be made before deciding to rely upon a commercial source when terms of contracts will cause the Govern- ment to finance directly or indirectly more than $50,000 for costs of facilities and equipment to be constructed to Government specifications. a. Costs of obtaining products or services from commercial sources should inciwde amounts paid directly to suppliers, transportation charges, and expenses of prepat~ing bid invitations, evaluating bids, and negotiating, awarding, and managing contracts. Costs of materials furnished by the Government to contractors, appropriate charges for Government owned equipS. ment and facilities used by contractors and costs due to incentive or premium provisions in contracts also should be included. If discontinuance of a Government commercial or industrial activity will cause a facility being retained by the Government for mobilization or other reasons to be placed in a standby status, the costs of preparing and maintaining the facility as standby also should be included. Costs of obtaining products or services from commercial sources should be documented and organized for comparison with costs of obtaining the product or service from a Government activity. b. Costs of obtajnjn roducts or services from Government activities should include all costs which would be incurred if a product or service were provided by the Government and which would not be incurred if the product or service were obtained from a commercial source. Under this general principle, the following costs should be included, considering the Circumstances of each case: (1) Personal services and benefits. Include costs of all elements of Compensation and allowances for both military and civilian personnel, including costs of retirement for uniformed personnel, contribu- tions to civilian retirement funds, (or for Social Security taxes where (No. A-76) PAGENO="0175" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 171 applicable), employees insurance, health, and medical plans, (including services available from Government military or civilian medical facilities), living allowances, uniforms, leave, termination and separation allowances, travel and moving expenses, and claims paid through the Bureau of Employees' Compensation. (2) Mat rials snpii~ and utilit jes services. Include costs of supplies and materials used in providing a product or service and costs of transportation, storage, handling, custody, and protection of property, and costs of electric power, gas, water, and communications services. (3) Maintenance and ~ Include costs of maintaining and repairing structures and equipment which are used in providing a product or service. (4) Damage or loss of ert~y. Include costs of uninsured losses due to fire or other hazard, costs of insurance premiums and costs of settling loss and damage claims. (5) Federal taxes. Include income and other Federal tax revenues (except Social Security taxes) received from corporations or other busi~ ness entities (but not from individual stockholders) if a product or service is obtained through commercial channels, Estimates of corporate incomes for these purposes should be based upon the earnings experience of the industry, if available, but if such data are not available, ~ ~uarterly Financial R~pore of Manufacturir~g Corporations, published by the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission may be consulted. Assistance of the appropriate Government regulatory agencies may be obtained in estimating taxes for regulated industries. (6) Depreciation. Compute depreciation as a cost for any new or additional facilities or equipment which will be required if a Government activity is started or continued. Depreciation will not be allocated for facilities and equipment acquired by the Government before the cost comparison study is started. However, if reliance upon a commercial source will cause Government owned equipment or facilities to become available for other Federal use or for disposal as surplus, the cost comparison analysis should include as a cost of the Government activity, an appropriate amount based upon the estimated current market value of such ec~uipment or facilities. The Internal Revenue Service publication, D~preciation; Guidelines and Rules may be used in computing depreciation. However, rates contained in this publication are maximums to be used only for reference purposes and only when more specific depreciation data are not available. Accelerated depreciation rates permitted in some instances by the Internal Revenue Service will not be used. (7) Interes~. Compute interest for any new or additional capital to be invested based upon the current rate for long~~'term Treasury (No. A-.76) PAGENO="0176" 172 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 obligations for capital items having a useful life of 15 years or more and upon the average rote of return on Treasury obligations for items having a useful life of loss than 15 years. Yield rates reported in the current issue of the ~ Bulletin will be used in these computations regardless of any rates of interest which may be used by the agency for other purposes. (8) i~~reg~costs. Include any additional indirect costs incurred by the agency resulting from a Government.activity for such activities as management and supervision, budgeting, accounting, personnel, legal and other applicable services, 7. ~ the ~1icy. a. ~~ntor. Each agency will compile and maintain an inventory of its commercial or industrial activities having an annual output of products or services costing $50,000 or more or a capital investment of $25,000 or more. In addition to such general descriptive information as may be appropriate, the inventory should include for each activity the amount of the Government's capital investment, the amount paid annually for the products or services involved, and the basis upon which the activity is being continued under the provisions of this Circular. The general descriptive information needed for identifying each activity should be included in the inventory by June 30, 1966. Other information needed to complete the inventory should be added as reviews required in paragraphs 7b and c are completed. b. arts.' (1) A "new start" should not be initiated until possibilities of obtaining the product or service from commercial sources have been explored and not until it is approved by the agency head or by an assistant secretary or official of equivalent rank on the basis of factual justification for establishing the activity under the provisions of this Circular. (2) If statutory authority and funds for construction are required before a new start can be initiated, the actions to be taken under this Circular should be completed before the agency's budget request is submitted to the Bureau of the Budget. Instructions concerning data to be submitted in support of such budget requests will be included in annual revisions of Bureau of the Budget Circular No. A-ll. (3) A new start' should not be proposed for reasons involving comparative costs unless savings are sufficient to outweigh uncertainties and risks of unanticipated losses involved in Covernment activities. The amount of savings required as justificafion for a "new start' will vary depending on individual circumstances. Substantial savings should be required as justification if a large new or additional (No. A-76) PAGENO="0177" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1067 173 capital investment is involved or if there are possibilities of early obsolescence or uncertainties regarding maintenance and production costs, prices and future Government requirements. Justification may be based on smaller anticipated savings if little or no capital investment is involved, if chances for obsolescence are minimal, and if reliable information is available concerning production costs, commercial prices and ~vernment requirements. Wh~e no precise standard is prescribed in v ~aw of these varying circumstances a `new start' ordinarily' should mat be approved unless costs of a Government activity will be at least 10 percent less than costs of obtainimg the product or service from commercial sources. A decision reject a proposed "new start" for comparative cost reasons should be reconsidered if actual bids or proposals indicate that c~.a~ercial prices will be higher than were estimated in the cost comparison study. (4) When a "new start" begins to operate it should be included in an agency's inventory of commercial and industrial activities. c. Existing Government activitjg~. (1) A systematic review of existing commercial or industrial activities (including previously approved "new starts" which have been in operation for at least 18 months) should be maintained in each agency under the direction of the agency head or the person designated by him as provided in paragraph 8. The agency head or his designee may exempt designated activities if he decides that such reviews are not warranted in specific instances. Activities not so exempted should be reviewed at least once before June 30, 1968. More frequent reviews of selected. activities should be scheduled as deemed advisable. Activities remaining in the inventory after June 30, 1968, should be scheduled for at. least one additional follow-up review during each three-year period but this requirement nay be waived by the agency head or his designee if he concludes that such further review is not warranted. / (2) Reviews should be organized in such a manner as to ascertain whethex' continued operation of Government commercial activities is in accordance with the provisions of th±s Circular. Reviews should include information concerning availability from commercial sources of products or services involved and feasibility of using commercial sources in lieu of existing Government activities. (3) An activity should be continued for reasons of comparative costs only ±f a comparative cost analysis indi~ates that savings resulting from cont±nuation of the activity are at least sufficient to outweigh the disadvantages of Government commercial and industrial activities. No specific standard or guideline is prescribed for deciding whether savings (No. A-76) PAGENO="0178" 174 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 are sufficient to Justify continuation of an existing Government commercial activity and each activity should be evat~.iaLed on the ba~i6 of the applicable circumstances. (4) A report of each review should be prepared. A decision to continue an activity should be approved by an assistant secretary or official of equivalent rank and the basis for the decision should appear in the inventory record for the aátivity. Activities not so approved should be discontinued. Reasonable adjustments in the timing of such actions may be made, however, in order to alleviate economic dislocations and personal hardships to affected career personnel. 8. Implementation, Each agency is responsible for making the provisions of this Circular effective by issuing appropriate implementing instructions and by providing adequate management support and procedures for review and follow-up to assure that the instructions are placed in effect. If overall responsibility for these actions is delegated by the agency head, it should be assigned to a senior official reporting directly to the agency head. If legislation is needed in order to carry out the purposes of this. Circular, ~encies should prepare necessary legislative proposals for review in accordancewith~ Bureau of the Budget Circular No. A-l9. 9. Ejfective_date. This Circular is effective on March 31, 1966. CHARLES L. SCHULTZE Director (No. A-76) PAGENO="0179" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 175 Public Law 757 - 84th Congress Chapter 669 Zd Session S. 3073 AN ACT All 70 Stat. 598. To grant a franchise to I). C. Transit System, Inc., and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and Thiuee of Repreeentatives of the United State8 of America in Congree8 (2e8embled, 0. C* ?i'5~fl5it System, Ins. TITLE I PART 1.-FRANCHISE PRovisioNs SECTION 1, (a) There is hereby granted to D. C. Transit System, Inc., a cor?oration of the District of Columbia (referred to in this part as the `Corporation") a franchise to operate a mass transportation system of passengers for hire within the District of Columbia and between the District of Columbia and points within the area (referred to in this part as the "Washington Metropolitan Area") comprising all of the District of Columbia, the cities of Alexandria and Falls Church, and the counties of Arlington and Fairfax in the Common- wealth of Virginia and the counties of Montgomery and Prince Georges in the State of Maryland, subject, however, to the rights to render service within the Washington Metropolitan Area possessed, at the time this section takes effect, by other common carriers of passengers: Provided7 That nothing in this section shall be construed to exempt the Corporation from any law or ordinance of the Commonwealth of Virginia or the State of Maryland or any political subdivision of such Commonwealth or State, or of any rule, regulation, or order issued under the authority of any such law or ordinance, or from applicable provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act and rules and regulations ~ prescribed thereunder. (b) Wherever reference is made in this part to "D. C. Transit Defini~iOni. System, Inc." or tc the "Corporation", such refererce shall include the successors and assigns of D. C. Transit System, Inc. (c) As used in this part the term "franchise" means all the pro- visions of this part 1. Sxc. 2. (a) This franchise is granted for a term of twenty years: Tens. Provided, however, That Congress reserves the right to repeal this franchise at any time for its non-use. (b) In the event of cancellation of this franchise by Congress after seven years from the date this franchise takes effect fbi' any reason other than non-use, the Corporation waives its claim for any damages for loss of franehise. Sxc. 3. No competitive street railway or bus line, that is, bus or P~~C oerttti railway line for the transportation of passengers of the character sate for corn- which runs over a given route on a fixed schedure, shall be established petitive line. to operate in the T~istrict of Columbia without the prior issuance of a certificate by the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia (referred to in this part as the "Commission") to the effect that the competitive line is necessary for the convenience of the public. Ssc. 4. It is hereby declared as a matter of legi~intive policy that in Le5ielati%'e order to assure the Washington Metropolitan Area 0 an adequate p~~toy. transportation system operating as a private enterprise the Corpora- tion, in accor(btIlCe with staii(lar(lS and rules prescribed by the Coin- mission, should be afforded the opportunity of earning such return as to make the Corporation an attractive investment to private investors. As an incident thereto the Congress finds that the opportunity to earn a return of at least 61/2 per centum net after all taxes properly charge- able to transportation operations, including but not limited to income PAGENO="0180" 176 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Pub. Law 757 All 70 Stat. 599, taxes, on either the system rate base or on gross operating revenues would not. he unreasonable, and that, I he ( omnlissioli should encourage and facilitate the. shifting to such gross operating revenue base as promptly as possible and as conditions warrant; and if conditions war- rant, not later than August. 15, 1958. It is further declared as a matter of legislative policy that. if the Corporation does provide the Wash- ington Metropolitan Area with a good public transportation system, with reasonable rates, the Congress will maintain a continuing interest in the welfar~of the Corporation and its investors. Rates. SEC. 5. The initial schedule of rates which shall be effective within the District of Colunihia upon commencement of operations by the Corporation shall be the same as that effective for service by Capital Transit Company approved by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia pursuant to the Act of August 14, 1955 (Public Law No. :389, 84th Congress; 69 Stat. 724), in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall continue in effect until August 15, 1957, and there- after until superseded by a schedule of rates which becomes effective under this section. `Whenever on or after August 15, 1957, the Cor- poration files with the Commission a new schedule of rates, such new schedule shall become effective on the tenth day after the dat, of such filing, unless the Commission prescribes a lesser time within which such new schedule shall go into effect, or unless prior to such tenth day the Commission suspends the operation of such new schedule. Such ass- pension shall be for a period of not to exceed one hundred twenty days from the date such new schedule is filed. If the Commission sus- pends such new schedule it shall immediately give notice of a hearing upon the matter and, after such hearing and within such suspension period, shall determine and by order fix the schedule of rates to be charged by the Corporation. If the Commission does not enter an order, to take effect at or prior to the ~nd of the period of suspension, fixing the schedule of rates to be charged by the Corporation, the sus- pended schedule filed by the Corporation may be put into effect by the end of such period, and shall remain in effect until the Commission has issued an appropriate order based on such proceeding. Charter and Sac. 6. The ~0rP0ratiOn is hereby authorized and empowered to eightseeing engage in special charter or sightseeing services subject to compliance servioes. with applicable laws, rules and regulations of the District of Columbia and of the municipalities or political subdivisions of the States in which such service is to be performed, and with applicable provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act and rules and regulations prescribed thereunder. Conversion to SEC. 7. The Corporation shall be obligated to initiate and carry out bus operation, a plan of gradual conversion of its street railway operations to bus operations within seven years from the date of the enactment of this Act upon terms and conditions prescribed by the Commission, with such regard as is reasonably possible when appropriate to the highway development plans of the District of Columbia and the economies implicit in coordinating the Corporation's track removal program with suc'h plans; except that upon good and sufficient cause shown the Commission may in its discretion extend beyond seven years, the period Traok removal, for carrying out such conversion. All of the provisions of the full paragraph of the District of Columbia Appropriation Act, 1942 (55 Stat. 499, 533), under the title "HIGHWAY FUND, GASOLINE TAX AND MOTOR VEHICLE FEES" subtitle "STREET IMPROVEMENTS", relating to the removal of abandone4l tracks, regrading of track areas, and paving abandoned track areas, shall be applicable to the Corporation. Taxes, SEC. 8. (a) As of August 15, 1956, paragraph numbered 5 of section 6 of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations toprovide for the expenses of the Government of the District of Columbia for the fiscal PAGENO="0181" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1067 177 Pub. Law P757 All 70 Stat.800. year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and three, and for other purposes", approved July 1, 1902, as amended (P. C. Code, sec. 47-1701), is amended by striking out the third and fourth sentences 68 Stat. 118. and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "Each gas, electric-lighting, and telephone company shall pay, in addition to the taxes herein men- tioned, the franchise tax im;)OSed by the District of Columbia Income and Franchise Tax Act of 1947, and the tax imposed upon stock in 61 Sta~. 328. trade of dealers in general merchandise under paragraph numbered ~ C~ ode 47~ 2 of section 6 of said Act approved July 1 1902, as amended." D. C. 6ode 47.. (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of th~5 section, the Corporation ~ shall be exempt from the following taxes: (1) The gross sales tax levied under the District of Columbia Sales 63 stat. 112. Tax Act; o. c. Code 47- (2) The compensating use tax levied under the District of Columbia 2601 to 47.. Use Tax Act; 2629. (3) The excise tax upon the issuance of titles to motor vehicles and 63 Stat. 124. trailers levied under subsection (j) of section 6 of the I)istrict of ~ Columbia Traffic Act of l9'25, as amended (D. C. Code, sec. 40-603 (J) 63 Stat. 128. (4~ The taxes imposed on tangible personal property, to the same extent that the Capital Transit Company was exempt from such taxes immediately prior to the effective date of this section under the pro- visions of the Act of July 1, 1902, as amended; and (5) The mileage tax imposed by subparagraph (b) of paragraph 31 of section 7 of the Act approved July 1, 1902, as amended (11 C. ~ Stat. 555; Code, sec. 47-2331 (b)). 68 Stat. 119. Suc. 9. (a) Except as hereinafter provided, the Corporation shall liotor vehiole not, with respect to motor fuel purchased on or after September ~, ~ tax. 1956, pay any part of the motor vehicle fuel tax levied under the Act entitled "An Act to provide for a tax on motor vehicle fuels sold within the District of Columbia, and for other purposes", approved 43 ~ 106. April 23, 1924, as amended (D. C. Code, title 47, chapter 19). D. C. Code 47- (b) For the purposes of this section- 1901 to 47-1919. (1) the term "a 6½ per centum rate of return" means a 61/9 DefiattiOfle. per centum rate of return net after all taxes properly chargeable to transportation operations, including but not limited to income taxes, on the system rate base of the Corporation, except that with respect to any period for which the Commission utilizes the oper- ating ratio method to fix the rates of the Corporation, such term shall mean a return of 61/? per centum net after all taxes properly chargeable to transportation operations, including but~not limited to income taxes, based on gross operating revenues; and (2) the term "full amount of the Federal income taxes and the District of Columbia franchise tax levied upon corporate income" means the amount which would have been payable in the absence of write-offs in connection with the retirement of street railway property as contemplated by section 7 of this part, but only to the extent that such write-offs are not included as an operating expense in determining net earnings for rate.making purposes. (c) As soon as practicable after the twelve-month period ending on DetemiflattOn of August 31, 1957, and as soon as practicable after the end of each sub- L~-~ by operatiag sequent twelve-month period ending on August 31, the Commission i~to. shall determine the Corporation's net operating income for such twelve-month period and the amount in dollars by which it exceeds or is less than a 6½ per centum rate of return for such twelve-month period. In such determination the Commission shall include as an operating expense the full amount of the motor vehicle fuel tax which would be due but for the provisions of this section on the motor fuel purchased by the Corporation during the twelve-month period, and PAGENO="0182" 178 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 196 7~ Pub. Law 757 All 70 Stat. 601. the full amount of the Federal income taxes and the District of Columbia franchise tax levied upon corporate income. The Commis- sion shall certify its determination to the Commissioners of the Dis- trict of Columbia or their designated agent. If the net operating income so certified by the Commission equals or is more than a 6½ per centum rate of return, the Corporation shall be required to pay to such Commissioners, or their designated agent, the full amount of the motor vehicle fuel taxes due on the purchases of motor fuel made by the Corporation during such twelve-month period. If the net operat- ing income so certified is less than a 61/~ per centum rate of return, the Corporation shall pay to such Commissioners, or their designated agent, in full satisfaction of the motor vehicle fuel tax for such period an amount, if any, equal to the full amount of said motor vehicle fuel taX reduced by the amouht necessary to raise the Corporation's rate of return to 6½ per centum for such period, after taking into account the effect of such reduction on the amount of the Federal income taxes and the District of Columbia franchise tax levied upon corporate in- come payable by the Corporation for such period. Within thirty days after being notified by the said Commissioners or their desig- nated agent of the amount of the motor vehicle fuel tax due under this section, the Corporation shall pay such amount to the said Com- missioners or their designated agent. Cofleotion. * (d) If not paid within the period specified in subsection (c), the Penalties. motOr vehicle fuel tax payable under this section and the penalties thereon may be collected by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia or their designated agent in the manner provided by law for the collection of taxes due the District of Columbia on pe~-sonal property in force at the time of such collection; and liens for the motor vehicle fuel tax payable under subsection (e) and penalties thereon may be acquired in the same manner that liens for personal property taxes are acquired. Interest. (e) Where the amount of the motor vehicle fuel tax payable under subsection (c), or any part of such amount, is not paid on or before the time specified therein for such payment, there shall be collected, as part of the tax, interest upon such unpaid amount at the rate of one-half of 1 per centum per month or portion of a month. Exemption (f) The Commissioners of the District of Columbia or their desig- oertifioates. nated agent are hereby authorized and directed to issue to the Corpora- tion such certificates as may be necessary to exempt it from paying any importer the motor vehicle fuel tax imposed by such Act of April 23, 43 Stat. 106. 1924, as amended, or as hereafter amended. ~ (g) (1) From and after ~he time fixed in paragraph (2) of this sub- 1919 section the Corporation shall not be required to pay real estate taxes Real estate upon any real estate owned by it in the District of Columbia and used taxes, and useful for the conduct of its public transportation operations to the extent that the Commission has determin~d under such rules and regulations as it may issue that the Corporation's net operating ii~ome in the previous year was insufficient, after giving effect to the tax relief provided in the preceding subsections, to Xfford it a 61/2 per centum rate of return. Efteottve (2) This ~bsection shall take effect upon the completion of theyro- date, (~ram contempliited in section 7 of thiS part, as certified by the Com- mission to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, or at such earlier time as the Commission may find that the said program has been so substantially completed that the taking effect of this subsec- tion woul(l be appropriate in the public interest and shall so certify to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. Snow removal, Ss~. 10. (a) The Corporation shall not be charged any part of the eta, expense of removing, sanding, salting, treating, or handling snow on PAGENO="0183" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 179 Pub. Law 757 All 70 Stat. 602. the streets of the T)istrict of Columbht, exce))t that the Corpolation shall SWCCI) snow from the streetcar tracks at its own expelise.so long as such tracks are in use by the Corporation. (b) Thç paragraph which begins "Hereafter every street railway company" which appears under the heading "STREETS" in the Act entitled "An Act makin'~ appropriations to provide for the expenses of the government of the District of Columbia for the fIscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and thirteen, and for other purposes", approved June 26, 1912 (D. C.. Code, sec. 7-614), is hereby renealed. ~zc. U. The provisions of law set forth in Title 43, sections 501 Merger or through 503 of the District of Columbia code shall not be deemed to oomoht~tto~ restrict any merger or consolidation of the Corporation with any other company or companies en~aged in mass transportation in the District of Columbia or the Washington Metropolitan Area: Provided, how- ever, That any such merger or consolidation shall be subject to the approval of the Commission. Sac. 12. Nothing in this part shall prevent the transfer, by or under 5\iture transfer the authority of any other Act. of Congress, to any other agency of to another any of the functions which are by this part granted to or Impose(l ~ano~ upon the Commission. Sac. 13. (a) The Corporation is hereby authorized to issue or create Seourittee. loans, mortgages, ciceds of trust7 notes or other securities to any bank- ing or other institution or institutions and to Capital Transit Com- pany, with respect to the acquisition of assets of Capital Transit Company (including any corporation controlled by Capital Transit Company), provided that the interest rate thereon shall not exceed 5 Intei'est rate. per centum per annum~ but the aggregate principal shal.l not exceed the cost of acquiring the assets of Capital Transit Company. (b) (1) Section 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act shall. not be 54 Stat. 905. construed to require the approval or authorization of the Interstate 49 USC 5. Commerce Commission of any transaction within the scope of. para- graph (2) of such section 5 if the only parties to such transaction are the Corporation (including any corporation wholly controlled by the Corporation) and the Capital Transit Company (including any corporation wholly controlled by the Capital Transit Company). The issuance or creation of any securities provided for in subsection (a) shall not be subject to the provisions of section 20a of the Interstate 41 Stat. 494. Commerce Act. 49 USC 20a. (2) No approval of the acquisition of assets referred to in subsec- tion (a), or of the issuance or creation of any securities provided for in subsection (a) in connection with such acquisition, sl~all be required from any District of Columbia agencyor commission. (c) This section shall not apply to any issuance of securities con- stituting a public offering to which the Securities Act of 1933 applies. 48 Stat. 74. (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 409 (a) of the Civil ~ ~~t77~~2 Aeronautics Act of .1938- . . . 49 USC (1) no air carrier shall be required (because of the fact that Offtoers and a person becomes or remains an officer, director, member or stock- direotore. holder holding a controlling interest of the Corporation, or of any common carrier controlled by the Corporation which is engaged in mass transportation of passengers for hire in the Washington Metropolitan Area, or is elected or . reelected as an officer or director) to secure the authorization or approval of the Civil Aeronautics Board in order to have and retain such person as an officer or director, or both, of such air carrier if such person is an officer or director of such air carrier at the time this section takes effect; and . PAGENO="0184" 180 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Pub. Law 757 All 70 Stat. 603. -~ (2) no person who, at the time this section takes effect, is au officer or director of an air carrier shall be required to secure the approval of the Civil Aeronautics Board in' order to hold the position of officer, director~ member or stockholder holding a controlling interest of the Corporation or of any common carrier controlled by the Corporation which is engaged in mass trans- portation of passengers for hire in the Washington Metropolitan Area. `Air earner". As used in this subsection, the term "air carrier" has the same meaning 49 U5C 489. as when used in section 409 (a) of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. (e) Notwitbotanding section 20a (12) of the Interstate Commerce 41 Stat. 496. Act, authorization or approval of the Interstate Commerce Corn- 49 USC 20a. mission shall not be required in order to oermit a person who is an officer or director of the Corporation to be a~lso an officer or director, or both, of any common carrier controlled by the Corporation which is engaged in mass transportation of passengers for hire in the Washing. ton Metropolitan Area. Capital Traneit Szc. 14. The Corporation, at the time it acquires the assets of Capital Company, l1a~. Transit Company, shall becoujie subject to, and responsible for, all bilities. liabilities of Capital Transit Company of whatever kind or nature, known or unknown, in existence at the time of such acquisition, and shall submit to suit therefor as though it had been originally liable, and the creditors of Capital Transit Company shall have as to the Corporation all rights and remedies which they would otherwise have had as to Capital Transit Company: Provided, however, That the Corporation shall not be liable to any dissenting stockholder of Capital Transit Company for the fair value of the stock of any such stock- holder who shall qualify to be entitted to receive payment of such fair value. No action or proceeding in law or in equity, or before any Federal or District of Columbia agency or commission, shall abate in consequence of the provisions of this section, but such action or pro- ceeding may be continued in the name of the party by or against which it was begun, except that in the discretion of the court, agency, or com- mission the Corporation may be substituted for the Capital Transit Company. In any and all such actions or proceedings, the Corporation shall have, and be entitled to assert, any and all defenses of every kind and nature which are ~r would be available to Capital Transit Company or which Capital Transit Company would be entitled to assert. PART 2.-MIsCEU~ANEoU5 PROVISIONS SEC. 21. (a) Section 14 of the joint resolution entitled "Joint resolu- tion to authorize the merger of street-railway corporations operating in the District of Columbia and for other purposes", approved Janu- ary 14, 1933 (47 Stat. 752~, as amended (Public Law 389, Eighty- 69 Stat. 724.. fourth Congress), is hereby repealed to the extent that such section repeals the charter of Capital Transit Company, without thereby affecting the termination of its franchise. (b) Upon the taking effect of part 1 of this title, Capital Transit Company shall not be authorized to engage in business as owner or operator of electric railway, passenger motor bus, public transporta- tion of passengers, or common carrier of passengers within, to, or from, the Washington Metropolitan Area PAGENO="0185" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 181 Pub. Law 757 (c) Capital Tiaiisit CoIn~5iny shall coiit,iniie to exist as a corporation incorl)orate(I under the provisions of subchapter 4 of chapter 18 of the Act entitled "An Act to estabhsh a code of laws for the J)istrict of Columbia", approved March 3, 1901, as amended (D. C. Code, title 29, 31 Stat. 1284. cli, 2), under its~certificate of incorporation, as amended, and Capital Transit Company may amend its charter in any manner provided under the laws of the District of Columbia and may avail itself of the provi- 70 Stat. 6O~, sions of the I)istrict of Columbia Business Corp~i~tions Act in reSl)eCt 70 Stat. 604. to a change of its name and may become incorporated or reincorporated thereunder in any manner as therein provided. Nothing referred to in this title, or the sale and vesting of the assets ~f Capital Transit Company, referred to therein, shall cause or require the corporate dissolution of Capital Transit Company. Sac. 22. Nothing in this title shall be (leelned to extend the franchise of Capital Transit Company beyond August 14, 1956, or, except as otherwise provided in this section, to relieve Capital Transit Company of any obligation to remove from the streets and highways at its own expense all of its property and facilities and to restore the streets and highways in accordance with the provisions of the 1)istrict of Columbia Appropriation Act, 1942 (55 Stat. 499, 533) in the event the Corpora- tion fails to acquire the assets of Capital Transit Company. If part I of this title takes effect, Capital Transit Company shall thereupon be relieved of all liability to remove from the streets and highways of the District of Columbia all of its properties and facilities and to restore such streets and highways. Sac. 23. The powers and jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Corn- mission of the District of Columbia with respect to Capital Transit Company shall cease and be at an end upon the taking effect of part 1 of this title. TITLE II Sac. 201. (a) Part 1 of title I shall take effect on August 15, 1956, Efteottve but only if prior thereto D. C. Transit System, Inc. (referred to in dateø. this title as the "Corporation") has acquired the assets of Capital Transit Company and has notified the Commissioners of the District of Columbia in writing that it will engage in the transportation of passengers within the District of Columbia beginning on August 15, 1956. If the Corporation has not acquired the assets of Capital Transit Compan~r prior to August 15, 1956, but does thereafter acquite such assets, the Corporation shall, on the date of such acquisition, give written notice thereof to the Commissioners, and part 1 of title I shall take effect upon such date of acquisition. (b) Part 2 of title I, and this title, shall take effect upon the date of the enactment of this Act. Sac 202. If it is determined by-the Commissioners of the District of Columbia that, due to any act or omission on the part of the Cor- ppration, the Corporation has not acquired the assets of Capital I ransit Company and if such Commissioners approve a valid contract ratified and approved by the required number of stockholders o~ Capital Transit Company, between Capital Transit Company and some other corporation providing for the acquisition of such assets and if such other corporation is also approved by such Commissioners as capable of performing the operation contemplated by the franchise provisions of part 1 of title I, then the terms `ID. C. Transit System, Inc." and "Corporation" as used in this Act shall be deemed to mean such other corporation for all purposes ot this Act. PAGENO="0186" 182 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Pub. Law 757 All 70 Stat. 604. Temporary Szci. 203. If part I of title I of this Act does not take effect on August transit system. 15, 1956, the Coznmissioi.ers.of the District of Columbia may authorize (including authorization of such contractual agreements as may be necessary) such mass transportation of passengers within the District of columbia, beginning on and after August 15, 1953, and until such date as part 1 of title I of this Act takes effect, as may be necessary for the convenience of the public. Such transportation shall be furnished to the public at such rates and under such terms and re~u- lations as may be recommended by the Public Utilities Commissioi1 and approved by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. Approved July 24, 1956. GPO 71139 PAGENO="0187" ~U~i~" ~tati~ &uxrt Lif FOR THE DISTRicT OP~ COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 20,975 I SeptemI~er Term, 1967 Washington Metropolitan Area TraAsit Civi3. 793.67 Commission, Appellant, H H Universal Interpretive Shuttle CorP., u~it~ States COurt of Ap~ea1s Appellee. tue District ~ :~luisba CircUit No.20,976 :1 Washington Sightseeing Tours, Inc., ~ Appellant, FILLII U Universal Interpretive Shuttli~CorpOr~iOfl, No. 20,977 Blue Lines, IflCq, and White House :~ Sightseeing Cor~ration, Appellant, ! i Universal Interpretive Shuttle Corp.,! Appellee. H No. 20,976 D.C. Transit Syatem, Inc., Appellant, v. Unbrersal Interpretive Shuttle Corp. * Appellee. * Before: Bazelon, Chief Judge; e~n8. D~nâher, * Burger, Wright, McGowan, Ta4mn~ Leventhal and Eobinsoti~ Circt4t * Judges, in Chambers. On consideration of appellee' s petition for r~iear~ng~ ~ and of the responsive pleadings filed with respect therpto, ~n& there not being a majority of the circuit judges of this circuit ih~ fayor~ of a rehearing of the above-entitled cases by the court ~ ~ ~he~ petition for rehearing ~ ~ is hereby denied. FortheCourt: H. Actin~ Chief Judge. Circuit Judges Wright and. Robinson ~rQuld grant Bppellee' ~ aforesaid petit ion. Circuit Judge Leventhal did not partieipate in the foregoing order. NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 183 PAGENO="0188" 184 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact PAGENO="0189" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 185 Public Law 86-794 86th Congress, H. J. Res. 402 September 1~, 1960 JOINT RESOLUTION Granting the consent and approval of Congress for the States of Virginia and Maryland and the District of Columbia to enter into a compact related to the regulation of mass transit in the Washington, District of Columbia metropolitan area, and for other purposes. Whereas the regulation of mass transit service in the metro- politan area of Washington, District of Columbia, is divided among the public utility regulatory agencies of the States of Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia and the Interstate Commerce Commission; and Whereas such divided regulatory responsibility is not coii- ducive to the development of an adequate system of mass transit for the entire metropolitan area, which is in fact a single integrated, urban community; and Whereas the Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland and the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia in 1954 created a Joint Commission to study, among other things, whether joint action by Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia is necessary or desirable in connection with the regulation of passenger carrier facil- ities operating in such areas and the provision of ade- quate, non~discriminatory and uniform service therein; and Whereas said Joint Commission has actively participated in the mass transit study authorized by the Congress (Public Law 24 and Public Law 573, Eighty-fourth Con- gress), and in furtherance thereof said Joint Commission has negotiated the Washingtqn Metropolitan Area Traii- sit Regulation Compact, set forth in full below, providing for the establishment of a single organization as the com- mon agency of the signatories to regulate transit and alleviate traffic congestion, which compact has been en- 85-894 0 - 67 - 13 PAGENO="0190" 186 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 acted by Virginia (ch. 627, 1958 Act of Assembly) and in substantially the same language by Maryland (ch. 613, Acts of General Assembly 1959); and Whereas said compact adequately protects the national in- terest in mass transit service in the metropolitan area of the Nation's Capital and properly accommodates the National and State interests in and obligations toward mass transit in the metropolitan aj'ea: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the consent and approval of Congress is hereby given to the States of Virginia and Maryland and to the District of Columbia to enter into a compact, substantially as follows, for the regulation and improvement of mass transit in~the Washington metropolitan area, which compact, known as the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact, has been negotiated by representatives of the States and the District of Columbia and has been adopted by the State of Virginia (ch. 627, 1958 Acts of General Assembly), and in substance by the State of Maryland: "The States of Maryland and Virginia and the District of Columbia, hereinafter referred to as signatories, do hereby covenant and agree as follows: PAGENO="0191" NATIONAL VISITOE CENTEE ACT OF 1967 187 CONSENT LEGISLATION SEC. 2. The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are authorized and directed to enter into and execute on behalf of the United States for the District of Columbia a compact substantially as set forth above with the States of Virginia and Maryland and are further authorized and directed to carry out and effectuate the terms and provi- sions of said compact, and there are hereby authorized to be appropriated such funds as are necessary to carry out the obligations of the District of Columbia in accordance with the terms of the said compact: Provided, That the said Commissioners shall not adopt any amendment to the said compact for the District of Columbia under the provi sions of section 1 of article IX of the Compact unless the said amendment has had the consent or approval of the Congress. SEC. 3. That, upon the effective date of the compact and so long thereafter as the compact remains effective, the applicabilityof the laws of the United States, and the rules, regulations, and orders promulgated thereunder, relating to or affecting transportation under the compact and to the persons engaged therein, including those provisions ~f section 6(e) of the District of Columbia Traffic Act, 1925, as amended by the Act approved February 27, 1931 (46 Stat. 1426; Sec. 40-603(e), D.C. Code, 1951 edition), relating to the powers of the Public Utilities .Commission of the Dis- trict of Columbia and the joint Board created under such section, is suspended, except as otherwise specified in the compact, to the extent that such laws, rules, regulations, and orders are inconsistent with or in duplication of the provisions of the compact: Provided, That upon the termi- nation of the compact, the suspension of suck laws, rules, regulations, and orders, if not theretofore repealed, shall terminate and such laws, rules, regulations, and orders shall thereupon again become applicable and legally effec- tive without further legislative or administrative .action: Provided further, That nothing in this Act or in the com- pact shall effect the normal and ordinary police powers of PAGENO="0192" 188 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 the signatories and of the political subdivisions thereof and of the 1)irector of the ?~ational Park Service with respect to the regulation of vehicles, control of traffic and use of streets, highways, and other' vehicular facilities: Provided further, That nothing in this Act or iii the compact con- sented to and approved hereby shall impair or affect the rights, duties, and obligations created by the Act of July 24, 1956 (ch. 669, 70 Stat. 598), granting a franchise to D.C. Traiisit System, Inc.: Provided further, That the term "public interest" as used in section 12(b) of article XII, title 11 of tile Compact shall be deemed to include, among other things, the interest of the carrier employees affected: And provided further, That nothing herein shall be deem~d to render inapplicable any laws of the United States provid- ing benefits for the employees of any carrier subject to this compact or relating to the wages, hours, and working conditions of employees of any carrier, or to collective bar- gaining between the carriers of said employees, or to the rights to self-organization, including, but not limited to, the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended. Notwith- standing any provision of this section to the contrary, the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of the Dis- trict of Columbia and of the Interstate Commerce Commis- sion over all carriers and persons subject to the provisions of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact are hereby transferred, as and to the extent pro- vided therein, to the Washington Metropolitan Area Tran- sit Commission. SEc. 4. The consent and approval of Congress set forth in in the first section of this Act is given on the express condition that sections 4(d) (3) and 12(d) of article XII of such Compact shall not he used to break a lawful strike by the employees of any carrier authorized to provide serv- iée pursuant ~to such Compact. SEC. 5. Th~~ consent of Congress is granted upon ~the condition that, within three years from the date of this enactment, se~tj~o~x 1(a) (4) of article XII of the Compact be amended as'set-fo4h below, and, in the event the Compact PAGENO="0193" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 189 is not so amended within such specified time, the suspen- sion of the applicability of the laws of the United States, and the rules, regulations or orders promulgated there- under shall terminate with respect to the transportation specified below and any carrier whose only transportation over a regular route within the Metropolitan District is such transportation shall not be deemed a carrier subject to the Compact: "(4) transportation performed in the course of an operation over a regular route between a point in the Metropolitan District and a point outside the Metro- politan District, including transportation between points on such regular route within the Metropolitan District, if authorized by certificate of public conveni- ence and necessity or permit issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission, as to interstate and foreign commerce, and any carrier whose only transportation within the Metropolitan District is within this exemp- tion shall not be deemed to be a carrier subject to the Compact." SEC. 6. Jurisdiction is hereby conferred (1) upon the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, respectively, to review orders of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission as provided by section 17, article XII, title II, of the Wash- ington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact, and (2) upon the United States district courts to enforce the provisions of said title II as provided in section 18, article XII, title II, of said Compact. SEC. 7. (a) The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. (b) The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Com- mission shall submit to Congress copies of all periodic re- ports made by that Commission to the Governors, the Corn- missioners of the District of Columbia and/or the Legisla- tures of the compacting States. PAGENO="0194" 190 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 (c) The Congress or any committee thereof shall have the right to require the disclosure and furnishing of such information by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission as is deemed appropriate by the Congress or aiiy of its committees. Further, Congress or any of its com~ mittees shall have access to all books, records and papers of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission as well as the right of inspection of any facility use, owned, leased, regulated or under the control of said Commission: Approved September 15, 1960. PAGENO="0195" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 191 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT REGULATION COMPACT As Amended WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia (Cli. 627, 1958 Acts of Assembly), the State of Maryland (Ch. 613, Acts of General Assembly, 1959), and the Commissioners of the District of Columbia (Resolution of the Board of Com- missioners December 22, 1960) have heretofore on December 22, 1960, entered into and executed the Washington Metro- politan Area Transit Regulation Compact; and WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States has, by joint resolution approved October 9, 1962 (Public Law 87-767; 76 Stat. 764) given its consent to the State of Mary- land and the Commonwealth of Virginia to effectuate cci'- taiii clarifying amendments to said Compact as set forth in such joint resolution approved October 9, 1962, and has authorized and directed the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to effectuate said amendments on behalf of the United States for the I)istrict of Columbia; and WHEREAS, The Commonwealth of Virginia (Cli. 67, 1962 Acts of Assembly), the State of Maryland (Ch. 114, Acts of General Assembly, 1962), and the Commissioners of the District of Columbia (Resolution of the Board Commissioners adopted on March 19, 1963) have adopted said clarifying amendments to said Compact: NOW, THEREFORE, the States of Maryland and Vir- ginia and the District of Columbia, hereinafter referred to as signatories, do hereby covenant and agree as follows: TITLE I General Compact Provisions ARTICLE I There is hereby created the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit District, hereinafter referred to as Metro- politan District, which shall embrace the District of Colum- bia, the cities of Alexandria and Falls Church, the counties of Arlington and Fairfax, and political subdivisions of the State of Virginia located within those counties and that portion of Loudoun County, Virginia, occupied by the 1)uhles PAGENO="0196" 192 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 International Airport and the counties of Montgomery and Prince Georges, in the State of ~1aryland and political sub- divisions of the State of Maryland located within said coun- ties, and all other cities now or hereafter existing in Mary- land or Virginia within the geographic area bounded by the outer boundaries of the combined area of said counties, cities and airport. ARTICLE II The signatories hereby create the "Washington Metropoli- tan Area Transit Commission", hereinafter called the Com- mission, which shall be an instrumentality of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Maryland, and shall have the powers and duties set forth in this compact and such additional powers and duties as may be conferred upon it by subsequent action of the signatories. The Commission shall have juri~iiction coextensive with the Metropolitan District for the regulation and improvement of transit and the alleviation of traffic congestion within the Metropolitan District on a coordinated basis, without regard to political boundaries within the Metropolitan District, as set forth herein. ARTICLE III 1. The Commission shall be composed of three members, one member each to be appointed by the Governors of Virginia and Maryland and by the Board of Commissioners of the Dis- trict of Columbia, from that agency of each signatory having jurisdiction over the regulation of mass transit within each such jurisdiction. The member so appointed shall serve for a term coincident with the term of that member on such agency of the signatory and any Commissioner may be removed or suspended from office as provided by the law of the signatory from which he shall be appointed. Vacancies shall be filled for an unexpired term in. the same manner as an original appointment. 2. No person in the employment of or holding any official relation to any person or company subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission or having any interest of any nature in PAGENO="0197" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 193 any such person or con~pany or affiliate or associate thereof, shall be eligible to hold the office of Commissioner or to serve as an employee of the Commission or to have any power or duty or to receive any compensation in relation thereto. 3. The Commission shall select a chairman from its mem- bership annually. Such chairman is vested with the responsi- bility for the discharge of the Commission's work and to that end he is empowered with all usual powers to discharge his duties. 4. Each signatory hereto may pay the Commissioner there. from such salary or expenses, if any, as it deems appropriate. 5. The Commission may employ such engineering, technical, legal, clerical, and other personnel on a regular, part-time, or consulting basis as in its judgment may be necessary for the discharge of its functions. The Commission shall not be bound by any statute or regulation of any signatory in the employment or discharge of any officer or employee of the Commission, except as such may be contained in this compact. 6. The Commission shall, establish its office for the conduct of its affairs at a location to be determined by the Commis- sion within the Metropolitan District and shall publish rules and regulations governing the conduct of its operations. ARTICLE IV 1. The expenses of the Commission shall be borne by the signatories in the manner hereinafter set forth. The Com- mission shall submit to the Governor of Virginia, the Gov- ernor of Maryland and the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, at such time or times as shall be re- quested, a budget of its requirements for such period as may be rpquired by the laws of the signatories for presentation to the legislature thereof. The expenses of the Commission shall be ~l1ocated among the signatories in the propOrtion that the population of each signatory within the Metropolitan District bears to the total population of the Metropolitan District. The allocation shall be made by the Commission and approved by the Governors of the two states and the Board of Commis- sioners of the District of Columbia, and shall be based on the latest available population statistics of the Bureau of the Census; provided, however, that if current population data are not available, the Commission may, upon the request of PAGENO="0198" 194 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 any signatory, employ estimates of population prepared in a manner approved by the Commission and by the signatory making such request. 2. The signatories agree to appropriate for the expenses of the Commission their proper proportion of the budget deter- mined in the manner set forth herein and to pay such ap- propriation to the Commission. There shall not be included in the budget of the Commission or in the appropriations therefor any sums for the payment of salaries or expenses of the Commissioners or members of the Traffic and Highway Board created by Article V of this Title I and payments to such persons, if any, shall be within the discretion of each signatory. The provisions of § 2-27 of the Code of Virginia shall not apply to any official or employee of the Common- wealth of Virginia acting or performing services under this Act. 3. The expenses allocable to a signatory shall be reduced in an amount to be determined by the Commission if a signatory, upon request of the Commission, makes available personnel, services or material to the Commission which the Commis- sion would otherwise have to employ or purchase. If such services in kind are rendered, the Commission shall return to such signatory an amount equivalent to the savings to the Commission represented by the contribution in kind. 4. The Commission shall keep accurate books of account,. showing in full its receipts and disbursements, and said books of account shall be open at any reasonable time for inspection by such representatives of the respective signatories as may be duly constituted for that purpose. ARTICLE V 1. There is hereby created,. in addition to the Commission, a Traffic and Highway Board, hereinafter referred to as Board. This Board shall be composed of the Chairman of the Commission created by Article II, who shall be chairman of this Board, and the heads of the traffic and highway depart- ments of each of the signatories and of the counties aüd citIes encompassed within the Metropolitan District, a represent- PAGENO="0199" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 195 ative of the National Capital Planning Commission, a repre- sentative of the National Capital Regional Planning Council, and a representative of each local and regional planning com- mission within the District. The representatives of the various planning commissions shall be designated by each such com- mission. The official in charge of the traffic and highway department of each of the signatories may appoint a member of his staff to serve in his stead with full voting powers. 2. The Board shall make recommendations to the Comrnis- sion with respect to traffic engineering, including the selection and use of streets for transit routing, th°e requirements for transit service throughout the Metropblitan District, and re- lated matters. The Board shall also consider problems referred to it by the Commission and shall continuously study means and methods of shortening transit travel time, formulate plans with respect thereto, and keep the Compact Commission fully advised of its plans and conclusions. 3. The Board shall serve the Commission, solely in an ad- visory capacity. * The Commission shall not direct or compel the Board or its members to take any particular action with respect to effectuating changes in traffic engineering and re- lated matters, but the members of the Board in their capacity as officials of local government agencies shall use their best efforts to effectuate the recommendations and objectives of the Commission. 4. The members of the Board shall serve with or without additional compensation, as determined by their respective signatorieS~ ARTICLE VI No action by the Commission shall be of effect unless a majority of the members concur therein; provided, t.hat any order entered by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of Title II hereof, relating to or which affect operations or matters solely intrastate or solely within the District of Co- lumbia, shall not be effective unless the Commissioner' from the signatory affected concurs therein. `Two members of the COmmission shall constitute a quorum. PAGENO="0200" 196 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 ARTICLE VII Nothing herein shall be construed to amend, alter, or in any wise affect the power of the signatories and the political sub- divisions thereof to levy and collect taxes on the property or income of any person or company subject to this Act or upon any material, equipment or supplies purchased by such person or companies or to levy, assess and collect franchise or other similar taxes, or fees for the licensing of vehicles and the operation thereof. `ARTICLE VIII This compact shall be adopted by the signatories in the manner provided by law therefor. This compact shall become effective ninety (90) days after its adoption by the signa- tories and consent thereto by the Congress of the United States, including the enactment by the Congress of such legis- lation, if any, as it may deem necessary to grant this Com- mission jurisdiction over transportation in the District of Columbia and between the signatories and over the persons engaged therein, to. suspend the applicability of the Inter- state Commerce Act, the laws of the District of Columbia, and any other laws of the United States, to the persons, corn-S panies and activities which are subject to this Act, to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with, or in duplication of, the jurisdiction of the Commission or any provision of this Act, or any rule, regulation or order lav~fully prescribed or issued under this Act, and to make effective the enforce- ment and review provisions of this Act. ARTICLE IX 1. This compact may be amended from time to time without the prior consent or approval of the Congress and any such amendment shall be effective unless, within one year thereof, the Congress disapproves such an amendment. No amendment shall be effective unless adopted by each of the signatories hereto. PAGENO="0201" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 197 2. Any signatory may withdraw from the compact upon one year's written notice to that effect to the other signatories. In the event of a withdrawal of one of the signatories from the compact, the compact shall be terminated. 3. Upon the termination of this compact, the jurisdiction over the matters and persons covered by this Act shall revert to the signatories and the Federal Government, as their in~ terests may appear, and the applicable laws of the signatories and the Federal Government shall be reactivated without further legislation. ARTICLE X Each of the signatories pledges to each of the other signa. tory parties faithful cooperation in the solution and control of transit and traffic problems within the Metropolitan Dis~. trict and, in order to effect such purposes, agrees to enact any necessary legislation to achieve the objectives of the com~ pact to the mutual benefit of the citizens living within said Metropolitan District and for the advancement of the inter- ésts of the signatories hereto. ARTICLE XI 1. If any part or provision of this compact or the applica. tion thereof to any person or circumstances be adjudged in~ valid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part, provision or application directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of this compact or the application thereof to other persons or circumstances and the signatories hereby declare that they would have entered into this compact or the remainder thereof had the invalidity of such provision or application thereof been apparent. 2. In accordance with the ordinary rules for construction of interstate compacts, this compact shall be liberally con- strued to eliminate the evils described therein and to effectuate the purposes thereof. PAGENO="0202" 198 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 ARTICLE Xli Transportation Covered 1. (a) This Act shall apply to the transportation for hire by any carrier of persons between any points in the Metro- politan District and to the persons engaged in rendering or performing such transportation service, except- (1) transportation by water; (2) transportation by the Federal Oovernment, the sig- viatones hereto, or any political subdivision thereof; (3) transportation by motor vehicles employed solely in transporting school children and teachers to or from public or private schools; (4) transportation performed in the course of an opera- tion over a regular route, between a point in the Metropoli- tan District and a point outside the Metropolitan District, including transportation between points on such regular route within the Metropolitan District as to interstate and foreign commerce, if authorized by certificate of public con- venience and necessity or permit issued by the Interstale Commerce Commission, and any carrier whose only traiis- poi'tation within the Metropolitan 1)istrict is within this exemption shall not be deemed to be a carrier subject to the Compact; provided, however, if the primary function of a carrier's entire operations is the furnishing of mass transportation service within the `Washington Metropolitan Area Transit District, then such operations in the Metro- politan District shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission; (5) transportation performed by a common carrier rail- road subject to Part I of the Interstate `Commerce Act, as amended. (b) The provisions of this Title II shall not apply to transportation as specified in this section solely within the Coinrnoiiwealthi of Virginia and to the activities of persons engaged in such transportation, nor shall any provision of this Title II be construed to infringe the exercise of any power or the discharge of any duties conferred or imposed upon the State Corporation Commission of the Common- wealth of Virginia by the Virginia Constitution. PAGENO="0203" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 199 (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of~, paragraph (a) of this section, this Act shall apply to taxicabs and other Ve- hicles used iii performing bona fide taxicab service having a seating capacity of eight passengers or less in addition to the driver thereof with respect only to (i) tile rate or charges for transportation from one signatory to another within the confines of the Metropolitan 1)istrict, and (ii) requirements for minimum insurance cove rage. Definitions 2. As used in this Act- (a) The term "carrier" means any person who engages in the transportation of passengers for hire by motor vehicle, street railroad, or other form or means of conveyance. (b) The term "motor vehicle" means any automobile, bus, or other vehicle propelled or drawn by mechanical or electrical* power on the public streets or highways of the Metropolitan District and used for the transportation of passengers. (c) The term "street railways" means any streetcar, bus, or other similar vehicle propelled or drawn by electrical or mechanical power on rails and used for transportation of passengers. (d) The term "taxicab" means any motor vehicle for hires (other than a vehicle operated, with the approval of the Com- mission, between fixed termini on regular schedules) designed to carry eight persons or less~ not including the driver, used for the purpose of accepting or soliciting passengers for hire in transportation subject to this Act, along the public streets and highways, as the passengers may direct. (e) The term "person" means any individual, firm, copart- nership, corporation, company, association or joint stock asso- ciation; and includes any trustee, receiver, assignee, or per- sonal representative thereof. General Duties of Carriers 3. It shall be the duty of every carrier to furnish transpor- tation subject to this Act as authorized by its certificate and to establish reasonable through routes with other carriers; to provide safe and adequate service, equipment, and facilities in connection with such transportation; to establish, observe, and enforce just and reasonable individual and joint fares, and just and reasonable1 regulations and practices relating PAGENO="0204" 200 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 thereto; and, in case of joint fares, to establish just, reason- able, and equitable divisions thereof as between the carriers participating therein which shall not unduly prefer or prej- udice any of such carriers. Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity; Routes and Services. 4. (a) No person shall engage in transporta~tion subject to this Act unless there is in force a certificate of public con- venience and necessity issued by the Commission authorizing such person to engage in such transportation; provided, how- ever, that if any person was bona fide engaged in transporta- tion subject to this Act on the effective date of this Act, the Commission shall issue such certificate without requiring fur- ther proof that public convenience and necessity will be served by such operation, and without further proceedings, if appli- cation for such certificate is made to the Commission within 90 days after the effective date of this Act. Pending the de- termination of any such application, the continuance of such operation shall be lawful. (b) When an application is made under this section for a certificate, except with respect to a service being rendered upon the effective date of this Act, the Commission shall issue a certificate to any qualified applicant therefor, authorizing the whole or any part of the transportation covered by the applica- tion, if it finds, after hearing held upon reasonable notice, that the applicant is fit, willing and able to perform such transpor- tation properly and to conform to the provisions of this Act and the rules, regulations, and requirements of the Commis- sion thereunder, and that such transportation is or will be required by the public convenience and necessity; otherwise such application shall be denied. The Commission shall act upon applications under this subsection as speedily as possible. The Commission shall have the power to attach to the issuance of a certificate and to the exercise of the rights granted there- under such reasonable terms and conditions as the public con- venience and necessity may require; provided, however, that no terms, conditions, or limitations shall restrict the right of the carrier to add to his or it~ equipment and facilities over the PAGENO="0205" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 201 routes, between the termini, or within the territory specified in the certificate, as the development of the business and the demands of the public shall require. (c) Application for a certificate under this section shall be made in writing to the Commission and shall be so verified, shall be in such form, and shall contain such information, as the Commission by regulations shall require. The Commission shall prescribe such reasonable requirements as to notices, publication, proof of service, and information as in its judg- ment may be necessary. (d) (1) Any certificate issued by the Commission shall specify the service to be rendered and the routes over which, the fixed termini, if any, between which, and the intermediate and off-route points, if any, at which, and in case of operations not over specified routes or between fixed termini, the territory within which, the carrier is authorized to operate. (2) A certificate for the transportation of passengers may include authority to transport in the same vehicle with the passengers, newspapers, baggage of passengers, express, or mail, or to transport baggage of passengers in a separate vehicle. (3) To enable the provision of service for which there is an immediate and urgent need to a point or points or within a territory having no carrier service capable of meeting such need, the Commission may, in its discretion and without hear- ings or other proceedings, grant temporary authority for such service. Such temporary authority unless suspended or re- voked for good cause; shall be valid for such time as the Com- mission shall specify, but for not more than an aggregate of 180 days and create no presumption that corresponding per~ manent authority will be granted thereafter. (e) The Commission may, if it finds that the public con- venience and necessity so require, require any person subject to this Act to extend any existing service or provide any add'i- tional service over additional routes within the Metropolitan District; provided, however, that no certificate shall be issued to operate over the routes of any holder of a certificate until it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Commission, after hearing, upon reasonable notice, that the service rendered by 85-894 0 - 67 - 14 PAGENO="0206" 202 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 such certificate holder, over such route, is inadequate to the requirements of the public necessity and convenience; and pro- vided, further, if the Commission shall be of opinion that the service rendered by such certificate holder over such route is in any respect inadequate to the requirements of the public neces- sity and convenience, such certificate holder shall be given reasonable time and opportunity to remedy such inadequacy before any certificate shall be granted to operate over such route; and further provided that no person subject to this Act may be required to extend any existing service or provide any additional service over additional routes within the Metropoli- tan District unless the carrier is currently earning a reason- able return on its operation as a whole in performing transpor- tation subject to this Act. (f) The Commission may ref~r to the Traffic and Highway Board created under Title I hereof any service proposed under an application for a certificate. The Board shall as speedily as possible give the Commission its recommendations with re- spect to the proposed service, but such recommendations shall be advisory only. (g) Certificates shall be effective from date specified therein and shall remain in effect until suspended or terminated as herein provided. Any such certificate, may, upon application of the holder thereof, in the discretion of the Commission, be amended or revoked, in whole or in part, or may, upon com- plaint, or on the Commission's own initiative, after notice and hearing, be suspended, changed, or revoked, in whole or in part, for wilful failure to comply with any lawful order, rule, or regulation of the Commission, or with any term, condition, or limitation of such certificate; provided, however, that no certificate shall be revoked (except upon application of the holder) unless the holder thereof wilfully fails to comply, within a reasonable time, not less than 30 days, to be fixed by the Commission, with a lawful order of the Commission com- manding obedience to the rules or regulations or orders of the Commission, or to the terms, conditions, or limitations of such certIficate found by the Commission to have been violated by such holder. No certificate shall be issued to an applicant pro- posing to operate over the routes of any holder of a certificate PAGENO="0207" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 203 unless and until it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Commission, after hearing upon reasonable notice, that the service rendered by such certificate holder, over such route, is inadequate to the requirements of the public convenience and necessity; and provided, further, if the Commission shall be of the opinion that the service rendered by such certificate hOlder over such route is in any respect inadequate to the require- ments of the public convenience and necessity, such certificate holder shall be given reasonable time and opportunity to rem- edy such inadequacy before any certificate shall be granted to an applicant proposing to operate over such route. (h) No certificate under this section may be transferred unless such transfer is approved by the Commission as being consistent with the public interest. (i) No carrier shall abandon any route specified in a cer- tificate issued to such carrier under this section, unless such carrier is authorized to do so by an order issued by the Com- mission. The Commission shall issue such order, if upon appli- cation by such carrier, and after notiëe and opportunity for hearing, it finds that the abandonment of such route is con- sistent with the public interest. The Commission, by regula- tions or otherwise, may authorize such temporary suspensions of routes as may be consistent with the public interest. The fact that a carrier is operating a route or furnishing a service at a loss shall not, of itself, determine the question of whether abandonment of the route or service over the route is consist- ent with the public interest as long as the carrier earns a reasonable return. Schedule of Fares, Regulations, and Practices. 5. (a) Each carrier shall file wi~h the Commission, and print, and keep open to public inspection, tariffs showing (1) all fares it charges for transportation subject to this Act, in- cluding any joint fares established for through routes over which it performs transportation subject to this Act in con- junction with another carrier, and (2) to the extent required by regulations of the Commission, the regulations and prac- tices of such carrier affecting such fares. Such tariffs shall be filed, posted, and published in such form and manner, and shall PAGENO="0208" 204 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 contain such information, as the Commission by regulation shall prescribe. The Commission may reject any tariff so filed which is not consistent with this section and such regulations. Any tariff so rejected shall be void. (b) Each carrier which, immediately prior to the effective date of this section, was engaged in transportation specified in section 1 (a) of this Title II, shall file a tariff in compliance with paragraph (a) of this Section 5 withip ninety (90) days after such date. The fares shown in such tariff shall be the fares which such carrier was authorized to charge, immedi- ately prior to such date, under the law under which it was then regulated, and the regulations and practices affecting such fares which shall be shown in such tariff shall be such of the regulations and practices, then in effect under such law, as the Commission shall by regulations require. Such tariff shall be- come effective upon filing. Pending the filing of such tariff, the fares which such carrier was authorized to charge immediately prior to the effective date of this Act under the law under which it was then regulated, and the regulations and practices relating to such fares, shall be the lawful fares and practices and regulations. (c) Every carrier shall keep currently on file with the Com- mission, if the Commission so requires, the established divi- sions of all joint fares for transportation subject to this Act in which such carrier participates. (d) No carrier shall charge, for any transportation subject to this Act, any fare other than the applicable fare specified in a tariff filed by it under this section and in effect at the time. During the period before a tariff filed by it under this section has become effective, no carrier referred to in subsection (b) shall charge, for any transportation~ subject to this Act, any fare other than the fare which it was authorized to charge for such transportation immediately prior to the effective date of this section, under the law under which it was then regulated. (e) Any carrier which desires to change any fare specified in a tariff filed by it under this section, or any regulation or practice specified in any such tariff affecting such a fare, shall file a tariff in compliance with this section, showing the change proposed to be made and shall give notice to the public of the PAGENO="0209" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 205 proposed change by posting and filing such tariff in such man- ner as the Commission may by rule, regulation or order pro- vide. Each tariff filed under this subsection shall state a date on which the new tariff shall take effect, and such date shall be at least thirty (30) days after the date on which the tariff is filed, unless the Commission by order authorizes its taking ~ffect on an earlier date. Power to Prescribe Fares, Regulo~tions, and Practices 6. (a) (1) The Commission, upon complaint or upon its own initiative, may suspend any fare, regulation, or practice shown in a tariff filed with it under Section 5 (except a tariff to which Section 5 (b) applies), at any time before such fare, regulation, or practice would otherwise take effect. Such sus- pension shall be accomplished by filing with the tariff, and delivering to the carrier or carriers affected thereby, a notifi- cation in writing of such suspension. In determining whether any proposed change shall be suspended, the Commission shall give consideration to, among other things, the financial condi- tion of the carrier, its revenue requirements, and whether the carrier is being operated economically and efficiently. The period of suspension shall terminate ninety (90) days after the date on which the fare, regulation, or practice involved would otherwise go into effect, unless the Commission extends such period as provided in paragraph (2). (2) If, after hearing held upon reasonable notice, the Com- mission finds that any fare, regulation or practice relating thereto, so suspended is unjust, unreasonable, or unduly pref- erential or unduly discriminatory either between riders or sections of the Metropolitan District, it shall issue an order prescribing the lawful fare, regulation, or practice to be in effect. The fare, regulation, or practice so prescribed shall take effect on the date specified in such order. If such an order has *not been issued within the ninety (90) day suspension period provided for in paragraph (1), the Commission may from time to time extend such period, but in any event the suspen- sion period shall terminate, no later than one hundred and twenty (120) days after the date the fare, regulation or prac- tice involved was suspended. If no such order is issued within PAGENO="0210" 206 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 the suspension period (including any extension thereof), the fare, regulation or practice involved shall take effect at the termination of such period. (3) In the exercise of its power to prescribe just and rea- sonable fares and regulations and practices relating thereto, the Commission shall give due consideration, among other fac- tors, to the inherent advantages of transportation by such carriers; to the effect of rates upon the movement of traffic by the carrier or carriers for which the rates are prescribed; to the need, in the public interest, of adequate and efficient trans- portation service by such carriers at the lowest cost consistent with the furnishing of such service; and to the need of rev- enues sufficient to enable such carriers, under honest, economi- cal, and efficient management, to provide such service. (4) It is hereby declared as a matter of legislative policy that in order to assure the Washington Metropolitan District of an adequate transportation system operating as private en- terprises the carriers therein, in accordance with standards and rules prescribed by the Commission, should be afforded the opportunity of earning such return as to make the carriers attractive investments to private investors. As an incident thereto, the opportunity to earn a return of at least 61/2 per centum net after all taxes properly chargeable to transporta- tion operations, including but not limited to income taxes, on gross operating revenues, shall not be considered unreasonable. (b) Whenever, upon complaint, or upon its own initiative, and after hearing, held upon reasonable notice, the Commission finds that any individual or joint fare in effect for transporta- tion subject to this Act, or any regulation or practice affecting such fare, is unjust, unreasonable `or unduly preferential or unduly discriminatory, the Commission shall issue an order prescribing the lawful fare, regulation, or practice thereafter to be in effect. Through Routes, Joint Fares 7. (a) In order to encourage and provide adequate transit service on a Metropolitan District-wide basis, any carrier may establish through routes and joi'nt fares with any other carrier subject to this Act or the jurisdiction of the Interstate Corn- PAGENO="0211" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 207 merce Commission, the State Corporation Commission of the Commonwealth of Virginia, or the Public Service Commission of the State of Maryland. (b) Whenever required by the public convenience and necessity, the Commission, upon complaint or upon its own initiative, and after hearing held upon reasonable notice, may establish through routes and joint fares for transportation. subject to this Act, and the regulations or practices affecting such fares, and the terms and conditions under which such through routes shall be operated. (c) Whenever, upon complaint or upon its own initiative, and after hearing upon reasonable notice, the Commission is of the opinion that the divisions of any joint fare for transporta~ tion subject to this Act are or will be unjust, unreasonable, in- equitable, or unduly preferential or prejudicial as between the participating carriers, the Commission shall prescribe the just, reasonable and equitable divisions thereof to be received by the participating carriers. The Commission may require the ad- justment of divisions between such carriers from the date of filing the complaint or entry of the* order of investigation, or such other date subsequent thereto as the Commission finds to be just, reasonable and equitable. Taxicab Fares 8. The Commission shall have the duty and the power to prescribe reasonable rates for transportation by taxicab only between, a point in the jurisdiction of one signatory party and a point in the jurisdiction of another signatory party provided both points are within the Metropolitan District. The fare or charge for such transportation may be calculated on a mileage basis, a zone basis, or on any other basis approved by the Com- mission; provided, however, that the Commissidn shall not require the installation of a taximeter in any taxicab when such a device is not permitted or required by the jurisdiction licensing and otherwise regulating the operation and service of such taxicab. Security for the Protection of the Public 9. (a) No certificate of public convenience and necessity shall be issued under Section 4, and no certificate issued under PAGENO="0212" 208 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 such section shall remain in force, unless the person applying for or holding such certificate complies with such reasonable regulations as the Commission shall prescribe governing the filing and approval of surety bonds, policies of insurance, qual- ifications as a self-insurer or other securities or agreements, in such reasonable amount as the Commission may require, condi- tioned to pay, within the amount of such surety bonds, policies of insurance, qualifications as a self-insurer or other securities or agreements, any final judgment recovered against such carrier for bodily injuries to or the death of any person, or for loss or damage to property of others, resulting from the cpera- tion, maintenance, or use of motor vehicles, street cars, or other equipment or facilities utilized in furnishing transporta- tion subject to this Act. (b) No taxicab shall be permitted to transport passengers between a point in the jurisdiction of a signatory to a point in the jurisdiction of another signatory within the Metropolitan District unless the taxicab and the person or persons licensed by any signatory to own and/or operate such taxicab shall comply with such reasonable regulations as the Commission shall prescribe governing the filing and approval of surety bonds, policies of insurance, qualifications as a self-insurer, or other securities or agreements, in such reasonable amount as the Commission may require, conditioned to pay within the1 amount of such surety bonds, policies of insurance, qualifica- tions as a self-insurer or other securities or agreements, any final judgment recovered against such taxicab for bodily in- juries to or the death of any person, or for loss or damage to property of others, resulting from the operation, maintenance or use of taxicabs utiliied in furnishing transportation subject to this Act. Accounts, Records and Reports; Depreciation 10. (a) The Commission may require annual or other peri- odic reports, and special reports, from any carrier; prescribe the manner and form in which such reports shall be made; and require from any such carrier specific answers to all questions upon which the Commi~sion deems information to be neces- PAGENO="0213" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 209 sary. Such reports shall be under oath whenever the Com- mission so requires. (b) Each carrier subject to the Commission shall keep such accounts, records, and memoranda with respect to activities in which it is engaged (whether or not such activities constitute transportation subject to this Act), including accounts, rec- ords, and memoranda of the movement of traffic, as well as of the receipts and expenditures of money, as the Commission by regulation prescribes. The Commission shall by regulation prescribe the form of such accounts, records, and memoranda, and the length of time that they shall be preserved. (c) The Commission shall prescribe regulations requiring carriers to maintain appropriate accounting reserves against depreciation. The Commission may prescribe the classes of property for which depreciation charges may properly be in- eluded under operating expenses and the rate of depreciation which shall be charged with respect to each of such classes of property, and may classify the carriers as it may deem proper for this purpose. The Commission may, when it deems neces- sary, modify the classes and rates so prescribed. Carriers shall not charge to operating expenses any depreciation charges on classes of property other than those prescribed by the Commis- sion, or charge with respect to any class of property a rate of depreciation other than that prescribed therefor by the Com- mission, and no carrier shall include under operating expenses any depreciation charge other than as prescribed by the Commission. (d) At all times the Commission and each of its members shall have access to all lands, buildings, and equipment of all carriers, and to all accounts, records, and memoranda kept by such carriers. When~ authorized by the Commission to do so, any employee of the Commission may inspect any such land, buildings, equipment, accounts, records, and memoranda. This section shall apply, to the extent found by the Commission to be reasonably necessary for the administration of this Act, to any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with, any carrier. (e) Any carrier which operates both inside and outside of the Metropolitan District and which has its principal office out- PAGENO="0214" 210 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 side of the Metropolitan District, may keep all of its accounts, records, and memoranda at such principal office but shall pro- duce such accounts, records, and memoranda before the Com- mission whenever the Commission shall so direct. (f) Nothing in this section shall relieve any carrier from the obligations imposed upon it with respect to the matters covered in this section by any State or Federal regulatory com- mission in connection with transportation service rendered outside the Metropolitan District. Issuance of Securities 11. (a) As used in this section the term "securities" means stocks; stock certificates; or bonds, mortgages, other evidences of indebtedness payable in more than one year from date of issuance, except obligations covered by conditional sales con- tracts, or any guaranty of or assumption of liability on any of the foregoing. (b) Subject to subsection (g) of this section, no carrier subject to this Act shall issue any securities, or directly or indirectly receive any money, property, or services in payment of securities issued or to be issued by it, until the Commission, by order, shall have approved the issuance of such securities. (c) Upon application made to it by any such carrier for approval of the issuance of securities, the Commission, after affording reasonable opportunity for hearing to interested parties, shall by order approve or disapprove the issuance of such securities. The Commission shall give its approval if it finds that the proposed issuance of securities is not contrary to the public interest. (d) Any such order of the Commission approving the issu- ance of securities shall specify the puxposes for which the pro- ceeds from the sale or other disposition thereof are to be used and the terms and conditions under which such securities shall be issued and disposed of. It shall be unlawful for the appli- cant to apply such proceeds, or to issue or dispose of such securities, in any manner other than as specified by the Com- mission in its order. (e) Any securities issued in violation of this section shall be void. PAGENO="0215" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 211 (f) Nothing in this Act shall impair any authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Public Service Commis. sion of Maryland, or the State Corporation Commission of Virginia to regulate the issuance of securities by any carrier which does not operate exclusively in the Metropolitan Dis- trict, or relieve any carrier from the obligations imposed by the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Act of May 27, 1933, C. 38 Title I, 48 Stat. 74, as amended), or from the obligations imposed by any Blue Sky or similar laws of the signatories. (g) The Commission may by regulation, order or otherwise, to the extent deemed by it to be consistent with the public interest, exempt from the operation of this section any carrier which. does not operate exclusively in such area and which, before issuing securities, must obtain the approval of the In- terstate Commerce Commission, the Public Service Commission of Maryland, or the State Corporation Commission of Virginia. Consolidations, Mergers, and Acquisition of Control 12. (a) It shall be unlawful, without approval of the Com- mission in accordance with this section-- (1) for two or more carriers, any one of which operates in the Metropolitan District, to consolidate or merge their prop- erties or franchises, or any part thereof, into one person for the ownership, management, or operation of properties there- tofore under separate ownership, management, or operation; or (2) for any carrier which operates in the Metropolitan District or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, such a carrier (i) to purchase, lease, or contract to operate the properties, or any substantial part thereof, of any carrier which operates in such Me.tropolitan District, or (ii) to acquire control, through ownership of its stock or otherwise, of any carrier which operates in such Metropolitan District. (b) Any person seeking approval of any transaction to which subsection (a) applies shall make application to the Commission in accordance with such regulations as the Com- mission shall prescribe. If, after hearing held upon reasOnable notice, the Commission finds that, subject to such terms, con- PAGENO="0216" 212 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 ditions, and modifications as it shall find to be necessary, the proposed transaction is consistent with the public interest, it shall enter an appropriate order approving and authorizing such transaction as so Conditioned. (c) It shall be unlawful to continue to maintain or exercise any ownership, management, operation or control accomplished or effectuated in violation of subsection (a) of this section. (d) Pending the determination of an application filed with the Commission for approval of a consolidation or merger of the properties of two or more carriers, or of a purchase, lease, or contract to operate the properties of one or more carriers, the Commission may, in its discretion, and without hearings or other proceedings, grant temporary approval, for a period not exceeding 180 days of the operation of the carrier properties sought to be acquired by the person proposing in such pending application to acquire such properties, if it shall appear that failure to grant such temporary approval may result in de- struction of or injury to such carrier properties sought to be acquired, or to interfere substantially with their future useful- ness in the performance of adequate and continuous service to the public. CompkLints and Investigations by the Commission 13. (a) Any person may file with the Commission a com- plaint in writing with respect to anything done or omitted to be done by any person in contravention of any provision of this Act, or of any requirement established pursuant thereto. If the person complained against shall not satisfy the èomplajnt and there shall appear to be any reasonable grounds for an investigation, the Commission shall investigate the matters complained of. Whenever the Commission is of the Opinion that any complaint does not state facts which warrant action on its part, it may dismiss the complaint without hearing. At least ten (10) days before the date it sets a time and place for a hearing on a complaint, the Commission shall notify the person complained of that the complaint has been made. (b) The Commission may investigate any facts, conditions, practices, or matters which it may find necessary or proper in order to determine whether any person has violated or is about PAGENO="0217" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 213 tO violateany provision of this Act or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder, or to aid in the enforcement of the provi- ~sions of this Act or in prescribing rules or regulations there- under, or in obtaining information to serve as a basis for recommending further legislation. The Commission shall have the same power to proceed with any investigation instituted on its own motion as though it had been appealed to by complaint. (c) If, after affording to interested persons reasonable op~ portunity for hearing, the Commission finds in any investiga- tion instituted upon complaint or upon its own initiative, that any person has failed to comply with any provision of this Act or any requirement established pursuant th~reto, the Commis-. sion shall issue an appropriate order to compel such person to comply therewith. (d) For the purpose of any investigation or any other pro- ceeding under this Act, any member of the Commission, or any officer designated by it, is empowered to administer oaths and affirmations, subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, take evidence, and require the production of any books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, contracts, agreements, or other records which the Commission finds relevant or material to the inquiry. Hearings; Rules of Procedure 14. Hearings under this Act may be held before the Com- mission, any member or members thereof, or any' representa. tive of the Commission designated by it, and appropriate rec- ords thereof shall be kept. All hearings, investigations, and proceedings under this Act shall be governed by rules of prac- tice and procedure to be adopted by the Commission, and in the conduct thereof the technical rules of evidence need not be applied. No informality in any hearing, investigation, or pro.. ceeding or in the manner of taking testimony shall invalidate any order, decision, rule, or regulation issued under the authority of this Act. Administration Powers of Commission; Rules, Regulations and Orders 15. The Commission shall have power to perform any and all acts, and to ~rescribe, issue, make, amend, and rescind such PAGENO="0218" * 214 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 orders, rules, and regulations as it may find necessary or ap- propriate to carry out the provisions of this Act. Such rules and regulations may prescribe the form or forms of all state- ments, declarations, applicatiofls, and reports to be filed with the Commission, the information which they shall contain, and the time within which they shall be filed. Unless a different date is specified therein, rules and regulations of the Commis- sion shall be effective thirty (30) days after publication in the manner which the Commission shall prescribe. Orders of the Commission shall be effective on the date and in the manner which the Commission shall prescribe. For the purposes of its rules and regulations, the Commission may classify persons and matters within its jurisdiction and prescribe different re- quirements for different classes of per ~ons or matters. All rules and regulations of the Commission shall be filed with it~ secretary and shall be kept open in convenient form for public inspection and examination during reasonable business hours. Reconsideration of Orders 16 Any person affected by any final order or decision of the Commission may, within thirty days after the publication thereof, file with the Commission an application in writing re- questing a reconsideration of the matters involved, and stating specifically the errors claimed as grounds for such reconsidera- tion. No person shall in any court urge or rely on any ground not so set forth in such application. The Commission, within thirty (30) days after the filing of such application, shall either grant or deny it. If such application is granted, the Commission, after giving notice thereof to all interested per- sons, shall, either with or without hearing, rescind, modify, or affirm its order or decision. The filing of such an application shall act as a stay upon the execution of the order or decision of the Commission until the final action of the Commission upon the application, except that upon written consent of the applicant such order or decision shall not be stayed unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. No appeal shall lie from any order of the Commission until an application for recon- sideration has been made and determined. PAGENO="0219" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 215 Judicial Review 17.. (a) Any party to a proceeding under this Act aggrieved by an order issued by theComrnission in such proceeding may obtain a review of such order in the court of appeals of the United States for the fourth circuit, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, by filing in such court, within sixty (60) days after the order of the Commission upon the application for rehearing, a written pe. tition praying that the order of the Commission be modified or set aside. A copy of such petition shall forthwith be served upon any member of the Commission and thereupon the Corn.. mission shall certify and file with the court a transcript of the record upon which the order complained of was entered. Upon the filing of such transcript such court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or set aside such order. The finding of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by sub~ stantial evidence, shall be conclusive. If any party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evi- dence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce such evidence in the proceedings before the Commission, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before. the Commission and to be adduced upon the hearing in such manner -and. upon such~ terms and condi- tions as to the court may seem proper. The Commission may modify its findings as to the facts by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and it shall file with the court such modified or new findings, which if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive, and its recommendation, if any, for the modication or setting aside of the original order. The court may affirm or set aside any such order of the Commission, and state the reasons therefor, and such judgment shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in §~ 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U.S.C. Title 28, §~ 346 and 347). (b) The commencement of proceedings under subsection (a) of this section shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the Commission's order. PAGENO="0220" 216 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 (c) The Commission shall not, nor shall any of its mem~ bers, officers, agents, or employees, be taxed with any costs, nor shall they or any of them be required to give any super- sedeas bond or security for cost or damages on any appeal whatsoever taken under this compact. Said Commission, or any of its members, officers, agents, or employees, shall not be liable to suit or action or for any judgment or decree for any damages, loss, or injury claimed by any person resulting from action taken under this compact, nor re~quired in any case arising under this compact to make any deposit for costs or pay for any service to the clerks of any court or to the marshal of the United States. Enforcement of Act; Penalty for Violations 18. (a) Whenever it shall appear to the Commission t~hat any person is engaged or about to engage in any acts or practices which constitute or will constitute a violation of the provisions of this Act, or of any rule, regulation, or order thereunder, it may, in its discretion, bring an action in the United States District Court for any district in which such person resides or carries on business or in which the violation occurred, to enjoin such acts or practices and to enforce com- pliance with this Act or any rule, regulation or order there- under, and upon a proper showing a permanent or temporary injunction or decree or restraining order shall be granted without bond. (b) Upon application of the Commission, the United States District Court for any district in which such person resides or carries on business, or in which the violation occurred, shall have jurisdiction to issue appropriate order or orders commanding any person to comply with the provisions of this * Act or any rule, regulation, or order of the Commission there- under. (c) The Commission may employ such attorneys as it finds necessary for proper legal aid and service of the Commission or its members in the conduct of their work, or for proper representation of the public interest in *investigations made by it, or cases or proceedings pending before it, whether at the Commission's own instance or upon complaint, or to appear PAGENO="0221" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 217 for or represent the Commis~ion in any case in court; and the expenses of such employment shall be paid out of any funds of the Commission. (d) Any person knowingly and wilfully violating any pro.. visions of this statute, or any rule, regulation, requirement, or order thereto, or any term or condition of any certificate shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $100 for the first offense and not more than $500 for any subse- quent offense. Each day of such violation shall constitute a separate offense. Expenses of Investigations and Other Proceedings 19. (a) All reasonable expenses of any investigation, or other proceeding of any nature, conducted by the Commission, of or concerning any carrier, and all expenses of any litiga- tion, including appeals, arising from any such investigation or other proceeding, shall be borne by such carrier. Such expenses, with interest at not to exceed 6 per centum (6%) per annum may be charged to operating expenses and amor- tized over such period as the Commission shall deem proper and be allowed for in the rates to be charged by such carrier. When any such investigation or other proceeding has been initiated it shall be the duty of the carrier to pay to the Commission, from time to time, such reasonable sum or sums as, in the opinion of the Commission, are necessary to cover the expenses which by this section are required to be borne by such carrier. The money so paid by the carrier shall be deposited in the name and to the credit of the Commission, in any bank or other depositary located in the Metropolitan District designated by the Commission, and may be disbursed by the Commission for the purpose of defraying expenses of the investigation, proceeding or litigation in question. Any unexpended balance of the sum or sums so paid by such carrier remaining after the payment of such expenses shall be returned to such carrier. (b) The amount expended by the Commission in any cal- endar year in all investigations or other proceedings of or concerning any one carrier shall not exceed-.--- (1) One-half of one per centum of the gross operating revenues of such carrier, derived from transportation subject 85-894 0 - 67 - 15 PAGENO="0222" 218 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 ~to this Act, for its last preceding fiscal year; or (2) In the case of a carrier which was not engaged in such transportation during the whole of its last preceding fiscal year, one-half of 1 per centum of the average gross operating revenues, derived from transportation subject to this Act, of all other carriers (exclusive of carriers to which this sub- paragraph (2) applies) for their last preceding fiscal year. (c) For the purpose of subsections (a) and (b) of this section-. The provisions of this section shall apply to any person engaged in transportation subject to the Act and any person who makes application under Section 4 for a certificate of public convenience and necessity. Applica.bility of Other Laws 20. (a) Upon the date this Act becomes effective, the ap- plicability of all laws of the signatories, relating to or affect- ing transportation subject to this Act and to persons engaged therein, and all rules, regulations and orders promulgated or issued thereunder, shall except to the extent in this Act speci- fied, be suspended, except that- (1) The laws of the signatories relating to inspection of equipment and facilities, wages and hours of employees, in- surance or similar security requirements, school fares, and free transportation for policemen and firemen shall remain in force and effect. (2) Upon the date this Act becomes effective, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity or Permits issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission to any carrier subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission shall be suspended only during the existence of this compact, provided such suspen- sion shall not affect the authority of such certificate or permit holder to transport special and chartered parties as now au- thorized by the. Interstate Commerce Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder by the Interstate Com- merce Commission, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act. (b) In the event any provision or provisions of this Act exceed the limits imposed upon the legislature of any signa- PAGENO="0223" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 219 tory by the Constitution of such signatory, the obligations, duties, powers, or jurisdiction sought to be conferred by such provision or provisions upon the Commission shall be ineffec- tive and such obligations, duties, powers or jurisdiction shall remain in the signatory and shall be exercised by the agency ,thereof to which such obligations, duties, powers or jurisdic- tion are delegated by law in effect at the time this compact becomes effective. Such agency, however, in order to achieve the objective of this compact to effectuate the regulation of mass transit on a unified and coordinated basis throughout the Metropolitan District, shall refer to the Commission for its recommendations all matters arising under this Title so re- served to such signatory and all matters exempted from this Title pursuant to the proviso clause of Section 1 (b) of this Title. The recommendations of the Commission with respect to such matters shall be advisory only. Existing Rules, Regulations, Orders, and Decisions 21. All rules, regulations, orders, decisions, or other action prescribed, issued, made, or taken by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia, the Public Service Commission of Maryland, or the State Corporation Commission of Virginia, and which are in force at the time this section takes effect, with respect to transportation or persons subject to this Act, shall remain in effect, and be enforceable under this Act and in the manner specified by this Act,, according to their terms, as though they had been prescribed, issued, made, or taken by the Commis- sion pursuant to this Act, unless and until otherwise provided by such Commission in the exercise of its powers under this Act. Transfer of Records 22. The Public Utilities Commission of the District of Co- lumbia, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the State Cor- poration Commission of Virginia, and the Public Service Corn- mission of Maryland shall transfer or make available to the Commission such of their records as pertain to matters which by this Act are placed under the jurisdiction of the latter Commission. PAGENO="0224" 220 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Pending Actions or Proceedings 23. (a) No suit, action, or other judicial proceeding com- menced prior to the date this Act takes effect by or against the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Public Service Com- mission of Maryland, or the State Corporation Commission of Virginia, or any officer of any such commission in his official capacity or in relation to his discharge of official duties, shall be affected by the enactment of this compact and same shall be prosecuted and determined in accordance with the law applicable at the time such proceeding was commenced. (b) To the extent that the Commission determines such action to be necessary or appropriate in the exercise of the powers and duties vested in or imposed upon it by this Act, such Commission shall continue and carry to a conclusion any proceeding, hearing, or investigation which, at the time this compact takes effect, is pending before the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia, the Interstate Com- merce Commission, the Public Service Commission of Mary- land, or the State Corporation Commission of Virginia. In the event the Commission assumes jurisdiction in any such case, it shall be governed by the provisions of this compact and not by the provisions of law applicable at the time the proceedings were instituted. Annual Report of the Commission 24. The Commission shall make an annual report for each fiscal year ending Juiie Thirtieth, to the Governor of Vir- giiiia and the Governor of Maryland, and to the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia as SOOll as prac- ticable after Juiie thirtieth, but no later than the 1st day of January of each year, which shall contain, in addition to a report of the work performed under this Act, such other information and recommendations concerning passenger traiisporation within tile Metropolitan District, as the Corn- mission deems advisable. NOW, THEREFORE, we, Aibertis S. Harrison, Jr., Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, J. Millard Tawes, Governor of the State of Maryland, and Walter N. PAGENO="0225" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 221 Tobriner, F. J. Clarke, Brigadier General, U. S. Army and John B. Duncan, Members of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia do hereby execute the foregoing amended Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regula- tion Compact. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Pursuant to the Joint Resolution approved October 9, 1962 (Public Law 87-767, 76 Stat. 764) and to the Resolu- tion adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, done at Washington, D. C., this 29th day of March, 1963. President, Board of Commissioners (SEAL) Corn iss~ ncr ~_~_____)` ommissioner Attest: PAGENO="0226" 222 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 MARYLAND Pursuant to Chapter 114, Acts of General Assembly of Maryland, 1962, done at Annapolis, Maryland, this 29th day of March, 1963. (SEAL) Attest: Secretary of St at e VIRGINIA Pursuant to Chapter 67, 1962 Acts of Assembly of Vir- ginia, done at Richmond, Virginia, this 29th (lay of March, 1%3 (SEAL) Attest: z~t~__~, Secretary of State / PAGENO="0227" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 223 Mr. DAWSON. We appreciate the opportunity of appearing before this committee and realize the privilege that we have. Let me make it clear at the very outset, however, that D.C. Transit is in favor of the general purposes of this legislation. You gentlemen are to be commended on your leadership in proceed- ing to its fruition. When the Visitor Center is completed, it will be a monument to your vision and your hard work, a very constructive monument. Any sightseer who has ever tried to park his car in the Mall area, the chief tourist attraction here, will wholeheartedly support the proposed construction of a parking facility adjacent to the Visitor Center for parking. As operator of the primary public transportation system in the Cap- ital, Mr. Chalk desires that I assure you that a special minibus service, or any other needed service, offering frequent departures, will be pro- vided by D.C. Transit System from such parking facility to and through the Mall area to encourage visitors to leave their cars at the National Visitor Center, thereby reducing the growing traffic conges- tion in downtown Washington. Let me say that we are in perfect agreement with Mr. Wright's sug- gestion and the chairman's suggestion that any form of transportation be of a distinguished and distinguishing character and that we are ready to provide such type of transportation whenever the authority is granted. For example, D.C. Transit today has 25 new buses that are being delivered for service in the city of Washington. I want to say also, Mr. Chairman, that we were all ready to provide this service. Mr. Schwengel, we applied for authority to give such service as the Secretary wanted to give as early as April of this year in a tempo- rary application. We filed our request for permanent certification in May. There has been no action on either of those applications. Mr. Gii~y. Let me interrupt you there. You are referring now to the Commission? Mr. DAWSON. Yes, sir. Mr. Git&r. You filed an application with the Commission both for temporary and permanent permit to operate? Mr. DAWSON. Yes, sir. If those applications had been expeditiously acted upon, the services would be performed today as the Secretary might desire. Mr.. GrL&Y. So this is not a matter, as Mr. Avery pointed out, "that gets expeditious handling"? You have to admit that, would you not? Mr. DAWSON. The record will have to speak for itself. Mr. GRAY. Applied in April and this is October. I think that is quite a long period. Mr. SCHWENGEL. You mean you filed in April and the Commission has not yet acted? Mr. DAWSON. That is correct. Mr. GRAY. That is the very point I was trying to establish. You may proceed. Mr. DAWSON. Now, we must say also that D.C. Transit System is seriously concerned about section 5 of the bill. Now, this section has no PAGENO="0228" 224 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 direct bearing on the general purpose of H.R. 12686 of authorizing the construction of a National Visitor Center and a parking facility ad- jacent thereto. This section seemingly is an attempt to circumvent a recent decision of the T5.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Co- lumbia and a recent Presidential memorandum, and a congressionally approved transportation compact. Additionally, this section will result in an infringement of D.C. Transit's congressionally approved fran- chise and deprive the company of sorely needed revenue. In the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, et al., v. Universal Interpretive Shuttle Corporation, the court of appeals considered, among other things, the authority of the Secretary of the Interior under the act of May 26, 1930, cited in section 5. That act of 1930 authorizes the Secretary to contract for services to be pro- vided the public in the national parks. The Secretary had contracted with Universal for the provision of a for-hire shuttle service on the Mall, a part of the national park system under the Secretary's jurisdiction. Mr. GRAY. I apologize for interrupting. When you refer to Universal; you are referring to the concession- aire? Mr. DAWSON. That is correct. Mr. GRAY. Universal is the name of the company? Mr. DAWSON. That is correct. The full name is Universal Interpre- tiv~ Shuttle Corp. Mr. GRAY. I wanted that to be clearly understood by the committee; "Universal" means the name of the company that the Secretary has entered into an agreement with for the interpretive shuttle service. Mr. SOHWENGEL. And it was a private company, not a Government operation? It is a concessionaire completely outside of Government, free enterprise? Mr. DAWSON. Mr. Schwengel, the Secretary's contention was it was a Government operation, and that was the basis of his brief filed with the court of appeals. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Universal is a private enterprise company? They were providing the buses? Mr. DAWSON. It is a private company. The Secretary's contention was it was a Government operation. Mr. GRAY. I believe the company is in California. Mr. DAWSON. It is a California-based company. Mr. GRAY. Yes. Mr. DAWSON. Now, the Mall is a part of the national park system under the Secretary's jurisdiction. It was contended by the Secretary that such operation does not require certification by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission pursuant to the requirements of the area compact approved by the Congress in 1960. The Secretary's contention consisted of three premises: The first, that the compact does not apply to any national park areas under the Secretary's jurisdiction; the second, that the proposed service will actually be operated by the Federal Government, which is specifically excepted from the compact; and the third, that the Secretary has the statutory authority to operate a for-hire transportation service. By a decision of June 30 his year, the court of appeals rejected such premises, holding that Universal's operation could not validly be PAGENO="0229" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 225 conducted without a certificate from the Transit Commission. A peti- tion for rehearing was rejected en banc October 3. This decision makes it clear that the Transit Commission has para- mount regulatory jurisdiction over for-hire motor carriage of pas- sengers performed anywhere within the Washington metropolitan area. Now, the language of section 5 appears to attempt a circumvention of the court of appeals decision by directing the Secretary, when he deems it advisable, to utilize the authority in the act of 1930 to provide transportation of visitors by the United States. Such language, if enacted, might well be construed by the courts as constituting a congressional authorization for the Secretary to operate, through contractual arrangements, for-hire transportation services on and to Federal enclaves under his jurisdiction in the Dis- trict of Columbia. Such construction would exempt these services from the application of the compact and the jurisdiction of the Tran- sit Commission. In my statement, which you have before you, I have stated the wording of the Senate report accompanying the compact legislation, which indicates the intent of Congress to centralize legislation in one single agency for the stated purposes. As a practical matter, the ability of the Transit Commission to reg- ulate transit service and alleviate traffic congestion will be substantially impaired if it has no control over passenger operations on the Mall and to the contemplated National Visitor Center at Union Station. The same compartmentalized regulation will exist that the compact was intended to replace. Section 5 will also contravene the administçative guidelines estab- lished by the Presidential memorandum on March 3, 1966, and the accompanying Budget Bureau circular to determine when the Govern- ment should provide services. As noted in paragraph 2 of the circular, the guidelines are "in furtherance of the Government's general policy of relying on the pri- vate enterprise system to supply its needs." Several instances are specified under paragraph 5, on pages 2 through 6 of the circular, as justifying a departure from such general policy. None of these instances is applicable to the provision of public transportation on the Mall and to the Visitor Center. In this connection, Mr. Chalk desires to assure the subcommittee that D.C. Transit stands ready, willing and able to provide any trans- portation services needed by the Secretary for the accommodation of visitors to the Capital. There is simply no reason for the Secretary to be directed by the Congress to disregard the mandate of the Presi- dent expressed in his memo of March 3, 1966, and the accompanying Budget Bureau circular. Let me digress for a moment, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that D.C. Transit is perhaps in the most favorable position to provide such service, because it is a home-based company. It has personnel. It has equipment that is in existence. And it has mainte- nance facilities second to none. It has had experience in the local area for the last 10 years. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAY. Yes. PAGENO="0230" 226 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Mr. SCHWENGEL. I would like to ask a question at this point. You made application to the Commission for the service that was under discussion here. Did you make application to the Secretary? Did you talk to him about it? Mr. DAWSON. The application was made to the Secretary as well. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Did you get any response to this? Mr. `DAWSON. Mr. Davis, can you answer that? Mr. DAVIs. Yes, sir. The Secretary, through the Director of National Parks, put out a prospectus and invited certain people to bid. D.C. Transit was not the successful bidder; Universal was. Mr. GRAY. You did bid, though? Mr. DAVIS. We did bid, that is correct; but we were not awarded the contract. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Universal was granted the right to serve by the Secretary? Then the d~bate ensued on where it should be- Mr. DAVIS. The Secretary gave Universal a contract. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. But you had a chance and you did go to the Secretary's office? Mr. DAVIS. We were invited to participate and did participate. We were not the successful parties. Mr. GRAY. Have you any idea how much lower the other bid was from you, percentagewise? Mr. DAVIS. No, sir; that was not made public to us. But the Com- mission said they took other factors into consideration. Mr. GRAY. You do not know whether there was solely a dollar or cent consideration or could it be they felt these people were going to provide buses with more glass, equipment-more attractive, and so forth? Mr. DAVIS. To be of aid to you, sir, in the prospectus, they suggested the price, the tour, and the type of equipment. I know D.C. Transit did file with the Secre~ary of the Interior drawings of buses, plans of buses, routes, and prices, all in accordance with the suggestions and the guidelines laid down in the prospectus by the Secretary of the Interior. So those factors were not really the underlying factors which led to the determination of the successful party. Mr. GRAY. General Dawson, you are a very eminent lawyer. What is your opinion concerning the right of Congress to change this compact and circumvent, if we so choose, the necessity of going to the Commis- sion, either by you or by some other concessionaire? Do you concede we have the authority to allow the Secretary to enter into a contract with a private concessionaire, whomever that private concessionaire may be? Mr. DAWSON. Mr. Chairman, let me say that the Compact Act in 1960 suspended application of all Federal laws up to that time. Pre- sumably that suspension will be in effect as long as the compact is in existence. As Mr. Denney pointed out, there is the provision in the contract for withdrawal, and if the Congress exercised that right, it would be perfectly in accord with my view of good conscience. I do not think that legally or morally the Congress can take unilat- eral action to void any obligation that it has under this éompact. Mr. DENNEY. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gn~Y. Yes. PAGENO="0231" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 227 Mr. DENNEY. Along that line, I think, though, that Mr. Dawson has brought out a point here that we must consider. The D.C. Transit has a franchise which was granted for 20 years, and I think it could be revoked for nonuser. Outside of that-I have not read it completely in the law but I think that is the only reason. He is bringing out a point that by section 5, we are authorizing the Secretary, and then the D.C. Transit would have an action against possibly, or claim to be filed against, the United States for violation of the exclusive franchise that had been given to them. Mr. GRAY. Of course, as the gentleman will notice, section 5, as pres- ently written merely reaffirms what the Secretary claims he has in the way of authority dating back to May 2~3, 1930, which is 46 Stat. 382. Mr. DENNY. But, you see, this franchise was granted in 1956 and runs for 20 years. Under the doctrine of superseding law, preemption, as Mr. Wright explained there, I think that when we grant to private enterprise an exclusive franchise, we have a real problem here of saying to the Secretary, "Ignore it; you can go ahead and make another contract." And I think we might be subject to a claim being filed and I believe this is the real serious problem that we have right now. Mr. GRAY. I was pointing out what his contention was in requesting this particular section of the bill. Mr. DENNY. Let me say just for the record, and I want it in here, any time this Congress can promote private enterprise, I am in favor of it, and that is in line with the President's directive of March 3. There- fore, let's not kill the goose that lays the golden egg. These people pay taxes and that is how we operate this Government. Let's keep this in mind as we determine this bill. Mr. GRAY. I agree with the gentleman, it should be operated by private enterprise, and I am sure it will be, if at all possible. Let me ask another question, General Dawson. If we strike com- * pletely section 5 as it is now written in the bill and merely give to the Secretary the authority to operate this service around Capitol Hill, which he contends he does not have now-and even the Commission, I am sure, would not have the authority to grant public transportation on the Capitol Grounds, this is a separate entity of government and I am sure they would not even contend that they have that authority- so we do need some legislation giving a private concessionaire the right to operate on the Capitol Grounds. If we write language in place of section 5, striking the whole section, just merely giving the Secre- tary authority to enter into contracts with private concessionaire's for the operation of a shuttle service and base it on competitive bidding, would this satisfy your firm? Mr. DAWSON. Now you are speaking of the Capitol Grounds them- selves, not the Mall area, not the area between the Union Station and the Capitol? Mr. GRAY. I am referring primarily to a specific route around the Mall, but including the Capitol. Mr. DAWSON. I think such legislation would be in violation of the compact. Mr. GRAY. If we complied with that part of the compact and give, say, a year's notice of withdrawing from the compact, and we gave PAGENO="0232" 228 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 the Secretary the authority to enter into an agreement with a private concessionaire, do you feel that you would have your day in court, so to speak, in competitive bidding, or do you feel that the Secretary might favor another type of service than you are providing now? What is your feeling on that? Mr. DAWSON. Mr. Chairman, I believe the answer is in about three parts there. First of all, if you gave notice and withdrew from the compact, there would be no question of your rights insofar as the compact itself was concerned. I would point out that the operation of this service as envisioned by the Secretary-and I believe by the committee-operates not only on federally owned property, but on property owned by the District of Columbia, the city public streets, so that the Congress does not control the operation on those streets. And the third part is that the Congress did, in 1956, give D.C. Transit System, after very serious consideration and countless hear- ings and study, a franchise to operate the public transportation sys- tern in the District of Columbia, and I believe such action by the Congress would be morally wrong. Mr. Gi~r. This is what I wanted to find out, your opinion. Let me ask you this: Would your company be interested, from a financial standpoint, in providing free bus service, let's say, from the Union Station up to the Capitol and taking a portion of the pro- ceeds from parking? Mr. DAWSON. Yes, sir. Mr. Gii~r. The reason I ask that question is I wonder whether or not free service would have anything to do with your rate structure. I understand you have to go before the Commission here in the District, and I understand you have an application in now for a rate increase, which has been rejected. Now- Mr. DAWSON. There is one pending, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gii~i'. Would you see any conflict if the Congress would act to give free bus service from the Visitor Center up to the Capitol and the arrangement could be worked out with the Secretary on the reimbursement, that this would have any effect at all on your rate structure in the rest o~ the city? Mr. DAWSON. Mr. Chairman, there is a provision in the compact that free transportation cannot be provided. However, as I under- stand, what you are suggesting is there would be payment through some source to the company for the service that it does perform. Mr. Gi~&r. Right. Mr. DAWSON. At the present time the company does provide trans- portation for schoolchildren with the District of Columbia for 10 cents. Mr. Git~&i~. The way you look at it, General, this would not affect your rate structure and your fees for the carrying of passengers in the District of Columbia if you had a separate contract with the Department of the Interior to provide this free service, and that contractual obligation was entered into in good faith between you and the Secretary, in your opinion as a lawyer, it would not have any effect on your rate structure in the District of Columbia? PAGENO="0233" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 229 Putting it another way, if you got a 10-percent increase in your fares, would this necessarily hold that the 10-percent increase would apply to this shuttle service from Union Station to the Capitol? Mr. DAWSON. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that anytime the company applied for a fare increase, that its income from this source would be taken into consideration as a part of its total income and the rate structure would be based including that income. Mr. Gn~y. But would it necessarily mean that this free service would have to be increased along with the other fares? Mr. DAW50N. No, sir. Mr. Gn~&~. That is the point I am getting at. That could be operated separately? Mr. DAwsoN. I would say so. Mr. DENNEY. Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAY. The thing I am trying to avoid is saying we are going to provide this service free to visitors and then 60 days later you get a general fare raise. Then we have to go to Congress and the taxpayers to make up the difference. This is what we are trying to avoid. Mr. D~WSON. Mr. Chairman, I might point out that as of now, we also have contracts with the Department of Defense and State De- partment for carriage of their employees on a specialized basis. Mr. GRAY. Let me ask another question, General, that might shed some light on this. This overall fare increases that you have pending now, would this affect this contractual obligation to carry schoolchildren for 10 cents? Mr. DAWSON. The pending fare increase application would not af- fect that. Mr. GRAY. So the point is these contracts can be handled separately? This is what I am getting at. Mr. DAWSON. This is correct. Mr. WRIGHT. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GRAY. Yes; I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Wright. Mr. WRIGHT. TI~e public schools in Arlington, Va., for example, operate their own schoolbuses, I believe. This is separate and distinct from your D.C. Transit Co. Why does that not come under the purview of the Commission? They are within the geographical area of jurisdiction of this metropol- itan Commission. I do not suppose the Metropolitan Commission has given a certifi- cate of public convenience and necessity to the Arlington school sys- tem to operate the schoolbuses, has it? Or has it? Mr. DAWSON. Mr. Wright, Mr. Davis can respond to that. Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. Mr. DAVIS. Under the compact- Mr. WRIGHT. Under the compact itself they were exempt, is that correct? Mr. DAVIS. That schoolchildren transported in schoolbuses are exempt. Mr. WRIGHT. Right, all right. Mr. DAVIS. In addition to that, in Arlington, they do use private enterprise to transport schoolchildren. PAGENO="0234" 230 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Mr. WRIGHT. I. see. Now, just as a practical matter, laying aside for the moment the legal questions involved in the compact and the juris- diction of the Commission-I tend to disagree just as a legal matter. I think the Congress probably has a right to exempt a certain route, but let's lay that aside and not argue that point here. I do not think we want to get into that or we would be here all day. Do you think, just from the standpoint of business, that D.C. Transit could make money on a separate route of the type we described earlier in this hearing distinguishing it from your regular D.C. Transit System, and perhaps not interchangeable with it by means of transfer? Mr. DAwsoN. Yes, sir, Mr. Wright. I think the company could make money and I am sure Universal contemplates making money. Mr. WRIGHT. Let us assume that the Commission had heard the application of Universal, it being a successful bidder in this instance with the Interior Department. And let us assume further that the Commission had granted to Universal this certificate of convenience and necessity. Would you then feel that that constituted an infringe- ment of the franchise? Mr. DAWSON. I would say, Mr. Wright, that the Commission must make its determination on the basis of the evidence presented as to whether the convenience of the public will be served, and that the Universal company would have had to make that showing. And if it were shown that D.C. Transit could not provide that service under its franchise, the Commission might well decide that the public would be served better by Universal. Mr. WRIGHT. The Commission might so decide. Let's assume the Commission had so decided. Would it be your position as the attorney for D.C. Transit that the Commission's action was final? Or would you, in that instance, have felt that you might have cause for action on the grounds of infringement of your franchise? Mr. DAWSON. There is always a right of appeal to the courts, so we might have that opportunity. Mr. WRIGHT. I suppose what we come to is `that we have two separate and distinct acts of Congress: One by which we agreed to the compact, and the other the act of 1956 by which we granted the franchise to D.C. Transit. Now, do you think it is not a sufficiently established principle of law that an act passed subsequent to an earlier act and specifically repealing all acts or parts of acts in conflict therewith is adequate to establish the primacy of the latter act? Mr. DAWSON. That is a general rule of law. I do not think it would be applicable with respect to unilaterally modifying the compact with- out observing the terms of the compact. Mr. WRIGHT. Do you `think it would be adequate with respect- Mr. DAWSON. I do not think, Mr. Wright, in good conscience, the Congress would want to lightly derogate its obligation under the franchise. Mr. WRIGHT. I quite agree with you on the question of conscience and the question of good faith and so forth. But we got into a legal dis- cussion awhile ago, and I am not sure it is a good thing for us to pursue it in great depth here, but I am trying to find a way out. PAGENO="0235" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 231 You present one way out which you think will satisfy everybody, that would be for D.C. Transit to run this route under a certificate granted by the Commission; correct? Mr. DAwsoN. That is right. Mr. WRIGHT. Do you think the service ought to be provided? Correct? Mr. DAWSON. I did not hear you. Mr. WRIGHT. You feel it is a service that should be provided? Mr. DAWSON. Yes, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. And yet you have had an application pending for some time before the Commission to provide such service, and it has not been acted upon. Mr. DAWSON. Mr. Wright, in some justification of that delay, may I say that the Commission was waiting for the court decision. In my judgment that was not a proper basis for delay. I would point out that the Commission has a right to delay as long as it sees fit to, up to a certain point. Mr. WRIGHT. Surely. Now put yourself in the position of the com- mittee, or let's say of Congress. What we want to do is assure that this service will be provided. By eliminating section 5, we do not so insure, do we? If we just eliminate all reference to it, we do not have any guarantee that this service is going to be provided, do we? Mr. DAwsoN. It will not be provided in the law, but I have the assurance that I have given you by Mr. Chalk that D.C. Transit will provide such a service. Mr. WRIGHT. You cannot speak for the Commission as to whether it will grant you a certification of convenience and necessity? Mr. DAWSON. I believe that the court case now being disposed of, Congress not taking contrary action, the Commission would grant that certificate. S Mr. WRIGHT. Well, our situation, as I think you understand is that we want to see to it that service is provided. We also want to make certain that at least parts of this service bringing visitors from the Visitor Center to the Capitol are provided on the basis that comports with what we are trying to do in parking their cars. Mr. DAWSON. The company supports you wholeheartedly in that. Mr. WRIGHT. Do you believe you could operate on the basis of a stub given to your driver for vehicles in the lots for a relatively nominal sum to transport people from the proposed Visitor Center to the Capitol? Mr. DAWSON. We are using stubs in connection with the children's fare in the District of Columbia now. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you very much. You can see that we have a somewhat knotty problem, I am sure, and we can appreciate your situation. Mr. DAWSON. We appreciate your position. Mr. WRIGHT. We do want to make sure the service gets provided not only to the Capitol, but I want to see to it that visitors get the op- portunity to get on a separate shuttle service that `will take them to the points of interest up and down the Mall. PAGENO="0236" 232 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Mr. PENNEY. Will the gentleman yie~Ed? Mr. Wiuoirr. Yes. Mr. PENNEY. For purposes of the record and to help this committee, I would request that Public Law 75~T, by unanimous consent, be in- serted in the record at this point, and specifically section 3, which provides that no other transportation system will be granted in the District because of this exclusive franchise that has been given to D.C. Transit. I think we have a real problem on whether to strike out section 5 entirely, or to work out some language that protects this franchise. Otherwise, we are going to have to repeal the franchise, and I do not think that is proper. Mr. ~ I will say to the distinguished gentlemen, we certainly will take this up in executive session and try to do what is fair. Mr. DENNEY. May we have a ruling on my unanimous consent request? Mr. GRAY. Without objection, it will be printed in the record at this point. (Public Law 757 follows.:) PAGENO="0237" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 233 Public Law 757 CHAPT~R669 July 24, 1956 AN ACT (s.3~)731 To grant ~t fratahlse to 1). C. Transit System, Inc., and for other purposes. Bc /1 ernie/ed by I/se ~,`rnt/e ~visd Iiovrni of Representat~ve8 of the IC: It ([ui/ed i~/iaIe~ of Ameuie(i ~n* (`ousyre.i~s a'isenthled, Franchl~e. TiTLE I PAnT 1.-FRA~CJ1I5E Pnovisio~s SEcTIoN 1. (a) There is hereby granted to D. C. Transit System, Inc., a cor?oration of the District of Columbia (referred to in this part as the. `Corporation") a franchise to operate a mass transportation system of passengers for hire within the District of Columbia and between the District of Columbia and points within the area (referred to in this part as the "Washington Metropolitan Area") comprising all of the District of Columbia, the cities of Alexandria and Falls Church, and the counties of Arlington and Fairfax in the Common- wealth of Virginia and the counties of Montgomery and Prince Georges in the State of Maryland, subject, however, to the rights to render service within the Washington Metropolitan Area possessed, at the time this section takes effect, by other common carriers of passengers: Provided, That nothing in this section shall be construed to exempt the Corporation from any law or ordinance of the Commonwealth of Virginia or the State of Maryland or any political subdivision of such Commonwealth or State, or of any rule, regulation, or order issued under the au(h()1ity of any siuhi law or or(iiIiaflce, or from applicable U S C 27 Slid provisions of the I itterstate Commerce Act and rules and regulations prescribed thereunder. Deanltlons. (b) Wherever reference is made in this part to "D. C. Transit System, Inc." or to the "Corporation", such reference shall include the successors and assigns of D. C. Transit System, Inc. (c) As used in this l)alt the term "franchise" means all the pro- visions of this part 1. Term. Suc. 2. (a) This franchise is granted for a term of twenty years: `Provided, however, That Congress reserves the right to repeal this franchise at any time for its non-use. (b) In the event of cancellation of this franchise by Congress after. seven years from the date this franchise takes effect for any reason other than foil-use, the Corporation waives its claim for any damages loss of franchise. forcompetitiv uc. 3. No t~oinpetitive street railway or bus line, that is. bus or line, railway line for the transportation of passengers of the character which runs ov~r a given route on a fixed schedure, shall he established to operate in the I)istrict of Columbia without the prior issuance of a certificate by the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia (referred to in this part as the "Commission") to time effect that the competitive hine is necessary for the convenience of the. )ubhic. Leg Isle ti Sac. 4. It is hereby declared as a matter of legislative policy that in p order to assure the Washington Metropolitan Area of an adequate transportation systenioperating as a pHvate enterprise, the Corpora- tion, in accordance with standards and rules prescribed by the Com- mission, should be afforded the opportunity of earning such return as, to make the Corporation an attractive investment, to private investors. As an incident thereto the Congress finds that the opportunity to earn a return of at least 6½ per centum Het after all taxes properly charge- able to transportation operations, including but not limited to income 85-894 0 - 67 - 16 PAGENO="0238" 234 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 taxes, on either the system rate base or on gross o~)e1'atilig revenues would not be unreasonable, and that the Coimnission should encourage and facilitate the shifting to such gross operating revenue base as promptly as possible and as conditions warrant; and if conditions war- rant n~t later than August 15, 1958. It is further declared as a matter of legislative policy that if the Corporation does provide the Wash- in~ton Metropolitan Area with a good public transportation system, with reasonable rates, the Congress will maintain a continuing interest in the welfare of the Corporation and its investors. Snc. 5. The initial schedule of rates which shall be effective within Rates. the District of Columbia upon commencement of operations by the Corporation shall be the same as that effective for service by Capital Transit Company approved by the Commissioners of the District of columbia pursuant to the Act of August 14, 1955 (Public Law No. 389, 84th Congress; 69 Stat.. 724), in effect on the date of the ent~tment of this Act, and shall continue in effect until August 15, 1957, and there- after until superseded by a schedule of rates which becomes effective * under this section. Whenever on or after Amrust 15, 1957, the Cor- * poration files with the Commission a new schedule of rates~ such new schedule shall become effective on the tenth day after the date of such filing, unless the Commission prescribes a lesser time within i~'hich such new schedule shall go into effect, or unless prior to such tenth day the * Commission suspends the operation of such new schedule. Such sus- pension shall be for a period of not to exceed one hummthed twenty days from the date such new schedule is filed. If the Commission sus- pends such new schedule it shall immediately give notice of a hearing upon the matter and, after such bearing and within such ~uspension period, shall determine and by order fix the schedule of rates to be charged by the Corporation. If the Commission does no~ enter an order, to take effect at or prior to the end of the period of suspension, flung the schedule of rates to be charged by the Corporation, the sus- * pended schedule filed by the Corporation may be put into efi~ect by the end of such period, and shall remain in effect until the Commission has i~ued an appropriate order based on such procee(iing. Sac. 6. li~e Corporation is hereby authonized amid emiipowered to engage in special charter or siglitseemg services subject to compliance ~lcea. with applicable laws, rules and re~ulatmons of the District of Columbia `and of the municipalities or poI~tical subdivisions of the States in which such service is to be performed, and with applicable provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act and rules and regulations iirescribed thereunder. Src. 7. The Corporation shall be obligated to initiate and carry out but~~ $ plan of gradual conversion of its street railway operations to bus operations within seven years from the date of the enactment of this Act upon terms and conditions prescribed by the Commission, with *uch regard as is reasonably possit)le when appropriate to the highway ~velopment. plans of the T)istrict of Columbia and the economies ~iplieit in coordinating the Corporation's track removal program with suéh plans; except that upon good and sufficient cause shown the * commission niav in its discretion extend beyond seven years, the period for carrying out such conversion. All of the provisions of the full' Track removal. ~aragrajh of the District of Columbia Appropriation Act, 1942 (5~ `Stat. 499, 533), under the title "HIOflWAT FUND, GASOLINE l'ax AND Moron Vauici~x Frns", subtitle "STREET IMPRoVEMENT8~', relating to the v~moval of abandoned tracks, regra~ ing of track areas, amid paving abandoned track areas, shall be applicable to the Corporation. Sac. 8. ça) As of August 15, 1956, paragraph numbered 5 of section Taxes. 6of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations to.pmovide for the expenses of the Government of the District of Columbia for the fist~al PAGENO="0239" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 235 year eiiding ,June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and three, and for other purposes", approved ~July 1, 1902, as amended (D. C. Code, see. 68 Stat. ~ 4'(-1701), is amended by striking out the third and fourth sentences and itserti iig in I eu I hereof the following: "Each gas, electric-lighting, 1001 (Ilephone compa fly aim I I ~u1y, in addition to the taxes herein men-' tlone(l. he frnnehiao tax inposed by the l)islrkt of Columbia Income ~ and I"ranthise Tax Act of 1917, and the tax imposed UIIOII stock in ch. ~5. triuLe of (lenlers in general merehltum(lise nft(ler paragraph numbered 1207 C. Code 47. 2 of section 6 of said Act lll)pIOVe(I .July 1, 1902, as amended.' Exmpttons. (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, the Corporation shall be exempt from the following taxes: (1) The gross sales tax levied under the District of Columbia Sales 63 Stat 112. `p `4 ~.. 0. C. Cede 41- `~ ~ 2601 t~ 47.2629. (2) The compensating use tax levied under the District of Columbia 63 Stat. ,~ ~, Use Tax Act; 2701 to 47.2114. (3) The excise tax upon the issuance of titles to motor vehicles and trailers levied under subsection (j) of section 6 of the District of Columbia Traffic Act of 1925, as amended (D. 0. Code, sec. 40-603 (j) 6:1 ~ 128. (4)); (4) rfhe taxes impnse~l on tangible personal property, to the same extent that the Capital Transit (`ommipany was exempt f roam such taxes immediately prior to tile etl'ective date of this section under the pro- visions of the Act of ,Juiy 1, 190~, as amended; and (5) The mileage tax imposed by subparagraph (b) of naragraph ~ ~ ~ 81 of section 7 of the Act itpprove'd July 1, 1902, as amended (D. C.' Code, sec. 47-2331 (b)). Sac. 9. (a) EX('el)t as hereinafter provided, the Corporation shall not, with i'espeet to motor fuel purchased on or after September 1, 1956, pay any part of time wotor vehicle fuel tax levied muider the Act entitled "Aim Act to proVi(le for a tax on motor vehicle fuels sold ~ ~ ~_ within the 1)istrict of Columbia, and for other purpose&', approved t90 1 t~ 47- 191?. April 23, 1924, as amended (1). C. Code, title 47, chapter 19). (b) For the purposes of this section- Deft~tt46ns. . (1) the term "a 6½ per centum rate of return" meam~s a 6% per centum rate of retiiçn net after all taxes properly chargeable to transportation operations, including hut not limited to income taxes, on the system rnte base of the Corporation, except that with respect to any Period for which the Commission utilizes the oper- atin'~ ratio method to fix the rates of the Corporation, such term sliuhlmt'an a return of 6½ per centmn net after all taxes properly clu:trgettl)lc to tin lisport at loll operat 10118~ including but not limited to income taxes, based on gross operating revenues; and (2) the term "full amount of the Federal income taxes and the District of Columbia franchise tax levied upon coi'poi'ate income:' means time amount which would have been I)mmynble in tile absence of write-otis in connection with the retirement of street railway ~ropeyty as contemplated by section 7 of this part, but only to the extent that such write-otis are nOt included as an operating expense in determining net earnings for i'atemaking purposes. ~ (c) As soomi mis pineti~'~1mle tiftem' t1me~ tive~ve-imioitth period ending on. ratio. August 31, 1957, aii(l Its 545)11 as practicable after the end of each sub- sequent twelve-niontli i)(~m'io(l ending omi August 31, time Commission shall deterimmine time Corporal ion's net operating income for such twelve-month peiliod amid time amount in dollars by which it exceeds or is less than a 61h per centurn rate of return for such twelve.rnonth Imt'l'iO(I. In such (lelerminatiofl the Commission shall include as an upein Ii mmg ex pmISC I lte fu II amount. of the motor veim ide fuel tax which woitltl lIe dLIt' but for the P1'oViSiotmS of this sectIon on the motor fuel tulm(~h11tst~(1 by time Corporation during time tWel%'e-IIIO.nth period, and PAGENO="0240" 236 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 the full amount of the Federal income taxes and the District of Columbia franchise tax levied upon corporate income. The Commis- sion shall certify its determination to the Commissioners of the Dis- trict of (`oluinbia or their designated agent. If the net operating income so certified by the Commission equals or is more than a 6½ per centum rate of return, the Corporation shall be required to pay to such Commissioners, or their designated agent., the full amount of the motor vehicle fuel taxes due on the purchases of motor fuel made by the Corporation during such twelve-month period. If the net operat- ing income so certified is less than a 6~A~ per centuin rate of return, the Corporation shall pay to such Comthissioners, or their designated sgent~ in full satisfaction of the motor vehicle fuel tax for such period an amount, if any, equal to the full amcmnt of said motor vehicle fuel tax reduced by the amount necessary to raise the Corporation's rate of return to ~½ per centum for such period, after taking into account the effect of such reduction on the amount of the Federal income taxes and the District of Columbia franchise tax levied Upon corporate in- come payable by the Corporation for such period. Within thirty days after being notified by the said Commissioners or their desig- nated agent ~f the amount of the motor vehicle fuel tax due under this section, the Corporation shall pay such amount to the said Coin- missioners or their designated agent. (d) If not paid within the period specified. in subsection (c), the ~ motor s-chide fuel tax I)ayable under this section and the penalties thereon may be collected by the Commissioners of the District of (~olunibia. or their designated agent in the manner provided by law for the collection of taxes due the District of Columbia on personal property in force at the time of such collection; and liens for the motor vehicle fuel tax payable under subsection (c) and penalties thereon may be acquired in the same manner that liens for personal propert~y taxes are acquired. (e) Where the amount of the motor vehicle fuel tax payable under interest. subsection (c), or any part of such amount, is not paid on or before the tune specified therein for such payment, there shall be collected, as part of the tax, interest upon such unpaid amount at the rate of one-half of I per centum per month or portion of a month. (f), The Commissioners of the District of Columbia or their desig- ~ nated agent are hereby authorized and directed to issue to the Corpora- CS as. tion such certificates as may be necessary to exempt it. from paying any importer the motor vehicle fuel tax imposed by such Act of April 23, ~,3 ~ t(~6. ~ 1924, as amended, or as hereafter amended. tool t 4?-1919. (g) (1) From and after the time fixed in paragraph (2) of this sub- ~ e I estate section the Corporation shall not be required to l)ity real estate taxes upon any real estate owned by it in the i)istrict of Columbia and used and useful for the conduct of its public transportation operations to the extent that the. Commission haa determined under such rules and regulations as it may issue that the Corporation's net operating income in the previous year was insufficient, after giving eflect to the tax relief provided in the preceding subsections, to afford it a 6½ per centum rate of return. (~) This subsection shall take effect upon the completion of the pro- utfectlve date. gram contemplated in section 7 of this part, as certified by the Com~ mission to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, or at such earlier time as the Commission may find that the said program has been so substantially completed that the taking effect of this subsec- tion would' be appropriate in the public interest and shall sO certify to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. Suc. 10. (a) The Corporation shall not be charged any part of the *~"" removal, expense of renioving, sanding, salting, treating, or handling snow on PAGENO="0241" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 237 the streets of the l)istrict of Columbia, except that the Corporation shall sweep snow from tlit sticefrar tiacks at its own expense so long as stub I tiaks are in use by I he ( `orpointam. b) TIe at ragra th wIt nh I egi us "I kmn II cc every street railway cOIfl~5tHy" Which itI)I)&5flS tituler lie healing "STREETS" in the Act entitled "Au Act ,uakin~ ap~)lo~)ruitions to provide for the expenses of the government of the l)istrict of Columbia for the fiscal year ending .June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and thirteen, and for other 37 stat. 132. purposes", approved June 26, 1912 (I). C. Code, see. 7-614), is hereby repealed. ~r~r C0fl ~ ii. The provisions of law set forth in Title 43, sections 501 a through 503 of the District of Columbia code shall not be deemed to restrict any merger or colisoli(lnt ion of the Corporation with any other company or companies engaged in mass transportation in the District of Columbia or the WTashmgton Metropolitan Area: Provided, how- ever, That any such merger or consolidation shall be subject to the approval of the Commission. Szc. 12. Nothing in this part shall prevent the transfer, by or under the authority of any other Act of Congress, to any other agency of any of the functions which are by this 1~art granted to or imposed upon the Commission. Securities, SEc. 13. (a) The Corporation is hereby authorized to issue or create loans, mortgages, (heeds of trust, notes or other securities to any bank- ing or other institution or institutions and to Capital Transit Corn- ~ with respect to the acquisition of assets of Capital Transit (~oun~aiuuy (including any ~nio11tt ion controlled l)y Capital Transit Interest rate. (~)iuuL)muuty) provided that lie interest rate thereon shall not exceed 5 Pet centum per annum, but time aggregate principal shall not exceed the cost of acquiring the assets of Capital Transit Company. 54 Stnt. 90$. (b) (1) Section 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act shall not be construed to require the approval or authorization of the Interstate Commerce Commission of any transaction within the scope of para- graph (2) of such section 5 if the only parties to such transaction are the Corporation (including any corporation wholly controlled by the Corporation) and the Capital Transit Company (including any corporation wholly controlled by the Capital Transit Company). The issuance or creation of any securities provided for in subsection (a) ~ shall not be subject to the provisions of section 20a of the Interstate Commerce Act. (2) No approval of the acquisition of assets referred to in subsec- tion (a), or of the issuance or creation of any securities provided for in subsection (a) in connection with such acquisition, shall be required from any District of Columbia agency or commission. (c) This section shall not apply to any issuance of securities con- ~ ~. ~. stituting a public offering to which the Securities Act of 1033 applies. (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 409 (a) of the Civil 52 Stat. 1002. Aeronautics Act of 1988- Offlceta and dl- (1) no: air carrier shall be required (because of the fact that a pt'isoti becomes or renia ins mum olhcer, director, member or stock- holder holding a controlling interest of tJie Corporation, or of any common carrier controlled by the Corporation which is engaged in mass transportation of passengers for hire in the Washington Metropolitan Area, or is elected or reelected as an officer ol' (hirector) to secure the authorization or approval of the Civil Aeronautics Board in order to have and retain such person as an officer or director, or both, of such air carrier if such person is an officer or directorof such air carrier at the time this section takes effect; and PAGENO="0242" 238 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 (2) no person who, at the time this section takes effect, is an officer or director of an air carrier shall be required to secure the approval of the Civil Aeronautics IIO~IItI iii order to hold the position of oftieci', direct o, itseinber oi* stockholtler holding a controlling interest of the (`lorportition 01' tif any eoinmoii carrier controlled by the Corporation which is engaged in imiss tra~s- portation of passengers for lure in the Washington Metropolitan Area. As used in this subsection, the term "air carrier" has the same meaning `Air carrier". as when used in section 409 (a) of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. 49 USC 489. (e) Notwithstanding section 20a (12) of the Interstate Commerce Act, authorization or approval of the Interstate Commerce Corn- 41 Stat. 496. 49 Usc 20a. mission shall not be required in oraer to permit a person who is an bfficer or director of the Corporatioh to be also an officer or director, or both, of any common carrier controlled by the Corporation which is engaged in mass transportation of passenge~s for hire in the Washing- ton Metropolitan Area. SEC. 14. The Corporation, at the time it acquires the assets of Capital ~ ?~`LtI'! Transit Company, shall become subject to, and responsible for, all tIes. liabilities of Capital Transit Company of whatever kind or nature, known or unknown, in existence at the time of such acquisition, and shall submit to suit therefor as though it had been originally liable, and the creditors of Capital Transit Company shall have as to the Corporation all rights and remedies which they would otherwise have had as to Capital Transit Company: Provided, however, That the corporation shall not be liable to any dissenting stockholder of Capital Transit Company for the fair value of the stock of any such stock- holder who shall qualify to be entitled to receive payment of such fair value. No action or proceeding in law or in equity, or before any Federal or District of Columbia agency or commission, shall abate in consequence of the provisions of this section, but such action or pro- ceedincr may be continued in the name of the party by or against which it was ~,eo~un, except that in the discretion of the court, agency, or com- mission t'uie Corporation may be substituted for the Capital Transit company. In any and all such actions or proceedings, the Corporation shall have, and be entitled to assert, any and all defenses of every kind and nature which are or would be available to Capital Transit Company or which Capital Transit Company would be entitled to asseut PART 2.-MIScElLANEous PROVISIONS Sac. ~2I. (a) Section 14 of the joint resolution entitled ".Joint resolu- tion to authorize the merger of street-railway corporations operating in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes", approved Janu- ary 14, 1933 (47 Stat. 75'2), as amended (Public Law 389, Eighty- fourth Congress), is hereby repealed to the extent that such section 69 Stat. 724. repeals the charter of Capital Transit Company, without thereby affecting the termination of its franchise. (b) Upon the taking effect of part 1 of this title, Capital Transit Company shall not be authorized to engage in business as owner or operator of electric railway, passenger motor bus, public transporta- tion of passengers, or common carrier of passengers within, to, or from, the Washington Metropolitan Area. (c) Capital Transit Company shall continue to exist as a corporation incorporated under the provisions of subchapter 4 of chapter 18 of the Act entitled "An Act to establish a code of laws for the District of columbia", approved March 3, 1901, as amended (D. C. Code, title 29 31 Stat. 1284. cli. 2), under its certificate of incorporation, as amended, and Capita' Transit Company may amend its charter in any manner provided under the laws of the District of Columbia and may avail itself of the provi- PAGENO="0243" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 239 50)104 of (he l)i4rict ol ( olutuhia 1~tisi~iess (1orporat ions Act. in respect o a clia uge of its name aiid may I conic iflCOr!)mitteil or reincorporated thereunder in any manner as therein provided. Nothing referred to in this title, or the sale and vesting of the assets of Capital Transit Company, referred to therein! shall cause or require the corporate. dissolution of Capital Transit Compahy. SEC. `22. Nothing in this title shall be deemed to extend the frirnchise of Capital Transit Company beyond August 14, 1956, or, except as otherwise provided in this section, to relieve Capital Transit Company of any obligation to remove from the streets and highways at its own expense all of its property and facilities and to restore the streets and 11 igh ways in necor(ianee ~ ti the l)~OVI5iOflS of the l)istrict of Columbia A pproprimi.t ion Act, 1942 ~, ~5 Stat. 499, 5~3) in the event th~ Corpora- tion fails to acquire time assets of Capital Transit Company. l.f 1~art 1 of this title takes effect, Capital Transit Company shall thereupon be relieved of all liability to remove from tIme streets and highways of the 1)istrict of Cohinibia all of its PropeIties and facilities and to restore such streets and highways. Sac. `2~. The powers and jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Corn- Im~iSSi011 of time I)istrict of (`olunibin with respect to Capital Transit oiii~mmiii~' shall cease amid be at aim end upon I lie taking effect of part 1 of this (tie. TITLE ii E1fe~tive d~te~, Sac. `201. (a) Part 1 of title I shell take effect on August 15, 1956, but only if prior thereto 1). C. Transit System~ Inc. (referred to in this title as the "Corporation") has acquired the assets of Capital Transit Company and has notified the Commissioners of the I)istrict of Columbia in writing that it will engage in the transportation of, passengers within the 1)istrict of Columbia beginning on August 15, 1956. If time Corporation has not acquired the assets of Capital Transit Company prior to i~ngust 15, 1956, but does thereafter acquire such assets, the Corporation shall, on the date of such acquisition, give written notice thereof to the Commissioners, and pait I of title I shall take effect 111)011 such (late of tWqUisitiOil. (b) Part `2 of title 1, and this title, shall take effect upon the date of the enactment of this Act. Sac. 202. If it is determined by the Conimnissloners of the District of Columbia that, due to any act or omission on the part of the Cor- poration, the Corporation has not acquired the assets of Capital Transit Company and if such Commissioners approve a valid contract, ratified ~nd approved by the required number of stockholders of Capital r1!m.mtflslt Company, between Capital Transit Company and SOII1C othei (5)11)OVflt.iOIi ~)rovuLiug for the acquisition of such assets and if such other corporaf iou us also approved by SUCh Commissioners aS capable of isrforummt ng (lie opematktn contemplated by the franchise provisions of part 1 of title I, then time terms "D. C. Transit System, Inc." and "( kurporat iou" as used in this Act shall be deemed to mean such other corporation for all purposes of this Act. .1~:~~rtr~ Sac. 203. If part 1 of title I of this Act does not take effect on August 15, 1956, the Comnmis~ioiiers of the District of Columbia may authorize (including authorization of such contractual agreçments as may be necessary) such mass transportation of passengers within the Distrkt of Columbia, beginning on and after August 15, 1956, and until such date as part 1 of title I of this Act takes effect, as may be necessary for the convenience of the public. Such transportation shall be furnished to the public at such rates and under such terms and re~u~ lations as many be recommended by the Public Utilities Commission and approved by the Commissioners of the District of columbia. Approved July 24, 1956. PAGENO="0244" 240 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Mr. Gn~1~. Are there any other questions? I am sorry, Mr. Dawson, I thought you had completed your statement. Mr. DAWSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, there is one other point that gives us some concern, and that is that we no- ticed in the brochure that was circulated yesterday, on page 14, that the Secretary had negotiated a contract for this service, and that im- plies negotiation to a conclusion. However, D.C. Transit was never invited to submit a proposal for the new type of service between the parking area and the Capitol and the service on the Mall area, and that one variation alone might very substantially alter the proposal that D.C. Transit would make. We think in all fairness that every public transit company operating in the District should have ~n opportunity to submit a proposal and to be considered in negotiations, although we deny the right of the Secretary to negotiate in view of the decision of the court and the sus- pension of all Federal laws by the compact act. Mr. GRAY. That is a very important point you raised, General. Pub- lic Law 757, section 3, ~states no other transportation system in the District can be used, then what latitude would the Secretary have in advertising for competitive bids? He would not really have any, would he? Mr. DAWSON. We think he has no authority to do so at the present time. Mr. DENNY. That is the point I am bringing out, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAY. This is your contention then? Mr. DAWSON. Yes, sir. Mr. GRAY. He has no authority even on Government-owned property? Mr. DAWSON. No, sir. Mr. GRAY. What about the section of law he quotes, the act of May 26, 1930? I have not read it, but I assume that it is the National Park Act, which gives the Secretary authority to enter into agreements for transportation on Government-owned property. Mr. DAWSON. Mr. Chairman, the Compact Act of 1960 in section 3 suspends the application of that act. Mr. GRAY. Even on Government-owned property? Mr. DAWSON. I believe you have a copy of the compact, in the yellow jacket, before you. Mr. GRAY. Even on Government-owned property? Mr. DAWSON. It suspends the application of all laws. Mr. GRAY. As pertaining to the District of Columbia? Mr. DAWSON. All Federal laws. Mr. GRAY. I say, as pertaining to the District of Columbia? It does not repeal the act of May 26, 1930, per se. Mr. DAWSON. It suspends the application. Mr. GRAY. In the District of Columbia? Mr. DAWSON. Yes, sir. Mr. GRAY. Are there any other comments or questions? Mr. DAwsoN. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have one other very important practical aspect that I want to bring to the attention of the committee. Mr. GRAY. Yes. PAGENO="0245" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACP OF 1067 241 Mr. DAwsoN. Now, independent of all the legal reasons that D.C. Transit has offered you for its opposition to section 5, there is a very practical reason for opposition to that section. If the Secretary is di- rected to provide public transportation services in the Mall area and to the National Visitor Center at Tjnion Station, D.C. Transit will be deprived of substantial revenues, fares that it would have collected had it not been for the competitive service of the Secretary. I tell you, gentlemen, in all sincerity, that D.C. Transit cannot afford to lose these or any other revenues. Management of the company notwithstanding, every effort for econ- omy and efficiency has found it necessary to apply for three seperate fare increases in the last 3 years to meet rising costs. The third such application was just filed this past September and the income state- ment accompanying such application indicates that for the 12 months ended May 31, 1967, the company earned only a 2.05-percent rate of return on operating revenues of approximately $34 million. The company cannot survive for long without financial relief in the form of either higher fares or Government subsidy. Under these circumstances, it would be most damaging to the financial plight of the company to have any of its existing revenues siphoned off by the Secretary. Some idea of the extent of the revenues that D.C. Transit would stand to lose by enactment of this bill can be found in the court of appeals case to which I have referred. An exhibit in that case indicated that the proposed shuttle operation on the Mall area alone, under con- tract with the Secretary, would cost the company over a million dollars in revenues. It should also be realized in passing that to the extent the financial soundness of D.C. Transit's mass transportation operation is allowed to be impaired through the performance of competitive services by the Secretary, the ability of the company to provide effective feeder lines for the forthcoming subway system is correspondingly affected. Now, there is one last point I want to comment upon. The second sentence of section 5 directs the Secretary to provide transportation to the National Visitor Center. There is no geographical limitation upon the scope of the Secretary's operation to the Visitor Center. He could conceivably operate between Union Station and any point, or as many points in the District as he desired, whether or not such points were part of the national park system under the Secretary's jurisdiction. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Mr. GRAY. Well, thank you, Mr. Dawson, and also Mr. Davis. We deeply appreciate your coming. This is a real problem and I am sure you can understand that we are sympathetic to the existing franchise, and we are sympathetic to your firm. However, I am also sure you realize legislation has to be a compromise. We hope we can work up something that will be satis- factory to everyone concerned. Are there any other comments or questions? Mr. MOEWEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAY. Mr. McEwen. Mr. MCEWEN. General, I appreciate your calling our attention to that item on page 14 of the contract that the Department of the Inter- PAGENO="0246" 242 NATIONAL VISITOR CE~1~ER ACT OF 1967 ior has already negotiated. I had read.this publication, but I am afraid I missed that. I rather agree with your observation, this is speaking not only of the Mall area, but also to and from the Visitor Center. I notice preceding that sentence, it says: "This service can be ini- tiated immediately by the enactment of legislation authorizing the Visitor Center." Then it goes on and concludes "Under a 10-year con- tract the Department of the Interior has already negotiated." I understand, General, it is your feeling that this would preclude D.C. Transit from bidding on this. Mr. DAWSON. We have been precluded from bidding. Mr. MOEwEN. On the Mall? Mr. DAWSON. We bid on the Mall package, but not on the parking area package plus the Mall package. Mr. MOEWEN. You would consider that this would' indicate you would be foreclosed from putting `a bid in on the `transportation con- nection with the Visitor Center? Mr. DAWSON. Tha't is the way I read it. Mr. GRAY. I thank the gentleman from New York. Are there any other questions or comments? I thank you gentlemen for coming. We appreciate it. I wonder if I could have the `attention of the committee members. We have two more witnesses. The next witness is the very lovely and distinguished Mrs. Ester Coopersmith, a member of the 21-member Commission. She has been very patient. I hope we can take her next, if you do not mind. Mrs. Coopersmith, will you please come forward. She is a member of the Commissiop, attended all the meetings, worked very hard in helping us come up with these recommendations, and she is here on behalf of the 21-member Commission. I would `hope we could conclude the hearings today and go into cx- excutive session by next Tuesday and the full committee meeting by next Thursday. So if I could have the patience and tolerance of the members, we will try to finish today. On behalf of the committee, Mrs. Coopersmith, I want to thank you for your very tireless work in behalf of the Commission. You at- tended all the meetings and were very attentive, very helpful, and we appreciate your patience in the last 2 days waiting to testify, and thank you very much for coming. You.can proceed in your own fashion. STATEMENT OP MRS. ESTHER COOPERSMIT'H, MEMBER OP THE NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER STUDY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mrs. `CooPERsMITii. Thank you,' Mr. Chairman. It is always a pleas- ure to wait on this committee. Mr. Chairman and members of the House Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, my name is Esther Coopersmith. I am a mother of four children and I live in Chevy Chase, Md. I am a public member of the President's Commission for the National Visitor Center. PAGENO="0247" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 243 Incidentally, when I was appointed to this Commission by the President, some of my friends said, "Oh, this is just an honorary com- mittee appointment you have and the Commission won't do any work." However, my friends do not know your very able chairman, Congress- man Ken Gray, and they do not know Congressman Schwengel, Mr. Cramer, and your distinguished friend that just left, Mr. Pickle, from Texas. These men worked so long, so very, very hard, and spent so much time and effort, let me say to you that the Nation is deeply grate- ful for all their work. I am very pleased to be here today to testify on behalf of and in favor of an Orientation and Education Center for visitors to our Na- tion's Capital. I have the feeling that you have heard so much on so many aspects of this project that you feel there may be very little more to add; but I do think I have a viewpoint which, while not unique, has not yet been applied in this hearing to express one of the real needs for the National Visitor Center. You represent people from all over the country. Your constituents come to visit Washington, the world's capital, by thousands each day, as you witness running back and forth, the clusters of people. When your constituents come, they bring their children, so that their children can learn and participate in the great history of our country. I strongly believe, Mr. Congressmen, that you owe your constituents an opportunity to enjoy a visit to Washington, to have an easy ex- perience, instead of a frustrating experience, in Washington. I am sorry if I have not told you of the millions of dollars spent in Washington and the millions more that this means in taxes; but I see a National Visitor Center as a living historical and educational experi- ence with a meaningful sense of orderliness and direction for parents leading their children into the complexities of the history and the edu- cation, and even the glory of the city which means so very much to our country. You have the responsibility to your constituents. As a member of the President's Commission, I can attest that we have exhaustively studied every possibility for a National Visitor Center. Under the direction, again, of your very able chairman, Con- gressman Ken Gray, I can tell you that we have gone through every nook and cranny in the District of Columbia to locate the proper site for the Center. We feel that we have located a great facility in which we can pour all of the ingredients for a very fine project. Perhaps there is one other point that I feel might have been over- looked, too. I have worked with many corporate organizations that have generous hearts and a genuine wish to participate in national historical and educational projects. I am certain that, if an oppor- tunity to duplicate some of the magic things that I saw at Montreal, at Expo 67, were properly offered, our national corporate leaders would happily and freely help furbish our National Visitor Center. I am so certain of this, I would like to offer my own humble efforts to enlist their participation. Gentlemen, I support the farsighted and far-reaching program to convert Union Station to a National Visitor Center, and I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. Mr. GRAY. Well, at the expense of being repetitious, I am going to say, once again, how delighted I am that you would come, particu- PAGENO="0248" 244 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 larly after the many, many meetings you attended as a member of the Commission and to reaffirm and restate your great interest in this national proposal. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. GRAY. Are there any comments or questions? Are you not glad you waited, gentlemen? Mrs. C00PERsMITH. May I tell you what Congressman Pickle said? He said, "I surely hope they get this done right away. Hurry it up." Mr. GRAY. Next Tuesday and Thursday. Thank you very much. We deeply appreciate it. We have one concluding witness. If we can hear him, we will be able to wind up the public hearings after 4 days of testimony. Is Mr. John Troutman, Director for Plans and Programs, National New Career Center, here? Mr. TROUTMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Troutman, I want to apologize for the fact we have been running behind schedule; but, as you know, having sat here for several days, some of these problems have been gone into in great detail. We appreciate your patience and appreciate your coming. You can either read the statement or submit it for the record and summarize, or proceed in your own fashion. STATEMENT OP J~OHN TROUTMAN, DIRECTOR POR PLANS AND PROGRAMS, NATIONAL NEW CAR1~ER CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. TROUTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, I am John E. Troutman, Director of Plans and Programs of the National New Career Center. I have no formal prepared statement which I would like to read to you. I do, however, have a small brochure, which I think covers in fairly good detail the purposes of the National New Career Center. Mr. GRAY. Without objection, we will enter your entire statement in the record at this point. (The document referred to follows:) THE NATIONAL NEw CAREER CENTER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PREFACE In our society today as never before, the freedom of vocational choice is a vital and pervasive concern to all of us. Although a great deal of information designed to assist our young people in making the right choice is prepared by many sources, in both the public and private sectors, it is not always available to the many who need it, and particularly to those who need it the most-the youth, their parents, the counselors and the teachers of far too many of our nation's rural and inner-city communitius. To cope with this long standing and serious problem, in an effective manner, it is proposed that representatives of government, business, industry, organized labor and the many community groups be brought together on a voluntary and cooperative basis, to establish and support a permanent National New Career Center. The purpose is to provide, through the use of well prepared multi-media materials and dynamic physical displays, both an academic and physical pano- rama of the many diverse and often exciting carrer available within our free enterprise `system. To provide the best possible visibility for thia important program, it is proposed that a permanent Career Center facility ~e established in the Washington area. PAGENO="0249" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 245 Not oniy will this approach help to simplify the matter of coordinating the many nationwide requests for available information on careers and on the related physical displays, but equally as important, it will represent a readily accessible and centrally located entity to be visited by countless thousands of youth and their peers who come into Washington every year, whether from nearby com- munities or from throughout the nation. Although the task confronting the nation in bringing the National New Career Center into being is great, the seemingly perpetual and all too often over~ whelming task of reclaiming many of the usually uniformed, often ignored, sometimes aggressive and visibly disillusioned youth of today is far, far greater. The establishment of the National New Career Center, therefore, is essential to the proper and continuing development of our youth and certainly vital, in the long term, to both our nation's economic and social well being. TABLE OF CONTENTS Why the Career Center. Who will the Career Center serve. Who will support the Career Center. IToW will the activities of the Career Center benefit those who support It. The Career Center development program. The National New Career Center is being developed to serve as a catalyst and focal point for- The acquisition and distribution of all currently available career planning information and related data, from whatever public or private source. Coordinating and assisting with the efforts of many diverse kinds of organizations, in both the public and private sectors, in the development of new and more dynamically oriented career planning information, and speci- fically as such relates to new or entry level careers. The development of both fixed and mobile displays and exhibits which will dynamically depict new career opportunities and fields, for use in both the National New Career Center in the Washington area and throughout the nation. The interchange of both new concepts and programs relating to the most effective utilization of the available career planning information and ex- hibits, by both professional school and employment service counselors as well as many other interested users. Among many others, the end products and services of the National New Career Center will be available to- All high and vocational-technical school students, in both the public and private schools and systems. The high and vocational-technical school drop-out. The high school aged youth or other young adult enrolled in any one of our nation's several on-going special, complementary or supplementary educa- tion and training programs, such as those currently sponsored by either com- munity or nationally based poverty oriented institutional or other types of organizations. The college drop-out. The unemployed young adult and older worker. The underemployed or underutilized worker, of whatever age or educa- tional achievement level. The junior high school student, as the concept for providing career infor- mation at an even earlier age than at present, becomes more widely accepted. The counselors, teachers, parents, employers or others who are responsible for either advising or working with, or on bebolf of, those noted above. The National New Career Center will be developed and supported on a strictly cooperative and voluntary basis by- The government, at both the Federal, state and local level. Organized labor. Both business and industry. Other diverse kinds of organizations concerned with a wide range of both social and economic development activities, at both the national and local level. All of the above, in the manner deemed most suitable by the individual organization or group which is concerned, whether through the offering of resource materials, exhibits, personnel, financial support or through or by whatever means. PAGENO="0250" 246 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT' OF 1967 The National New Career Center will benefit those who will support and use it, in many ways. For the various governments, an opportunity to- Provide, through a single, effective, non-partisan and centralized entity, information on the many diverse kinds of careers which are available within its many individual and collective entities, at the Federal, state and local level. Assist other public and private organizations in the conceptualizing or development of their own career planning information, in those areas where the utilization of government expertise, by suèh outside organizations, is based on a direct and continuing relationship. Utilize career information from many other sources to supplement inter- nally generated career information and to thus provide truly broad spectrum data, for use at the many excellent Government sponsored national and community oriented youth centers. For business and industry, an opportunity to- Provide comprehensive information on a wide variety of existing careers, with particular emphasis directed at the lower entry level and sub-profes- sional levels. Provide comprehensive information on the availability of the many new and often exciting careers which are either imminent or are just emerging, as such are based on new technological developments or advancements in the state-of-the-art. For organized labor, an opportunity tG- Make known, in specific terms, the advantages of entering apprenticeship or other union related education and training programs and of the opportu- nities for continuing career development, under union sponsorship. Make known to many, often for the first time, the important role of the labor unions in our vast economic system and in particular, of their increas- ing interest in all programs relating to the general welfare of the community. For the community oriented organizations, an opportunity to provide, again often for the first time, information on the many existing, new and rewarding careers which have come into being in the usually less well known, but equally important community oriented organizations. Of particular importance, is that information relating to careers which are associated with our nation's Great Society educational and social development programs. For the professional counselor and educator, an opportunity to- Obtain, on a dynamic, continuing and relatively short term basis, compre- hensive information on the broadest possible spectrum of new careers which are currently available. Utilize this great wealth of available career information as an invaluable aid in the development of comprehensive career plans or programs for the youth or others which they continually advise and serve. Utilize this same `comprehensive career information as the basis for either the revision of existing curriculum or for the generation of new curriculum, not only for the usual recipients of `such information but also for the pro- fessional counselors and teachers themselves, by institutions of higher learn~ ings, as may be required. THE CAREER CENTER DEVELOPMENT PROORAM To ascertain the most effective way of developing the National New Career Center concepts and ultimately, the permanent physical facility, a planning phase is now underway which will continue for approximately one year. During this period, a number of diverse activities will be sponsored by the currently retained, but limited, Center staff, working in close cooperation with key representatives from business, industry, organized labor, counseling and education, Federal, state and local governments and `from a variety of community groups. As currently programmed, the principal efforts of this varied task force will be directed toward `making a determination of- 1. The overall management philosophy, which must necessarily reflect the requirements and interests of each representative group, including those who both support and use, or need, the services of the Center. 2. The staffing pattern philosophy, including the roles of `both the paid and contributory personnel. PAGENO="0251" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 247 3. The services to be offered by the Center including, ultimately, multi- media materials production and distribution, both fixed and mobile exhibits, career counseling research and development, staff training (of both the in- service and out-service varieties), visitor and referral testing and evaluation services, career planning, interviewing, monthly and quarterly reporting and activity journals, automated data services (on both a local and national basis) and others. 4. The optimum type of physical facility which will be required, when taking into account, 1) all of the above referenced types of activities, 2) the vast numbers of youth and others who will physically visit the Career Center in the Washington area, and 3) the extensive demands which will be placed upon the services of the Center, by those located throughout the rest of the nation. 5. The best method of funding the Center, both on an initial and continu- ing basis, including considerations of the non-profit or foundation approach, self-perpetuation through investment return upon initial investment, a yearly participant subscription approach, a tax credit allowance approach and others. Whatever approach does evolve, however, all supporting organiza- tions and groups will share the costs which are involved, on an equitable basis. To accomplish the above objectives within the given time frame, two major approaches are being taken. The first approach, through a series of regional con- ferences to be held in the East, Mid-West and the Far-West, will bring the Center planning staff together with key representatives from the proposed organizations, to discuss all facets of the overall Career Center program and to determine what additional services the Center can provide each such group or organization. The second approach, is to establish an interim Advisory Council which will be comprised of prominent executives and administrators from the many major career fields which constitute our nation's free enterprise system. As such, the Council will be responsible for 1) organizing the various ad hoc national and community oriented Career Data Development Councils which are needed to assist in the development of the overall program, and 2) reviewing and acting upon the recommendations of the various Councils, relative to the finalizing of the detailed plans and programs needed to bring the National New Career Center into being as a physical, workable entity. To assist the various national and local Councils and organizational represen- tatives in their task force efforts throughout the coming year, a very compre- hensive planning manual which will serve as a program development "guide,"~ has been developed by the Center's current staff. Copies of this manual are avail- able to all who need them and they may be obtained by writing to Mr. John E. Troutman, Director, Plans and Programs Division, The National New Career Center, Room 315, 1145 19th Street NW., Washington, D.C. Mr. TROUTMAN. I will allude to this as we proceed. I know there is a time factor involved here, so I will keep my pres- entation as short as possible. The National New Career Center is an organization that has been established as of July 1, of this year. It is a very small organization at the moment, myself and one staff person. We are looking into the matter of how best to provide career information that can be used by the guidance counselors, professional employment service counselors, and others throughout the United States. This is our objective. We are devoting a year, effective as of July 1, to conducting a feasi- bility study to determine how best to get this kind of information together, where it should be deposited, what else can be used to supple- ment this kind of information, to make the matter of career develop- ment by the various counselors more effective within their schools and operating entities. We feel and have known for a long time-and I am sure all of you are aware of this-that the role of the guidance counselor, whether professional or in the school system, is a very difficult one. The rate of PAGENO="0252" 248 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 change of technology, the rate of change of our physical environment, our political and geographical environments, all of these things reflect themselves in the new careers which `become available as time goes on. As I say, because of a tremendous rate of change of technology and all of these other factors, it is extremely difficult for any counselor anywhere to really and truly have a comprehensive understanding of this very great change, let alone trying to pass it on to thousands of individual children. Now, as you well know, and specifically those of you who have chil- dren and have been concerned with the school systems and education, that the matter of guidance counselors is a pretty serious one, the matterof where we can develop more of these kinds of important peo- ple that we need for tomorrow, and how fast they be developed, and whether the technologies of training can be changed to keep up with the demands that they have put upon them. The ratios, of course, as you know, vary somewhat from the most affluent sections of our country, possibly 275 students to one counselor, to the less affluent sections-certainly in the ghetto ar.eas, the deprived areas as it were, the ratio can be as many as 2,000 youngsters to one guidance counselor. So if you divide the normal working hours of a counselor in the year and then again divide this by the fact that the counselor must provide physiological and other kinds of interpersonal help to the youngster as well as the career information, and of course the amount of time which is spent on providing career help and guid- ance, it is pretty slim indeed. So what we are attempting to do with our New Career Center here is to determine how business, industry, organized labor, t'he educators, the counselors, the school systems, and the community groups in par- `ticular, can be brought together in an entitly to determine how this problem can be evaluated. We are to look at this in very `specific and concrete terms. This we plan to do in the next coming year. Mr. GnAv. This is a very worthy program. I am trying to determine, are you advocating possibly having space here, public space, so you could recruit counselors, or to orientate people as `to what your pro- gram is? Mr. TROUTMAN. Yes. This, Mr. Chairman, is the point which is germane to our `Center and the reason for my being here today is the fact that we, first of all, feel we must start off `by establishing our National Center a~id in the second generation of this program, then to establish what we call a Community New `Career Center, which are the ones to be located throughout `the United States in any com- munity that `wishes to set one up. Now we have several hundreds of thousands of young people coming to Washington every year. `Their reasons for coming here are quite varied. But we feel by having a National New Career Center of the type we are describing here available for them, we will find that `many of them, their parents, will see to it that they go there; their teachers will ask them to go there, their counselors. And we would like to make the facility available to these hundreds of thousands of young people. We also want to make the Center available to others, but the main thrust is for the young person of high and junior high school level. PAGENO="0253" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 249 We feel that by having a facility like the National New Career Center, there would be a very logical next step to have it located either as a part of your Visitor Center as you now envision this thing and are working toward it, and if not this, as an alternative, to have it fairly close by, or for us to have a reference facility within the Visitor Center to which you can then be referred to other parts of our program in other parts of `the city. So this, of course, is the main tie-in. As I say, we do hope in our National New Career Center to offer opportunities for the testin of the young people, to provide counselors-counselor recruiting coul certainly be a part of this. We hope to have summer workshops for counselors, for teachers, with industry people, labor union people coming down, possibly serving as teachers for these other groups to provide a real positive kind of interchange of information of this kind within the Center. As I say, the germaneness does lie in the fact we feel this is a most appropriate kind of thing to have located as part of your Visitor Center. This is the reason that I am here to talk on `behalf of the Center today. Mr. Gi~y. We appreciate your coming. As I said, it `sounds like a very meritorious project on your part and some'thing that is certainly needed. I would suggest very strongly that once this has been approved and the Visitor Center is being planned in depth by the architect and engi- neers, the National Park Service, and so forth, that you consult with the National Park Service to find out if maybe space couid ndt be secured there in the public interest. I m.ight also call to your attention just on yesterday we had a private group here `who said `that if they could gdt auThority, they would build a $300 million complex behind this station for this very thing, pro- viding space for public displays, for the various States to come in and display their historical backgrounds and the ~types of goods and serv- ices that that State produces. I certainly think this could be handled very well `with that `type of facility. Mr. TROTJTMAN. Yes. Mr. Gi~. The point I am making, if we can get started on the Visi- tor `Center, I feel this would be the impetus for other things like you are proposing to come along to be in conjunction. Because nowhere in the world would you have a captive audience of 15 or 20 million people a year congregate in one area, and certainly this `would tie in. I `deeply appreciate your coming and I can assure you that your en- tire testimony will be in the record for all members of Congress to read. Testimony gathered in hearings will be printed an'd will be available for pnblic use. Mr. TROUTMAN. One other point, Mr. `Chairman, please. Just `an- other several minutes here. Mr. GRAY. Yes. Mr. TROUTMAN. Thi;s I think is a very germane one, too, as far as your extensive efforts that you have put into this thing at the present time. I was interested in Mrs. Coopersmith's comment regarding Expo 67. I found it to be a very exceflent kind of operation and encompasses very much. 85-894 0-67-17 PAGENO="0254" 250 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER AC~ OF 1967 On my way back from Expo 67,1 stopped in at Ottawa and met with several of the officials of the Department of Manpower and Immagra- tion. I was consultant to the Canadian GOvernment last November, this same Department. I had an opportunity to go back to discuss business matters with these people. While I was there talking to two of the officials of the Department, I had the opportunity to review for them this National New Career Center, which we are looking at right here for the Washington area, and the chief official's comments were, he said, "Good gosh, we have got a Union Station here in Ottawa, too. Why can't we think in terms of doing the same thing?" It occurred to me, Mr. Chairman, that I would recommend rather strongly that as you go along and develop your materials, your bro- chures, your programs, that you make the information that you are getting together, bring it to the attention of the mayor's council, be- cause I am sure most of the cities have a Union Station. I know I do. I, for one, used to like to see the one in New York. I hated to see the Pennsylvania Railroad Terminal turned down. Based on this chance remarks of the Canadian officials, as I say, I think this is an excel- lent thing and I would like to see your organization make the mayors' council aware of this and let the rest of the cities look at the Union Stations as well. This allows us to retain our artifacts, as you will, in terms of the older buildings and this type of thing, and I think this a very commendable program you are working on. Thank you. Mr. GRAY. Thank you, Mr. Troutman. You have been very helpful. We deeply appreciate your patience in waiting and certainly your testimony. Are there any questions or comments? We have one statement here from Mr. James Hodgson, of the Capi- tol Hill Restoration Society, who was to appear earlier but because time ran out he was kind enough to submit his statement, so it will be printed, without objection, in the record. (The prepared statement of Mr. Hodgson follows:) TESTIMONY OF THE CAPITOL HILL RE5T0IUTIoN SoCIETY AND CAPITOL HILL COMMUNITY COUNCIL My name is James B. Hodgson, Jr., of 506 A Street, S.~., Washington, D.C. I have been authorized by the presidents of both the Capitol Hill Restoration Society (a sustaining member of the National Trust for Historical Preservation) and the Capitol Hill Community Council (a member of the D.C. Federation of Civic Associations) to make this statement. The Capitol Hill Community has shared with this committee its long-standing commitment to the beautification of the Capitol environs including especially the preservation of the major landmarks which notably include the Union Sta- tion. We are very happy to see the felicitous solution to the difficult problem of the preservation of the Station which this legislation represents. We wish to recognize particularly the contribution which the Chairman of this Subcommit- tee, Mr. Gray, has made to leading the negotiations between the Federal Govern- ment and the owning railroads to an arrangement which appears to be so bene- ficial to the Nation as a whole. This represents an outstanding example of hav- ing found a new use for an old building whlch will preserve its architectural distinction for posterity. We also hope that the further negotiations will be as outstanding in the field of transportation, because this project can also provide a model of the sort of "transportation center" about which Mr. Wilbur Smith has so eloquently writ- ten. This project, which is expected to handle some 5,000 visitors per hour, will be served by several modes of transportation and could provide a model solu- tion to the "intermode transfer" problem. PAGENO="0255" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1 9 67 251 The terminal, first, is a1read~r going to be the southern end o~f our American ~version of the Japanese Tokyo-Tokaido high speed rail line, and will link the Visitor Center and the business district of Washington with Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. Studies indicate that within the current technology, rail transportation can compete with air transportation from conventional airports if the origin and destination are not over 250 to 300 miles apart. Where com- petition exists among products, our economy seem.s to give the nod more to promotional efforts than to absolute scientific proof of product superiority. It seems likely that the Visitor Center will contribute substantially to the accept- ance of the Northeast Corridor rail project by making the terminus attractive, by providing services, and by easing the problems of transportation after arrival, Second, the Visitor Center will have a subway station. This should encourage many visitors to leave their cars at their hotels, motels, or relatives in the sub- urbs, or to use the fringe parking lots and minimize the need for parking and street congestion around the Capitol and Mall area. The availability of the sub- way should link them easily to the Zoo and to Arlington Cemetery. Someday the lines will undoubtedly be extended to National Airport and Dulles, thereby mak- ing the Visitor Center and Union Station a desirable airline terminal. Rapid service can also be provided from Union Station to Friendship Airport, rein- forcing the importance of the Visitor Center. Third,~ the Visitor Center could be connected to the airports by helicopter, though the effective provision of subway and rapid rail service might reduce the need for helicopter service, since the rail mode is not subject to disastrous slowdowns at exactly rush hour when the major demand exists to get to and from the airports. Any reduction In the need for helicopter service would be viewed with favor by the residents of the area. The very noisy experience with the experimental service between the site for the Third Congressional Library Building and the three airports led many residents to hope that these vehicles would fly closer to the halls of the legislature and the offices of business than to them. A fourth mode of transportation is the highway bus. Currently the bus sta- tions are in a very inconvenient location, difficult for the most frequent users `to reach, because they are easily accessible only by taxi.. Other than current contractual commitments, there appears to be no compelling reason why that location, like the adjacent location of the airlines terminal at 12th and K Streets, N.W., would be preferable to the Visitor Center-Union Station site. With some million of square feet of air rights space available over the tracks (an area comparable to the entire Judiciary Square-Pension Building site) and with potential highway connections to the 4th Street Freeway and along the tracks to New York Avenue, there is an obvious potential for a major bus transportation terminal associated with the parking facility, similar to the New York Port Authority terminal, but superior in location and accessibility to the other trans- portation modes and to the places of interest. We are conscious that nothing gets done unless there is some tangible profit above the general benefit to the community and the nation. Doing good Is not enough. There may even be some current commitments and vested interests which would make the transfer of the facilIties difficult. We would hope that the Com- mission would exert its influence and the executive powers of the city to effect the transfer; however, there may be other inducements. We suggest that the founders of the Visitor Center and the owners actively pursue the notion of an international trade fair center to exploit the air rights over the track area and above the parking and bus facilities. This can be done in a most profitable manner, both to the owners and the nation. We note that American industry has no central location to display its wares to the thousands of industrialists and government officials who come to Wash- ington to negotiate wtih the Worid Bank, the Agency for International Develop- ment, etc. A well designed, permanent industrial exhibition is a logical facility to locate in this most accessible of spots, a stone's throw from the Congress. Here it could also serve as an inspiration and educational institution to the youth of America who are touring their Nation's Capital. Mr. Schwengel's interest in immersing the youth in the history of our country could be supported by a prevue of the future. It is suggested that American manufacturing industry would pay well for such a prestigious show room. We hope that the Commission, which has functioned so effectively thus far, will be able to complete its negotiations successfully, and will be able to achieve the potential of thi'~ most exciting project, a transportation and visitor center which can literally be an American showcase to the world. Many of us are tired PAGENO="0256" 252 NATIONAL V~SIPOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 of hearing about the wonders of Stockholm., Moscow, and Tokyo. We feel that the traveler's dollar has a great deal of clout, and that the Commission should be able to guide that clout effectively to move toward a great solution. Possibly that clout may outweigh some of the manifold difficulties in Washington in getting anything at all done, of achieving agreement between the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Oapitol Planning Commission, with the Federal Aviation Agency and the Public Utilities Commission, with the District of Columbia Government, the District Highway Department, and the Federal Bu- reau of Public Roads and with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and finally with all of the private Interests Involved. This is a monu- mental order. If the Commission brings it off, then all involved will deserve a significant place in history. Mr. GRAY. We also would like to ask unanimous consent that all statements that we have received-and we have received numerous statements from MenThers of Congress and other individuals and or- ganizations concerning this proposed legislation-printed in the record. Without objection, so ordered. (The statements follow:) NATIONAL CAPITAL 1150, Washington, D.C., October 9, 1967. Hon. KENNETH J. GRAY, Chairman, Subcommittee on Buildings an(Z Gronnds, Pnbtie Works Committee, House of Representatives, Wa~hington, D.C. DEAR Ma. GRAY: As you know, the USO is deeply Interested in the possibilities inherent in the proposal to convert Union Station into a National Visitors Center to include an appropriate USO facility, as recommended in the report of Sec- retary Udall's National Visitors Center Study Commission. The accompanying statement by Henry W. Clark, Vice President of National Capital USO, Inc., and Chairman of our Building and Facilities Committee, is submitted for your own and your Committee's further information and consider- ation. This statement, with the letter you have received from the USO National Presi- dent, General Emmett F. O'Donnell, presents the USO position with respect to the National Visitors Center proposal. If any additional information is desired, every effort will be made to furnish it. Your own and your Committee's interest in and action toward providing the Nation's Capital with the kind of National Visitors Center it should have are warmly appreciated by all who are directly concerned with the USO program in Washington,. Please be assured of our best wishes and of our desire to cooperate fully in this most important project. Sincerely, JAMES 0. DUNTON, President. 1150 IN THE NATIONAL VIsITORs CENTER Statement of Henry W. Clark, Vice President and Chairman, Building Committee The Purpose of this statement is two-fold: first, to express the appreciation of the United Service Organizations for the consideration which the National Visitors Center Study Commission has given to the USO in the report recom- mending conversion of Union Station into a National Visitors Center; and second to express the hope that the Congress will approve the Commission proposal with such modifications as may be possible to allow the 1150 the space needed for all of the free or at-cost "in town" services which should be available in the Nation's Capital for men and women of our own and Allied Armed Forces and for the dependents of our service personnel. The USO originated early in World War II as "a voluntary civilian organiza- tion, established by the six member agencies, through which the people of this country serve the religious, spiritual, social, welfare, educational and entertainment needs of the members of the Armed Forces in the United, States and in overseas areas." The six member agencies are the Young Men's Christian Association, National Catholic Community Service, National Jewish Welfare PAGENO="0257" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 253 Board, Young Women's Christian Association, Salvation Army, and the National Travelers Aid Association. Traditionally the President of the United States is Honorary Chairman of the USO. The American people support the USO through their local United Funds and Community Chests. National Capital USO, incorporated in the District of Columbia and chartered by National USO as an autonomous organization, is responsible for all USO operations and activities in the Washington area, to include neighboring sections of Maryland and Virginia. National Capital USO is a member of the United Givers Fund and receivers USO operating funds allocated by the Health and Welfare Ctmncil. The first Lady is Honorary Chairman of the USO in Wash- ington. National Capital USO maintains a USO Lounge in Union Station, in the space originally reserved for use by the President of the United States. (l~!ven now, this area is sometimes used for official occasions in connection with arrivals by train.) The space is made available by the Washington Terminal Company as a public service. The USO Lounge offers round-the-clock services such as information, free baggage checking, tour guidance, games, home area newspapers and other reading materials, radio and television, rest rooms with special features for men needing a quick uniform press or repair and for mothers with small chil- dren, couches for "napping" between trains, "wake-up" service, etc. Currently more than 11,000 Armed Forces personnel or dependents are being accommodated at the USO Lounge each month. National Capital USO also maintains a USO Club at 451 Penna. Ave., N.W., opposite the National Gallery of Art. The limited, unattractive and inconvenient USO Olub space on the first floor of the old Ford Building, has been made available to USO by the District of Columbia Government. It should be noted that the Ford Building is one of those which will be razed when the Pennsyl- vania Avenue Plan is further implemented. At the USO Club, a professional staff supplemented by some 300 Senior Vol- unteers and Junior Hostesses provide information services, operate a non-profit canteen. Offer television and reading materials, `and conduct an activities program for servicemen and women stationed in or passing through the Washington area. The activities include free Sunday breakfasts, holiday lunches, dinners, formal and informal parties and dances, movies, games, variety shows and other ama- teur and professional entertainment, guided tours, projects for hospitalized service personnel, and other special events. Many of the activities are spon- sored by church groups, patriotic societies, veterans, civic, women's business and professional organizations of Washington and suburban communities. At the Club the door-count is also averaging about 11,000 to 12,000 per month, in spite of the fact that the Club capacity is limited to 300 at a time and the space available cannot be adapted for a well rounded USO program. National Capital USO extends its reach by maintaining a direct line informa- tion service, round~the-clock, from USO telephones in the Greyhound and Trail- ways bus terminals and at the Statler Hilton Hotel. Information desks at Andrews Air Force Base and at the hotel are staffed on a part-time basis by USO Volunteers. The Lounge and Club also provide information services in answer to telephone calls from National Airport and Dulles International Airport. Thus the two USO facilities, with the information services by telephone, do in effect constitute a "Visitors Center" for Armed Forces personnel and their dependents who need help or wholesome entertainment while they are in Wash- ington. The success of the USO effort to meet their myriad needs reflects not only the proficiency and enthusiasm of the USO staff and volunteers but also the in- terest and cooperation of the community leadership which is represented in `the USO organization. The Senate and the House of Representatives, the National Park Service, the D.C. Government, Selective Service, Metropolitan Police De- partment, Washington Board of Trade and many other agencies and organiza- tions are represented on the USO Board of Directors or in the USO corporation. National `Capital USO has a close working relationship with the Department of Defense and with the headquarters of the major Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard commands in this area. `The Assistant Secretary of De- fense for Manpower is an e.r officio member of the USO Board of Directors as well as a member of the National USO Board of Governors. The Commanding Gen- era!, Military District of Washington, the Commandant of the Washington Naval District, the Commander of Air Force Headquarters Command, the Commanding Officer of the Marine Barracks, and the Chief, Headquarters Services, U.S. Coast Guard, are also er officio mem'bers of the Board of Directors and are present PAGENO="0258" 254 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACP OF 1967 or represented at every Board meeting to participate in the USO effort to provide the best possible "In town" service to service personnel. The tISO staff works directly with ~pecia1 service offices at all Armed Forces installation.s in the Washington vicinity and neighboring States to accommodate individual visitors from those installations and to arrange guided tours or other special projects for groups. These individuals and groups come from the nearby posts, camps, stations and bases, such as Andrews and Bolling Air Force Bases, Fort Belvoir, and the Marine Corps Schools at Quantico, and also from as far away as Fort Meade, Aberdeen Proving Ground and Patuxent Naval Air Station in Maryland, Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, Fort Lee and the various Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard facilities in the Norfolk, Virginia area, and from installations in North Carolina. Although more than 250,000 young men and women of the services come to the Lounge or Club in the course of a year, the USO is aware that many thou- sands of others would be served if the USO were in a centralized transportation situation such as the National Visitors Center will create. It would not be un- reasonable to estimate that a USO in the National Visitors Center would be required to accommodate at least 500,000 servicemen, women and dependents in a twelve month period. There is little or no prospect that the number of Armed Forces personnel stationed in or passing through the Washington area will decrease in the foreseeable future. Even in a peacetime situation there will be hundreds of thousands of young men and women in the Armed Forces, many away from home for the first time. When they come to Washington, they and the community and their country will be best served if the USO is there, pre- pared to serve them in every respect at the least cost to them. On the basis of USO experience in other major centers of troop concentra- tion or travel, the TJSO is hopeful that as much as 12,000 square feet of space in the National Visitors Center can be made available for USO use. Since many of USO's visitors arrive with heavy dufile bags or other luggage, an area on the gorund floor would be preferable, although space on the mezzanine or second floor would not be unacceptable provided escalators are installed. Also, con- sidering administrative and control requirements, it would be preferable and more economical to have all USO space on one floor; however, the important con- sideration is the total amount of space that will be needed and USO functions could be divided, if necessary, to have part on the ground floor and part on the mezzanine, or part on the mezzanine and the remainder on the second floor. The 12,000 square feet of space would allow for the necessary administrative offices and meeting rooms, for a transient lounge (to include an Armed Forces Information Central, reading room, game room, radio-television room, snack bar, cloak and baggage checkroom, shower room "do-it-yourself" laundry, wo- men's dressing room and nursery for dependent wives with small children) and for a club room for special parties, such as inductee groups and troop units of 40 to 100, for "between trains" sleeping, for scheduled events such as chess tournaments, and the various social and entertainment features such as break- fasts, luncheons, suppers, dances, movies, variety shows and other amateur and professional presentations which are sponsored or arranged by cooperating organizations. National Capital USO has not indulged in wishful thinking to the extent of having any floor plans drawn to show precisely how the 12,000 square feet of space would be used. However, the National Headquarters of the USO in New York does have and will furnish copies of floor plans of comparable USO fa- cilities. Since these plans have been developed in the course of 25 years of USO experience in major cities of the United States and other countries, it is believed that they wilt serve the purposes of the authorities who will be responsible for the final plans for the National Visitors Center. By approving the National Visitors Center Study Commission's proposal. to include adequate spc~'e for a combined USO Club and Lounge operation offering free or at-cost services to all Armed Forces personnel and their dependents, the Members of Congress can reaffirm their own and the Government's concern for the welfare and well-being of members of the Armed Forces when they are in Washington and give the Nation's Capital the kind of USO it should have. The 1350 in the National Visitors Center should be a "show case" facility, a source of patriotic pride for this community and for the country. The officers and directors of National Capital USO are confident that the people of the Wash- ington area will continue to support the USO through the United Givers Fund and through any special projects that may be in order to meet the operating costs of such a US0 facility in the C~nter. PAGENO="0259" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 255 UNITED SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS, INC., New York, N.Y., September 18, 11967. Hon. KENNETH L. GaAY, U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C. M~ DnAR Mn. C~NGRESSMAN: I am glad to note that Mr. James G. Dunton, President of the National `Capitol USO in Washington, has been in touch with you about the inclusion of an adequate space in the new National Visitors Center for a USO Club and Lounge. As you may know, USO has been operating a Lounge and Club in Union Sta- tion since its inception prior to World War II in 1941. Over the years millions of transient men and their families have found a welcome rendezvous and service especially designed for them, a "home away from home", provided by the American people to let them know that their fellow countrymen appreciate their service and sacrifice. I have also written Secretary Udall to tell him with what importance we at USO National Headquarters regard the opening of a USO Center in the new National Visitors Center to serve the growing needs of the hundred's of thou- sands of men and women in uniform passing through the Nation's Capitol `City en route to new posts and stations, or just sight-seeing. We hope to make this a national showcase also, of the worldwide program' being carried out by the USO in behalf of those in uniform, at home and overseas, from Vietnam to Turkey and Greece and other parts of the world where `our Armed Forces are on `duty. I do hope you and your committee will give an attentive ear to the plans and suggestions Mr. Dunton will present. Be assured that we at National Headquarters stand ready to lend every ap- propriate assistance possible. Sincerely, EMMETT O'DoNNELL, Jr., General, U.S. Air Force (Retired), President. PAGENO="0260" 256 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 PAGENO="0261" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 257 PAGENO="0262" 258 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 `1 7/~q 1ir~ / 1/ / PAGENO="0263" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 259 PAGENO="0264" 260 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 ~VS LETTER, Vol. 3, No. 5 September, 1967 Published by the USO, 237 East 82nd St. New York, N.Y. 10022 USO to a voluntary ctvtUae organisatton established bylts MeanherAgenctes through which the people of this country nerve the religious, upiettuat, soctat, welfare and educattonot needs of the members of the Armed Forces. The Psenident of the United Staten Lyndon B. Johnson Honorary Chairman Harvey S. Firestone, Jr. Chairmen of the Corporation Hotter I. Johnoon Vice Chairman of the Corporation General Emmett O'Donnett, Jr., USAF (Ret) Prenident Stanley B. Ecker Chairman, Executive Committee Juotin M. Morettl Executive Director IJSO pres.~ent General .Smmett C .._...... Homer E. Capehart, attending the August Indiana National indianapolis. Former Senator Capehart Named USO National Campaign Chairman The Honorable Homer E. Capebart, former U.S. Senator (Rep) from Indiana, has been appointed the new USO National Campaign Chairman, General Emmett O'Donnell, Jr., USAF (Ret.), USO President has announced. He was elected to the USO Board of Governors at Its meeting September 21, and was also named a member of the USO Executive Committee. Mr. Capehart fills this important National USO post which has been vacant since the death of its previous Chairman, the late Admiral Chester C. Woods, in 1965. The distinguished Indianian was first elected to the Senate in 1944, was re-elected itt 1950 and again in 1956, for a total of 18 years service in the U.S. Senate. He has engaged in manufacturing and in 1927 organized the Capehart Corporation. He is active now in the operation of a 2,000 acre farm in Daviess County, Indiana, where he first gained national attention by his sponsorship of the Republican "Cornfield Conference" in 1938. He was married in Wrightstown, Wisconsin, on January 19, 1922, to Irma Mueller, and is the father of three children: Homer Earl, Jr., an Indianapolis attorney; Thomas C., deceased; and Mrs. James C. Pearson of Washington, D.C. Senator Capehart Is a member of the Lutheran Chur~b, the American Legion, the Burning Tree Country Club of Wash- ington, D.C., the Masonic Order (32nd degree) and other societies in Indianapolis and Chicago. Before assuming his Chairmanship, Senator Capehart spent several days with General O'Donnell and Executive Director, Justin M. Morrill, getting acquainted with members of the USO National staff. On December 7, 1941, be organized and directed a rally successfully launching the Indianapolis drive of the United Service Organizations. Member Agencies Young Meo'a Christian Anioclallons National Catholic Community Service National Jewish Welfare Board Young Women's ChristIan Asioclatlon The Salvation Army Travelers Aid Association of America USO is supported by United Funds. Community Chasm and independent compaigno in New Yorh City, Chicago end elsewhere PAGENO="0265" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 261 Danny Kaye Opens New USO Shows Pacific Hospital Circuit At the request of the Department of Defense, United Service Organizations, Inc. (USO), hss established a Pscific Hospital Circuit to bring entertainment snd celebrity visitors to servicemen wounded in Vietnam who have been evacustud from the front lines to con- valescent hospitals in Guam, Okinswa, the Philippines, Taiwsn, Japan and Hawaii. Colonel Jerome Coray, Director of 1.150 Shows, an- nounced that the new USO Shows circuit was of- ficially initiated September 1, 1967, and will include a total of eight shows per month - four handshake tours and four variety shows. Because of his vast experience in touring military camps and bases for USO Shows for many years and under all conditions, internationally famed comedian Dasiny Ksye was asked to pioneer the new venture with a two-week handshake tour of Japan, Guam, Okinawa, and the Philippine Islands. Returning in late August, Kaye reported at a press conference held at USO National Headquarters, New York, that he found the tour more "incredibly rewarding" than any similar experience in his career. Kaye returned to the West Coast where he will assist the USO in recruiting star talent in a "call-to-arms" to support the new progr Talent for the showe will be drawn from three ma sources: USO-Hollywood Overseas Committee; The National Cartoonists Society; and the Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Barber Shop Quartet Singing in America. The USO-HOC will furnish top motion picture and television stars for two variety groups and two handshake tours per month, The National Cartoonists Society has agreed to provide at least six cartoonists groups per year for the hospital prograon, and no fewer than six Barber Shop Quartets per year will be provided "to stimulate barber shop singing among the hospitalized wounded and organize quartets among the patients." Also in the planning stageo for the hospital shows are visitations by prominent figures from the sports world, The National USO Shows office in New York will coordinate the entire program. Part of the touring celebrities will be recruited in New York City and the remainder will be provided by the USO-Hollywood Overseas Committee on the West Coast, This new Pacific Hospital Circuit is an expansion o the existing 050 Shows program. The other groups are the special Vietnam celebrity program recruited by the USO-Hollywood Overseas Committee; the paid professional shows playing bases - large and small - around the world; and the college show tours with volunteer students presenting Broadway shows, choral and instrumental groups. NOTICE: USO National Headquarters received word from Bernie Carvalbo, Executive Director of the USO Club in Fairbanks, Alaska, that though the basement which houses a dormitory and snack bar was completely inundated the first floor, which is about aix feet above the ground level, escaped the flood waters. The Commanding Of- fIcer of "Murphy Dome" a nearby military installa- tion is sending several soldiers each day to Fairbanks to help the IJSO staff put the club back in operation, Damage to the facility and equipment is not as extensive as we originally thought. The home of the Director was flooded and both Bernie and his wife suffered considerable personal loss. As we go to press we have heard from Bernie that the USO is back in operation with a temporary canteen and dormitory on the first floor. He hopes to have the full club in operation before the first freeze comes in September. Danny Kaye addresses press at conference held follow- ing his return from a two-week tour pioneering initia- tins of Pacific Hospital Circuit. VIncent J. Romeo, Vice Chairman of the USO NatIonal Council has announced that the 1908 National Council Annual Meeting will be held on March 28th and 29th at the Mars-loll Motor lintel In Dallas, Texas. PAGENO="0266" The question on many minds is: Can we raise the money? In a special informative letter to the Chestu and Funds from President General O'Donnell early in August, General O'Donnell said, "We think we can, and witheut resort to any special emergency appeal,... 11 ery local United Fund and Community Chest allocates "fair share" of the USO quota, we can honor our obligations .10 our servicemen without any supple- mental emergency appeal," This increase is within the total budget approved by NBCC last spring. The re- sponse from our friends in Federation has been very heart warming. In a reply from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, The United Fund stated "We all realize the tremendous job the USO is doing and we want to give our full support." The Warren County, Pennsylvania, Fund said, "We recognize the increasing needs and have increased your previous allocation 333/~%." From East SI, Louis, tlli nois; "Your straight-forward presentation of USO serv- ices in Vietnam of increased needs for 19B8 will be warmly reviewed by our Budget Committee," The Lake Charles, Louisiana, Fun4 stated their sppfeciatton kg- the fine support USO has given to the United Way campaigns. "There Is no other natignal a~ency that produces the same quality of highly visible support for the United Way as USO.' North Attleboro, Massa- chusetts said, "USO's association as a member of our campaign lends prestige to our Community effort," Milwaukee, Wisconsin replied, "Your very informative letter Ia most helpful. It has been our practice to try and carry our fair share and the attitude of our Board toward IJSO will continue to be favorable." In addition to this, an all-out effort is being made to conduct more USO campaigns in non-federated areas. General O'Donnell is very grateful to the many friends of USO. 262 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTRR ACT OF 1967 National USO 1968 Operating Budget Expected To Be Up Approximately $1 ,000,000 During a recent viSit to USO National Headquarters from their pools in Southeast Asia, Joseph A. Tvedt, 1350 Executive - Pacific (left), and David L. Walton, Director of Operations for Vietnam, confer with Herbert I. Kenny (extreme right), Secreiary, National , get and Consultation Committee. The NECC an- Ily reviews the USO program and budget, reporting its findings and making recommendations to the United Funds for support of USO operations. tured above is the modern structure housing the ew USO installation which opened July11 at Taichung, Taiwan (Formosa). The club, located on the seventh and eighth floors of the building, offers a comfortable lounge and reading area, information center with snack bar facilities clue for completion shortly. Formal dedi- cation and opening ceremonies are scheduled for early fall. Mr. William Semkow is the Executive Director; it was through his ingenuity and hard work that thin new club was made possible. THOMAS D'AR~Y BROPHY On july 29, while attempting to rescue Iwo of his grandchildren from a rolling car parked at a supermarket, Thomas D'Arcy Brophy was killed. Mr. Etrophy had been associated with USC since its inception, was a USO founder, and the first Chairmen of the USO National Public Relations Committee. He continued to serve as an active member of the Board of Governors, frequently on the National Public Relations Committee, and during 1966 served as head of 1350's Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Committee. He never ceased to give of himself to carry out the purposes for which USO exists. With Mr. Brophy's death, USO has lost a close friend, an unstinting benefactor, and a tradition. PAGENO="0267" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 263 Enthusiasm Is mounting as the time draws near for the two USO Regional Staff Conferences. Atlanta, Ga. is expected to host 110 particIpants September 11-14, and San Francisco, Calif. will welcome 85 staff mem- bers September 25-28. Projection of future USO program and the effect on staff, military personnel served, local Councils, vol- unteers, and administration will be the focal poInt for both conferences with Justtn M. Morrill, Executive Director, USO, Inc., addressing the opening dinner meetings on "USO In 1970.' Panel members for the Tuesday A.M. session "Young Adults In Today's World," relating to the new morality and ethical values and the current generation of serv- icemen will Include; Mrs. Helen F. Southard, Director, Bureau of Research and Program Resources, National Board, YWCA; Lt, CoL Fergus Monahan, USA, Surgeon General's Office, Washington, D.C.; Rev. George Hagmaler, C,S.P., Associate Director, Institute for Religious Research, New York City; and Capt. Frederick Brink, CHC, UBN, Naval Base, Newport, ILl. The luncheon address "The USO Professional in Today's World" will be given by lames S. Mitchell in Atlanta and Dr. David F. DeMarche in San Francisco. Following, discussion groups will probe the subjects presented at the morning and luncheon sessions. Local and national USO Councils will be explored Wednesday morning in Atlanta by Mrs. Jane Butcher, Secretary, USO National Council; and Arnold Bernstein, Vice President, USO Council, Columbia, S.C. San Francisco's discussion will be led by Mrs. Bartlett B. Heard, member of the San Francisco Bay Area Council, and Mrs. Harry I. Ragen, San Diego USO Council. continued top next column "Creativeness and New Concepts in Administration," in the areas of program, personnel and finance will be discussed on Wednesday afternoon. Prior to Justin Morrill's closing remarks on Thursday, task groups working on assigned projects during the conference will present their reports. EUROPEAN STAFF MEETS The 1987 European Staff Conference was held at the Isle of Capri, june 27-30. It was a first time experience for nine of the conferees. Lt. Cud. Gene Crook, USAF, J4 of EUCOM, Stuttgart, Germany-an Important observer at all sessions * commended the -"ctn-do-attitude" of all staff, and wrote in a personal report to Mr. Morrill, ",. . with tbe spirit that prevails throughout this area USO should have no worries about the way its program and facili- ties will be operated." The conference covered budgeting, Council structpre and its greater usage, building renovations, publicity and exchange programs. Gene Scbram who was present for the entire conference reported that, "the European staff is highly motivated, imaginative and young in spirit and ideas - a staff that merits the often-mentioned esteem of our military commands in Etlrope." While in Europe, Mr. Schram inspected club facilities, met with local Councils and staff at Rota, Parts, Nice, Rome, Naples. Malta, Istanbul. Vol.1,No.3 L - Pbi hdQ t iybyth - ~A - - September 1967 Inter Agency Committee for Program De lopment Regional Meetings Planned The National Council presentation at both conferences will be made by Dr. loseph Gluckman, Coordinator, National Council, USO, Inc. "The Volunteer" will be the luncheon topic of Dr. Marvin C. Goldstein, Regional Chairman, Armed Ser- vices Committee, Jewish Welfare Board, Southern Region, Atlanta; and Miss Rhoda Andersen, Executive Director, Volunteer Bureau, Los Angeles Area, at the San Francisco conference. Following Dr. Goldstein in Atlanta, Edward M. Kirby, Director of Public Relations, National USO, will address the luncheon on the sub- ject "Creativeness in USO Public Relations." Members of the Committee áad Editorial aoard °Mr. Dssald 5. McGraw, YMCA. Chairman; 5MIss Dorothy Esardmos, YWCA, °Mr. Isseph Groeshst, NIWB; Mr. PasiW. Gsyter. TAAA; Dr. Masrice M. Hartmass, NCCS; °Mr. Esgose Schrsm, IJSO. etditorjoi Soord PAGENO="0268" 264 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 PROGRAM BRIEFS * The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico flew 4,000 pounde of food to LAWTON, OKLA. for the Puerto Rican party last Christmas Day which was attended by 800 men, women and children. Finances were arranged through the assistance of the Post Chaplain. The pro- gram received tremendous volunteer support. The Puerto Rican party received the Armed Services Depart- ment of the YMCA Blue Ribbon Program Award. * A village inviting one hundred men to attend a fiesta in the town square and another Invitation for fifty men to attend a barbecue at a large and prosperous ranch are just a few of the many unique invitations extended to service personnel through the GUAM USO for Holiday Home Hospitality. * In OXNARD, CALIF the USO sponsored a field trip to the Port Hueneme Seabee Base for 32 children enrolled in Operation Head Start at Guadalupe Nursery School. Hand in hand with their chaperoning service- men and Junior Volunteers, the 5 and 6 year olds were taken aboard a working tugboat, through the Seabee Museum and the MARS radio station. At the "ham' shack", overseas stations were contacted and the youngsters spoke to men serving In Vietnam. Highlight of the three-hour tour was a box picnic lunch at the bass park followed by songs and games. Also accom- panying the group were Fr. Jose Madera and Sister DanlelTheresa, local directors of the Head Start project, .. At the SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT LOUNGE local lets volunteer several hours each week to draw char- coal sketches of the men which they send back home. The USO provides mailing tubes for the sketches which are mailed from the Lounge. * Thirty little girls from St. Elizabeth's Orphanage were "adopted" for an afternoon of songs, games and a dinner on Father's Day by the servicemen at the TAN SON NIIUT CLUB. The men so enjoyed the children that many of Ibem are now spending all their free time helping at the orphanage. USO Volunteer in United Way Campaigns USO builds morale among servicemen sround the world, USO builds morale locally by aiding United Way Cam- paign Committees. The skills and abilities of every member of the USO family-the Council officers and members, the USO volunteer and staff-will be wel' comed and can be utilized by United Way leaders, Community leaders who operate the United Way Cam' psigns point with pride to the fact that the leaders of agencies whl~h benefit from the big drive are working side by side with other citizens to reanh the current goal. The United Way Campaign is a once a year shot. Everybody knows about It and nearly every responsible American expects to give to It. How much he gives is up to the knowledgeable solicitor who reaches him, USO leaders are part of the knowledgeable group re- presenting voluntarism who can convey thg larger need for increased giving this year. Just how can the USO volunteer help In the United Way Campaign? First of all, there is the door-to-door solicitor. Volunteer to canvass the street or ares near your home, If you have the time and know the job, volunteer to take on one of the larger assignments In the campaign. There Is a United Way Campaign job for every USO volunteer: - Serve as a member of a divisional team or speakers bureau: assist with the orientation and training of campaign workers. -Perform clerical duties at campaign headquarters, type, file, pack and sort supplies: deliver campaign supplies to headquarters, campaign leaders about town: pick up and deliver reports: help with transpor- tation of posters and displays, - Prepare and serve luncheons and dinners for fund and report meetings and serve refreshments at rallies and special events, -USO junior volunteers and servicemen can play an important part In the success of the United Way Cam- paign. Their participation is most helpful In interpreting the value of the USO program: It provides them the opportunity for significant community involvement: and helps to build future leadership for volunteer organizations. -The United Way Campaign is the largest of the vol- unteer efforts in the USA. Be part of this good citizen's team in insuring the success of the campaign for SOME- ONE YOU KNOW NEEDS USO. PERSONALITIES * - PAT KRAUSE, Director of Public Information, USO Vietnam, was featured in the July COSMOPOLITAN Magazine story, "Could You Work In Vietnam?" EARL J. WATT, Executive Director, Paris, assumes position as Executive Director of the new USO Club in Malta, November 1 - . . MRS. MARIANA GATES, As- sociate Executive Director in Parts, will become Exec- olive Director of the Paris Club November 1, PAGENO="0269" Boston Businessman Boosts Viet Morale The morale of our troupe has become the concern of an interested group and a single individual, as evi- denced by the program recently initiated by a Boston Veterans organization and conducted by Boston busi- nessman Hyman I. Rosenberg. The interesting program began when a Jewish War Veterans Post in the Boston area learned of the need for musical tapes for military personnel in Vietnam. After contacting the Boston USO Club and being furnished with addresses of all USO facilities in Viet- nam, the group then approached Mr. Rosenberg whose hobby has been transferring musical arrangements to tape. From a small beginning, Mr. Rosenberg's hobby has turned into a full-time effort supplying tapes to USO clubs anywhere, to small military units, and even to individuals. An appeal received at the Boston USO from a mother who described the long, lonely hours her son spent on a navy ship, prompted a telephone call to Mr. Rosenberg who had tapes en route in short order. A generous contributor to charitable and worthwhile causes, Mr. Rosenberg feels, however, that for the first time he personally can see the final results of his endeavors. Mr. Rosenberg plans to continue his program, supply- ing tapes to overseas units and clubs as long as the need exists. Answering all requests, he makes single track and stereo, symphonic, pop or jazz. Sept. 25 To Be USO Night At Yankee-Tiger Game It will be "USO Night at Yankee Stadium" on Sept. 25 when the Bronx-USO Committee wilt promote the sale of special reserved and box seat tickets for the New York Yankee-Detroit Tigers game scheduled for that night, USO of New York City has announced. Proceeds from the event will be used to provide expanded USO global services for men and women of the Arme Forces, including Vietnam. The committee, headed by Joseph F. Callo, Sr., board chairman of Callo & Carroll, Inc., advertising agency, will consist of 100 prominent New York City business and professIonal men. Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford will serve as honorary chairmen, and Jerry Cole- man, Phil Ruzzsito and Joe Garsgiola as honorary co- chairmen. C. William Borchers is general chairman of the Bronx-USO Committee, The evening will also serve as a send off for a number of major league players and representatives, including some Yankees, not yet named, who are expected to visit American servicemen in Vietnam and the Pacific at the close of the baseball season under the auspices of USO. NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 265 At ceremonies officially opening the new USO Lounge at Pieta, Malta, Commander of the U.S. Sixth Fleet, Vice Admiral William Marlin, presents plaque to USO Club Director Michael Menster "In Grateful Itecogni- lion Of Extraordinary And Enduring Service To All Who Sail In The United States Sixth Fleet." In background is American Ambassador George 7. Feldman, Malta USO Council President, who also officiated at the formal opening. Mr. Menster is the Executive Director of the USO in Naples and was the acting director in Malta pending the assignment of a permanent director. Mr. Earl Watt, Executive Director of the Paris, France, USO has accepted the position of Executive Director in Malta effective November 2, 2967. Mr. L Base Janc ing the AFB Fanmarlter by more than ,~ .~ ~d guests. Mrs. C,,, was honored for twenty four years of service to the Base and Community through USO. 85-ss4 0 - 67 - 18 PAGENO="0270" 266 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 "PRACTICAL" CHRISTMAS OIFTS FOR SERVICEMEN IN VIETNAM What does a serviceman in Vietnam realty want for Christmas? A recent survey by the USO disctosed that items high on their "want" list include shaving equipment, toot spray, shampoo in plastic bottles, penlites, insect re- . llent, small Jigsaw puzzles, first aid kits, key chains d keycases, ballpoint pens, writing materials, medi- cated cleansing cream, small face towels, miniature sewing kits, large work handkerchiefs, hard candy in tins, and paperback books. Small three inch recording tapes, medical scrub brushes, foam tussles for combat boots, heavy work socks, one loch paint brushes, and small crossword puzzle books are alas popular. Last year, in addition to tb~se gifts received directly by individual servicemen from relatives and friends, hundreds of gifts were received by USO Clubs In Vietnam and distributed to oervlcemen visitors, to hospitals, and by airlift to remote units. Monetary con- tributions to USO from generous Americans everywhere made possible Christmas Day programs in Vietnam USO clubs w~sich featured entertainment and free home cooked dinners with all the traditional trimmings. With the increase in troop strength In recent months, USO staff members are already busily making plans for Christmas 1967 in the hope that this year's ob- servance will be bigger and better than ever to help , the loneliness of servicemen everywhere In Viet- many of whom are away from home for the first time. United States postal authorities will no longer accept packages addressed to "A Serviceman in Vietnam." However, where donors desire that USO distribute gifts to "Any Serviceman in Vietnam," the USO advises that gift packages addressed to USO Club Directors at specific APO addresses. and bearing an outside label identifying the contents, are acceptable and will LJSO CLUB ROTA CELEBRATES FIRST ANNIVERSARY The USO Club at Rota, Spain, marked Its first aunt. versary on July 13 with an Open House attended by Rota's Mayor Antonio Mans; Rear Admiral Manuel Gonzalez, Commander of the Rots Naval Base; and representatives from all the commands on the Naval Station. Captain James S. Elkins, Jr., CNA Spain/CO NavSta, who is also president of the Rota USO Council, pre. sented Club Director Pat Pangallo with a Charter from USO's National Headquarters In New York In presenting the Charter, Captain Elkins said, "It's really a satiofying and pleasing experience to be here to celebrate the first anniversary of the USO in Rota. Many of you who haven't been here long don't know of the struggles that have gone into the achievement of having this fine USO. It took many years of planning, working and hoping. To see this building and what has been made of it Is really great." Admiral Genzalez also spoke briefly and related that he was pleased that the club was in Rota because it Indicated that the U. S. Navy would be there for many years to came. Mr. Pangallo was interviewed by AFRS and said that during the first year at the IJSO, renovations had been made throughout the club's facilities. Since first opening its doors in July of last year, the club baa catered not only to single enlisted men on liberty, but also to activities on the base. Many organi. rations such as wives' clubs hold their meetings regu- larly at the USO, and the club has become extremely popular with such groups. be distributed by USO staff during the holidays. Donors pay postage from their hometowns to the APO in San Francisco, and surface mail parcels should be mailed by October 1st to insure dgllvery in Vietnam by Christmas. Miss America and Court Leave for Vietnam Academy Award Winning actress Joan Craw- ford, a Vice President of USO of New York City, poses between Miss America, Jane Anne , yroe (left), and chaperone Luciell Preuiti, as her American beauties stand behind them at Kennedy International Airport. Miss Crawford saw the girls off on their USO Shows-Pepsi-Cola sponsored tour to entertain servicemen in Viet- nam. Standing are, (I. to r.), Sharon Mae Sing. stock of Wisconsin; Barbara Ann Harris, South Carolina; Carole Ann Gelish, Connecticut; Ellen Warren, Maine; and Angeline Grooms of Alabama. PAGENO="0271" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 267 ~ Number Name P~cu Date Dunaaien Number Name Piece Date Duration GA342 "JesauahaaWlntersSbew" Thailandand June 5 l4days GA-337 "MisabmericaaedhecCeuec" Vietnam Aug. 14 l7days GA280 "Lass-O-Cheratiere" Eurupe June20 8weeks GA-347 Jeytitenu Vietnam AAg. 17 Sweeks Texan WemeasUsaaeraioy Thailand GA351 FlaydPateeraae Vietnam June23 l2days Pisfinspilal GA-261 `VersiayVaguteandn" Pacific June26 8weeks GA-358 GeargeJeasat Eutupe Aug.20 Z0days GA348 "~e~~rwa~ Viennam Julyfl 17 days GA-357 JaaaauMuore Vietnam and Aug.24 27days 68-282 "AFuanyTlaiagfteppeaed Pacific Julyl 7 weeks Thailand aatboWaytaaheFararm" GA284 "Cardinetaima" Nuntheest Aut. 25 4waeks. WaytteSteteUeiaeraity CathollcUaieersitp 08-348 `JaakCautaaza$huw" Vietnumatd July13 25dayu GA361 "Nitdalarruce$baw" Vietnam Aug.28 7 weeks wlth6eeieWoa Theileud Tlt~,~nd GA-33t1 `AtatsaframHawaii' Vietnam July15 t4deys Pacific Huspital GA.352 "TlaePreakleFaataigeShaw' Vietnam July18 17 days Cincuit GA-345 "FredThampaufl Vietnemand July21 24days VA.354 RabeataDurneaaad Vietramand Sept. 3 28days andaheLadphiada" Theiland LonEtegasaces Thailand 1848 Jamboree' EaatatdWett July21 l2wgeks GA-301 "ArkansaoCoftegeLesniaa" Canibbean Sept. 4 4weeks Mediterranean 8A-358 Ctaarteeafleaaea Vietnam Sept. 8 15 daya GA.353 "LauiaaadthaSea,aDayo" Caribbean July21 4weeks GA-300 "Bdgadaaa" Eurupe Sept 8 8woeks 1880 "ARigfteltaframTeaas" Pacific July24 7 Wants UaigersltyefDenver 1847 "Americu'aChildme" Pacific July24 7 weeks 1648 " laSh * " Al k 7 PalkPapGpaup GA.344 RabaccStack Vietnam JAIP25 17 days 8A-3f5 laaBalsa Vietnam Sept. 12 5 weeks 08-346 "SauttaMarltetStreea Vietnantand July31 2AdaAs Thailand Jenfleed" Thailand PacificHuspital GA.335 "YautbVedetles" Caribbean Aug. 1 4weeks Circuit VA-35V WwadnllCarep Vietnam and Ang. 1 25days GA-362 "NetianatCaraaaaisaSociety" Pacific Sept. 15 t7dnyn Thailand MikeBeegand Hnspital GA-355 BiltTetmea Vietnam end Aug. 4 21 days McflawaeMitler Circuit Thailand GA-302 "DaSaageTaaighc" Eurnpe Sept.15 8wnnks GA-263 "Caffeelloaae'87" Ntttheasf Aut. 4 4weeks UsiivnrsftpatWiscaaain CfarkeCaflege 08-364 "$ix PeaapOpera" Viettnm Sept. 15 8wsrks 85.343 "PaurintheMamiag" Vielnamand Aug. 7 24 days Thailand Thailand atdthe GA-360 DeeepKnye Pa~i1ic Aut. 8 lSdays Pacific Huspital Huspital Circuit Cincnit Thn ubnvn ipucludns listings nf thn stnppnd-up prngt'attg nf USO Slinwp which haven tnus'nd nvnu'snas military banns omen nur lass publication, June lyfl7. NEWS LETTER Vol. 3, No. 5 September, 1967 UNITED SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 237 East 52nd Street, N. Y., N. V. innz~ nsn PAGENO="0272" 268 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 Mr. GRAY. I want to thank all of the subcommittee members for their kind attention in attending these hearings for 4 days. You have been very helpful. With that, we will adjourn, and meet again on next Tuesday in executive session at 10 a.m. and, I hope, a full committee meeting on Thursday. With that, I thank all of the public witnesses and again thank the members of the committee. The meeting now stands adjourned. (Whereupon, at 1:21 p.m., the public hearings were concluded.) (The following was furnished for insertion:) STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. FLYNT, JIL, A REPRESENTATIVE; IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA Mr. Chairman, as desirable as it may be to establish a National Visitor Center in our Nation's Chpltal, I suggest it must be considered in the context of the President's request for a surtax on individual and corporate income taxes in order to meet funding requirements of the Federal Government. At a time when the Chief Executive considers an increase in the tax burden to be necessary, a new k~ok must also be taken at the projects and programs which create increased demand for additional Federal funds. I believe it to be necessary to establish priorities among these demands for Federal funds and to weigh these priorities and the contents of the programs therein against the extent of the added burdens of taxation and the effects upon those who must assume these burdens. In this context, the establishment of a National Visitor Center at this time does not, in my opinion, warrant the assignment of a priority high enough to recommend its approval. For this reason, I am presently opposed to H.R. 12603. At another time and under other circumstances, I might conceivably feel very different about this proposed legislation. STATEMENT OF HoN. DONALD G. BEOTZMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CoNGREss FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to present a statement on H.R. 12603, the National Visitor Center Act of 1967. When notice of these hearings was first given, I immediately began to gather background information on this proposal, but unfortunately many questions remain unanswered-particularly fiscal questions. I hope these will be answered during or as a result of thesehearings. Mr. Chairman, each month I have dozens of visitors from Colorado in my office. Many of them often have some complaint about the lack of visitor facilities in the Nation's Capital. I decided to poll all of the visitors who have stopped at my office and who signed my guest book during this session of Congress In an effort to determine what experiences they bad and what their opinion was on the ability of the Capitol Hill area to receive visitors. The response to the poll was overwhelming and did point to a definite need for improvements. The results of the poll are included at the end of this statement. The poll points out a pressing need for improvements in parking and restaurant facilities in the Capitol Hill area. Most of my visitors believed that the available public transportation and guide services are adequate. Many of those responding to my poll took the time to write additional com- ments and observations regarding the proposed National Visitor Center. One constituent wrote: "I feel the National Visitor Center is a tremendous idea. By receiving instruc- tions on bow to reach points of interest from such a center, and by having buses run directly to the tourist attractions, the visitor could avoid many hours which are wasted merely in searching for a way to get around in Washington." PAGENO="0273" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 269 Others expressing favorable comments on the proposed Center wrote as foi~ows: "A National Visitor Center would, I believe, be an asset to planning one's visit to the Capitol area." "I like the idea of a Center. We should do all necessary-on a pay-for.itself basis-to make a visit to Washington, D.C., a really meaningful experience for all Americans." "I would hate to see Washington become extremely commercialized due to its great historical background. Yet, the crowds that do flock to Capitol Hill demand new measures. Be careful not to over-commercialize it!" Not all of the comments were favorable: "I feel that a large expenditure of money In Washington for the benefit of visitors is plain waste." "I feel there are much more urgent and worthwhile projects for our Federal government to support." "Do we really have `to spend money on items like this (National Visitor Center). Spending has to stop somewhere and the above does not seem to me to be a neces- sity when compared to our other needs." Mr. Chairman, like many of my constituents' who responded to the poll, I do not question the need for such a Center. I support the general concept, and believe that it would go a long way toward improving Washington's `tourist environment and `suitabili'ty to receive visitors from around the world. I also believe that the selection `of Union Station for a visitor center is a wise chcice. Union `Station is one of `the most beautiful buildings in Washington and is a fine example of `classic architecture. It should be preserved. My major concern-and one which was expressed `by a number of my constitu- ents-is one of economics. Some of the gross statistics are on the table, particularly with regard to the conversion of Union Station. All of the changes, improvements and modifications will be `made by the owners of Union Station, who would then lease the revised facilities to the government for just under $3,000,000 per year. What would it cost to build an equivalent center from `the ground up? Estimates run between $25 million and $50 million. These `statistics would seem to make Union Station something of a `bargain. However, I would like to suggest that a complete fiscal analysis will have to prove thi's before I am ready to accept `the Union Station proposal as it stands. For example, it is contemplated that the 4,000 parking spaces provided `by the cen'ter would bring In `most of the revenues. Statistics on income from other concessions and operating costs of the center are somewhat vague. If we can `make a rather optimistic assumption that they will balance on'e another, this `means that each parking space would have to earn $2.06 per day `the year around, or else the American taxpayers are going to be making up an annual deficit. The concessions which will be included in the facility are subject to the agree- ment this bill authorizes the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to make with the owners of Union `Station. The existence or scope of restaurant facilities are not now spelled out. With so many matters up in the air and left to `the discretion of the `Secretary, it is hoped that the `Committee will include in i'ts `bill certain terms which must be contained in the agreement with `the owners of Union Station. More information is needed on `the financing of the Center, and specifically, on how much of `the `cost is to be provided by congressional appropriations. Mr. Chairman, it is hoped that these hearings will provide that needed informa- tion. Otherwise, it is my feeling that it will be almost impossible to assess the consequences of favorable action on H.R. 12603. RESULTS OF NATIONAL CAPITOL VISITORS POLL BY REPRESENTATIVE DON BROTZMAN, SECOND DISTRICT, COLORADO Adequate Inadequate No opinion 1. Parking facilities on Capitol Hill 2. Restaurants in the area 18 42 77 66 21 8 3. Public transportation (buses, cabs, etc.) 4. Capitol guide service 82 43 20 20 14 53 PAGENO="0274" ~7o NAPIONAL VISITOR CEN'~ER AC~~ OF 1967 Lirt of por8ons re8pon4ing to the poll (All respondents are residents of Colorado unless otherwise indicated) Jane Lyons, Lakewood Robert Pento, Denver Mr. & Mrs. 1\jichael C, Trent, Boulder Bert Zimeringér, Denver Bob Balleweg, Beaulak Stan Bogue, Greeley William Wallace, Bnglewood Leon S. Stanton, Salida George Zoellner, Aurora George D. Wolf, Boulder Robert C. McAttee. Sterling Jon Cram, Lakewood Dr. & Mrs. Robert O'Dell, Aurora Chas. E. Brokaw, Lakewood Kenneth Mecher, Denver Craig R. Minear, Denver Mike William, Hudson Jeanne A. Farrar, Lamita, Calif. Mrs. J. B. Carter, Colorado Springs Grant Wilkins, Englewood Donald L. Preszler, Denver Sorin Jacobs, Boulder Kenneth Balemit, Glenwood Springs F. W. Reich, floulder Mildred M. Carey, Lakewood M. L. Strub, Denver C. H. Starks, Keenesburg Bill Hiner, Denver Carl Gustafson, Denver 3'. F. Kelly, Denver JoAnn C. Baird, Boulder Pete Pleasant, Craig John T. Stephens, Longmont Lelyn L. Bryan, Ault Mrs. Maj~garet Guccini, Lamar Dr. Richard M. Nelson, Denver Clotilda Jones, Boulder Vicki Lowe, Arvada Roeco Gioso, Wheat Ridge Anton Zafereo, Colorado Springs Mr. & Mrs. Richard Rieck, Boulder John S. Horn, Denver Stan Swanson, Aurora Charles McLaw~ Lakewood Chet Davi4son, Denver Joan B. Light, Boulder Clair Toone, Salt Lake City, Utah C. Leon Nasser, Denver Mr. & Mrs. Ben Woodward, Boulder Mrs. John R. Little, Boulder Arnold B. Price, Longmont Mat Fennerger, Arvada Wayne McNeal, Kersey ha D. MacPhail, Golden Charles L. Thomson, Pueblo Ohas. J. Roubique, Boulder R. D. Taylor, Security Herman W. Volz, Sterling * David Cole, Littleton Nancy Looney, Boulder Guy A. Ilollenbeclc, Boulder Ken Bueche, Arvada Copstance Brown, Santa Maria, Calif. R. D. Barnard, Littleton Jann Moyers, Denver Boyce Anderson, Denver Joseph A. Armlerust, Belfield, ~. Dak~ Donald B. Thomas, Colorado Springs Steve Arnold, Monument Wendall Fritzel, Sioux Falls, S. Dak. Fred G. Jager, Littleton William K. English, Littleton George V. Whitfield, Littleton Grant V. Wickard, Denver John A. Thiel, Denver A. B. Loden, Littleton Mrs. John Butts, Denver Oren & Iris Bidwell, Denver G. G. Peterson, Englewood R. W. Woodard, Wheat Ridge Mr. & Mrs. Edwin Watson, Littleton Norman S. Knudsen, Buena Vista Cliff Johnson, Longmont * William S. Livingston, Lakewood Nelson Aldrich, Salt Lake City, Utah Ray Wilson, Denver J. S. Nichols, Colorado Springs George B. Westerberg, Denver ~Bob Magriuson,. Littleton B. Proctor Nol~l, Denver Lt. Col. 3'. G. McGrew, Denver Alfred C. Nelson, Denver Marion McEiwaln, Boulder Howard 0. Ashton, Boulder Julius A. Tracy, Boulder E. B. Waggoner, Denver Mrs. George Schaefer, Llttleton D. S. Nordwall, Denver Mr. & Mrs. C. A. McBride, Littleton Conrad Blomberg, Denver Robert J. Brown, Denvur Bob Martin, Denver C. G. Kettering, Englewood Mr. & Mrs. Wendell J. Garwood, Denver Walter B. Mitchell, Denver Susan Skinner, Aurora L.A. Clark, Boulder B. F. Phipps, Ft. Collins Audrey Sandstead, Ft. Collins Mr. & Mrs. B. A, Fortier, Denver Byron L. Gillett, Aurora Lee E. Schlessman, Denver Stan Nikkel, Washington, D.C. C. R. Bacon, Denver Mark B. Reames, Denver PAGENO="0275" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 271 TUE P~i AMERICAN LIAISON COMMITTEE OF WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS, INC., Washington, D.C., August 28,1967. Congressman KENNETH GRAY, Chairman, ~~nbconunittee on Publ~tc BuiWAngs and Grow,uts, House Comnvittee of Public Works, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN GRAY: I am directed by the President of PALCO, Inc., Mrs. Anita Sandelmann, to write you in support of a MERIDIAN HOUSE FOUNDATION Resolution fully supporting the creation of the National Visitors' Center, at Union Station or at any other central location which would provide reasonable access by the foreign visitor to the Capital and to Metropolitan Wash- ington. Mrs. Sanclelmann, her Board of Directors, and the entire membership of PALCO supports this resolution and will do everything possible toward encouraging Its implementation. Yours sincerely, BARBARA DE Zoucim PALMER, First Vice-President. MERIDIAN HOUSE FOUNDATION, Washington, D.C., Efeptember 19, 1967. Hon. KENNETH GRAY, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. GRAY: Attached is a statement submitted for the record by the Meridian House Foundation in support of H.R. 12603 on the National Visitor Center, The Foundation believes that such a Center is essential in helping not only the millions of Americans who visit the Nation's Capital each year, but also several hundred thousand international visitors who come hete to gain better understanding of Americans and of our National Government and hOw it operates. We are particularly interested in seeing that the needs of visitors from abroad are given appropriate attention in the planning and development of the National Visitor Center. The Foundation, through the volunteer and professional staffs of the International Visitors Service Council of Greater Washington Organiza- tions (IVIS), which it administers and finances, will welcome the opportunity to work with the United States Congress, the Department of the Interior, and an~ Committee, or Commissions, that may be established in connection with the Na- tional Visitor Center. Mr. Gilbert B. Lessenco, one of the Foundation's Trustees, has agreed to serve as our liaison on this project. His address and telephone number are: Mr. Gilbert B. Lessenco, Wilner, Schemer & Greeley, 1343 H Street, N. W., Washington, D.C., Telephone: 638-6900. We look forward to working with your Committee and others on this important undertaking in the months ahead. Sincerely yours, PHILIP L. GORE, President. STATEMENT ON THE NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER, SUBMITTED BY PHILIP LARNER GORE, PRESIDENT OF THE MERIDIAN HOUSE FOUNDATION The Meridian House Foundation, a private, non-profit corporation and the orga- nizations associated with it, especially the International Visitors Service Council of Greater Washington Organizations (IVIS), are greatly interested in plans for the establishment of a National Visitor Center, since we provide many thousands of international visitors now coming to `the Nation's Capital with a variety of services each year. During the past year, IVIS received 1,045 requests for services to it~iternational visitors from member organizations, Government agencies, businesses, interna- tional visitors, local hoets, and ir~ternational conferences. Through these requests, PAGENO="0276" 272 NATIONAL V]~SIPOR CENTER AcTr OF 1967 7,657 visItors from 86 countries were served. Since IVIS channels international visitors Ito its 66 member organizations and serves as an in1~orma~tion and referral cex~ter for them, the international visitors who b~nefit through servlee~ of member organizations would number many additional thousands throughout the year. A list of member organizations is attached. It should be pointed out that the thou- sands of Americans who make up the membership of these service organizations come from nearly every segment of our society and can provide broad community support for an out~tanding projedt like the National Visitor Center. While requests received by the IVIS office for information and home hospitality are numerous, more than half of them during the past year were for services in- volving language assistance. Bilingual staff members and a corps of volunteers offered assi~tance in thirty languages. Uses of the IVIS Language Bank vary from providing a non-English speaking visitor with an escort guide to furnishing lan- guage aid for international meetings. Because of its broad experience in working with foreign visitors as well as Its Language Bank facilities, IVIS was called upon during the past year to assist on five major conferences on horticulture, social work, nephrology, electricity, and "Water for Peace." The Foundation is convinced that this kind of citizen diplomacy can make an important difference in the impression our visitors from abroad take home with them of `the United States, its citizens, and our way of life. The fact should alto be kept In mind that the millions of dollars spent here in the United States by our visitors from abroad have an important impact on this country's international trade balance. The U.S. Travel Service reports that during the past year more than a million visitors came to the United States from abroad-not including visitors from Canada and Mexico. Of these visitors from abroad, it is e~timaited that about one-quarter of `them came to Washington. It should be pointed out, also, that foreign travel is on `the upgrade, and each year shows a striking increase over the preceding one. Tourism has now become the third largest industry in the Uni'ted States, and the U.S. Travel Service predicts that within `the next 18 months, revenues from international tourism will pass the $2 billion mark. These figures, of course, simply confirm the urgent necessity for a National Visitor Center In the Nation's Capital if we are to serve our visitors from abroad, as well as our own citizens, effectively. We, therefore, heartily endorse the establishment of a National Visitor Center since we believe: (1) There is a need for a central source of information about our Capital and our Nation. There is currently much information of this type, but it is scattered and often unavailable. (2) There is a need for a reception center where the visitor can be welcomed. It is important that the visitor and his needs be recognized by the host city and Nation-whether it is American parents trying to give their children an educa- tional opportunity, a family on holiday, ~ foreign businessman trying to promote trade, or a visitor interested in a place to stay. (3) There is a need for introducing a visitor to our Nation's Capital and help- ing him to ga'in an appreciation of the Nation's heritage. It is our understanding that the National Visitor Center will have films and exhibits lectures and dis plays about the history, the growth, and the development of the Nation's Capital, and the organization and `operation of the Federal Government. This is extremely important since it will provide the visitor with the opportunity for a pleasant and informed tour, `as well as an educational experience. This would complement the Information offered by Congressmen to their constituents and would assist in giv- ing visitors an understanding of our Governmental processes. (4) There is a need for improved facilities for national and international coti- ventlons. A referral and information center staffed by experienced, multi-lingual assistants, which the National Visitor Center could provide, would attract more conferences. As an expression of its support for the establishment of a National Visitor Cen- ter, the Board of Trustees `of the Meridan House Foundation passed the following resolution: Whereas, the Meridian House Foundation is a non-profit organization active in and dedicated to effective provision of services to sponsored and non-sponsored foreign visitors to the Greater Washington area; and Whereas, the Meridian House Foundation has read with interest the proposal. of the National Visitor Center Commission Site Selection Committee for the crea- tion of a National Visitor Center at Union Station; and PAGENO="0277" NATIONAL VISITOIt CENTER ACT OF 1967 273 Whereas, the Meridian House Foundation is vitally interested in seeing that adequate provision is made at the Visitor Center for the thousands of visitors from abroad who come to our Capital each year; Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Foundation expresses its strong support eor a Visitor Center and for adequate space facilities and staff to give the visitors assistance through referral to organizations `and others in obtaining specialized information and communication with American business, the professions, and the arts; and Be it further resolved that the Foundation, through its International Visitors Service Council of Greater Washington Organizations (IVIS) and its profes sional and volunteer staff and resources will be available to work with the Visitor Center in implementing the above stated goals and purpos~s. In conclusion, we believe that the Foundation, through the International Visitors Service Council (IVIS), with its line professional and Volunteer staffs can be of assistance in planning for the National Visitor Center and in provid- ing services to international visitors who would be received there. We shall look forward to working with appropriate Government officials on this project In the months ahead. CAPITOL HILL SOUTHEAST OrrIzENs AssoCIATIoN, INC., Washington, D.C., september 20,1967. Hon. KENNETH J. GRAY, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Works and Buildings and Grounds, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. GRAY: Last spring the Capitol Hill Southeast Citizens Association voted in favor of placing a Visitors' Center in the Union Station. Under your proposed bill, the Association agrees as to the amount to be spent by the railroads and also by the government. The main concern of this organization is that the Union Station is included under the Model Cities plan. Model City is a fancy name for Low Cost Housing. Unless Union Station and up to H Street, N.E. can be gotten out of the Model City Plan, It means there is no safety on the streets guaranteed for the Union Station visitors. On the streets down to Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., the visitors can be attacked or robbed by residents of the Model City that Includes Urban Renewal N.W. Project I, from North Capitol south to Mass. Avenue, N.E., to and from Stanton Park; east on Maryland Avenue, N.E. from Stanton Park. Union Station whose northern boundaries from North Capitol to Mass. Avenue should be moved to H Street, N.E. in order to protect it so visitors can come and go from the Nation's Capital in safety. Even with the change, the area south and west must be carefully policed to Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. If you plan wisely, the section surrounding the Union Station will be protected. Please include the above suggestions in order to bring security to such a large investment of money in the project. The Capitol Hill Southeast Citizens Association sends this statement of en- dorsement for the Union Station instead of appearing before your Committee. The organization is vitally interested in the success of the plan and urges your Committee to adopt the suggestions. Such help to visitors is badly needed. Sincerely yours, ELIZABETH DRAPER, Secretary. BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C., October 11, 1967. Hon. KENNETH J. Gn~, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Gi-ounds, Public Works Com- mittee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This Is in reference to H.R. 12770, (National Visitor Center Act of 1967). This bill provides for extensive alteration of the existing Union Station building and for considerable new construction, including park- ing facilities. In all instances, the bill specifies that the property is to be leased by the Federal Goverment for a period not to exceed 20 years. The Department favors this legislation; however, the bill does not contain a provision for the payment of prevailing wages, as required under the Davis-Bacon Act on construction authorized by this legislation. Without such a provision, con- PAGENO="0278" 274 NATIONAL VISITOR CEI~ER AC1' OF 19 67 tractors from outside the locality and in some cases, from outside the State would be free to bid on such jobs and undercut the prevailing wage and living standards in the community. It should be clearly understood that the inclusion of prevailing wage provisions as provided for in the Davis-Bacon Act on Federally-assisted projects does not increase the wage rates in a community. The Davis-Bacon provisions are designed purely to protect local contractors and building tradesmen in the area from the incursions and underbidding of outside contractors. Thus, the Act is designed to prevent such undercutting of community living standards by requiring contrac- tors to pay workers on Federally-aided projects as much as the prevailing wage rates in the local community and place contractors on equal competitive terms. The Department feels that the omission of the prevailing wage provisions of the Davis-Bacon, as amended, must be an oversight and strongly urges that this provision be incorporated in H.R. 12770. We feel that such a provision is definitely necessary so as to assure that such protection will apply to any agree- ment or lease entered into between the Federal Government and the Washing- ton Terminal ~kmpany in carrying out the purposes of this bilL Enclosed is a copy of a proposed provision. In our opinion, the language of this provision is necessary to assure that workers on all construction projects author- ized under the provisions of this Act are paid the prevailing wages. We strongly urge that this provision be incorporated in the final version of this legislation. With best wishes, I am, Sincerely, WALTER J. MASON, Director of Legislation. Labor standards (a) All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors on projects assisted directly or indirectly under this Act shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended, (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a-5), and every such employee shall receive compensation at a rate not less than one and one half times his basic rate of pay for all hours worked in any work week in excess of eight hours in any work day or forty hours in the work week as the case may be. No federal aid provided for, under this Act, shall be approved unless there shall have been previously obtained adequate assurance that theselabor standards will be maintained upon the construction work. (b) The Secretary of Labor shall have, with respect to the labor standards specified in subsection (a), the authority and functions set forth in Reorganiza- tion Plan Number 14 of 1950 (15 P.R. 3176; 64 Stat. 1267; 5 U.S.C. 133z-.15) and section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended, (48 Stat. 948; 40 U.S. 276e). AMERICAN MOTORIsT, Washington, D.C., October 18, 1967. Hon. KENNETH J. GRAY, Chairman, t~ubcommittee on Public Bnildings and Grounds, House Public Works Committee, Washlvingtoa, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN GRAY: Enclosed is a proof sheet of an editorial which will appear in the November issue of the American Motorist Magazine, official publication of the D.C. Division of the American Automobile Association. The D.S. Division, AAA, endorses House Bill 12823 concerlilng establish- ment of a National Visitors Center at Union Station. We would like to have the editorial included in the testimony in support of this legislation. Sincerely yours, Gr~NN T. LASHLEY, Editor. [From the American Motorist magazine] NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER Relief is in sight for the poor harried tourist, hot and hungry, trapped in a traffic circle, unable to find a parking space, a hotel or the Smithsonian. The National Visitor Center Study Commission has issued its final report which causes one to wonder how the city has gotten along without the facilities now contemplated. PAGENO="0279" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 275 Under the study commission's recommendations, Union StatIonS would be turned Into an orientation and rest area, offering movies on where to go and why, historical exhibits, restaurants, visitor service, rest rooms, and a 3,000- - car parking garage, train depot, bus ramp and heliport. Actual renovation of the station at a cost of $5 million and construction 0 new facilities at $11 million would be paid by the railroads. The Federal Government would sign a 20-year lease to pay an annual rent of $2.9 million. When completed, Union Station could aid 50,000 persons a day. The Center would go a long way in making Washington the most desirable city in America to visit. The Nation's Chpital has done far too little in the past to welcome its visitors and enable them to see the city with comfort. ]l~xperts estimate that the city's present volume of 15 million visitors a year will grow to 24 million by 1974. Congress should promptly approve enabling legislation to allow this project to get under way and be completed by 1970. WASHINGTON SIGRTSRRING Touns, Washington, D.C., October 18, 1967~ Hon. KENNETH J. `Gi~ay, Chairman, Public Buildings and Grounds Flubcommittee, Public Works Com- mittee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN GRAY: Washington Sightseeing Tours, Inc., is in favor of legislation to establish a National Visitor Center. However, it has recently come to our attention that Section 5 of H.R. 12603 may have a disastrous effect upon our sightseeing operations. It was not until Chairman Avery of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission testified on October 11, 1967 that we realized Section 5 might be construed to grant the Secretary of Interior authority to contract for sight- seeing services with a carrier who does not hold authority from the WMAPC. In this regard we strongly support the position of the WMATC~ In addition we wish to register our opposition to Section 5 of H.R. 12603, because in our opinion it might be construed to give the Secretary of the Interior the power, in effect, to revoke the authority of all established sightseeing com- panies in the Washington area and to grant a monopoly in fa°vor of one company. The Secretary would have the authority to appoint one company the exclusive carrier for the performance of sightseeing service to the most important points of interest in the city. Such service is the heart of the sightseeing business in the Washington Metropolitan area and the loss of such service would put many carriers out of business. At present numerous carriers perform sightseeing operations in Washington. If this section was so construed by the Secretary, the following carriers would be excluded from providing their present service by the grant of authority to one carrier by the Secretary: A B & W Transit Co. American Sightseeing Tours. Atwood's Transport Lines, Inc. Baltimore & Annapolis RR Co. Blue Line Sightseeing Co. Capitol Sightseeing Co. Columbia Sightseeing Co. Contii~ental Trailways Bus Sy~tem. D.C. Transit System Inc. Diamond Sightseeing Tours. Gold Line Service. History Tours. Holiday Tours, Inc. Gray Line Sightseeing Tours. Mayflower Limousine & Sightseeing Service. Orr's Limousine Servic~. W M A Transit Co. Washington Sightseeing Tours, Inc. Washington-Virginia & Maryland Coach Co. White House Sightseeing Tours. PAGENO="0280" 276 NATIONAL VI~SITOR CENTER AC'P OF 1967 We certainly hope that it is not the intent of Oongr~ss to destroy numerous carriei~s who have authority to provide sightseeing service, who have buses, and who have experience in the sightseeing business. We respectfully request that Section 5 be deleted from the legislation to create a National Visitors Center. Sincerely yours, GEORGE L. KRAUSS~, President. DowNTowN PROGRESS, NATIONAL CAPITAL DowNTowN CoMMITTEE, INC., Washington, D.C., Septebzber 13, 1967. HoN. GEORGE H. FALLON, Cha'irinan, Convm'ittee en Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. FALL0N: Downtown Progress, the National Capital Downtown Committee, Inc., is pleased to express its enthusiastic support for HR. 12603, the "National Visitor Center Act of 1967." Our Organization, formed by civic and business leaders in the Washington area, has had a strong interest in the subject of visitors to Washington since we began activities in 1960, and we have developed a great deal of useful information about visitors to the Nation's Capital and about facilities to meet the needs of visitors. The "Vi~i*tor Study: Visitor Economic Support and Facilities for Downtown Washington, D.C." prepared under our direction by the Stanford Research Institure, and published in 1961, was the first comprehensive study ever under- taken of the volumes and characteristics of visitors to the Nation's Capital. It pro- vided the background information necessary for estimating future visitor volumes, and for identifying facilities required to meet the needs of visitors. In 1963, we directed the preparation by Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc., of "A Planning Study for a National Visitor and Student Center in Washington, D.C.," which contained proposals for a program, and for the space requirements for a National Visitor and Student Center, and which suggested several possible locations, for such a center, based on objective locational criteria. For your information, we are enclosing copies of the highlights of each of these studies. We already have furnished to the National Visitor Center Study Commission copies of thb full report by Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. In the preparation of the National Visitor and Student Center study, we were assisted by an advisory committee with representatives from the National Park Service, the United States Civil Service Commission, the United States Travel Service, and the Washington Oonv~ntion and Visitors Bureau, and with observers from the National Capital Planning Commission. We met, as well, with representatives of a number of private organizations and public organiza- tions interested in visitors to Washington, and the final report was benefited by this participation. In the reviews of the proposal that we have conduetbd with many groups since that time, we have encountered widespread interest and support for the concept of a National Visitor Center. On the basis of our studies and our contacts with interested organizations and individuals, we believe that the provisions of H.R. 12603 will rlermit the develop- ment of a National Visitor Center that will make it possible for millions of visitors to derive more meaning and enjoyment from their trips to the Nation's Capital in the future. If we can be of any service to you, please do not hesitate to call on us at any time. Sincerely, ROBERT C. BAKER, President. PAGENO="0281" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 277 HIGHLIGHTS or TIrE "PLANNING STUDY FOE A NATIONAL VISITOR AND STUDENT CENTER IN WASHINGTON, D.C." (Summary of a study prepared for Downtown Progress,the National Capital Downtown Committee, Inc., by Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc.) Concept of the Nationai Visitor and student Center The National Visitor and Student Center is proposed for Washington, D.C. to help meet the needs of the increasing millions of visitors and students who come to the Nation's Capital each year. On the basis of studies which have provided in- formation about present and future visitor volumes and characteristics, and with the advice of government agencies and private organizations that now minister to the needs of visitors to Washington, the National Visitor and Student Center has been conceived as follows: The Center would be a single building, with adjacent parking, designed and equipped to receive and orient visitors and students, to provide for their basic needs of comfort and convenience, and to assist them in moving expeditiously to other parts of the Nation's Capital, where interests generated by the programs in the Center would be satisfied in greater depth. The orientation programs would cover three themes: I. History of the United States. II. Organization and operation of our Government. III. Development of the National's CapitaL These themes would be presented by means of films, exhibits, and other media. E~tructure and ~S~ite Requirements The Center would be designed to accommodate visitor volumes of 50,000 or more a day which would be achieved during the 1970's. The size of a structure to house the theaters, exhibit space, and services for the expected attendance would be between 152,000 square feet and 200,000 square feet, with adjacent parking facilities to provide for an ultimate capacity of 4,000 automobiles. With multilevel construction a site of at least 7.5 acres would be required. Proposed Locations Two desirable locations for this Center, determined by detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis, would be: 1. At Massachusetts and New Jersey Avenues, adjacent to the proposed Center Leg Freeway; 2. Union Station. Estimated Costs The cost of a new structure and site for the National Visitor and Student Center is estimated at $12 million. The cost of the required parking structures and site is estimated at $13 million. This cost could be amortized from parking revenues. Thus, the total initial capital outlay required might be about $25 million of which $12 million would not be subject to amortization. These costs would increase, of course, if special monumental architecture is specified, or if additional open land is desired around the Center. Means of Accomplishment The National Park Service would be an appropriate agency to assume respon- sibility for the establishment and the operation of the Center. Also, an Advisory Commission with members drawn from appropriate public agencies and private organizations should be appointed to provided policy guidance with respect to programs and operations. PAGENO="0282" 278 NATIONAL VI;SIPOR CENTER AC~ OF 1967 Following consultation with members of the Congress and with interested public agency representatives, it is recommended that legislation be introduced to establish the National Visitor and Student Center. The legislation should pro- vide for the necessary authorization and appropriations for the National Visitor and Student Center based on the concept developed in this report, and for the designation of the operating agency, the appointment of an Advisory Commis- sion, site acquisition, and the design and construction of the Center. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE "VISIToR STUDY: VISITOR ECONOMIC SUPPORT AND FACILITIES ron DowNTowN WASHINGTON, D.C." (A study prepared for Downtown Progress by Stanford Research Institute) Coverage of the Study 1. Volume and characteristics of visitors to the Washington Metropolitan Area in 1960. 2. Expenditures of visitors in the Washington Metropolitan Area and in Down- town In 1960. 3. Volume of visitors to the Washington Metropolitan Area in 1970 and in 1980. 4. Expenditures of visitors in the Washington Metropolitan Area and in Down- town in 1980. 5. DIscussion of possible facilities for visitors to Washington. 6. Technical appendices: Techniques for estimating and projecting visitor vol- umes and expenditures. Selected Findings antI Forecasts Data are presented on number of visitors, purpose of trip, mode of travel, season of trip, length of stay, type of lodging, number in party, place of origin, and expenditures in the Washington area and in Downtown, from which the following significant findings and forecasts have been selected: 1960 findings Volume.-15.4 million people from outside of the Washington Metropolitan Area visited the Washington area in 1900. Of this total, 5.6 million stayed one night or more and 9.8 million stopped for at least four hours but did not stay overnight. Purpose.-Of the 15.4 million total, 42.9% came for pleasure, 80.0% for busi- ness, 20.5% combined business and pleasure, 2.4% for conventions, and 4.2% In groups, mostly students. Mode.-Of the 15.4 million visitors, 75.4% came by automobile, 8.1% by air, 7.2% by rail, 5.1% by scheduled bus, and 4.2% in chartered buses. Of the 5.6 million overnight visitors, 64% came by automobile; of the 9.8 million less-than- one-day visitors, 82% came by automobile. Season.-The seasonal variation showed 29.7% in the spring, 31.4% in the summer, 20.8% in the fall, and 18.1% in the winter. Origin.-As for place of orIgin, 65.9% came from the area within 250 miles of Washington, 14.4% from the 250 to 499 mile ring, 12.7% from the 500 to 999 mile ring, and 7.0% came from more than 1,000 miles away. Lodging.-Of the 5.6 million overnight visitors, 08% stayed in hotels, motels and rooming houses and 32% stayed with friends and relatives. Of those who stayed in commercial lodging places, 20.2%, or 773,810 visitors, stayed in Down- town. Downtown contained 5,320 visitor rooms in 1960, 23.7% of the total of 22,477 "~ceeptable" visitor rooms in the Washington Metropolitan Area. 1970 and 1980 visitor volumes In 1970, 24.0 million visitors will come to the Washington area. Of these, 8.8 million will stay one night or more and 15.2 million will stay for less than 1 day. In 1980, 35.0 million visitors will come to the Washington area. Of these, 13.0 million will stay one night or more and 22.0 million will stay for less than a day. `Downtown is bounded generally by Pennsylvania Avenue, 1~5tli Street, M Street, and North Capitol Street, Northwest. PAGENO="0283" NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 279 1960 visitor es~pendit~ires Phe expenditures of visitors in the Washington Metropolitan Area in 1960 was estimated as follows: Million P ercent Lodging Food $77.2 106.2 23.5 32.3 Transportation Entertainment 38.2 20.9 11.6 6.4 Sightseeing Retail 23.6 50.1 7.2 15.2 Service 12.5 3.8 Total 328.7 100.0 Amount (million) Percent Lodging $13.2 Food 33.5 17. 1 30.6 Retail 20.7 40.0 Service 2.3 18.4 Total `69.7 21.2 1 21.2 percent of total visitor expenditures in the Washington metropolitan area. Visitors who stayed at least one night in the area spent an average of $15.13 per person per day. Visitors who stopped but did not stay overnight spent an average of $4.86 per person per day. The average expenditure for all visitors was $11.59 per person per day. 1980 visitor ecopen,ditures Visitors to the Washington Metropolitan Area in 1980 will spend $842 million compared with $329 million in 1960, distributed as follows: Miiiionx Lodging $197 Foodanddrink 271 Retail 127 Services 31 Other 216 Total 842 If Downtown maintains the same share of total expenditures in 1980 as it had in 1960, visitor expenditures in Downtown will distributed as follows: MlUlon8 Lodging $32.7 Food and drink 83.1 Retail 51.5 Services 5.7 Total 173.0 This does not include expenditures for transportation, entertainment, and sightseeing. Facilitties for Visitors A wide variet~V of facilities for visitors which might be locatod Downtown were considered, and thirteen facilities were evaluated on the basis of criteria which included: the ability to attract visitors to the area, construction costs, expenditures generated per dollar of cost, dependench on public financing, com- petition with facilities in other parts of the Metropolitan Area, land require- ments, and compatibility with the image of Washington. PAGENO="0284" 280 NATIONAL VISITOR CENTER ACT OF 1967 The facilities evaluated were: Visitor Center, Downtown Hotels and Motor Hotels, Student Center, Sports Arena and Exhibit Hall, Theme Park, Bowling Alley, Trade Center, Merchandise Mart, Public Ice Rink, Amusement Park, Convention Hall, Science Center, Cultural Center. Of these, the three considered most appropriate for early~1ocation in Downtown are the Visitor Center, additional Hotels and Motor Hotels, and a Student Center. Visitor Center aiui Student Center Using the 1960 visitor volume estimates as a base, it was estimated that the Visitor Center would have served 1.8 million visitors and the Student Center would have served 400,000 visitors of the total of 15.4 million people who visited the Metropolitan Area in 1960. As the volume of visitors to Washington continues to increase, the potential attendance for these proposed facilities will increase. Dowift own hotels and motor hotels The extent of development of new hot~ls and motor hotels in Downtown will depend upon the interest of developers and the attractiveness of the Downtown environment for these facilities. If Downtown continues to maintain the same share of the Metropolitan Area supply of ho1~e1 and motor hotel rooms that it had in 1960, there will be 5,900 rooms for visitors added to the Downtown Supj)ly by 1980. Other faciUties A new large Convention Hall wOuld attract to Washington 20,000 to 30,000 convention visitors a year who do not now come to Washington because of the lack of a large meeting place. ~ Novn.-A Theme Park would not be a good prospect for location within Downtown because of excessive land requirements, some 75 to 90 acres. (The other facilities would serve the local population to a large extent and would serve visitors to a lesser extent.) 0