Page 1       TOP OF DOC
72–388 PS












 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

MAY 10, 2001

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure


DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
STEPHEN HORN, California
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
SUE W. KELLY, New York
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina
SAM GRAVES, Missouri
 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia
BOB FILNER, California
FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
RICK LARSEN, Washington



Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management

STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio, Chairman

 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Vice-Chair
  (Ex Officio)

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia
  (Ex Officio)




    Chistolini, Paul, Acting Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Hantman, Hon. Alan M., FAIA, Architect of the Capitol

    Haseltine, Dr. William A., Chairman, the National Health Museum, accompanied by J. Mark Dunham, Acting President, National Health Musuem, and Robert A. Peck, former Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration

    Morella, Hon. Constance A., a Representative in Congress from Maryland


    Morella, Hon. Constance A., of Maryland
    Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota


    Chistolini, Paul

    Dunham, J. Mark

    Hantman, Hon. Alan M

    Haseltine, Dr. William A.

    Peck, Robert A
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC


    Haseltine, Dr. William A., Chairman, the National Health Museum, accompanied by J. Mark Dunham, Acting President, National Health Musuem:

''Structural Feasibility Study for C Street Site'', Ehlert/Bryan, Inc., McLean, VA, September 16, 1997, found in the subcommitee file
''Traffic Analysis'', O.R. George and Associates, Inc., Silver Spring, MD, February 19, 1997
Station Place at Union Station, National Health Museum, Site Evaluation Survey, July 27, 2001
North Capitol, between G and Massachusetts Ave., NW, National Health Museum, Site Evaluation Survey, July 27, 2001
National Health Museum background information on job creation
''Preliminary Market Analysis, National Health Museum Complex'', Hammer Siler George Associates, Silver Spring, MD, October 7, 1998
''Economic Impact Analysis'', Kajima Urban Development, New York, NY, May 1999
Visitorship, report
Washington DC Convention and Tourism Corporation, Dr. Charlene Drew Jarvis, Chair, Board of Directors, statement
DC/Area Benefit: Comparison of Uses of 2nd and C Streets Site
Letter to Hon. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Health and Human Services, November 2000

    Oberstar, Hon. James L., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota:

Congressional Research Service, Thomas J. Nicola, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, report
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
Letter to and response from Thurman Davis, Acting Administrator, General Services Administration



    Joint letter with Hon. Bud Shuster, former Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania, to Hon. Bill Young, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, and Hon. David R. Obey, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, July 26, 2000


    Berne, Dr. Bernard H., statement, and copy of a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club, the National Forest Conservation Council, and Dr. Berne, asking the Court to prevent the relocation of the Food and Drug Administration employees from FOB-8 and other existing buildings to unauthorized federal facilities in suburban Maryland
    Chafee, Hon. John H., a U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, and Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Hon. Max Baucus, a U.S. Senator from Montana, and Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Hon. George V. Voinovich, a U.S. Senator from Ohio, and Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on Environment and Public Works, letter to Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a Senator from Colorado and Chairman, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, and Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, June 21, 1999

    Council of the District of Columbia:
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Cropp, Linda W., Chairman, May 22, 2001
Evans, Jack, Councilmember Ward 2, May 9, 2001
    Davis, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from Virginia
    Frist, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from Tennessee, statement

    Government of the District of Columbia, Eric W. Price, Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, May 14, 2001
    Kennedy, Hon. Edward, a U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, statement

    Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the District of Columbia, May 8, 2001
    Shuster, Hon. Bud, a former Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania, letter to Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, and Hon. Trent Lott, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, October 27, 2000

    Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, statement
    U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Buildings: Funding Repairs and Alterations Has Been a Challenge--Expanded Financing Tools Needed, April 2001

    Voinovich, Hon. George V., a U.S. Senator from Ohio, letter, October 25, 2000


 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC


Thursday, May 10, 2001
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, Washington, D.C.

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m. in room 2253, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steven LaTourette [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

    Mr. LATOURETTE. Good morning, and this subcommittee will come to order. I apologize for the delay in starting this morning, but, as frequent watchers know, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is one of the busiest committees in the House, and they were marking up some aviation matters a little earlier.
    I want to welcome the members of the subcommittee to the hearing this morning on the National Health Museum and the future use of Federal Office Building 8, which is located at 2nd and C Streets, Southwest. This location is at the foot of Capitol Hill, sandwiched between the Ford House Office Building Annex Two and the Department of Health and Human Services, the Hubert Humphrey Building.
    I'm also pleased to welcome our witnesses today. We have a distinguished panel of experts to testify, and they will provide testimony for the subcommittee on these very important issues.
    I'm pleased that we have testifying first our colleague from the House, the Chair of the District of Columbia Subcommittee in the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Ms. Morella.
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The subcommittee will also receive testimony from the Architect of the Capitol, Alan Hantman, who does such a wonderful job maintaining and improving the facilities of the Capitol Complex. Also with us today is the acting commissioner of the Public Building Service of the General Services Administration, Paul Chistolini. And I would also wish to welcome Dr. William Haseltine, chairman of the Board of Trustees for the National Health Museum and chairman and CEO of the Human Genome Sciences, Inc., who is making his first appearance before this subcommittee today.
    In addition to hearing from the witnesses appearing before the subcommittee, I've recently received letters or statements concerning this important issue from Members of the House, a number of Senators, the mayor of the District of Columbia, and from members of the D.C. Council. I also recently received a letter from the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton. Her letter, among other things, endorses the bill, H.R. 3171, as amended in committee last year. I will ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of this hearing to submit each of these items as part of the record.
    I would also like to briefly mention that this subcommittee is charged with overseeing the GSA's Public Building Service, which includes the year-to-year capital investment program and real estate asset management policy for the Federal building inventory. This is something that this subcommittee takes very seriously.
    We are here to review and provide oversight on the concept or idea that dates to the mid-1800s. During the Civil War, the Army Medical Museum was established on the National Mall. It was a center for collection of specimens for research in military science and surgery. In 1862, Surgeon General William Hammond directed medical officers in the field to collect specimens of morbid anatomy, together with projectiles and foreign bodies removed, and to forward them to the Army Medical Museum. The research conducted was compiled into six volumes known as ''The Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion'' published between 1870 and 1883.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    During the late 19th and 20th centuries, the museum was engaged in advanced medical research. This included researching photomicrographic techniques and establishing the library and cataloging systems that later formed the basis for the National Library of Medicine, originally located at Ford's Theater. This later led the museum into research on infectious diseases while discovering the cause of yellow fever. They contributed to research on vaccinations for typhoid fever, and during World War I the museum was involved in vaccinations and health education campaigns, including major efforts to combat sexually-transmittable diseases.
    At the time of the Second World War, the museum was focused on pathology. In 1946, the museum became a division of the New Army Institute of Pathology, which became the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in 1949. The Army Medical Museum, originally located on the mall, went through a series of name changes and is now currently known as the National Museum of Health and Medicine.
    In 1994, as her recent letter infers, Ms. Norton introduced H.R. 4315, which designated the plaza east of the Humphrey Building known as ''Union Square'' to be used for the National Museum of Health and Medicine.
    Senator Hatfield introduced S. 2080, which was the same as Ms. Norton's bill. No hearings were held, and neither body considered the bills; however, later that same year the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995 included similar language to each of the introduced bills to officially designate the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, located at the Walter Reed Medical Center, as the National Museum of Health and Medicine. The authorization also designated that the National Museum of Health and Medicine would be located on or near the national mall on a site located east of and adjacent to the Hubert Humphrey building for the purpose of educating the American public concerning health.
    It is my understanding that even after a ground-breaking ceremony there were logistical problems, and that site never came to fruition.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    In 1997 interest was renewed an the Labor/HHS Appropriations Act designated that a facility known as the ''National Health Museum'' shall be located on or near the Mall. This created a commission to study the appropriate Federal role and report to the Congress in one year, and $500,000 was appropriated for that purpose. The commission was never formed, but a 501(C)(3) organization incorporated as the National Health Museum and is attempting to fulfill what they see as a mandate from the Congress to locate a health museum on the Mall. This language was not included in either the House or the Senate report; it was added in the conference committee. Needless to say, this is an authorizing committee. We will review such proposals and work within the legislative framework, not the appropriations process.
    In 1999, Senator Specter introduced S. 1623, which directed the sale of the property at 2nd and C Streets, Southwest, to the National Health Museum for fair market value. Also in 1999 Congressman Franks introduced a similar bill, directing the sale of the same location to the National Health Museum. Hearings were held, and on March the 23rd, 2000, the committee approved H.R. 3171 with an amendment. The amendment dropped the site location and authorized the National Health Museum to have preferred access to a parcel of property declared excess real property by the administrator of the GSA. The bill was never considered in the House, the Senate never considered S. 1623, and, after attempts to have it inserted into an appropriations bill at the objection of this committee, the idea of using the appropriations process was dropped.
    As we are aware, many of us are aware of the history of the museum. I am certainly supportive of the National Health Museum's effort to establish and obtain a site for renovation or construction for the purposes of a National Health Museum in the District of Columbia; however, again, this subcommittee does not take lightly the task of overseeing the Government's real assets and seeing that the General Services Administration is sufficiently cost effective to the taxpayer in the way that it manages the Federal inventory.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The need, merits, or intent of the National Health Museum is not in question today. That was established in the mid-1800s. The site and reuse for the Food and Drug Administration Lab operations at 2nd and C Streets, Southwest, is what is at issue. As many of you might be aware, the Administration's fiscal year 2002 budget requested this committee to authorize $7.7 million for advanced design funding for the FDA Building once the FDA vacates that space. That request is a clear indication to this subcommittee that the Bush Administration wants to modernize that facility to house Federal employees.
    In addition, the Ford House Office Building is dependent on the FDA Building to provide chilled water for air conditioning. Whether that building is renovated or razed or rebuilt as a museum, the Ford Building is going to need air conditioning, as we learned in this subcommittee room yesterday, during the summer months.
    I'm happy to convene this hearing this morning. It provides interested parties the opportunity to comment on all the important and related matters. We will then be able to incorporate the testimony and comments into any deliberations concerning legislation, and I might add any legislation will follow the legislative process going through the committee and eventually to the floor.
    At this time it is my pleasure to yield to the distinguished ranking member of our subcommittee, Mr. Costello.
    Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this hearing today. I am pleased to join you and other members of this subcommittee to hear from the General Services Administration about the plans for the Federal building located at the corner of 2nd and C Streets, Southwest.
    Approximately 660 Federal employees working for the Food and Drug Administration currently occupy the building. I understand a not-for-profit organization, the National Health Museum, as well as the Architect of the Capitol are interested in this building.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Chairman, since becoming ranking member on this subcommittee, I have become aware of how important our role is as Federal stewards of the Federal inventory. Through sound Federal asset management policy, we affect not only the budget process but also the appropriation process. Federal buildings, many of them historically designated, and courthouses often create the core of our communities.
    In the subcommittee's work with EDA and the Appalachian Regional Commission, as well as the newly-formed Delta Regional Authority, we have seen first-hand the positive impact the Federal presence has had in these regions. During the construction phase, Federal projects add immeasurably to the local economy. After these buildings are completed, revenue from their very use helps finance additional needed Federal buildings.
    With so many needs chasing fewer and soon-to-be even fewer tax dollars, it is more important than ever that we examine all proposals that would negatively impact financial operations of the Federal building fund. After all, it is the subcommittee's responsibility to ensure the proper operation of the fund.
    Although we have not heard from the museum's witnesses, as I understand their proposal it would result in a transfer of a needed Federal building from the Government's inventory.
    As I mentioned earlier, since becoming ranking member on this committee, I have a full appreciation of the implications of this type of action and the negative impact that it would have on the Federal building fund over time. The negative impact on the fund is troubling for me for several reasons. First, Mr. Chairman, as you know, we are receiving letters from our colleagues urging us to increase authorization for appropriations for many projects. For a variety of reasons, the subcommittee is being petitioned to increase authorization for appropriated funds and thus the fund is under great pressure to meet an endless list of needs.
    I believe that any proposal that inhibits the fund's ability to generate funds necessary for Federal construction needs need to be fully justified, extraordinary in nature, and fully vetted.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Second, without Federally-owned space to occupy, the GSA is forced to rely on costly lease space. As we know from the GSA oversight hearings, the cost of leasing space in large urban areas is increasing on a yearly basis. The result is that the fund is being squeezed two ways—lowering operating revenue and higher operating cost, all at a higher cost to the taxpayers.
    During the 106th Congress, I supported, along with my colleagues on this subcommittee and the full committee, a bipartisan bill, H.R. 3171. We believe this bill reached a compromise between the needs of the museum and the needs of the Government for use of its own space.
    I know, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Oberstar and Ms. Norton are committed now, as they were during the last Congress, to working with the GSA, as well as museum officials, to make provisions in H.R. 3171 work. There is a genuine support for the concept of a health museum, but legitimate questions about the location remain.
    As far as the building, itself, I understand that fiscal year 2002 budget request contains 7.8 million to begin design for renovation of the building. It is the intent of the GSA, as the Government's landlord, to renovate and upgrade the building and relocate Federal employees from leased space into Government-owned space.
    Mr. Chairman, in closing I'd like to mention the convoluted legislative path this proposal has taken. Since 1994, seven bills have been introduced which address a site for the museum. Several bills specifically identified the Hubert Humphrey Plaza and Triangle Park site, while other bills, also supported by museum officials, use more generic language about land on or near the Mall. Only two of those bills have been passed into law—the 1995 DOD Authorization Act, Public Law 103-337, and the 1997 Labor/HHS Appropriation Act, Public Law 105-78.
    In 1995, the museum supported very specific site language—the Hubert Humphrey Plaza site—while two years later they were willing to settle for generic site language.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to mention the needs of the Architect of the Capitol, both the mechanical needs of the Ford Building as well as the future space needs of Capitol Hill. The FDA Building is critical to addressing both sets of needs.
    Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses today and look forward to asking some very specific questions about this proposal.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you very much.
    At this time the subcommittee is honored to have the ranking member of the full committee, whose institutional and historical knowledge is always instructive to members on both sides of the aisle, and I would be pleased to yield at this time to Mr. Oberstar for any remarks he would wish to make.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding the hearing. It is an appropriate opportunity for us to air all the specific aspects of this case, much of which has been shrouded in intrigue, in back-room discussions, in back-channel negotiations. It is an opportunity to get all this out into the public now.
    There is a long history, and I want to take a few moments to review it.
    You have stated the situation I think quite well, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Costello, our ranking member, has also—I won't repeat those issues, but essential to this issue is the point that Mr. Costello made about the impact on the Federal building fund. If we don't continue to have a revenue stream into that building fund, we cannot build new Federal structures nor renovate existing Federal structures out of the fund that comes from the rents that are paid, the Federal rents from Federal tenants to the GSA on structures that we own and not have to continually go back to general revenue appropriations. In this case, it would cost the Federal Government $4.6 million a year, or 63-plus million over a period of years if we don't have this building available.
    Now, GSA leases over 18 million square feet of space in the District of Columbia, 127 different buildings—leased to house Federal employees. Nationwide, GSA leases 45 percent of all of its space—150 million square feet, $3 billion in cost to least space. In the District, GSA leases 38 percent of its space.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Well, I find that unacceptable. We should not be paying those dollars out. Why should we be a renter when we can be an owner of structures that perform the public service?
    This building has been available to the Food and Drug Administration for 36 years. When vacated, renovated, and reconstructed, it will be able to house 1,800 to 2,000 employees. Of the 27 projects listed in GSA's analysis of Federal buildings, this one ranks number one. It received the highest score in the whole Nation as priority for rehabilitation of a Federal structure. In the Bush budget to the Congress there's $7.8 million provided for renovation, modernization of this building.
    So I don't understand why we should just yield this facility when there's an enormous saving to the Federal Government. It's the number one target. It can house up to 2,000 employees when properly renovated for office space.
    This particular space in this building goes back to the 1880s when one of our committee's predecessor committees authorized the funding to move the Army Medical Museum established during the Civil War from Ford's Theater to this current location. It has been there for a long time, and when I first came here as a graduate student it was known as ''Red Brick,'' or ''Old Red Brick.'' I remember going down there to visit it—one of the many things that a small-town kid from northern Minnesota did, go down the Mall and look these things over.
    It was moved in the 1960s while I was a staff member of the Committee on Public Works to Walter Reed, and it was moved to make room for the Hirschhorn Sculpture Museum.
    In 1994, under the leadership of Delegate Norton, who brought to the office of Delegate from the District of Columbia new vigor and new persistence in advocating the interests of the people of the District of Columbia, legislation to return the public exhibits of the National Museum of Health and Medication to a location on the Mall, and a sense of Congress resolution that its preferred site would be just near the Health and Human Services Building, which is now their headquarters building.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    In 1997, the Appropriations Committee put language into the conference report on Labor/HHS to change course. There were three significant provisions. One, the provision authorizing return of the Armed Forces Museum to the mall as provided in the previous legislation. Secondly, it provided, in section 703, ''National Health Museum shall be located on or near the Mall on land owned by the Federal Government or the District of Columbia.'' And, third, it established a National Health Museum Commission to consider the appropriate Federal role.
    No appointments were made to the commission. Neither the President nor the leadership of the House and Senate made their appointments. The commission was never established.
    In the 106th Congress the National Health Museum Organization proposed a directed sale of Federal Office Building Number 8. I opposed that move.
    Now, in the context of their interest of establishing this health museum, I tried to work something out within this committee. All right. It is appropriate for you to have a museum. I understand every organization in America wants to be on the Mall. Well, fine, but you don't have to take Federal space to be on the Mall, or at least Federal space that is needed for a public purpose.
    In the bipartisan compromise—let me be very clear about it—we gave priority status to the National Health Museum to acquire excess Federal property. We did not direct the sale of property, we gave the museum the opportunity to acquire property the Federal Government no longer needed. That does not mean that they should go around our back, as they tried to do in the last Congress, and get some other committee in the appropriation process to declare property excess so that they could get it.
    Given who is on the board of trustees of this organization, I don't think they're lacking in money or financial power to buy whatever property they want. In fact, we've worked out several deals for them, one I think was very appropriate and very attractive, which they rejected. They didn't like our compromise. They kept trying to go around the committee's back to work out other deals.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So this morning we are going to examine this issue in some length, and I look forward to a rather interesting and lively exchange.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you, Mr. Oberstar.
    The bells have gone off a second time. Dr. Cooksey has indicated he'd like to make some remarks, I know Ms. Norton would like to make some remarks before we begin, so the subcommittee will stand in resource pending the vote on the floor and we'll return immediately thereafter.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. The subcommittee will come back to order.
    While holding Dr. Cooksey's place for remarks he would like to make, it is now my pleasure to recognize the Delegate from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton.
    Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    We are asked again to consider a proposal for a Health Museum in the District of Columbia. I have long supported the idea of a new Health Museum in my District, and I appreciate the bipartisan and sympathetic response, as well as the preferential treatment the Health Museum has received from this subcommittee and from the full committee.
    In 1994, proponents achieved success that similar institutions could only envy. With the strongest support from Health Museum proponents, I introduced H.R. 4315 for the Health Museum and the site that all agreed upon for a new museum. It was one of the few prime locations still remaining on the Mall—the Plaza and an adjacent park east of the current HHS Building.
    This bill received unanimous support in both subcommittee and our full committee. A fully-ceremonial ground-breaking occurred on a bright, sunny day that I remember very clearly. It occurred under a specially-erected tent. It is now six years later. By now, a Health Museum could not only have been built, it could be up and operating.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Why are we here? Why did the Health Museum abandon a site it had embraced with great joy and ceremony six years ago? Why has there been continuous lobbying and, worse, attempts at legislating on appropriations for another site without any consultation with any member of this committee?
    The abrupt change of Health Museum proponents from a site they had ardently desired to insistence on another site—indeed, one and only one site—is difficult to understand or to embrace. Despite offers of alternatives, the proponents have continued to press for one site and only one site. All along, they have been fully aware that the Government needs the FDA site they seek for space for Government purposes.
    The proponents have not cared that ceding the FDA site to them raises serious conflict of interest problems for our committee.
    President Bush's 2002 budget providing funds for renovation of the FDA Building for use by the Government is the latest evidence of the Government's need for the space and the awkward position that this request poses for this subcommittee.
    The members of this subcommittee have never doubted the need to preserve scarce Government space for Government purposes, because every year this subcommittee must approve lease space for Federal agencies at a cost to the Government of billions of dollars without acquiring any equity for the Government.
    The Federal Government, unlike every other government and major institution, has no capital budget; thus, under current rules this committee is required to obligate the entire cost of the capital lease in which it is goaded instead of spreading it over many years, as is typically done.
    It is no wonder that the President and the Congress almost never relinquish Federal property. The Federal Government is leasing space in the District and throughout this region because the Government has so little property to house its own vital functions.
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    In ten years on this subcommittee I have never cast a vote for my District that put me in conflict with this subcommittee's mission to protect the Federal interest; rather, because the District and the Federal Government exist cheek-by-jowl, I have had many occasions to support legislation in the best interest of the Government which also assisted the District.
    Last year I cosponsored with our former chairman, Representative Bob Franks, the Southeast Federal Center Public/Private Development Act. After ten years of failing to get Federal agencies to move to the Federally-owned Southeast Federal Center, Congress enacted our bill, Public Law 106-407, which allows private as well as public development of the land. However, we insisted that the Federal Government, which retains ownership of the land, also retain the right to locate Federal agencies there if it desired.
    With full-scale development and amenities that will now be placed in the Southeast Federal Center by private development, Federal agencies are far more likely to desire to locate there.
    The Southeast Federal Center bill is an example of win/win legislation in the Federal interest that also assists the District of Columbia and does not place me or any member of this subcommittee in a conflict of interest.
    In contrast, in order to support the request before us, I would have to cast a vote that gives the appearance of assistance to my District at the expense of Federal needs. After ten years of never crossing the line of conflict of interest, I do not intend to start today.
    For almost seven years, Health Museum proponents have received great attention from this subcommittee and from me, personally. Like any Member, I take seriously attempts to place an institution in my District by working with Members who do not represent the District of Columbia. However, I continue to welcome a Health Museum in this city. I am prepared to work with Health Museum proponents to achieve a Health Museum in a manner that satisfies this subcommittee and committee on a bipartisan basis and in the process assists the District of Columbia.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank the gentlelady.
    Reserving the right of any other Member that wishes to make a statement, we have been notified by Ms. Morella's staff that she has another engagement at 11:15, so we want to provide you the opportunity to make your remarks before the committee and so at this time it is a pleasure to welcome the gentlelady from Maryland, as I mentioned before, the chairman of the District of Columbia Subcommittee in the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.
    Welcome before our subcommittee. We're pleased to hear what you have to say.

    Ms. MORELLA. Thank you very much. Thank you for the courtesy, also, of letting me give my brief statement at this time before you've heard all members of this distinguished subcommittee.
    I feel very honored to be here and be invited to be here, and I am very pleased to actually testify on behalf of the proposed use of Federal Office Building Number 8 in southwest Washington as the future location of the National Health Museum.
    As a representative of Bethesda, Maryland, which is home of the internationally-recognized National Institutes of Health, I, as other members of this committee, have long been a strong supporter for increasing support of education and awareness of health research and health care for all Americans. Because of this, I enthusiastically supported the establishment of a National Health Museum in our Nation's capital. Legislation entitled ''The National Health Museum Development Act'' was included in the fiscal year 1998 conference report provided appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health, and Human Services and education.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The National Health Museum will help redefine museums for the 21st century by creatively applying new technology, advanced educational techniques, and hands-on experiences to the dynamic field of personal health. It will educate, engage, and inspire people to understand the past, present, and future of health and health science. Visitors to the National Health Museum will explore medical advances of tomorrow and find health information that they need today.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the hearing today is not to debate the tremendous merits that this museum will bring to our Nation's capital; instead, this subcommittee is considering the merits of locating the museum in Federal Office Building Number 8 in southwest Washington.
    Although no specific site for the museum was identified in the enacting legislation, the conference report stated that the Health Museum ''is to be located on or near the national Mall on land owned by the Federal Government or the District of Columbia.'' In following the conference report language, the National Health Museum Board conducted a comprehensive examination of over 30 potential locations.
    The board identified the preferred site to locate the National Health Museum at 2nd and C Streets in southwest Washington. The reason for this selection will be detailed by others who are scheduled to testify, and I know that Dr. Bill Haseltine will be testifying. However, this location has the potential to attract from five to seven million visitors a year.
    This will benefit the District of Columbia through increased revenue, will benefit the overall appearance of the area, and, most importantly, it will allow approximately five to seven million Americans access to what potentially could be life-saving information in the years to come.
    The number of Americans over age 65 will double in the next 30 years to more than 69 million. Now, more than ever before, education and awareness is needed to help reduce the enormous economic and social burdens posed by an aging America.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, as chair of the District of Columbia Authorizing Committee, I applaud Mayor Williams and the D.C. City Council, who support this location. In a 1999 resolution which was adopted unanimously by the D.C. Council and sent to me, it highlighted the benefits of locating a National Health Museum at the 2nd and C Streets, Southwest, site. The D.C. resolution noted the benefit to D.C. schools, to improved health education, as well as the economic benefit of adding over 1,000 permanent jobs in the District and generating over $50 million in annual spending and increasing new tax revenue by $5 million.
    So, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you again for this opportunity to voice my support and concurrence with District officials, as well as a number of colleagues on both the House and the Senate who have written to this subcommittee urging the GSA to weigh the asset manage principles against unique circumstances of locating the National Health Museum at this site. I know you all will make a very thoughtful decision, and I thank you.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much for your thoughtful remarks.
    Knowing of her schedule, is there any member of the subcommittee who would—
    Ms. MORELLA. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
    Mr. LATOURETTE.—wish to ask her a question?
    Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I need to correct something for the record that is in Ms. Morella's testimony.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Certainly.
    Ms. NORTON. She testified that in 1999 the Council supported this location. I have been in touch with the chair of the Council, Linda Cropp. The chair of the Council informs me and indicates that I may put this in the record that the Council's resolution mainly addressed the amenities that the museum would bring to the District, the way it does whenever there is a museum; that the Council was unaware there was any dispute concerning where the museum would be located. The Council chair advises me that I should clarify for the record that the Council has no view or preference on location. Indeed, the Council often, who would like to see such museums in our neighborhoods, the bunching of museums in the center of the city and on the Mall detracts rather than enhances economic development in the District where it is most needed—in our neighborhoods.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    There is no witness from the District of Columbia here today. That is not an oversight. That is on purpose. The mayor of the District of Columbia and the Council of the District of Columbia decided not to send a witness, but they have informed me that I should indicate that they do support a Health Museum in the District of Columbia and they express no preference to where it should be and leave that to this committee.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank the gentlelady very much.
    As I indicated in my opening remarks, this subcommittee has received a number of communications, and the one that is not fresh, I suppose, is the one from Linda Cropp dated July the 21st, 1999, and I would ask the staff of the subcommittee to contact Ms. Cropp and others and see if she would like to send us a new letter expressing their views into the year 2001.
    Ms. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to have you contact the mayor, too, and find out, because I would certainly like to make sure that the mayor and the Council also feel this would be the appropriate site. You will be looking at all of that, my understanding was of that.
    Ms. NORTON. I'd like to indicate that I do represent the District of Columbia, and when I speak I am speaking for the District of Columbia.
    Ms. MORELLA. I know. I know that. Also, there can be some differences—
    Ms. NORTON. There are no differences.
    Ms. MORELLA.—as you know, among your—
    Ms. NORTON. There are no differences here, and I have been authorized to speak for the District of Columbia. There is no District of Columbia witness here because I have been authorized to speak by the District of Columbia.
    I would welcome the chairman do that—that we write directly to the District of Columbia and get in writing what I have just said to this committee and to the Member.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Yes. I thank you..
    Again, we thank you for your appearance here today.
    Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, if I can make just a few comments, and maybe ask a quick question before our colleague has to leave.
    One, I would just say that it seems to me that both Mr. Oberstar and Ms. Norton and other members of this committee in a bipartisan way have attempted to address this issue by offering alternate locations and by coming to agreements prior to this day.
    Considering the fact that if we agree to remove this building, FOB 8, from the Federal inventory, it will have—I don't think there's any question. I don't think anyone here questions the fact that it will remove revenue in the future fund from the GSA and will have an impact on future needs that we will have to address.
    Also, the fact that the FOB 8, if it were removed, I don't know how we provide—the Ford Building, of course, receives other services from FOB 8. That is a concern.
    Last, I have to say that, you know, it frankly just—I feel compelled to say that, while I appreciate the interest in a National Health Museum, I, of course, support locating the National Health Museum here in the District or in the immediate area. It makes no sense to me to offer this building, to take it away from the Federal inventory to the National Health Museum. Why we would not offer this same building to other national organizations at the same time as the National Health Museum is beyond me.
    I would just say for the record that I am in favor of keeping FOB 8 in the Federal inventory for the use of the Architect of the Capitol and for other Federal needs.
    Ms. MORELLA. I would just like to point out that I think one of the reasons is tremendous appeal of that site, as it would bring in a lot more tourists—five to seven million is what evidence some of the research has pointed out—and that it would be paid for fair market value and would be privately funded. I mean, you have to weigh all of this. I just want to point out there are also some comments on the other side.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. COSTELLO. Connie, I appreciate that, and I would just say that there probably are other national organizations that would be willing to pay fair market value, as well.
    Ms. MORELLA. It could be.
    Mr. COSTELLO. And maybe they should be given the same opportunity as the national health organization is for this museum.
    Secondly, it seems to me that the tourists are going to be here regardless if the national museum is located in FOB 8 or if they are located somewhere else near the mall or in the area.
    Thank you.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you.
    Mr. Oberstar, do you have a—
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I'd just like one question of the distinguished represent of the—
    Ms. MORELLA. I represent him in his home away from home.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. And we have, in fact, lectered at mass together.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. But I would like to know what our colleague finds inappropriate or not meeting the needs of the Health Museum in the language that we reported out of this committee last year. We gave priority status to the National Health Museum to acquire any excess Federal property in the District of Columbia, but we did not direct the sale of any property. We gave the museum opportunity to acquire any property the Federal Government no longer needed. Why doesn't that meet their need? Why is not this sufficient?
    Ms. MORELLA. You are the committee, the subcommittee and the full committee, who crafted the legislation; therefore, you are in a position to be engaged in the interpretation of it. I'm testifying before you as somebody who feels very strongly about the need for this museum, and I think the Nation's capital would be a great site for it. I feel that this is a building, with all of the surveys that have been made, this location would be an apt one, and so I add my voice to those who have spoken and will continue to speak on it.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    You can—
    Mr. OBERSTAR. But why isn't it sufficient for us to give—
    Ms. MORELLA.—do the fine-tuning of the language in terms of the interpretation.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. But no other organization has been given such preferential status in legislation from this committee for office space in the District of Columbia.
    Ms. MORELLA. But you have legislated—
    Mr. OBERSTAR. They will have preferential status to acquire excess space.
    Ms. MORELLA. Except we haven't legislated for every other organization.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. I'm saying that they have really gotten preferential status here, and that's not apparently good enough. They want preferential status for this particular piece of property.
    Ms. MORELLA. I think the—
    Mr. OBERSTAR. And that's what you're asking. You're making it clear that you want this property and none other will do.
    Ms. MORELLA. You are the law-makers on this issue. I am your colleague who comes to you who says, ''I think this is a good site because of all of the investigation that has taken place.'' I can give you the reasons why I think it is. I am not the authority, you are the authority. I believe in the legislative process, and so I let you look at that. But I feel very strongly this is a good site for it, and I feel it has a lot of support in that particular location, and I feel the Federal Government would not lose from it. I mean, FDA is going to be moving to White Oak as they begin to consolidate, which they're starting to do now. There has been a streamlining of the Federal Government. I don't know of any list of agencies that are waiting to move in there.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. OBERSTAR. There are six.
    Ms. MORELLA. That would like that particular location?
    Mr. OBERSTAR. You essentially.
    Ms. MORELLA. And that needs to be something that you look at and let them come and tell you that they specifically need that and what they would offer.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much, and thank you for staying a little past the time that we had you for.
    Ms. MORELLA. Thank you.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. We appreciate it very much.
    Ms. MORELLA. I appreciate it. I've enjoyed it.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you.
    Next it is our pleasure to welcome Alan Hantman, the Architect of the Capitol, who those of us that serve not only on this committee but also in the Congress recognize he's doing a truly outstanding job of maintaining one of the most beautiful places in the world.
    Mr. Barcia, before we hear from the Architect, did you have an opening set of remarks you wanted to make?
    Mr. BARCIA. No. I'm sorry I wasn't able to be here earlier.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. We're just glad you are here.
    Mrs. Capito, is there anything you wanted to say?
    Ms. CAPITO. No.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. I think Dr. Cooksey said he wanted to say something, and if he returns we'll let him do that, and if he doesn't return I'd ask unanimous consent that anyone that wants to make remarks to the record be permitted to do that. Without objection, so ordered.
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Architect Hantman, welcome. We are anxious to hear from you.
    Mr. HANTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
    I am pleased to offer testimony in response to your request regarding the subject matter of today's hearing, the future use of Federal Office Building Number 8, which is located on 2nd Street, Southwest, immediately north of the Ford House Office Building.
    FOB 8 is under the jurisdiction of the General Services Administration and is currently leased to the Food and Drug Administration. With respect to the subcommittee's desire to understand the arrangements between FOB 8 and the Ford House Office Building, the latter is dependent on the FOB 8 for the supply of chilled water and thus for air conditioning, as the chairman so clearly made a comment on earlier today.
    While a detailed space analysis has not been performed, based on my observations the United States House of Representatives and the legislative branch agencies that serve the House are in need of additional space to satisfy their basic institutional requirements. This need is being exacerbated by the impending demolition of the O'Neill House Office Building.
    Although the renovation of FOB 8 would not be available for several years, its acquisition could satisfy long term space needs, especially as it is in the vicinity of the United States Capitol grounds.
    You will be hearing testimony from my counterparts at the General Services Administration on this matter. I have been advised by my counterparts that, notwithstanding some issues regarding the prior and current uses of FOB 8, in their professional opinion it is more fiscally responsible to renovate FOB 8 than to raze it and construct a new building in its place. Although I have not reviewed any documents supporting their analysis, I have no reason to question that conclusion.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Again, I wish to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to provide testimony on this important subject, and I will be pleased to provide any additional information that the subcommittee may desire.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you very much for your observations.
    In your remarks you mentioned the O'Neill Building, and you also mentioned that a detailed space analysis hasn't been completed. Do you have an opinion or an observation as to whether or not FOB 8 would be a suitable replacement for the O'Neill building?
    Mr. HANTMAN. Well, the square footage that would be obtainable in FOB 8 far exceeds the capacity of the O'Neill Building. We're looking at a building of 400,000 to 500,000 square feet that could be developed, as we heard in earlier testimony heard, for approximately 2,000 people on the FOB 8 site. The O'Neill Building has approximately 130,000 square feet in it, and at the peak of its occupancy, which has been going down since we have been moving people out, we had some 300 people in that building, plus the pages took up two floors, about 75 pages and their mentors.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay.
    Mr. HANTMAN. So it is a different magnitude.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. All right. Is there a master plan for the Capitol Complex that your office has developed?
    Mr. HANTMAN. The last full master plan that was done for the Capitol Complex was done in 1981, and in that master plan they did identify the O'Neill site as a possible office building for the Congress.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Is FOB 8 included in that master plan from 1981?
    Mr. HANTMAN. It was not. It was shown basically in its existing configuration, along with the Ford Office Building.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LATOURETTE. What sort of agreement exists between the GSA and your office relative to the chilled water use in the building that is supplied to the Ford Building?
    Mr. HANTMAN. We have an inter-agency agreement with the FDA under which the FDA provides chilled water to the Ford Building. The FDA is operating under a delegation of authority from GSA which was given to the Department of Health and Human Services and then delegated to FDA.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. It would be, I guess, my assumption that if this building were to be transferred to anybody the chilled water—you'd either have to have a similar agreement with whoever assumed FOB 8 or you'd have to replace the chilled water function at some other site.
    Say that it was replaced and you needed to put the chilled water operation some place—and, by the way, could we get a chilled water operation for this room?
    Mr. HANTMAN. We'll work on that, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. If you needed to replace the chilled water service that is now being supplied to Ford, do you have an estimate of the cost of that?
    Mr. HANTMAN. We haven't done a full study, but we think that for the 1,000 to 1,500 tons we would need to replace it at the Ford Office Building, that we would be talking somewhere in the magnitude of $3 to $4 million. We'd have to put new chillers in and cooling towers on the roof and run risers up through the building, so our estimate would be about $3 to $4 million, plus inconveniences to all the floors as we ran the services through.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. And my last question, are there any safety or health concerns relative to the transfer of this building for the proposed purpose that some are proposing, a National Health Museum?
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HANTMAN. We met with the GSA last month to get some further information on the project that they are proposing on the site. We understand that the FDA would be clearing out some of the hazardous materials they use for research and that the GSA, themselves, would be clearing out any other asbestos or other hazardous materials in advance. I would think that could be done in an orderly manner, in any event.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. All right. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Costello?
    Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    As I understand your testimony, you said it would take $3 to $4 million to chill the Ford Building; is that correct?
    Mr. HANTMAN. If we were going to construct chillers in the Ford Office Building—again, no detailed study—a guesstimate would be about $3 to $4 million.
    Mr. COSTELLO. And in your testimony you mentioned the potential needs for space for the Legislative Branch and the possibility of demolishing the O'Neill Building. How large is the O'Neill Building?
    Mr. HANTMAN. It's 130,000 square feet.
    Mr. COSTELLO. All right, 130,000 square feet. How many employees work in the building then?
    Mr. HANTMAN. O'Neill? Right now it is just about 100. At its peak it had some 300. Most of those folks have been relocated into the Ford Office Building or other locations.
    Mr. COSTELLO. And do you have an estimated value on the O'Neill building now?
    Mr. HANTMAN. Well, if you look at the O'Neill Building, I'm not sure what value it really has.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HANTMAN. If you were to replace 130,000 square feet in a new construction, it would probably be between $20 to $25 million.
    Mr. COSTELLO. And can you talk a little bit about the possibility for additional office space for the Legislative Branch? You mentioned that in your testimony, and I wonder if you can be more specific.
    Mr. HANTMAN. Well, again, not having done a detailed program or study, gone through an interview process with the committees or with the membership, I think it is fairly self-evident, as you walk into any individual Member's offices, that in an area there are generally three rooms to a Member's suite. In one room of 400, 450 square feet, you may find six, eight, even ten people crammed in over there. That's not a great working environment, in my opinion, for anybody to do the kind of job that Congress needs to have done. Clearly, the committees are also crying for space. Many of the occupants in the Ford Office Building are, in fact, committee staffing members.
    Mr. COSTELLO. So it is very clear that the Legislative Branch needs additional space?
    Mr. HANTMAN. I think for efficient and functional work conditions, that would make sense.
    Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. Thank you.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you.
    Mrs. Capito, any questions?
    Mrs. CAPITO. No, thank you.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Barcia?
    Mr. BARCIA. No.
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Ms. Norton?
    Ms. NORTON. None.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. All right.
    Well, we thank you very much for your comments.
    Mr. HANTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Next we are pleased to hear from Paul Chistolini from the GSA Public Buildings Service.
    Mr. Chistolini, whenever you are ready, we're pleased to hear your remarks.

    Mr. CHISTOLINI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, and members of the subcommittee.
    My name is Paul Chistolini, and I'm the acting commissioner of the Public Buildings Service. I'm pleased to appear here before you today to talk about our plans for Federal Building 8.
    As has been previously stated, this building was constructed in 1965 and has since that time served as a laboratory for the Food and Drug Administration. FDA is planning to move out in various stages and to various locations in Maryland. To use this valuable asset, which has not been modernized in 35 years, GSA proposes to refurbish the building as office space for Government use.
    We are seeking design funds of $7.8 million in the President's fiscal year 2002 budget, and this will permit us to develop a design which encompasses replacement of all the critical infrastructure in the building—the HVAC unit, the electrical system, the sewer system, data and telephone systems—add a new exterior to the building, and new windows, and bring the building up to modern fire and life safety and provide security features. The balance of the funding to complete this project, which will be about $80 million, including construction and management and inspections, we will include in a future year budget.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We have a wide variety of tenants and lease space that either support or are complementary to nearby agencies. These include the Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, Social Security Administration, Department of Agriculture, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Small Business Administration, and the Department of Transportation.
    According to the real estate firm of Grubb & Ellis, their fourth quarter 2000 office rental rates for southwest D.C. averaged nearly $36 a square foot for class B space and approximately $40 for class A space. In light of that, we view Federal Building 8 as a very valuable asset that can help us reduce our overall cost of housing the Government.
    Our most recent analysis indicates that this property's continued value and use to the Federal Government as an office building to be approximately $64 million. This number is different from the $80 million value previously reported due to the increased investment we plan to put in this building and the change in the rates that are used to do the analysis.
    We also estimate that the fair market value of this property is $24 million. This is based on a formal appraisal that was done in September of 1999 and recently updated and adjusted for increasing real estate values.
    As previously mentioned, Federal Building 8 does provide chilled water to the Ford Building.
    GSA has been having ongoing discussions with the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, and it is our intention to continue to provide this service, even after the building is renovated.
    Finally, GSA is aware that there is interest in this building for other purposes, and if it is decided that this building site should be used for those other purposes, we hope the GSA would be appropriately compensated for that building.
    That concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you very much, Mr. Chistolini.
    First, I have an observation, and if you could communicate that, I personally was excited when Mr. Perry of Canton, Ohio, was selected as the new director, administrator of GSA, and because this is the first time that, as chairman of the subcommittee, I've invited GSA or one of its subparts to testify before the subcommittee, and I guess I'm a little disappointed that we didn't receive your testimony in a timely fashion as directed in the letter of invitation, and I would just make a request in the future—it makes it a little easier for Mr. Costello and the other members to do our jobs if we receive that in a timely fashion. I just want to express my disappointment to you.
    Has the GSA made any commitments to dispose of this property for the conveyance to the National Health Museum?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. No. None that I am aware of, sir.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Are you aware that the last Administration made any such commitments?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. The discussion within the last Administration that I am aware of revolved around setting a value for the building, and, if it was to be disposed of, how that would take place. There was a bill introduced that had language that GSA was in agreement on of how that would take place.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. In your testimony you mentioned the three figures that have sort of swirled around—the $80 million, the $64 million, and then the $24 million. Not being a real estate person by training, I understood you to say that the $64 million was the value for the use to the Federal Government, $24 million was the fair market value of the property.
    Can you explain for the uninitiated how those—I guess I don't understand, if I look at a house and the house is for sale for $24 million, how then we explain the $64 million. Can you just run me through that?
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. Well, in this case we looked at the alternatives. If you continue to house people or if you make the $80 million investment, renovate this building, and look at the cost stream over a 30-year period, you look at the net present value of that, that's one number. If you look at what's the alternative—and that is to house people in leased space—there's the $63 million advantage to using the Government asset and retaining ownership.
    In the example you used, to buy the house or rent the house for a time period at one end, at the end of one period you just have rent receipts.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. So if I asked you the question if FOB 8 was renovated and we moved ''X'' number of employees, that's how you arrive at the $64 million figure, over a 30-year period?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. Yes.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Is that how it's calculated?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. That's correct.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. And when the FDA moves its lab operations out of FOB 8 and then is renovated and fixed up for new folks to move in, can you walk the subcommittee through the time frame that you would anticipate that occurring in?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. Yes. FDA is scheduled to move to its various locations, the primary one being in College park, in approximately a year. The Food and Drug Administration is then responsible for going in and removing some of the contaminants in the building that are directly related to the types of experiments they did in that building. So at the start of fiscal year 2003 the building would be totally emptied, and that would be the approximate time we would be able to go in and renovate it. We estimate this is probably a 30-month project, so about 2005, 2006, in that time frame, it would be ready to receive tenants.
    As part of our planning process, we've looked at which of these tenants that I've mentioned before, where their leases are and who are the likely candidates, and during the design process we would be talking to those tenants, getting their commitment to move in, and tailoring the building's design for their needs.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. There has been some reference by some of the members of the subcommittee and also some of the witnesses to legislation passed by this committee in the last Congress that indicated that the National Health Museum would have the opportunity or sort of first dibs, I think Mr. Oberstar indicated, on Government-owned excess real property in the District of Columbia. Is there any?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. It's very rare. It's certainly not in locations that are of equal quality to this location. That's for sure.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Does any site come to mind, just as an example for the record?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. None that I can think of right now, sir.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay.
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. I'd be glad to provide it for the record when I get back.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. If you could.
    The reason I asked you the question, I think I tend to be sympathetic to the argument that Mr. Oberstar was making that the National Health Museum seems to have been placed on sort of a priority category, but if you give somebody the opportunity to be first in line for a sold-out concert it doesn't look like you've given them anything, so maybe if you could give us the opportunity to examine that it will help the subcommittee as we work through our work.
    Mr. Costello?
    Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of questions.
    According to a staff briefing that I had prior to this hearing concerning the vacancy rates in the District—not vacancy rates GSA-wide for all the Federal inventory, but in the District—I understand that the vacancy rate in the District of Columbia is extremely low. Is that correct?
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. That's correct. Within our Federal inventory in the District of Columbia of some 30 million square feet, it is approximately 2 percent. Within our leased inventory of about 18 million square feet it's approximately 3 percent. And a lot of that—and there are no large blocks. A lot of—most of it is dribs and drabs.
    Mr. COSTELLO. In your position, would you agree with some earlier statements that were made concerning the needs, if not the Legislative Branch, the needs of the Federal Government for additional space on Capitol Hill and in the District?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. Well, I'm aware and sympathetic to the Architect of the Capitol's problems with the buildings from two standpoints, (1) he has some outdated buildings. But, as office work changes and people have to go in and renovate buildings in order to provide modern telecommunications, a lot of these buildings have problems with asbestos and a lot of hazards that they have to deal with, so (2) they need interim space to move people while they're doing that work.
    That's a very typical problem, and we also in GSA face it.
    Mr. COSTELLO. And if, in fact, there is a 2 or 3 percent vacancy rate in the District in the Federal inventory, we've heard from the Architect of the Capitol, we heard Mr. Oberstar indicate that there are six agencies who are interested in occupying Building Number 8. Obviously, there are needs of the Federal Government for this facility. You have no testimony to the contrary today, do you?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. No, sir.
    Mr. COSTELLO. The last question: what's the difference between a class B space and class A space as far as GSA is concerned?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. None.
    Mr. COSTELLO. Are we in class B or class A right now?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. Well, I guess it depends who you ask. Probably—
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. COSTELLO. Yesterday we thought we were in class F.
    Mr. COSTELLO. It's a lot cooler today.
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. I'd say most people would agree it's triple A space until you get to your offices, and then you're probably in C-space.
    It has to do with such features as the quality of the elevators, the lobby space, the reliability of the systems, the ability of a building to provide modern telecommunications. There's some fine lines that go between class A space and class B space.
    Mr. COSTELLO. And the plans for the renovation of Building Number 8, I think your testimony was that the Federal Government intents to spend, the GSA, about $80 million to renovate that building?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. That's correct.
    Mr. COSTELLO. After the renovation, would it be classified as class A or class B space?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. It would be classified as class A space.
    Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further question.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you.
    Mrs. Capito, any questions?
    Mrs. CAPITO. No.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Ms. Norton?
    Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chistolini, we see here that—we've heard testimony that the Legislative Branch might like to use this space, and you have testified more concerning some Executive Branch uses of the space. It's fairly unusual for the—is it fairly unusual for the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch to focus on space?
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. Well, not for the types of purposes that have been described here. Some time earlier in my career I worked with the Architect of the Capitol—at that time, George White—when we were doing a transaction for a space at the City Post Office on North Capitol Street where we, as part of our leasing agreement, were able to make an accommodation with the lessor for the Architect of the Capitol to move a—for the Legislative Branch to move a computer operation that they had in very costly lease space, another location on North Capitol Street, into the building.
    The staff at our national capital region has told me they have had some staff discussions with the Architect of the Capitol about interim swing space, space that might become available in the near future when we move some people around that they might be able to use as swing space, and that's an issue we can work on.
    Ms. NORTON. This space is located at 2nd and C Street close to the Congress of the United States; isn't that true? The reason that the Legislative Branch might be interested in the space in competition with the Executive Branch might then have to do with its location so close to the Congress of the United States; is that not true?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. Certainly.
    Ms. NORTON. So what we have here, it appears, is a competing—if anything, a contest for the space because both branches of Government are so short of space that this is particularly prime space because this space is located close to the Congress, which is a most crowded institution—any Member can attest—and, of course, the Executive has space in areas all around the Congress.
    We, of course, in the Legislative Branch, have a great deal less flexibility than the Executive Branch because our employees need to be located close to us and thus the testimony concerning Legislative Branch needs I found most interesting. This committee is seldom dealing with that kind of space, although Members are often complaining about the absence of space of one kind or another.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So I know the location of this space in close proximity to the Congress and the Legislative needs it might serve, as well as the Executive needs.
    I'd like to have you comment further on the impact on the Federal building fund. This has been a matter of great consternation to this committee, because essentially the Federal Government doesn't build anything any more. I mean, we just as well face it—we build a few courthouses. There is enormous competition from Members who write this committee for courthouses, complaints about Federal facilities located in their neighborhoods, in their communities. Nothing we can do about it, because we are dependent upon this Federal building fund.
    Therefore, I'd like you to testify further concerning the fund, because it was raised by several Members. Could you calculate the financial advantage to the fund, this fund that has to be used for all Federal building purposes, that would come from continuing use of the FDA Building and how you think this figure would relate to the overall capital program of the Federal Government.
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. Well, when we do our analysis on this, as I tried to describe before, this value to the Government of approximately $64 million, within the Federal buildings fund that's the equivalent of having approximately $4.7 million more a year to spend on projects, whether they be repair and alterations. In other words, it is that much cheaper, it generates that much of a revenue within the Federal buildings fund for us to use on repairs and alterations or applied toward new courthouses or the acquisition of sites. So it is maximizing the use of the portfolio to generate additional resources within the Federal buildings fund.
    Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank the gentlelady.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Oberstar, any questions?
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, I want to point out that, while in Ms. Morella's statement on page one she writes, ''Although no specific site for the museum was identified in the enacting legislation—'' meaning the appropriation bill language of 1997—''conference reports stated that the Health Museum is to be located on or near the Mall,'' etc.
    That language is report language. It is not bill language. It is not law. And I would ask unanimous consent to include in the record a memorandum from the Congressional Research Service stating that the National Health Museum mandate is not current law, and other documents that I referenced at the beginning of my statement.
    I will not pursue the matter further because the gentlewoman is not here to engage in debate on the subject.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Without objection, the gentleman's request is granted.
    [The information follows:]

    Mr. OBERSTAR. And, Mr. Chistolini [remarks made in Italian.]
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. [Response in Italian.]
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, we have gone over the numbers, but the figure is quite clear that this—the value of this structure over the period estimated by GSA is $63-plus million in present dollars; is that correct?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. That's correct. That's the advantage of renovating the building and using it for Federal occupancy, compared to continuing to house tenants in leased space for the comparable period of time.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Now, those who advocate for the transfer of this particular building to the Health Museum say, ''Well, there are—'' one of the arguments is that there are no present claimants to that land, but you, GSA, has identified at least, if I'm right, EPA, Social Security Administration, USDA, Housing and Urban Development, SBA, and DOT as users of this building.
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. That's correct, sir. Those are tenants of ours that are in leased space in the vicinity, all who have leased space that's turning over in the approximately time period that this building would be ready, and those would be people we would approach to move into the building.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. And that's the key point here, Mr. Chairman, is we have other Federal agencies that are in the leased space that we're burning money every year to house in leased structures that can be housed in a building that the Federal Government owns where we don't have to pay additional money and where we have an opportunity to recoup an investment and return money correctly into the Federal building fund.
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. It would generate additional revenue for the Federal buildings fund use.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Is there other property that may be excess to the Federal Government in the vicinity of the Mall that you're aware of that you could discuss with us?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. Not that I'm aware of. I think the chairman asked me that question before. I'm going to go back and research and provide it for the record.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank the gentleman.
    I just have one follow-up question, and then I would invite my colleagues to ask any question if this spurs some questions, just about the math again.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I understand now that we've got the $24 million, I've got the $64 million, but I understood you to day it's going to cost $80 million to fix up the building—
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. That's correct.
    Mr. LATOURETTE.—so somebody new can move in.
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. That's correct.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. And I had understood the $64 million to be the value to the Government over a 30-year period?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. That's correct.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. So the proposal is to spend $80 million to renovate the building to get $64 million worth of use over the next 30 years?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. A $64 million advantage. We invest $80 million.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay.
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. We operate the building for 30 years. That is still $64 million cheaper than leaving people in leased space.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. So the value to the Government is really $144 million?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. Well, in terms of balancing alternatives, we tend to look at it as a $64 million advantage.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. And I'm not asking GSA for a position, but if this property were to be transferred to the National Health Museum, whose responsibility in any discussions that you've been made aware of would it be to invest the $80 million or to do the renovation? Would you not transfer a building if that was so ordered by legislation until after it was fixed up, or would it be as soon as the FDA moves out?
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. Well, the funding is in the 2002 budget. Assuming we got the 2002 budget for the design, we would proceed unless there is some very strong signal from the Congress that they're going to do something else, transfer the building. If they were sending us a signal or enact legislation, then we would go through the normal process of making sure that FDA would clean up the building, and then we would look to receive a fair market value price for the building.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Any questions on that from anybody? Mr. Oberstar?
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Just to clarify, you would clean up the building—
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. Clean up the building as part of—
    Mr. OBERSTAR.—because it was used as a lab in their—
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. That's correct. As part of FDA moving out—
    Mr. OBERSTAR. One of the reasons there aren't more employees in the building is that there are hazardous materials from that lab.
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. Well, a lab—virtually everybody works in the lab. They have basically two offices, space in a lab and space as an office, so the building has about 660 people, and now it is only about 70 percent full because some people have already relocated. At its peak, there were approximately 950 people in this building.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. But you would not renovate the building for use; you would just clean it up and then put it—if directed to make the space available, you would just clean it up, because the design of the National Health Museum is a vastly different structure than the one that exists there now.
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. Well, the fair market value estimate that we have takes into account if somebody was going to build something else there they would have to demolish what's there and clean it up, so that's already accounted for.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes.
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. So if the National Health Museum were to get it, they would have some investment, significant investment to make to demolish the building, clean the site, and prepare it for their own facility.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. OBERSTAR. And the renovation of the building would remove the laboratory facilities and convert that to office space and make it possible to house the 1,800 to 2,000 workers.
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. That's correct, sir. That's correct.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. I just want also to supplement my earlier statement and say that the statutory language from the Appropriations Committee has expired. I want to make that very clear.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you.
    Mr. Costello or Ms. Norton, anything?
    Mr. COSTELLO. No, sir.
    Ms. NORTON. Nothing further.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much.
    Mr. CHISTOLINI. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Next we're pleased to hear from Dr. William Haseltine, who is the chairman of the board of trustees of the National Health Museum.
    Dr. Haseltine, I am aware that you made a request that others make observations with you. I think, in conformance with the rules of this subcommittee, we'll be glad to let anybody that you want help you or assist you in answering questions, but we would like to hear from you, and whenever you're ready we're ready.

    Dr. HASELTINE. This is a model of what may appear on the Mall here. I think you'll agree it is a little bit more attractive than the FDA Building.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman LaTourette and members of the subcommittee, I welcome this opportunity to appear before you to provide my perspective on the importance of the National Health Museum to the lives and health of all Americans, and particularly American children and their families, and to testify in support of legislation to designate the sale of property at 2nd and C Streets, Southwest, to the National Health Museum.
    As we have discovered, this is not about whether such a museum is desirable; it is about where that museum should be located.
    My name is William A. Haseltine, and I serve as chairman of the board of trustees of the National Health Museum. I might add that I am a new chairman of that museum, and we have a new acting president, as well. I am also chairman and chief executive officer of Human Genome Sciences, a company located in Rockville, Maryland. I hold a doctorate from Harvard University in biophysics, and I was a professor at Harvard University Medical School and Harvard University School of Public Health from 1976 to 1993.
    I spent many years as a science educator, creating and teaching courses on biology and social issues, primarily for Harvard non-scientist undergraduates.
    I also am a medical researcher who has primarily studied AIDS and cancer. In fact, my very first opportunity to address Congress came in 1985 when I testified on the emerging AIDS pandemic.
    I am joined today by the acting president of the National Health Museum, Mark Dunham, and by Robert Peck, the former commissioner of Public Buildings Service in the General Services Administration and a current member of the District of Columbia School Board. I would like to ask your permission, Mr. Chairman, that these gentlemen be allowed to join me in presenting the museum's interests before your subcommittee today.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I think, as I indicated earlier, we are more than happy to have them sit next to you there, but, in terms of testimony, we'd like to only hear from you, Doctor, and if there are questions that they can help the committee answer during the question period, we'd be more than happy to hear from either of them.
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Dr. HASELTINE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    We are all three residents of the District of Columbia and constituents of yours, Ms. Norton, and it is a very particular honor to be appearing before you today.
    I'd also like to ask that our three statements be inserted into the record in full.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Without objection they will be.
    Dr. HASELTINE. I'm going to depart from my prepared remarks to address directly, Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Costello, your very thoughtful remarks, and I'd like to begin by saying I deeply appreciate your commitment to this museum. It is a commitment to our children and to the future and to the health of this Nation. But you have raised very serious issues—issues that merit conscientious consideration. This is one of those classic cases where there are very good arguments on one side which we have heard, and I believe we can make very compelling arguments on the other side, so it is not one of those black-and-white issues. It is an issue that requires the careful attention of this committee.
    Let me first address issues that you, yourselves, have raised. The first is a specific site authorized by H.R. 4315 at the Hubert Humphrey Plaza. That's a site that Ms. Norton mentioned, in particular.
    There was a ground-breaking ceremony before I was aware there was a museum. A museum did not rise at that site for very good reason. It is unsuitable. We had many different people look at that site. It couldn't get the visitors. It could not be built. It was a dangerous construction project over a major city highway. There are a number of reasons that museum could not be built. Mark Dunham can also answer questions regarding the suitability of that site. At first it was thought it would work, but on close inspection we realized it would not.
    The next question that has been raised, and it is a serious question, is about the Federal buildings fund. I certainly have an expert to my left on that topic, but let me just make a few comments on that. Chairman LaTourette, this will particularly address the financial issues that you raised a number of times.
 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    How does the math work out? What really is at issue is spending $87.5 million Federal dollars—$87.5 million—to take a dilapidated, unattractive building that is contaminated, refurbishing it so it can house 1,800 to 2,000 office workers. That is a laudable goal, and I understand why one would want to do that.
    We would like to add to that $87.5 million $24 million of our own to take that total to $111 plus million and propose that a Federal office building need not be located there but could instead be located in other excellent locations--possibly the Southeast Federal Center or other neighborhoods in this city. There are many neighborhoods for Federal office buildings. They don't necessarily have to be at a location that we think is the best site for the museum. I've consulted experts, and you can certainly build a building that will house 2,000 Federal office workers for $120 or $110 million today—buy the land and build the building and still have money left over.     So we're not talking about eliminating a federal office building, we're not talking about a negative impact on this fund. We are talking about where it is going to be and is it really the best location.
    Mr. Oberstar, you mentioned a series of legislative maneuvers that were anything but, in your terms, ''straightforward,'' and for those I apologize. We have a new management at the museum. I am the new Chairman. Sitting to my right is a new Acting President. We hope that in the future our relationships with this body and other bodies in our Legislative Branch will be more straightforward. That is why we are here today. We are not going through an appropriations route, we are going through an authorization route with the appropriate committee, and we hope to continue an open and clear dialogue with you.
    Several of you raised the issue of precedence. Particularly, you raised the issue of why this site. Are we given special preference? Isn't there a line of other people waiting for this particular site? Why the Health Museum? Has anybody ever done this before?
    Let me remind you that Congress has directed GSA to sell or give land—actually give land that was in the Federal inventory to the Holocaust Museum, a project very similar to ours—at no cost. We're planning to spend $24 million to purchase this site. The American Red Cross, at no cost—received land for its Headquarters. Columbia Hospital for Women bought a site for fair market value. And I could mention a number of others, so these are fair market cost or no cost or low cost issues.
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We heard a very specific issue about chilled water. I understand the need for chilled water. I understand you were very hot yesterday. The Museum can supply chilled water to the adjacent federal office building. We would be willing to commit to supply chilled water to the Ford Office Building at our own expense.
    Finally, if there are long-term issues about private ownership of this particular land that you are worried about, not for this generation or the next generation, but for generations to come, we are prepared not to buy the land but to enter into a long-term lease—a 99 year term lease if this committee so desires.
    Let me make just a few other comments. We are not going to be a Federally-funded institution. This will be a private 501(3)(c). I'm the chairman of this group. I'm responsible for raising the money—$300 million over five to seven years. Do you think it's easy to raise that kind of money? One of your committee members suggested that it is easy. I suggest it is hard.
    I have raised money for AIDS research. I have raised money for cancer research. It is hard to raise private money. If we don't have this site, this unique site, it will be very difficult to do.
    Now, what's special about this site? Think about it for a minute. This museum, located near a subway entrance as a major portal for a triad of wonderful museums—the Health Museum for education of our children and their parents; the Museum of the American Indian, to help our children and their parents understand important aspects of our national heritage; and the Air and Space Museum, the most-visited museum in our city—serving up to ten million people annually.
    This museum is more than an average museum. It focuses on a primary objective of our age—that is, education of our children: education for health and education for science.
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We know that we need to raise test scores. We think this museum will help. We already have a major program to educate science teachers in K through 12. It is one of our objectives. We want these seven to ten million children and their parents to experience our museum.
    If it is not here, where will it be? We think if it is not at the 2nd and C streets site there may be half a million visitors, greatly decreasing the impact of this museum.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Dr. Haseltine, if I could, I wanted to get—
    Dr. HASELTINE. I'm running out of time?
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, twice, but I wanted to give you broad latitude, and so we doubled this time, and if you could just sum up here in a couple of minutes.
    Dr. HASELTINE. Okay. We also think it will be a great resource for our children.
    This hearing, of course, is not about the museum, it is about the site. We think this site is unique. I can tell you personally it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to raise the $300 million without the site.
    Your decision is more than just where the site is, it is whether this museum will rise in Washington, DC at all. I'd like you to consider that very seriously. I understand your competing priorities, but I hope you will consider ours.
    Thank you.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you very much for your statement.
    I think I speak for all if not most of the members of not only this subcommittee but the full committee that I think as an authorizing committee we very much appreciate the decision to go through the authorization process rather than sneaking things in to appropriations bills. I've only been here a short time and I don't have the longstanding institutional experience Mr. Oberstar has, but it makes me nuts when you work very hard and you're an authorizing committee and then you come to work one day and you find it has all been undone by the appropriations process, so I appreciate the courtesy that the museum has extended at least to this subcommittee at the moment very much.
 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Also, being a representative from Cleveland, Ohio, the Cleveland Museum of Health is something that I not only enjoy but my children enjoy and I can see it in my mind as Juno, the translucent woman who maybe I liked her for other reasons as an adolescent, but now—
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I learned a lot about the circulatory system and health, in general, and the teeth, as well, so there's no doubt in my mind that a national health museum would add to the rich experience of visiting Washington, D.C. There's no doubt in my mind that it's needed.
    The question I wanted to ask you has to do with finances. I worked on your words exactly, and that is that it would be very difficult to raise money if not this site. There have been a number of observations that perhaps there is an intransigence and a laser being focused on this site and no other. We talked a little bit about the legislation, 3171, from the last Congress that gave preference to the museum for sort of the first in line approach for any excess Government property that was available to be used for this purpose, and I'm—I guess my question is—I know my question is: is that unbending? I understand that this is your first choice. There's no mistake, and I don't think any of us would be confused. But if not this site, no site in the Nation's capital, Doctor?
    Dr. HASELTINE. Let me put it this way: if there's not a comparable site that can enjoy this kind of traffic, I'm afraid I can't raise the money. This is not a cheap museum to build. It is a $300 million project, and there will be no Federal funds. In fact, we propose to put money back into the Federal budget.
    We have looked at over 30 sites over a six-year period, carefully evaluating many of them. Perhaps my colleague, Mark Dunham, would help me respond to that question, as well, and I have another expert on Federal properties in the city here with me as well.
 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I'd invite either one to address that.
    Mr. DUNHAM. Over the course of time that I have been involved in the project, we have investigated literally dozens of sites, Mr. Chairman, and we have found several to be quite interesting. The museum invested significant resources and study originally in the site adjacent to the Hubert Humphrey Building. For a variety of reasons, that site proved to be completely unworkable.
    We pursued with great interest the Department of Employment Services site at 6th and Pennsylvania, investing significant resources in both the study and development of meaningful proposals to go at that site. That site, of course, is no longer on the market, having been purchased by the Newseum.
    One of the most exciting sites in the District of Columbia, 101 Constitution Avenue, unfortunately was not available to us, but we had significant discussions with its owners and their representatives as well. And the list goes on.
    We have submitted for the record a list of, I think, 30 to 35 site sites that we spent significant time and resources investigating, and none of them meets the program requirements of this museum, is in the visitor corridor where we can be assured of visitorship, or meets other criteria that are clearly central to this project's success.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Peck, anything you want to say?
    Mr. PECK. I don't have anything to add on that point.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Well, I appreciate that very much.
    Back to the amount of money. There was a ''Washington Post'' article in October of 2000 that indicated that the museum had raised $6 million, heading for a target of $200 million, and today I've heard you say $300 million. Has the cost grown $100 million in just the seven months since that article appeared?
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Dr. HASELTINE. Since coming in as the new chairman and reevaluating the scope, the scale, and the variety of Museum offerings, the number over a five-to ten-year period is more like $300 million than it is $200 million.
    My responsibility is to make sure all of our board members understand what their task will be, and in evaluating that I think part of the difference in that, a rather large difference, is the time required to raise funds and build the Museum.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay.
    Dr. HASELTINE. So it's over a somewhat longer period of time.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. And my last question, when Mr. Chistolini was here I asked him—again, my sympathies go to the good work of this committee and the last Congress, and that is giving the museum a first-in-line status for access to Government property in the District sounds like a very good thing, and Mr. Chistolini seemed to think that there wasn't any, and I made the example that if I let you be the first in line for the next Cleveland Browns game but all the tickets are gone, I really haven't given you much of a benefit.
    Based upon your work on the 35 sites that you have looked at over the course of time, are you aware of any comparable site?
    Mr. DUNHAM. We are not, Mr. LaTourette. And might I add that we appreciated the effort, the sense of compromise, and good will that went into crafting that compromise legislation, but at the last meeting of this subcommittee we were told, number one, that the FDA site would never, itself, be declared excess or surplus, and the sense was also that there were no other sites available or expected to become available that would meet our essential criteria, so our understanding is just that—that there is nothing available at this point and unlikely to be a site available that would meet the clear criteria of this project.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Costello?
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Doctor, thank you for being here today.
    I think we are all in agreement—members of this committee on both sides and the full committee, by the past action that we have taken—that we support and would like to see a National Health Museum. I think that's demonstrated by the fact that your organization has been given preference, and maybe unprecedented preference, as Mr. LaTourette just pointed out, for any excess Federal property.
    I mentioned in my opening statement, as did the ranking member, Mr. Oberstar, about the convoluted process that, frankly, is very offensive for your organization or any organization to go around the normal process here in the Congress, and I appreciate the fact that you are the new chairman and that you were not a part of that, and I appreciate the comments, and I take as your commitment today that you will be working with the authorizing committee and with us in the future.
    Let me just ask a couple of quick questions. And I might mention, too, when we talk about going through the appropriations process versus the authorizing process and your commitment to come through this committee, that if I were the delegate from the District of Columbia I would be offended if, in fact, an organization—if it's your organization or another organization—didn't at least sit down and contact me and try and work with my office, but that I had to learn it through the other body in the Congress, the United States Senate, or through another committee, so I would encourage you, as you take on these responsibilities, to work with the delegate from the District, as well.
    You obviously have rejected the Hubert Humphrey Building and site at Triangle Park. Let me just ask why. Expand a little bit. You said it has been rejected. Tell me why.
    Mr. DUNHAM. Yes, sir. Well, it was several years ago, but the situation was one that started with great promise and was, frankly, hard for us to let go of because we were so driven originally to that site. It seemed to offer us a tremendous opportunity which obviously ended up not being such.
 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The traffic around the site would have been severely affected by the reconfiguration of the traffic triangles that would have to be brought together to form around a 35,000-square foot footprint for that site. That would have meant, to achieve any size for this facility, as well, it would have required a five-floor museum composed of roughly 135,000 square feet. That is a very small size for a national museum.
    As our project evolved, so did our appreciation for the important mission of the Museum. We recognized that, indeed, what would be most important would not be that we simply relocate the collections from the medical museum up at Walter Reed, but that we would, instead, take on a more vibrant and futures- oriented mission.
    So we recognized that the size of that facility and certainly its construction on five floors, which any museum planner will tell you is just not a good configuration, would not work.
    What also became clear to us after extensive discussions and conversations with the National Capital Planning Commission, and studies by local engineering and design firms was that the presence of the highway that travels underneath this site would have necessitated cantilevered construction on that site that would have been both dangerous and prohibitively expensive. It would have driven the cost of this project up, I forget the exact figure, but somewhere in the area of 50 percent, if I remember correctly.
    For all those reasons, it became clear to us that our efforts would be best focused elsewhere. At that point, Mr. Costello, we did not move immediately to the FDA site. In fact, as I mentioned, we pursued with great vigor several other sites. We continued to look exhaustively at opportunities that would position the museum within the vital tourist corridor, and that survey, I must tell you, we feel quite confident was as detailed and expansive as it possibly could have been.
    Mr. COSTELLO. So am I clear on understanding that you did have a design and engineering firm evaluate the site near the Hubert Humphrey Building?
 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. DUNHAM. We did, indeed. Yes.
    Mr. COSTELLO. So you have a written evaluation by either an engineering firm that evaluated that site?
    Mr. DUNHAM. Yes. We certainly have information to support our leaving the site for engineering and technical reasons, and I would be happy to submit that for the record after the hearing.
    Mr. COSTELLO. I would request that you do.
    A final question. Doctor, we've heard the figure $300 million and the task that you will have in front of you to raise that amount of money. Is there an endowment for construction established already?
    Dr. HASELTINE. There is not. I believe with this site we can raise it. I have been fortunate enough to build a company from scratch. Eight years ago, when I came to Washington, D.C., to live in the District and to build the company in Rockville, Maryland, I occupied two offices. Today we have a corporate headquarters we are about to break ground on for one million square feet of space for 500,000 square feet of manufacturing facilities, and we will eventually have created 4,000 jobs from nothing. I believe I've got the energy and the imagination to do it, and I know what tools it takes, but without this site I'm not sure I can do it.
    Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Costello.
    Dr. Cooksey, we reserved a place-mark for your opening remarks before, and we'll invite you to either make opening remarks, questions, or both.
    Mr. COOKSEY. So, Mr. Chairman, I can make my opening remarks and closing remarks and all the intermediate remarks. Good.
    Well, first I would tell you that I support the health care museum. I am a physician. I understand the importance of health care. I think it is important that we be able to look back at the past successes of health care, but also look at the future challenges of health care, and they are there.
 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I worked in East Africa off and on for six years from 1986 to 1992. I was in Africa last month. When I was in medical school a long time ago, I didn't see cases of polio, but they still have active polio in Ghana and in Nigeria. Half the infectious diseases of the world are in sub-Sahara Africa. The world is much smaller because people can get on an airplane in Africa and be here in Washington, D.C. in this room 24 hours later carrying pneumococcal meningitis or ebola virus, so we are served more challenges.
    If nothing else, hopefully this museum will inspire someone, some young person, to pursue a health care field or a lot of young people to pursue health care field and solve the problems that my esteemed colleagues and me, our generation, has not solved. There are still infectious diseases. There's still heart disease. There's still cancer. So the museum has got a very important purpose.
    Quite frankly, the years that I worked in East Africa I think I was a lot more effective than the two trips I've been over as a politician. I'm not saying that physicians are more effective and help people more than politicians, but I hope that the politics of this does not get in the way of a very worthy project. I'd hate to see this project loaded down with a lot of other unrelated projects, because this is about health care.
    We absolutely lead the world in health care. We develop more pharmaceuticals than any other ten countries in the world combined. We develop more innovative surgical and medical procedures than any other ten countries combined. And I'm talking about western European countries. I'm not talking about South American countries or African countries, I'm talking about First World countries.
    And the world looks to us, has looked to us in the past century, and will continue to look to us in this 21st century to provide this leadership in health care, and I think that this is the least that we can do.
    Rather than getting into an argument about $24 million, I think that the proposal that they have made is very reasonable. I'm really glad to see that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are concerned about this, because the first four years I was on this committee, one of my colleagues that was on the other side of the aisle and one of the other Members on this side used to tell me about all the problems that existed. They told me about the transportation building in Atlanta, and I would talk about the building that we—there was a lot of questionably misappropriated money here. And $24 million is a drop in the bucket compared to $1 billion in the Transportation Building in Atlanta. We don't want to open up that bucket of worms. And I promise not to open up the bucket of worms about the building downtown here. But this is about health care. This is about the past, the present, and the future of health care. It's a very worthy project, and I just hate to see it politicized.
 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We've got a continued role in the world to provide health leadership. It's about people's lives. It's about people's futures. So I hope that the committee will look upon this favorably and get the politics out of it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you, Dr. Cooksey.
    Mr. Oberstar?
    Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I welcome the gentleman's statement, the gentleman from Louisiana, the sensitivity that he has shown, the Hippocratic Oath shows through in all the gentleman says and does.
    I, too, lived abroad. I spent three-and-a-half years in Haiti. I saw extraordinary health conditions, needs, and while I was teaching English to Haitians and French and Creole to Americans, I also worked with various groups to bring health care to needy people of Haiti—the Dr. Albert Schweitzer Hospital in the Artibinite Valley region, and many other such services—the service of Dr. Vaupiavau on Tortuga Island off the north coast of Haiti, with the French doctors and Swiss nuns who provided a desperately needed service to an array of medical needs, U.S. doctors who came to practice for a couple of weeks or a month and operate on physical conditions that they might see once in a career but we'd see six times in a week.
    But this is not a debate about a health care museum; it is about the location of this facility and it is about competing interests and services of the Federal Government.
    Now, there is a facility that—two, at least, that I think—spaces that are big enough and would be appropriate, and I'd like to have Dr. Haseltine explain why Station Place at Union Station would not be appropriate. There are 24-plus million persons a year passing through Union Station. It is a visitor base that would readily be available. That is a space that is consistent with the National Capital Planning Commission's interests for the District of Columbia.
 Page 64       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Dr. HASELTINE. First, let me give one answer to that. One of the advantages of Federal space is that we can pay for it over time. The space you mentioned is not Federal space, as far as I understand, and therefore we will very likely be required to pay up front. That's a very big difference when you have to pay for the land and construct on it at the same time.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, what are the competing costs that make this Union Station disadvantageous?
    Dr. HASELTINE. And the second thing, I'm not showing that it is fully available. Mark, do you have a comment?
    Mr. DUNHAM. We received information that Station Place may have been taken off the market or that there have been serious discussions about its sale to another concern, but certainly we have sited it before and it is ranked 24th on our list of 35 sites, so I'm quite sure—
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Why is it ranked 24th?
    Mr. DUNHAM. I can't remember, Mr. Oberstar, but I would be happy to provide that answer to you for the record. We have looked at that site and there are clear reasons why it won't work for us, and I'd be happy to get back to you.
    I would hope that you would appreciate, with this list of sites and the evolution of this project over time, it is very difficult to recall in detail why each individual site wouldn't work. Nonetheless we'd be happy to get back to you with a detailed explanation for why that is.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. I think it should be submitted for the record so all Members can have it available.
    Mr. DUNHAM. Sure.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. What about North Capitol at G Street, also a block from Union Station, same 24-plus million travelers, visitors.
 Page 65       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. DUNHAM. North Capitol and G Street—is there another commonly-referred-to name for that site? Is there a building on it currently that might have a name?
    Mr. OBERSTAR. No.
    Mr. DUNHAM. There again, if it was one of our 35 sites, I would be happy to get back to you with clear reasoning for why it was not appropriate.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Let me ask, you've cited a number of figures about the cost of this 2nd and C Street site. Is $300 million your figure? What is your number for construction of that facility?
    Mr. DUNHAM. The $133 million was the originally-estimated construction cost. We anticipate—although, of course, it is hard to know because we do not have the actual site yet—that there will be, in fact, significant cost associated with fund-raising for this project. A common used figure is 10% of the amount raised going for fund-raising costs. There will be, in all likelihood, escalations in that original figure as our efforts to secure this site drag continue. And there will also be an endowment for the museum from which we will draw income.
    Dr. HASELTINE. I would like to issue a specific response to your two questions. Let me take the last one first. The North Capitol and G site is presently under contract for sale. And, according to our analysis, it is not proximate to sufficient numbers of other attractions with similar visitor bases, and thus will not draw sufficient visitors to support operations and continued donor contributions.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, I don't understand that. It's only a block—
    Dr. HASELTINE. But presently under contract for sale is pretty clear.
 Page 66       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, let me—
    Dr. HASELTINE. And that may or may not be the case at this moment, but let me thank you for bringing these to our attention. You will get responses.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. You need to give us—
    Dr. HASELTINE. But the other point—
    Mr. OBERSTAR.—a response in writing.
    Now, do you contemplate contribution of the site, 2nd and C, to the Health Museum by the Federal Government?
    Dr. HASELTINE. No. None. None whatever. We will pay for this site.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. You anticipate purchasing this site?
    Dr. HASELTINE. Purchase at fair market value, which we heard today the GSA currently estimates at $24 million. So this is actually a source of revenue generation for the Federal Government.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, that's one view. It's nice to put that shade on it. But the other view is that, of course, it is going to cost $64 million over a long period of time to house Federal services in other locations.
    What do you estimate to be the operating cost of this facility?
    Dr. HASELTINE. It's about $25 million per year.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. And what will be the source of—
    Dr. HASELTINE. Again, it will be donations, and about half of that will be purchases at a very interesting shop we plan to have in it. We do not plan to charge admission to this museum, just as the other museums on the Mall do not. That means our task of raising money to cover operations is even more daunting.
    Mr. DUNHAM. We will also have memberships in the museum. That has proven to be a very successful fund-raising approach by local institutions, such as the National Museum of the American Indian and the various other Smithsonian Museums. Retail sales will produce revenue and we also have, as you know, Mr. Oberstar, plans for a conference center that will provide substantial operating income from rentals to organizations and associations and groups. The opportunity for there to be appropriate corporate sponsorship in the museum will also provide revenue. And then, again, the endowment income that we will draw will be significant, as will the retail and food service revenues.
 Page 67       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. OBERSTAR. So you are contemplating corporate contributions, significant. That's your target. What I have learned in the past and from the meeting we had over a year ago, corporate contributors—I hope this is not going follow the example of the football stadium and become some drug-company-named health museum.
    Dr. HASELTINE. It will not be. I think our—
    Mr. OBERSTAR. The MCI Center or the FedEx Center or whatever else on the national mall.
    Dr. HASELTINE. No, it will not be. I think that we can identify some corporate, some private foundation, some private individual sponsors for this museum. If you look at our current sponsorship, the majority does not come from pharmaceutical companies. The majority comes from private foundations and other sources.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Will any individual rooms be designated for their corporate sponsors?
    Dr. HASELTINE. I don't think any individual rooms. Let's take, for example, exhibits that have been sponsored at the Smithsonian. I was for a time a director of the National Museum of American History, and there we had from time to time special exhibits that met all of our criteria but which had been paid for and sponsored by companies, and those bore a small plaque which said, ''This exhibit has been contributed by this particular company.'' I think that is conceivable. It is not necessary, but it is conceivable.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. What do you anticipate—you mentioned a rather sizeable conference center. What do you anticipate—what activities do you anticipate conducting at that conference center?
    Dr. HASELTINE. Well, this is a 501(3)(c), so, of course, there will be no lobbying. There will be no—
    Mr. OBERSTAR. That's not my—no.
 Page 68       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Dr. HASELTINE. But what I do—
    Mr. OBERSTAR. I recall that from over a year ago.
    Dr. HASELTINE. Yes. What I do anticipate is educational seminars on a wide variety of topics—topics on international health for Members of Congress and their staff, members of the Executive and their staff who wish to learn more on various issues on health.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, tell me about the education role you cited a little bit ago. I wrote down, ''We hope that this will help raise test scores.'' I just stepped outside earlier in this hearing to meet with a group of students who were asking me about various practices in the State of Minnesota. They come from a small town, northeastern part of my District, the end of the iron ore mining country, where all the average property values are about $25,000 per home. The revenues for schools in Minnesota are derived largely from the property tax, and they don't get as good a shake as folks do down in Evina or Golden Valley in the Twin City area where the home values are around half a million dollars apiece. I don't see how a visit here is going to help them raise their test scores.
    Dr. HASELTINE. Well, I'll tell you how we are going to help that.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Raising their property values or some money into the education base of the school up there is going to help them a whole lot.
    Dr. HASELTINE. What really helps test scores? As you may know, I have been deeply interested in science education and health education for my entire career, and I am still deeply interested. That is my primary motivation for this museum—it is to help educate our Nation's children for better health and to stimulate their interest.
    We already have a very interesting outreach to science teachers. It is our belief that it is K through 12 teachers who, when they are better informed, will be able to provide a higher-quality education that will help inspire our children to do better, to take a deeper interest in science.
 Page 69       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    What I envision is for each of these exhibits--on infectious disease, on the circulatory system, on international health--to have a vibrant web presence, both for the students and, more importantly, for their teachers.
    We currently run and we have an NSF grant to support a program called ''Access Excellence.'' It is created by and for K through 12 educators. As we have exhibits that deepen and enrich the content of what this museum can put in place physically, so, too, will we deepen and enrich our web presence for those same teachers, a web presence that your teachers in your District can access.
    They can also visit our site in Washington, DC, and we envision having professional staff to help guide them through the latest tools that we develop.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, I appreciate your explanation. That's helpful. I respect greatly your personal commitment to the mission—
    Dr. HASELTINE. Thank you.
    Mr. OBERSTAR.—and your vision of what you want to accomplish. I just don't think that this Federal Government needs to yield this particular site. We'll help you get another site, but I don't think we should, under these circumstances, concede.
    Mr. Chairman, you have been most generous with the time. I know there are others who have questions.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank the gentleman very much.
    Just a note. I've had the honor of being on the Holocaust Memorial Council since I began my service in the Congress in 1995, and the educational outreach programs that run from that museum, even though it is located here, the children that benefit from that education don't necessarily get all of the benefit by visiting the memorial. The programs and outreach that have gone out have educated literally millions of children throughout the Nation on the horrors of the Holocaust and the lessons to be learned, and if that's what the doctor is contemplating, regardless of where you locate, I think that you can provide a great service to this country and perhaps the world.
 Page 70       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. NORTON. I want to associate myself with the chairman's remarks about the Holocaust Museum. It serves a purpose so deep that it would be hard to over-estimate that purpose.
    I want to welcome all three of my own constituents here. I want to say how pleased I am for your personal involvement in the District of Columbia and for the way you have apparently just become involved with the museum. I want you to know that I do not hesitate to believe that you want what is best for the District of Columbia. The kind of energy you are putting into this museum indicates that.
    I'm sure you understand the insistence of any Member. There is not a member on this panel who would not take offense at learning of your own interests from her chairman and from other Members. If I wanted to put something in the District of any of my colleagues, the first person I would speak to is one of my colleagues.
    And, if may say so, I appreciate the way in which the majority has always respected the fact that I represent the District and have always consulted with me on matters involving the District. The reason I have to insist upon that is I am left here without a vote, with people who are second for capital and Federal income taxes, and with nobody in the Senate, so that if I was in the least bit loose about how I represent my District, my already-deprived District would really be put in an even more disadvantaged position.
    I want you to know that I have supported the Health Museum, even though—and strongly supported it, introduced the bills, myself, even though I always have to stop and consider what I am doing. And what I am doing here is something I would rarely do.
    One of the reasons I am on this committee is because I want to encourage the retention of Federal jobs in the District of Columbia. When Federal jobs, Legislative or Executive, leave the District of Columbia, my constituents do not get them. Almost none of my constituents have been hired or in the huge Federal presence that has had to grow outside of the District, so my first priority is keeping jobs here, because then my constituents get them.
 Page 71       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So when this site was considered, I had to make a very difficult choice, myself, because I cannot tell you today that it is more valuable to the District of Columbia. It may be more valuable to you, but I cannot tell you today that it is more valuable to the District of Columbia to have a Health Museum than it is to have Federal jobs here, and I want to inform you that increasingly with people moving out of the District of Columbia, virtually all of the Federal jobs even in the District of Columbia go to people who live in Maryland or Virginia. So it is with some deep thought that I consider supporting anything that is not in jobs. My people need jobs more than they need 1,000 museums. So understand that I made a very difficult choice in the first place to supports this museum.
    Now, let me just say I notice Mr. Peck is here and he is not testifying. He might find himself also in a conflict of interest if he were. He's a constituent with whom I've worked closely, but I must say to you, whether it is true or not—and Mr. Peck will surely deny it—but Dr. Koop, a man for whom I have the highest regard, with whom I met many times, informed me that Mr. Peck had virtually promised this site to him and had indicated to him that they might have to go to the appropriations committees to get it done.
    Now, I have to tell you, I don't want to get us into a ''who says who said,'' but I want you to know what who you get advice from. If Mr. Peck didn't say it, I accept that, but I do want you to know that that was represented to me in my office. So from the beginning I have had to deal with people who told me, ''Hey, look, if you don't do it in the committee there are other ways to get it done.'' That is why I so value the representation you have made and the apology you have made for going around the authorizers.
    I also want to say that I think it was inappropriate to go to my chairman. He is a new chairman who has not been deeply involved in the work of this committee and who did not have all the background, and to get the chairman to the point where the chairman thought he was dealing with something fairly noncontroversial, and then to say fine—and the chairman was good enough, again I must tell you, because my colleagues respect one another across the lines of parties, was good enough to mention it to me, and I did alert the chairman that we ought to be careful before making any representation about what we would do, because, indeed, this was a controversial question.
 Page 72       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Now, the first question I would like to ask is I note the $300 million—and I can certainly understand, as a member of this committee, how these figures go up and up, and I have no problem believing this five to seven years it would take to, in fact, raise this money. You've had since 1994 to begin raising the money, so I'd like to know exactly how much money you have raised thus far.
    Dr. HASELTINE. We have raised $8 million so far. You will appreciate, and from my perspective coming in and looking at the way we can raise money, without a site you can't raise money, and without the money you can't buy a site that is private. That has been one of the museum's dilemmas. I had long conversations with Dr. Koop and other members of the board about this.
    We have raised $8 million. I believe we can quickly raise considerable money once we have an appropriate site.
    Ms. NORTON. You recognize that what would be particularly controversial about any Federal property that was turned over is that it was vacant for some time while people raised money. I can understand that it's far easier to raise money when you have a site. I must tell you that all over the District of Columbia and all over the United States there are people raising money for institutions of every kind without a site and that it is not unusual to do so.
    Dr. HASELTINE. Well, I can give you a personal guarantee that it is highly likely that we will have the funds to purchase this land within a very short period after we gain access to it.
    Ms. NORTON. Do you have any pledges for money for the site?
    Dr. HASELTINE. We do not have pledges for money because we don't have a site. It's a catch-22, a very famous sort of catch-22, but if you want to put a limit, ''Put up the 24 million within a certain period of time,'' we would be pleased to deal with that, as well.
 Page 73       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. NORTON. We're in no position to do that. We're not talking—we don't know what site we're talking about at the moment. I simply wanted to get on the record how much money was there.
    Dr. HASELTINE. It's $8 million.
    Ms. NORTON. As I understand it, there would be no fees of any kind charged for admission to this museum?
    Dr. HASELTINE. That's correct.
    Ms. NORTON. Dr. Haseltine, I have to caution you that when this committee hears figures and representations as to how much of this will happen or how many of these will come, we're used to having those figures documented. Your own pro forma analysis indicates that there would be 1,000 permanent jobs. You heard me indicate that jobs are everything to the District of Columbia. Let me just tell you, no matter what you do, because of the overwhelming number of people in the region, no matter what we do, you're going to have the majority of these employees come from the region and not from the District of Columbia. I'm glad to get whatever jobs I can, and by having it, whatever it is, here, we would get jobs, some of those jobs.
    You say 1,000 permanent jobs will be created. I have to ask you how you could possibly have 1,000 permanent jobs. Let me tell you what I'm looking at.
    I'm looking at a building that I fought very hard to get in the District of Columbia precisely because it brought jobs and kept jobs here, the Ronald Reagan Building, and it gives me some notion about the number of jobs again associated with a space—and this is the largest building in the region. It is a huge building that was controversial in the Congress because it was so, it is so large, and it is a trade building and Federal space building. It has food service, a conference center, an audiovisual center, parking, cleaning—I mean, it has virtually anything that any building could have in it. It has some commercial tenants. Their figure is approximately 1,000 jobs in a facility that is half a million square feet.
 Page 74       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So when you throw around that kind of figure, I have to ask you to document how the museum would have as many jobs on a permanent basis as the largest facility in the entire region has.
    Dr. HASELTINE. Let me begin by saying a couple of things.
    First is the museum's census is being revised upward, as is all the museum census, based on a tremendous increased use of our Nation's museums. For example, the Air and Space that used to have two to three million visitors a year now has in excess of six million visitors a year. It's an amazing phenomenon and it is a wonderful phenomenon for our city.
    But I will defer to my colleague, Mark, to give you the specifics of the calculations.
    Mr. DUNHAM. For purposes of comparison to the Ronald Reagan Building, I would simply say that the Reagan Building does not draw tourist traffic in the way we anticipate the museum will. On the basis of the economic research prepared by Hammer Siler George, and Kajima Urban Development, our real estate developer, the expectation is that the increase in tourism, the increase in convention business for Washington, as well as the outreach we will be doing to schools—we'll have employees performing outreach outside of the museum who will be undertaking these activities—we anticipate that a very healthy job creation will be a part of what we'll bring to the District. And I would be happy to provide further details on this after the hearing. We certainly have the research to support that, Ms. Norton.
    Ms. NORTON. I'd appreciate your submitting the study for the record. As I've indicated, otherwise it is an incredible figure.
    In the same way, other representations were made in Dr. Haseltine's testimony that I'd like to question. For example—and I don't recall the exact figure you used, Dr. Haseltine, but it had to do with a great many more tourists who would come somehow if it was in this precise site at 2nd and C Street than would come if it were at any other site that we might come. I'd like you to document the basis for the figure that you used.
 Page 75       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Dr. HASELTINE. Fine. We will find documentation for you.
    Ms. NORTON. And I'd like you not to use figures for which you don't have documentation. We're used to receiving—and you're scientists, we're not, but when we talk figures we're going to ask you where they came from.
    You say in your own written testimony that the museum will generate a greater economic impact for the District than any other—let me quote your entire sentence. ''I am not a real estate or economic development expert, but I do understand that a museum on this site will generate a greater economic impact for the District than any other realistic alternative.'' On what do you base that statement?
    Dr. HASELTINE. On the number of visitors. On the supporting services.
    Mark, would you like to make a comment?
    Mr. DUNHAM. Yes. I would simply add to that that it is, I think, generally accepted within the economic development community and certainly in informal conversations that we have had with a number of experienced individuals in that field in the Washington community and elsewhere that a Federal office building at this site would simply not offer the extensive economic expansion that our museum would.
    I think, as an example of that, the endorsement you've received from the D.C. Convention and Visitors Corporation speaks to the added benefit of a museum at this site in terms of economic development. We will submit that endorsement for the record, obviously.
    Ms. NORTON. The problem with the statement was that it said a museum on this site, you see, because I've already told you that jobs on this site help my constituents a great deal because Government jobs are the best jobs that moderate income and moderately-educated people who live in the District can get. They have pensions, they have health care, they don't have lay-offs, so we're talking about this site.
 Page 76       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Again, I would like to see documentation, specific documentation comparing the use of that site for Federal office space and the benefits that would accrue to the District—District now, because that's what testimony said—and the benefits that would accrue elsewhere.
    See, in the District of Columbia our mayor and our City Council are in the process of trying to encourage much more of the Federal presence away from the Mall. We find that people are willing to go more than on Pennsylvania Avenue, and the closer they go into our neighborhoods the more economic development is in the neighborhood rather than the already fat and plentiful Mall.
    You say—
    Dr. HASELTINE. Congresswoman, could I address that issue?
    Ms. NORTON. Yes.
    Dr. HASELTINE. This isn't about whether there will be a Federal building to house 2,000 more employees. That might be in the Southeast Center. It might be elsewhere. The $111 plus million renovation plus money we put in can build that building wherever the city thinks is best. And, as you just said, they prefer it off the Mall.
    The museums off the Mall cannot get the traffic. They cannot get the traffic. It is better to have the Federal building off the Mall with that money.
    Ms. NORTON. Well, are you aware of the position developed within the last 18 months by the National Capital Planning Commission that actively encourages museums and monuments off the Mall, not up in southeast, northeast, or way up where the old Health Museum was, but in sites they have actually located close to Mall locations in order to spread the museums and other buildings for which there is great competition away from the Mall? Are you aware of the NCPC statement?
    Mr. DUNHAM. I—
 Page 77       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. NORTON. I'm asking Dr. Haseltine if he is aware. I'm sure you're aware of it, as a former employee. I'm asking Dr. Haseltine. That is whom I am directing my statement. Are you aware of the NCPC project which has been developed over the period of the last two years because everybody wants to be on the Mall—they want to build a museum on the Mall, they want to build a monument on the Mall, and it is called ''extending the legacy''? ''If the monumental core is to remain America's national gathering place and at the same time preserve its historic openness, sites for new museums and memorials must be found outside the Mall in adjacent neighborhoods and commercial districts that need public investment and some signal from the Government that they matter. 'Legacy' meaning the NCPC, strongly discourages new building on the Mall, itself.''
    Mr. HASELTINE. First thing, I am generally aware of that. I am also aware of the importance, as I have mentioned many times now, of this particular site. Let me defer the specifics to my colleague.
    Mr. PECK. Congresswoman, a couple of things. One is the legacy plan, which is about four or five years old, did say no more museums on the Mall, itself. That and a subsequent study, which I think you are referring to, which is a more-recent study of memorials and museums, does suggest, particularly with respect to memorials, that they be located at designated sites outside the monumental core.
    That study—and I was sitting on NCPC when that study went through—that recent study also does say, however, that, to the extent major museums are going to happen, the first preference for sites for the major museums is still near the Mall.
    Second—and I think this goes to the heart of the discussion here—the legacy plan, of course, also suggested Federal office space be located on some other development corridors, like South Capitol Street and North Capitol Street, as well. So that does not preclude the museum from being on that site near the Mall.
 Page 78       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    May I make one point about the numbers and the alternatives, because what this finally comes down to is: should this site be used for a museum or an office building, and are there alternatives for both? There surely are. And the question is which is best.
    If I can serve some usefulness here, I just want to make one point. As you know, I have great respect and affection for Mr. Chistolini and for the Public Buildings Service, and this subcommittee's concern for the Federal buildings fund is one I appreciated when I had the commissioner's job and one that I still very much care about.
    I think our point is that when GSA says that there is a $64 million benefit to having Federal offices, that's true, but that number is not specific to this site. So, just so we are clear, if it were possible to buy a building some place else and move Federal office workers from leased space into that with the $86 million plus $24 million that the museum is prepared to spend, apparently, or to build a Federal building some place else, you'd get the same benefit.
    Ms. NORTON. If it's possible to buy.
    Mr. PECK. That's absolutely—if it is possible to buy.
    Ms. NORTON. You are a former head of public buildings, and you are now talking about—show me where to buy, Mr. Peck.
    Mr. PECK. Or build.
    Ms. NORTON. Show me where to buy land to build.
    Mr. PECK. Or to build.
    Dr. HASELTINE. Well, that's our problem, isn't it?
    Mr. PECK. Well, Ms. Norton—
    Ms. NORTON. Well, it is our problem. It's our problem for—
    Dr. HASELTINE. It's our problem.
 Page 79       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. NORTON. Well, it's our problem first for the Federal Government.
    Dr. HASELTINE. Right.
    Ms. NORTON. Then it is your problem.
    Mr. PECK. Ms. Norton, just one point, because it was with your leadership we got a site and the money to build a new headquarters for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, a terrific triumph because it's exactly what we're talking about.
    Ms. NORTON. Who owned that site, Mr. Peck?
    Mr. PECK. The District of Columbia.
    Ms. NORTON. Have you looked at sites owned by the District of Columbia?
    Mr. PECK. I've not looked at them for Federal office space, but I'm sure they—
    Ms. NORTON. Excuse me.
    Mr. PECK. But I do know that they exist.
    Ms. NORTON. Has the museum—
    Mr. DUNHAM. Absolutely.
    Ms. NORTON.—looked at sites owned by the District of Columbia?
    Mr. DUNHAM. We have reached out to District government on several occasions on this. We've met with them previously and looked for available sites in the national Mall area that would serve our purposes. There were none.
    Ms. NORTON. Yes, I know there are none because there is only one you want. I don't need is to hear from you, Mr. Peck, about office space up at South Capitol. We are shoe-horning office space into every conceivable place here, and, as you know, I have to sit by and actually support moving jobs out of the District of Columbia because there is not office space because the city is too small.
 Page 80       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The only reason you have a Federal presence in Maryland and Virginia in the first place is the District is too small for all the Federal office space we need, even if we owned as much as we need.
    Look, let me finally ask you this. Put yourself in the position of a member of this committee for a second. The way in which I find win/win solutions, one of the—I'm still a tenured professor of law at Georgetown. I regret that I can only teach one course a year because I have to be a Member of Congress, too. And one of the courses I had to give up was one of my most intriguing. My major tenure paper was written, was about the theory of bargaining, and the course I taught was a course in negotiation.
    One of the first things we teach young, aspiring lawyers to understand is that the adversarial process is the process you want to avoid and to take away all the glamour of going into court and beating somebody over the head and that most successful lawyers spend their time negotiating, and that to be a successful negotiator there is no such thing as a zero sum solution. If the other side gets nothing and you get everything, you're going to court.
    We are in that position here. You've got a building—insist upon a building that the Federal Government needs. You are insisting upon a zero sum solution.
    I want to encourage the only solutions that work when people are at odds, the win/win solutions that allows both parties to walk away with their heads high.
    Put yourself in the position of a member of this committee, and I have to ask you: do you think we should sell a building to private parties if we have heard testimony from both the Legislative and the Executive side that they need the building and that they would save money for the Government if the building remained in the Federal inventory? If you were in our position, would your call be to sell the building? And, if so, how could you rationalize that as a public official?
    Dr. HASELTINE. Well, thank you for promoting me to your esteemed ranks.
 Page 81       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    First of all, I'd point out that you are all in favor of the museum. Then, putting yourself in my position, please ask yourself how do I raise the money if I don't have a prime site? And we've searched high and low. I really appreciate Mr. Oberstar's help. He will get an explanation of why these sites will not work and I believe he will find them inappropiate as well, to say the least.
    Secondly, I would say it's not exactly we win, you lose. We can't win against you. How could we? You have the votes. You have the power.
    We are prepared to pay money, $24 million. Who wants to pay the Federal Government except through taxes? And nobody wants to pay those, either. So we are prepared to pay.
    We're prepared to bring jobs into your District. That wins.
    Does the Federal Government really lose a building? No. They get $24 million plus the $80 million they save for renovations and can put a building elsewhere.
    So I agree with you about your win/win situation, and I hope we find one here.
    I'd like to make one point for Mr. Costello, and that is that you raised a point of perhaps discourtesy by our museum to Congresswoman Norton, and let me say that we have made repeated efforts to contact her staff. I understand there were some communication difficulties. If those are on our part, we apologize. I think that it was a complicated situation. I've had an opportunity to personally discuss this with her at a bipartisan Congressional retreat that I was privileged to speak at. But I did want to not let your comment go unremarked.
    Ms. NORTON. I think I need to respond to that. You spoke to me at the bipartisan retreat after you had spoken to the chairman and told me the chairman was already for it. You also indicated to me that you thought Mr. Oberstar was for it. You got around to me. You happened to see me at the bipartisan retreat.
 Page 82       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The way to treat a Member of Congress as a courtesy is to come to that Member and say to that Member exactly what you want. I didn't appreciate hearing about it after you had gone to a Member, even my chairman, without coming to me first, and I don't think you should put that question to my ranking member. You should put that question to me so you can get a direct answer to it.
    In light of your earlier statement, I do not regard it as a win for the Government because you would pay us rather than have us give you the site for free. We're not in the free business. The real question is the one that was put to us in earlier testimony, and that is whether the Government ultimately loses or the building fund loses, and whether we lose in terms of the space needs of the Executive and the Legislative if, in fact, we give up this property.
    Let me just say to you, since I've had to put very tough questions to you, that we are put in a position where the President of the United States has put the money in his budget. Staff got my testimony out here. I chastised the GSA, because in prior hearings the GSA kept saying, ''Please, please don't give this away. We need the sites.'' I said, ''Well, where is the money? Show me the money?'' And I said to the GSA, ''I'm tired of hearing you need this site. If you need this site, OMB knows how to assure that you get this site.''
    They pleaded with us, gave us the kinds of rationale they give us here, and in my testimony or in my—not testimony, but sitting on this dias I said to them that if they vacated that site and left an empty building, they certainly hadn't lived up to their representations that they needed the site, and I would certainly rather see the Health Museum at 2nd and C than to hear their protestations that they needed this site.
    Well, lo and behold they were never able to get it when my Administration was in power and Mr. Peck was in charge, but somehow with a new Administration which is taking the appropriation process and scaling it down and a new President, we find that GSA does have money to renovate the site, and, moreover, you should know that in their own list of sites this site has been given their highest priority. It is the number one site for redevelopment.
 Page 83       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    That is a position this committee is placed in. I want to ask you—
    Mr. LATOURETTE. If I may ask the gentlelady to make this her last question, and if she has additional questions—
    Ms. NORTON. This is my last question.
    Mr. LATOURETTE.—additional questions, you put them in writing.
    And, gentlemen, let me make the invitation to you, since you have been asked a lot of questions, if there are additional comments you would like us to receive, we'll keep the record open for five days and we will be happy to receive whatever it is you'd like to send.
    I thank the gentlelady.
    Ms. NORTON. I thank the chairman for his kind indulgence.
    I'd like to know if you would be willing to work with me to inspect the possibilities for sites on District or Federal land in the District of Columbia. That would be my final question.
    Dr. HASELTINE. We are always open to other attractive sites. We are certainly willing to work with you to reach a win/win situation. We hope this would include this beautiful building before you.
    Thank you.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank the gentlelady. I thank you, Mr. Costello, in the case you'd like to make a final observation.
    Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, again, I thank you for calling this hearing, and I would just observe that I believe that we're back at ground zero with the expiration of the law at the end of the appropriation process at the end of fiscal year 1998.
 Page 84       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I would just encourage all of you to work with Ms. Norton to find a suitable site. Obviously, you have taken—I think you indicated you have a list of 35 or 36 sites that you have taken a look at. I would hope that you would begin to look at site number two and site number three and find the best alternate site and work with Ms. Norton in the future.
    Thank you.
    Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, may I have a point of privilege?
    Mr. LATOURETTE. If it is a short one.
    Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. Because it has been suggested that I at some point promised this site, I do need to clear up the record.
    Number one, I have never met Dr. Koop. When I first met with representatives of the National Health Museum, to be honest, I wasn't aware of this site. It was a career employee of the General Services Administration who, in my presence, suggested it as a possible site. I never promised it to anyone.
    And, finally, never having been a staff member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the authorizing committee for GSA in that body, would I never suggest to someone that they go around the authorizing committee to the appropriators, and I did not in this case.
    I just wanted to clear that up.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I appreciate that, and if there are additional comments you'd like to submit in writing we'll be happy to receive them.
    I think the point was adequately made by a number of Members. One, we take our jurisdiction very seriously, both as members of committee and Members of Congress who represent a specific area of the country, and courtesy is due.
    I would ask unanimous consent, as I indicated earlier to submit for the record correspondence we received from Jack Evans, Charlene Drew Jarvis, Senator Frist, Senator Kennedy, Senator Specter, and Representatives Norton and Davis, and without objection, so ordered.
 Page 85       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I will instruct the staff to get a hold of Ms. Cropp and the mayor of the District of Columbia to give us something fresher than 1999 as to their observations.
    If there is nothing further to come before this subcommittee, we are adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]