INTERIOR DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 1938

JULY 23, 1937.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma, from the committee of conference, submitted the following

CONFERENCE REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 6958]

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on certain amendments of the Senate and House amendments to Senate amendments to the bill (H. R. 6958) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938, and for other purposes," having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the Senate recede from its amendments numbered 74 and 121. The committee of conference report in disagreement Senate amendment numbered 89.

The committee of conference also report in disagreement Senate amendments numbered 93 and 95, and the amendments of the House thereto.

STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE

The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on certain amendments of the Senate and House amendments to Senate amendments to the bill (H. R. 6958) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938, and for other purposes, submit the following statement in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon and recommended in the accompanying conference report as to each of such amendments, namely:

Amendment no. 74: Strikes out language inserted by the Senate providing that section 2 of the act of August 12, 1935, relating to Indian claims, shall not apply to the Five Civilized Tribes.

Amendment no. 121: Strikes out the appropriation of $16,500 for a fish hatchery for Glacier National Park, Mont., inserted by the Senate.

AMENDMENTS IN DISAGREEMENT

The committee of conference report in disagreement the following amendments:

Amendment no. 89: Appropriating funds for continuing construction of the Gila reclamation project in Arizona.

Amendment no. 93: Appropriating funds for administrative expenses in connection with the construction of reclamation projects. Amendment no. 95: Correcting a total.

2

JED JOHNSON,

J. G. SCRUGHAM,
EMMET O'NEAL,

JAMES M. FITZPATRICK,
CHARLES H. LEAVY,

ROBERT F. RICH,

W. P. LAMBERTSON,

Managers on the part of the House.

О

THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL SITE

JULY 23, 1937.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. KEELER, from the Committee on the Library, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany H. J. Res. 337]

The Committee on the Library, to whom was referred the resolution (H. J. Res. 337) relating to the site to be selected for the memorial to Thomas Jefferson, having considered the same and having held extensive hearings on the situations affected thereby report favorably thereon and recommend that the resolution do pass without amend

ment.

In considering House Joint Resolution 337, the following points have been brought out:

(1) The added expenditure.

(2) The traffic changes required.

(3) The aesthetic purpose served.

(4) The advantages of leaving the recommended area as it is.

(5) The work done by the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Commission. At the time of the hearings held on this matter the Park and Planning Commission was working on supplementary plans. It has been for the purpose of considering these plans before making the report that it has been delayed, at the request of both the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Commission and the Park and Planning Commission.

Further, Public Resolution 49, of the Seventy-third Congress, approved June 26, 1934, the act which created the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Commission, in section 3, provides that this Commission. shall annually submit to Congress a report of the progress of the work of the Commission. It was the feeling of the committee that time should be allowed to permit the filing of such report. The Clerk of the House advises that no report at any time yet has been received from this body, and therefore, the Congress is unadvised although the third annual report has been due for almost a month.

(1) THE ADDED EXPENDITURES

In the Seventy-third Congress, this committee recommended the passage of House Joint Resolution 371, which became Public Resolution 49, and established the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Commission. In the Seventy-fourth Congress, this committee recommended the passage of H. R. 12027, which became Public, No. 635, and which empowered the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Commission, previously created, to determine upon a plan and design for, and proceed with the construction of, such memorial, upon a site selected by the Commission, under a contract or contracts hereby authorized to be entered into in a total sum not exceeding $3,000,000. The Commission has proceeded with its authorized task and has employed John Russell Pope, noted architect, to design and supervise the building of the memorial.

This committee recommended the expenditure of $3,000,000 for a memorial to Thomas Jefferson. However, it came to the attention of the committee during this session that the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Commission has selected a site in the Tidal Basin, the preparation of which would require a vastly greater amount of money. The committee does not favor this increased expense. While matters of public sentiment concerning the cultural development of the Capital City must be considered, these hearings were not held exclusively in an effort to "save the cherry trees," but to protect the Congress from subscribing to a project which would of necessity remain forever an eyesore and an impediment to traffic or occasion the spending of money in sums at the present time unpredictable, but certainly very large.

The information before the committee shows that a suitable memorial to Thomas Jefferson can be built for the $3,000,000 already authorized. It has been variously computed by competent Government engineers who have studied the subject that such expenditures for the adaptation of the site selected, for approaches and roadways to make it accessible, will require from $2,500,000 to $6,500,000. The claim that the memorial itself can be built within the authorized sum has never been disputed. But, neither can it be disputed that the result of building it on this particular site will occasion what this committee believes to be prohibitive auxiliary expenditures. The fact that engineers disagree so widely indicates that the problems faced are not entirely fixed in their nature and will vary according to the developments decided upon. Much depends on the formation of substrata of the area to be filled in.

It is known that fills and piling to a depth of at least 85 feet in most places and probably more in others is necessary. The cost of such piling and fillings increases as the square of the depth increases. From the surface of the filled ground to solid rock at the Lincoln Memorial was 58 feet, and the filled ground continued to settle for some years, so that the retaining walls around the memorial were thrown cut of alinement and foundations to bedrock had to be made to prevent damaging the foundation of the memorial itself. This cost the unforeseen amount of $363,000. The bedrock at the Tidal Basin site, planned for the Thomas Jefferson Memorial, is about 85 feet from the present surface, and the settling of all work not resting upon bedrock would necessarily be great and beyond any reasonable power of calculation. A memorial in this location of anything like the size planned

would require tremendous fillings and the resulting settling would take a long time to reach permanency. There are so many elements to reckon with as to render the physical difficulties of using this site beyond calculation.

In view of the fact that this committee recommended the enterprise to the Congress that to permit the undertaking of it on a site, the end of the cost of which cannot be estimated, without calling the attention of the Congress to the facts in the case would be to fail this House in an unpardonable lapse of duty.

Whatever the necessary expenditure for site preparation may amount to beyond the $3,000,000 already authorized, will be saved by the selection of some other suitable site.

(2) THE TRAFFIC CHANGES REQUIRED

The National Capital Park and Planning Commission has submitted a report to the committee from which we quote:

The practical requirements are these: That the Tidal Basin function efficiently; that the immense flow of vehicular traffic over the bridge from Virginia (now nearly 30,000 cars a day) can be adequately carried in and out of the city; and that easy routes for motors through Potomac Park can be provided for recreation. The Lincoln Memorial in that area occasions an extremely heavy traffic, carrying visitors (approximately 900,000 of them a year) to the memorial. If the same number were to visit the Jefferson Memorial each year, how great would be the traffic increase? Unless very extensive street and driveway facilities were added, traffic would be blocked in that vicinity to an impossible degree. The present system of thoroughfares within the park area is becoming increasingly inadequate without any additional attraction. If suitable provisions could be made to accommodate the traffic, it would be increasingly expensive.

(3) THE ESTHETIC PURPOSE SERVED

We again quote from the report of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission:

The esthetic requirement is that whatever structure is put on this site, the approaches to it and the entire area of which it is a part should bear a proper and appropriate relation to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, and the White House.

We quote from the book entitled "The Lincoln Memorial in Washington", prepared under the direction of the Director of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital, printed by the Government Printing Office in 1927, from the report of the Commission of Fine Arts therein:

The act of Congress entitled "An act to provide a commission to secure plans and designs for a monument or memorial to the memory of Abraham Lincoln", approved February 9, 1911, authorizes an expenditure of $2,000,000, the largest amount yet appropriated by this Government for a similar purpose. The sum suggests that the memorial is intended to be a structure of large size. The popular idea of a memorial to Lincoln will be satisfied only with a design which combines grandeur with beauty. Assuming that this memorial must be a large one, there are few sites on which it can be placed successfully; for it is important that a large monument shall stand where its environment can be specially designed to harmonize with it, and where the design need not be controlled or even influenced by existing surroundings.

It is impossible to overestimate the importance of giving to a monument of the size and magnificence of the Lincoln Memorial complete and undisputed domina