[From the Congressional Record, Mar. 29, 1961]

NATIONWIDE SUPPORT IS GROWING FOR LEGISLATION TO PRESERVE THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON LAFAYETTE SQUARE IN THE NATION'S CAPITAL, INTRODUCED BY PRESIDENT KENNEDY LAST YEAR AND BY SENATORS JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, WAYNE MORSE, AND CARROLL D. KEARNS THIS YEAR

(Extension of remarks of Hon. Carroll D. Kearns, of Pennsylvania, in the House of Representatives, Wednesday, March 29, 1961)

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the able and distinguished president of the General Federation of Women's Clubs, Mrs. E. Lee Ozbirn, has written a letter to me in which she outlines the views of the 5 million American women of that great organization, which the Congress itself chartered in 1901, on the important subject of the preservation of the historic buildings on Lafayette Square.

Mrs. Ozbirn begins by saying:

"I wish to commend you and your colleagues in the 87th Congress for your continued effort to try to preserve the Lafayette Square area."

Then, on behalf of the members of the General Federation of Women's Clubs, Mrs. Ozbirn declares that-"we all know that this square and the buildings surrounding it has a unique importance because it is the view from the front door of the President's home-the White House. Certainly all Americans who are students of history know of the famous historic houses which include the Dolly Madison House, the Tayloe House, and the Belasco Theater. These buildings depict a very important era of American history and are in keeping with the structure of the White House and should be preserved not just as a monument but they could be used for historic or cultural purposes which would perpetuate the heritage for future generations."

This is an extremely interesting proposal, and it is in line with one which I have received from Joseph Watterson, editor, the Journal of the American Institute of Architects. In a letter under date of February 29, 1961, to me, Mr. Watterson wrote in part as follows:

"The American Institute of Architects deplores the apparently impending destruction of certain buildings fronting on Lafayette Square and the construction of large Federal buildings in their place. Although by now many of the buildings on the square may be of a nondescript architectural character the flavor and charm of the square have not been destroyed. It is still a fitting forecourt to the White House-which it must always be. This fitness would be lost with marble monumentality flanking the square-east and west."

"Since the Decatur House, on the northwest corner of the square, and the Blair and Lee houses on Pennsylvania Avenue, are to be preserved, and the new executive office building designed to surround them with low wings and courts, it would seem that the same approach could be taken on the east side of the square. The Madison house, on the northeast corner, and the Tayloe house in the middle of the block, are worthy of preservation and restoration, both historically and architecturally. Rather than preserve them purely as monuments, suitable uses can be found for these buildings, as is done in so many of the old cities of Europe. It is a brash generation indeed which will destroy all physical evidences of its great heritage."

The General Federation of Women's Clubs and the American Institute of Architects do not stand alone in their concern for preserving the historic flavor and charm of Lafayette Square. Many other organizations and individuals are deeply interested in preserving the Dolly Madison house, the Benjamin Tayloe house, and the Belasco Theater for historic and cultural purposes, as proposed in a bill, S. 3280, which President John F. Kennedy himself, when a Senator, introduced on March 24, 1960. Members of the Senate and House from both parties have introduced legislation for this very same purpose in the 85th, 86th and 87th Congresses.

Mr. C. Arthur Bullock, president of the National Federation of Music Clubs, and a citizen of the great State of Pennsylvania, has written me in support of my own bill to save the Lafayette Square buildings, and she has included a letter which she has written to President Kennedy.

In her letter to the President, Mrs. Bullock declares that “Personally and on behalf of the approximately 600,000 members of the National Federation of Music Clubs, this is to express commendation and appreciation to you for your vital interest and support of the arts in our national life. It is with substantiation by even many specific acts including the introduction of your

outstanding bill, S. 3280, in the spring of 1960; and a telegram placing importance on music for use in our 1961 National Music Week brochure in conjunction with our annual sponsorship.

"May we go on record in support of these bills, introduced in the 1st session of the 87th Congress; and urge your support of their immediate enactment: "H.R. 3982, introduced by Representative Carroll D. Kearns and S. 1020, introduced by Senator John S. Cooper and Wayne Morse for establishing a Commission on the Cultural Resources in the Nation's Capital-these including the preservation of the historic buildings on Lafayette Square and the Belasco Theater.

"We feel that these historic buildings on Lafayette Square in our Nation's Capital should remain protected as historic monuments to our culture; and for the sake of economy as well."

The General Federation of Women's Clubs, the National Federation of Music Clubs, and the American Institute of Architects will surely be able to mobilize the grassroots support needed to save the historic buildings on Lafayette Square, for most people would agree that the destruction of these buildings for the stated reasons is unwise and totally unnecessary.

Somone has suggested, facetiously, that the way to save Lafayette Square as well as its historic buildings would be to lease everything to Harvard University. By way of explanation it was pointed out that Harvard Yard was recently rescued from a similar plan for a great office building, but, then, Harvard Yard had the President of the United States on its side.

I include the New York Times account of the saving of Harvard Yard at this point in my remarks.

"HARVARD, AGAIN

"Another item the White House has said nothing about is how, in the midst of questions of national and international import, the President took up a cause with Harvard.

"It was proposed that Cambridge, Mass., sell a piece of the Common as the site for a 15-story office building. The land is near Harvard Yard.

"The President thought he had better stay out of the fight. But when the legislature's Democratic majorities pushed through a bill authorizing the sale, he quietly let his views be known in the right places.

"Kenneth P. O'Donnell, class of 1949, and special assistant to the President, phoned leading State Democrats urging them not to make the project a party issue.

"McGeorge Bundy, Yale 1940 and a Republican, former dean of the Harvard faculty, and now special Presidential assistant for national security affairs, passed the word to some Republicans.

"Also active was Mr. Kennedy's one-time Senate colleague from the Bay State, Leverett Saltonstall, a Republican.

"Last week, Republican Gov. John A. Volpe vetoed the bill. The State senate, with some Democratic support, upheld the veto."

What would extremely be helpful, too, would be an observable determination on the part of the leading newspaper publishers of Washington, D.C., and throughout the Nation, to wage an unremitting campaign to save the historic buildings on Lafayette Square. The New York Herald Tribune is currently engaged in a campaign to save the Metropolitan Opera House in New York City from destruction. Carnegie Hall in New York City was saved from destruction some months ago, so it would be instructive for such newspapers as the Washington (D.C.) Post, and the Washington (D.C.) Star to study the techniques used by New York City's great newspapers in mobilizing the support needed to successfully save buildings and sites of which possess historic and cultural values.

I include as part of my remarks the letter I received from Mrs. E. Lee Ozbirn, president of the General Federation of Women's Clubs, as well as an editorital from the New York Herald Tribune urging that the Metropolitan Opera House be saved:

"GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, Washington, D.C., March 15, 1961.

"Hon. CARROLL D. KEARNS, "House of Representatives,

"Washington, D.C.

"DEAR MR. KEARNS: I wish to commend you and your colleagues in the 87th Congress for your continued effort to try to preserve the Lafayette Square area.

"We all know that this square and the buildings surrounding it has a unique importance because it is the view from the front door of the President's homethe White House. Certainly all Americans who are students of history know of the famous historic houses which include the Dolly Madison house, the Tayloe house, and the Belasco Theater. These buildings depict a very important era of American history and are in keeping with the structure of the White House and should be preserved not just as a monument but they could be used for historic or cultural purposes which would perpetuate the heritage for future generations.

"The General Federation of Women's Clubs continuously works for the preservation of the early cultural and historic influences for future generations. We know that there are those who think progress is measured by a new and changing pattern but we would remind them that in a few decades the structures of today will be old and obsolete and will be torn down but let us remember that buildings of today are not symbolic of our early history. Only the authentic buildings of the early days of our national development depict our progress and our heritage."

"We do not want to see our generation destroy things that have long been accepted as historic. We believe that the beautiful surroundings of the President's home should be preserved and the White House should not be situated in the shadow of high, modern stone buildings.

"We appreciate what Senator Ellender has said about the preservation of the Lafayette Park area and we think his leadership will surely be worthy of sincere consideration. We commend Senator Ellender for his attitude and his willingness to devote much effort to a cause that some feel is lost.

"I should like to urge that action taken by the 86th Congress to have the buildings on the east side of Lafayette Square demolished be rescinded. I have great hopes this this will be done because President Kennedy, when a Senator in the 86th Congress, presented a bill to preserve them and because both the President and our lovely First Lady have the wisdom and the desire to restore the White House to its original charm, it surely would be a grave mistake, at the very time they are making every possible effort in restoring the White House, to destroy the historical surroundings. Surely it is more pleasant for the occupants of the White House to look out upon the lovely surroundings than to look out upon cold stone structure that overshadow their home.

"Again I wish to commend those who would preserve the beautiful Lafayette Square area in our Nation's Capital, and I trust your efforts will be fully rewarded.

"Most sincerely,

"MRS. E. LEE OZBIRN, President."

[From the New York Herald Tribune, Mar. 26, 1961]

"MORE ABOUT SAVING THE METROPOLITAN

"Judging by readers' letters to the editor of the Herald Tribune, there is considerable public interest in the future of the present Metropolitan Opera House. "The question, to state it once again, is not whether the old house should continue to serve as the home of the Metropolitan Opera Co. after 1964. That is when the Met will move to its new home at Lincoln Center and no one has any thought that it should try to remain at its old stand a moment longer than it has to.

"The question is what will happen to the old opera house once the present company pulls out? Should it be torn down and replaced by an office building, as the Met management desires? Or should an attempt be made to preserve it as an auditorium that still can play a useful part in New York's entertainment and cultural activities?

"Several correspondents have pointed out the deficiencies of the present Met building from the standpoint of audiences and performers alike. Shortcomings it has in abundance, and some of these may have to be corrected if the building is preserved.

"But even when allowances are made for the side seats with no view of the stage, the inadequate storage facilities, the cramped quarters and outdated equipment, the fact remains that foreign ballet companies and other visitors have been able to play at a profit in the old theater on 39th Street. And it seems

reasonable to expect that there would be impresarios ready to book such attractions into the old Met once its present company vacates it.

"If New York had a superabundance of capacious theaters suitable for use in the international cultural exchange era we are just entering, there might be no impulses to save the Met except nostalgia and sentimentality. But in point of fact, New York has a lack of such theaters. At present, large-scale foreign companies must play either in the present Metropolitan Opera House during the Met's off-season, or at the City Center. If both of these buildings are gone when Lincoln Center is operating, only the new Metropolitan Opera House will offer a 3,000-plus seat capacity, and this will be preempted by the Met itself most of the year.

"So, it's entirely possible that the old opera house, with all its flaws, still might have some serviceable years ahead of it. In any case, we believe the pros and cons should be carefully weighed-and not merely by the directors of the Metropolitan, who own the building, but by the citizens of New York, whose future pattern of cultural growth may be deeply influenced by the decision."

NOTES ON A SPEECH TO BE DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Over the weekend I read several articles in the Washington Post and the Evening Star about the "Salute to the Arts" luncheon held April 27 at the Mayflower Hotel by the Women's National Democratic Club. The theme was, "What I Would Do for the Arts if I Were President for a Day."

The distinguished speakers were Cornelia Otis Skinner, actress; Philip C. Johnson, architect; George Balanchine, director of the New York City Ballet; Mischa Elman, violinist; Paul Horgan, Pulitzer and Bancroft prizewinner for literature; and Larry Rivers, a painter with the distinction of having his paintings in the Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan, the Whitney, and the Corcoran Galleries in New York and Washington.

In a bipartisan spirit of good neighborliness, I would like to offer a few suggestions to Mrs. Betty B. Ross, luncheon chairman, Mrs. Joseph E. Casey, Mrs. Clark Clifford, Mrs. Clifford Davis, and Mrs. Ned Russell for advancing the fine arts in the United States. Surely, if we are to advance the arts this can only be done on a bipartisan basis.

You will recall, I am sure, that in his 1955 message on the state of the Union, President Eisenhower declared that "The Federal Government should do more to give official recognition to the importance of the arts and other cultural activities." At that time he recommended that the Congress establish a Federal Advisory Council on the Arts. So far, this has not been done, so, perhaps, the first suggestion I would make is that the President call on the Congress to quickly establish such a National Arts Council. Six years is an awfully long time to wait for the establishment of such a new Federal advisory agency. The contemplated budget is only $50,000. When our gross national product is over $500 billion, it can be seen that such a step would scarcely unbalance the national budget, so one may well ask what the reason is for the present timidity on the Democratic side in holding up the early creation of such an Arts Council? Among the cultural steps that were taken during the Eisenhower administration were: The enactment of the Humphrey-Thompson Act, Public Law 860, 84th Congress, otherwise known as the International Cultural Exchange and Trade Fair Participation Act of 1956, under which our great orchestras, and artists, as well as talented groups from our colleges and universities, were sent overseas to demonstrate our high cultural accomplishments, and to counteract Russian propaganda that ours was a nation of materialists.

Others steps taken under President Eisenhower included adoption of the Thompson-Fulbright National Cultural Center Act, and the ThompsonHumphrey-Anderson Act transferring the historic Patent Office Building (presently occupied by the Civil Service Commission) to the Smithsonian Institution for Art Museum purposes and to house the National Collection of Fine Arts.

I don't want to bore you with this recital but I did want to set the record straight. Many people are beginning to think that the art interest of the Federal Government, the President, the Congress, and top administration leaders began with the invitation extended to Robert Frost, the great poet, and 150 other cultural leaders to attend the inaugural ceremonies in January 1961.

Now for some of the other steps which could be taken to advance the fine arts.

I have introduced a bill, H.R. 1942, to establish a program of grants to States for the development of programs and projects in the arts. This measure has been cosponsored by Senator Joseph S. Clark, Jr., and by Representatives Frank Thompson, Jr., Adam Clayton Powell, Frank Chelf, and Emanuel Celler. It calls for only $5 million a year to aid the arts, which is roughly what Great Britain gives the arts through the British Arts Council. There are 30 or so Federal grant-in-aid programs going forward to assist in building hospitals, highways, etc., etc. Surely the arts-as well as education-deserve Federal recognition and support. This is a program with which the Congress is familiar, and which is sponsored by leading Democrats. A message from the President could get this program underway by next year at the latest. When it is remembered that every other major nation in the world aids the arts except the United States, it is hard to explain why America has done so little to assist the fine arts in a way which will make our fine words have meaning. Our people need vision at all times, and the typical movie and television fare which our young people are subjected to makes it mandatory for our great Nation to provide a nobler fare for all of our people-not just for those who can pay the inflated box office prices of operas, theater, and symphony concerts today. Last fall, during the political campaign, President John F. Kennedy was asked to express his views on a bill to provide $5 million a year for art through a federally supported foundation. He was a Senator at that time and he replied: "I am in full sympathy with the proposal for a federally supported foundation to provide encouragement and opportunity to nonprofit, private, and civic groups in the performing arts. When so many other nations officially recognize and support the performing arts as a part of their national cultural heritage, it seems to me unfortunate that the United States has been so slow in coming to a similar recognition." I shall look forward with keen anticipation to an early message to the Congress from President Kennedy on this subject, and shall only note that 5 months have already elapsed without a word from him on this.

In February 1961, I introduced a bill to establish a Commission on the Cultural Resources in the Nation's Capital, and to provide a comprehensive plan for the effective utilization of such resources in carrying out a long-range program to make the Nation's Capital equal in cultural matters to the capital cities of other nations.

Similar measures were introduced by Senators John Sherman Cooper and Wayne Morse, and by Representative Adam Clayton Powell. So here, too, is a bipartisan measure which deserves Presidential support. In fact, in a speech to fund-drive workers of the National Symphony Orchestra, the new Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Philip H. Coombs, called for a great overall plan to give the significant overarching cultural climate needed to make it possible for the Nation's Capital to take its rightful place beside other capital cities of the world with regard to the fine arts.

A study by the Library of Congress, which Congressman Harris B. McDowell, Jr., of Delaware, and Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, of Minnesota, inserted in the Congressional Record last year, showed that the municipal government of Washington spent annually the piddling sum of $16,000 on fine arts. This can be compared to the $800,000 which San Francisco, which is 100,000 smaller than Washington in population, spends on the arts. Facts such as these led the New York Times, Time magazine, the Reporter magazine, the Christian Science Monitor, and other publications to deplore the cultural progress of the Nation's Capital. The Federal City of Washington has been called such unflattering things as "hick town," and "cultural backwater" by national publications. W. H. Kiplinger, publisher of the Kiplinger Newsletters, a native Washingtonian, declares that Washington has no homegrown culture such as London, Vienna, and other European capital cities have.

In 1942 the Congress established the District of Columbia Recreation Department and gave it extensive authority to conduct programs in the fine arts. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed this act into law. The President and other leading Democrats of those years saw this Department as the vehicle to provide creative opportunities for the hundreds of thousands of Federal employees, many of them single men and women of tender ages, living in rooming houses of uncertain vintage. Until the last few years, the Congress provided little or no funds to carry out the ambitious cultural program in the fine arts provided in this act. Now, the Congress provides the $16,000 which I mentioned earlier through this act's authority. Now I admit that $16,000 is better than nothing, but I think that is about all one can truthfully say about such a piddling

amount.