(There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:)

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 21, 1960]

FINAL CURTAIN

A fine old theatrical relic and the graceful home where Dolly Madison once lived now appear doomed by the General Services Administration's latest plans to "improve" Lafayette Square. Only those with hearts of ice could be wholly unmoved by the impending change. The Belasco Theater, second only to the National in local eminence, once carried such lustrous names on its playbills as Sarah Bernhardt, Mrs. Fiske, and DeWolf Hopper. During its years as a

USO center, it basked in a brief Indian summer before the Treasury Department turned its velvet-and-gold interior into a vault for Disbursement Office records. And now the shade of L. Stoddard Taylor, the Belasco's last manager, will surely sigh at the news that his 65-year-old stage will soon make way for a Court of Claims given to more prosaic drama.

No less poignant is the fate of the Dolly Madison House a few doors up on H Street. The second oldest private dwelling on the square (Decatur House is older), and once the home of the Cosmos Club, the house is celebrated as the place where Dolly Madison spent the years of her widowhood. It is a house rich in associations on a square limned in history. A catalog of those who have lived around the park evokes the Republic's heroic days: Daniel Webster, William H. Seward, John Hay, Henry Adams, James G. Blaine, Henry Clay, Charles Sumner, Roger B. Taney, Gideon Welles, Stephen Decatur, and John Randolph, of Roanoke.

The

Long ago, the decision should have been made to preserve the residential character which predominated around the square until World War I. opportunity has been thoughtlessly thrown away. The GSA is preparing to raze most of Jackson Place to make way for a monolithic office building; the AFL-CIO was permitted to build a headquarters mosque that towers grotesquely over St. John's Church; and now one of the city's choicest locations will be awarded to the Court of Claims. Even at this late date some hard questions ought to be raised about whether a courthouse would make the most appropriate use of such a desirable site.

With a little more foresight, the square could have remained as a pleasant patch of the past-with a refurbished Belasco serving, perhaps, as a repertory theater. The chance has long since gone, and our grandchildren may well reproach us for failing as guardians of a heritage worth saving.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, no one can quarrel with the need for these new courthouses. But I cannot understand why they must be crowded into the downtown area of Washington, and into the lovely square across from the White House. Destruction of these buildings to make room for new office buildings will deprive Washington of much of the grace and charm which now envelops the White House. I hope this matter can be resolved in favor of their preservation. The Congress is already studying proposals for monuments to such notable figures of our past as James Madison, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. I am all for appropriate memorials to these great men. I am all for the very large sums which were spent to restore and preserve Independence Hall in Philadelphia, and other sites of significance in American history.

But I do not understand why we cannot preserve what we already have by way of historic sites in the city of Washington, D.C. In addition to their historic import, they also contribute to the beauty of the White House, and I hope that by introducing this measure today, I can assist in their preservation.

I ask unanimous consent to have my bill lie on the table for 3 days so that any Senator who may wish to do so can cosponsor it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the bill may be printed at this point in the Record in my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the bill will be printed in the Record.

The bill (S. 3279) to amend the Public Buildings Act of 1959 to provide a study by the National Capital Planning Commission, the General Services Administration, and the Commission of Fine Arts as to the best location for a new U.S. Court of Claims Building, and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. Morse, was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Public Works, and ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Public Buildings Act of 1959 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sections:

"SEC. 18. The Administrator is authorized to conduct a joint study, together with the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts, for the purpose of determining the feasibility of constructing, near the Supreme Court of the United States, adequate facilities to house the Court of Claims, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, and the Tax Court of the United States. As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall submit a report on the results of such study, together with such recommendations as the three agencies may deem advisable, to the Committees on Public Works of the Senate and House of Representatives. "SEC. 19. In keeping with the national policy of protecting and preserving historic American buildings and sites for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States, the Administrator shall preserve and maintain the Dolly Madison House, the Benjamin Tayloe House, and the Belasco Theater on Lafayette Square in the District of Columbia, for historical, cultural, and civil purposes. The Administrator is authorized and directed to restore the Belasco Theater to a condition at least equal to its condition at the time it was acquired by the Federal Government. The National Park Service, and the District of Columbia Recreation Department, shall advise and assist the Administrator in the restoration and management of the Belasco Theater as a municipal art center. The Administrator is authorized to accept contributions of money, which shall be deductible for tax purposes, for the purpose of assisting him in the restoration of the Belasco Theater for cultural and civic purposes."

[From the Congressional Record, Apr. 21, 1960]

AMENDMENT OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, RELATING TO LOCATION OF CERTAIN COURT BUILDINGS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill to provide for a study of the best location for certain Federal court buildings in order to preserve Lafayette Square for cultural and educational purposes.

The bill calls for a study by the Administrator of General Services, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the Commission of Fine Arts of the feasibility of constructing a building for the U.S. Claims and Customs Courts in the area bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue on the north, 17th Street on the east, New York Avenue on the south, and 18th Street on the west.

My bill would also provide for preservation and maintenance of the Dolly Madison House, the Benjamin Tayloe House, and the Belasco Theater.

A proposal now being considered for construction of the necessary court building on Madison Place on the east side of Lafayette Square would mean destruction of the gracious Dolly Madison and Benjamin Tayloe Houses as well as the theater. I believe that these cherished reminders of our history and the historic spirit of the entire square should be maintained.

As we plan for the future of our Nation's Capital, we must remember that our city is a living lesson in our Nation's history as well as the center of our Government operations.

In locating Federal buildings in the District of Columbia, we must think not only of Government services for our children, but of preserving for them the beauties of our American heritage. We have not always guarded this heritage as we could and should. I hope that we shall not fail in this opportunity to maintain one corner of our past in the heart of the District.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be received and appropriately referred. The bill (S. 3403) to amend the Public Buildings Act of 1959 to provide a study as to the best location for a new building for certain courts of the United States, to preserve the Dolly Madison House, and other historic buildings near the White House for cultural and educational purposes in keeping with the national policy enunciated in the Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act, and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. Humphrey, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Public Works.

70259-61- -15

[From the Congressional Record. July 1, 1960]

RECONSTRUCTION AT LAFAYETTE SQUARE

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate passed upon the conference report on the independent offices appropriation bill, which included an appropriation for $7 million as a part of the project to destroy most of Lafayette Square and prepare the way for constructing three court buildings in that area.

It strikes me it is rather curious that this administration, which is supposed to be conservative, and this Congress, which has some, at least, conservative characteristics, is so ready to destroy buildings which have historic interest and which are significant, in the tradition of the United States. The Belasco Theater, the historic Dolley Madison House, Tayloe House, and a number of other buildings in the area would be destroyed by bulldozers and battering rams within the next few months.

It is not necessary to consider only the historic interest of the buildings, but the beauty of the streets should justify our going somewhat slowly before we proceed to this destruction.

In their place, it was said at one time, there will be built two courthouses, but we understand now that the proposal is to construct three of them, one for the Court of Claims, one for the Court of Customs, and the other for the Tax Court of the United States.

No one knows what the architectural designs will be. I think most of us feel that the architects who have been employed on Government buildings recently have not constructed buildings which are likely to live in the history of architecture.

I regret that the Committee on Public Works, of which I am a member, approved this construction; and I am hopeful that the other commissions, agencies, and persons who have some power of reviewing our actions may recommend effectively against this construction.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MCCARTHY. I yield to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. MORSE. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for making these comments for the Record tonight in regard to the very unwise course of action which is being followed in respect to Lafayette Square.

I testified before the Public Works Committee in opposition to this great mistake that we are about to make. There are reasons not only of esthetics, and not only of history which argue against it, because, after all, I think this. section of Washington, D.C., is really a part of the cradle of American democracy, in this Capital City of the Nation, but I would like to argue a very practical reason against it, namely, that of traffic congestion. I think it is inexcusable that we would concentrate this additional traffic congestion in the Lafayette Square area.

May I say as a member of the District of Columbia Committee of the Senate, we have a serious problem of traffic congestion already in the city, and there are areas farther out, such as the area behind the Supreme Court Building, and other areas in southeast and southwest Washington, where these buildings could have been constructed.

1 am at a loss to understand why, merely for accommodation, as one columnist pointed out, for certain judges who apparently do not like to move very far from their bridge tables and clubs in the center of Washington, we should go to the great expense of building these courthouses in the middle of town.

This is not good city planning, Mr. President. I think it is unfortunate that the Public Works Committee in this instance really has set itself up above the Committee on the District of Columbia, which has chief jurisdiction over the ques-tion of District of Columbia planning.

At least, Mr. President, it is too bad we have rules which permit the Public Works Committee to go ahead without the matter being subjected to the veto of the Congress of the United States.

Mr. President, I serve notice now that in the next session of Congress I shall offer some changes in rules which will bring the Public Works Committee under greater control of the Senate of the United States, so that this power it is able to exercise in this instance will be taken away from it in the future.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. President, I suggest it might be good if all of us on the Public Works Committee were to read Mr. C. Northcote Parkinson's book, entitled "Parkinson's Law," in which he has some rather significant comments

with regard to public buildings and their implications with respect to the vitality of the institutions which use them for their purposes.

In discussing an institution "clothed from the outset with convenience and dignity," he remarks: "The outer door, in bronze and glass," which is quite a specific description of the entrance of the New Senate Office Building, "is placed centrally in a symmetrical facade. Polished shoes glide silently over shining rubber to the glittering and silent elevator."

This was the issue the Senator from Illinois was much concerned about-polished rubber tile. This is all in "Parkinson's Law."

Then he talks about the receptions, and so on, and says:

"From behind closed doors will come the subdued noise of an ordered activity." We had a problem with respect to the louvers in the doors. It seems as though this ordered activity was too noisy for the people in the halls.

"A minute later and you are ankle deep in the director's carpet."

This was objected to by the Senator from Illinois.

He says that this is supposed to indicate an organization or institution really alive and functioning, but that this is not correct.

"In point of fact you will have discovered nothing of the kind. It is now known that a perfection of planned layout is achieved only by institutions on the point of collapse."

I hope this does not apply to the U.S. Senate. To the extent that Mr. Parkinson's law applies-and it seems to have been proved correct on the record of history-I think we need to be concerned. He says further:

"During a period of exciting discovery or progress there is no time to plan the perfect headquarters. The time for that comes later, when all the important work has been done. Perfection, we know, is finality; and finality is death."

This may be an overstatement, but he does go to the record of history and makes a point with respect the Parliament buildings in London. He had this to say in that regard:

It represents, beyond question, a magnificent piece of planning, aptly designed for debate and yet provided with ample space for everything else for committee meetings, for quiet study, for refreshment, and [on its terrace] for tea." We have not gone that far yet.

"It has everything a legislator could possibly desire, all incorporated in a building of immense dignity and comfort. It should date-but this we now hardly dare assume from a period when parliamentary rule was at its height. But once again the dates fail to fit into this pattern. The original House, where Pitt and Fox were matched in oratory, was accidentally destroyed by fire in 1834. It would appear to have been as famed for its inconvenience as for its lofty standard of debate. The present structure was begun in 1840, partly occupied in 1852, but incomplete when its architect died in 1860. It finally assumed its present appearance in about 1868. Now, by what we can no longer regard as coincidence, the decline of Parliament can be traced without much dispute, to the Reform Act of 1867."

That is 1 year before the completion of the building :

"It was in the following year that all initiative in legislation passed from Parliament to be vested in the Cabinet. The prestige attached to the letters "M.P." began sharply to decline and thence forward the most that could be said is that "a role, though a humble one, was left for private members." The great days were over."

Mr. President, I suggest that Members of the Senate and members of the Committee on Public Works give some thought to this matter. We have had a great rash of building on Capitol Hill. It is my opinion that the construction of the New Senate Office Building is a sign of a decline of the Senate. We have more room for public relations people and more room for service to our constituents. In fact, almost every office has become a kind of separate political headquarters, not simply for those who are running for the Presidency but also for those who are trying to do their jobs.

The House of Representatives was to be the branch of the people. It was hoped the House would be representative of the people. It was thought there might be some party discipline and unity. The House of Representatives is now constructing another office building.

I thought the least we could do, to establish some line of responsibility, was to have one office building reserved for Democrats and the other for Republicans. We have two office buildings for the Senate, yet that may not be enough. Perhaps we will need a third or a fourth, to give a proper distinction.

The House of Representatives has two office buildings now, and is constructing a third. The third will be the largest office building of any representative legislative body in the world.

I have grave doubts as to whether this will make of the House of Representatives what the men who founded this country intended it to be. I refer to men like Madison, who said he expected the House of Representatives to predominate in the government of this country.

I think that what Mr. Parkinson talks about in the case of the British Parliament may be happening to us. We are getting more office space and more employees; yet our effectiveness as legislators and our influence in the country decline in almost that same measure. I say that I think we ought to look into the building program. This may be the way to get back to what we were

intended to be at the beginning.

Now we have the proposal for Lafayette Park, which raises another serious question of the particular function of the executive branch of the Government. Lafayette Park was sometimes referred to as the President's park. It may soon have very little connection with the White House, and it may look less and less like a park.

We

Frederick Gutheim, noted architectural historian, wrote in the Washington Post and Times Herald of June 24, 1960, that the park is in danger of being "engulfed by office building," and "the White House itself will be the casualty." There was a time when the White House stood for more than it does now. ought to be concerned about the record. We ought to keep some space around the White House, on the assumption that we have a Chief Executive. We ought to keep minor courts out of the front yard of the White House. If this were the Supreme Court, perhaps there should be some relationship, but these are minor courts about which we are talking, rather unimportant courts. These courts could well be built at McLean, Va., with the CIA. They do not have to be in the front yard of the White House.

As I said yesterday, there may come a time when the President may occupy the White House. That time may come soon. I think the least we can do is to wait until after the next election, and let the next President decide what he desires to see when he looks out of the door-I think it is the back door, but whichever door it is-to see the view.

Mr. President, I yield back my remaining time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, does any other Senator desire to address the Senate?

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the Senator from New York.

[From the Congressional Record, July 1, 1960]

FUTURE OF LAFAYETTE SQUARE

(Extension of remarks of Hon. Eugene J. McCarthy, of Minnesota, in the Senate of the United States, Thursday, June 30, 1960)

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the Record a letter to the editor of the Washington Evening Star of June 30, written by Mr. Frederick Haupt III, entitled "Future of Lafayette Square.'

I was one of those who joined with several other members of the Public Works Committee in objecting to the approval that the committee gave to the planned courthouse construction in Lafayette Square. The least we can do is to wait until after the next election, because of the possibility that the next President might wish to spend more time at the White House and he may be concerned about Lafayette Square when he looks out his front door.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I would like to voice my approval.

(There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:)

"FUTURE OF LAFAYETTE SQUARE

"I wish to acknowledge a debt of gratitude owed to our paper by everyone who is interested in preserving Lafayette Square and the buildings adjacent to it. The editorial support which you have given bespeaks a breadth of