[Senate Report 108-204]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 404
108th Congress Report
1st Session SENATE 108-204
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL WOMEN'S HISTORY MUSEUM ACT OF 2003
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 1741
TO PROVIDE A SITE FOR THE NATIONAL WOMEN'S HISTORY MUSEUM IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
November 20, 2003.--Ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Johanna L. Hardy, Counsel
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Donny Williams, Minority Professional Staff Member
Amy B. Newhouse, Chief Clerk
Calendar No. 404
108th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 108-204
======================================================================
NATIONAL WOMEN'S HISTORY MUSEUM ACT OF 2003
_______
November 20, 2003.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Ms. Collins, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1741]
The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was
referred the bill (S. 1741) to provide a site for the National
Women's History Museum in the District of Columbia, having
considered the same reports favorably thereon without amendment
and recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose & Summary................................................1
II. Background.......................................................1
III. Legislative History..............................................9
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................9
V. Estimated Cost of Legislation...................................10
VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact.................................11
VII. Changes in Existing Law.........................................11
I. PURPOSE & SUMMARY
The purpose of S. 1741, the National Women's History Museum
Act of 2003, is to provide a site for the National Women's
History Museum in the District of Columbia.
II. BACKGROUND
Need for a Women's Museum
As of the 2000 Census, women comprised 50.9% of the
Nation's population \1\ and while women have contributed
greatly throughout the history of the United States, there is
currently no national institution in the National Capital area
that is dedicated to the heritage of women's contributions
throughout America's history. This is not just a Washington,
D.C. phenomenon. Indeed, less than 4% of the sites listed in
the National Park Service's National Register of Historic
Places are associated with women.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gender: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, U.S. Census Bureau, September
2001.
\2\ Search for Women in the National Register of Historic Places,
National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Women's History Museum, Inc. (NWHM) is a non-
partisan, non-profit organization located in the District of
Columbia. The organization was founded in 1996 to affirm the
importance of an accurate and complete understanding of the
past. In order to accomplish it's mission NWHM strives to fill
the need for educating the public about the contributions of
women throughout the Nation's history. The organization is
dedicated to researching, collecting, and exhibiting the
contributions of women to the social, cultural, and political
life of the country.
The organization accomplishes its mission in a number of
ways including maintaining the NWHM CyberMuseum, creating
programming for diverse audiences regarding women's history,
conducting seminars and educational outreach programs, and
assembling a research library. One of the organization's key
objectives is to build a physical museum in Washington, DC to
expand its education of the public regarding women's history.
Site selection
Shortly after NWHM incorporated in 1996, the organization
began the process of selecting a location for a physical museum
in the District of Columbia. During this process, NWHM
consulted with representatives of various museums in the area
including the Holocaust Museum, the National Museum of Women in
the Arts, and the National Museum of the American Indian. They
also consulted with architects, curators, and other museum
professionals. After information gathering and the hiring of a
real estate consultant, NWHM considered over thirty potential
sites for a physical museum. The thirty were narrowed to six
potential sites and then finally to one, the Annex to the Old
Post Office (OPO) Pavilion on Pennsylvania Avenue in Northwest
Washington, DC. The narrowing of potential sites was based on a
number of factors, including programming and space needs of the
museum.
The History of the Old Post Office and the Annex
The Annex, currently owned by the General Services
Administration (GSA), is vacant and includes approximately
100,000 square feet of space. It is located adjacent to the OPO
on the south side of Pennsylvania Avenue, next to what used to
be 11th Street. While the Annex is a relatively new structure--
built in 1992--the adjacent building, the Old Post Office, and
the surrounding area have had a long and, at times, tumultuous
history. The Old Post Office, the building adjacent to the
Annex, was built in 1899 at a time when Pennsylvania Avenue,
considered ``America's Main Street,'' was in a state of
disrepair and in need of revitalization.\3\ Pierre L'Enfant,
who was appointed by President George Washington to plan the
new city, hoped that Pennsylvania Avenue between the Capitol
and the White House would become a ``Grand Avenue.''\4\ Indeed,
while initially the Avenue did not become ``Grand,'' it was
considered the District's first downtown street. During the
1800s various businesses, shops, and other enterprises were
established along this stretch of the Avenue. However, the
Avenue was not a desirable location for many to go to. The
Avenue was often flooded and muddy, and by the mid to late
1800s the area on the south side of Pennsylvania Avenue
contained many warehouses, saloons, and other sorted
enterprises. Toward the end of the 1800s, Congress focused on
transforming this area and in 1892 authorized the construction
of a Post Office Building to house the combined operations of
the U.S. Post Office Department and the city Post Office at
12th Street. The building was completed in 1899.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Historic Documentation Report, National Capital Parks-
Central, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
\4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the Post Office Building did not bring the
revitalization that Congress had intended. During President
Woodrow Wilson's first administration, Congress initiated plans
to begin to take ``radical measures'' to save the south side of
Pennsylvania Avenue.\5\ These measures included the demolition
of buildings on the south side of the Avenue in order to
construct the Federal Triangle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Historic Documentation Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, federal employment tripled between 1901 and
1926. The increased demand for office space fueled the push for
more construction of federal buildings. Out of this growth,
Congress formed the Public Building Commission in 1919, which
began to carry out the plans for the Federal Triangle. The
plans for the Federal Triangle were approved by Congress in
1926. By 1928, all of the land in the proposed Federal
Triangle, 70 acres, was purchased by the federal government.
Subsequently, the unsightly businesses and enterprises along
Pennsylvania Avenue were demolished and work began on replacing
them with federal office buildings.
During the turn of the century, the Old Post Office was the
tallest and largest government building in the Capital.
However, in 1934, the U.S. Post Office moved out of the
building and many believed the building was outdated and also
that its Romanesque Revival architecture no longer fit with the
classical style of newer buildings in the area. There were
calls to demolish the OPO; however the lack of resources during
the Great Depression, saved the building from being torn down.
Since that time, the OPO has been used by various other
governmental entities. In the 1960s, there was a resurgence of
interest to demolish the building. At that time, however, there
was a new interest in historic preservation, which culminated
in the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966. This Act saved the OPO from demolition. The OPO continued
to be used solely for government agencies until the 1970s.
Further revitalization of Pennsylvania Avenue continued in
the 1970s, in part as a result of Congress' creation of the
Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation in 1972. Congress
directed that Pennsylvania Avenue be developed consistent with
its relationship to the government and monuments and proximity
to memorials adjacent to the area.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site and Old Post Office
Building, A National Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1976, Congress passed the Public Buildings Cooperative
Use Act.\7\ This Act, among other things, required the
Administrator of the General Services Administration to
encourage the public use of public buildings for ``cultural,
educational, and recreational activities.'' This Act allowed
Federal entities and commercial enterprises to share Federally
owned buildings. Out of this new authority, GSA, owner of the
OPO, began to examine ways in which the OPO could be used by
both federal agencies and the private sector. In addition, GSA
was concerned about ``reinforc[ing] the economic life of the
OPO and its Pennsylvania Avenue neighborhood.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Public Law No. 94-541 (1976).
\8\ Redevelopment Plan for the Old Post Office, Submitted to
Congress by General Services Administration, December 28, 2000, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1977, Congress authorized $18 million to renovate the
lower levels of the OPO. GSA planned to remodel the OPO and
convert the lower levels into shops and restaurants.\9\ While
the new shops and restaurants, which sparked the addition of
``Pavilion'' to the name of the OPO, opened in 1983, the
process was riddled with delays. By 1981, GSA was behind
schedule in selecting a private developer for the project and
costs were already running over budget.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ $18 million Appropriated to Convert Old Post Office, Washington
Post, July 28, 1977, Metro, C3; New Light on the Old P.O., Washington
Post, October 1, 1977, p. B1.
\10\ Pennsylvania Avenue Plan Grows Weeds in the Cracks as D.C.
Waits, Washington Post, February 23, 1981, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1982, GSA entered into a 55-year outlease with the Post
Office Pavilion Joint Venture (OPOJV), a private sector group
comprised of private developers.\11\ The OPOJV in turn made
further necessary renovations to the lower levels of the OPO
and sublet space to retail shops, restaurants, and food stand
operators. When the new lower level opened in 1983, it had been
touted as a major project that would bring much needed
revitalization to the area and it was compared to Harborplace
in Baltimore, Maryland and Faneuil Hall in Boston,
Massachusetts.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Redevelopment Plan for the Old Post Office, Submitted to
Congress by General Services Administration, December 28, 2000, p. 1.
\12\ Firm Picked to Enliven Post Office, Washington Post, September
12, 1981, C1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrary to the success many believed this public-private
partnership would enjoy, the project failed to turn a profit.
The OPOJV, after five years of financial losses, sought and
obtained approval to build additional retail space adjacent to
the OPO.\13\ The OPOJV believed that the additional retail
space would optimize opportunities and help reverse its
financial losses. The additional space, referred to as the East
Atrium or OPO Annex, was built adjacent to the OPO, surrounded
on three sides by the Internal Revenue Service building. The
Annex was completed in 1992; however, within a year, the OPOJV
filed for bankruptcy and the lender that helped to finance the
private developers foreclosed on their leasehold interest,
which was not slated to expire until 2037.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Old Post Office Passes First Test for Expansion, Washington
Post, October 15, 1988, p. E1.
\14\ Redevelopment Plan for the Old Post Office, Submitted to
Congress by General Services Administration, December 28, 2000, p. 2;
Post Office Pavilion Faces Foreclosure, Washington Post, October 22,
1993, p. A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, the retail portion of the OPO continued to
loose money. The Annex became vacant and even the retail space
in the OPO became significantly vacant. Interested in trying a
new approach, GSA began negotiations with another joint venture
between twodevelopers in 1998.\15\ This joint venture proposed
using the retail space to create a ``unique urban entertainment
center'' that would house wider known stores and entertainment venues.
The joint venture was prepared to buy the interest in the remaining
lease if it could reach agreement with GSA. However, the negotiations
broke down and GSA decided instead it would buy out the remaining lease
interest and develop the OPO through a competitive process.\16\ As a
result of the questions surrounding GSA's handling of the development
of the OPO, in 1998, Congress directed GSA not to convert the OPO from
office use to any other use until a comprehensive plan, which was to
include street-level retail use, has been approved by the Senate
Appropriations Committee, the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works.\17\ Congress also directed GSA not to ``acquire by purchase,
condemnation, or otherwise the leasehold rights of the existing lease
with private parties at the Old Post Office prior to the approval of
the comprehensive plan * * *'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Redevelopment Plan at p. 2; Old Post Office in Flux, Joint
Venture Plans Urban Entertainment Center, Washington Business Journal,
January 23, 1998, p. 1.
\16\ Charges of Favoritism Halt Old Post Office Pavilion
Negotiations, Washington Times, October 9, 1998, p. B11.
\17\ Public Law No. 105-277.
\18\ Public Law No. 105-277.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the mandate by Congress, in 2000, GSA submitted
to the appropriate committees a Redevelopment Plan. In that
Plan, GSA indicated that the OPO development under the Public
Buildings Cooperative Use Act of 1976, has not worked due to
poor tenant satisfaction and constant retail turnover, economic
underperformance, and a change in the development
environment.\19\ GSA reported dissatisfaction not only from the
retail tenants but also from the federal agency tenants housed
in the upper levels of the building.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Redevelopment Plan for the Old Post Office, Submitted to
Congress by General Services Administration, December 28, 2000, p. 2.
\20\ Redevelopment Plan at pp. 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSA also concluded that under the then current leasehold
arrangement, the costs to the government exceeded the revenue.
GSA further concluded that the retail concept has never been
economically viable and that since the retail market has
changed since the 1970s, the original development concept was
obsolete.\21\ GSA indicated two alternatives for use of the
property--as federal office space or, through outleasing as a
hotel. GSA indicated that the former was the most viable
alternative in terms of costs to the government, but proposed
going forward with the second alternative, a hotel. GSA
concluded that the hotel would help promote economic
revitalization in the District and a ``hotel would create
activity on the south side of Pennsylvania Avenue and would
help draw tourists to this area at all hours of the day and
night.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Redevelopment Plan at p. 2.
\22\ Redevelopment Plan at p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2001, the Senate committees on Appropriations and
Environment and Public Works as well as the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure approved the Redevelopment
Plan, with some limitations, and allowed GSA to proceed with
buying out the remaining leasehold interest. Subsequently, GSA
purchased the leasehold interest at $7.1 million.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ GSA Pays $7.1 Million for Old Post Office Lease, Washington
Business Journal, July 30, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to highlight that during this process, the
Annex, as a separate building, was not specifically discussed
or highlighted. In fact, the approvals by the congressional
committees specifically require the preservation of
``historically significant features'' of the OPO, an issue that
would not apply to the then-nine-year-old Annex. Both approvals
also highlighted that the lease GSA would enter into with a new
developer would be in the best economic interest of the Federal
government, and provide economic revitalization to the District
of Columbia.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Letter to the Honorable Stephen A. Perry, Administration,
General Services Administration from Senators Smith and Reid, Ranking
Member and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works, and Senators Campbell and Dorgan, Ranking Member and Chairman of
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury and General
Government, June 15, 2001; House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Committee Resolution, May 16, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSA and the Women's Museum
Early in 2002, NWHM initiated discussions with GSA to
explore the possibility of using the Annex for a national
women's history museum. Later that year, GSA issued a draft
Request for Qualifications (RFQ). The RFQ is the first phase of
the process of gathering market information through the
solicitation of responses from developers and other interested
parties. In response to the draft RFQ, the NWHM wrote GSA
expressing concerns about the process.\25\ In April of 2003,
all fourteen of the women Members of the Senate sent a letter
to GSA expressing concerns about the process.\26\ And, in June
of 2003, Representatives Young and Oberstar, Chairman and
Ranking Member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, sent a letter to GSA requesting that it fully
consider the concerns and issues raised by the NWHM.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Letter to Robert Roop, Contracting Officer, U.S. General
Services Administration from National Women's History Museum, July 22,
2002.
\26\ Letter to the Honorable Stephen A. Perry, Administrator, U.S.
General Services Administration, from Senators Collins, Mikulski,
Murray, Snowe, Hutchison, Clinton, Lincoln, Cantwell, Landrieu,
Stabenow, Murkowski, Feinstein, Boxer, and Dole, April 8, 2003.
\27\ Letter to the Honorable Stephen A. Perry, Administrator, U.S.
General Services Administration, from Representatives Young and
Oberstar, June 6, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSA's response to the April letter was that GSA ``considers
the original OPO building and its Pavilion Annex as one
structure.'' The letter went further and indicated that
``[t]aking market responses and other objectives into
consideration * * * GSA may elect to develop the
annexseparately, collectively, or even raze the current structure.''
\28\ (emphasis added). Essentially this was the same response GSA
provided in writing to the NWHM.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Letter to the Honorable Susan M. Collins from Stephen A.
Perry, Administrator, U.S. General Services Administration, May 29,
2003.
\29\ Letter to Susan B. Jollie, President, National Women's History
Museum from Anthony E. Costa, Assistant Regional Administrator, Public
Building Service, General Services Administration, June 2, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The objections raised by NWHM and the Senators related to
the fact that, if GSA proceeded as it planned--developing the
OPO and the Annex as one site--the NWHM would be effectively
excluded from the process. GSA was asked to consider splitting
the competitive bidding process into separate processes for the
Annex and for the OPO so that the NWHM could compete for use of
the Annex. Not only would proceeding as one structure preclude
the NWHM from competing in the process, but GSA could not
provide a timeline on its plans for the redevelopment.
Moreover, Federal agencies still occupy the OPO, and it remains
unclear how long it would take for GSA to identify a new
location for those agencies and then relocate them. In the
meantime, the Annex remains vacant and continues to
deteriorate.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ In January of 2003, the General Accounting Office (GAO) added
management of federal real property to its High Risk list. In August of
2003, GAO issued a report focusing specifically on vacant and
underutilized property owned by Government agencies, including GSA. GAO
indicated that ``[u]nneeded assets present significant potential risks
to Federal agencies not only for lost dollars because such properties
are costly to maintain but also for lost opportunities because the
properties could be put to more cost-beneficial uses, exchanged for
other needed property, or sold to generate revenue for the
Government.'' GAO further stated that ``continuing to hold real
property that may no longer be needed does not present a positive image
of the federal government in local communities * * * [i]nstead, it can
present an image of waste and inefficiency that erodes taxpayers'
confidence and can have a negative impact on local economies if the
property is occupying a valuable location and is not used for other
purposes, sold, or used in a public-private partnership if such a
partnership provides the best economic value for the government.'' (See
GAO-03-122, GAO-05-747).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need for legislation
In response to GSA's refusal to work with NWHM, Senator
Collins introduced S. 1741, the National Women's History Museum
Act of 2003. S. 1741 directs GSA to enter into an occupancy
agreement with the NWHM for a term of not more than 99 years at
a rental rate based upon a fair market value appraisal derived
from a third party appraisal process. The bill would also
require the NWHM to pay for any necessary renovations and
remodeling and would allow the deduction of any of those costs
from the established rental payment.
Allowing the use of Federal buildings and land for a museum
or memorial in the District of Columbia is not an uncommon
practice.\31\ In addition, other bills authorizing museums and
memorials either provide the land or building without cost to
the organization building the museum or memorial or Federal
funds are actually used to help cover the costs of
construction.\32\ Unlike these precedents, S. 1741 would
require NWHM to pay fair compensation for use of the now vacant
space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Public Law No. 96-515 (Authorized the use of the Pension
Building for use as a National Museum for the Building Arts); Public
Law No. 101-185 (authorized the establishment of the National Museum of
the American Indian); Public Law No. 103-98 (authorized the
construction of additional space for the National Museum of Natural
History; Public Law No. 105-240 (authorized the use of the Carnegie
Library at Mount Vernon Square by the Washington Historical Society for
use as a City Museum); Public Law No. 106-492 (authorized the use of
land to build a National Law Enforcement Museum); Public Law No. 107-
224 (authorized the construction of a plaza adjacent to the John F.
Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts to allow for construction of a
museum of performing arts); Public Law No. 103-32 (authorized the use
of Federal land for the construction of a World War II Memorial);
Public Law No. 105-201 (approving a site for the location of the Martin
Luther King, Jr. Memorial).
\32\ See, e.g., Public Law No. 96-515 (Congress required GSA and
the Secretary of the Interior to provide matching fund); Public Law No.
105-240 (congress appropriated $2 million in matching funds); Public
Law No. 106-522 (congress appropriated $250,000 to the Federal City
Council, Inc. for the establishment of a National Museum of American
Music).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-setting through appraisals and the subtraction of
costs for remodeling and renovations are also not unusual
practices. It is the Committee's understanding that GSA has
used these tools in other projects with other entities and
developers. In fact, GSA highlights these practices in its
Pricing Desk Guide. According to GSA's Pricing Desk Guide, in
entering into occupancy agreements with other Federal agencies,
GSA recommends that the rent is based on an appraised
value.\33\ In addition, GSA also has provided for a reduction
in rental payments based upon ``tenant improvement costs.''
\34\ A Tenant Improvement Allowance is intended to help the
tenant ``design, configure, and build out space to support its
program operations.'' \35\ While the GSA Pricing Desk Guide
provides for deductions in rental payment in terms of rental
pricing for customer Federal agencies, this allowance is common
practice in the real estate industry.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Pricing Desk Guide, Public Building Service, U.S. General
Services Administration, Edition No. 3, March 15, 2002, p. 3-2.
\34\ Pricing Desk Guide at p. 3-5.
\35\ 41 CFR 102-85.90 (2001).
\36\ Testimony of Robert A. Peck, Commissioner, Public Building
Service, U.S. General Services Administration, Before the Subcommittee
on Public Buildings and Economic Development, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, March
5, 1998; GSA's ``Rent Pricing Policy'' as highlighted on its website at
www.gsa.gov indicates that GSA has revised its policies for space and
related service and has ``aligned its rent rates with private-sector
markets, made space improvement allowances commercially equivalent * *
*''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From a planning perspective, the chosen location of the
museum appears to be ideal and appropriate. In 2001, the
National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) issued its
Memorials and Museums Master Plan outlining proposed locations
for future memorials and museums in Washington, DC. The purpose
of the Plan was to respond to numerous proposals for memorials
and museums and to avoid the encroaching on the settings of
existing memorials and to avoid threatening the loss of
historic landscapes.\37\ In particular, the NCPC intended to
try and guide Congress, government agencies, and the public
away from the congested National Mall.\38\ Typically,
proponents of memorials and museums wish to be sited on the
National Mall and also wish to build ``signature'' buildings to
be able to reflect its theme in the architecture of the
building. While such sentiments are understandable, there has
been increased concern about the impact of new memorials and
museums on the National Mall. The NCPC's Plan was intended to
help guide the location of new memorials and museums away from
the Mall by identifying 100 potential new sites in the
District. The Annex site is in the area of one location
identified by the Plan, south of Pennsylvania Avenue near 12th
Street NW.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Memorials and Museums Master Plan, National Capital Planning
Commission, December 2001, p. 3.
\38\ Memorials and Museums Master Plan, p. 3.
\39\ Memorials and Museums Master Plan at p. 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the NCPC's Plan tried to address the issue of
selected new sites for memorials and museums that ``reinforce
the historic urban design features of the city, do not intrude
upon the settings of existing memorials or museums, and result
in minimal adverse environmental and transportation impacts and
positive economic and other effects on the culture of local
neighborhoods.\40\ The Annex is an existing vacant building on
Pennsylvania Avenue, America's Main Street. It has been vacant
for nearly ten years. It is estimated that approximately 1.5
million visitors would be drawn to that area to visit the
museum.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Memorials and Museums Master Plan at p. 3.
\41\ Market Support for the National Women's History Museum,
Prepared by the National Women's History Museum, September 2003, p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, on May 14, 2002, GSA asked the Urban Land
Institute Washington District Council to convene a workshop
with members of the real estate development community. The
workshop was convened to discuss possible uses of the OPO site
and the conclusions of that meeting were summarized in a Final
Report. One use discussed and highlighted was for a museum/art
center/performing arts center with a hotel.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ ULI Washington District Council, Old Post Office Building
Workshop, Sponsored by the General Services Administration, Final
Report, pp. 2, 4, 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The history of Pennsylvania Avenue and the OPO has been
long and mixed. The future of the use of the OPO is still
uncertain. Since the times when Pennsylvania Avenue was
considered unsightly, there has been a tremendous
transformation that has brought tourists and commercial
activity to that area. One of the unfinished pieces of this
transformation has been finding viable uses for the OPO and its
Annex. It is clear that one use, retail--the original purpose
for the building of the Annex--has not been a viable solution.
A museum, particularly one that fills the much-needed void of
telling the history of women in this Nation, could assist in
GSA's process of developing the OPO, utilize a vacant building
on ``America's Main Street,'' bring in revenue to the Federal
government through rental payments, and attract tourists and
other visitors to that area to generate economic activity for
the city. Authorizing the use of the Annex as a museum appears
not only to be consistent with planning in the area, but also
as though it could help draw more visitors to that area, which
in turn could increase the value and use of any future
redevelopment of the OPO.
III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
S. 1741 was introduced on October 16, 2003 by Senators
Collins, Mikulski, Landrieu, Stabenow, Snowe, Cantwell, Boxer,
Clinton, and Durbin and was referred to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs. On October 22, 2003, the Committee
considered S. 1741 and ordered the bill reported by voice vote.
Senators present: Collins, Voinovich, Coleman, Bennett,
Fitzgerald, Levin, Akaka, Lautenberg and Pryor.
IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 titles the bill as the National Women's History
Museum Act of 2003.
Section 2 sets forth congressional findings including that
the National Women's History Museum (NWHM) was established to
research and present historic contributions women have made and
that the Museum will collect and disseminate information
concerning women, will foster educational programs relating to
the history and contribution of women to society. It states
that Congress also finds that the Annex of the Old Post Office
has been vacant, is in a location ideal for museums and
memorials, will make use of a currently vacant building, and
that a museum will promote economic activity in the District.
Section 3 defines the terms in the bill to indicate that
the term Administrator means the Administrator for GSA, Museum
Sponsor means the National Women's History Museum, Inc.,
Pavilion Annex means the Annex to the Old Post Office.
Section 4 directs the Administrator to enter into an
occupancy agreement to make the Pavilion Annex available to the
NWHM for use as a National Women's History Museum; establishes
an appraisal process for the determination of a fair market
value for rent; establishes the term of occupancy to be at
least 99 years, or any lesser term agreed to by the NWHM;
requires that the terms and conditions of the occupancy
agreement facilitate the raising of private funds for the
modifications necessary to the building; allows the occupancy
agreement to include reasonable terms and conditions pertaining
to shared facilities to allow for the continued operations or
development of adjacent buildings; requires the renovations and
modifications to be carried out by the NWHM, in consultation
with GSA, requires that the renovations begin within 5 years
after the agreement is executed, requires expenses incurred by
the NWHM to be subtracted from the rent; requires GSA to report
to the Governmental Affairs Committee and the House Government
Reform Committee in the event it is unable to fully execute an
occupancy agreement.
Section 5 indicates that nothing in this Act limits the
authority of the National Capital Planning Commission.
V. ESTIMATED COST OF LEGISLATION
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, November 3, 2003.
Hon. Susan M. Collins,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1741, the National
Women's History Museum Act of 2003.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew
Pickford.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth M. Robinson
(For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director).
Enclosure.
S. 1741--National Women's History Museum Act of 2003
S. 1741 would require the Administrator of the General
Services Administration (GSA) to reach an agreement with the
National Women's History Museum (NWHM) to lease space in the
Pavilion Annex located next to the Old Post Office in
Washington, D.C. CBO estimates that implementing this
legislation could affect direct spending, but any impact is
likely to be insignificant over the next 10 years.
S. 1741 would require GSA and the NWHM to reach an
agreement on the use of this building within 150 days of
enactment. If an agreement is not completed within the time
frame, GSA would have to report to the Congress on the
unresolved issues. The legislation would require that the
museum pay fair market value over the lease term of up to 99
years, but the bill would allow the museum to use the facility
rent free for the first five years of the agreement, and any
expenses incurred by the museum for renovations and
modifications to the facility could be credited against the
rental payment.
GSA currently receives no rental payments for the site; it
has been vacant for nine years, and GSA does not expect to find
a private party to lease the site in the next few years. GSA
expects that the facility could generate around $2 million in
annual rental receipts if a lessee could be found. Under the
National Historic Preservation Act, however, any receipts from
outleasing historic buildings may be spent to preserve historic
properties in GSA's inventory. If a lease of the Pavilion Annex
qualified for such treatment under that act, there would be no
net budgetary impact of leasing the facility to the NWHM or any
other lessee.
Under the bill, there would be no rental payments from the
National Women's History Museum over the 2004-2009 period, and
subsequent lease payments are not likely to be significant for
a few years after deductions for renovation costs. Thus, CBO
estimates that renting the annex to the National Women's
History Museum would not have a significant impact on the
federal budget over the 2004-2013 period.
S. 1741 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of State, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew
Pickford. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
VI. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT
Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11 (b) of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has
considered the regulatory impact of this bill. CBO states that
there are no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and no costs on
state, local, or tribal governments. The legislation contains
no other regulatory impact.
VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, there are no changes in existing
law made by the bill as reported.