change of technology, the rate of change of our physical environment, our political and geographical environments, all of these things reflect themselves in the new careers which become available as time goes on.

As I say, because of a tremendous rate of change of technology and all of these other factors, it is extremely difficult for any counselor anywhere to really and truly have a comprehensive understanding of this very great change, let alone trying to pass it on to thousands of individual children.

Now, as you well know, and specifically those of you who have children and have been concerned with the school systems and education, that the matter of guidance counselors is a pretty serious one, the matter of where we can develop more of these kinds of important people that we need for tomorrow, and how fast they be developed, and whether the technologies of training can be changed to keep up with the demands that they have put upon them.

The ratios, of course, as you know, vary somewhat from the most affluent sections of our country, possibly 275 students to one counselor, to the less affluent sections certainly in the ghetto areas, the deprived areas as it were, the ratio can be as many as 2,000 youngsters to one guidance counselor. So if you divide the normal working hours of a counselor in the year and then again divide this by the fact that the counselor must provide physiological and other kinds of interpersonal help to the youngster as well as the career information, and of course the amount of time which is spent on providing career help and guidance, it is pretty slim indeed.

So what we are attempting to do with our New Career Center here is to determine how business, industry, organized labor, the educators, the counselors, the school systems, and the community groups in particular, can be brought together in an entitly to determine how this problem can be evaluated.

We are to look at this in very specific and concrete terms. This we plan to do in the next coming year.

Mr. GRAY. This is a very worthy program. I am trying to determine, are you advocating possibly having space here, public space, so you could recruit counselors, or to orientate people as to what your pro

Mr. TROUTMAN. Yes. This, Mr. Chairman, is the point which is germane to our Center and the reason for my being here today is the fact that we, first of all, feel we must start off by establishing our National Center and in the second generation of this program, then to establish what we call a Community New Career Center, which are the ones to be located throughout the United States in any community that wishes to set one up.

Now we have several hundreds of thousands of young people coming to Washington every year. Their reasons for coming here are quite varied. But we feel by having a National New Career Center of the type we are describing here available for them, we will find that many of them, their parents, will see to it that they go there; their teachers will ask them to go there, their counselors. And we would like to make the facility available to these hundreds of thousands of young people.

We also want to make the Center available to others, but the main thrust is for the young person of high and junior high school level.

gram is?

We feel that by having a facility like the National New Career Center, there would be a very logical next step to have it located either as a part of your Visitor Center as you now envision this thing and are working toward it, and if not this, as an alternative, to have it fairly close by, or for us to have a reference facility within the Visitor Center to which you can then be referred to other parts of our program in other parts of the city.

So this, of course, is the main tie-in. As I say, we do hope in our National New Career Center to offer opportunities for the testing of the young people, to provide counselors-counselor recruiting could certainly be a part of this. We hope to have summer workshops for counselors, for teachers, with industry people, labor union people coming down, possibly serving as teachers for these other groups to provide a real positive kind of interchange of information of this kind within the Center.

As I say, the germaneness does lie in the fact we feel this is a most appropriate kind of thing to have located as part of your Visitor Center. This is the reason that I am here to talk on behalf of the Center today.

Mr. GRAY. We appreciate your coming. As I said, it sounds like a very meritorious project on your part and something that is certainly needed.

I would suggest very strongly that once this has been approved and the Visitor Center is being planned in depth by the architect and engineers, the National Park Service, and so forth, that you consult with the National Park Service to find out if maybe space could not be secured there in the public interest.

I might also call to your attention just on yesterday we had a private group here who said that if they could get authority, they would build à $300 million complex behind this station for this very thing, providing space for public displays, for the various States to come in and display their historical backgrounds and the types of goods and services that that State produces. I certainly think this could be handled very well with that type of facility.


Mr. GRAY. The point I am making, if we can get started on the Visitor Center, I feel this would be the impetus for other things like you are proposing to come along to be in conjunction. Because nowhe: the world would you have a captive audience of 15 or 20 million people a year congregate in one area, and certainly this would tie in.

I deeply appreciate your coming and I can assure you that your entire testimony will be in the record for all members of Congress to read. Testimony gathered in hearings will be printed and will be available for public use.

Mr. TROUTMAN. One other point, Mr. Chairman, please. Just another several minutes here.

Mr. GRAY. Yes.

Mr. TROUTMAN. This I think is a very germane one, too, as far as your extensive efforts that you have put into this thing at the present time.

I was interested in Mrs. Coopersmith's comment regarding Expo 67. I found it to be a very excellent kind of operation and encompasses

very much.

[blocks in formation]

On my way back from Expo 67, I stopped in at Ottawa and met with several of the officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. I was consultant to the Canadian Government last November, this same Department. I had an opportunity to go back to discuss business matters with these people. While I was there talking to two of the officials of the Department, I had the opportunity to review for them this National New Career Center, which we are looking at right here for the Washington area, and the chief official's comments were, he said, "Good gosh, we have got a Union Station here in Ottawa, too. Why can't we think in terms of doing the same thing?"

It occurred to me, Mr. Chairman, that I would recommend rather strongly that as you go along and develop your materials, your brochures, your programs, that you make the information that you are getting together, bring it to the attention of the mayor's council, because I am sure most of the cities have a Union Station. I know I do. I, for one, used to like to see the one in New York. I hated to see the Pennsylvania Railroad Terminal turned down. Based on this chance remarks of the Canadian officials, as I say, I think this is an excellent thing and I would like to see your organization make the mayors' council aware of this and let the rest of the cities look at the Union Stations as well. This allows us to retain our artifacts, as you will, in terms of the older buildings and this type of thing, and I think this a very commendable program you are working on.

Mr. Gray. Thank you, Mr. Troutman. You have been very helpful. We deeply appreciate your patience in waiting and certainly your testimony

Are there any questions or comments?

We have one statement here from Mr. James Hodgson, of the Capitol Hill Restoration Society, who was to appear earlier but because time ran out he was kind enough to submit his statement, so it will be printed, without objection, in the record.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Hodgson follows:)

Thank you.



My name is Ja B. Hodgson, Jr., of 506 A Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. I have been authorized by the presidents of both the Capitol Hill Restoration Society (a sustaining member of the National Trust for Historical Preservation) and the Capitol Hill Community Council (a member of the D.C. Federation of Civic Associations) to make this statement.

The Capitol Hill Community has shared with this committee its long-standing commitment to the beautification of the Capitol environs including especially the preservation of the major landmarks which notably include the Union Station. We are very happy to see the felicitous solution to the difficult problem of the preservation of the Station which this legislation represents. We wish to recognize particularly the contribution which the Chairman of this Subcommittee, Mr. Gray, has made to leading the negotiations between the Federal Government and the owning railroads to an arrangement which appears to be so beneficial to the Nation as a whole. This represents an outstanding example of having found a new use for an old building which will preserve its architectural distinction for posterity.

We also hope that the further negotiations will be as outstanding in the field of transportation, because this project can also provide a model of the sort of “transportation center” about which Mr. Wilbur Smith has so eloquently written. This project, which is expected to handle some 5,000 visitors per hour, will be served by several modes of transportation and could provide a model solution to the “intermode transfer" problem.

The terminal, first, is already going to be the southern end of our American version of the Japanese Tokyo-Tokaido high speed rail line, and will link the Visitor Center and the business district of Washington with Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. Studies indicate that within the current technology, rail transportation can compete with air transportation from conventional airports if the origin and destination are not over 250 to 300 miles apart. Where competition exists among products, our economy seems to give the nod more to promotional efforts than to absolute scientific proof of product superiority. It seems likely that the Visitor Center will contribute substantially to the acceptance of the Northeast Corridor rail project by making the terminus attractive, by providing services, and by easing the problems of transportation after arrival.

Second, the Visitor Center will have a subway station. This should encourage many visitors to leave their cars at their hotels, motels, or relatives in the suburbs, or to use the fringe parking lots and minimize the need for parking and street congestion around the Capitol and Mall area. The availability of the subway should link them easily to the Zoo and to Arlington Cemetery. Someday the lines will undoubtedly be extended to National Airport and Dulles, thereby making the Visitor Center and Union Station a desirable airline terminal. Rapid service can also be provided from Union Station to Friendship Airport, reinforcing the importance of the Visitor Center.

Third, the Visitor Center could be connected to the airports by helicopter, though the effective provision of subway and rapid rail service might reduce the need for helicopter service, since the rail mode is not subject to disastrous slowdowns at exactly rush hour when the major demand exists to get to and from the airports. Any reduction in the need for helicopter service would be viewed with favor by the residents of the area. The very noisy experience with the experimental service between the site for the Third Congressional Library Building and the three airports led many residents to hope that these vehicles would fly closer to the halls of the legislature and the offices of business than to them.

A fourth mode of transportation is the highway bus. Currently the bus stations are in a very inconvenient location, difficult for the most frequent users to reach, because they are easily accessible only by taxi. Other than current contractual commitments, there appears to be no compelling reason why that location, like the adjacent location of the airlines terminal at 12th and K Streets, N.W., would be preferable to the Visitor Center-Union Station site. With some million of square feet of air rights space available over the tracks (an area comparable to the entire Judiciary Square-Pension Building site) and with potential highway connections to the 4th Street Freeway and along the tracks to New York Avenue, there is an obvious potential for a major bus transportation terminal associated with the parking facility, similar to the New York Port Authority terminal, but superior in location and accessibility to the other transportation modes and to the places of interest.

We are conscious that nothing gets done unless there is some tangible profit above the general benefit to the community and the nation. Doing good is not enough. There may even be some current commitments and vested interests which would make the transfer of the facilities difficult. We would hope that the Commission would exert its influence and the executive powers of the city to effect the transfer ; however, there may be other inducements.

We suggest that the founders of the Visitor Center and the owners actively pursue the notion of an international trade fair center to exploit the air rights over the track area and above the parking and bus facilities. This can be done in a most profitable manner, both to the owners and the nation.

We note that American industry has no central location to display its wares to the thousands of industrialists and government officials who come to Washington to negotiate wtih the World Bank, the Agency for International Development, etc. A well designed, permanent industrial exhibition is a logical facility to locate in this most accessible of spots, a stone's throw from the Congress. Here it could also serve as an inspiration and educational institution to the youth of America who are touring their Nation's Capital. Mr. Schwengel's interest in immersing the youth in the history of our country could be supported by a prevue of the future. It is suggested that American manufacturing industry would pay well for such a prestigious show room.

We hope that the Commission, which has functioned so effectively thus far, will be able to complete its negotiations successfully, and will be able to achieve the potential of this most exciting project, a transportation and visitor center which can literally be an American showcase to the world. Many of us are tired

of hearing about the wonders of Stockholm, Moscow, and Tokyo. We feel that the traveler's dollar has a great deal of clout, and that the Commission should be able to guide that clout effectively to move toward a great solution. Possibly that clout may outweigh some of the manifold difficulties in Washington in getting anything at all done, of achieving agreement between the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capitol Planning Commission, with the Federal Aviation Agency and the Public Utilities Commission, with the District of Columbia Government, the District Highway Department, and the Federal Bureau of Public Roads and with the Washington Tetropolitan Area Transit Authority, and finally with all of the private interests involved. This is a monumental order. If the Commission brings it off, then all involved will deserve a significant place in history.

Mr. GRAY. We also would like to ask unanimous consent that all statements that we have received—and we have received numerous statements from Members of Congress and other individuals and organizations concerning this proposed legislation-printed in the record.

Without objection, so ordered. (The statements follow :)


Washington, D.C., October 9, 1967. Hon. KENNETH J. GRAY, Chairman, Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds, Public Works Committee,

House of Representatives, Waşhington, D.C. DEAR MR. GRAY: As you know, the USO is deeply interested in the possibilities inherent in the proposal to convert Union Station into a National Visitors Center to include an appropriate USO facility, as recommended in the report of Secretary Udall's National Visitors Center Study Commission.

The accompanying statement by Henry W. Clark, Vice President of National Capital USO, Inc., and Chairman of our Building and Facilities Committee, is submitted for your own and your Committee's further information and consideration.

This statement, with the letter you have received from the USO National President, General Emmett F. O'Donnell, presents the USO position with respect to the National Visitors Center proposal. If any additional information is desired, every effort will be made to furnish it.

Your own and your Committee's interest in and action toward providing the Nation's Capital with the kind of National Visitors Center it should have are warmly appreciated by all who are directly concerned with the USO program in Washington.

Please be assured of our best wishes and of our desire to cooperate fully in this most important project. Sincerely,

JAMES G. DUNTON, President.


Statement of Henry W. Clark, Vice President and Chairman, Building

Committee The Purpose of this statement is two-fold: first, to express the appreciation of the United Service Organizations for the consideration which the National Visitors Center Study Commission has given to the USO in the report recommending conversion of Union Station into a National Visitors Center; and second to express the hope that the Congress will approve the Commission proposal with such modifications as may be possible to allow the Uso the space needed for all of the free or at-cost “in town” services which should be available in the Nation's Capital for men and women of our own and Allied Armed Forces and for the dependents of our service personnel.

The USO originated early in World War II as "a voluntary civilian organization, established by the six member agencies, through which the people of this country serve the religious, spiritual, social, welfare, educational and entertainment needs of the members of the Armed Forces in the United States and in overseas areas.” The six member agencies are the Young Men's Christian Association, National Catholic Community Service, National Jewish Welfare

« ForrigeFortsett »