[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2109, H.R. 2748, H.R. 3421, AND H.R. 3425
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
December 13, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-80
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
83-959 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Joel Hefley, Colorado Samoa
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Tom Udall, New Mexico
Carolina, Mark Udall, Colorado
Vice Chairman Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mac Thornberry, Texas James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Chris Cannon, Utah Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Hilda L. Solis, California
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 13, 2001................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate to Congress from the
U.S. Virgin Islands........................................ 3
Dreier, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Prepared statement on H.R. 2748.......................... 6
Hastings, Hon. Alcee, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 11
Prepared statement on H.R. 2109.......................... 12
Meek,, Hon. Carrie P., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 7
Prepared statement on H.R. 2109.......................... 9
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, Statement submitted for the record....... 7
Statement of Witnesses:
Barile, Vincent L., Deputy Under Secretary for Management,
National Cemetery Administration, Central Office,
Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, D.C............ 15
Prepared statement on H.R. 2748.......................... 16
Letter submitted for the record.......................... 48
Kelly, Kevin, Member, Mariposa County School Board, Mariposa,
California................................................. 036
Prepared statement on H.R. 3421.......................... 27
Mihalic, David, Superintendent, Yosemite National Park,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Yosemite, California....................................... 22
Prepared statement on H.R. 2109.......................... 23
Prepared statement on H.R. 3421.......................... 26
Prepared statement on H.R. 3425.......................... 28
Rooney, Brian, President, RVETS (Remembering Veterans Who
Earned Their Stripes), Northridge, California.............. 39
Prepared statement on H.R. 2748.......................... 40
Stauffer, Max, President of the Board of Trustees, Bass Lake
Joint Union Elementary School District, Fish Camp,
California................................................. 33
Prepared statement on H.R. 3421.......................... 34
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2109, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY OF VIRGINIA KEY BEACH,
FLORIDA, FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION IN THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM; H.R. 2748,
TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL DATABASE FOR PURPOSES OF
IDENTIFYING, LOCATING, AND CATALOGING THE MANY MEMORIALS AND PERMANENT
TRIBUTES TO AMERICA'S VETERANS; H.R. 3421, TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SCHOOL
FACILITIES WITHIN YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND
H.R. 3425, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO STUDY THE
SUITABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING HIGHWAY 49 IN CALIFORNIA,
KNOWN AS THE ``GOLDEN CHAIN HIGHWAY,'' AS A NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR.
----------
Thursday, December 13, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George
Radanovich [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Good morning. I apologize. For some reason,
I had this down as 10:30. Please forgive me for being late to
my own hearing. There are a lot of important people here and I
apologize. So with that, I will just get going.
The Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public
Lands will come to order. Today, the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Recreation and Public Lands will hear testimony on four
bills, H.R. 2109, H.R. 2748, H.R. 3421, and H.R. 3425.
The first bill, H.R. 2109, introduced by Congresswoman
Carrie Meek, would authorize the Secretary of Interior to
conduct a study on suitability and feasibility of designing a
77-acre Virginia Key Beach in Florida as a unit of the National
Park System. From the late 1940's to the late 1960's, Virginia
Key Beach was the only beach African Americans were permitted
in Dade County, Florida.
Carrie, it is good to see you here today, and glad you are
feeling better.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. You are looking well.
Our second bill is H.R. 2748, introduced by Congressman
David Dreier, and it would authorize the establishment of a
national data base for purposes of identifying, locating, and
cataloging the many memorials and permanent tributes to
American veterans.
The third bill is H.R. 3421, which I introduced and would
authorize the Secretary of Interior to provide supplemental
funding and other services and facilities necessary to assist
the State of California or local school districts in providing
educational services for students attending the three schools
located in Yosemite National Park. I would like to thank Kevin
Kelly from Mariposa and Max Stauffer from Fish Camp for coming
across the country to testify in support of the bill. I would
also like to mention that I plan to continue to work with
members of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee regarding
their concerns over the use of recreation fee demonstration
program funds in the bill.
Our final bill is H.R. 3425, which I also introduced and
would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the
suitability and feasibility of establishing Highway 49 in
California, known as the ``Golden Chain Highway,'' as a
National Heritage Corridor. Highway 49 transverses nine
counties along the Western slopes of the Sierra Nevada
Mountains and remains rich in the history of the 1849 gold
rush. The proposed corridor would run from the city of Oakhurst
in Madera County to the city of Vinton in Sierra County.
At this time, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
Congresswoman Meek and Congressman Dreier be permitted to sit
on the dias following the statements, Congressman Hastings, if
you wish, as well. If there is no objection, so ordered.
[The statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of Hon. George Radanovich, a Representative in Congress form
the State of California
Good morning and welcome to the hearing today. The Subcommittee
will come to order. Today, the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation, and Public Lands will hear testimony on four bills--H.R.
2109, H.R. 2748, H.R. 3421, and H.R. 3425.
The first bill, H.R. 2109, introduced by Congresswoman Carrie Meek,
would authorize the Secretary of Interior to conduct a study on the
suitability and feasibility of designating the 77-acre Virginia Key
Beach in Florida, as a unit of the National Park System. From the late
1940's to the late 1960's, Virginia Key Beach was the only beach
African Americans were permitted in Dade County, Florida. Carrie it is
good to see you here today. I hope you are feeling better.
Our second bill, H.R. 2748, introduced by Congressman David Drier,
would authorize the establishment of a national database for purposes
of identifying, locating, and cataloging the many memorials and
permanent tributes to America's veterans.
The third bill, H.R. 3421, which I introduced, would authorize the
Secretary of Interior to provide supplemental funding and other
services and facilities necessary to assist the State of California or
local schools districts in providing educational services for students
attending the three schools located within Yosemite National Park. I
would like to thank Kevin Kelly from Mariposa and Max Stauffer from
Fish Camp for coming across the country to testify in support of the
bill. I would also like to mention that I plan to continue to work with
Members of the Interior Appropriation Subcommittee regarding their
concerns over the use of Recreation Fee Demonstration Program funds in
the bill.
Our final bill, H.R. 3425, which I also introduced, would direct
the Secretary of Interior to study the suitability and feasability of
establishing Highway 49 in California, known as the ``Golden Chain
Highway'' as a National Heritage Corridor. Highway 49 transverses nine
counties along the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and
remains rich in the history of the 1849 Gold Rush. The proposed
corridor would run from the city of Oakhurst in Madera County to the
city of Vinton in Sierra County.
I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today to
testify on these bills and now turn the time over to Mrs. Christensen.
______
Mr. Radanovich. I would like to thank all of the witnesses
for being here today to testify on these bills and now turn my
time over to Mrs. Christensen.
STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to
welcome all of our speakers here, panelists this morning,
particularly our colleagues who are seated at the table.
As you said, we are going to take testimony on four
unrelated bills this morning. The first bill, H.R. 2109, was
introduced by our friend Carrie Meek and our colleague to
authorize a study by the National Park Service of the Virginia
Key Beach in Florida. This beach derives its importance from
history rather than from its natural or recreational qualities,
because as you pointed out, it was the first beach in South
Florida to be opened to African Americans, and I believe at
that time it was the only beach open to African Americans, and
for many years, it was a popular recreation and meeting place
for the community. I know Congresswoman Meek and I know
personally how hard she has worked to get this hearing and we
are glad we could have it before we go home for the winter
recess.
The second bill, H.R. 2748, sponsored by our Rules
Committee Chair David Dreier, directs the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to develop a data base containing information on all
military memorials in the United States. This legislation
apparently sprang from one individual citizen's attempt to
create a comprehensive list of such memorials and we look
forward to hearing from Mr. Rooney regarding his efforts.
We support the idea but anticipate that whichever agency is
ultimately tasked with this project, be it the VA or the
National Park Service, that they may have some legitimate
concerns with the mechanics of implementing this idea.
Hopefully, the hearing today will provide us with information
that will be helpful to us in pursuing this important goal.
H.R. 3421, which you introduced last week, Mr. Chairman,
authorizes the National Park Service to provide funds and
services to supplement the educational services and facilities
provided to the children of Yosemite National Park employees
and the park concessionaire at three small local schools. It
provides a very unique arrangement for funding schools and we
are interested in hearing more about the implications of that
arrangement.
Finally, H.R. 3425 appears to be a straightforward study to
determine whether Highway 49 in California would qualify for
designation as a National Heritage Corridor. This highway runs
through your district and we look forward to hearing more from
you and from the panelists who have joined us this morning
about the history and character of this area.
So I, too, appreciate the presence of our witnesses and
look forward to hearing their testimony.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen.
We will begin with our first member, Congressman Dreier.
Welcome to the meeting. You are here to discuss H.R. 2748 and
please begin. Thank you for your patience, all of you.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID DREIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Dreier. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let me say
what a great honor it is for me to be before your Subcommittee,
and I want to congratulate you on assuming the very important
Chairmanship of this Subcommittee. I know that your district,
being one of the most spectacular spots on the face of the
earth, which I visited part of, it is almost as nice as some of
South Florida, but it is a beautiful spot and I know that the
people of California are very proud to have you in the position
that you are.
Having met with people from Yosemite, I am always somewhat
embarrassed to say that I have never been there before in my
life. Now, you have extended invitations to me to come and I
do, after this hearing, look forward to having the opportunity
to be there.
Mr. Radanovich. Good.
Mr. Dreier. Let me also, Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Christensen,
say that I, just a few weeks ago, went to give a speech in Key
Biscayne and my dear friend and fellow member of the Rules
Committee, Mr. Hastings, has just informed me that in the
process, I went right by Virginia Key and he has told me about
the important history there. I would like to simply say that
while I have not heard, and, frankly, will be gone by the time
they have testimony because I have to go for a meeting with the
Ambassador from Brazil in just a few minutes, I wholeheartedly
endorse their effort here and believe that the important
history of Virginia Key is something that should be recognized.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Mr. Dreier. Let me say that I am very privileged to be
here, having introduced the legislation that you, Mr. Chairman,
and Mrs. Christensen mentioned. I introduced it along with my
California colleague, Mr. Schiff, and I met with constituents
of mine and heard the story of Brian Rooney, who, as you
mentioned, we will hear from. I should say also that his sons,
Noah and Damon, have joined him here and he is very proud of
them and they of him in this effort that he has put into this
and he is going to, I am sure, be recounting to the
Subcommittee his very moving experience in Vietnam which
motivated him to form the Remembering Veterans Who Earned Their
Stripes organization. When I heard this story, I was inspired
to help him expand his data base to a national level.
I believe that this effort is worthy of our Congressional
support. Now, Mr. Rooney has already worked at the local and
State level to pass legislation in California, and
incidentally, our colleague, Mr. Schiff, when he served in the
California State Senate, led the charge on this, and they
established a State registry of veterans' memorials. As I said,
the legislation passed the California State Legislature last
year, and the legislation that Mr. Schiff and I have
introduced, the National War Permanent Tribute Historical Data
base Act, will expand upon the efforts last year, which
included House Concurrent Resolution 345. This resolution,
which expresses the need for a catalog of public memorials, was
included in Title III of Public Law 106-511, which was signed
into law on November 13 of last year.
Mr. Chairman, once completed, this data base will provide
our nation with an excellent educational resource for future
generations to learn about the contributions from the members
of our armed forces. We all as a nation know that we today are
at war and have seen the tremendous sacrifice of many. At this
moment, the President has just been in the Rose Garden talking
about the 1972 ABM Treaty and our move away from there. We know
that national security is a top priority, and recognizing those
who have fought on behalf of our freedom is a very important
thing for us to do. I think that the proposal that we have
offered here is a reminder of the sacrifice that so many people
have made on behalf of our country.
Mr. Rooney has also attended numerous veterans' events in
order to provide information on his efforts. Veterans' groups
throughout the country, including the Los Angeles County
Veterans' Advisory Commission and the Minority Officers
Association, have strongly endorsed the idea of a national data
base, and I should say Mr. Rooney is also in constant contact
with the Department of Veterans' Affairs and has received
important feedback on his ideas there. I should add
parenthetically that I have had the opportunity to discuss with
Secretary Principi, our fellow Californian, this important
issue, as well.
I want to voice my support for transferring authority to
the data base from the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to the
Secretary of the Interior, because I understand there are some
concerns that the Veterans' Affairs Department has with this.
Those were not voiced to me directly from the conversation I
had with Secretary Principi, but I understand that that has
come forward recently.
With more than 20 battlefields, including many of the major
Civil War sites, currently under National Park Service
jurisdiction, it does seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that it would
be a natural that this agency has the resources necessary to
effectively oversee a war memorial data base.
I will say that I look forward to working with you, Mr.
Chairman, your very able staff here who was extraordinarily
attentive when we came in, telling me that we would start
promptly at ten o'clock--
[Laughter.]
Mr. Dreier. --and I will say that we do appreciate your
support. Let me just again commend my colleagues who are here
at the table with me. I want to encourage you to be just as
attentive to their testimony as you have been to mine. Thank
you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Chairman Dreier. I appreciate
the input and look forward to moving the bill along.
Mr. Dreier. If there are any questions, I am happy to
respond.
Mr. Radanovich. Are there any questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dreier follows:]
Statement of Hon. David Dreier, a Representative in Congress form the
State of California
Good morning, Chairman Radanovich and members of the Subcommittee.
I want to take this opportunity to thank you all for taking the time to
hold this hearing on H.R. 2748, the National War Permanent Tribute
Historical Database Act. As you know, I introduced this legislation
along with my California colleague, Congressman Adam Schiff. After
meeting with a constituent of mine and hearing the story of Brian
Rooney's moving experience in Vietnam, which motivated him to form
RVETS, the ``Remembering Veterans Who Earn Their Stripes''
organization, I was inspired to try and help him expand his database to
a national level. I believe that this effort is worthy of Congressional
support. Mr. Rooney has already worked at the local and state level to
pass legislation in California to require a state registry of veterans
memorials. This legislation passed the California State Legislature
last year. My legislation, H.R. 2748, the National War Permanent
Tribute Historical Database Act, will expand upon my efforts last year
which included House Concurrent Resolution 345. This resolution, which
expresses the need for a catalogue of public memorials, was included in
Title III of Public Law 106-511 which was signed into law on November
13, 2000.
Once completed, this database will provide our nation with an
excellent educational resource for future generations to learn about
the contributions from the members of our armed forces. It will also
serve as another reminder of the sacrifice so many people gave to
defend our country and its democratic ideals. Mr. Rooney has also
attended numerous veterans events in order to provide information on
his efforts. Veterans groups throughout the country, including the Los
Angeles County Veterans Advisory Commission and the Minority Officers
Association, Inc., have strongly endorsed the idea of a national
database. Mr. Rooney is also in constant contact with the Department of
Veterans Affairs and has received important feedback on his ideas.
In addition, I want to voice my support for transferring authority
of the database from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to the Secretary
of the Interior. With more than 20 battlefields, including many of the
major Civil War sites, currently under National Park Service
jurisdiction, I believe that this agency has the resources necessary to
effectively oversee a war memorial database.
I look forward to working with this Subcommittee, as well as the
full Resources Committee, to see that H.R. 2748 receives the
consideration it deserves. Thank you for your time.
______
Mr. Radanovich. The next person to testify, Carrie, it is
good to see you here and glad you are doing better. I have to
tell you, we have a new name for this bill. We think it should
be the ``Carrie Meek's Back to Old Virginny Key Beach Bill.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Radanovich. That is a little bit of Subcommittee staff
humor I thought I would pass along to you, but it is such an
honor to have you here with us. Please take the time to explain
the proposal and begin whenever you are ready.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARRIE MEEK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mrs. Meek. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank your
ranking member and the members of this distinguished Committee
for holding this hearing. I was very, very worried about this
hearing happening this session, so I am so glad and thankful
that you brought it to the Committee.
Holding this hearing is very significant, Mr. Chairman, in
that this Virginia Key Beach is not only of historical
significance, but it is also of cultural as well as
environmental significance, and it shows that all the way back
to the early part of the history of Virginia Key that the
county and the city saw the significance of this in that, at
that time, the beaches were fully segregated and it was
impossible for African Americans to be admitted to any beach,
God-owned beach, in Dade County. So this beach was set aside
for African Americans. I am not sure they knew how important it
was at that time in terms of its environmental importance as
well as other.
I want to say that I am very pleased to have with me a
young man from the Rules Committee. I am not intimidated by the
Chairman nor the ranking member of the Rules Committee being
with me, but I am so glad they are here.
I am also submitting for the record a statement from my
good friend and supporter, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and that has
been submitted for the record.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ros-Lehtinen follows:]
Statement of Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Florida
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to submit a statement on
behalf of this very important bill for my constituents in South
Florida.
H.R. 2109 will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
special resource study of Virginia Key Beach, Florida, for possible
inclusion in the National Park System.
Mr. Chairman, Virginia Key is an area rich in history and meaning
for the people of South Florida. This island, which lies in my
Congressional district, was once the only beach open to African
Americans in Miami. Due to the ``whites-only'' rule, other beaches in
the area were closed to African Americans.
Although Virginia Key was only accessible by boat until the late
1940s, it was a cherished getaway, a social gathering place, and even a
sacred site for religious services. The beach, known at the time as
``Bear's Cut'', enjoyed immense popularity among the African American
population, and at the end of the 1950s, newly arrived Cubans found
that Virginia Key Beach was the one that they preferred.
Virginia Key is a 1,000-acre barrier island with a unique and
sensitive natural environment, it is non-residential, and it is largely
in its natural state, home to ponds and waterways, a tropical hardwood
hammock, and a large wildlife conservation area.
Mr. Chairman, Virginia Key Beach is rich both in history and in
natural beauty. This area is ideal for consideration to be included in
our National Park System and would indeed be a splendid addition.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this bill and I urge the Committee
to approve it as quickly as possible and bring it to the floor for
consideration.
______
Mrs. Meek. This is a beach, Mr. Chairman, that you will
find is being preserved and it is well worth inclusion in the
National Park System. It offers the contributions which I have
mentioned, historical, cultural, and environmental. I have
given each member of the Committee a copy of this booklet,
which is a very good compilation to show the history and the
cultural and the environmental significance of Virginia Key
Beach.
[The information on Virginia Key Beach Park follows:]
[The booklet, ``The Future Development of Historic Virginia
Key Beach Park,'' has been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
Mrs. Meek. You will note that it is comparable to any of
the other units that are included in the National Park Service.
I would like to just take a personal reference, Chairman,
to say to you, many years ago, as they say in my district, back
in the day, I was a member of the National Board of Parks and
Recreation and I have not seen any better unit to be added to
this system than Virginia Key and I am really hoping that this
Committee will see the value in this.
It was the only beach, as I told you, that was created, and
despite the impediments of segregation and many other things,
it became a very thriving center for the good of the social and
cultural aspects of people who live in Dade County. It was used
for baptisms. It was used for courtships. It was for
honeymoons, for organizational meetings. And I must say, Mr.
Chairman, even though I am very young, I did attend Virginia
Key Beach. I carried my children to Virginia Key Beach. So we
used the park very frequently. It was the only thing we had.
It is a national treasure and it stands there as a monument
to America's journey toward racial equality during that time.
As a reminder of our national heritage, Virginia Key sort of
symbolizes the struggle of African Americans in the 20th
century toward the racial segregation, which at that time was
so significant in the South.
Now, I must mention that the National Park Service has very
few sites of civil rights significance. Of the 385 units that
are presently in the National Park System, only four have been
designated to commemorate the civil rights era. This is
important, Mr. Chairman. Recent studies have shown that there
is very low participation by African Americans in the National
Park System. I am not sure why this is so, but I am sure that
an addition of a park such as this would certainly add to a
better participation by minorities, particularly African
Americans, because it does show the civil rights struggle as
well as a beautiful environmental area.
In addition to that, any environmentalist who attends and
looks at this park will know that it is an exceptional national
resource that is characterized by a unique and sensitive
natural environment.
I could go on all day, Chairman Radanovich, about Virginia
Key Beach. I am going to submit my remarks for the record. But
it is so important that this Committee realize that if you were
to carry this bill forward, you would really be carrying
forward a milestone in the development of the National Park
System. It is a 1,000-acre barrier island. Although there has
been some limited development, the island is non-residential
and includes ponds and waterways, a tropical hardwood hammock,
and a large wildlife conservation area.
It is home to more than 25 species of birds during the
winter. The water is shallow there. It contains numerous grass
beds that support manatees, young sea turtles, and many
juvenile fishes.
Finally, let me note that Virginia Key's excellent location
and its outstanding accessibility makes it very attractive to
anyone who would visit that area. Other natural exhibits that
are there and attractions, such as Everglades National Park,
Big Cypress and Biscayne National Park, are extraordinary
resources, but they are not readily accessible as Virginia Key
Beach. Virginia Key Beach is accessible. There is even a metro
bus transportation connection near there.
It occupies, Mr. Chairman, a very important place in the
hearts of all of us in South Florida. Its value to the Nation
and to Florida is based not just on its natural beauty, but
also on its legacy of the ongoing struggle of African Americans
for equal rights and social justice.
I am not nearly the civil libertarian as my fellow
Congressperson is, but I can say to you that this park has
really shown a significant part of our history and the
struggles we have had and would ensure that Virginia Key Beach,
if it is nationally recognized, we are sure that it will be
preserved and protected for future generations.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank your
ranking member and each member of this important Committee for
allowing this hearing. Thank you very much. Pass the bill, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mrs. Meek.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Meek follows:]
Statement of Hon. Carrie P. Meek, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida
Chairman Radanovich, Ranking Member Christensen and distinguished
members of the Committee, thank you for holding this hearing on my
bill, H.R. 2109, which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a special resource study of Virginia Key Beach in Miami,
Florida, for possible inclusion in the National Park System.
I would like to enter for the record a statement of support by my
colleague and friend, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen who was unable to attend
this hearing. I am also proud and grateful to the entire South Florida
delegation for sponsoring my bill.
I believe that Virginia Key Beach in Miami, FL provides an
excellent nexus among history, culture, and nature that is similar to
many other units of the National Park System and in accord with the
Park System's mission.
Virginia Key Beach is an historically important and environmentally
significant place worthy of being preserved and studied for inclusion
in the National Park System.
I have given each Member of the Committee a booklet that provides a
brief history of Virginia Key Beach and outlines some of the efforts
being made to restore this significantly historic site.
Mr. Chairman, Virginia Key Beach was the only beach in Miami where
African Americans could go to swim in the 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s.
``Virginia Key Beach, a Dade County Park for the exclusive use of
Negroes'' opened on August 1, 1945. Until that time, Miami's beaches
had been reserved for whites only.
Dade County created the park in response to the efforts of the
African-American Community to integrate the beaches in Miami.
In May 1945, community leaders and members of the Negro Service
Council (NSC), a forerunner of the Urban League of Greater Miami,
decided to force the issue to allow blacks to use a beach. They
discussed a ``wade in'' at an all-white beach called Baker's Haulover.
They wanted to force the arrest of the blacks for wading in the water
at a white beach. They were aware of recent decisions by the Supreme
Court that had ruled that segregation of public lands and parks was
unconstitutional.
When sheriff's deputies were called to the beach, Dade County
Sheriff Jimmy Sullivan ordered them not to arrest the bathers knowing
that the action was indefensible in court. On June 5, 1945, the Miami
Herald reported that County Park Superintendent would announce plans
for a Negro beach.
The location for a beach was less than ideal; there was no bridge
and the only way to get there was by taking a boat from the Miami
River.
Despite these impediments, African Americans made Virginia Key
Beach a thriving center for their social and cultural activities.
Virginia Key Beach quickly became a cherished getaway, a social
gathering place, and even a sacred site for religious services.
The beach was the site for baptisms, courtships and honeymoons,
organizational gatherings, visiting celebrities and family recreation.
In its heyday, the parking lots were usually full on weekends, as
families flocked to enjoy their little piece of paradise and children
hopped on the Mini-Train or on the Merry-Go-Round.
Even after integration granted everyone a free choice of recreation
areas, Virginia Key Beach remained the popular preference for many in
the Black community.
I used the park frequently myself and brought my children there
when they were young. The fact that I am in Congress today shows how
much society has changed in the intervening years.
Virginia Key Beach is a national treasure that stands as a monument
to America's journey toward racial equality. As a reminder of our
national heritage, Virginia Key Beach symbolizes the struggle of
African Americans in the 20th Century during the era of racial
segregation in the South and at the onset of the Civil Rights Era.
Mr. Chairman, there are few of these sites in the National Park
System. Out of 385 units currently in the Park System, only 4 have been
designated to commemorate the Civil Rights Era. This is important. We
do not do enough of this.
In addition to representing an important part of the history of
African Americans in the Southeastern United States, Virginia Key Beach
also is an exceptional natural resource characterized by a unique and
sensitive natural environment.
The beach is part of Virginia Key, a 1000-acre barrier island that
is situated just off the mainland of the City of Miami, between Key
Biscayne to the south and Fisher Island to the north.
Although there has been some limited development, the island is
non-residential and includes ponds and waterways, a tropical hardwood
hammock, and a large wildlife conservation area.
The northwest portion of the island and adjoining waters are prime
areas for local and migratory wildlife. The Key is home to more than 25
species of birds during the winter, while its shallow waters contain
extensive grass beds that support manatees, young sea turtles, and many
juvenile fishes.
Our society values things that are rare. This Congress has often
expressed its belief in the importance of historic preservation.
Undeveloped, natural areas on coastal, barrier islands are
extraordinarily rare. We should place a high value on preserving them.
Finally, let me note Virginia Key Beach's excellent location and
its outstanding accessibility. Other national attractions such as
Everglades National Park, Big Cypress and Biscayne National Park are
extraordinary resources, but they are not readily accessible for
individuals without personal transportation. Virginia Key is
accessible. There is the Miami-Dade Metro Bus connection that is
further enhanced by a good link to South Florida's Metro Rail.
The huge numbers of tourists that fly into Miami, go on a cruise
and then fly out of Miami, often do not have time for side trips to the
Keys or the Everglades. They might, however, be able to find the time
for a beach outing, a cultural/historical experience or a naturalist-
led walk on Virginia Key Beach.
Mr. Chairman, Virginia Key Beach occupies a special place in the
heart of all of us from South Florida. Its value to the nation and to
Florida is based not just on its natural beauty, but also in its legacy
of the ongoing struggle of African Americans for equal rights and
social justice.
HR 2109 is an important step in recognizing this special place not
only as a valuable piece of South Florida's history and culture, but
also as part of our national heritage. Inclusion in the National Park
System would ensure that Virginia Key Beach is preserved and protected
for future generations.
Thank you once again for holding this hearing and for your
consideration of this bill. I look forward to working with you to pass
this legislation, before this session of Congress concludes.
______
Mr. Radanovich. I would like to introduce Congressman
Hastings, since we are talking about the same issue, and then
ask any other members afterwards on the panel that want to ask
questions to please do so, and then invite you to join us on
the dais.
Congressman Hastings, welcome. It is an honor to have you
here and thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF HON. ALCEE HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a real honor
to appear before you and your ranking member as well as all the
other members of this Committee, all I call my friends. But I
am here today with my best friend in Congress and she is my
biggest booster next to my mom, so when she talks that stuff
about me being young, it is serious for me.
In addition, no pun is intended, but Carrie has covered the
waterfront on this issue, so there is very little left for me
to say. I would be remiss, however, in spite of his absence, I
do serve with my good friend and colleague, Chairman Dreier, on
the Rules Committee and I thought it was more than thoughtful
of him to be complimentary of this legislation as offered by
Mrs. Meek and I really appreciate him doing that.
This is not meant to be a mutual admiration society, but
the measure that he brings, if all the mechanical hitches can
be worked out between Interior and Veterans, then it would seem
to me more than logical. As a matter of fact, when Chairman
Dreier and I were speaking earlier before this hearing, I had
no knowledge that such a data base did not exist in the first
place. It just seems to be a make sense proposition and I am
sure that the Committee is going to give it active
consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my full statement for
the record. It is brief, and I, too, shall be brief.
Mr. Radanovich. It will be included.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you. With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I
really am 65 years young, and I was born in Altamonte Springs,
Florida. During the halcyon days of segregation, there were
four beaches--I do not know whether Mrs. Meek knows this--in
Florida that African Americans could go to. I was fortunate in
that I lived in Central Florida, that approximately at the
Fourth of July or the holiday period, my parents would take it
upon themselves to go to some of those beaches.
One was American Beach, interestingly named, in
Jacksonville, Florida. The other was Dr. Lowrey's Beach in
Leesburg, Florida, which is in Central Florida, and was very
close to us so we went there frequently. The other, I did not
get to know until I moved to South Florida 40 years ago and
that was still during the halcyon days of segregation. The
other was the Colored Beach in Dania, Florida. It has an
interesting history. I do not think it deserves the same
recognition as Virginia Key does, Virginia Key being the fourth
of only four places for all African Americans. There were none
on the West Coast of Florida. Fort Myers, you could not go to
the beach.
I might add, when we say you could not go to the beach, we
sneaked on the beach, you understand, and there were folks, I
might add a significant number of people, that were seeing to
it that we had those opportunities.
But this was a place where people congregated. As Carrie
has said, it is a place where people were baptized, and I can
recall as a young man, young lawyer, coming to South Florida
and knowing that I wanted to go to the beach, either with then
my girlfriend, later to be my wife, and whatever other fun
activities, we would look forward to going to Virginia Key.
I heard about Virginia Key when I was in elementary school,
and it was 40 years later before I had an opportunity to go
there. It has an enormous history.
The most important thing that I think this Committee would
take into consideration, and I will stop right here, is it adds
nothing to the national debt. It would be one thing if we were
here asking for money. Basically, what we are asking for is to
preserve a legacy of a well-deserved project brought to us by
one of the hardest working people on behalf of all of her
constituents in South Florida, and I beg the Chairman and your
members of the Committee to give positive consideration to this
legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member, for permitting
me to testify before you today. It is a real honor.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Hastings.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Statement of Hon. Alcee L. Hastings, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony
to the Committee on behalf of H.R. 2109, a bill which I have
cosponsored that would authorize the Secretary of Interior to conduct a
special resource study of historic Virginia Key Beach, Florida, for the
inclusion into the National Park System. Mr. Chairman, and the members
of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to support a very
important bill which will allow Congress to preserve and protect this
beautiful beach site area.
This legislation allows for the beautiful palm-studded old Florida
beach located on a 1,000-acre barrier island, one of Miami's real
treasures, to be recognized as a National Park. Miami's historical
Virginia Key Beach has been one of Florida's most beautiful and unique
areas since 1896. Virginia Key was at one time one of Miami's most
popular beaches for African-Americans to enjoy.
Mr. Chairman, this bill does not add to the national debt, so there
is no need to oppose it for economic reasons. This bill does not change
any of the requirements for the inclusion process for national parks.
All this bill calls for is the recognition of the 77-acre historic
Virginia Key Beach site in Miami, Florida. Passing this bill would both
a reasonable and responsible approach in recognizing the significant
value of this former ``colored beach''. Florida needs a place that is
recognized for it's historical significance, a place that can be
enjoyed today for both recreational purposes and so that people can
learn about the history of this extraordinary scenic recreational site.
I appreciate the opportunity to come before the Committee and hope
for the passage of this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Are there any questions from any other
members on the Committee, the Subcommittee? Mr. Souder?
Mr. Souder. Congresswoman Meek or Congressman Hastings,
does Miami have plans to keep the rest of the key in a
relatively natural state?
Mrs. Meek. Yes, they do. Miami does. It belongs to the city
of Miami and they do have plans to keep it well.
Mr. Souder. Would there be an uncomfortability if the
legislation moves forward of putting some obligations on Miami
and Florida to participate in maintaining an area so you do not
get it isolated, an isolated place where people can go but, in
fact, it gets surrounded either by commercially selling the
land or by other types of development? It would be important if
it became part of the Park Service.
If I can add to that, it may be that this would fit a
lakeshore type of situation or a historical park. It does not
necessarily need--I mean, there are different types of units.
Have you given any thought to that?
Mrs. Meek. We worked very closely with the city of Miami.
At this point, there are no plans for such kinds of eroding
development. Right now, it is a natural site and it appears
that they want to keep it a natural site. Of course you know,
politically, there are always some people who want to add
development to a beautiful, pristine area such as this. Right
now, there are no plans for such development.
Mr. Souder. It is an important concept in the Indiana Jones
lakeshore off of Chicago, where many people for years went, and
now as we try to rebuild that park, if you do not have some
protections, it is better to head it off early than to try to
undo it later--
Mrs. Meek. Yes, you are right.
Mr. Souder. --because it is costing us far more for each
little acre getting back from the different industries and the
development than it would have ever if there had been longer-
term planning.
Mrs. Meek. Yes, sir. The Committee with whom we have worked
very closely, the Virginia Key Park Commission, which was
commissioned by the city of Miami, has been quite a strong
watchdog toward this type of thing. At this point, I can say
those things are not relevant. I mean, they have not come
across. They have fought anything that has in any way
jeopardized the development of Virginia Key. That is not to say
what will happen in ten, 15 years from now, but right now,
there is nothing on the books for it.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Mr. Holt?
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whenever our colleague
Alcee Hastings speaks, he makes a compelling argument, and I do
not know how anyone could say no to Carrie Meek. I think this
is a fine idea and I look forward to this legislation moving
along.
I do have a question about what has been done so far to
record, interpret, and present the social history of this
important area that was so important in the lives of so many
people. I gather it is really the role that Virginia Key Beach
played in the lives of people that we are trying to recognize
here, more than the physical spot, and I would like to know
what has been done up to this point.
Mrs. Meek. Well, the Black Archives History Research
Association of Dade County and in Florida has done significant
work in preserving historically what has been done at Virginia
Key Beach. This has been a significant project which has been
supported and developed by not only the city of Miami, but the
county, as well, and it is an important site in the civil
rights significance of the natural trails that have been
recognized by the Florida Legislature. So there is quite a bit
of preservation work done with this particular park and this
particular site. Alcee?
Mr. Hastings. If I may add, Mr. Holt, and thank you for
your clarifying compliment, the archivist that Carrie speaks of
is one of the nation's more prominent ones. Her name is Dorothy
Fields, and Dorothy some time ago, not only as it pertains to
Virginia Key but all of the history of African Americans in
that portion of Florida and South Florida, and this Congress
has participated in funding a project that will also cover the
preservation of not only Virginia Key but all of it in Fort
Lauderdale, in my district, which is going to be one of the
preeminent, and I mean most sincerely, one of the preeminent
black archivist places for scholars to study, but enough.
I would go back to Mr. Souder's point very quickly of this
area is 77 acres and has been for a long time considered an
area of preservation. But lest we leave here with anybody
thinking that it is still a colored beach, what normally has
happened in these situations, when you all discovered what we
had, all of a sudden you began to use it, and so the beach is
very well used by everybody. Let me make that very clear.
Mrs. Meek. And one other significant thing, Mr. Chairman,
if you will allow me to speak again, is that with the efforts
of this Congress, the Corps of Engineers has taken a very
strong role in redeveloping the beach in terms of beach
restoration. That is a very big problem in Florida, beach
restoration. We have quite a few storms and hurricanes, and as
a result, many of the beaches lose the sand. So the Corps of
Engineers has come in, thanks to this Congress, and they have
restored the beach. They have done a lot of work in the barrier
islands to make this a better place to develop a park.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
Ms. McCollum?
Ms. McCollum. No questions.
Mr. Radanovich. No questions? Our next panel includes Mr.
David Mihalic from Yosemite, but he is also here representing
the Park Service on this issue, so you are more than welcome to
join us on the dais if you have any questions. Thank you very
much.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Our next panel includes the Honorable
Vincent Barile, who is the Deputy Under Secretary for
Management of the National Cemetery Administration of the
Department of Veterans' Affairs in Washington, D.C. Mr. Barile,
thank you very much for being here. It also includes the
Honorable David Mihalic, who is the Superintendent of Yosemite
National Park with the National Park Service, Department of
Interior, here to speak on two bills regarding Yosemite, but
also representing the Park Service on Virginia Key Beach. Mr.
Mihalic, welcome as well.
Mr. Barile, if you would like to begin regarding your
testimony on H.R. 2748, on the American Veterans' Memorials
bill.
STATEMENTS OF VINCENT L. BARILE, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR
MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION, CENTRAL OFFICE,
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Barile. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today regarding H.R. 2748, also known as the
National War Permanent Tribute Historical Data base Act. I have
submitted my written testimony for the record.
The Department of Veterans' Affairs' mission is ``to care
for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and
his orphan.'' These words, spoken by Abraham Lincoln in his
second inaugural address, form the basis for the Department's
existence. In today's environment, President Lincoln's
statement reflects VA's responsibility to serve America's
veterans and their families. In fulfillment of these
responsibilities, VA's focus is on provision of direct
beneficiary services.
My organization, the National Cemetery Administration, is
one of three administrations within the Department of Veterans'
Affairs. We operate and maintain 120 national cemeteries across
the country. During the last fiscal year, we maintained over
2.4 million gravesites of veterans and their dependents. We
performed over 84,000 burials of both casket and cremated
remains and we provide over 300,000 headstones and markers.
Our country is now losing our World War II and Korean War
veterans at an increasing rate. We lost an estimated 663,000
veterans in fiscal year 2001. In the next couple of years, we
expect the death rate to peak, which means 1,800 veterans will
die each day. We are committed to continue to meet the burial
needs of our veterans today and in the future.
H.R. 2748 would require VA to expand its mission to include
establishing and maintaining a data base for permanent
memorials located worldwide. For the reasons below that I am
going to elaborate on, VA cannot support enactment of H.R.
2748.
Based on our research, the data base contemplated by this
bill would tend to duplicate resources already available.
Certain Federal agencies and numerous private organizations
already maintain publicly accessible Internet data bases that
provide information about national war memorials. The
Smithsonian Art Museum currently maintains a data base located
on the Internet as part of its Save Outdoor Sculpture project.
Over 32,000 sculptures and monuments are listed, of which over
4,000 entries relate to veterans.
The National Park Service maintains several searchable data
bases on its Internet home page, included data bases for the
National Register of Historic Places, National Historic
Landmarks, Historic Buildings and Structures, and military
history. Also, the American Battle Monuments Commission, an
organization in charge of maintaining American cemeteries
abroad as well as several war memorials, has information on its
website regarding the memorials under its jurisdiction.
The creation, oversight, and management of a worldwide
inventory of American war memorials of this magnitude would
exceed the current mission capabilities of VA, which involve
administration of quality health care to veterans, provision of
monetary assistance to disabled veterans, and the operation of
the national cemeteries. If a website were created to
consolidate historical information and data on war memorials,
VA could provide information on its cemeteries and war
memorials under its jurisdiction.
VA's policy on information technology is that only data
that has been verified by VA may be displayed on its website.
Thus, any information provided to VA for its website would have
to be independently verified by the VA before it could be used.
Further, any project outsourced to a private entity, the
cost of which exceeds $1 million, must be approved by VA's
capital investment proposal process and would be subject to
governmental contracting procedures. VA cannot accurately
estimate the cost of this project, since the number of
memorials that would be inventoried is not known. However,
maintaining and updating the data base would be an ongoing
project, the cost of which could not be covered by a one-time
appropriation.
Our veterans have fought and paid for our nation's freedom
and independence. We all owe them a great deal and we should
honor their memories. It is important to remember that VA's
primary mission is to meet the medical benefits and burial
needs of our veterans and their veterans and survivors.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I will be
pleased to respond to any questions you or the members of the
Subcommittee may have.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Barile.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barile follows:]
Statement of Vincent L. Barile, Deputy Under Secretary for Management,
National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today regarding
H.R. 2748, also known as the ``National War Permanent Tribute
Historical Database Act.'' This bill, if enacted, would ``authorize the
establishment of a national database for purposes of identifying,
locating, and cataloging the many memorials and permanent tributes to
America's veterans.''
The Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) mission is ``to care for
him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his
orphan.'' These words, spoken by Abraham Lincoln in his second
inaugural address, form the basis for the Department's existence. In
today's environment, President Lincoln's statement reflects VA's
responsibility to serve America's veterans and their families with
respect and compassion, and to be their principal advocate in promoting
the health, welfare, and dignity of all veterans in recognition of
their service to our Nation. In fulfillment of these responsibilities,
VA's focus is on provision of direct beneficiary services, not
performance of historical research and archival functions.
VA is organized into three main administrations: the Veterans
Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and the
National Cemetery Administration (NCA). My organization, NCA, is
responsible for meeting the burial needs of our Nation's veterans. We
operate and maintain 120 national cemeteries across the country-we
consider these our ``national shrines.'' In fiscal year 2001, we
maintained over 2.4 million gravesites of veterans and their
dependents. This number continues to grow. In fiscal year 2001, we
performed over 84,000 burials of both casketed and cremated remains.
NCA is also responsible for administering the headstone and marker
program-we provided over 300,000 headstones and markers in fiscal year
2001. Our country is now losing our World War II and Korean War
veterans at an increasing rate-we lost an estimated 663,000 veterans in
fiscal year 2001. In the next couple of years, we expect the death rate
to peak, which means 1,800 veterans will die each day. We need to stay
focused on how we can continue to meet the burial needs of our veterans
today and in the future.
H.R. 2748 would require VA to expand its mission to include
establishing and maintaining a database of permanent memorials located
worldwide commemorating military conflicts of the United States or the
service and sacrifice of any United States Armed Forces veteran. The
database would provide information on the location, history, and
background of each memorial. The database would be accessible to the
public through the Department's Internet website in a format that would
permit the public to submit information on war memorials for the
purpose of updating and expanding the database. The proposed
legislation would also authorize a one-time appropriation of $3.2
million to implement the worldwide database project. For the following
reasons, VA cannot support enactment of H.R. 2748.
Based on our research, the database contemplated by H.R. 2748 would
tend to duplicate resources already available, and the need for such an
additional database has not been demonstrated. Certain Federal agencies
and numerous private organizations already maintain publicly accessible
Internet databases that provide information about national war
memorials. Two Federal entities, the Smithsonian American Art Museum
(Smithsonian) with its partner Heritage Preservation, Inc., a private
non-profit, and the National Park Service, already have active
databases containing thousands of national war memorial and monument
entries. The Smithsonian maintains a database located on the Internet
at www.siris.si.edu as part of its Save Outdoor Sculpture! project.
Over 32,000 sculptures and monuments are listed, of which over 4,000
entries relate to veterans. Information on these war memorials can be
accessed by using a variety of search terms under the ``Art
Inventories'' link located on the Smithsonian home page. The National
Park Service has also catalogued thousands of structures, memorials,
markers, and plaques located on national park lands that are associated
with wars and military history. The National Park Service maintains
several searchable databases on its Internet homepage ``Park Net'' at
www.nps.gov, under the icon ``Links to the Past,'' including databases
for the National Register of Historic Places, National Historic
Landmarks, Historic Buildings & Structures, and Military History.
If the contemplated database were to be created, neither VA nor
NCA-the VA component that would most likely be responsible for the
project-would be equipped to administer it. The creation, oversight,
and management of a worldwide inventory of American war memorials would
exceed the current mission and capabilities of VA, which primarily
involve administration of quality health care to veterans; provision of
monetary assistance to disabled veterans and their families,
dependents, and survivors; and operation of the national cemeteries. VA
lacks the infrastructure and staff that would be necessary to develop
and maintain the contemplated database. Alternatively, VA could provide
information on its cemeteries and war memorials under its jurisdiction
through another entity that maintains a publicly available database.
For example, if a website were created to consolidate historical
information on war memorials, VA could share historical information and
data on structures located in all of its 120 cemeteries.
The proposed legislation anticipates that VA may contract with a
private nonprofit corporation, Remembering Veterans Who Earned Their
Stripes (RVETS), which has already developed a working database of war
memorials, for information or services to assist in the development and
implementation of the database. VA's policy on information technology
is that only data that has been verified by VA may be displayed on a VA
website. Thus, any information obtained from RVETS would have to be
independently verified by VA before it could be used. Further, although
the proposed legislation refers to RVETS by name as a potential
contractor, any project outsourced to a private entity, the cost of
which exceeds $1 million, must be approved by VA's Capital Investment
Proposal process and would be subject to Government contracting
procedures.
VA cannot accurately estimate the cost of this project, since the
number of memorials that would be inventoried is not known. However,
maintaining and updating the database would be an ongoing project the
cost of which could not be covered by a one-time appropriation.
Our veterans have fought and paid for our Nation's freedom and
independence. We all owe them a great deal, and we should honor their
memories. It is important, though, to remember that VA's primary
mission is to meet the medical, benefits, and burial needs of our
veterans, and their dependents and survivors.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be pleased to
respond to any questions you or the members of the Subcommittee may
have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. I think what we will do is ask you
questions regarding this bill, and then Mr. Mihalic will be
responding to the remaining three bills, so I will go ahead and
start with some questions. Other members are able to, and then
we will take testimony from Mr. Mihalic.
Mr. Barile, you had mentioned in your testimony that the
legislation would duplicate data bases already in existence.
Does the Department believe that these data bases collectively
represent all the memorials, monuments, and tributes that exist
today, especially in non-Federal sites?
Mr. Barile. I do not believe we feel that it is
comprehensive. In our own world of the VA, we are embarking
upon doing our own inventory and validating that inventory. I
would suspect that there is not a complete inventory anywhere.
Mr. Radanovich. And may I assume it is the Veterans'
Affairs Department that has come to the conclusion that these
memorials and the sites and the data bases should be managed by
the National Park Service? If I am correct in that, then can
you give me an explanation as to why?
Mr. Barile. I would have to defer to the Park Service. We
are not suggesting that it belongs with the Park Service. We
are suggesting that it does not belong with the VA.
Mr. Radanovich. OK. Can you tell me, of the different sites
that you know across the country, what is the percentage that
you have in your data base? How much might be missing?
Mr. Barile. I do not believe I have that information. We
probably could try and find that for the record for you.
Mr. Radanovich. If you could generate that for us, that
would be appreciated.
Mr. Barile. Will do.
Mr. Radanovich. Any questions from any other members?
Mr. Souder. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Souder?
Mr. Souder. I just have a question, a couple of different
things. I want to put kind of a plug in for something that is
coming up the road. The American cemetery at Normandy, which I
believe comes under the Department of Veterans' Affairs, is
that correct?
Mr. Barile. No. That comes under the American Battle
Monuments Commission.
Mr. Souder. Then I will not ask you that question. In your
statement where you catalogued all the different places you
could go to try to find veterans' memorials, my assumption is
that the thrust of this goal is to make that somewhat
manageable. In my home area, for example, we have a Veterans'
Park that had the first real developed Korean memorial. They
are looking to build a chapel there. We have a Vietnam
veterans' memorial. We have a World War I memorial arch. If
they went to the Veterans' Department home page, are they
likely to find any of those?
Mr. Barile. No, sir, they would not. The only memorials you
will find, and as I said, we are starting to do that, are our
own. We recently hired an historian and we are doing our own
inventory and validating. Principally, we look at the 2.4
million headstones and memorials as a memorial to the veterans'
service. We have that catalogued. We are almost completed with
that data base.
What we are now looking at is the historic structures
within the cemeteries, as well as some of the structures that
are within the hospital system, on those lands. At that point,
then, we would be able to say within the VA boundaries. We are
not capable of validating memorials that are outside of our
jurisdiction.
Mr. Souder. That tremendously clarifies what the depth of
the problem is, because many of the memorials, in addition to
the Civil War sites--let me ask this question. At Gettysburg,
for example, what would come under Veterans' and what would
come under the Park Service? Is the cemetery under Veterans'?
Mr. Barile. No. The cemetery at Gettysburg is under the
National Parks. It is a national cemetery, but it is not under
the VA's jurisdiction.
Mr. Souder. And certainly none of the memorials to the
soldiers who died at Gettysburg or at other parks would be
under the Veterans'?
Mr. Barile. We have many Civil War cemeteries, not
necessarily Gettysburg, but we have Civil War dead buried in
our national cemeteries.
Mr. Souder. But a memorial, a tribute to them, unless it is
in the cemetery, U.S. veterans' cemetery, would not be in your
data base?
Mr. Barile. That is correct.
Mr. Souder. And I think this illustrates some of the
problem. How to get to this is a difficult question. But, for
example, there is a big battle, so to speak, as to whether at
some of these sites we should have the memorials. There was a
period when we felt we should put memorials. The historic
preservationists like the memorials. The natural
preservationists want them off the battlefields. That is
something, I am sure, of interest to veterans. How do they
engage in that?
To use my own examples from Fort Wayne, the arch might be
under Historic Landmarks. The Korean veterans' memorial, if you
were looking for that, it is hard to tell how you would find
it, and I think that is part of the idea behind this
legislation. I mean, I have been further confused that Normandy
is not under the Veterans', nor is the Gettysburg battlefield,
but in some cases, Civil War people would be under a cemetery
where you are or are not. The memorials may or may not be, even
if they are on Federal property. Some are under the Park
Service, some are under yours, some are independent, and I
think that is partly what is trying to be put together here.
Part of my frustrations as a business person coming into a
parks area is trying to look at things as categories and how
Americans who want to love and preserve their cultural history
can get a handle on the diversity of it if you do not have an
MBA in searching through government sites.
Mr. Barile. We agree with your frustration. We often get
communications about A, B, and C cemeteries. Arlington is not
ours, also. Arlington belongs to the Department of the Army,
even though it is a national cemetery. So I understand your
frustration and confusion. What we try to do is we put up our
own website and we talk to the Park Service and/or Arlington
and we let them know what we have and what is available and try
to have that hyperlinked, so to speak.
Mr. Souder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Souder.
Mrs. Christensen?
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The bill authorizes just the maintenance of a data base. I
mean, we are not trying to put everything under the VA's
jurisdiction. It is maintaining a data base. What I am hearing
is that you object to the bill--you are not objecting to the
data base, you are objecting to the fact that it is under the
Veterans' Administration, that it would be placed there.
Mr. Barile. That is correct. We feel that it is, to
reference the Congressman's point, it is confusing for people.
We agree that there is a need for maybe some centralized
accountability. But as I said in my testimony, some of that is
already existing in other entities. Now, it is not consistent.
Some may have pictures, some may have descriptions. Our concern
is that that falls beyond the jurisdiction of what we would
feel comfortable maintaining.
Mrs. Christensen. Well, it is veterans and it just seems to
me it should be done by the Veterans' Administration, but the
bill also authorizes an appropriation to carry out the Act. It
would not ask the Veterans' Administration to do it and use the
funds that are already there for something else. There is also
funding in the bill to create the data base.
Mr. Barile. Any data base, once created, has to be
maintained, updated, and again, I go back to the issue about
validation. There are numerous monuments and memorials on
private lands and public lands that are not within the
jurisdiction of any Federal entity, and to put that on a
website which then would be out for public consumption without
feeling comfortable as to the authenticity of it, we have some
concerns about that.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen.
If there are no other questions, Mr. Mihalic, would you
like to respond or have any input on behalf of the Department
of Interior on this particular bill or this issue?
Mr. Mihalic. Mr. Chairman, the Department does not have a
position on this bill. I would be happy to respond to any
questions. I do know that--this is a point of clarification.
The monuments that we do have on our existing data base that
were referred to are monuments and memorials at places, as Mr.
Souder said, for example, at Gettysburg. In fact, almost 90
percent of them are on National Park units where there are
monuments and memorials to the Civil War, also to the
Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, but most of those are on
National Park units themselves.
Mr. Radanovich. I see. Would you be looking forward to the
increased responsibility of maintaining a data base if it were
given to you?
Mr. Mihalic. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that--obviously,
if Congress wants us to do that, we would look forward to it
with great interest.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mihalic. But I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that--I
think the concern is that, as Mr. Barile said, there are
literally tens of thousands of these on every courthouse lawn
and the cornerstone of every VFW building, and I am not sure if
that is an appropriate place that the National Park Service
should be. But we would be honored to try to help the
Department of Veterans' Affairs in terms of trying to provide
any type of expertise that we could or to support them. I mean,
we would certainly be happy to support them in their efforts to
catalog.
Mr. Radanovich. Good answer.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Radanovich. Any other questions? Yes?
Mr. Souder. Mr. Mihalic, could I ask you a brief question
about the studies question which comes up, because we pass
bills to do studies all the time. What does, and my
understanding from your written testimony on one of these, that
few studies are done per year. Is there an appropriation line
specifically for studies? How do you decide which studies you
are going to do in queuing up?
Mr. Mihalic. We have about, I believe, 41 studies right now
and I am not sure whether they all have appropriations with
them to do the studies. But our capability to do studies is
that we can do only a few each year.
Mr. Souder. Is that a staffing issue?
Mr. Mihalic. I think it is probably staffing and also the
other responsibilities that we have.
Mr. Souder. And if appropriations were assigned for the
study, do you know from your background, are the appropriations
to cover the staffing or the field work? In other words, if
there is an appropriation attached to it--in other words, we
understand the difference between authorizing. That is
symbolic. If it does not have any money, it has to get in a
queue system and maybe see the light of day.
If that gives you the flexibility as a member to go try to
get an appropriation for it, is the backlog in studies--which
since right now the administration's position is no new net
land, almost everything coming through is a study--that is
clearly going to backlog that system unless we can figure out a
way to fund the studies. And even a further side thing to that
is, is it always necessary to do a study or sometimes can you
move to implementation? I do not have a concept in my head how
the Park Service handles a study versus an implementation.
Mr. Mihalic. I believe with respect to appropriations, I
believe that we do go through the normal process when we
propose studies for a particular fiscal year. I will be happy
to provide some clarifying information on that to make sure
that I have got that right.
With respect to the other part of your question in terms of
the Department's policy on studies, I am not sure we have a
formal policy on studies, but I do know that the National Park
Service ordinarily believes that a study of the significance of
a unit is really the best way to go to determine if it does
rise to the level of national significance that makes a
particular site or an area an appropriate addition to the
National Park System. So usually, we certainly prefer to engage
in a study as opposed to just go straight to the establishment
of a park where perhaps we have not had the opportunity to see
if it is of National Park significance.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Chairman, maybe you could have the
Department of Interior give us just a rough idea of how many
studies they come back with a recommendation they do not do
that are different from their--in other words, often, they
oppose any new additions to the Park Service anyway, but do the
studies really make a difference or is that merely a kind of a
delay tactic of buying time? That is my curiosity.
Mr. Radanovich. Probably a little of both, but I know that
we will be discussing that in regard to Mrs. Meek's bill and
mine, as well, so naturally I want mine No. 1 and Mrs. Meek
wants hers No. 2, ahead of the 41.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Radanovich. So that is kind of what we are going to be
pushing for. But seriously, though, we are going to be
discussing this further, I think, as we talk about these other
bills. Is it something specific that you want to request, Mark,
regarding the 41, or--
Mr. Souder. Well, I am wondering if they have any kind of
historic track record of study requests passed by Congress and
then what happens to those study requests.
Mrs. Christensen. And how many studies become part of the--
Mr. Souder. Yes. I will work with language. Some of those
studies may be--how many studies annually does Congress pass
and how many are actually implemented, and of those studies
that are actually implemented, how many of those actually
become parks versus come back as a recommendation, ``no,''
because what we may see is like a 10-year queue line that, in
reality, has no impact on whether the things become a park or
not.
Mr. Radanovich. Yes. I think that we can certainly, if we
can formulate the request, I am sure the Park Service would be
happy to comply with providing the information.
Mr. Souder. And it may be that what happens is it does not
really change it, but it changes the targeting of the request
and makes the park more effective.
Mr. Radanovich. Sure. Right.
Mr. Souder. But to kind of understand the relationship
between the studies and just the passage of a bill.
Mr. Radanovich. Sure. Let us make it. You will work with us
and the staff to put that language together, certainly.
Thank you, Mr. Mihalic, and also, Mr. Barile, thank you
very much for coming here to speak on this particular bill.
Next, Mr. Mihalic, I think what we would like to do is
discuss the Virginia Key Beach bill and then also the two bills
that I have before the Committee, as well. So if you would like
to provide an opening statement on those three, that would be
great.
STATEMENT OF DAVID MIHALIC, SUPERINTENDENT, YOSEMITE NATIONAL
PARK, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Mihalic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Christensen.
I will summarize my remarks and ask that the full statement be
added as part of the record.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of Interior's views on H.R. 2109. The Department
believes that it is appropriate for the National Park Service
to undertake a study of this nature and supports the
legislation and concept. However, in light of the President's
commitment to replacing the backlog of deferred maintenance
needs within the National Park System, we will not be
requesting funding for this study in this fiscal year.
Nonetheless, our support of this study legislation should
not be interpreted as to mean that the Department would
necessarily support designation of a new unit of the National
Park System. The study would evaluate the site's national
significance and the suitability and feasibility of designating
it as a unit of the National Park System. The guidelines
specifically state that studies consider other alternatives for
protection of the subject area besides direct management by the
National Park Service.
At the present time, efforts are underway locally to
promote recognition and restoration of Virginia Key Beach Park.
In 1999, the city of Miami appointed the Virginia Key Beach
Park Civil Rights Task Force to study and make recommendations
for the site. A nomination for the National Register of
Historic Places is currently being prepared for the site, and a
special resource study conducted by the National Park Service
would draw from the information compiled through these efforts
and facilitate decisions about the appropriate means to
recognize and protect the site.
We recommend one technical amendment to H.R. 2109, which is
to change the name of the site in the bill text and the title
from ``Virginia Key Beach'' to ``Virginia Key Beach Park.''
Although the names have been used interchangeably, using the
term ``Virginia Key Beach Park'' would help clarify that the
study is focused on the 77-acre recreationsite and does not
include the entire beach of Virginia Key.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement and I will be
happy to answer questions that you or the Committee will have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mihalic follows:]
Statement of David Mihalic, Superintendent, Yosemite National Park,
National Park Service, Department of the Interior on H.R. 2109
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H. R. 2109. This bill would
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource
study of Virginia Key Beach in Biscayne Bay, Florida, where a
recreational community for African Americans flourished at a time when
non-whites were prohibited from using other beaches in the Miami area.
The Department believes that it is appropriate for the National
Park Service to undertake a study of this nature, and supports this
legislation in concept. However, in light of the President's commitment
to reducing the backlog of deferred maintenance needs within the
National Park System, we will not request funding for this study in
this fiscal year and, because we need to devote available time and
resources to completing previously authorized studies, we would not be
able to begin the study until at least fiscal year 2005. There are 41
authorized studies that are pending, and we only expect to complete a
few of those this year.
Furthermore, in order to better plan for the future of our national
parks, we believe that studies should carefully examine the full life-
cycle operation and maintenance costs that would result from each
alternative considered. Additionally, our support of this study
legislation should not be interpreted to mean that the Department would
necessarily support designation of a new unit of the National Park
System.
H. R. 2109 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
special resource study of Virginia Key Beach in Biscayne Bay, Florida.
The study would evaluate the site's national significance and the
suitability and feasibility of designating it as a unit of the National
Park System. The bill calls for the study to be completed under the
guidelines in Section 8 of P.L. 91-383, the National Park Service
General Authorities Act of 1970, as amended, which contains the
criteria for studying areas for potential inclusion in the National
Park System. The guidelines specify that studies consider other
alternatives for protection of the subject area besides direct
management by the National Park Service.
Virginia Key Beach Park is a 77-acre site on the southeastern side
of Virginia Key, an island of approximately 1000 acres located two
miles east of downtown Miami, Florida and about one mile southwest of
the southern tip of Miami Beach. Although there has been some limited
development, the island is non-residential and includes ponds and
waterways, a tropical hardwood hammock, and a large wildlife
conservation area.
In the summer of 1945, at the ``whites-only'' Baker's Haulover
Beach in north Dade County, a group of black men led by Judge Lawson E.
Thomas staged a protest of the segregation laws that prohibited black
persons from using the public beaches of Miami and Dade County. In
response to the protest, county officials created a public beach for
the black community on Virginia Key, which opened on August 1, 1945.
The beach at Virginia Key had been used by African Americans for at
least the two previous decades. During World War II, the Navy used
Virginia Key Beach for training African American servicemen who were
not permitted to train in the waters along the ``whites-only'' beaches.
It was not until 1945, however, that the county began building
recreational facilities there and making the beach more accessible by
providing ferry boat service until the completion of the Rickenbacker
Causeway in 1949 allowed access by automobile.
Virginia Key Beach Park had bathhouses, picnic pavilions, a
concession stand, and a carousel and other amenities. The beach
remained segregated through the 1950's, until rights laws opened all
the public beaches in the area. Still, through the next two decades,
Virginia Key Beach remained a popular destination for many in the black
community. In 1982, the area was transferred from the county to the
City of Miami with the stipulation that the area be kept open and
maintained as a public park and recreation area. However, the city
closed Virginia Key Beach Park shortly after the transfer, citing the
high cost of maintenance and operations. After nearly 20 years of non-
use, the bathhouse, concessions building and other facilities have
fallen into disrepair.
At the present time, efforts are underway locally to promote
recognition and restoration of Virginia Key Beach Park. In 1999, the
City of Miami appointed the Virginia Key Park Civil Rights Task Force
to study and make recommendations for the site, one of which was to
establish a more permanent entity to carry on the work of the task
force. The Virginia Key Beach Park Trust was established in January,
2001, to implement the task force's recommendations. A nomination for
the National Register of Historic Places is currently being prepared
for the site. A special resource study conducted by the National Park
Service would draw from the information compiled through these efforts
and facilitate decisions about appropriate means to recognize and
protect this site.
We recommend one technical amendment to H.R. 2109, which is to
change the name of the site in the bill text and the title from
``Virginia Key Beach'' to ``Virginia Key Beach Park.'' Although the
names have been used interchangeably, using the term ``Virginia Key
Beach Park'' would help clarify that the study is focused on the 77-
acre recreation site and does not include the entire beach of Virginia
Key. It also would be consistent with the name that is being used for
the site in the nomination for the National Register of Historic
Places.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Mihalic. Would you like me to go ahead into the next
testimony?
Mr. Radanovich. Why do you not go ahead and open those up,
too, and then we will go right through.
Mr. Mihalic. Mr. Chairman, this statement is to present the
views of the Department of Interior on H.R. 3421. As I said
earlier, I will summarize these remarks and ask that the full
statement be made a part of the record.
While the Department believes that the students who attend
schools in Yosemite National Park should have access to the
same educational services and facilities found elsewhere in the
State of California, we are concerned over the source of funds
identified to accomplish the purposes of the bill, as well as a
few other provisions in the bill. We would welcome the
opportunity to work with the Committee to identify an
appropriate source of funds and to clarify certain provisions,
but cannot support the bill in its current form.
The administration is generally concerned about the notion
of diverting limited park funds to what is essentially a State
responsibility. We do not want this to set a precedent that
parks should take over responsibility for schools or create a
National Park Service school system.
Because the schools in the park are located long distances
from administrative offices of their school districts, there
has been limited access to services that are normally available
to students that attend schools elsewhere. For example, access
to teachers to serve students with special needs is very
limited, and road and weather conditions can often further
reduce teachers' abilities to reach the park. Subjects such as
band, art, music, choir, or even physical education are
provided only if the parents are able to find additional
funding or to hire an aide. Many facilities are in need of
repair or do not meet standards.
Recruitment and retention of employees at Yosemite National
Park is also adversely affected by the quality of park schools.
Many highly qualified NPS employees with school-age children
who might otherwise be interested in applying for jobs at
Yosemite are discouraged from doing so because of the school
situation. Recently, a highly qualified individual declined to
accept an offer for a division chief position at the park after
realizing that the schools did not meet the special needs of
his child. Park employees often cite the schools as a major
factor in their decision to transfer from Yosemite to other
assignments.
The Department has a number of specific concerns regarding
the bill. First, the legislation provides for an inappropriate
use of recreation fee receipts. In addition, we believe that
funds made available to the park for flood recovery should not
be made available for purposes of this legislation. We suggest
that the bill be amended to provide only for the general upkeep
and maintenance of school facilities, not new construction.
Second, the bill allows the Secretary to adjust payments if
funding from the State of California or local school districts
is reduced. In order to clarify that payments made by the
Secretary are intended to supplement, not replace the funding
provided by the State, we would suggest that this section be
amended and would be happy to work with the Committee.
And finally, the bill authorizes the Secretary to enter
into cooperative agreements with the State or local school
districts, and we believe that this authority should be limited
to circumstances in which the Secretary concurs in the opinion
that educational facilities and services cannot reasonably be
provided by the State of California or the local school
districts that serve the park. Absent this limitation, the
legislation would, in effect, provide an incentive for local
school districts to cease operating the Yosemite schools, even
if they could reasonably continue to staff them.
We believe this legislation is a good start at providing
the means to improve the schools in Yosemite National Park and
look forward to working with the Committee on identifying an
appropriate funding source and clarifying the role of the
Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks and I will be happy
to answer any questions that you or the members may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mihalic follows:]
Statement of David Mihalic, Superintendent, Yosemite National Park,
National Park Service on H.R. 3421
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on H. R. 3421. This bill would authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to provide supplemental funding and other
services and facilities that are necessary to assist the State of
California or local school districts in providing educational services
and facilities for students attending schools located within Yosemite
National Park.
While the Department believes that students who attend schools in
Yosemite National Park should have access to the same educational
services and facilities found elsewhere in the State of California, we
are concerned over the source of funds identified to accomplish the
purposes of the bill, as well as other provisions in the bill. We would
welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee to identify an
appropriate source of funds, and to clarify certain provisions, but
cannot support the bill in its current form. The Administration is
generally concerned about the notion of diverting limited park funds to
what is essentially a State responsibility. We do not want this to set
a precedent that parks should take over responsibility for schools or
create an NPS school system.
Schools have been located within Yosemite National Park for over
125 years to serve the needs of park employees and their children. At
present, two elementary schools are located within the park at Wawona
and in Yosemite Valley. A third elementary school and a small high
school are located in El Portal, the park's administrative site located
on Federal property just outside the park boundary. Most students
attend the larger county high school in Mariposa because of the lack of
opportunity for a comprehensive program at the El Portal school.
The Yosemite Valley School has about 46 students in grades
kindergarten through eighth grade, divided into three classes. The
amount of funding from the State of California, according to a formula
based on average daily attendance, actually supports only two teachers,
but a third is funded by a one-time special grant from the U.S.
Department of Education.
The elementary school in El Portal has 50 students in seven grades,
divided into multi-graded classrooms. The Wawona school is like the old
``one-room'' schoolhouse, with 20 children in grades K-S, and one
teacher. Because the current funding formula provides for only one
teacher, and the maximum teacher/student ratio has been reached, the
school is unable to serve more than 20 students. Consequently, there
have been instances in which parents were left with the choice of
either home-schooling their children or transporting them on their own
to schools elsewhere. Some parents have elected these options
voluntarily because of the conditions at the Wawona school.
Because the schools in the park are located long distances from the
administrative offices of their school districts, there has been
limited access to services that are normally available to students that
attend schools elsewhere. For example, access to teachers to serve
students with special needs is very limited, and road and weather
conditions can often further restrict teachers' abilities to reach the
park. Subjects such as band, art, music, choir, or even physical
education are provided only if parents are able to find additional
funding to hire an aide. Many facilities are in need of repair or do
not meet standards.
While teachers at the Yosemite schools are as committed as teachers
anywhere else, the quality of education that students receive in these
schools suffers as a result of lack of funding and staffing. For
example, teachers who teach only one grade level can focus on
curriculum and standards for that grade, while teachers in the Yosemite
schools must spread their time and energy across multiple grade levels.
In addition to their educational duties, they must also tend to
administrative duties normally performed by other employees. As a
result, despite their best efforts, teachers at the Yosemite schools
are unable to give the time or attention necessary to provide the
quality of education that the students deserve.
Recruitment and retention of employees at Yosemite National Park is
also adversely affected by the quality of the park schools. Many highly
qualified NPS employees with school age children who might otherwise be
interested in applying for jobs at Yosemite are discouraged from doing
so because of the school situation. Recently, a highly qualified
individual declined to accept an offer for a division chief position at
the park after realizing that the schools could not meet the special
needs of his child. Park employees often cite the schools as a major
factor in their decision to transfer from Yosemite to other
assignments.
The Department has a number of specific concerns regarding this
bill. First, the legislation provides for an inappropriate use of
recreation fee receipts, particularly since it has no connection to the
benefits provided to the visitors who are paying the fee. In addition,
we believe that any funds made available to the park for flood recovery
should not be available for purposes of this legislation, nor should
the bill authorize the use of Federal funds for facility construction.
We suggest that the bill be amended to provide only for general upkeep
and maintenance of school facilities, not new construction.
Second, the bill allows the Secretary to adjust payments if funding
from the State of California or the local school districts is reduced.
In order to clarify that payments made by the Secretary are intended to
supplement, not replace, the funding provided by the State or local
school districts, we would suggest that this section be amended, and
would be happy to work with the Committee to develop the appropriate
language.
Finally, the bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter
into cooperative agreements with the State of California or local
school districts for the operation, expansion, or construction of
schools located within or near the park at Federal expense. We believe
that this authority should be limited to circumstances in which the
Secretary concurs in the opinion that educational facilities and
services cannot reasonably be provided by the State of California or
the local school districts that serve the park. Absent this limitation,
the legislation would, in effect, provide an incentive for the local
school districts to cease operating the Yosemite schools, even if they
could reasonably continue to staff and fund them.
While we strongly believe that the responsibility for providing
educational services rests with the State of California, we realize
that the quality of education received by the children of park
employees and others who attend the Yosemite schools is dependent on
the resources of the local school districts. We believe that this
legislation is a good start at providing the means to improve the
schools in Yosemite National Park, and look forward to working with the
Committee on identifying an appropriate funding source and clarifying
the role of the Secretary in assisting the State of California and the
local school districts with providing educational services and
facilities at the park.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you or any members of the Subcommittee
may have.
______
Mr. Mihalic. And then on the--
Mr. Radanovich. Go ahead. Please continue.
Mr. Mihalic. And then on the Golden Chain Highway bill, I
will summarize my remarks and ask that the full statement be
made a part of the record.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of Interior's views on H.R. 3425. The Department
supports this legislation but will not consider requesting
funding for the study in this or the next fiscal year so as to
focus available time and resources on completing previously
authorized studies. As of now, there are 41 authorized studies
that are pending and we only expect to complete a few of those
this year. We caution that our support of this legislation
authorizing a study does not necessarily mean the Department
will support designation of a National Heritage Area.
The study would be done in consultation with affected local
governments, the State of California, State and local Historic
Preservation offices, community organizations, and the Golden
Chain Council.
Highway 49 traverses the area where gold was discovered and
mined during the California gold rush and passes through the
heart of an area that includes communities with many gold rush
related structures and sites. The discovery of and search for
gold in California transformed the nation. The discovery of
gold brought California into the United States as the 31st
State and it prepared the way for the United States to span the
width of North America and accelerated the exploration and
settlement of the American West.
The National Park Service has had some inquiries in the
past year from Historic Preservation groups, nonprofit
organizations, and business groups seeking additional
information about Heritage Areas in general and a possible
Highway 49 Heritage Corridor. A study of the area would allow a
determination of the level of support that might exist in the
area and would help identify further protection and
preservation options.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks and I will
be pleased to answer any questions you or members of the
Committee may have.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Mihalic.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mihalic follows:]
Statement of David Mihalic, Superintendent, Yosemite National Park,
National Park Service on H.R. 3425
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H. R. 3425. This bill would
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and
feasibility of establishing Highway 49 in California, known as the
``Golden Chain Highway'', as a National Heritage Corridor.
The Department supports this legislation, but will not consider
requesting funding for the study in this or the next fiscal year so as
to focus available time and resources on completing previously
authorized studies. As of now, there are 41 authorized studies that are
pending, and we only expect to complete a few of those this year. We
caution that our support of this legislation authorizing a study does
not necessarily mean that the Department will support designation of
this National Heritage Area. The Administration is determined to
eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog in national parks, but the
costs of new parks or other commitments, such as grants for new
National Heritage Areas, could divert funds from taking care of current
responsibilities. Furthermore, in order to better plan for the future
of our National Parks, we believe that any such studies should
carefully examine the full life cycle operation and maintenance costs
that would result from each alternative considered.
H. R. 3425 requires the National Park Service to complete a special
resource study on the national significance, suitability, and
feasibility of establishing Highway 49 in California as a National
Heritage Corridor. The study would be done in consultation with
affected local governments, the State of California, state and local
historic preservation offices, community organizations, and the Golden
Chain Council.
The bill would require the study to include an analysis of the
significance of Highway 49 in California from the city of Oakhurst in
Madera County to the city of Vinton in Plumas County. The study would
examine the lands, structures, and cultural resources within the
immediate vicinity of the highway, options for preservation and use of
the highway, and options for interpretation of significant features
associated with the highway. The bill would also require the study to
examine alternatives for preservation of these resources by the private
sector.
Highway 49 traverses the area where gold was discovered and mined
during the California Gold Rush, and passes through the heart of an
area that includes communities with many Gold Rush-related structures
and sites. It is the principle route of travel linking these major Gold
Rush sites, and provides access to numerous State Historic Parks and
museums related to the Gold Rush.
The discovery of and search for gold in California transformed the
nation. ``Gold fever'' was a national experience, spreading throughout
the country and the world and precipitating a massive migration to
California. The discovery of gold brought California into the United
States as the 31st state, preparing the way for the United States to
span the width of the North American continent, and accelerating the
exploration and settlement of the American West. Legends and literature
have expanded the reach of the Gold Rush story, through the work of
nationally significant writers such as Mark Twain and Bret Harte.
The area along Highway 49 retains many Gold Rush-era resources,
including two National Historic Landmark Districts in the towns of
Columbia and Coloma, and numerous properties and districts that are
included on the National Register of Historic Places. The State of
California has recognized the significance of this area through the
establishment of several State Historic Parks and mining museums, and
designation of Highway 49 as a State heritage corridor and a State
scenic highway. Many of the towns along Highway 49 retain much of their
historic integrity, and have sought to preserve and promote their Gold
Rush history.
As we have testified previously before this Subcommittee, there are
several steps we believe should be taken prior to Congress designating
a national heritage area to help ensure that the heritage area is
successful. Those steps are:
1. Lcompletion of a suitability/feasibility study;
2. Lpublic involvement in the suitability/feasibility study;
3. Ldemonstration of widespread public support among heritage area
residents for the proposed designation; and
4. Lcommitment to the proposal from the appropriate players which
may include governments, industry, and private, non-profit
organizations, in addition to the local citizenry.
The National Park Service has had some inquiries in the past year
from historic preservation groups, non-profit organizations, and
business groups seeking additional information about heritage areas in
general and a possible Highway 49 Heritage Corridor. A study of the
area would allow a determination of the level of support that might
exist in the area and would help identify further protection and
preservation options. A critical element of the study will be to
evaluate the integrity of the resources and the nationally distinctive
character of the region before recommending national heritage area
designation.
We would suggest a technical amendment to clarify that the city of
Vinton is located in Plumas County.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. I would like, if there is no objection from
the Committee, to defer the first questions regarding Virginia
Key to Mrs. Meek. Carrie, if you would like to begin that, that
would be great.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you very much, and thank you, member of
the National Park Service.
I am a little concerned and also disappointed with the
National Park Service looking at a paucity of historical civil
rights parks that the Service would not sooner than now
recognize that this is a need in this country, to try and have
this open so that all members of this country will understand
the history of this country, and another civil rights park
would mean quite a bit toward that goal, it would appear to me.
I pretty much know the history of the Park Service, having
served on your board for many years. I am yet to understand why
you would need a study from the Congress to impose upon you to
do such a study. It would appear to me that you would want to
do this and it would be one of your requests that you would
give to this Committee sooner than now.
I would ask you to give me some rationale as to why it is
so late in terms of your history to request this, not only not
to request it, but to indicate that you would not want such a
study done until 2005, and then knowing that you are already
falling some odd studies behind, that this becomes a part of
antiquity before such a study is made and before such a park is
built.
I think the Service needs to come up more or less to date
with what is going on in America today, to look at the
population. Look at the ethnicity of people who attend your
parks and you will notice that very few Hispanics, very few
blacks, very few Asians. This is your new population. You are
not back in the 1960's and 1970's, as when I served on your
commission. You are now in the 1980's and the 1990's and 2000's
and I am just hoping the Service would come to that point.
So my question is, when will the Park Service begin to look
at these kinds of things and make recommendations on its own to
the Congress for such an advancement?
Mr. Mihalic. Mrs. Meek, I very much appreciate your remarks
and I think that the Department's position on this should not
be construed as having anything to do with the merits of this
particular bill in terms of the civil rights nature. We are
presently engaged in a theme study, as I am sure you are aware,
on civil rights actions and that has resulted in a number of
other areas already, the Selma Bridge, for example, and
Tuskeegee Airmen and Brown v. Board of Education in Kansas, and
those sites have come into the system.
I believe that in this particular instance, the date is
merely predicated on the fact that we have so many other
requests from Congress to do other studies. I do not think it
has anything to do with the merits of the study for Virginia
Key Park.
Mrs. Meek. If I may go a little further, Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate that particular answer and I am sure it is a valid
one. Yet, on the other hand, among all the studies that you
have, it appears that the Service should look at the
methodology by which you are conducting these studies to see
that, after all of these years, you have been unable to catch
up. That, to me, would be a mandate for the Service, to look at
some means of changing your methodology so you could not only
do the studies, but if you do not do the studies, find some
other methodology to determine how you are going to face that.
That is all I need to say, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you so much.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Ms. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Mrs. Christensen?
Mrs. Christensen. On H.R. 3421, is Yosemite National Park
unique in having employee children attend the local schools?
Mr. Mihalic. I believe it is unique in that there are only
a handful of parks that have schools within the park, and in
Yosemite's case, while there are some parks that have one
school within the park, in Yosemite's case, it actually has
three elementary schools and a small high school located at
Wawona in Yosemite Valley inside the park, and then at El
Portal administrative site, which is on Federal land just
outside.
Mrs. Christensen. In your statement, you had said that
there were several provisions that needed to be clarified. Are
you talking about the fact that there should be supplemental
funding and that the funding for the school should not come out
of the fee program? Are those the clarifications? You said
there were certain provisions that needed to be clarified
within the bill. What were those?
Mr. Mihalic. I believe it was the funding source, and then
also to ensure that the money was intended to supplement funds
provided by the State or local school districts, and then also
to ensure that the Secretary would not be in a position of
determining whether schools were adequate, but would concur in
the opinion of school districts in the State of California. It
was to clarify the Secretary's role.
Mrs. Christensen. What would, if you know the answer to
this, what is the expected annual contribution of funds to
these particular schools?
Mr. Mihalic. Right now, there are some who feel that it
would be on the order of a couple of hundred thousand dollars a
year per school. The schools range in size from one of the
schools with 20 students but nine grades, K through eight,
literally the one-room schoolhouse, up to the two elementary
schools have about 50 students each. They are right at the
point where less than 50 students, they only have two teachers
for multiple grades. Over 50 students, they can get a third
teacher.
But the situation is such that many people have either
chosen to home school their children or to take their kids out
of school and drive them someplace else because it is very
difficult. The teachers are committed, and try as they might,
it is difficult for teachers to meet present day standards for
three, four, or even eight grades and really give the kids, the
students, the attention they deserve.
Mrs. Christensen. I can imagine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen.
Mr. Souder?
Mr. Souder. Having visited Yosemite, I certainly see the
pressures on Yosemite's school system. Grand Canyon has a
similar school similarly a long way from the entrance,
particularly as we have dropped the speed limits into the
center of the parks, for justifiable reasons, it takes longer
to get to the center of those parks. Yellowstone would have
similar. I do not know whether Mesa Verde has a school, but
certainly all their Park Service housing is somewhere between
45 minutes and an hour from the edge of the park.
One thing you can immediately see if you would go through
Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, and Mesa Verde is that
many of the pinnacle parks in the Park System that
superintendents and other people would strive to work at, in
effect become a limitation on families with children. At the
same time, this is a difficult question to resolve because this
becomes ever increasingly expensive when you try to deal with
IDEA, computer type of things, and I am not sure how we do this
and I am not necessarily willing to say that all employees
should be moved out of the heart of the park, which is one of
the trends, because then you have incredible commuting
questions in, service questions for the population.
There is not an easy resolution to this, but I would
suggest it is not just a Yosemite problem. It is unique because
of the multiple schools, but my guess is there may be places in
Alaska, any place there is a big park that is kind of off in
the pinnacle of the Park System.
I wanted to share a concern about using demonstration fees,
which I think are one of the greatest innovations, and part of
the public support is that they see a reduction in backlog
maintenance, and to the degree it becomes operating, we are
going to have some problem sustaining that, which I believe is
an excellent concept which has enabled us to do much in our
national parks. And if we are not clear on what that fee and
how that fee is used, we could get into a real murky situation
nationally.
Other than that, it is your district and your important
problem, but I wanted to share a couple thoughts, that it does
go beyond your district, too.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much. And to clarify, the
issue really is an appropriations issue, much like T-21 was,
for something like this. The school district is looking for a
committed stream that may not be subject every year to an
appropriations. The Appropriations Committees, of course, do
not like to make commitments beyond 1 year in many cases.
So we are working with the Department of Interior to
develop language that we think will work and be
noncontroversial. It is our desire to create something that we
could move through on a suspension calendar, meaning that
everybody would be pleased and happy and supportive of it. So
we are going to continue our dialog to make sure we can come up
with that kind of language and, hopefully, take care of the
education needs of park employees inside the park.
You mentioned the transportation issues. Of course, in
Yosemite, nothing is ever very clear. In some cases, it does
make sense to move people out of the park and transport them
in, but that does not mean you can move everybody. There are
some people that should stay in the park and, therefore, have
educational needs for their kids.
Yosemite is one of those ideal places where something seems
simple at first, but the more you get into it, the more
complicated it is. But it is a beautiful place and we want to
take care of the people that work there.
Are there any other questions of Mr. Mihalic?
[No response.]
Mr. Radanovich. If not, Mr. Mihalic, thank you so much for
being here. We appreciate your testimony on all the issues.
Mr. Mihalic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. With that, we have a vote going on. It is
on the Department of Defense authorization conference report.
It is only one vote, so we are going to recess just for a
minute and go over and vote and everybody is encouraged to be
right back here. We will start our third panel. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Radanovich. We are back in session. I would like to
introduce our third panel. We have Mr. Brian Rooney, who is
President of RVETS, or Remembering Veterans Who Earned Their
Stripes, from Northridge, California, to speak on H.R. 2748. We
also have Mr. Max Stauffer, who is Chairman of the Bass Lake
School District in Fish Camp, California, and Mr. Kevin Kelly
is a member of the Mariposa County School Board from Mariposa,
California, a great place where I happened to be born.
Welcome, gentlemen. I appreciate your making the trip here
to Washington to testify on these important bills. What I would
like to do is have everybody testify on each one and then we
will open it up for questions. We will begin with you, Mr.
Stauffer, and if you would like to introduce any support group
that you have with you, we would be happy to hear about that.
STATEMENT OF MAX STAUFFER, CHAIRMAN, BASS LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT,
FISH CAMP, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Stauffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to do
that. It is an honor to be here today. Thank you for giving us
the time. The parents in the communities in our school district
appreciate the time, also.
At this time, I would like to introduce the teaching
principal at Wawona, Dr. Michelle Horner. She has been there
about 21 years. She has expertise in education with the
countless years she has been at that school. Also, Dr. Pizello,
who was our superintendent at the Bass Lake School District for
10 years and now has served us as a consultant for the last 5
years. He has been very involved in this issue and just really
cares about kids. They are great people.
Mr. Radanovich. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Stauffer. Thank you. They will be available to answer
any questions. They have tremendous expertise.
Mr. Radanovich. Max, before you get going, we have got a
clock here. There is a green light. The yellow light means
speed up. Red means stop. We would like to hold everybody to 5
minutes or less on their opening statements. I am not a real
cop about this thing, but if you can stick within the 5
minutes, that would be just fine.
Mr. Stauffer. Sure. The Bass Lake School District serves
families in the Sierra Nevada Mountain communities of Awani,
Bass Lake, Oakhurst, Fish Camp, Sugar Pine, and Wawona. The
district is comprised of six schools with an enrollment of
1,200 students. Our boundaries stretch over 360 square miles,
with elevations ranging from 2,000 to 5,000 feet.
Wawona School, located in Yosemite National Park, is our
smallest site, with an enrollment of 20 students, many of whom
are children of National Park and Yosemite concessions
employees. The school is isolated from the rest of the district
by over 20 miles of mountainous roads that can be treacherous
during the winter months. Travel to the district office in
Oakhurst and back can be an impossible task during heavy snows
or rain.
Wawona is a one-room classroom, a school with one teaching
principal covering seven grade levels, kindergarten through
sixth. She is an extremely committed and caring individual who
works tirelessly to provide the best education possible under
very difficult circumstances. Because of its size and
geographical location, Wawona School is very difficult to serve
equitably. Services such as special education, speech services,
reading remediation, fine arts, foreign language, and library
services are very limited or not provided at all. While
students at our other sites have these programs available,
because of the distance and difficulty of travel, staffing of
these services is cost prohibitive.
The Bass Lake School District currently runs Wawona at a
$100,000 deficit because State funding does not take into
consideration the uniqueness of its location and multi-grade
teaching environment. Because the deficit affects the ability
to provide an education to the other 1,180 students in the
district, there is pressure from some to close Wawona School.
This situation is no longer acceptable to the parents or
trustees serving them. The projected $12.5 billion California
budget shortfall severely compounds our problem.
Over the past year, parents, community members,
administrators, and school board members from both the Bass
Lake School District and the Mariposa School District have been
meeting to solve some of the education problems facing the
schools in the park. Superintendent Mihalic has been very
helpful and cooperative in our search for solutions. With the
help of Congressman Radanovich and his staff, we are closer to
resolving our problems.
The solution involves a high level of cooperation between
the two school districts and the Park Superintendent. It
involves allowing funds from the National Park to be used to
help improve the educational opportunities for its employees'
children. Yellowstone Park has a system in place whereby the
Park Service actually contributes to the school district.
Similar legislation would allow the Secretary of the Interior
to enter into voluntary agreements with the two local school
districts.
The additional funding provided for within these agreements
would be used to increase the level of service for special
education students, help make up the deficit factor that
impacts other schools in the district, provide for after school
tutorials, implement reading intervention in the primary
grades, and implement gifted and talented programs and bring in
specialists for fine arts, science, and physical education.
This solution would begin a process to solve educational
problems that have been in existence for several decades. The
Bass Lake School District Board of Trustees enthusiastically
support H.R. 3421.
Ladies and gentlemen, this issue is not about inflating
school bureaucracy, nor is it about increasing teacher
salaries. This issue is about equity. It is about the kids in
Yosemite. They deserve a quality education. We respectfully ask
for your support of H.R. 3421. Again, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stauffer follows:]
Statement of Max Stauffer, President, Board of Trustees, Bass Lake
Joint Union Elementary School District
The bill before you addresses identified needs of students
attending schools created to educate children of Yosemite National Park
employees, concessionaire employees, and families living within and
adjacent to the boundaries of the Yosemite National Park. Because of
the size of the schools, the placement of those schools, and the
methods of funding for all schools within the state of California,
there have been many parents who feel that students within those
schools are at a disadvantage. Simply put, state funding of very small
schools has been inadequate. This problem has been facing Yosemite for
decades. Turnover in park management, school board membership, and
parents within the schools have worked against addressing those
problems.
Parents, community members, administrators, and school board
members from both the Bass Lake School District and the Mariposa School
District have been meeting to solve some of the educational problems
attendant to the schools located in the Yosemite National Park. The
park superintendent has been kind enough to work with these people to
help find solutions. In that vein we have been working with Congressman
Radanovich to address our needs. A brief description of the problems is
delineated below.
The Bass Lake Joint Union Elementary School District is one of two
districts tasked with providing educational opportunities for the
children of Yosemite Park employees and the employees of
concessionaires within the Park. The Wawona School comprises
approximately 1.6% of the total enrollment of The Bass Lake School
District. The Mariposa Unified School District is the other school
district serving Yosemite National Park. The El Portal and Yosemite
Valley Schools constitute approximately 3.8% of the enrollment of the
Mariposa Unified School District. While both school districts have
dedicated a far greater percentage of the total district budget to
service the children of park children than is generated, the nature of
the schools and where they are placed creates severe problems in terms
of equitable educational opportunity.
For instance, Wawona School, with 20 children, has a need for
special education services for one and sometimes two students. Children
with special needs in other schools receive daily attention for half an
hour at a time and the district is able to do that because there are
enough children to warrant having a full time teacher at a site. There
are not enough children with need at Wawona to justify a full time or
even half time teacher for the site. The distance to Wawona and the
travel time necessary to bring a teacher from a population center to
Wawona during inclement weather, however, make it impossible to hire an
employee for part time work. No one is willing to commit to that travel
for the small amount of available work time. Similarly, it is
impossible to take time from another employee and assign that person to
Wawona because much of their available work time would be dedicated to
travel. The financially driven solution then is that the students with
need only receive services once per week rather than on a daily basis.
This is not an educationally acceptable solution. Similar problems
occur in the areas a specialty reading problems, speech and hearing
needs, music, after school tutoring, 1st grade reading intervention,
and a myriad of other programs generally available to most students.
The Mariposa School District faces the same difficulties. The Bass Lake
School District currently runs that school at over a $100,000 per year
deficit because of the size and distance factors. Because the deficit
affects the ability to provide an education to the other 1180 students
in the district, there is pressure to close the school. This in, turn,
would exacerbate the problem of educational quality for National Park
families.
As budget restrictions have become more and more common, it has
become more difficult to justify the current level of expenditures even
though educational opportunity equity might demand an increase in
funding. The State of California has gone from having a 12 billion-
dollar surplus to a 12 billion-dollar deficit in the last six months.
The two districts have been working with the parents, the school
boards of the two districts, the administrations, and the
representatives from the National Park Service to cooperatively find
solutions to the educational and fiscal difficulties that the districts
confront. It has been gratifying to see such a large group of people,
with such diverse interests, come together for a common cause. It
appears that, through the diligence of David Mihalic (the Yosemite
National Park Superintendent) and the parents and community members
within and adjacent to Yosemite National Park, a set of solutions may
be possible.
It is important to note that both the Mariposa and the Bass Lake
School Districts have made tremendous efforts to solve the funding
problems. They are constrained however, by the budgetary restrictions
attendant to running larger school districts.
Recruitment of personnel in Yosemite National Park depends, to some
degree, on being able to offer a first class education to children of
those personnel. For this reason it is in the best interest of the
National Park Service to team up with the parents and the school
districts. And they have done that.
The Yellowstone National Park faced similar problems and came up
with a solution for their problems with specific legislation. (P.L. 80-
604;62 Stat. 338) This legislation allowed Yellowstone to assist in
providing educational opportunities. Similar legislation would allow
the Yosemite National Park administration to enter into voluntary
agreements with the two local school districts. Those agreements would
be designed to not only assist the school districts with supplemental
funding but to allow for better educational opportunities. The
additional funding provided for within these agreements would be used
to increase the level of service for special education students, make
up the deficit factor that impacts other schools in the district,
provide for after school tutorials, implement reading intervention in
the primary grades, implement gifted and talented programs, and bring
in specialists for music, science, and physical education. It is our
understanding that these funding solutions would have no impact on the
Federal budget because the source of funding comes from existing
available dollars.
This solution would begin a process to solve educational problems
that have been in existence for several decades. Needless to say, the
Bass Lake School District Board of Trustees and the Mariposa Board of
Trustees enthusiastically support this legislation.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Stauffer.
Mr. Kelly, welcome.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN KELLY, MEMBER, MARIPOSA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
MARIPOSA, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
opportunity to testify. I am here today to represent my
interests as it relates to H.R. 3421, and I believe I am in a
unique position to speak on the need of this bill as I wear
several hats as it relates to Yosemite National Park and our
need to provide adequate schools.
I am a community member of Yosemite National Park. I live
in the valley with my wife and family. I have three young
children. One is in kindergarten and one is in the third grade.
I am on the Board of Trustees for the Mariposa County Unified
School District and I am also Vice President for Yosemite
Concession Services, the primary concessionaire in Yosemite
National Park.
As a stakeholder in Yosemite, I am concerned at the quality
of education being afforded our children as compared to other
schools in our district. Living and working in a national park
should not come at the sacrifice of our children's education.
The bill before you will help correct the current inequities
that exist.
My school district has many challenges in educating the
students of Mariposa County. We adhere to a standards-based
curriculum. We provide transportation services in a large
mountainous county, and we do this with a limited budget.
Now, translate the curriculum challenge to my daughter,
Kaitlyn's, third grade teacher, Susan Lieberman. Ms. Lieberman
has to prepare two lesson plans every day, one for the five
third graders and one for the 11 fourth graders in her
classroom. It takes time, talent, and imagination for a teacher
to design curriculum for a single classroom containing more
than one grade. Ms. Lieberman also acts as part-time secretary,
part-time lunchtime supervisor. She is the nurse, counselor,
everything, all while preparing our children for advancement to
the next grade.
Our transportation issue are strictly a geography problem:
Thirteen schools spread over 1,400 square miles in the
foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the Yosemite
schools are located at the end of the trail. This has created a
challenge for the schools to receive comparable services from
the district, such as music, science, special needs classes, as
most of the teaching time is used up in the 2-hour round-trip
drive to the park.
Funding for Mariposa County Unified School District is
based on average daily attendance. This method of funding is
great for large urban districts that benefit from the
efficiencies of scale. However, the small rural districts do
not enjoy the same benefits. To that end, the multi-grade
elementary schools at Yosemite do not operate efficiently. Our
schools are small, with less than 50 children, and we are
located an hour from the district office and support services.
The schools exist because Yosemite National Park exists.
The National Park and its contractors in Yosemite require many
of their employees to live in the park to meet the mission of
the agency, and that is to preserve and protect the park and to
provide services for park visitors. We are in a very
competitive market for quality employees. No longer is income
the deciding factor in accepting a job. Quality goods and
services available in the community is extremely important to
the recruitment and retention of employees in Yosemite, and
schools are at the top of their list.
The needs are clear and the opportunity is now, and I
believe the bill before you is the vehicle to establish equity
for our children. The use of park entrance fees seems
appropriate. The children of Yosemite have accepted their roles
as stewards of the park. They have a recycling program, a
docent program. They developed their own guide for other
schools who visit the park.
Yosemite National Park has programs for visiting schools,
where hundreds of schools and thousands of children participate
in the Yosemite experience. These visiting schools do not pay
entrance fees. In essence, you are giving them the value of the
entrance fee. All we ask is that you give the school children
of Yosemite National Park the same consideration and not
penalize them for living in and caring for Yosemite National
Park. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Kelly.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:]
Statement of Kevin T. Kelly, Member, Board of Education, Mariposa
County Unified School District
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify on this
important piece of legislation.
The Mariposa County Unified School District serves thirteen school
sites spread out over Mariposa County, which encompasses a total of
1,435 square miles. Three school sites are located in or nearby
Yosemite National Park. Yosemite Valley Elementary School serves around
46, K-8 students while El Portal Elementary serves around 47, K-6
students. A small necessary high school, Yosemite Park High School is
also located on the El Portal Elementary campus. There has been a long
tradition of public school education in Yosemite National Park.
The availability of these schools to the children of Yosemite Park
employees is very important. Without these schools in place elementary
age children of Yosemite Park employees would have to travel 61 miles
roundtrip from El Portal and 92 miles roundtrip from Yosemite Valley to
attend school in Mariposa. Travel for these students would be over
curving mountain roads in school buses with numerous changes in
altitude. It was determined in 1948 to form a unified county system of
public education in Mariposa County. This decision was determined by a
vote of the people in order to better distribute the taxpayer's dollar
with the advantages not offered by any other plan.
These advantages included at the time:
A basis for county-wide salary schedule for teachers
Greatest flexibility for adjustment to shifts in
population and wealth
A basis for a single to and from school transportation
system
The maximum financial support for all children
An equal tax burden for all
A basis for present or future consolidation of attendance
centers with consideration of health and safety
A basis for lateral and vertical coordination of the
educational program from kindergarten through the twelfth grade
A basis for the strongest program of vocational education
Over 50 years later these core values are among the many that
continue for us today regarding public education in Mariposa County.
Today, Mariposa County Unified School District remains a small
county unified district of approximately 2,600 students with no large
county office to offer support but must face the same challenges and
responsibilities. More often than not these challenges currently go
unmet due to a lack of resources. These lack of resources especially
impact our small multi-graded elementary schools such as El Portal and
Yosemite Valley Elementary. Supplemental funding is needed to offset
encroachment on the budget regarding ever increasing special education
needs, attracting quality teachers through a competitive salary
schedule, to and from school bus transportation, professional staff
development, counseling, fine arts instruction, nursing care,
psychological services, gifted and talented education, improving
technology, maintenance and utility costs.
Compounding these challenges is a need to provide a rigorous
standards based education to the children of the above mentioned
schools. Teachers in these multi-graded schools must not only deal with
designing standards based lessons to one specific grade level, they are
often faced with the task of designing lessons to meet the needs of two
or three grade levels. A reduction in staff at Yosemite Valley School
from the current staff of three teachers to two teachers next year
would severely reduce the amount of time teachers could focus on
delivering an adequate amount of instruction specifically focused on
individual grade levels.
In the past many students had been ``promoted'' automatically to
the next grade level. This past practice is no longer acceptable as the
Mariposa County Unified School District has raised the bar by having in
place promotion and retention standards. Students who meet these
standards will be promoted to the next grade level. Students who do not
meet these standards will be retained. Two teachers at the Yosemite
Valley Elementary School will certainly not be as effective as having
three teachers available, through supplemental funding, to assist in
meeting the needs of students who are at risk of not being promoted.
As noted above, students in small rural schools such as Yosemite
Valley Elementary and El Portal Elementary are faced with being placed
in double or at times triple graded classes each year. These students
can be at a distinct disadvantage compared to their peers at larger
schools because they do not receive the same amount of direct grade
level instruction. Special incentives through supplemental funding are
needed for multi-graded staff development opportunities and additional
instructional aides to support teachers in these small extremely rural
schools.
There is often a reduced amount of categorical funding available at
schools with small enrollments simply because family incomes are not
necessarily always at or below the Federal free and reduced lunch level
needed for a school to qualify.
It is not unusual to find, in small rural school settings such as
Yosemite Valley and El Portal, families where both parents are college
educated and have high skill/high wage employment. Children of such
families often have the benefit of quality preschool education and
special educational enriching activities prior to entering
kindergarten. These students are primed for academic success in school
and often have the talents to qualify for such programs as gifted and
talented education (GATE). However, it is often difficult for a teacher
with multiple grade levels, who is stressed for time, to give adequate
attention to his or her GATE students without additional staffing
support. The special needs of the low achieving students, as noted
previously, tend to be given a higher priority than those of the GATE
students. Supplemental funding for gifted and talented education is of
critical importance to the children of Yosemite Valley Elementary, El
Portal Elementary, and Yosemite High Schools. We need to invest soundly
in our brightest students at the same time we are striving to close the
achievement gap between our lowest achieving and highest achieving
students.
Education reforms require schools to utilize new teaching and
learning styles, which include the need for laboratory classrooms and
flexible areas for instruction. A U.S. General Accounting Office 1995
study noted that rural schools nation-wide have inadequate science
laboratory facilities in 37% of their schools. Rural schools nation-
wide note that 40% of their schools have inadequate space for large--
group instruction and 13% report inadequate library/ media centers.
Supplemental funding is crucial to provide new facilities/equipment and
maintenance of current facilities/equipment in these three schools.
Dr. W. Edwards Deming, noted that quality is built into a product.
Quality cannot be added on at the end but must be something integral to
the product or result--such as our high school graduates. If we in
education are to have continuous comprehensive improvement of effective
curriculum and instructional strategies, we must build quality into
sustained, meaningful staff development. This staff development is even
more critical for our teachers who must teach in a multi-graded
classroom setting due to limited resources. The task of organizing
accountability assessment data with multiple measures aligned to multi-
grade level standards can be accomplished in large measure only by
teachers and school site teacher/principals given supplemental funding
to purchase the right training and tools. This action can place
responsibility in the hands of our teachers who are closest to the most
important activity of the educational enterprise, quality instruction.
We have the passion and the commitment to move further into an era
of raising the academic bar higher for all of our students. Our
resources are limited and an ever-increasing encroachment on these
resources threatens our ability to deliver the quality of instruction
we desire. Therefore, it is paramount that supplemental funding for
Yosemite Valley Elementary, El Portal Elementary and Yosemite Park High
School be considered at this time.
All of our roads in education must lead to quality instruction.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this critical issue. I
would be happy to answer any questions you or any of the Members have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Now on another bill, H.R. 2748, I want to
introduce Mr. Rooney. Thank you for being here and please begin
your testimony on the veterans' monuments issue.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN ROONEY, PRESIDENT, RVETS (REMEMBERING
VETERANS WHO EARNED THEIR STRIPES), NORTHRIDGE, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman
Christensen. I want to start by saying that the Department's
representative is a typical reaction that I get. It was my
first reaction when I began this project 6 years ago. I want to
remind the Committee that we are not talking about concrete and
brass but we are talking about real live people.
In fact, this project started 31 years ago on a medevac
helipad in Vietnam when I, as an Army medic, was triaging the
wounded. I noticed a GI that was well beyond my help and
unconscious. I leaned over his body to get his name, and as I
did, he grabbed my shirt, opened his eyes, pulled me toward
him, and whispered, ``Remember me.'' The face of that soldier
has haunted me these 31 years. In fact, I live with the memory
of the faces of dying soldiers.
To honor those memories, I created the ``Remember Me''
project, which is intended to catalog and monitor the condition
of every tribute to armed conflict in the United States. I am
also the founder of RVETS, which is a nonprofit disabled
veterans' organization.
Since 1996, RVETS has identified and cataloged more than
8,600 tributes to the service of our armed forces throughout
the United States. Our goal is to verify, research, and make
available especially the story of every person behind every
memorial.
In the beginning, RVETS consisted of my family and me. In 6
years, I have mailed out about 30,000 letters to every
municipality and city in the United States, as well as
veterans' organizations and patriotic organizations inquiring
about their local memorials. Our home has become a
clearinghouse for memorials from every corner of America. My
kids do not know what it is like to sit down at dinner without
a stack of envelopes and stuff. The fax machine in our home has
not stopped ringing for 5 years.
But over those years, the RVETS group has evolved to a
confederation of over 1,000 people worldwide who all share the
same goal in mind, that the memory of those who fought for our
freedom would not be lost. Unfortunately, many of those
tributes are in a sad state of disrepair and lost, but it is
not the tribute that is lost, it is the stories that are lost,
stories that our children ought to hear.
For example, one of the virtually millions of stories is
the Henry Johnson story. He was an African American soldier in
World War I who, while on guard duty in France, was attacked
and overrun by a group of Germans. The Germans shot Henry and
carried off his friend, Private Roberts, for interrogation.
Henry awoke a few moments later to find himself wounded 21
times. Yet he got up and lit out after the Germans and single-
handedly attacked them. He killed several of them with his
rifle, several more with his bayonet, and several more with his
service knife. The rest of the troop ran off.
Henry then picked up his comrade and carried him back to
his medics. Although wounded 21 times, Henry still went back to
his post and served our his remaining 6 hours of guard duty
until relieved, and then sought medical attention for himself.
Henry was the first American ever to win the Quadigere Francis
Hyas Award for Valor. That Henry Johnson memorial stands in
Albany, New York.
Other tributes are not so lucky. In Ione, California, there
stood an honor roll with the names of casualties of World War I
and II. The plaque hung on the side of city hall until the
building was sold in the early 1950's. Local newspaper articles
chronicled the movement of the memorial from place to place
until it was simply lost. That tribute to those brave soldiers
and their stories that it memorialized are lost forever.
RVETS has taken just the first steps toward a larger effort
to tell stories behind every tribute to ensure that no more are
lost. Congressman Dreier introduced H.R. 2748 to help RVETS in
our work and to authorize the programs supported by the 106th
Congress, which on June 26 of last year passed House Concurrent
Resolution 345, introduced by then-Congressman Jim Rogan. That
resolution identified a debt of gratitude owed to veterans for
their sacrifices in defending our nation during times of war
and peace. It called upon the Department of the Interior to
create and maintain a data base of permanent tributes to the
armed forces.
The House Committee on Resources passed the resolution by
unanimous consent and the House passed it by voice vote. It was
ultimately added to then House Senate Majority Leader Tom
Daschle's S. 964 and was signed into law on November 13, 2000.
H.R. 2748 would honor the commitment made by the 106th Congress
to our veterans by authorizing the program.
As President Bush said on the 3-month anniversary of the
attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, memorials
are something we can show our children as yet unborn to help
them understand. America owes a debt to those who have fought
and died for our liberty. So with your support, we can make the
data base a reality and ensure that no more tributes to those
sacrifices are lost. With your help, H.R. 2748 will enable us
to pay that debt.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my two boys that
traveled from California to be with me, Damon and my son Noah,
who is an expert letter stuffer. Thank you so much.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Rooney.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rooney follows:]
Statement of Brian Rooney, President, RVETS, Inc.
Introduction
Chairman Radanovich, Congresswoman Christian-Christensen, Members
of the Subcommittee:
My name is Brian Rooney. I am a high school teacher in the Los
Angeles Public Schools system. I am also the founder of a nonprofit,
disabled-veterans organization named RVETS, Inc. (Remembering Veterans
Who Earned Their Stripes) and the creator of the ``Remember Me...''
project, intended to catalog and monitor every tribute to armed
conflict in the United States. Thank you very much for inviting me to
testify today on Chairman David Dreier's National War Permanent Tribute
Historical Database Act (H.R. 2748). I am greatly honored to be before
the Subcommittee.
Since 1995, RVETS has researched, identified, and cataloged more
than 8,600 tributes to the service of the Armed Forces of the United
States of America. Our vision is to make available information about
the location, history, and story behind each of the nation's tributes.
In the process, we have found that, sadly, many of the physical
tributes have already been lost and with them their stories of courage
and patriotism.
At today's hearing, I hope to leave you with three points:
1. Our nation's tributes to America's Armed Forces are at grave
risk of being lost;
2. Veterans and community organizations have begun to work to
catalog, monitor, and preserve our tributes; and
3. The Federal government can assist our efforts with legislation
like Chairman David Dreier's National War Permanent Tribute Historical
Database Act (H.R. 2748).
Tributes to Patriotism
Courageous men and women have fought and died for this great
country from before the signing of the Declaration of Independence to
today's War on Terrorism. We are approaching close to one million dead
who gave their lives to preserve freedom. To commemorate their service,
states, counties, cities, and towns across America have erected
tributes to the heroism of these patriots of freedom. While those
memorials were intended to be permanent, many are lost every year. Some
are lost to neglect, others to vandalism, some to redevelopment, and
some to apathy. RVETS has worked for more than six years with the goal
of first cataloging the tributes, then monitoring the condition of the
monuments, and ultimately to tell the story of each and every hero
represented on the tributes.
On this Subcommittee sit representatives from California, the
Virgin Islands, Michigan, Tennessee, American Samoa, Colorado, New
Jersey, Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, Texas, Utah,
Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, Nevada, Indiana, Minnesota, and Idaho.
RVETS has located a total of 3,149 tributes from these states alone.
With the help of this Subcommittee and the Administration, RVETS and
other veterans and community organizations will be able to continue our
work to produce a comprehensive catalog of the permanent tributes in
America to the defenders of freedom, and stem the loss of any more
symbols of our heritage.
The risk of losing these memorials is real. For example, the mining
town of Hiawatha, Utah had a World War I and World War II memorial. In
1989 the mine closed, and the town was abandoned. Fortunately, the
tribute was relocated to Price City, Utah, where it stands today.
Texaco memorialized its employees who gave their lives in World War
II on a plaque that was displayed at one of its refineries near Los
Angeles, California. The refinery was closed, and the site demolished.
An RVETS associate visited the demolition site and noticed the
tarnished plaque buried in the rubble. He literally pulled this tribute
to American heroes from the junk heap. I am happy to report that this
is one story with a happy ending. The beautifully restored plaque now
hangs prominently in Patriotic Hall in Los Angeles, California.
These tributes are the lucky ones. They were saved so that the
stories behind these tributes are not lost or forgotten.
Not every tribute to liberty is so lucky. In the small town of
Ione, California there stood a four-by-eight foot honor roll with the
names of the casualties of World War I and World War II. The plaque
hung on the side of City Hall until the building was sold and the
offices moved. Local newspaper articles chronicled the movement from
site to site of the plaque until it was simply lost. That tribute to
the memory of those brave soldiers of war is lost.
The process of collecting information about our nation's tributes
to our patriots began with a vision-- a vision that never again will a
memorial or permanent tribute be lost or forgotten. The work done by
RVETS since 1995 is but one step toward a larger effort that will
enable the public to obtain information about any memorial or tribute.
It will aid historians in their research about specific conflicts and
help families seek information about their ancestors. It will rekindle
a sense of patriotism and encourage every American to reaffirm their
appreciation of our heritage. As one staff member at the Library of
Congress said of the project, ``Your work will change for the better
the way Americans view their country over the next fifty years.''
Over the years that I have worked on cataloging our nation's
memorials, I have come to realize that the tributes that we must save
are more than just lifeless masses of concrete and brass. They need not
be saved in and of themselves. We must save these memorials because
each represents a story. Each represents a battle waged by American men
and women. Each represents the sacrifices of the warriors sent into
battle in defense of our country. Each represents the prices paid --
many times the ultimate price-- by America's Armed Forces.
A Texas citizen named Russell A. Steindam, as a 1st Lt. in the U.S.
Army in the Vietnam War, threw himself on a grenade. He sacrificed his
life to save his command staff. There is a permanent tribute to him at
the University of Texas that serves as a reminder of his story to all
who pass.
Or the remarkable story of Henry Johnson, an African American
soldier in World War I, who while on guard duty in France with his
friend was overrun by a troop of Germans. The Germans shot the two
soldiers and carried off Henry's friend for interrogation. Henry awoke
a couple of minutes later to find himself wounded 21 times, yet he lit
out after the German troop and single-handedly attacked them in their
trenches. Henry killed six with his rifle, stabbed several more with
his bayonet, and was engaging others with his knife when the balance of
the German troop ran off. Henry picked up his wounded comrade and
carried him back across no-man's-land and delivered him to the medics.
Although he was wounded 21 times, Henry still went back to his guard
post and unbelievably finished his guard duty until relieved. The Henry
Johnson memorial stands in Albany, New York, erected after his death.
Early in my efforts, I was contacted by a woman who had a picture
of her father taken in the early 1950s somewhere in the Pacific. Her
father was standing next to a memorial that bore the name of her
brother who had been killed in World War II. Her father died shortly
after the picture was taken. The woman contact me because she wanted to
make a pilgrimage with her six remaining siblings and their children
and grandchildren to that memorial. Unfortunately, she knew nothing
about its location. From the research RVETS had completed at the time,
I was able to tell her that the site was located on one of the Hawaiian
Islands. The family, numbering about thirty-five, made the pilgrimage
to Hawaii, found the memorial, and was able to preserve an important
link to their family's rich history of service to America.
Veterans and Community Organizations' Efforts
In 1995, in an effort to assist in the upkeep of veterans'
memorials in California, I discovered that there was no statewide
directory of memorials--veterans' or otherwise. I then attempted to
find California's veterans' memorials in a national directory. None
existed. I decided that there should be a comprehensive and complete
list of the permanent tributes throughout this country that have been
dedicated to the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice and paid
the ultimate price for their country.
Since then, I have worked to build a complete, comprehensive list
of every tribute to armed conflict in the United States for more than
six years. I have sent out over 30,000 surveys to veterans'
organizations and municipal entities throughout the United States. I
sent a survey to every state, county, city, village, parish, hamlet--
anyone who may have a record of where a tribute was-- in this country.
The responses I received range from detailed descriptions of tributes,
including the names and histories of those honored, to ``Yes'' or
``No.'' To date, I have received more than 10,000 responses, and I have
identified, even if only preliminarily, more than 8,600 permanent
tributes honoring military conflicts and those who have served out
nation in 50 states.
During this time, I founded Remembering Veterans Who Earned Their
Stripes (RVETS), a nonprofit 501(c) organization dedicated to creating
a national directory of veterans' memorials in America and monitoring
the condition of the tributes annually. To the best of my knowledge,
this directory is the only one of its kind in the United States.
Over the years, I have approached and worked with many other
veterans and community organizations on this project. I have included
with my testimony examples of support I have received from
organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Minority Officers
Association, Inc., and the San Gabriel Valley Council of the Boy Scouts
of America. While RVETS has maintained the lead role in identifying,
researching, cataloging, and monitoring the nation's tributes to our
Armed Services, we recognize the important role that Federal assistance
would play.
Since 1995, RVETS has been at the forefront of this effort. We
believe that locating, cataloging, and monitoring permanent tributes--
and telling the stories of American heroes--will provide enormous
benefits not only to the millions of veterans throughout the country,
but to our young people who can learn about our rich heritage, to the
senior citizens who remember the sacrifices that they and their
neighbors made during WWII and the Korean War. And to my generation,
the Vietnam Veteran, who served proudly and with distinction along with
the veterans of other conflicts.
Federal Assistance Would Be a Great Benefit
To address the risk of losing more tributes, former Congressman Jim
Rogan introduced House Concurrent Resolution 345 on June 6, 2000. The
resolution expressed the sense of the Congress regarding the need for
cataloging and maintaining public memorials commemorating military
conflicts of the United States and the service of individuals in the
Armed Forces. In addition to Congressman Rogan, 27 Members of Congress
cosponsored the resolution (see attached list). Among those cosponsors
were Chairman Elton Gallegly, Chairman Ken Calvert, Chairman Richard
Pombo, and Chairman George Radanovich, all current members of the House
Committee on Resources.
On July 26, 2000, the Committee on Resources met to consider the
bill. No amendments were offered, and the bill was ordered favorably
reported to the House of Representatives by unanimous consent.
On September 19, 2000, the House of Representatives passed the
resolution by voice vote on the Suspension Calendar. During its
consideration, now-Chairman of the Committee on Resources Jim Hansen
stated, ``Thousands of public memorials dealing with the United States'
involvement in military conflicts exist throughout the world. However,
there is no index or record as to their location nor is there a
cataloged assessment as to their condition. Unfortunately, many of
these memorials suffer from neglect, disrepair or have been relocated
or stored in facilities where they are not accessible to the public.''
He concluded his remarks by urging other Members of the House of
Representatives to support the resolution.
Rather than independent consideration by the Senate, the Resolution
was included in Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's S. 964, the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act. S. 964 became
Public Law 106-511 (excerpt attached).
Under current law, many branches of the Federal government catalog,
monitor, and maintain federally funded memorials to the service of our
Armed Forces. For example, the Department of the Interior is
responsible for cataloging, monitoring, and maintaining federally
funded memorials. The Department does not keep track of non-federally
funded tributes. However, the same resources currently deployed to
catalog Federal memorials could be used to catalog non-federal
tributes. Additionally, the Department of Veterans Affairs is
responsible for cataloging, monitoring, and maintaining memorials
within the National Cemetery Administration and throughout the DVA. It
does not keep track of non-federally funded tributes.
H.R. 2748, if enacted into law, would coordinate these disparate
efforts in one program and collect all of the information in one
location so it is easy for the public to access. The responsible
Federal agency would work with community groups and other Federal
agencies to collect data on the nation's tributes to service in the
Armed Forces. The data would be collected, verified, and make available
on the Internet so veterans , students, and anyone else interested
could access it at their convenience.
The Congressional Budget Office, in scoring House Concurrent
Resolution 345, estimated the cost of the program to be $1 million per
year. This funding would be used to establish the database and Web site
and pay the researchers collecting and verifying the data.
H.R. 2748, if enacted into law, would bridge the divide between
what the Federal government currently does and community groups, like
RVETS, have been doing. It would create a public-private partnership
and establish a central point around which those Americans interested
in preserving our memorials could rally. I envision the Department of
the Interior working with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the
Library of Congress, the American Battle Monuments Commission, and any
other Federal agency that had information and was willing to help.
Veterans' organizations like mine would work in concert with the
Federal government and would help to create the database. And in the
end, the product is something that we all can be proud of.
Benefits of H.R. 2748 The benefits of H.R. 2748 to the nation are many
and far-reaching. It will:
Honor the Armed Forces: By creating a comprehensive
catalog of tributes to patriotism, H.R. 2748 will demonstrate to
America's Armed Forces and veterans that their sacrifices are
appreciated and remembered.
Help to Educate America's Children: High school students
are now studying U.S. history without the benefit of first-hand
accounts from veterans. H.R. 2748 will provide students throughout the
U.S. and around the world with access to the stories behind the
tributes. RVETS has already received inquiries from colleges and
universities including the University of Pisa, Italy. An Italian
student was doing his Masters dissertation on United States wars and
was provided data on specific battle monuments.
Promote Patriotism: H.R. 2748 will increase awareness in
our youth to the sacrifices that have been made for the liberties that
we all enjoy. This will be accomplished in a proactive manner by
distributing to every school district a copy of the stories of their
local hometown heroes of war. This information can be used in history
and government classes. RVETS has already begun to perform this
service, and it has worked successfully in concert with the ``Veterans
in the Classroom'' program.
Aid in Chronicling Our History: H.R. 2748 will provide a
framework that will promote cooperation between public and private
efforts. RVETS has established a working relationship with the Library
of Congress to share information. The LOC is currently conducting a
program of video interviews with World War I veterans to create a video
history of World War I. We feel a sense of urgency because our veterans
of war are now dying at a rate of more than one thousand a day. Their
stories of courage, commitment, and of patriotism are dying with them.
Facilitate Genealogical Research: H.R. 2748 will help
families to teach their younger members about their unique history.
RVETS intends to record every name on every memorial in America and
include that information in the database. That number will be enormous,
but the benefits will be equally significant. People will be able to
input their family surname or ancestor and immediately find the
locations of every tribute in America that bears that name. Much like
the family who made the pilgrimage to Hawaii, the database can also
satisfy families' needs for resolution and closure for their lost loved
ones.
Benefit Preservation Efforts: H.R. 2748 intentionally
does not authorize the Federal government to maintain America's
memorials. However, it will provide veterans' organizations and other
community groups with the tool they need to keep track of memorials so
they can maintain them at their own expense.
______
Mr. Radanovich. I have got a couple of questions regarding
this. It seems that the desire to want to create the data base
and honor America's veterans is something that everybody wants
to do. The question is who would have the responsibility and
who would be best suited to make sure that the data base is
complete and available to everybody.
Do you have an idea in your mind about how this would work?
Would it be with the Veterans' Affairs Department? Would it be
with the Department of the Interior? I kind of envision it much
like the Office of Historic Places that registers historic
places across the country, that catalogs and maintains a data
base to identify those areas. Is it kind of similar to what you
are thinking about?
Mr. Rooney. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to work with the
Department of the Interior, the Department of Veterans'
Affairs, or any other Federal agency. I think what is obviously
needed, as evidenced by the earlier testimony, there is a great
deal of confusion. One reason why we lose memorials and the
memories of those people behind the memorials is because no one
knows where they are at. There is no accessibility to them.
I can give you example after example of memorials that I
receive a letter from a person, or an e-mail, and they said
there is a memorial up the street here and it is falling apart.
I make a very simple call to the local veterans' organization
in their city and in every case, that is addressed. I suggest
that their memorial is about to be placed on a national website
with a picture and they are happy to make sure that their
memorial is in pristine condition, which is part of our goal.
Mr. Radanovich. It seems that while we are considering what
might be the best place to assign the responsibility of
collecting and maintaining a data base, most of the
departments, I think, or agencies that are willing to do it are
willing to do it as long as they have the funding in order to
do it. So often, we give in situations like these the
responsibilities without the funding.
Do you have an idea of the cost of, I think, perfecting the
data base, you know, getting everything down and then
maintaining it? Is there any idea of the cost in your own mind?
Mr. Rooney. Our early estimates were over an 18-month
period that we could establish the data base, the
infrastructure, and deliver 1,000 memorials. I want to remind
the Committee that we are not talking about the address and a
photograph, but most especially the stories of the heroes
behind those memorials. We need to send verifiers and
researchers out into the field. And after the initial 1,000 is
established, then I think it was the Congressional Budget
Committee that suggested a $1 million a year ongoing cost until
the data base is complete, and after that, it is just a matter
of maintaining the site.
Mr. Radanovich. So $100 million a year until the
establishment of it.
Mr. Rooney. One million.
Mr. Radanovich. One million, OK. I am glad I heard that
correctly this time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Radanovich. And then much less to maintain it after it
is established?
Mr. Rooney. Yes, sir.
Mr. Radanovich. Very good. My question regarding the
schools' funding in Yosemite and Bass Lake, well, actually,
Wawona inside Yosemite National Park, to Mr. Stauffer and Mr.
Kelly, both of you representing different school districts, how
are the kids that are educated inside Yosemite at both of those
schools at a disadvantage to other children that are educated
in, say, down in Mariposa, closer to the district where they
have larger schools, or the same in Madera County? How are the
kids in Yosemite at a disadvantage as compared to other
children in the school districts?
Mr. Kelly. I can speak on behalf of Mariposa County. In El
Portal and in Yosemite Valley School, we certainly have some
advantages that others do not. I mean, these kids live right in
the middle of Yosemite Valley. I mean, what an opportunity to
live and go to school in that kind of a resource.
But what is available down in the main district office are
science programs. There is band. We are getting band now again
because the road is open. They repaired the road, and we get
band for the whole school for 2 hours a week right now, which
we are thrilled to have, but we did not have that over the last
3 years.
We have kids with special needs, as well, so if we have
therapists that need to come up, they come up, again, for 1
day. They will come up for a couple hours a week. Again, they
use a good part of their teaching time driving to and from the
school. If the weather is bad, they do not come. If the road is
closed, they do not come. So it is about building those
equities back up.
Mr. Stauffer. It is very much the same for Wawona School.
For an example, the special ed students at Wawona School, right
now, there is only one. They get service 1 day a week, where
the other schools in the Oakhurst area get service every day.
Michelle, Mrs. Horner, relies greatly on volunteers, but they
are not always there to help.
So it is the service issue. We have no extra programs for
reading remediation, science, foreign language, those kinds of
things that are available at our other sites, and it is that
travel distance problem, as well. When you are servicing a
special needs student, if you have one, I mean, it is extremely
expensive to send somebody up from the district office and
drive back again. It is the drive time problem.
Mr. Radanovich. One of the things that always upset me when
I was growing up is that though your schools did get to break
on Wednesday afternoon and go skiing in Badger--
Mr. Kelly. We still do that.
Mr. Radanovich. --it upsets me very much that I never had
that opportunity.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Radanovich. But nothing compared to special education
needs and the arts, especially.
What kind of alternative funding sources do you have at
your disposal? I mean, there are not a lot of alternatives out
there, but if you have them, if you could explain them to me, I
would like to know what they are.
Mr. Kelly. Well, for example, on the Yosemite Valley
School, the concessionaire is very participatory in the
education in El Portal and in the Valley. We donate cash to
both organizations, the parent-teacher groups. We also do
provide that transportation to Badger Pass for that Wednesday
afternoon ski, but we also give them a certain allotted time,
also, for use of our buses on other school transportation
issues. So it, in total, sums to about $25,000 that the company
gives to the two schools.
In addition, our parent-teacher group in the school, we
raise about $15,000 to $20,000 a year, also, with fundraisers,
bake sales. We do all sorts of things. And with that money, we
just hired a local artist who is teaching an art program in the
school. Again, those extra activities that we are not afforded
by living in a park, we raise money to provide those
activities.
Mr. Stauffer. And again, it is basically the same at
Wawona. Our teaching principal does fundraisers. They have bake
sales. They have auctions. They have all sorts of participation
from the communities. And, as well, the concessionaire, I
believe, helps with the transportation for the ski program.
Other than that, it is very difficult to find outside funding
sources to supplement the--
Mr. Radanovich. To pick up any difference?
Mr. Stauffer. Right. And again, we are running at a
$100,000 deficit.
Mr. Radanovich. Mrs. Christensen?
Mrs. Christensen. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Stauffer, from your
testimony, I have a better appreciation of the difficulties
that you have. Although there is some question on where funding
should come from and so forth, it is clear that the schools do
need some assistance and, of course, the children should be
entitled to the best education that can be provided for them. I
do not have a question for you particularly.
I did have some questions for Mr. Rooney, just so that I
understand. You catalogued more than 8,600 tributes. There are
more? It is anticipated that there would be more that still
need to be cataloged?
Mr. Rooney. Oh, by all means.
Mrs. Christensen. I am sorry?
Mr. Rooney. There are probably many more memorials out
there.
Mrs. Christensen. And you are asking not just that they be
catalogued, but that the story be--to me, that was not clear in
the bill, but that the story behind each person, each battle,
whatever the memorial is also needs to be researched?
Mr. Rooney. I teach high school science in the Los Angeles
Unified School District and so I see the role models that our
children select and Henry Johnson has not been selected even
once as a role model. There are virtually tens of thousands of
stories of commitment and bravery and courage and standing
against insurmountable odds. Those are the stories that I
propose to tell.
A large part of what we intend to do is we intend to make
available every story to every school district in America so
those teachers of history and government will have, as a
teaching aid, they will have the story of the local hometown
hero of liberty. We think that will be a great benefit to the
kids to encourage them to have a greater sense of history, a
greater sense of patriotism, to know.
Like we just lost up in Frasier Park, which is near my
home, we just lost one of our boys in Afghanistan. The kids in
that high school are doing several tributes. That high school,
those kids are inspired today because of the sacrifice that
that young man made. We would suggest that virtually every
school in America has such a story. We want to tell those
stories to those children.
Mrs. Christensen. And you do not have a particular
preference as to who does it? You do not see this as a
Veterans' Administration responsibility? It could be either, as
far as you are concerned?
Mr. Rooney. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. The National Park
Service currently has just 28 veterans' memorials of their
many, many memorials that they have oversight over. It seemed
to us like a logical extension of their current data base.
Mrs. Christensen. We will try to iron it out, because it is
a worthwhile project and something that we want to support, so
I am willing to work with the Chair and you and the Park
Service and the Veterans' Administration to figure out who is
going to get it done. There is funding provided for it, Mr.
Chairman, so I look forward to working with you on it.
Mr. Radanovich. I cannot imagine any, whether you go to the
Department of Interior or Veterans' Affairs, would not mind
having it as long as they had the money, and I think that is
what we need to make sure happens.
Thank you very much. I do not think that we have any other
questions today of our panel. I want to thank you all very much
for taking the effort to come out here to testify.
With that ends this hearing. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[A letter submitted for the record follows:]
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS - NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON DC 20420
The Honorable George Radanovich, Chairman
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation and Public Lands
Washington, DC 20515-6207
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee
regarding H.R. 2748, the ``National War Permanent Tribute Historical
Database Act.'' As I stated in my testimony, the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) believes this legislation, as currently drafted, would
expand VA's mission beyond our primary mission-to meet the medical,
benefits, and burial needs of our Nation's veterans. We also believe
that the creation, oversight, and management of a database of all
American war memorials would exceed the current capabilities of VA. We
would also like to point out that the bill sponsor, Representative
David Dreier, testified that the authority and responsibility for the
database should not be given to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
During the hearing, you asked how many memorials fall under VA's
jurisdiction and whether or not information on these memorials is
accessible to the public through VA's Internet website. In summer 2001,
the National Cemetery Administration embarked on a project to compile a
comprehensive list of war memorials that are located on VA property.
The primary purpose of VA's inventory is for maintenance and property
management, not public education. We estimate that VA manages
approximately 800 memorials and monuments, the majority of which are
located at VA national cemeteries. Currently, however, VA has
documented basic information on only 177 of these memorials. This
information is accessible to the public through VA's website at
www.va.gov/facmgt/historic/ (select ``Inventory of VA's Historic
Properties'' then ``Monuments and Memorials'').
VA is unable to provide an accurate estimate of the total number of
war memorials that exist beyond our jurisdiction because the number of
war memorials is so vast. Permanent veteran and war-related memorials
are found in countless locations across the national landscape. They
are located in urban parks and small-town centers, private and public
cemeteries, courthouse lawns and school grounds, adjacent to roads and
highways, on post office walls, at veterans' institutions, armories,
and many more settings.
As I stated in my testimony, VA has identified several entities
that have developed databases that capture information on war
memorials. Because these databases were developed independently, it is
not known how much of their content overlaps. Each inventory was
apparently developed using different methodologies and criteria, and
was created for different purposes.
If you or other Subcommittee members have any additional questions,
please have a member of your staff contact Mr. Christopher Allen at
(202) 273-9423. Thank you, again, for allowing me the opportunity to
express VA's position on this legislation.
Sincerely,
Vincent L. Barile
Deputy Under Secretary for Management
cc: The Honorable Donna M. Christiansen, Ranking Member