[Senate Hearing 107-219]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-219
MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARK AND MONUMENT MEASURES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 281 S. 921
S. 386 H.R. 1000
H.R. 146 S. 1097
S. 513 H.R. 1668
H.R. 182
__________
JULY 17, 2001
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-918 WASHINGTON : 2001
____________________________________________________________________________
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
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BOB GRAHAM, Florida DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
RON WYDEN, Oregon LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
EVAN BAYH, Indiana RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CONRAD BURNS, Montana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GORDON SMITH, Oregon
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Brian P. Malnak, Republican Staff Director
James P. Beirne, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
BOB GRAHAM, Florida BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana CONRAD BURNS, Montana
EVAN BAYH, Indiana GORDON SMITH, Oregon
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
Jeff Bingaman and Frank H. Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
David Brooks, Senior Counsel
Jeff Mow, Bevinetto Fellow
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.................. 1
DeWine, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from Ohio........................ 11
Dodd, Hon. Christopher, U.S. Senator from Connecticut............ 4
Frohling, Nathan M., Tidelands Program Director, Connecticut
Chapter, The Nature Conservancy................................ 46
Gallegher, Patricia E., Executive Director, National Capital
Planning Commission, on:
S. 281....................................................... 23
H.R. 1668.................................................... 39
Hagel, Hon. Chuck, U.S. Senator from Nebraska.................... 3
Hoffman, Deborah, Director, Passaic County Department of Economic
Development.................................................... 50
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts......... 15
Parsons, John G., Associate Regional Director, Lands, Resources
and Planning, National Capital Region, National Park Service,
on:
S. 281....................................................... 20
H.R. 1668.................................................... 37
S. 513 and H.R. 182.......................................... 41
S. 386 and H.R. 146.......................................... 43
S. 921, H.R. 1000, and S. 1097............................... 54
Pascrell, Hon. Bill, Jr., U.S. Representative from New Jersey.... 7
Roemer, Hon. Tim, U.S. Representative from Indiana............... 12
Scruggs, Jan Craig, President of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Fund........................................................... 25
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 2
Torricelli, Hon. Robert G., U.S. Senator from New Jersey......... 18
MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARK AND MONUMENT MEASURES
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Akaka. The Subcommittee on National Parks will come
to order. The purpose of this afternoon's hearing is to receive
testimony on several park and memorial bills that are pending
before the National Parks Subcommittee. The bills that we will
consider today include S. 281, to authorize the design and
construction of a temporary education center in the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial; H.R. 1668 to authorize the Adams Memorial
Foundation to establish a commemorative work on Federal land in
the District of Colombia and its environs to honor former
president John Adams and his legacy; S. 386 and H.R. 146 to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the
suitability and feasibility of designating the Great Falls
Historic District in the city of Paterson, New Jersey as a unit
of the National Park System and for other purposes; S. 513 and
H.R. 182 amended the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a
segment of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut to
study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers system; S. 921 and H.R. 1000 to adjust the boundary of
the William Howard Taft National Historical Site in the State
of Ohio to authorize an exchange of land in connection with the
historic site and for other purposes; and S. 1097 to authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to issue right-of-way permits for
natural gas pipelines within the boundaries of the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park.
This is my first hearing as chairman of this subcommittee.
Before we begin today I would like to thank my friend and
colleague, Senator Thomas, for all his work on behalf of the
national parks issue, as previous chairman of this
subcommittee. We have had a tradition on this committee of
dealing with national parks issues in a bi-partisan manner and
I look forward to continuing to work closely with Senator
Thomas and other members of the committee on these issues.
We have several members of Congress scheduled to testify
this afternoon along with Mr. John Parsons from the National
Park Service and our other invited witnesses. I would like to
welcome everyone to the committee. To ensure that we have
enough time to hear from everyone, I would ask all witnesses to
please limit your remarks to no more than 5 minutes. Your
entire written statement will be included in the official
hearing record.
Now I would like to call on my colleague, Senator Thomas,
for your statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Aloha.
We say that in Wyoming all the time, of course.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. I want to thank you for this hearing. Let
me congratulate you on your chairmanship. As you suggested, we
have worked together and will continue to do that. I look
forward to it. As you mentioned, our agenda today considers
boundary adjustments, rights-of-way, special resource studies--
most of them are studies, which we agreed to sometime ago.
Prior to making changes in the parks, there would be studies
and we are pleased with that. Also, there is the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial, and legislation that would authorize the
Adams family memorial.
But while H.R. 1668, authorizes the design, placement and
construction of the Adams Memorial, it does not specifically
address the siting of the proposed memorial within the area in
and around the Mall. The legislation would make the memorial
eligible for consideration within Area 1. At the present time
there are seven other memorials already in line for placement
within the boundaries of Area 1. In addition to World War II
and the Air Force Memorial, authorization exists for memorials
for the black Revolutionary war patriots, Martin Luther King,
George Mason, Thomas Payne and the National Peace Garden.
And of course, the discussion has always concerned the
number of monuments that should be within Area 1. We addressed
that during the 105th Congress. As a result of the work
accomplished by the National Capital Planning Commission, we
amended the legislation in this committee and passed it in the
Senate unanimously during the 106th Congress, which would
essentially codify the Commemorative Zone Policy offered to us
by the Planning Commission. That legislation expanded the
boundaries of Area 1 and established the area along the Mall
known as the ``Reserve''--an area where no additional monuments
would be placed.
We need to address that policy, of course, and as we go
forward with all of the important things that are out there.
The Mall is a historic, monumental, open space which is a
substantially complete work in public urban design. As I have
already mentioned, there are seven unbuilt memorials and
monuments which have already been authorized by the Congress,
which will be constructed within the confines of Area 1.
Depending on what the subcommittee may choose to do with
the two bills, we have a perfect opportunity to revisit what we
have accomplished in the 106th Congress. So, in any event, Mr.
Chairman, I look forward to the witnesses and hope that we can
come to some agreement on these bills that will be appropriate.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Thomas.
Senator Hagel.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK HAGEL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Hagel. Thank you. I have a statement that I would
ask be included in the record.
Senator Akaka. Without objection it will be included in the
record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hagel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Chuck Hagel, U.S. Senator From Nebraska
Mr. Chairman, two decades ago, when I was serving as Deputy
Administrator of the Veterans Administration, this subcommittee
exhibited wisdom and foresight in approving legislation to create the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The Memorial was envisioned as a place to
provide healing, honor, and recognition to the men and women who served
and sacrificed in Vietnam. The Memorial has transcended its role as a
national symbol of recognition and, today, stands as a living history
lesson.
Today, this subcommittee will once again discuss the purpose and
role of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. On behalf on my three fellow
Vietnam Combat veterans in the Senate, I have introduced S. 281, the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Education Act, to authorize the construction
of a temporary, enhanced kiosk on the site of the current inadequate
kiosk. Supporters of the Education Center include respected advocates
for America's Veterans, National Veterans Organizations, prominent
Vietnam Veterans such as Secretary of State Colin Powell, General Barry
McCaffrey, Vice President Al Gore, and 55 Senate Co-Sponsors. Together,
we envision this enhanced kiosk as an extension of the memorial's
mission to help educate America's future generations who will one day
lead our generation.
Congressmen Watts and Murtha have introduced the identical
legislation in the House of Representatives, where the legislation
enjoys support of 138 Co-Sponsors.
I suspect that most members of this committee can list a family
they know who lost a loved one in Vietnam. However, a student who
visits the Memorial today had not even been born during the Vietnam
War. The Education Center is a relevant tool that will help them learn
the context of the war and the history of the most visited memorial in
Washington, D.C.
When I began crafting this legislation, I contacted the National
Park Service and the National Capital Planning Commission to confer
with them about the Center. Both groups supported the intent, but had
concerns regarding maintaining the integrity of the Memorial as well as
the Mall. I therefore carefully wrote this legislation to address these
concerns. Included in the legislation are a limit on the size of the
structure, a review of the need for the structure after 10 years, a
provision explicitly requiring approval of the design through the
Commemorative Works Act, and a provision ensuring that no funding will
be taken from the Memorial Fund's Memorial maintenance accounts.
The Vietnam War was one of the defining events in modern American
history. It is important that students learn more than just the dates
and facts of the war. They need to have a greater understanding of the
sacrifices that were asked of young Americans from another generation.
The Education Center--featuring historic photographs and
interactive displays--will focus on teaching young people more about
the Memorial and military service in Vietnam. When students leave the
Education Center, they will have learned not only that the war
officially ended in 1975, but that someone just like them may have
served or lost a loved one in the war. They will have experienced the
emotions evoked when a veteran visits the Wall for the first time and
touches the name of a fallen comrade. And, hopefully, they will walk
away with an appreciation for all who have served and who do serve in
America's Armed Forces.
The Center will be an important educational resource that will add
immensely to the visitor's experience at the Wall.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hagel. It is nice to be part of your team, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. It is great to be with you too,
Chuck. We have several of our colleagues scheduled to testify
today. I know that everyone has multiple commitments this
afternoon, so please feel free to leave after you have finished
testifying. To ensure that we have time to hear from your
constituents, please try to keep your statements brief. We
include your entire remarks in the hearing record.
This is the order the Senators and Congressmen arrived and
I would like to call you in that order. We certainly are
fortunate and glad and happy to have all of you here. And may I
call on Senator Dodd for your statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER DODD, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Dodd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very, very much. My
chairman is sitting right to my left and I am tempted to defer
to my chairman here. Chairman of the Rules Committee that
covers our budget is on my right and I would like to defer to
him.
[Laughter.]
Senator Dodd. He's been here a longtime and now you know
why. Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much. And I noted that
we can submit our comments here for the record, so I will try
to abbreviate them so as to not delay you or the other members
of the Senate or the House who are here. But I am here today to
appear before you--as you already noted, Mr. Chairman--to make
an appeal to the members of this committee about the
designation of the Eightmile River as part of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers study.
Senator Lieberman, my colleague, sponsors this bill. It has
been introduced on the House side by Representative Simmons,
whose district this wonderful waterway exists and the
legislation has been endorsed by the entire Connecticut
delegation--all members.
I am also pleased, Mr. Chairman, to recognize in the
audience Sue Merrow, who was the first select person of the
town of East Haddam, Connecticut. And Nathan Frohling, who is
head of the Tidelands Program and the manager of the
Connecticut Chapter of the Nature Conservancy will be prepared
to offer some detailed explanations for you or staff that would
like to go in greater specificity about this river.
The communities involved here--of East Haddam and Salem and
Lyme, Connecticut--are some of the oldest communities in
America, Mr. Chairman. In fact, the designation of the
Eightmile River does not describe the length of the river. It
describes the place where the Eightmile River comes out on the
Connecticut River. And dating back, we believe in pre-
Revolutionary War days in old maps, the British were mapping
rivers. You went eight miles up the Connecticut River and that
is where this small river which runs through some of the most
beautiful area in Eastern Connecticut actually comes out. So,
the Eightmile River was a way of identifying where this river
was located.
Anyway, these people will be offering some testimony later
on, Mr. Chairman, that goes into the designation of the
specific reasons.
For more than 30 years, Mr. Chairman, the Wild and Scenic
River Program has been a very successful public/private
partnership to preserve certain, select rivers in the free
flowing States. Designation as a Wild and Scenic River would
ensure that the river and surrounding watersheds are protected
from development projects under the locally controlled
conservation management plan, which works to preserve our
rivers--natural and significant resources.
I am confident that the Eightmile River significance and
community support. More than 5 years ago, three Connecticut
towns--I mentioned Salem, East Haddam and Lyme, Connecticut--
joined with the education and environmental groups to form the
Eightmile River watershed committee and signed a conservation
compact to preserve this wonderful body of water. Property-
owners along the river support this designation in order to
preserve the natural resource that flows by and near their
property. And finally the entire delegation, as I mentioned,
has also endorsed this. So you have the support of property
owners, the delegations of the State to all work together on
this.
The State of Connecticut, in fact, has recognized the
Eightmile River as a river of importance. ``85% of its
watershed is forested with 180 species of fish, birds, plants
and reptiles live there. It is truly one of the most diverse
and thriving ecosystems in the lower Connecticut River
Valley.'' The area of Connecticut is certainly quite different
and my colleague to my left certainly has wonderful knowledge
of New England certainly to underscore this point.
Connecticut is smaller, Mr. Chairman, than San Diego
County, California, smaller than Yellowstone National Park. We
reside in one of the most densely populated areas of America.
Yet in the midst of this tremendous population density, there
has been a wonderful effort to preserve these jewels of
environmental ecosystems and great historical significance. And
this lower Connecticut River Valley is just one of those areas
and the Eightmile River plays a very important role
historically, but also environmentally in this area. In
addition to the water, the river itself is home to the
Goodspeed Opera House, Gillette Castle Park, historic homes,
farms, 19th century mills. Just along this river, Mr.
Chairman--if you ever have the chance to go up, we would love
to show you just the number of small graveyards that date back
to the founding of the country; in the midst of the forest and
there you will in encounter these remarkable very pastoral
scenes and sights within feet of the Eightmile River.
So, this is a body of water that is enjoyed--that has been
enjoyed--by really thousands of people for many, many years.
And we would like to see it preserved for years and years and
years to come. In the midst of ever growing density of
population and development, to be able to carve out these areas
to leave as a legacy for future generations is something we all
care deeply about in Connecticut. So I am honored to be sitting
here this morning--this afternoon--on behalf of the entire
delegation. This bill has passed the House and included in the
House, legislation House bills, so we would like to have a
complementary piece of legislation adopted here in the Senate.
It is a river of national significance and this study will be
that one further step along the way to helping us achieving the
goal that is desired by all of us in the Constitution State.
And I thank you for listening.
[The prepared statement of Senator Dodd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Christopher Dodd, U.S. Senator
From Connecticut
Chairman Akaka, ranking member Thomas and members of the
subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of S.
513 and H.R. 182, the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Act.
I am pleased that Senator Lieberman co-sponsored this important
legislation and Representative Simmons of Connecticut introduced
similar legislation in the House of Representatives. The House gave its
support to the Eightmile study in early May.
I would like to welcome Sue Merrow, the First Selectman of East
Haddam, Connecticut and Nathan Frohling, the Tidelands Program Manager
at the Connecticut chapter of the Nature Conservancy. They have worked
tirelessly to preserve the Eightmile River and bring together a diverse
constituency in support of Wild and Scenic designation. They will be
offering testimony later and will be better able to answer any
technical questions the subcommittee may have. I also look forward to
hearing from the National Park Service. I recognize that there is some
concern about the growing maintenance backlog, but it is imperative
that we do not put off a study of the Eighmile River.
For more than 30 years, the Wild and Scenic River program has been
a successful public-private partnership to preserve certain select
rivers in a free-flowing state. Designation as a Wild and Scenic River
would ensure that the river and surrounding watershed are protected
from development projects under the locally controlled Conservation
Management Plan, which works to preserve a river's natural and
significant resources.
I am confident of the Eightmile River's significance and community
support. More than five years ago, the three Connecticut towns of
Salem, East Haddam and Lyme joined with educational and environmental
groups to form the Eightmile River Watershed Committee and signed a
Conservation Compact to preserve the river. Property owners along the
river support designation in order to preserve the natural resource
that flows by and near their property. Finally, the entire Connecticut
delegation has endorsed designation of the Eightmile River in order to
retain the integrity of this river. You know as well as I do how
uncommon it is to have such overwhelming support and enthusiasm among
diverse constituencies.
The State of Connecticut has recognized the Eightmile River as a
``River of Importance''. Eighty-five percent of its Watershed is
forested and more than 180 species of birds, fish, plants and reptiles
live there. It is truly one of the most diverse and thriving ecosystems
in the lower Connecticut River Valley.
This area of Connecticut is quite different from other parts of the
country. Just a short drive from the metropolitan areas of New Haven
and Hartford, Connecticut and a little more than an hour from New York
City, the neighboring towns of East Haddam, Lyme and Salem offer its
residents cultural, recreational and environmental treasures. It is
home to the renowned Goodspeed Opera House, Gillette Castle, state
parks, historic homes, farms, and nineteenth-century mills.
Recreational opportunities abound, whether it be hiking, biking,
swimming or fishing.
Mr. Chairman, Connecticut is a small state--less than 5,000 square
miles--and is densely populated. Our citizens are committed to
balancing conservation and growth. That is why this designation is so
important. While the state and local groups have done exceptional work
so far, this designation would bring in federal technical assistance
and foster coordination among the many concerned groups.
The Eightmile River is a nationally significant resource. I urge my
colleagues to report this bill from committee at the earliest
convenience.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Dodd. May I ask
Senators Thomas or Hagel if you have any questions?
Senator Thomas. I do not.
Senator Akaka. Otherwise may I permit them to leave when
they are done?
Senator Thomas. We would be delighted.
Senator Dodd. Well Aloha to you, Senator.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. May I say I do appreciate that you
described your State and of course it is different than ours.
We have a lot of space. But you certainly do need to conduct a
few studies to protect these areas.
Senator Dodd. I appreciate that.
Senator Akaka. We are quite envious of Connecticut's
nuclear power. All of America should have more nuclear power.
We appreciate Connecticut's leadership, Senator.
Senator Dodd. Well, the truth in advertising, I suppose I
should tell you that I used to live in East Haddam,
Connecticut, one of the towns mentioned here. And I lived, and
Sumera was right behind me--my mayor. I lived in the old
schoolhouse in town. It was an old schoolhouse from 1853 to
about 1948--the two-room schoolhouse. The successor
schoolhouse, right down the road, where Nathan Hale taught,
that schoolhouse is still there. This is the schoolhouse that
preceded it and right within almost up the river from me is the
oldest nuclear powerplant in America--the Connecticut Yankee
Power Plant--which is now been retired and they are in the
process of moving it along.
So, we have tried to manage it through the years--
intelligent energy development as well as conservation. We are
wrestling with the issue now of what to do with the town of
Haddam, Connecticut on the other side of the Connecticut River,
that lost a tremendous amount of its tax base as a result of
this powerplant closing down; wrestling with how to use that
property well to make sure that there is not going to be any
contamination and spills or problems associated with waste
materials. There are some delicate questions about lower
Connecticut River Valley.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Dodd.
The next person is Representative Pascrell.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY
Representative Pascrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the
entire subcommittee for the opportunity to testify here today.
My legislation H.R. 146 and I join the good Senator from our
State, Senator Torricelli. This calls for a study of the Great
Falls National Historic District in my hometown of Paterson,
New Jersey, to determine the feasibility of adding it to the
National Park System. Legislation passed unanimously on the
same day that the Congressman Simmons had his legislation and
we worked very closely in a bi-partisan way and now it is
before the Senate.
Alexander Hamilton, who has been revisited so many times in
the last several years, has become a hero in our time.
Alexander Hamilton recognized the incredible beauty and
potential of the Great Falls when he founded Paterson, New
Jersey in 1792. It was America's first planned industrial city
and I believe it is our duty to ensure its preservation for
generations to come.
Tours pour into the district every year to see the seventy-
seven foot Great Falls of the Passaic River which is 3 minutes
from City Hall, Paterson, New Jersey--the third largest city,
probably the most densely populated city in the State of New
Jersey. The Falls and the surrounding neighborhood really
represent the genesis of the American economic miracle. In
increasing the presence of the National Park Service, will give
the area the attention and resources it rightful deserves.
From the first revolver--Sam Colt's, fireworks, the first
locomotive in the Rodgers Works, the first airplane engines and
of course silk--Paterson for a long time was the silk city of
the entire Nation and the world, for that matter. These
buildings represent the various stages of the Industrial
Revolution. Waves of immigrants came here from Europe, just as
waves since then from all over the world. This is where people
worked in the mills.
And Alexander Hamilton had this idea long before those
mills were constructed. He saw the Falls as a tremendous
potential, not only for the city that was in the bend of the
river where Paterson was constructed, but he saw this as a
great opportunity for manufacturing. He established the society
for Useful Manufacturers which is basically pro forma for many
other organizations, business organizations that have since
followed.
The employment opportunities of Paterson, New Jersey are
historic. Between 1850 and the turn of the century, the
population of Paterson increased from 11,000 to 105,000.
Paterson is representative of the waves of immigrants that made
this country so great; really reflected in a lot of John
Updike's work, in his poem about little small cities of 160,000
people right now. Chronically the patterns and cultures of the
immigrants that came to Paterson from the 18th century to the
20th century would provide us a microcosm of the affects of
immigrants in the shaping of the United States. On teaching
modern-day Americans about the history of industry, the mills
of the Great Falls also set the backdrop for the history of the
labor movement in this country. The fact the only labor museum
in the entire Nation is 5 minutes away.
The bill before us is the first legislative step taken on
behalf of the Great Falls towards joining with the National
Park Service. I see here a synergistic partnership with the
National Park Service; a city reaching out--and for an area
reaching out--not only for economic development, not only to
preserve--not wanting to preserve our history beyond purple
ropes, but to use that history for the future of the 21st and
22nd century for the new immigrants that have arrived.
I have long thought that the Passaic River and the Great
Falls are not only a critical part of our history, they are the
key to our future, and we must do all we can in united fashion
to protect these valuable assets. I was mayor of Paterson and I
came before this committee in this very room, Mr. Chairman, in
1992--how time passes quickly--to convince the Congress that
this area was worth protecting. I was proud to work with our
former Senator, Senator Frank Lautenberg and now our present
Senator, Senator Bob Torricelli, to secure Federal funds to
revitalize this historic district.
Our work paid off then. I hope it pays off now. When we
initiated the Urban Street Initiative where we restored and
rebuilt Stoney Road Bridge over the upper raceway as well as
many hiking paths that pass through the district. This helps
strengthen a relationship between the National Park Service and
the city of Paterson that is ongoing today. The city of
Paterson has an even longer history of working with the Federal
Government to preserve its historic lands. In 1976, I--a
Democrat--introduced a Republican President Ford, a President
who recognized not only symbolically but also in reality what
the Falls was all about. We became part of a national
historical landmark.
So, the Park Service has long been aware of our need to
protect and save this area. Today you will hear from Deborah
Hoffman, executive director of the Passaic Country Development
Corporation. The county, of course, is the larger entity. She
will share with you many examples of the economic rejuvenation
being experienced by the county, and how the presence of the
National Park Service will make that growth even more
expansive.
Mr. Chairman and members, I want to close out with the
design guidelines itself from 1999 presented to us by the
National Park Service. ``The district bears eloquent testimony
to astounding feats of engineering, construction, ingenious
manufacturers into the courage and creativity and drudgery of
untold lives spent within those mills. It is also about the
human propensity to harness the forces of nature to put water
and gravity and stone to work. The district the sense of having
been one large factory driven by one powerful engine; an image
completely consistent with Hamilton's vision of a centralized
manufactory.''
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this area has the
significance. This area is suitable. This area is feasible,
which are the criteria--the very criteria--of course, the
National Park Service. And I thank you for listening and I am
honored to be here in your presence.
[The prepared statement of Representative Pascrell
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Pascrell, Jr., U.S. Representative
From New Jersey
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the entire subcommittee, for allowing
me the opportunity to testify here today. My legislation--H.R. 146--
calls for a study of the Great Falls National Historic District in my
hometown of Paterson, New Jersey to determine the feasibility of adding
it to the National Park System.
There is no dispute that the Great Falls Historic District
possesses a historic significance that makes it an area to be preserved
and treasured. The history here is rich. Alexander Hamilton realized
the incredible beauty and potential of the Great Falls when he founded
Paterson in 1792 as America's first planned industrial city and it is
our duty to ensure its preservation for generations to come.
Already, tourists are pouring in every year to see the 77-foot
Great Falls of the Passaic River and to partake in our preserved
history. For the past 12 years, an average of 20,000 yearly visitors
have attended the Paterson Museum in the Historic District. And the
Great Falls Visitors Center reports almost 5,000 visitors to the center
in the last year.
The Falls and the surrounding neighborhood really represent the
genesis of the American economic miracle, and increasing the presence
of the National Park Service here will give the area the attention and
resources it rightly deserves.
As a key to our manufacturing roots, the mills that sit today at
the Great Falls constructed paper, cotton. They manufactured the first
revolver at Samuel Colt's Works, the first locomotives at the Rodgers
Works, as well as airplane engines, and, of course, silk. Paterson is
known around the world as the Silk City. These buildings represent the
various stages of the industrial revolution in the United States. They
stand as monuments to progress, and could provide living museums for
present day Americans to learn about this important part of our
history.
As a result of the employment opportunities that abounded in
Paterson because of the mills, the city's population grew and
diversified rapidly. Between 1850 and the turn of the century, the
population of Paterson increased from 11,000 to 105,000--growing by an
average of 50 percent per decade.
As a result, Paterson is representative of the waves of immigration
in the United States, as Irish and English immigrants were replaced
later by Italians, and then subsequently Spanish-speaking populations
who still reside there today.
Chronicling the patterns and cultures of the immigrants that came
to Paterson from the 18th through the 20th centuries would provide us
with a microcosm of the effect of immigrants in the shaping of the
United States.
This convergence between the burgeoning industrial workplace and
the fledgling immigrant communities resulted in conflicts that led to
the modern day labor movement.
The historic labor unrest in Paterson focused on anti-child labor
legislation, safety in the workplace, minimum wage, and reasonable
working hours. Some of the most important figures in early 20th Century
American labor history were involved in the Great Silk Strike of 1913.
While teaching modern day Americans about the history of industry,
the mills at Great Falls also set the backdrop for the history of the
labor movement. Today they can teach both histories--so tightly
intertwined--together.
Not only is the Great Falls Historic District historically
significant, but the City of Paterson stands ready to work in
conjunction with the National Park Service to develop its potential. My
goal is to create a synergistic partnership between the City of
Paterson and the National Park Service. I am confident that Paterson is
up to the task.
This bill is the first legislative step I have taken on behalf of
Great Falls toward joining the National Park Service. But it is not the
first time I have worked with the City of Paterson to enhance and
develop this valuable and important area. I have long thought that the
Passaic River and the Great Falls are not only a critical part of our
past history. They are the key to our future, and we must do all we can
in a united fashion to protect these most valuable assets.
As Mayor of Paterson, I went to Washington in 1993 to testify
before the House Subcommittee on Parks and Public Lands to help
convince Congress that this area was worth protecting.
I was proud to work closely with our former U.S. Senator Frank
Lautenberg to secure federal funds to revitalize the Great Falls
Historic District. Our work paid off, and the following year I stood
with Senator Lautenberg on the steps of the Paterson Museum and
accepted $4.1 million in federal dollars secured under the Urban
History Initiative to restore and rebuild the Stoney Road Bridge over
the Upper Raceway as well as hiking trails.
This helped strengthen a relationship between the National Park
Service and the City of Paterson that is ongoing today. But the City of
Paterson has an even longer history of working with the federal
government to preserve its historic lands.
The Great Falls district has been on the National Register of
Historic Places since 1970 and has been a National Historic Landmark
since 1976. Since 1988, the Interior Department has listed the district
as a Priority One threatened National Historic Landmark. So the Park
Service has long been aware of our need to protect and save this area.
You will hear later from Deborah Hoffman, the Executive Director of
the Passaic Economic Development Corporation, who will share with you
many examples of the economic rejuvenation being experienced in the
county and how the presence of the National Park Service would make
that growth even more expansive.
These Falls really represent our city, its people and all its
potential. This place can be a real destination that will create jobs,
grow businesses and bring people in from all over. We cannot put a
velvet rope around the district--we must make it a living, breathing
attraction that will celebrate our past, present and future.
In conclusion, I will steal the words of the National Park Service
in the Design Guidelines they created for the Great Falls Historic
District in 1999:
The district bears eloquent testimony to astounding feats of
engineering and construction, to ingenious manufacturers, and
to the courage, creativity, and drudgery of untold lives spent
within the mills. It is also about the human propensity to
harness the forces of nature, to put water and gravity and
stone to work. The district retains the sense of having been
one large factory driven by one powerful engine, an image
completely consistent with Hamilton's vision of a centralized
national manufactory.
Thank you again for this opportunity.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your statements. If
there are no questions the next witness is Representative
Roemer. But I know Senator Kennedy and Congressman Roemer are
both testifying on the Adams Memorial Bill and if
Representative Roemer would be willing to defer, we can hear
from Senator DeWine first.
Representative Roemer. I have plenty of time. That would be
fine.
Senator Akaka. May I then call on Senator DeWine.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DeWINE, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OHIO
Senator DeWine. I will be brief Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
Senator Thomas, Senator Hagel let me begin by thanking you for
inviting me to testify in regard to S. 921 the William Howard
Taft Boundary Adjustment Act. We thank John Parsons, who you
are going to hear from in a moment, who is from the National
Park Service, for his testimony today. Let me also thank my
colleague from Ohio, Congressman Rob Portman, for introducing
the companion measure in the House, H.R. 1000. This has already
passed the House of Representatives.
I strongly support the preservation of Presidential
historic sites. I believe we must do all we can to protect
these landmarks and see to it they are properly maintained.
That is why last year I introduced the Presidential Sites
Improvement Act and plan to reintroduce it later this year.
That bill will provide grant money for the protection and
improvement of presidential sites.
But that is not what we are here about today. What we are
here about today is the William Howard Taft Boundary Adjustment
Act which will complement our earlier effort on helping the
National Park Service improve and protect the overall Taft site
in Cincinnati, Ohio. William Howard Taft was our Nation's 27th
President and the only President to also serve as Chief Justice
of the U.S. Supreme Court. He was born in Cincinnati in the
year 1857. The William Howard Taft National Historical Site
consists of his birthplace and his boyhood home. And I have had
the privilege, of course, with all of my children, of visiting
this wonderful site.
While President Taft and his siblings were growing up in
the house, his family was an integral part of the social, the
intellectual and, yes, the political fabric of Cincinnati. The
Taft house was obviously the site of many important gatherings.
This bill would help the Park Service better address the needs
of the Taft home historic grounds. The site is the only
memorial to the former President and our bill would authorize
the expansion of the site. This would also authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to allow the National Park Service to
swap one section of equal-valued land for another.
Mr. Parson will speak in greater detail about the Park
Service plans that will not only improve the overall site, but
also--I would add--would help the community as well. Ultimately
I believe this legislation will help make a lasting commitment
to future generations by preserving the memories and the
contributions of President William Howard Taft. I thank the
Chair and I thank the committee.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your statement. Are
there any questions?
Senator Thomas. At home, a section is 640 acres. Is that
what you are talking about?
Senator DeWine. As far as----
Senator Thomas. You said you were going to exchange one
section for another.
Senator DeWine. I apologize Senator. They were talking
about one area. I should have used the word ``area.''
Senator Thomas. That is three-quarters of an acre, right?
Senator DeWine. Yes. I apologize. I will be more precise
next time.
Senator Akaka. Let me call on the next witness,
Representative Roemer.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM ROEMER,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM INDIANA
Representative Roemer. Mr. Chairman, with all due
seriousness, we are Senate side and Senator Kennedy is the lead
sponsor on this side of this bill, and I am going to defer to
him to start the testimony.
Senator Kennedy. That's all right. You can go ahead.
Representative Roemer. First of all, Mr. Chairman, thank
you very much for the opportunity to be before you. Thanks to
your staff for the expedited consideration of this. Thank you
too, of course, Mr. Thomas--my colleague from the House days.
It is nice to see him again. And Mr. Hagel, I hope this is
interesting, for the last time we saw each other we were both
in line to watch a Disney movie with our families.
John Adams is fascinating and anybody who has made it
through--as I just did--McCullough's 651-page book on John
Adams. And I now I am supposed to explain why this Nation
should remember this great and honorable man's achievements in
5 minutes. It is quite a task. Let me try to do it.
First of all, we have done it in a very bi-partisan way--in
the House where Chairman Hansen and Chairman Heffley on the
Republican side reported this on a subcommittee, full committee
and it passed on voice vote in the House of Representatives.
Eleanor Holmes North, the District representative who
represents the Mall and is very, very protective of the Mall,
said not only is she fully supportive of this legislation to
commemorate John and Abigail Adams and the Adams family--
particularly John Quincy Adams--but this bill is the model for
the way to go about a putting a monument somewhere in D.C. So,
we have her strong support, as well.
Thomas Jefferson, who gets so much credit and so much
press, said this about John Adams' role in the Declaration of
Independence. ``His power of thought and expression moved us
from our seats.'' John Adams was the voice, the passion, the
articulation, the eloquence of convincing the American people
to take the huge risk for independence; something never done
before with success to break away with Great Britain; something
that he led the efforts, headed the commissions, and the
Continental Congress to argue passionately for our independence
when one-third of the country was Tory, one-third of the
country was True Blue, and one-third was undecided.
While George Washington was indeed our first President, was
indeed the first to hold the office of the Presidency and
represent the executive branch, some might argue that John
Adams was our first President in terms of the legislative
branch and seeing that Declaration of Independence through.
He also was instrumental in advising members of Congress
for the separation of powers. In writing, as Senator Kennedy
who has been thumbing through a book the Library of Congress
has shared with us, the defense of the Constitution of the
Government of the United States of America written in 1787
articulating in this book that ours was a Nation of laws, not
of men. And that we needed a separation of power,
independence--Adams crucial role--separation of powers--the
appointment of John Marshall to indeed argue that we had a
Nation of laws and not of men. Maybe the greatest Chief Justice
in the history of the United States and an Adams appointment.
And then, of course, arguing for peace and be our diplomat for
the Treaty of Paris in 1783.
He probably made his best choice in life in marrying
Abigail Adams who was his equal, his partner, his equal in
eloquence in letters and in raising probably the most dazzling
and brilliant public service family in the history of our
country when you look at John Adams and his son John Quincy
Adams, the sixth President. You look at his son Charles Francis
Adams who Lincoln appointed to keep Great Britain out of the
Civil War in the 1860 through 1865 period. And then his son,
Henry Adams who was maybe one of the most gifted historians in
the history of the country.
One generation of brilliance, of dedication to public
service, of writing skills after another and somehow we have
forgotten this family. We have neglected this family in putting
up our Nation's monuments and memorials in this great town. Not
far from here in our Nation's Capital is John Trumbull's
picture of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. And
front and center, determined and confident, right in the very
middle of that portrait is John Adams standing there ready to
articulate in the most eloquent, fiery and passionate terms why
we needed to break away from Great Britain, why we needed our
independence and how we could form the different institutions
of a great republic, of a democracy for our Nation, for our
history.
I guess little did he know that a Nation was not just born
there but to born and unborn millions of people throughout
decades and centuries later this country and the things that
Adams articulated still stand. The ideals and for the passions
and for the liberties and freedoms that other people all over
the world look to and are trying to establish their form of
government.
I hope the Senate will act as expeditiously as the House
did in passing this tribute to John and Abigail Adams and John
Quincy Adams and to this great legacy of the Adams' family
contributors to the very many strengths of our system have been
so eloquently put forward by the Adams' family. I have enjoyed
working with Senator Kennedy on this bill and greatly respect
his contributions both to this legislation but also over his
many years as a U.S. Senator and his family's contributions as
well.
I have a long statement, Mr. Chairman, that I will enter
into the record at this point but I hope that we can pass this
legislation in a truly bi-partisan way and do justice to this
wonderfully unique and talented family.
[The prepared statement of Representative Roemer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Roemer, U.S. Representative From Indiana
We are here today because the question has been asked: why is there
no fitting memorial to John Adams and his family's tremendous legacy in
American politics?
Pulitzer Prize winning author, David McCullough, has made the case
that John Adams's contributions as a colossus of independence; as an
equal partner with Washington and Jefferson as a creator of our
country; as the first Vice President and second President; as a skilled
diplomat negotiating peace with England and later with France; as an
author of one of the most important diaries, and perhaps the most
important letters with Thomas Jefferson, are too great not to be
immortalized among his colleagues.
As a public servant, my fascination with Adams extends through
three generations of his descendants. As a family, the Adamses were the
guardians of our republic, from its creation through adolescence. Their
courage and prophetic wisdom kept us out of war, built the foundation
of American foreign policy, transcended party politics, and displayed
independence in critical times. It is time to embrace their
contributions with a proper memorial in our capital city.
One of the few people truly comparable to John Adams both in
passion and intellect was his wife, Abigail. Those who knew them
personally called their union perfect. Abigail's letters to her husband
reveal not only her wit and intelligence, but also a profound belief in
the equality of women that was more than 100 years before its time.
As a member of Congress, I am particularly intrigued by John Quincy
Adams, the quintessential public servant, and son of John Adams. John
Quincy Adams began his career as a diplomat, skillfully serving
America's national interests in Russia, the Netherlands, Portugal,
Prussia, and Great Britain. Under President Madison he negotiated the
Treaty of Ghent, and as Secretary of State during the Monroe
Administration, he helped create the most important and decisive
foreign policy statement of its time, The Monroe Doctrine.
John Quincy Adams's Presidency was ambitious. Like his father, he
believed that the government should invest in education and science for
the betterment of its citizens. He proposed a national university and
observatory. He pursued his agenda with tenacity and initiative, and
like his father, enjoyed negligible political support. Like his father,
he served only one term as President.
A true public servant, John Quincy Adams returned to public life
after a brief hiatus to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives from
his hometown of Quincy, Massachusetts. In his nine terms, he spoke of
no issue more often--or with more vigor--than slavery. Like his
parents, John Quincy Adams was a stolid abolitionist, known to his
colleagues as ``old man eloquent.'' He died at the ``post of duty'' as
a dedicated public servant, suffering a stroke on the floor of the
House. He passed away two days later in the U.S. Capitol.
John Quincy Adams's son, Charles Francis Adams, spent his formative
years in Washington, learning through the examples of his distinguished
predecessors. As he entered into politics, Charles Francis Adams became
increasingly disenchanted with the insincerity and outright corruption
of his generation of leaders in Washington. He soon bolted the Whigs in
favor of the Free Soil Party, which organized around the principles of
a profound opposition to slavery. He received the Party's Vice
Presidential nomination in 1848, and eventually held his father's old
seat in the U.S. Congress. In 1860, President Lincoln tapped Charles
Francis Adams--now a member of the new Republican Party, and widely
known for his sharp intellect and persuasive powers--to act as
Ambassador to England in order to prevent British military support for
the Confederacy. His logic, reserve and directness achieved functional
neutrality from Britain, which helped to preserve the integrity of our
Union.
Charles Francis Adams's son, Henry Adams, shared his father's
frustration with politics and corruption in Washington. His
observations steered him towards journalism, where he described the
shortcomings of modern politics without falling prey to them. A
``liberal Republican,'' Henry Adams wrote pointed, brilliant essays
exposing political fraud and dishonesty. He shared the idealism and
independence of his heritage, never putting politics above his
convictions. Henry Adams was also an accomplished academic, teaching
Medieval History at Harvard, and the first American to employ the
``seminar'' method of instruction. Henry Adams is best known for his
acclaimed autobiography, The Education of Henry Adams. Some have called
it the greatest autobiography in American history.
The Adamses occupy a position in American history unequaled by any
other family. They helped create our nation as champions of freedom;
they helped defend and guide it during its vulnerable, early days; and
they helped preserve it through the most divisive battle in American
history. They devoted their lives to our Republic, and it is time to
recognize and celebrate their genius, sacrifices, and significance,
here in our Nation's Capital.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your statement it
will be included in the record.
Senator Kennedy.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join
Congressman Roemer in thanking you and thanking the committee
for the consideration of this legislation. And let me thank
this committee here. There are many committees that we know in
this institution. We all know about the Finance Committee
dealing with Medicare and Social Security; and the
Appropriations Committee; and the Defense, Armed Service and
Missile Defense and all the others. But in just these past few
days, I have one again seen the magic of this committee in my
own State--the Essex County Heritage Corridor which was
approved. I was up over the period of the weekend. I visited
Salem, Massachusetts where they had the Commissioning of the
Friendship and saw the thousands and thousands of students that
are out there involved in both the Heritage Corridor and the
Friendship, Salem, Massachusetts, one of the national parks by
President Roosevelt prior to the Second World War.
And then I had the opportunity by boat to go back through
the islands right off the coast where the only city in the
world that has thirty-two islands, now they will be preserved;
some for appropriate development, some for recreation, some for
environmental preservation. That would be gone over time if
that committee had not taken action on it. And then again just
a week ago now in New Bedford, which has been designated a
park, and what a difference that has made to this committee.
The Blackstone Valley--I could go on, but the work that is done
by this committee and its impact in terms of the quality of
life of the people in our State has just been enormous and we
are incredibly thankful to you, Mr. Chairman and the other
members of this committee--Democrats and Republicans.
It has made an enormous difference and now we are here in
terms of the historic preservations here in Washington. Let me
say first of all to pay tribute to Congressman Roemer. He has
really been the driving force on this long before Dave
McCullough finished his book. I think probably he was working
on it when Dave McCullough started on his book. And I welcome
the opportunity to work with the Congressman, but he has really
been the spark and the force behind all of this legislation.
But it is enormously needed.
And let me just review very quickly. The Adams' family
donated their home in an extraordinary act of generosity. So,
here we have the local participation by the community itself
wanting to help the preservation. And we have seen in recent
times the preservation of their home, picked up in part by the
State but helpful assistance by the Federal Government. This
has been really an extraordinary act on their part of
generosity.
In terms their coming this issue, let me just reiterate
quickly three things that John Adams did, which I found
impressive, which Tim has referenced. First of all, he, more
than anyone else, was responsible for Thomas Jefferson writing
the Declaration of Independence. Two, he was the one that
selected George Washington to be the Commander of the troops.
And this was the first act of national reconciliation. Here you
have a Southern general commanding primarily Northern forces at
that time. It had incredible symbolism in terms of national
unity at the beginning of the American Revolution. And thirdly,
the appointment of John Marshall. He more than anyone,
historians will tell you, the independence of the judiciary
committee was really John Adams.
I think beyond as President Kennedy wrote in his profiles
of courage: ``John Adams at the height of the American
Revolution defended the British soldiers that fired on American
partisans.'' Read this book. See the emotion that was taking
place at that time. The whole city could have burned down and
he was willing to take this on. An extraordinary act, in spite
of the fact of his absolute dedication to the independence
movement. Extraordinary act of personal heroism.
Abigail Adams, who is the principal writer about the
colonial America, the Revolutionary War, and the early life of
this country. There is nobody besides being probably the first
woman suffragette as well as an abolitionist. Her writings are
just the rarest, most penetrating, interesting collection of
documents. And she--as Tim has pointed out--is an extraordinary
figure. And then John Quincy Adams as a Senator from
Massachusetts resigned rather than supporting the War of 1812.
Eventually, he went back and rebuilt his political career but
an extraordinary act of courage.
So we have really the founding of just these extraordinary
and these--as Tim has mentioned--this family continued for many
years. This will be his place, his place should be recognized
in the nation's capital that has recognized Washington, that
has recognized Jefferson, that has recognized Madison but has
left out John Adams. And we think that history, American
history and its values--all the things that we care about in
terms of the earliest life of this country, he has made such a
contribution for and as the great philosophers say it isn't
only a country that produces great individuals but a great
country says something about the men and women it honors.
We are asking this committee and this Senate to honor and
by honoring, state what real values that we as Americans feel
in terms of their contribution to the development and the
continuing values of the country. I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kennedy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Edward M. Kennedy, U.S. Senator
From Massachusetts
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to express my support
for legislation authorizing a memorial for John, Abigail, and John
Quincy Adams in Washington, D.C. Senator Kerry and I strongly support
this proposal, and all 10 Massachusetts Congressmen sponsored this bill
in the House of Representatives.
In Massachusetts, their importance is well-known, and we've taken
significant steps over the years to preserve the Adams legacy. This
preservation was possible in large part through the generosity of the
Adams family, who gave the Adams' homes to the American people in 1946.
Through his role in the nation's founding and his service as the
first Vice-President and the second President, John Adams left an
extraordinary and indelible mark on the country. But for too long, in
the country as a whole, he has often been the Forgotten Founding
Father.
Historian David McCullough's current best-selling biography of
Adams is now redressing that balance, and giving the whole nation an
impressive lesson in Adams' importance to our history.
John Adams' greatest action may well have been his indispensable
role in July 1776, persuading the colonies to declare their freedom.
Jefferson, himself, called Adams the ``colossus of independence.'' We
might not have had a country without him.
John Adams also had a profound role in shaping the Constitution,
and the early development of our federal system of government. He laid
the basis for the nation's independent judiciary by naming John
Marshall to the Supreme Court. Adams was especially proud of the
appointment of that great Chief Justice. As he later said, ``My gift of
John Marshall to the people of the United States was the proudest act
of my life.''
Adams's wife, Abigail, and son, John Quincy, also should be part of
this memorial. Abigail Adams was her husband's most trusted adviser and
a strong supporter of women's rights and the abolitionist movement. Her
letters recorded the daily events of colonial life, the tumultuous
years of the American Revolutionary War, and the early years of the
nation.
John Adams' son, John Quincy, became President too, but he was
renowned for his political courage long before that. In fact, President
Kennedy chose him as a Profile in Courage for his actions as a
Federalist Senator in supporting Jefferson's trade embargo and
supporting Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase.
For all these reasons and many more, John Adams, Abigail Adams, and
John Quincy Adams eminently deserve a memorial in the nation's capital.
Their extraordinary leadership and dedication to the cause of
independence and the development of the United States helped make the
nation what it is today. It is fitting that their place in history be
honored here in Washington, D.C.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for you statement.
Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. Just one clarification. This is done under
the Commemorative Works Act which precludes the Federal
Government paying for it, and yet it is my understanding that
there has been money appropriated for it. Now, I don't quite
understand that.
Representative Roemer. Now certainly, Senator, the House
side the legislation that we did pass by voice vote said that
it was not only appropriate for us to honor this very
distinguished family, but as I mentioned before we did it in a
very bi-partisan way with a voice vote. In our legislation, on
the House side, in addition to saying we needed to incorporate
a foundation to raise money for this. It says in the
legislation that there were not Federal funds.
I can't speak to what the intentions of the Senate are. I
am over here testifying. But the history of it are articulated
there. This morning we passed a bill that authorized $10
million to Senator Coverdell for him being commemorated as the
new person--his name would be inscribed on the building for the
Peace Corps with $10 million there. So, I think this
legislation, these efforts are done in different ways, by
different people and I am sure we see many different models of
this through the years.
Senator Thomas. Your bill and the House bill did not
anticipate government funding.
Representative Roemer. Our bill on the House, I did not
request those funds. That is correct.
Senator Kennedy. Can I just add, Senator, that the $1
million was fairly in terms of trying to get to the program
sort of started and run through the various procedures. As I
understand it, historically each of the other monuments have
had similar kinds of initial kinds of funding at this stage,
and the support for it. And as Congressman Roemer indicated, he
did not anticipate that there would be the funds. I think this
legislation only has the funding for the start up and I think
that we would at other times consult with this committee should
we change direction.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Again, thank you very much.
Senator Torricelli. Mr. Chairman can I ask Senator Kennedy
and Congressman Roemer to remain for one moment. Were you
planning on calling on me next? I have not actually been part
of the legislation but wanted to say a word about it. I have
actually thought about this for years and want to commend them
for bringing this forward. It is actually extraordinary in the
life of this country that there has never been a memorial to
John Adams.
It is really a mistake of history. In a Nation that has
remembered and revered Thomas Jefferson, these two men had
different visions of the future of America. And the Nation is
largely a reflection of John Adams, not Thomas Jefferson. As
Senator Kennedy noted, Thomas Jefferson only wrote the
Declaration of Independence because John Adams asked him to do
it. John Adams is the architect of the American Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson played very little role. History may see them
as twin giants, in fact they did not play a role of the same
scale.
I think this is tremendous legislation and my only hope
would be that given to really do something befitting John Adams
this simply cannot be another monument in Washington. This
isn't another circle with a statue or a place to sit in the
park. This has to be a monument as big as the man. This man
genuinely, you could say a few figures in American history that
the Nation would be fundamentally different if the man had not
lived. I can think of few people you could say that about other
than maybe Lincoln. You would say it about John Adams. I am
very glad they brought this forward and hope the committee will
take it seriously. I certainly want to be a part of it. This
should have been done a hundred years ago. But that is not why
I am here.
Representative Roemer. Senator, if I could just respond in
ten seconds. Certainly Congress is, I have had a discussion
with Mr. Thomas on this, we don't determine where the monument
will be nor what it will look like. The Commemorative Works Act
of 1986 does. Mr. Parson who is in the room with us today will
help us determine that. But with those nice words we would
certainly like to put you on the Commission.
[Laughter].
Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Senator, please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT G. TORRICELLI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Torricelli. Thank you for allowing me to make those
comments, Senator Thomas, Senator Hagel. I joined Congressman
Pascrell today in support of H.R. 146, the Paterson Great Falls
Historic Preservation bill. I have sponsored a similar bill in
the Senate. I know, Mr. Chairman, it is not traditional to
think of great urban centers as Paterson as a site for a unit
of the National Park Service. But National Parks are more than
just open space or areas of environmental importance. The
National Park Service is meant to preserve our Nation's
history. The Great Falls itself is a seventy-seven foot tall
natural landmark, second largest waterfall by volume East of
the Mississippi. But it is the Great Falls position as the
birthplace of our Nation's first industrialized city that
brings us here today.
In the years after helping our country win its freedom from
Great Britain, Alexander Hamilton--a third great figure in
American independence--sought to establish U.S. economic
independence by developing American commerce and manufacturing.
Unlike Thomas Jefferson, who I have already attacked here today
once, who had a vision of an agrarian based economy, Hamilton
believed that economic independence would come from industry.
He believed that industry could be powered by water and after
designed a water power system in 1791, He set out to find a
suitable location. He crossed the Hudson River in New Jersey,
stopped at Great Falls and a year later founded what has become
the city of Paterson.
He built a laboratory and founded a Society for Useful
Manufacturing. He formed this new community as a public/private
partnership using the mighty Falls to power industry. While the
new Falls provided the power, new immigrants provided the
thriving work force. Together they helped Paterson become
America's first industrialized city. It was, as Congressman
Pascrell testified, a textile city from silk to cotton which
fueled the growth of Paterson, making Paterson once known as
the silk city of the world. The textile mills are still present
throughout the city. Paterson is home to the largest example of
early manufacturing plants in America. Remnants of the Water
Power facility of the 18th, 19th and 20th century fueled
Paterson industrialization and they can still be seen.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government has already recognized
the place of Paterson and the Great Falls in the rich history
of the nation. The Great Falls have been on the National
Register of Historic Places since 1970. In 1976, President Ford
designated the area a national landmark. Today the National
Park Service is authorized to provide technical assistance to
the protection and restoration of the area. Our legislation
seeks to begin the process to take the next step, which is to
make the Great Falls a unit of the park system.
Establishment as a unit of the Park Service is important
for several reasons. Primarily, it will bring new resources to
former Park Service personnel and funding, which provides
staff, tours, enhances the visitor's center to help ensure the
survival of the historic facilities. But also because our
Nation's urban-industrial history is currently under-
represented by the National Park Service. There is currently
only one urban-industrial site in the Northeast--Lowell,
Massachusetts--the second industrial city in America--and I am
glad I am presenting this after Senator Kennedy has left the
room.
These sites are necessary to tell the story of the growth
of our Nation and the transformation of its economy from
agrarian to industrial. Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee I hope will consider this designation. There are many
things we should remember about our county. How it became an
industrialized society, where American industry had its birth,
how this enormous economy was conceived by Alexander Hamilton,
created, built, transformed to be part of the history that is
never lost.
If we do not act it can be lost. A quarter of the Nation's
population lives within a 4-hour-drive of Paterson, New Jersey.
Every school child in America should have the opportunity to
stand where Alexander Hamilton stood, see what was built, how
American industry began, how the world largest economy was
given birth. That is what we are asking. This designation gives
us tour guides, potentially a Visitor's Center where indeed we
can commemorate a $10 trillion economy was given birth with a
single idea, a water wheel, a falls, and a plant. Thank you Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your statement. Any
questions?
Senator Thomas. No, thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for testifying before
the committee. I would like to make a slight change to the
hearing format this afternoon. Normally the administration
witnesses are given courtesy of testifying first. Given the
interest in Senator Hagel's bill to authorize the education
center at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, I think it might be
useful to hear from all of the witnesses testifying on that
issue in the same panel. Mr. Parsons has agreed to stay for the
entire hearing to accommodate our format change. I would like
to thank him for his cooperation.
At this time I would like to ask all three witnesses
testifying on S. 281 to take a seat at the witness table: Mr.
John Parsons, Associate Regional Director for the National
Capitol Region of the National Park Service testifying on
behalf of the administration. Ms. Patricia Gallagher, the
executive director of the National Capital Planning Commission;
and Mr. Jan Scruggs, president of the Vietnam Veteran's
Memorial Fund.
Before we begin with this panel let me encourage you to
please summarize your statements and keep your remarks to no
more than 5 minutes. We have your written testimony and that
will be included in its entirety in the hearing record. So, let
me call on Mr. Parsons to proceed.
STATEMENT OF JOHN G. PARSONS, ASSOCIATE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
LANDS, RESOURCES AND PLANNING, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ON S. 281
Mr. Parsons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I will summarize
my remarks as you suggested. The Department strongly supports
the efforts to educate the public about the Vietnam War and
about the men and women who bravely served our country in that
war. But we have nine concerns with S. 281 as introduced, and I
would like share those with you.
First, we believe that the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is a
work of civic art that is now complete. It is a memorial that
generates an emotional response of the highest order; a design
that has been heralded throughout the world. It has had
numerous additions over time, as you may know: the statue of
the three servicemen, the Vietnam Women's Memorial, the In
Memory plaque that we are working on right now. And we believe
that if we intrude on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial with
anything else, especially of this scale, we will be diminishing
the impact of the existing work.
Second, as proposed--I have an exhibit over here that I
would like to show you--as proposed at the moment, as we
understand it, the structure would be seven times the size of
the existing kiosk at the Memorial. We have depicted on this
exhibit--and I think you have it before you in a smaller size--
what this would look like at the site of the existing kiosk.
Third, we believe that memorials are meant to be
provocative not educational. We have dealt with this at the
Joint Task Force of the National Capital Planning Commission,
the National Capital Memorial Commission, and the Commission of
Fine Arts and have offered to articulate in a master plan for
memorials, which is soon to be released, the thought of what
memorials actually are. And we have come to the conclusion that
educational facilities of the type suggested here are not
appropriate in the context of landscape memorials, especially.
Fourth, I would point out, the National Capital Memorial
Commission at a public hearing on April 26, after receiving
testimony, unanimously concluded that we should oppose this
measure.
Fifth, at various times similar proposals have been made
for other memorials. The FDR Memorial, the World War II
Memorial, the Martin Luther King, Jr. that we are working on
now, as well as the Korean War Veterans Memorial--all of these
have had proposals for the kind of educational facility
proposed here for the Virtnam Veterans Memorial and through the
process designated under the Commemorative Works Act, we have
discouraged such facilities.
Sixth, we are concerned, of course, that if this education
center is authorized that you will be setting a precedent.
People will return to you for more educational centers where we
have previously discouraged them under the provisions of the
Commemorative Works Act.
Seventh, we believe that the National Military Museum,
which is proposed in the Defense Department authorization for
fiscal year 2000, is the solution here--to combine in one
facility a museum that will deal in depth with all wars of all
times that this country has engaged in. It would allow an
opportunity for the story of the Vietnam War to be told in that
context, in a more thorough manner.
Ironically, the structure proposed by S. 281 is going to be
too small, in our judgment, even though we believe it is too
large. And what we mean by that is that we feel that because of
the size of the visitation to the memorial, which is now four
million annually, there simply would have to be a facility much
larger than this to be effective. And we also feel it would
have to be of a larger size in order to cover the subject
matter at hand.
Ninth, we are totally committed to education about this
memorial. We have worked with Mr. Scruggs of the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial Fund for years in their effort to reach out
to schools all over the country with educational programs and
advanced materials they have provided. We have developed a CD-
ROM and a book which describes all of the collections and the
memorabilia that are left at the wall. We also feel that the
three rangers that we have there, combined with the volunteers
that assist us, provide the kind of information that is sought
by this measure; that is to use the traditional method of park
rangers serving the visitors on a one-to-one basis to provide
the kind of information that enlightens them about the war as
well as the Memorial itself. We have introduced wayside
exhibits at the Memorial, which could thematically supplement
information in the manner that is being suggested. So through
that combination of materials on site, we believe that would be
a better solution.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be glad
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Parsons on S. 281 follows:]
Prepared Statement of John G. Parsons, Associate Regional Director,
Lands, Resources, and Planning, National Capital Region, National Park
Service, on S. 281
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 281, which would authorize the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund to construct an education center at the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the Mall.
The Department strongly supports efforts to educate the public
about the Vietnam War and about the men and women who bravely served
our country in that war. However, we do have concerns with S. 281, as
introduced. The structure that would be authorized by this legislation
would detract from the visitors' experience to the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial and the Lincoln Memorial, and would set an unwelcome precedent
for other memorials on the National Mall. Instead, we believe that
other more suitable alternatives to the proposed education center
should be explored. We look forward to working with the Committee on
fulfilling the goal of the legislation of providing educational
information about the Vietnam War, but doing so in ways that would not
detract from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial or visually impact the
monumental core in our Nation's Capital.
S. 281 would authorize the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc. to
construct an education center for the purpose of educating people about
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. It would replace the small National Park
Service information kiosk (168 square feet) currently at the site. The
new structure would be a maximum of 1,200 square feet in size. The
legislation specifies that the center would be erected for 10 years and
reevaluated by Congress at the end of that period. The Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Fund, Inc. would be responsible for paying for the cost of
designing and constructing the center.
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial generates a memorable emotional
response from virtually all who visit it. Although not part of the
original design, several elements have been added to the memorial,
including the flagpole and the Three Servicemen statue. A separate
Memorial to Women who Served in Vietnam was constructed in 1993, and
the In Memory Plaque, to those veterans who died after the war as a
direct result of their military service in Vietnam, was authorized last
year. The Department believes that the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is
complete and should not be subject to further additions. While we
support the effort to provide the public with an opportunity to learn
more about history of the Vietnam War, we believe that we risk
diminishing the original work by adding adjunct structures to this
site.
The education center authorized by S. 281 would not simply be
another design element added to the memorial. The proposed structure
would be more than seven times the size of the existing information
kiosk and would visually intrude on and detract from the memorial as
the focal point of the visitor's experience. In addition, this proposal
would violate concepts contained in the Master Plan for Memorials and
Museums in the Nation's Capital, which is being developed by a joint
task force of commissions, under the leadership of the National Capital
Planning Commission. That plan precludes such facilities within Area I
and has gone through a public review and comment period, where
endorsement was urged. On April 26, 2001, the National Capital Memorial
Commission recommended opposing the bill by a unanimous vote at its
public meeting.
Similar facilities have been disapproved or precluded at the
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, World War II, and Martin Luther King, Jr.
Memorials by the National Park Service, the National Capital Planning
Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts because they would intrude
on those works of landscape architecture. Each of these memorials
represents a historical figure or time period important to our Nation.
However, a determination was made that opportunities to educate the
public further about these historical people and events could be
accomplished in ways that would not detract from the memorials.
Groups who support similar facilities at these and other memorials
may be watching our action on S. 281 with great interest. If an
education center were to be authorized for the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial, similar proposals for the other war memorials would likely
follow. Proponents of the education center express concern about
visitors' lack of fundamental understanding of the Vietnam War, but the
same could be said to be true for visitors to the Nation's Capital'
memorials for the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Korean War, and
the nearby District of Columbia World War I Memorial and the soon-to-
be-constructed World War II Memorial.
One alternative to placing facilities at these memorials is to
provide education about all of the wars that are part of our Nation's
history in one museum. In fact, Congress has already begun the process
of developing the kind of facility we believe would be appropriate for
telling the story of our Vietnam veterans and the Vietnam War by
establishing a Commission on the National Military Museum as part of
the Department of Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2000 (P.L. 106-
65). The commission established by that law is charged with developing
preliminary proposals for a national military museum in the National
Capital Area. If the commission recommends establishing such a facility
on Navy Annex property in Arlington, Virginia, the law further provides
that the Secretary of Defense may make 10 acres of that property
available for that purpose. Wherever the museum is located, it
presumably would be easily accessible to those who visit the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial as well as other war memorials on the Mall. Once the
military museum is established, we envision coordinating with the
Defense Department to ensure that visitors to the military memorials in
the Nation's Capital that are managed by the National Park Service are
encouraged to visit the museum to learn more about the history of the
wars.
Exploring other projects or sites also would allow us to find a
location that is large enough to tell a more complete story of the
Vietnam War. S. 281 proposes a 1,200-square-foot structure which may
actually be too small for the purpose it is intended to serve. It is
questionable whether it is possible to treat the Vietnam War with the
range and depth that could be considered minimally appropriate in a
structure of this size. It would be too small for the high volume of
visitation at the memorial, which is approximately four million
annually.
The Department is firmly committed to educating the public about
the Vietnam War and its impact on the history of our Nation. We have
been involved in several types of educational programs. For nearly ten
years, the Smithsonian has displayed an exhibit of the offerings left
at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and collected by National Park Service
rangers. Other exhibits of offerings collected by the National Park
Service have traveled to schools, universities, museums and veterans
centers all over the world. In addition, the National Park Service has
published a book and CD-ROM on the history of the memorial and the
Vietnam War and runs a website designed to educate children about
museum collections, including those associated with the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial. The National Park Service has been involved in a
number of news programs and television specials on the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial and the history of the Vietnam War.
The goal of S. 281 of educating the public about the Vietnam War is
an admirable one, and one which the Department has and will continue to
fully support. We strongly believe that this important goal can be
accomplished in a different manner than prescribed by this legislation.
We look forward to working with the Committee in exploring projects or
sites that give us the best opportunity to tell the story of the
Vietnam War and the men and women who served our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your statement. May
I call upon Ms. Gallagher?
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA E. GALLAGHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION, ON S. 281
Ms. Gallagher. Mr. Chairman, thank you. members of the
committee, my name is Patricia Gallagher and I am executive
director of the National Capital Planning Commission. The
Commission is responsible for preserving historic urban design
and has made Washington one of the most admired capital cities
in the world. I am honored to have this opportunity to express
the Commission's views regarding the proposed Education Center
of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the Mall.
The Commission supports the establishment of an education
program to inform the millions of visitors to Washington,
including thousands of school aged children eager to learn
about the complex history of the Vietnam conflict and the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial. However, the Commission is concerned
that locating an Education Center in the open space between the
Lincoln and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial could detract from
the visitors' experience at these memorials.
It would also set the precedent for establishing additional
Education Centers at other memorials across the Mall. In order
to preserve the historic open space of the National Mall, this
Commission along with the Commission on Fine Arts and the
National Capital Memorials Commission in January of 2000
adopted a Commemorative Zone Policy that establishes a Reserve
in the central cross axis of the Mall and states that in this
Reserve we will approve no new memorials. In establishing this
policy, the Commission noted that ``the Reserve was a unique
national space, which embodies our democratic ideals,
achievements and which must be preserved as an indispensable,
national significant, cultural resource.''
The Senate last year demonstrated its support of this
policy passing legislation to protect the Reserve as a matter
of law. Although not proposing a new memorial, S. 281 would
authorize the construction of an additional element to an
existing memorial within the Reserve and by this act would
undermine the intent of the Reserve policy.
The size of the structure, as stated by Mr. Parsons, will
be seven times the size of the National Park Service's Ranger
Station located at the Memorial. We believe again, as Mr.
Parsons said, that this site--that this center--is too large
for the Mall-sensitive landscape, but at the same time too
small to tell the conflict story of the Vietnam War to its
millions of visitors.
Since 1991, the Commission has been consistent in
expressing its objections to additions to the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial, which we believe succeeds in evoking a powerful,
emotional response precisely because of its simplicity.
Moreover, the Commission is concerned about the precedent that
would be set if the Center is permitted at this location.
Congress may soon find itself under increasing pressure to
permit similar Education Centers at other memorials throughout
the monumental core.
The Commission suggests that there are other ways to
provide visitors to this and other memorials with an Education
Center that would not diminish the historical landscape of the
monumental core, and we would be happy to work with the
committee to insist in finding suitable alternatives that are
within close proximity to the Memorial.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to
appear before you today and would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your statement.
Mr. Scruggs.
STATEMENT OF JAN CRAIG SCRUGGS, PRESIDENT OF THE VIETNAM
VETERANS MEMORIAL FUND
Mr. Scruggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very honored to
be here today to represent the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund.
I actually last testified for the subcommittee 2 decades ago,
20 years ago, on what was then the controversial idea of
placing the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Constitution
Garden. But with your help, the legislation was passed and most
of us here would agree that the Vietnam Memorial has been a
great success.
I have returned today to merely request permission to
expand the currently existing kiosk on the site of the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial. The new Education Center will transform the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial into a more profound learning
experience for America's youth with a self-guided tour and
photographs of those who are on the wall, and these will engage
them. They will be memorable displays of historic events, which
have taken place at the most visited memorial in Washington.
Young people will gain an understanding of the Memorial that is
now older than they are, Mr. Chairman.
Further, the Education Center will help them gain a better
appreciation for the visits to other memorials in Washington;
all of which honor service to our great Nation, a service which
has kept our country free. The visitors will have the
opportunity to read written remembrances and reactions to the
wall that will ultimately serve as a very important, historic
archive with contemporary American culture. Computer terminals
will also be on hand allowing for searches for names on the
wall based on States and cities.
Last year, the subcommittee approved legislation
authorizing the ``In Memory Plaque'' on the site of the
Memorial, honoring veterans who died as a result of service in
Vietnam. We are actually making very good progress with that
plaque. We will design, announce a design, in the relatively
near future, probably September. The kiosk will also allow
other groups in the future who will be demanding separate
plaques because this indeed will be a magnificent architectural
achievement when we are complete with it; an opportunity to be
honored in the actual kiosk through rotating exhibits or
perhaps even a Wall of Honor. These rotating exhibits can
actually highlight the groups, the sacrifices of groups such as
the Dog Handlers and others who feel the need to be
memorialized.
So it is far better to honor these groups in this kiosk
then to continue making further permanent alterations to the
Memorial area. The arguments against the Center, which have
been entered into the record by the two previous witnesses,
interestingly have already been addressed. Exhibit A of your
testimony which includes a letter sent to John Parsons on the
16th of July actually addresses all of these issues.
Appropriate documentation has been provided. Exhibit A is
attached to my testimony.
Actually the Secretary of the Interior had two concerns
which I considered relatively minor. I am happy to address them
at this time. She is concerned that the Center will interfere
with the lines of sight to the Lincoln Memorial. But with
proper landscaping and design and such interference will be
minimal. The major interference with the sight lines to the
Lincoln Memorial is actually the large oak tree. The site lines
in question are truly a major concern to the Interior
Department that these trees could be removed. That is a step
that I would certainly never support. The minimal interference
that the center would introduce--and I don't think that
interference is the right word--for this will indeed enhance
the Memorial and the experience for visitors.
This would be a very small price to pay for the benefits to
America's youth. We will work with the Secretary of the
Interior to develop the proper landscaping, the appropriate
siting for this very low roof structure. Ironically a number of
structures near the Lincoln Memorial, including a trailer
selling sodas to tourists, are major eyesores that interfere
considerably with the lines of site to the Lincoln Memorial.
In your possession, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, is exhibit B which actually shows the trailer's
approximately--I walked it off--approximately 4000 square feet
in the site line of the Lincoln Memorial sits this
extraordinary trailer. And on exhibit B there are other
structures as well as the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, which we
understand can really never be removed. They have been there
for 10 years. These are First Amendment demonstrators protected
by the First Amendment.
The point is that when we discuss precedent here, there is
plenty of precedent for bad architecture basically on the
grounds of the Lincoln Memorial. We are providing, Mr.
Chairman, good architecture as we reach out to teach about the
Wall and to teach America's history to America's youth. The
proposed site for the Center has a clearing surrounded by
trees. The design of the Center itself greatly improves upon
the existing kiosk as is evidenced by the unique shape of the
Center, which will adapt with the site harmoniously. Further
the site can be removed after a period of ten years should
visitorship or interest in the wall diminish.
It would be a truly momentous decision here today if this
bill were to irrevocably and unalterably alter the nation's
Mall. We are not doing that. This legislation does not do that.
None of us, Senator Hagel and others involved, would do that.
Twenty years ago, I testified in a slightly different
format, but the Secretary has voiced her concern that the size
of the center is too big. 1,200 square feet is hardly a big
structure. It is appropriate to allow for computers, the others
uses, the Ranger station, some exhibits on the wall such as
photographs of those whose names are engraved, as opposed to
the current kiosk which really does nothing to help educate the
public.
One of America's most prominent and respected journalists,
Don Oberdorfer of the Tet, says of the idea, ``The idea of a
new Education Center is an excellent one. Get it up and running
as soon as possible.'' A local high school teacher, Jim
Percocco, says it will not only serve as a valuable resource to
journalists and historians, but as a tool to teach young people
about the Vietnam war. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, with
nearly 2 million members, joined with many other veterans
groups in the exhibits to experience, help young people
experience the Center. I have entered into the record letters
of endorsement from many different veterans groups. I won't
mention them all right now, but it includes the Medal of Honor
Society, the Disabled American Veterans and others.
But this includes other respected advocates for American's
veterans, as well, and prominent, thoughtful Americans whose
opinions should be given due respect: Stanley Karnow, winner of
the Pulitzer Prize; General Barry McCaffrey, the former drug
czar under President Clinton; Lieutenant General Trolls Dyke,
Alaska Governor; Tony Knowles, Lieutenant Governor of
California; Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania; former Vice
President Al Gore and many others including the recently
retired spokesman for the National Park Service.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Scruggs, can you please summarize? We
have a vote in progress.
Mr. Scruggs. Okay. To summarize, we have for you some
educational materials. My concluding summary would be that I
just hope that no one forgets the profound importance of
today's hearing. We really must reach out to America's youth
and engage them from a place where they can be visually and
emotionally engaged; not miles away at a museum but here at the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial. This will go a long way towards that
goal; that goal that veterans groups, educators, journalists
and the American public strongly supports. Thank you very much.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. We have a 15-minute
vote in progress. We will take 15 minutes and we will be back.
We will be in recess.
[Recess.]
Senator Akaka. The committee will come to order. I thank
our witnesses for their statements and the committee will be
ready with questions. We will do rounds of questions with 5
minutes for each member and I will begin.
Mr. Parsons, the bill directs the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
to construct the Education Center. The bill is silent on who
would manage it. If the legislation is enacted what is your
understanding on who would administer or manage the Center?
Mr. Parsons. It is my understanding that the National Park
Service would manage it. Of course, we would do that in
cooperation with the fund and the use of volunteers as well as
Park Service rangers.
Senator Akaka. Just in case there is a difference, Mr.
Scruggs, do you agree?
Mr. Scruggs. Yes, yes Mr. Chairman. We have been working in
partnership for over 2 decades.
Senator Akaka. The bill describes the Education Center as a
temporary facility, but is unclear what would happen at the end
of the 10-year period. If Congress takes no further action at
the end of that period, what would happen to that Center, Mr.
Parsons?
Mr. Parsons. It would appear that the decision that is
called for in the bill, the decision is that of the Congress.
If the Congress did not act, I assume we would continue to
operate it.
Senator Akaka. These questions are for both Mr. Parsons and
Ms. Gallagher. The bill requires that the design and placement
of this Center be subject to the Commemorative Works Act. What
is your understanding of what that language means with respect
to each of your organizations?
Mr. Parsons. Well, what that provides for is three
approvals--the Secretary of the Interior, the Commission of
Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission. It is
not the best out of three. It is all three. So each one has a
veto over the other. In other words, if one disapproves it, it
won't be built.
Senator Akaka. Ms. Gallagher.
Ms. Gallagher. I concur with Mr. Parsons.
Senator Akaka. Is it possible to build a Center in a
different part of the Vietnam Memorial grounds? Would the Park
Service or the NCPC have a different view if it was built by
the east end of the Memorial instead of replacing the kiosk
near the Lincoln Memorial? Are there any other locations in the
vicinity of the Vietnam Memorial that might work?
Mr. Parsons. Programmatically, we don't think so.
Aesthetically it could happen. I think it would have to be
underground, but I think there are locations toward the east
end where it could work.
Ms. Gallagher. I would simply restate the position of the
National Capital Planning Commission since 1991. They have
expressed no additions to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
However, we do believe that there are other opportunities for
permanent exhibits at places such as the National Museum of
American History. Mr. Parsons did mention the proposal for the
National Military Museum. So, we believe there are other venues
that could serve this purpose very, very well, but would not be
perceived as additions to the Memorial that would visible on
the Mall site; other nearby locations, which would accommodate
the appropriate size to handle the information that is
necessary to truly tell the story.
Senator Akaka. I have a question for the panel. We have
heard from the National Park Service that this bill will set a
precedent because proponents of other memorials may seek to
have their own Education Center. Mr. Scruggs, on the other
hand, has stated that other memorials already have similar
facilities, including the Lincoln, Jefferson and FDR memorials
and that there is a compelling need to provide an Education
Center at the Vietnam Memorial. I was hoping you could
elaborate on whether there was convincing rationale that this
Center should be allowed or whether it is likely to be a
precedent for other memorials. Let me start with Mr. Parsons.
Mr. Parsons. Well there are a number of points there. Let
me respond in this fashion. The Lincoln and the Jefferson
Memorials are clearly architecture and have within them a
modest space to provide an information facility in them. The
FDR Memorial contains a small bookstore in combination with
restroom facilities. It does not have an Education Center as I
would call it. Also proposed is a below-grade facility at the
Washington Monument for our public who are awaiting the
opportunity to go up the Washington Monument.
But the landscape solution memorials--the World War II
Memorial, the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and this one--
indeed are landscape solutions, which never contemplated
architectural components. And therefore any such addition is
incongruous as we see it.
Senator Akaka. Ms. Gallagher.
Ms. Gallagher. As I stated in my testimony, I think this
would set a precedent and requests time and time again that are
especially problematic with these landscape solutions. Mr.
Parsons mentioned the Korean War Veterans Memorial. There is
also the Ulysses Grant Civil War Memorial, the Martin Luther
King Memorial that is now on the drawing board. All these
future memorials and some existing may come back and ask for
these similar Education Centers.
I think as our Mall becomes more and more crowded with more
memorials we have to be creative and think very carefully about
how we address the very important educational components that
these memorials call for.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. Scruggs.
Mr. Scruggs. I am happy to respond to this as well. I would
like to point out the very specific nature and quality of the
site of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. It is truly at the end
of the Wall as the photographs and exhibits show it is heavily
treed with large oak trees and would provide excellent cover
for this which is consistent with the landscape solution. Other
monuments--suppose someone were to say, oh, we need an
Education Center building outside of the let's say the
Washington Monument. Well, clearly it wouldn't fit there. We
have basically a corner in which this memorial can be fit and
it really will be a great memorial.
It was also pointed out that the Lincoln and Jefferson
Memorial have a visitor center, but of course the FDR Memorial
only has a bookstore. Well there is a large bookstore but
inside the bookstore look what we have. Unlike the testimony
you heard, and I submit this to the Senators for the record,
the photographs and written material about the life of Franklin
Delano Roosevelt and even a replica of Franklin Delano
Roosevelt's wheelchair. The other memorials have Education
Centers. We need the Education Center for America's youth. It
really is a simple as that. And I realize the concern. They are
legitimate but I think your job is much bigger than that.
Senator Akaka. I have a question for the panel. The
National Park Service--well, let me ask my friend Senator
Thomas if he has any questions.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. Ms. Gallagher, is there a vision
for the finality of the Mall?
Ms. Gallagher. We do have the Memorials and Museums Master
Plan, which was released for public review in December of last
year. That plan is being finalized. That plan establishes a
Reserve policy and identifies other zones adjacent to the
Reserve throughout the rest of the District of Colombia that
have remarkable, wonderful sites for future memorials.
We think the memorials should be distributed throughout the
city in very special, permanent locations that could build upon
the urban design qualities and the special character of
Washington, DC while also honoring the important events and
individuals in our history. So, we believe the Memorials and
Museums Master Plan is a very responsible answer to the dilemma
that we face in commemoration.
Senator Thomas. How does the plan handle the six or seven
pending memorials that are, I guess, supposed to be on the
Mall?
Ms. Gallagher. I know that Area 1, which is just adjacent
to the Reserve, has eighteen sites--permanent sites for
memorials. Of course to develop any memorial within that site
would require an act of Congress. So, these are reserved for
very special events and individuals in our history. And with
the wisdom of Congress evaluating and weighing the
commemorations that are being requested----
Senator Thomas. They are not on the Mall?
Ms. Gallagher. No they are not. The Planning and Review
Commission has set up firm policy for the Reserve that no new
memorials should be placed within the Reserve. But it goes a
step further than that and identifies other very special,
wonderful sites for future memorials.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Parsons, what is the status of the
National Military Museum in Arlington?
Mr. Parsons. It was given to the Secretary of Defense to
establish a commission. He has not done that yet. It is an
eleven-member panel, and as I understand it, it requires
Presidential Appointees and appointees by the congressional
leadership.
Senator Thomas. What is the purpose of that museum?
Mr. Parsons. It is to commemorate all wars and it has been
given a site of ten acres in Arlington directly behind the
Pentagon. But the commission is not restricted to that site.
They can select a site somewhere else in Washington. But the
intent of the bill was to allow ten acres of what is called the
Navy Annex to be used for that purpose in the future.
Senator Thomas. What are those kiosks that are currently
adjacent to the Korean and the Vietnam Memorial?
Mr. Parsons. We call them kiosks. They have a sloped roof
and we have used them since the 1960's at all of our major
memorials in the Mall area for public information.
Senator Thomas. What is the future and authority for--I
don't know what you call them--the structures that are on the
steps of the Memorial, the Lincoln Memorial.
Mr. Parsons. We certainly hope they will disappear in
time--as you may recall we had about twenty of those up until
1995 when we implemented our new regulations. But the four that
are there now are holding on. It has been suggested by some
that legislation be passed to allow us to remove those. But at
the current time they are there under a First Amendment permit.
They apply for permits every twenty-one days. That is our
regulation.
Senator Thomas. The First Amendment doesn't give you a
structure necessarily. It gives you the opportunity to be there
and share your views.
Mr. Parsons. Yes it does. And what has evolved over time
are these structures. I am not proud of them. I am very
uncomfortable with your line of questioning Senator. I am
embarrassed to talk about them.
Senator Thomas. Well, you know, Jan, this whole thing is
tough to talk about because nobody is at all resistant to the
idea of celebrating the Vietnam Veterans. But there is another
issue. What is your view of the Mall? Do you think there is
limitation? Do you think there comes a time when it is probably
appropriate for no more structures to be added?
Mr. Scruggs. I think we have addressed that, indeed in this
legislation, through making this a temporary structure. The
overall vision for the Mall, I truly would defer to the very
able civil servants who are testifying to my left to put
together the Master Memorial Plan for the Mall and respecting
the unlimited number of ideas for memorials and the limited
number of sites.
Senator Thomas. You don't really believe that you build
something and remove it in 10 years, do you?
Mr. Scruggs. I believe it may not happen in 10 years, but I
do not believe that it will be there in 20 or 25 years. There
will come a time, much like the World War I memorial on the
Mall, that very few people know it exists. But you go past it
and it is pathetic. There are actually trees growing out of the
top of it and shrubbery. No one goes to visit it. Nobody is
interested in it anymore. Eventually visitorship will diminish.
Senator Thomas. My time has expired. Let me just say that
the twelve hundred foot thing doesn't seem very sufficient.
Have you figured out a way to make that tell the story? The
Park Service has all kinds of ways of conveying information. Is
twelve hundred-foot sufficient? That is not very large.
Mr. Scruggs. Senator, we have spoken to a number of
consultants that will be part of the design process. This will
not tell the entire convoluted story of the Vietnam War, which
will indeed require a national military museum. This will tell
the story of the memorial. It will engage young people with
photographs and moving exhibits that the whole point is that
when they are at the memorial unlike a museum miles and miles
away. They are intellectually and emotionally engaged. The Wall
that heals, which is what the Memorial is known as, will
become, with your help, the Wall that educates.
Senator Thomas. You believe that the Wall that heals is the
purpose. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Senator Hagel.
Senator Hagel. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you to our
witnesses today. We are grateful for your expertise. We
appreciate your insights because we deal with something here
that is very important to our country. I begin my questions
with a remembrance and Mr. Scruggs mentioned this early on in
his testimony that it was really 20 years ago--and I suspect
you remember this, Mr. Parsons--when Mr. Scruggs couldn't get
many people to pay attention to him. I was the incoming Deputy
Administrator of the Veterans Administration at the time and
had a very, very modest role to play in giving some assistance
to Jan Scruggs.
And I recall the same arguments 20 years ago that I am
hearing today. We shouldn't have any kind of memorial to
Vietnam on the Mall. Good reasons, good points, relevant to the
responsibilities of the Commission and the Park Service. And I
recall what Scruggs and others had to go through to break down
not just the bureaucracy but the attitudes about the issue.
Now I doubt if there are many people in this country
including most in the Park Service who were opposed--pretty
strongly opposed--to the monument being built on the Mall 20
years ago that are now saying that it is not adding a great
deal. I surely understand and appreciate the responsibilities
that the two of you have about preserving the dignity of the
Mall, this space, and the relevance of the openness, the views.
All very appropriate. But I also go back to what Mr. Scruggs
and his band of merry men and women envisioned 22 years ago. It
seems that monuments should be relevant to our times. They
should be there for a reason. And if we didn't factor that in,
then we would have open spaces everywhere in Washington because
we wouldn't want to break any of our views. We could go all the
way to the river and maybe we should cut some trees down.
There is a place for that of course. There is a reason we
build monuments. And they are to obviously represent not one
person. They are to represent the essence of who we are as a
society and a people. So the argument that I hear about--well
it is a visionary thing, we are setting a precedent; all very
real and relevant, but I don't think any of those are good
enough to turn a project down for those reasons alone.
With that said, I would like to see if I can come back to
some of the issues here that seem to be most contentious. Would
this detract from the beauty that is there? And I am a little
confused. I have been hearing a reference to adding a new
memorial here. But what we are talking about here is, I don't
believe, a memorial. We are talking an Education Center that
connects the relevancy of one of the most defining times in the
history of this country. Now that to me is pretty important. It
has nothing to do with whether I served there or not. I would
feel the same way. But I feel a little stronger about it. But
this defined the Nation in many ways. The history will write
about the definition of this and why for years and years to
come.
That in itself seems to me to generate enough defense of
the ideas here that Mr. Scruggs and others are putting forward
of trying to connect with happened from 1964 to 1975 that
divided a nation, to the education of our young people. And I
think that is pretty important. I think there is relevancy to
the emotion and the connection of having that nearby that
memorial. At it has been stated here the other memorials have
education-type centers as well. I am not yet convinced that
what they are talking about here detracts from any of the
beauty or any of the site lines and I would like to see if we
could go into that in a little more detail with each of you.
I don't at all question the responsibilities, Ms.
Gallagher, that you have or Mr. Parsons. They are important
responsibilities and they should not be minimized. Although I
did note in the New York Times yesterday that Mr. Parsons you
referred to my idea as an atrocity. Obviously you were
misquoted. But nonetheless--and that happens to me all the
time--Mr. Parsons let's begin with you. Focus on the visual
impairment and beauty and we take from the beauty and we really
detract from the goodness that you all have brought about
working together in a warm, friendly spirit, I know, for the
last 20 years.
Mr. Parsons. I see you have given this a great deal of
thought. I agree with most everything you have said. We cannot
afford to have a generation of Americans coming forward to this
memorial which is, in my judgment, the most powerful in the
world. It is not going to be forgotten. It is not going to be
an element in the landscape that no one goes to in the next 20,
25 years. It is a powerful message about war.
There is just no doubt about it and I think our area of
disagreement is relatively simple. We feel that the message
that is being sought to be given here should be done with what
we call wayside exhibits, which are panels--I am sure you have
seen them in other national parks throughout the country--as
opposed to architecture, and to augment that with rangers who
can provide personal attention to those who need it. And it
boils down to that simple an issue, I believe. The point of the
atrocity, whether I used those words or not, is the location
and the image that we are portraying over here on the easel
stand. That is why my response to the chairman was that there
will be some opportunity to do this underground elsewhere,
although we would still object to it from the programmatic
standpoint.
I do want to take an opportunity to clarify something for
the record because others have said what you have said here
today--that I personally and others in the National Park
Service, opposed this memorial on the Mall in 1979. I will take
just a minute to explain the concept. We had just finished in
1976 the Constitution Gardens, which this memorial now sits in.
And one of the largest open spaces in Constitution Gardens was
this field where it has been built. And the purpose of the
Constitution Gardens originally--which has not been
recognized--was that it would be a place of festival; a place
where music festivals, art festivals, the Smithsonian Festivals
for Folk Life were to be undertaken; a strolling English garden
as opposed to the formal French Mall.
And it was in that context that we were opposing the
location in Constitution Gardens. It was not opposition to the
memorial on the Mall, as has been said today, but it was
specific opposition to building it in this fresh Constitution
Gardens. And of course what has happened is with the location
of that memorial and now the one of the Black Patriots, it is
becoming more of a memorial garden, which is okay. But that is
the reason that we were opposing it so vigorously in 1979. I
hope that is responsive.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Ms. Gallagher. I would just like to clarify some of the
points that you made earlier today and I believe Mr. Parsons,
as well. We are not looking at this as the Vietnam Memorial
versus the openness of the Mall. There is a larger issue that
we would be arguing and concerned about regardless of what is
proposed for the Vietnam Memorial. So, we are concerned about
what is happening on the Mall and its development.
But we also want to protect the integrity, the power, the
impact of this memorial. This is a very effective memorial as
it is developed right now, and there have been numerous
proposals over the years to add to it, which we believe
detracts from its effectiveness. On the other hand, we
absolutely recognize the need to keep this story alive, to
educate all the people, the children, everyone who comes to
this memorial. We feel that that is going to require more than
1200 square feet at this location.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Mr. Scruggs.
Mr. Scruggs. All I can do is respond to doing what is
right. As I look at the Mall, as I look at the vista of the
Lincoln Memorial, I see the four thousand foot refreshment
stand. I see these hideous structures obscuring the view of the
Washington Monument.
Senator Hagel. Would you pull the mike a little closer?
Mr. Scruggs. And as I look at the Mall, I respond to the
rather hideous refreshment stand which is in place next to the
Lincoln Memorial, the rather hideous tents which have been in
place for a period exceeding 10 years and for which there is
absolutely no end in sight, nor is there an end envisioned. I
look upon the architectural excellence that we provide and have
provided and will provide for the Education Center and for the
enormous opportunity for us to touch America's youth in the
context for understanding not only the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial but the other memorials as well in a manner consistent
with the Lincoln, the Jefferson, the FDR Memorials.
Senator Hagel. Let me ask, Ms. Gallagher and Mr. Parsons,
is it then the size or the permanency of the structure? Why for
example is the kiosk okay and an enhanced Education Center not
okay? Or am I missing the point here?
Mr. Parsons. The kiosk is purely an informational facility.
You cannot enter it. It staffed by one or two people. You walk
up to the window, you get information. That is the tradition of
the kiosk in the National Park Service. This on the other hand
is a place where groups would enter, see exhibitry, use
computers and that kind of thing. So, it is a much different
facility as we see it.
Senator Hagel. So, based on that we should turn this down?
Isn't it a different facility? It doesn't comply with the
tradition of the Park Service? Regardless of how much good it
might do or how much it might in fact enhance the area?
Mr. Parsons. Well that and the other reasons we brought
forward today, yes.
Senator Hagel. Ms. Gallagher.
Ms. Gallagher. I agree. I think there are other
alternatives that should be pursued, as opposed to the proposal
that we have before us that can meet the objectives of
educating the public about this significant event.
Senator Hagel. You mean like somewhere else?
Ms. Gallagher. Somewhere else. Somewhere very near by. Now,
as I stated, there is the Museum of American History. I believe
the military museum that has been discussed--this is a new
project. We need to engage this group and start looking at this
very carefully. This is another alternative--a site yet to be
determined.
Senator Hagel. When you say ``engage this group'', what are
you talking about?
Ms. Gallagher. Well this new commission has yet to be
established and I think we need to reach out to the leadership,
the Defense Department and the leadership in this city and
government to see where they were going and understand the
potential of this museum. It seems it was a very good idea and
its purpose is very well founded. And maybe here is where the
story can be told in a larger way.
Senator Hagel. You don't see much in the way of a strong
argument as to the emotion connected to being there at that
powerful, powerful memorial and learning at the same time and
being a part of that experience. You don't think there is any
disconnect if you took that education and learning and took
that off-campus or somewhere else? You don't think you would
lose anything in the translation? Or it wouldn't be as
powerful?
Ms. Gallagher. I think it is very powerful right now. I am
not convinced that going to someplace nearby and learning more
about this event at a location that is not right there--I am
not convinced that that detracts from the learning experience.
Senator Hagel. Mr. Scruggs, would you care to respond to
any of this discussion?
Mr. Scruggs. It seems readily obvious that when a person is
intellectually and emotionally engaged in a subject--for
example, when the person goes to the Jefferson Memorial--that
is the time, that is the place when he or she will go to the
Education Center there which has a very fantastic small center
and get the information. The emotions involved in visiting the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial are very different. Unfortunately
they are becoming less and less relevant for America's youth.
That is why we have to engage them and why we have to engage
them there and not twelve miles away. And that is the purpose
for this legislation.
Senator Hagel. Let me ask a question based on your last
response, Mr. Parsons. When I asked the question regarding the
difficulty the Park Service has in comprehending this fitting
into your responsibilities here. As you said, there were other
reasons. One of the reasons--as I have heard from both of you--
is the precedent setting factor, which is certainly a factor.
Everything we do in this town is precedent setting. This
hearing is precedent setting. So, I have never really paid much
attention to that because tomorrow is another day. There will
be another group of wild-eyed Senators who actually think this
might be a good idea, who will come in with another screwy idea
like the one Jan Scruggs did 21 years ago; a very bizarre idea
we had buy-in to that.
So, we know that that will come tomorrow. It will come next
year. And you are right, for every great man or woman there is,
we will have a group of people. But listening to both of you
today convinces me that we have in place a rather significant
process to ensure that nothing gets through the net. If that
wasn't the case, then we wouldn't be here today, would we? You
wouldn't have a job, Ms. Gallagher, in the area you are in now
if we didn't have commissions and planning commissions and the
Congress and laws and acts that we must follow.
So, it is not a matter--at least it seems to me and this is
where I would welcome your comment--that we can just
arbitrarily come up with these wild ideas and they get built.
It is a pretty long, difficult road you go through getting this
done. I am somewhat convinced that this is not only torturous
but it is appropriate and that it is sufficient. You can't just
come up with these ideas and get them done.
So, the precedent setting argument of who knows who will be
next and come in with another idea and want to build the
statue, I fail to really find much power in that argument. Now,
I would appreciate you both giving me your response to that
because not only do we not see that the same way but see if you
can convince me that this would put the entire Mall of
beautiful monuments in danger because of the precedent we would
set.
Ms. Gallagher. I would like to just state that one of our
missions with the National Capital Planning Commission is to
protect what we have built. The Vietnam Memorial was a
precedent setting event. It is a remarkable monument. We want
to protect what we have created there, protect that experience,
protect that expression. In addition, it is our job to protect
the Mall as we contemplate future works of commemoration. That
is our job, to protect the legacy of what we have created in
this city. So, I am very proud to do my job. And I don't want
to withhold creativity or break precedent, but when you are
changing landscape that is very important to the entire
country. I take that very seriously.
Senator Hagel. Would you agree that the landscape design of
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was unprecedented?
Ms. Gallagher. It certainly was. And it was very, very
successful.
Senator Hagel. So does that then lead you to the conclusion
that unprecedented things occasionally might work.
Ms. Gallagher. What I am trying to state is what we have
there is very special and the Commission that I worked for over
the past decade has repeatedly reviewed this very seriously,
carefully. They have look at other suggestions to make
additions to this memorial and they feel very strongly that it
should not be altered; that what is there is precious and
important. They also agree and I agree with them that the
education, the story of Vietnam is a very special one and we
just disagree on how that story should be told and where it
should be told.
Senator Hagel. Do you think your evaluation of the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial is something more precious than Jan Scruggs
evaluation?
Ms. Gallagher. It is just very different. We represent
different interests.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Mr. Parsons.
Mr. Parsons. On the issue of precedence, I guess the
significance of what we are doing today is that the Congress is
entering into the design process. In 1986, Congress determined
that they didn't want to be involved in the location and the
design of memorials and they delegated that down as we
described earlier today. So, the example that I am going to
give you of what has happened as a result of that is probably
most spectacularly described in the World War II Memorial
incident. Initially, that was proposed to have a 100,000-
square-foot visitor center compared to 1,200 here. The
Commemorative Works Act process--that is, the approval process
of the Commission of Fine Arts, the Planning Commission and
ourselves--disapproved that. That doesn't mean there still
isn't a desire to tell the story of World War II on the site
and that is what I am trying to emphasize.
I should also point out the FDR Memorial. There was a
proposal for a 50,000-square-foot visitor center with
memorabilia from FDR's time, with film footage of him in a
theater, and that was disapproved by this process. So, here now
is the Congress coming in on a very specific design issue in a
memorial and saying we feel this way about it. So, from a
precedent standpoint, I see others who didn't get what they
wanted from the Commemorative Works Act process coming back to
the Congress saying let's allow the Congress to come in and
intrude into the design process, and that is the major
difference in precedent.
Senator Hagel. I can understand it. And I am not going to
belabor this. The chairman probably wants to move on. But I
would just respond by saying I didn't fail to note your comment
on the World War II example to tell the story on the site, on
this site. Now, I would be perfectly willing to have you design
an education center on this site, as you have suggested, World
War II on this site. I suspect that won't happen. Mr. Scruggs
would you like to finish this off? And then I will turn it back
to the chairman.
Mr. Scruggs. I just want to really begin by thanking the
entire committee. I know it is going to be a busy day for each
and every one of you. And as you begin your deliberations on
this matter, I can only discuss the words of Mr. Rob Portman, a
sixth grade student, Mr. Chairman, from the Sharonville
Elementary School. And he says: ``I wanted to say that I think
you should support the Vietnam Veterans Education Center. I
think this because it will help other children, including me,
to learn more about the Vietnam War and let the world know that
those who served are not forgotten.''
Mr. Chairman, I ask that in your deliberations that you
consider the words of this sixth grader and many prominent
Americans which have thought long and hard about this long over
due Education Center. It should have been built 20 years ago.
Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Senator Hagel. Mr. Chairman, let me just again thank our
witnesses. I appreciate very much all three witnesses being
here and sharing their thoughts. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Well, Mr. Scruggs, thank you for
being here this afternoon. And we will go on now to the next
bill. Thank you very much.
The next bill we will hear testimony on is H.R. 1668, which
would authorize the construction of the Adams Memorial. I
believe both Mr. Parsons and Ms. Gallagher have statements on
this bill. Mr. Parsons, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JOHN G. PARSONS, ASSOCIATE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
LANDS, RESOURCES AND PLANNING, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ON H.R. 1668
Mr. Parsons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I will
summarize my remarks, certainly given the hour of the day. This
measure would authorize the Adams Memorial Foundation to
establish a memorial in the District of Colombia and its
environs to honor former President John Adams, along with his
wife Abigail Adams and his son former President John Quincy
Adams.
The Department supports the enactment of H.R. 1668 as
amended and passed by the House of Representatives on June 25.
This position is consistent with the recommendation of the
National Capital Memorial Commission, which endorsed the
proposed legislation by unanimous vote on April 26.
H.R. 1668 authorizes the establishment of the Adams
Memorial in accordance with the Commemorative Works Act. The
Act established a process under which, following authorization
of the subject matter by Congress, the Secretary of the
Interior submits a plan for the site and design of the memorial
for approval by the National Capital Planning Commission and
the Commission of Fine Arts. The bill also provides that no
Federal funds shall be used to pay any expense of the
establishment of the commemorative work.
We would note that one of the three Library of Congress
buildings here is named after John Quincy Adams, but otherwise
there is no major public work in the District of Colombia that
recognizes or memorializes John Adams or John Quincy Adams and
their legacy.
We agree with the sponsors of this bill that the father and
son Presidents and their family's legacy of public service
deserve a memorial in the Nation's Capital. The Adams Memorial
Foundation has not yet proposed a site for the memorial, nor
have there been any decisions made by the National Capital
Memorial Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts or the
National Capital Planning Commission other than endorsement of
this measure.
However, because the three Commissions have established
policies against siting any more memorials in the Reserve area
that represents the Mall to the east and west, and the White
House to the Jefferson Memorial in the north and south, this
memorial would not be located there, in our estimation. Instead
the recommended site would more likely be one of the hundred
sites that have been identified by the Master Plan Ms.
Gallagher described earlier.
That concludes my statement and I would be glad to answer
any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of John Parsons on H.R. 1668
follows:]
Prepared Statement of John G. Parsons, Associate Regional Director,
Lands, Resources, and Planning, National Capital Region, National Park
Service, on H.R. 1668
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 1668, which would authorize
the Adams Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial in the District
of Columbia and its environs to honor former President John Adams,
along with his wife Abigail Adams and his son, former President John
Quincy Adams, and the family's legacy of public service.
The Department supports enactment of H.R. 1668 as amended and
passed by the House of Representatives on June 25, 2001. This position
is consistent with the recommendation of the National Capital Memorial
Commission, which endorsed the proposed legislation by a unanimous vote
on April 26, 2001.
H.R. 1668 authorizes the establishment of the Adams memorial in
accordance with the Commemorative Works Act of 1986. The Act
established a process under which, following authorization of the
subject matter by Congress, the Secretary of the Interior submits a
plan for the site and design of the memorial for approval by the
National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts.
The bill also provides that no Federal funds shall be used to pay
any expense of the establishment of the commemorative work. The Adams
Memorial Foundation would be responsible for not only the cost of
construction of the memorial, but also for establishing a fund in the
Treasury equal to ten percent of the cost of construction for
catastrophic maintenance and preservation, as provided for in Section
8(b) of the Commemorative Works Act.
A memorial to John Adams, Abigail Adams, and John Quincy Adams in
the Nation's Capital would be quite appropriate. As one of the findings
in H.R. 1668 states, ``Few families have contributed as profoundly to
the United States as the family that gave the Nation its second
president, John Adams; its sixth president, John Quincy Adams; first
ladies Abigail Smith Adams and Louisa Catherine Johnson Adams; and
succeeding generations of statesmen, diplomats, advocates, and
authors.'' One of the three Library of Congress buildings is named
after John Quincy Adams but, otherwise, there is no major public work
in the District of Columbia that recognizes or memorializes John Adams
or John Quincy Adams. We agree with the sponsors of this bill that
these father-and-son presidents and their family's legacy of public
service deserve a memorial in Washington.
As noted above, this legislation simply authorizes the process for
developing an Adams memorial to move forward. The Adams Memorial
Foundation has not yet proposed a design or site for the memorial, nor
have there been any decisions made by the National Capital Memorial
Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts, or the National Capital
Planning Commission other than endorsement of H.R. 1668 by the National
Capital Memorial Commission. However, because the three commissions
have established policies against siting any more memorials in the
``reserve,'' the area that represents the Mall east to west and the
White House to the Jefferson Memorial north to south, the memorial
would not be located there. Instead, the recommended site would likely
be one of the 100 sites that have been identified in a master plan for
memorials and museums in the District of Columbia and its environs by
the three commissions as sites that are appropriate for new memorials.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your statement. Ms. Gallagher.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA E. GALLAGHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION, ON H.R. 1668
Ms. Gallagher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
state that our Commission recognizes the legacy and the
remarkable contributions of the Adams family that were so
beautifully recalled earlier this afternoon by Congressman
Roemer and Senator Kennedy and Senator Torricelli.
The Commission is particularly pleased to support this
proposal because it is one of the first memorials whose
location and development will be guided by our Memorials and
Museum Master Plan. The Master Plan establishes a reserve as I
spoke of earlier and also Area 1 immediately adjacent to the
Reserve which is a sensitive zone designated for memorials of
preeminent, historical national significance. Area 2 reflects
the rest of the city.
As Mr. Parson stated, this Master Plan identified one
hundred sites for new memorials and museums. It provides
guidelines on how these facilities should be developed. This
Plan will serve as a tool for reaching public consensus on the
locations in the capital that are appropriate public spaces
which offer memorial-sponsor suitable locations for their
projects. And importantly this Plan will ensure that future
generations of Americans have sufficient supply of desirable
sites for their own commemorative and cultural needs.
We believe that with the help of this Master Plan, the
Adams Memorial Foundation will be able to identify several
highly desirable sites for its project and we look forward to
working with the Foundation to identify the most appropriate
location of beauty and significance for this memorial, and to
approve a design for this remarkable family.
We believe that the Memorials and Museum Master Plan offers
will guide the creation of a new landscape of commemoration in
the Capital and that this memorial will permit us to
demonstrate that we can pay tribute to our national history in
a way that makes us all proud.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gallagher on H.R. 1668
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patricia E. Gallagher, Executive Director,
National Capital Planning Commission, on H.R. 1668
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of
the National Capital Planning Commission regarding the proposal to
construct a memorial honoring former President John Adams; his wife,
Abigail; and his son and former President, John Quincy Adams. The
Commission recognizes the enduring legacy and remarkable contributions
the Adams family made to the social and political life of our nation.
Commemorating John Adams and his family's life and work in our Nation's
Capital is a fitting and appropriate tribute.
The Commission is particularly pleased to support this proposal
because this is among the first memorials whose location and
development will be guided by the new Memorials and Museums Master
Plan. The Commission developed the master plan in cooperation with the
Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Memorial Commission
and released it in draft form several months ago. The plan is the
result of a two-year collaborative effort to preserve the historic open
space of Washington's Monumental Core while identifying sites for new
cultural and commemorative facilities.
A key feature of the master plan is a Commemorative Zone Policy
that establishes a Reserve in the central cross-axis of the Mall in
which the three commissions have agreed to approve no new memorial
sites. The area immediately adjacent--Area I--is a sensitive area
designated for memorials of preeminent and historic national
significance. Finally, the Commemorative Zone Policy delineates an Area
II that encompasses the rest of the city and where the review agencies
will encourage development of future commemorative works: The plan
integrates key natural features--rivers, ridges, overlooks--with the
avenues, parks and squares created by Pierre L'Enfant and subsequent
planning. Although it builds on these earlier plans, it also introduces
new elements that strengthen Washington's symbolic and commemorative
character.
The master plan identifies approximately 100 sites for new museums
and memorials and provides general guidelines for how these facilities
should be developed. The plan seeks to reach public consensus on
locations in the National Capital that are appropriate for these
important public spaces and offers memorial sponsors suitable locations
for their projects. The plan is also intended to ensure that future
generations of Americans have a sufficient supply of desirable sites
for their own commemorative and cultural needs. For your information,
we have provided maps of the Commemorative Zone Policy and the proposed
master plan sites.
In preparing the master plan, we have consulted with a team of
nationally recognized planning and design professionals and with the
District of Columbia government and local and community and
professional groups. Released in draft form for public comment this
past December, the plan has enjoyed broad public acceptance. Benjamin
Forgey, the Architecture Critic of the Washington Post has called the
plan ``a brilliant piece of work.'' The Washington Chapter of the
American Institute of Architects has applauded the plan, and the
Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association has recognized it
with its highest award. We are now incorporating the comments we
received from the public and expect to release the final version in
September.
The Commission believes that with the help of the master plan, the
Adams Memorial Foundation will be able to identify several highly
desirable possible locations for its project. We look forward to
working with the Adams Memorial Foundation to identify a location of
beauty and significance and to approve a design that is worthy of this
remarkable family. We believe that the Memorials and Museums Master
Plan offers a new landscape of commemoration in the Nation's Capital
and that this memorial will permit us to demonstrate that we can pay
tribute to our national history in a way that makes us all proud.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement and I will be happy to
answer any questions.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your statement. I
see that the Department supports it and the National Capital
Memorial Commission endorses it. So, my question to Mr.
Parsons--I have a respect for former Presidents John Adams and
John Quincy Adams for their valuable contributions to our
Nation as we heard from colleagues earlier. The question is
does authorizing this memorial suggest that we will now build
memorials to all former presidents? Or is it possible to
distinguish John Adams and John Quincy Adams from other former
presidents?
Mr. Parsons. We have, so far, commemorated eleven
presidents in this city out of forty-three so it is done with
careful deliberation for sure. They are not, of course, all of
the scale of Jefferson, Washington and Lincoln. Many of them
are modest. We are now working on one the Congress authorized
for President Eisenhower. There is a commission established to
work on that. So, I don't see a proliferation or a precedent-
setting situation as the previous bill brought us to debate. I
have heard of no other proposals in the last 5 years to
commemorate other presidents.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Parsons, I don't have any further
questions about H.R. 1668; if you will remain at the table we
will call our next panel. Thank you very much, Ms. Gallagher.
Mr. Nathan Frohling of the Tidelands Program of the Nature
Conservancy, and Ms. Deborah Hoffman, Director of Economic
Development in Passaic County, New Jersey. Mr. Frohling is here
to testify on S. 513 and H.R. 182, authorizing the study of the
Eightmile River in Connecticut as a Wild and Scenic River. And
Ms. Hoffman is testifying on S. 386 and H.R. 146 authorizing a
park study of the Great Falls Historic District in Paterson,
New Jersey. Please proceed with your testimony, Mr. Parsons, on
both bills.
STATEMENT OF JOHN G. PARSONS, ASSOCIATE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
LANDS, RESOURCES AND PLANNING, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ON S. 513 AND H.R. 182
Mr. Parsons. Let me start with the Eightmile River in the
State of Connecticut, which is S. 513, and its companion
measure, H.R. 182, that was passed by the House. These bills
would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by designating
segments of the Eightmile River for study and potential
addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers system. Although the
Department supports the enactment of both pieces of
legislation, we will not request funding for this study in the
next fiscal year so as to the focus our available time and
resources on completing previously authorized studies. As you
may know, there are forty-one studies that have been authorized
by Congress that are now pending, and we only expect to
complete a few of those a year. Hence our hesitancy to proceed
or to give people the impression that we are going to proceed
at this time.
By supporting this legislation authorizing a study, it does
not necessarily mean the Department will support designation of
these segments as additions to the Wild and Scenic Rivers
system. The administration is determined to eliminate the
deferred-maintenance backlog in National Parks and the cost of
new parks or other commitments such as grants for Wild and
Scenic Rivers could divert funds from taking care of current
responsibilities.
As you heard earlier from Senator Dodd, the Eightmile River
is located in the Lower Connecticut River watershed in south
central Connecticut. Fifteen miles of the Eightmile River and
its east branch through the communities of Lyme, East Haddam
and Salem are included on the National Park Service's
Nationwide Rivers Inventory of potential Wild and Scenic Rivers
for their outstanding scenery, and for their geological fish
and wildlife values.
There is strong local support for protecting the river
system as evidenced by the community's formation of an inter-
municipal watershed committee and the signing of an innovative
Eightmile River Watershed Conservation Compact. The Eightmile
River Watershed Committee has built a substantial foundation
for development of river management strategies that rely on
State and local conservation measures to protect the river and
its resources. And that concludes my testimony on that bill.
Would you like me to proceed, or would you like to deal with
that one first?
[The prepared statement of John Parsons on S. 513 and H.R.
182 follows:]
Prepared Statement of John G. Parsons, Associate Regional Director,
Lands, Resources, and Planning, National Capital Region, National Park
Service, on S. 513 and H.R. 182
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 513
and H.R. 182 as passed by the House. These bills would amend the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act by designating segments of the Eightmile River
for study and potential addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Although the Department supports enactment of both pieces of
legislation, we will not request funding for this 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 these segments as additions to the Wild and
Scenic Rivers System. The Administration is determined to eliminate the
deferred maintenance backlog in national parks, but the cost of new
parks or other commitments, such as grants for Wild and Scenic Rivers,
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.
The Eightmile River is located in the lower Connecticut River
watershed in south central Connecticut. Fifteen miles of the Eightmile
River and its East Branch through the communities of Lyme, East Haddam,
and Salem, Connecticut are included on the National Park Service's
Nationwide Rivers Inventory of potential Wild and Scenic River
segments. Both segments are included on the inventory for outstanding
scenic, geologic, fish and wildlife values. Over eighty percent of the
Connecticut River watershed is still forested, including large tracts
of unfragmented hardwood forests that are home to a diverse assemblage
of plants and animals including bobcats, great horned owls, red foxes,
and the cerulean warbler.
Over the course of the past two years, the National Park Service
has responded to interest and inquiries from local advocates and town
officials regarding a potential Wild and Scenic River study for the
Eightmile River. There appears to be strong local support for
protecting the river system, as evidenced by the communities' formation
of an intermunicipal watershed committee and the signing of an
innovative ``Eightmile River Watershed Conservation Compact.'' This
compact, signed by the communities of East Haddam, Lyme and Salem,
acknowledges their commitment to protect and enhance water resources,
wildlife habitats, and rural landscapes in the watershed.
A study of a river to determine if it meets the criteria for
designation of a wild and scenic river is the necessary first step to
designating a river or a portion of a river as a unit of the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Department recognizes that any study
of the Eightmile River should be evaluated in concert with all
interested stakeholders at the local level. A study of the river from
the confluence with the Connecticut to the headwaters of the mainstem
and East Branch has strong local support.
The Eightmile River Watershed Committee has built a substantial
foundation for the development of river management strategies that rely
on state and local conservation measures to protect the river and its
resources. Any National Park Service assistance would be contingent on
the availability of funding and National Park Service priorities. The
Department will work closely with local communities before any action
is taken by the National Park Service on the two segments of the river.
This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy
to answer any questions you or other committee members may have
regarding this bill.
Senator Akaka. Why don't you proceed to the other bill.
STATEMENT OF JOHN G. PARSONS, ASSOCIATE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
LANDS, RESOURCES AND PLANNING, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ON S. 386 AND H.R. 146
Mr. Parsons. Next I will provide the comments on S. 386 and
H.R. 146 which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
study the suitability and feasibility of designating the Great
Falls Historic District in Paterson, New Jersey as a unit of
the National Park System. The Department of the Interior has
concerns about conducting this study. We believe that existing
congressional legislation already offers the Historic District
ample authorization for historic preservation projects that
encourage compatible economic development in Paterson. We are
concerned that such a study would serve to divert the city of
Paterson and the National Park Service from the very real
opportunities already authorized by Congress in 1992 and 1996,
opportunities that have not yet been fully implemented or
realized.
In addition, the Department will not necessarily request
funding for the study as I have just reported in the Eightmile
River testimony, and I will not repeat that.
In the fiscal year 1992 Appropriations bill for the
Department of the Interior, Congress appropriated funds for the
New Jersey Urban History Initiative to provide funding for
historic preservation projects that encourage economic
development throughout the State. The city of Paterson was
authorized to receive $4.147 million in this Urban History
Initiative. Over the years, the National Park Service has
worked closely with the city to use the money to protect
historic resources while fostering compatible economic
development. This initiative has shown results such as funding
projects for research, community grants, and restoration of
historic resources. For example, the Urban History Initiative
funds were used for an oral history project and ethnographic
study conducted by the Library of Congress.
In the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of
1996, 4 years later, Congress authorized $3.3 million in
matching grants and assistance to develop and implement a
preservation plan for the District and to permit the
development of a market analysis with recommendations of the
economic development potential. The city of Paterson is
committed to raising the matching funds required in this
authorization. Such matching funds will be important because
recent legislation indicates that Congress expects significant
Federal matches for new units of the National Park System
containing large numbers of historic buildings such as New
Bedford and Boston Harbor. Without this demonstrated local
support for the operation and protection of the new park units,
it is probably not feasible to recommend their addition to the
system.
Our concern is that given the limited resources, a special
resource study, which is suggested by this bill, could divert
our attention from the existing opportunities in the act I just
mentioned. A special resource study can take years to complete,
especially when considering other congressionally authorized
studies that are competing for limited money available in this
program. If recommendations of the study were negative and no
congressional action forthcoming, years would have passed with
no preservation or development action. The breadth of
activities already allowed from the 1996 Act is much greater
than those normally authorized for a National Park unit. It is
our sincere wish that the currently authorized preservation
initiative for Paterson be allowed to proceed rather than being
delayed by this study.
That concludes my testimony. I will be glad to answer
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of John Parsons on S. 386 and H.R.
146 follows:]
Prepared Statement of John G. Parsons, Associate Regional Director,
Lands, Resources, and Planning, National Capital Region, National Park
Service, on S. 386 and H.R. 146
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
386 and H.R. 146, bills to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
study the suitability and feasibility of designating the Great Falls
Historic District in Paterson, New Jersey, as a unit of the National
Park System.
The Department of the Interior has concerns about conducting this
study. We believe existing congressional legislation already offers the
Historic District ample authorization for historic preservation
projects that encourage compatible economic development in Paterson. We
are concerned that such a study would serve to divert the City of
Paterson and the National Park Service from the very real opportunities
authorized by Congress in 1992 and 1996, opportunities that have yet to
be fully realized. In addition, the Department will not necessarily
request 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. If this study
is authorized, this does not necessarily mean that the Department will
support designation of this site as a new unit. The Administration is
determined to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog in national
parks, but the costs of establishing and operating a new national park
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.
Paterson, New Jersey has a rich history as the Nation's first
planned industrial city as well as containing some of the country's
oldest textile mills. In 1792, Alexander Hamilton formed an investment
group called the Society of Useful Manufactures whose funds would be
used to develop a planned industrial city in the United States that was
later to become Paterson. Hamilton believed that the United States
needed to reduce its dependence on foreign goods and should instead
develop its own industries. The industries developed in Paterson were
powered by the 77-foot high Great Falls of the Passaic, and a system of
water raceways that harnessed the power of the falls. The district
originally included dozens of mill buildings and other manufacturing
structures associated with the textile industry and later, the
firearms, silk, and railroad locomotive manufacturing industries. In
the latter half of the 1800's, silk production became the dominant
industry and formed the basis of Paterson's most prosperous period,
earning it the nickname ``Silk City.'' Paterson was also the site of
historic labor unrest that focused on anti-child labor legislation,
safety in the workplace, a minimum wage, and reasonable working hours.
Industrial decline in Paterson followed the general pattern for
northern textile cities, with a major decrease in business during the
middle third of the 20th Century. Today, the historic district reflects
many phases of decline and renewal: some buildings are deteriorated and
vacant, while others continue in industrial use or have been adaptively
reused for housing and offices.
Because of its significant role in the economic and industrial
development of the United States, the 89-acre Great Falls of the
Passaic/Society of Useful Manufacturers Historic District was listed on
the National Register of Historic Places in 1970 and designated a
National Historic Landmark (NHL) in 1976. Since 1988 the District has
been listed as a Priority One threatened National Historic Landmark in
the Department of the Interior's annual report to Congress on NHLs.
This threatened status is primarily based on the condition of the 7-
acre site that formerly housed the Allied Textile Printers. This site,
immediately below the Great Falls, has been devastated by a dozen fires
over the last 15 years. The site was acquired by the City of Paterson
through foreclosure in 1994 and a developer is currently under contract
to redevelop the site.
In the Fiscal Year 1992 Appropriations bill for the Department of
the Interior, Congress appropriated funds for the New Jersey Urban
History Initiative to provide funding for historic preservation
projects that encourage economic development. The City of Paterson was
authorized to receive $4.147 million in Urban History Initiative Funds
to be administered by the NPS under a cooperative agreement with the
City. Over the years, the National Park Service (NPS) has worked
closely with the City to use the money to protect historic resources
while fostering compatible economic development. This initiative has
shown results such as funding projects for research, community grants,
and restoration of historic resources. For example, Urban History
Initiative Funds were used for an oral history project and ethnographic
study conducted by the Library of Congress' American Folklife Center.
Funds were also used for the stabilization of the ruins of the Colt Gun
Mill as part of a match for a New Jersey Historic Trust grant to the
City of Paterson.
The second major congressional initiative to support historic
preservation opportunities in Paterson is section 510 of the Omnibus
Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333; 110
Stat. 4158). The Great Falls Historic District was authorized for $3.3
million in matching grants and assistance to develop and implement a
preservation and interpretive plan for the District, and permit the
development of a market analysis with recommendations of the economic
development potential of the District. Yet, none of these funds
authorized in 1996 have been appropriated.
Although the City has committed to the raising of the matching
funds required under the authorization, we do not believe that this has
yet occurred. Such matching funds will be important because recent
legislation indicates that Congress expects significant non-federal
matches for new units of the national park system containing large
numbers of historic buildings such as the New Bedford National
Historical Park and Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area.
Without this demonstrated local financial support for the operation and
protection of new park units, it is probably not feasible to recommend
their addition to the System.
The 1996 legislation provides Paterson with the opportunity both to
demonstrate its capacity for partnership, and to develop and implement
a preservation program as indicators of its commitment and capacity.
Our concern is that given limited resources, a special resource
study (SRS) could divert attention from the existing opportunities
authorized in the 1996 Act. The SRS could easily take years to
complete, especially when considering other congressionally authorized
studies that are competing for limited money available in this program.
If the recommendations of the study were negative and no congressional
action forthcoming, years would have passed with no preservation or
development action.
The National Park Service believes in the important historic and
natural resources in the City of Paterson, and we believe in the
capacity of the City to identify matching funding. There are signs this
is beginning to happen. The breadth of activities allowed under the
1996 Act is much greater than those normally authorized for a national
park unit. It is our sincere wish that the currently authorized
preservation initiative for Paterson be allowed to proceed rather than
being delayed by a study.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This
concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any
questions you or other committee members might have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Nathan
Frohling on S. 513 and H.R. 182.
STATEMENT OF NATHAN M. FROHLING, TIDELANDS PROGRAM DIRECTOR,
CONNECTICUT CHAPTER, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Mr. Frohling. Good afternoon. It is a delight and pleasure
to be here and thank you for the opportunity to comment on this
legislation. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I
appreciate this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Nature
Conservancy in support S. 513 and H.R. 182.
The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit
organization dedicated to preserving the plants, animals and
natural communities that represent the diversity of life on
earth. We have more than 1 million members and have protected
more than 12 million acres in the United States and Canada. We
work very closely with local communities and in partnership
with both public and private landowners.
The Tidelands Program, which I direct in Connecticut, seeks
to protect the key ecological areas within a 560 square mile
region of the Lower Connecticut River. This region known as the
Tidelands has received considerable acclaim over the last 10
years. Senator Dodd alluded to early today it being named one
of forty last great places in the Western Hemisphere and
included under the International Ramsar Convention among other
recognitions.
The Eightmile River is one of the most outstanding natural
features of the Tidelands region and is a top priority for the
Nature Conservancy. I refer you to the map on my right, which
shows you the State of Connecticut. The yellow portions
represent the Lower Connecticut River watershed. The darker
yellow represents what we consider to be the Tidelands Region,
this 560 square mile region. And the bright yellow is the
Eightmile River watershed to give you a geographic context.
It is rare to find entire ecosystems intact throughout the
range, especially on the east coast. But the 40,000 acre
Eightmile River watershed is one example; one last remaining
example of an intact freshwater ecosystem. 85% of this
watershed is forested and it contains the largest unfragmented
forested region in coastal Connecticut. 9,700 acres, almost 25%
of this watershed, are permanently protected already. You see a
map of the watershed here and the orange color represents the
large blocks of unfragmented forest. The blue and yellow
represent some of the most sensitive water resource components
of this watershed. Many of the white areas are also important,
but these colors that you see--the orange, yellow and blue--
represent the most important natural resources of this
watershed. As you can see the vast majority of the watershed
stands out as being recognized as important.
The Eightmile River is free flowing and the water quality
of its extensive wetlands and water courses is excellent
throughout. From native brook trout to blueback herring, the
river system is a haven for fish in terms of diversity and
abundance. It contains globally rare species and the
internationally recognized fresh water tidal marsh of Hambert
Cove, which is the very lower left portion of the map.
There are other smaller things that we do not often see,
such as submerged aquatic vegetation and fresh water mussels.
The Eightmile River is also within the State's elite for
aquatic organisms such as mayflies, beetles and snails. And
while many of us might not get excited about that on a day to
day basis, all of these features testify further to the fact
that this is a remarkable ecosystem particularly again in
coastal, highly developed Connecticut and the Eastern Seaboard.
This, along with the scenic beauty and recreational
abundance in the Eightmile, make this highly regarded resource
by the communities that live in the area and one of those
things that people value highly is the fishing that they enjoy
along the river's bank. It is listed as, Mr. Parsons mentioned,
in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory. We think there is little
doubt about the Eightmile River system qualifying as far as the
outstanding remarkable values that are key for a Wild and
Scenic designation.
The greatest threat to these values is the incremental,
unplanned growth. And while growth is inevitable the question
is whether it will be managed to sustain the national
outstanding values that are here. Six years ago the Eightmile
River Watershed project was formed by local citizens and
officials at the University of Connecticut to work toward
conservation of this special resource and to initiate the new
model for balancing conservation and growth within a watershed.
Now having generated considerable information and community
interest, we look to support a community process of self-
determination in conserving this special place.
A Wild and Scenic River study is the best vehicle to
achieving this goal and that is because the process associated
with it provides the incentive, the structure, the expertise
and resources needed for these communities to come together and
collectively identify the issues and goals they have for this
resource, and to set forth the means for achieving those goals.
The study is being sought as much to facilitate this community
self-determination as to achieve the designation.
A Wild and Scenic River designation would also offer
special, important protection not otherwise available locally
or through the State of Connecticut. Widespread support exists
for a study as letters and newspaper editorials attest.
Riverfront landowners as well as conservation and economic
development interests have taken time to express that support.
The communities are ready to do their part. A small, Federal
contribution through this study can leverage a very large,
local effort and the value associated with sustaining a natural
treasure. The study would leverage the kind of volunteer
community-based initiative that has been hailed for sustaining
the fabric of our communities. And I might add that it would
not require Federal land acquisition. It would not require
Federal land management and it would not become a Federal park.
The time is critical. Not only is the resource being lost
everyday but the communities determination and readiness to
move ahead is tied to the momentum that has been built over the
last 6 years and which now rests in our hopes for this study.
The people of these communities are looking for your support.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify in
support S. 513.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Frohling follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nathan M. Frohling, Tidelands Program Director,
Connecticut Chapter, The Nature Conservancy
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's testimony in support of
S. 513 and H.R. 182, legislation to authorize a Wild and Scenic River
Study for the Eightmile River in Connecticut.
The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit organization
dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is
to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent
the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they
need to survive. The Conservancy has more than 1,000,000 individual
members and 1,900 corporate associates. We currently have programs in
all 50 states and in 27 foreign countries. To date we have protected
more than 12 million acres in the 50 states and Canada, and have helped
local partner organizations preserve 60 million acres overseas. The
Conservancy owns and manages 1,342 preserves throughout the United
States--the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the world.
Sound science and strong partnerships with public and private
landowners to achieve tangible and lasting results characterize our
conservation programs.
As director of the Tidelands Program, I lead The Nature
Conservancy's efforts to conserve the Eightmile River system. The
Tidelands Region, which includes the Eightmile River and its 39,900-
acre watershed, is a top priority for The Nature Conservancy in
Connecticut. The Tidelands contains extensive yet globally rare tidal
marsh communities, globally rare and endangered species, and a regional
landscape that is largely intact. The Nature Conservancy recognized
this area in 1993 as one of the ``40 Last Great Places in the Western
Hemisphere.'' The Tidelands were designated in 1994 as containing
Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention and
this area is recognized as one of the most outstanding areas within the
boundaries of the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge.
I also serve as Co-Chair of the Eighmile River Watershed Committee,
a group of local officials and citizens charged with implementing the
``Eightmile River Watershed Project.'' The goal of this project is to
enable the three communities, Lyme, East Haddam and Salem, to balance
conservation and growth in order to maintain the integrity of the
watershed. Passage of legislation to authorize a Wild and Scenic River
Study on the Eightmile River will significantly enhance community-based
efforts to conserve the unique resources of this globally significant
region.
the eightmile river
The Eightmile name is based on the distance between the location of
its mouth at the Connecticut River and the mouth of Connecticut River
at Long Island Sound. Extensive wetlands and watercourses combine to
form the 10 mile long East Branch, the 10 mile long West Branch, and
the 5 mile main stem of the river. There are other major tributaries
such as Beaver Brook, Harris Brook, and Falls Brook. The water quality
throughout the river system is excellent. There are no known pollution
sources. An old, minor source of potential pollution is the only reason
the state has not classified the river at the highest drinking water
classification. There has been no evidence of pollution.
The Eightmile River system is one of the most significant aquatic
resources within the Lower Connecticut River watershed and contains a
number of outstanding and remarkable ecological, historical, cultural
and recreational resource values. Within Southern New England, and
particularly coastal Connecticut, it is uncommon to find entire
ecosystems intact throughout their range, particularly at the scale of
the 39,900-acre Eightmile River Watershed. From species to natural
communities to its extensive wetland and watercourse system to its
unfragmented forest, the Eightmile is an outstanding national treasure.
Eighty-five percent of the Eightmile River Watershed is forested.
Most notably this forest habitat is largely intact; it is the largest
unfragmented forest region in coastal Connecticut. In total, about 65%
or 26,000 acres of the watershed is completely unfragmented and the
remaining 35% are only sparsely developed. The watershed benefits from
a high level of protection. The State of Connecticut, The Nature
Conservancy, each of the towns, the local land trusts and others have
conserved 9,700 acres or 24% of the watershed. The intact forest of the
Eightmile River Watershed provides increasingly rare interior nesting
bird habitat.
The Eightmile River is virtually free flowing throughout its
extent. The only dams of any significance have both had fish ladders
installed. The River contains the various forms of aquatic habitat
types such as pools and riffles, rocky whitewater sections, sandy and
gravely bottoms, waterfalls, and wide, slow sections. The riparian
zones are largely intact throughout the river system. The river is
considered by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection to
be an exemplary occurrence of one of Connecticut's most imperiled
natural communities--free flowing rivers and streams.
The River system is a haven for fish, both resident and migratory.
There is a great diversity and abundance of fish species that use the
river throughout their various life stages. It is one of Connecticut's
best trout streams. The River contains native brook trout, brown trout
and rainbow trout, plus minnows, suckers and small-mouthed bass.
Anadromous species include alewife herring, blueback herring, sea
lamprey, striped bass, and sea-run brown trout. Efforts are underway to
restore Atlantic salmon and American shad.
Two globally rare plant species are known to exist in the Eightmile
River system, Parker's pipewort and Eaton's beggar tick. The American
bald eagle is also frequently found here. There are many more state
rare species and habitats suitable for supporting such species. Hamburg
Cove at the mouth of the river is an internationally recognized fresh
water tidal marsh community.
Along with these species and communities there are other key
indicators of a healthy aquatic system. Extensive, native beds of
submerged aquatic vegetation exist. Fresh water mussels are present and
exotic mussels are not. One in ten American mussel species has gone
extinct over the last century, and almost three-fourths of the
remaining species are globally rare. The Eightmile River contains both
the brook floater and eastern pearlshell mussel; both are protected by
the Connecticut Endangered Species Act. The Eightmile River is in the
State's elite for other small aquatic organisms such as mayflies,
damselflies, dragonflies, beetles, snails, etc. Among several
categories of insect life, the Eightmile exceeds all other sites
according to state aquatic biologist Guy Hoffman.
The Eightmile River and the watershed are highly prized by the
three towns through which it flows--Lyme, East Haddam and Salem. The
watershed is approximately one third to one half of the land area in
each of these towns. It is a rural landscape with great scenic beauty
and offers an abundance of recreational opportunities. It is one of the
best rivers in Connecticut for fishing and it supports boating from
canoeing and kayaking to power and sail in the river's downstream
sections. Hiking, sightseeing, hunting, and nature observation are
among popular activities within the watershed at a number of State
Forest areas, Devil's Hopyard State Park, and three large preserves
owned by The Nature Conservancy that are all open to the public.
Much of the watershed's existing development is historic and well
integrated into the landscape. The river and watershed's high quality
defines the character of these three towns. It is at the heart of the
quality of life enjoyed by area residents. Economic interests also
recognize this because economic vitality here, primarily tourism, is
largely based on that quality.
The greatest threat to the special attributes of the Eightmile
River and its watershed is incremental, unplanned growth. It results in
landscape and habitat fragmentation, the loss of water quality, the
loss of important species and natural communities, the intrusion of
undesirable nuisance species, and obscures other qualities of this
region. Change and growth is inevitable; for example, East Haddam is
one of the fastest growing towns in the state. This issue is whether
growth will be managed to protect and sustain the unique resource at
the heart of this region. There are other potential threats such as the
diversion of ground water for water supply in distant towns or golf
course irrigation that could leave the hydrology of the system
seriously altered, especially during normally low-flow periods.
the eightmile river watershed project and the wild and scenic river
study
About six years ago, the Eightmile River Watershed Committee was
formed to pursue the Eightmile River Watershed Project. The group was
comprised of local officials and citizens, with the University of
Connecticut Cooperative Extension System (UConn) and The Nature
Conservancy providing staff support and resource expertise. The EPA
Region One and Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge provided
funding. The project goal: balance conservation and growth in the
watershed in ways that ensure the long-term social, economic, and
environmental health of its communities.
The focus of the project thus far has been the development of
educational resources to support good land use planning and thoughtful
stewardship by local landowners. One of the first achievements was the
signing by town leaders in December of 1997 of the ``Conservation
Compact.'' This was an agreement between the three towns that committed
each town to work together to protect shared natural and cultural
heritage.
Since that time, the thrust of activity has been in the use of
computer-based geographic information system (GIS) technology to
generate state-of-the-art maps and resource information about the
watershed. Collectively these materials helped make it vividly clear
just how unique and precious the Eightmile River Watershed is to those
who live here. The results were shown to various audiences in the
community through slide shows and presentations. They generated
considerable interest and support for further action.
The Nature Conservancy has worked closely with the Eightmile River
Watershed Committee, each of the three towns, community groups and
individuals. During this past year, we have collectively looked at how
best to take the information gathered and community interest generated
to accomplish tangible on-the-ground results for protecting the river
and watershed. Together we have recognized that going back to the
communities to directly involve them in decision-making about the
future of the river and watershed was the best course of action and
that a Wild and Scenic River Study is the best vehicle for doing so.
There are several reasons a Wild and Scenic River Study is the best way
to protect the Eightmile River.
The Eightmile River has the necessary outstandingly
remarkable values to be eligible for designation.
A Wild and Scenic River Study, and the process associated
with it, provides the structure, expertise, funding and
facilitation needed for the communities as a whole to come
together and collectively identify the issues and goals they
have for the resource, and to set forth the means for meeting
those goals. This is the heart of the matter; the conservation
needed is most likely to come through community-based self-
determination. Despite strong interest, it is not likely that
such a community process will happen without the incentive of
the Wild and Scenic River designation process. As important as
designation itself may become, the pursuit of a Wild and Scenic
River study now is being sought as much for the opportunity it
provides to support community-based action and self-
determination as it is to achieve the designation itself.
A Wild and Scenic River designation, if achieved, would
offer important protections not otherwise available locally or
through the State of Connecticut. Federally funded or permitted
water resource related projects that would have a direct and
adverse impact on the river would not be allowed under
designation. There are several threats to the Eightmile where
this may be important including, for example, adverse water
diversions.
The Study would provide a greater level of scientific
information than we have currently, which might be especially
useful for future decision-making.
A Wild and Scenic River study represents the potential to
bring in needed funds to support the community-based process
that has been identified.
The Wild and Scenic River designation process would be built
on local control. The ability to maintain local control over
land use decisions is key.
The process would further facilitate coordination among the
three towns.
There has been wide spread support at the community level for a
Wild and Scenic River Study and for potential Wild and Scenic River
designation. A concern for the future for the Eightmile River, a love
of the Eightmile River Watershed area, and community pride have
combined with a recognition that the Wild and Scenic River process
offers an excellent tool to address these collective interests. Over 40
letters from all levels of local government, community groups and
individuals, including riverfronting property owners, have been
submitted requesting the Study. Leading newspapers have carried
editorials endorsing the Wild and Scenic River effort. These are
summarized in the attached exhibits.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify in support of S.
513 and H.R. 182. I urge the committee's favorable consideration of
this important legislation. I would be happy to answer any questions
from members of the committee.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Ms. Hoffman.
STATEMENT OF DEBORAH HOFFMAN, DIRECTOR, PASSAIC COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Hoffman. Thank you Mr. Chairman and the members of this
subcommittee for affording me the opportunity to testify here
today. It is an honor to be before this committee and to be
able to offer my views on the Great Falls Historic District
Study Act.
As Senator Torricelli and Congressman Pascrell have
eloquently stated, the Great Falls Historic District is a
resource with a significant history worthy of being part of our
National Park System. It reflects the determination of
Alexander Hamilton, Paterson's founder and the first Secretary
of the Treasury, to develop a strong manufacturing base in the
United States.
The structures within the District represent one of the
finest collections of nineteenth and early twentieth century
mill architecture in the country. With its unique, largely
intact, three-level water raceway system constructed to power
the mills, the district remains a cohesive historic presence.
As the head of economic development for Passaic County, I
know first-hand the economic rejuvenation, which is powering us
into the 21st century. Today the Great Falls is home to a
unique blend of manufacturing, office, retail, residential,
health services and educational/cultural uses. Reinvestment in
the area has been significant, showing an enthusiasm for the
area's rich heritage and current prominence in our community.
For example, in 1997, a company known as Longstreet
Development came to the Great Falls seeking to create an 80,000
square foot retail, commercial and residential complex known as
Hamilton Square. This was one of the first major redevelopment
projects in the district since the 1960s. The more than 50,000
square foot Rodgers Mill Building, once the location of
automotive manufacturing, was converted to house the Paterson
Museum and office suites, and the 30,000 square foot Franklin
Mill was converted into office space.
In addition the Historic District continues to draw
interest in reinvestment from both public and private sectors.
For example, the Parking Authority of the city of Paterson will
be constructing a five-hundred car parking deck with 10,000
square feet of parking space within the next 2 years. This will
take place directly across from the Paterson Museum, which
provides a venue for historical exhibits and art work for our
local resident artist community.
Not long ago, I was approached by Sol Wagner, president of
Oklahoma Sound Enterprises. Mr. Wagner's company manufactures
lecterns and podiums, employs 50, and desperately required
additional space. Although they could have settled on any
number of properties in North Jersey, they were drawn to the
Historic Great Falls District due to its manufacturing history,
readily available labor force and proximity to the Route 80
Interstate. Regardless of the physical and financial
constraints of the property, Sol Wagner is determined to be a
part of the fabric of the Great Falls Historic District.
But perhaps the best demonstration of private sector
interest in the district can be typified by Mr. Jim Fabris who
wants to bring a baking plant for Dunkin Donuts to a 17,000
square foot historic building in the heart of the district.
Abandoned for over a decade, the structure would house not only
a manufacturing plant of baked goods for distribution to ten
Dunkin Donut retail stores, but will offer tours to the public.
Mr. Fabris is only at the beginning of his potential
development, but he is a powerful example of the type of
serious entrepreneur that seeks out the Great Falls Historic
District and its historic glamour.
The not-for-profit sector has also been very active in the
district. For example, the North Jersey Community Coordinated
Child Care Agency recently developed a facility on Oliver
Street for its corporate offices and the operation of several
day care centers.
There is much to be excited about and much that can be
fostered by the presence of the National Park Service. As you
consider this legislation, I can assure the committee that
there is a vibrant committed partnership in place to support a
National Park designation. We have strong local support from
the city of Paterson and the county of Passaic. As someone on
the front lines everyday, I believe this is a pivotal time for
the Great Falls Historic District. We must collectively decide
if we will embrace the history of the site and build upon it,
or miss this wonderful opportunity to protect and enhance a
true national treasure.
I urge the committee to support this legislation and thank
you again for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hoffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Deborah Hoffman, Director, Passaic County
Department of Economic Development
Thank you Mr. Chairman and the members of this subcommittee for
affording me the opportunity to testify here today. It is an honor to
be before this committee and to be able to offer my views on this
important legislation.
As Congressman Pascrell has eloquently stated, The Great Falls
Historic District is a resource with a storied history worthy of being
part of our National Park System. It reflects the determination of
Alexander Hamilton, Paterson's founder and our first Secretary of the
Treasury, to develop a strong manufacturing base in the United States.
At Hamilton's urging, the ``Society for the Establishment of Useful
Manufactures,'' (SUM), was established in the early 1790's. This was
the most ambitious industrial undertaking in America at the time,
making the City of Paterson the ``New National Manufactory.''
The structures within the District represent one of the finest
collections of nineteenth and early twentieth century mill architecture
in the country. With its unique, largely intact, three-level water
raceway system constructed to power the mills, the district remains as
a cohesive historic presence. Quite simply, it was America in all that
made it great at the dawn of the 20th century.
As the head of Economic Development for Passaic County, I know
first-hand the economic rejuvenation that today is powering us into the
21st century. The Great Falls is home to a unique blend of
manufacturing, office, retail, residential, health services and
educational/cultural uses. Reinvestment in the area has been
significant, showing an enthusiasm for the area's rich heritage and
current prominence in our community.
For example, in 1997, a company known as Longstreet Development
came to the Great Falls looking to create an 80,000 square foot retail,
commercial and residential complex, known as Hamilton Square. This was
one of the first major redevelopment projects in the district since the
1960's. It involved the conversion of the 50,000 square foot 2 Market
Street mill building--once the location of locomotive construction--to
house the Paterson Museum and office suites; and the conversion of the
30,000 square foot Franklin Mill into new office space. The structure
also provides St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center with a premier
location for their out-patient clinics, serving patients throughout a
15-mile radius.
Today, the Great Falls Historic District continues to draw interest
and re-investment from both the public and private sectors. For
example, the Parking Authority of the City of Paterson will be
constructing a 500+ car parking deck with 10,000 square feet of retail
space within the next two years. This will take place directly across
from the Paterson Museum, which provides a venue for historical
exhibits and artwork created from our local resident artist community.
Not long ago, I was approached by Sol Wagner, President of Oklahoma
Sound Enterprises. Mr. Wagner's company manufactures lecterns and
podiums, employs 50, and desperately required additional space.
Although they could have settled on any number of properties in North
Jersey, they were drawn to the Great Falls Historic District due to its
manufacturing history, readily available labor force and proximity to
the Route 80 Interstate. Regardless of the physical and financial
constraints of the property, including environmental contamination, the
sudden filing of chapter 11 bankruptcy by the property's owner, and the
potential collapse of the roof due to the failure of 5 roof trusses,
Oklahoma Sound is forging ahead. Sol Wagner is determined to be a part
of the fabric of the Great Falls Historic District.
But perhaps the best demonstration of private sector interest in
the district can be typified by Mr. Jim Fabris, who wants to bring
Dunkin Donuts to a 17,000 square foot historic building in the heart of
the district. Abandoned for over a decade, this structure would house
not only a manufacturing plant for distribution to 10 Dunkin Donut
establishments, but will offer tours to the public. Mr. Fabris is
determined to work with local officials to make his dream a reality,
despite the necessary costly renovations that will be needed to convert
the facility to a modern ``food'' building. Mr. Fabris is only at the
beginning of his potential development, but he is a powerful example of
the type of serious entrepreneur that seeks out the Great Falls
Historic District and its historic glamour.
The not-for-profit sector has also been very active in the
district. The North Jersey Community Coordinated Child Care Agency
(4C's) is developing a manufacturing facility on Oliver Street for its
corporate offices and the operation of several day care centers. There
is much to be excited about, and much that can be fostered by the
presence of the National Park Service.
As you consider this legislation, I can assure the committee that
there is a vibrant, committed partnership in place to support a
National Park designation. We have strong local support from the City
of Paterson and the County of Passaic.
As someone on the front lines everyday, I believe this is a pivotal
time for the Great Falls Historic District. We must collectively decide
if we will embrace the history of the site and build upon it, or miss
this wonderful opportunity to protect and enhance a true national
treasure.
I urge the committee to support this legislation and thank you
again for this opportunity.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. I have questions for
John Parsons. Mr. Parsons, your testimony indicates that the
Department wants to carefully examine the full lifecycle of
operational and maintenance costs for each option considered.
I am not aware of any significant maintenance cost for Wild
and Scenic River segments, especially rivers in the East such
as Eightmile River where there is not likely to be any Federal
land acquisition or little Federal management other than
approval of the local government's river management plan. Are
there other significant costs associated with the designation
of an area as a Wild and Scenic River?
Mr. Parsons. No, Mr. Chairman, there are not. It is a grant
program as you have illustrated, but the idea of examining a
new designation's cost is something we are going to try to
insert into each of the special resource studies in the future;
not necessarily a cost to the Federal Government, but a cost in
general of managing a river of this kind.
Senator Akaka. I have a question for you and Ms. Hoffman
concerning the Great Falls Historic District National Park
Service study. I understand the purpose of a study is to answer
questions about the suitability and feasibility of designating
an area as part of a National Park System. At this point does
anyone have any comments about how a park such as the Great
Falls Historic District might operate? Would there likely be a
cooperative agreement with local authorities involved in joint
funding of the park? Or would there be a major Federal presence
including land and building acquisition by the Park Service?
Either you or Ms. Hoffman.
Ms. Hoffman. Thank you very much for the question. I cannot
speak on behalf of the city of Paterson, but I am confident in
their dedication to this area and to the commitment to this
area. The county of Passaic considers it really a gem and I am
sure would consider funding for the area. In addition, I have
spoken to many of the businesses operating in the area and
there is a potential to develop a special improvement district,
which is a State legislation and a local legislation, that
would actually develop matching funding to operate certain
types of services in the area. And so I think you would see a
local initiative and capability of that. I don't know whether
or not that would generate multi-millions of dollars but it
would certainly show a commitment on the part of the local
economy and local businesses.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Parsons.
Mr. Parsons. The purpose of this special resource study is
exactly as you have outlined. At least three alternatives would
be evaluated. One would be doing nothing, which would continue
the Congress' 1992 and 1996 legislation and may be supplemented
with others. The second would be an affiliated area, an area
that is managed in joint cooperation in some fashion with the
city of Paterson or a foundation or others. And the third would
be the more traditional unit of the National Park System.
Another aspect of this special resource study, of course, is to
examine thematically elsewhere in the Park System as to whether
this would be duplicative of another unit of the Park System.
Senator Akaka. Well, I don't have any questions for Mr.
Frohling. And I want to thank all of you for your testimony.
Finally, Mr. Parsons, you are the only witness on two matters,
both of which I believe are non-controversial. The first is S.
921 and its House-passed companion, H.R. 1000 to adjust the
boundary of the William Howard Taft National Historic Site in
Ohio. The final is S. 1097 to authorize the Park Service to
issue rights-of-way permits for the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park. Mr. Parsons please proceed with your testimony
on both bills.
STATEMENT OF JOHN G. PARSONS, ASSOCIATE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
LANDS, RESOURCES AND PLANNING, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ON S. 921, H.R. 1000, and S. 1097
Mr. Parsons. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time I am
going to be very brief. S. 921 as outlined to you by Senator
DeWine earlier this afternoon is a very creative solution to a
problem that both we and the SABIS school have in that
community. It would authorize a land exchange with them to
accommodate their growth as well as provide us with a parking
lot on their existing property. It would also authorize the
National Park Service to acquire two other pieces of property
and we would urge the committee to pass favorably on that
measure.
Regarding S. 1097, which affects the Great Smoky Mountains,
as you may be aware the National Park Service is precluded from
issuing rights-of-way permits to oil and gas pipelines. This is
not true of electric facilities or water transmission, but it
is true of petroleum products. So, in a situation that we have
like this with a linear parkway we are often in the way.
Whether it is the George Washington Memorial Parkway here in
Washington or the Baltimore Washington Parkway, when you are
managing a linear park and people have to cross it with
utilities of this kind, our only remedy is to come to Congress
to seek specific legislation and that is what this would do.
There is an existing pipeline and we would like to grant
right-of-way authority for that, and for a new pipeline that is
needed by the city of Gatlinburg. This would allow the park to
issue a right-of-way permit for both, and we would urge you to
report favorably on this bill as well. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of John Parsons on S. 921, H.R.
1000, and S. 1097 follows:]
Prepared Statement of John G. Parsons, Associate Regional Director,
Lands, Resources, and Planning, National Capital Region, National Park
Service, on S. 921, H.R. 1000, and S. 1097
S. 921 and H.R. 1000
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
subcommittee to present the position of the Department of the Interior
on H.R. 1000, and S. 921, bills to adjust the boundary and authorize an
exchange of certain lands at William Howard Taft National Historic Site
located in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Department of the Interior supports
these bills.
With one minor exception of a technical nature, H.R. 1000 and S.
921 are identical bills. H.R. 1000 was the subject of a hearing before
the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands,
on April 26, 2001. At the hearing the witness for the Department of the
Interior, NPS Associate Director Katherine H. Stevenson, recommended
several amendments to the bill that would enable it to better address
the needs of the William Howard Taft National Historic Site. One of
these amendments would allow the Park Service to purchase one of the
properties involved in the bill with appropriated funds, the other two
proposed amendments were primarily technical in nature. The House
Resources Committee adopted these amendments and reported the bill out
of committee on May 16, 2001. The bill was passed by the House on June
6, 2001. With one technical exception which would be corrected by the
amendment proposed at the conclusion of this testimony, S. 921 is
identical to the House-passed version of H.R. 1000, and was introduced
in the Senate on May 21, 2001.
The William Howard Taft National Historic Site, situated in a
designated Historic District of the Mount Auburn section of Cincinnati,
Ohio, is the only memorial to William Howard Taft, the nation's 27th
President and 10th Chief Justice of the United States. William Howard
Taft lived at the property that became the historic site from his birth
in 1857 until his marriage to Helen ``Nellie'' Herron, in 1886. The
Taft family sold the property in 1889.
This unit of the National Park System was established by Public Law
91-132 on December 2, 1969. The site was established specifically to
``preserve in public ownership historically significant properties
associated with the life of William Howard Taft.'' Prior to the
establishment of the historic site the William Howard Taft Memorial
Association began efforts to acquire and restore the Taft family home.
In 1963 the association leased part of the house and began to restore
it. In 1968 the association bought the property. In 1969 the home and
its 1/2 acre of land was transferred to the United States Government.
In 1972 an additional 1/3 acre of adjacent land was cleared of an
existing apartment building and also donated to the Government by the
William Howard Taft Memorial Association.
H.R. 1000 and S. 921 would redraw the boundary of the Taft historic
site to include two parcels of land that are presently contiguous to
the site. The inclusion of these tracts within the site would benefit
park visitors by giving them easier access to the site, and by enabling
the Park Service to better tell the story associated with the site. In
addition, these bills would benefit the local community of Mount
Auburn, as it would authorize the National Park Service to transfer a
tract of land to a leading private educator of Cincinnati, the SABIS
International School of Cincinnati (SABIS). This tract would enable
SABIS, which operates a school across the street from the site, to
better carry out its educational mission.
The Taft Historic Site is bordered by Southern Avenue on the north,
Auburn Avenue on the west, Young Street on the east, and Bodman Avenue
on the south. The primary attractions for visitors are the Taft Home,
and the Taft Education Center, which are both accessed from Auburn
Avenue. However, to reach the Home or the Education Center, visitors
must park along either heavily trafficked Auburn Avenue, or at the NPS
parking lot, which is at the other end of the block, at the corner of
Young Street and Southern Avenue. This lot is situated between two
tracts owned by SABIS, and across the street from other land owned by
SABIS. Thus, the lot is far more convenient for faculty, and parents of
students attending the SABIS school, than it is for Taft site visitors.
H.R. 1000 and S. 921 would enable the National Park Service to
transfer this land to SABIS, which would enhance SABIS's ability to
serve the community. In exchange, SABIS would transfer to the National
Park Service a tract of land that it owns along Southern Avenue. The
National Park Service would then develop part of this land into a
parking lot, which would enable visitors to park one-half block closer
to the Taft Home and Education Center than the present lot allows. The
National Park Service would allow another part of this land to revert
to the same. character it possessed during the Taft years of 1857 to
1899--green space. The National Park Service would also develop a
handicapped accessible walking trail connecting to the site on part of
this land to give visitors a better feel for how this land influenced
the life of William Howard Taft. The bills also provide that if a real
estate appraisal shows the NPS tract to be of a different value than
the SABIS tract, additional funds or land may be used to equalize the
transaction.
These bills would also bring within the park's boundary another
tract, approximately three-fourths of an acre that is located at the
intersection of Southern and Auburn Avenues. This property presently
contains a residential building with 40 apartments. For the past 18
years the National Park Service has rented administrative office space
in this building. The parking lot for this building, which includes a
Park Service easement, was brought within the boundary of the park by a
1981 boundary modification. Over the last 15 years, this tract has come
up for sale on two occasions. Both times the NPS wanted to acquire the
property, but was unable to submit an offer because the property was
not within the park boundary. This property has been identified in the
master plan for the park as land that would further the mission of the
park.
While the National Park Service does not have a definitive plan for
the use of this property at present, the tract could be used for a
variety of purposes that would further the park mission. In determining
the best use for this tract we would examine several alternatives,
including using it to improve access to the site because of its
location as a corner lot, and its potential for parking spaces; using
it to aid us in telling the William Howard Taft story, as at least part
of it could be restored to a condition similar to that which existed
during the Taft years; and using at least part of it for administrative
space, which would help the park carry out its business.
H.R. 1000 and S. 921 would give the Natianal Park Service the
authority to buy this property when it goes on the market in the
future. Any potential modifications to the property would be
accomplished only after consultation and collaboration with all
identified stakeholders.
While the two tracts of land that would be brought into the
historic site by H.R. 1000 and S. 921 were not part of the original
Taft estate, their acquisition would be consistent with the historic
site's enabling legislation, which provides that the purpose of the
site is to ``preserve in public ownership historically significant
properties associated with the life of William Howard Taft.'' These
tracts are portions of land that was contiguous to the Taft property
during the time William Howard Taft resided at the site, and are
therefore historically significant properties associated with the life
of William Howard Taft. In addition, these properties take on even
greater significance in light of the fact that a large piece of the
original Taft estate that fronts Bodman Avenue will in all likelihood
never be available to the Park Service. Hamilton County constructed
several buildings on this site in 1995, which it uses for a juvenile
detention center.
Thus, the acquisition of the tracts involved in H.R. 1000 and S.
921 may represent the last chance the Park Service has to deal with
encroaching urban development that impedes its ability to carry out its
mission at the historic site. Their acquisition is also consistent with
the park's 1981 Master Plan, which provides for the preservation of
``those elements from the historic period'', and states that the park
shall ``provide the appropriate opportunities for visitor use'' and
``coordinate area planning and management activities with those of
neighboring communities to attain mutual objectives''.
The costs to the treasury associated with the two land transactions
involved in H.R. 1000 and S. 921 are expected to be minimal. The annual
operating costs that the Park Service would incur in taking over the
SABIS parking lot would be offset by the costs the Park Service would
forgo as a result of conveying the parking lot at Young Street and
Southern Avenue to SABIS. The Park Service would incur nominal costs in
developing a parking lot and walking trail along this property of
approximately $65,000. Additionally, the government would not incur any
significant cost in carrying out this land exchange, as the both
properties are substantially equal in value.
The property at Southern and Auburn Avenues has been assessed at
$505,000. The level of operational costs associated with this site is
unclear at this time because we do not have a definitive plan for the
use of this property.
As noted above, S. 921 differs from the House-passed version of
H.R. 1000 in one technical respect. To correct this oversight, the word
``Historic'' should be inserted prior to ``Site'' on page 2, line 6, of
the bill.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any of your
questions.
S. 1097
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 1097, which would provide
legal authority to permit existing and future natural gas pipelines
within a portion of Great Smoky Mountains National Park near
Gatlinburg, Tennessee.
The Department supports S. 1097. This legislation would help
address the air pollution problem at Great Smoky Mountains National
Park by facilitating the use of natural gas as a relatively clean
source of energy in an area where air quality is poor.
S. 1097 would provide authority for the continuing operation and
maintenance of an existing gas main that runs through Great Smoky
Mountains National Park that has been in place since the 1960's. And,
it would allow the Secretary of the Interior to authorize construction
of new gas lines, where otherwise appropriate, across several linear
park lands managed by Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The areas
where the new pipelines would be allowed are: the Foothills Parkway,
which extends parallel to the north boundary of the park for 70 miles;
the Foothills Parkway Spur, a four-mile-long park road (also U.S. 441)
which connects the gateway communities of Pigeon Forge and Gatlinburg;
and the Gatlinburg Bypass which links the Spur to the main body of the
park. All three areas are linear lands that are managed as scenic
transportation corridors. S. 1097 would not allow construction of
natural gas lines across the main body of the park.
The need for this legislation came to the attention of the National
Park Service last year, when Great Smoky Mountains National Park
received a request from Sevier County Utility District in Tennessee for
permission to install a new natural gas pipeline across the park-owned
Gatlinburg-Pigeon Forge Spur right-of-way (U.S. 441) in order to
provide gas service to a new development in the city of Gatlinburg.
Under 16 U.S.C. 79, the Secretary of the Interior may permit rights-of-
way through units of the National Park System for electrical, phone,
water, sewer and some other utility services, but that general
authority explicitly does not authorize installation of natural gas or
petroleum product-bearing lines.
Between the 1990 Census and the 2000 Census the population of
Sevier County, Tennessee, which includes Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge,
grew by 39 percent, making it the state's third fastest-growing county.
Within the county some of the most rapid growth is occurring between
the Foothills Parkway and the main body of the park in areas not
currently served by natural gas, other than the single six-inch line
along the Spur to Gatlinburg.
The single greatest natural resource problem in Great Smoky
Mountains National Park is declining air quality. Its vistas are
reduced by sulfate and particulate emissions. Ozone levels in the
park's higher elevations reaches levels that pose a hazard to human
health under Environmental Protection Agency standards. High elevation
streams and soils are becoming increasingly acidified by airborne acid
deposition which is threatening plants, wildlife and aquatic systems. A
large proportion of this pollution is produced by coal-generated
electrical power plants. Significant progress is being made to reduce
emissions from power generation, and that progress could be aided if
the thousands of new homes and businesses that are springing up in
surrounding communities turn to the use of natural gas for their
heating needs. The authority provided by S. 1097 would enable greater
usage of natural gas.
The need for an authorization for existing natural gas pipelines
stems from the developments that led to current National Park Service
management of the Foothills Parkway Spur. The Foothills Parkway Spur
was built by the Federal government in the 1950's on land acquired by
the State of Tennessee and donated to the Federal government. In 1963,
an agreement was signed between the National Park Service and the State
of Tennessee that called for the Spur to be transferred back to the
State after the Federal government built the Gatlinburg Bypass on other
lands donated by the State. Subsequent to the 1963 agreement, the
National Park Service allowed construction of a six-inch natural gas
main down the Spur which still provides the only gas service to
Gatlinburg.
At that time, the National Park Service's only concern was to
ensure that the line's installation was acceptable to the State of
Tennessee as the land's future owner.
Although the Gatlinburg Bypass was completed in 1968, the State has
declined, for a variety of reasons, to accept the Spur back into State
ownership, leaving the National Park Service with a pipeline it has no
current authority to permit. This legislation will allow for the
continued operation and maintenance of this line.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. As I understand this
issue is non-controversial. Mr. Parsons, it is clear that
rights-of-way for gas pipelines would only be authorized along
existing rights-of-way and would not be otherwise allowed to
cross through the park.
Mr. Parsons. Right. This is limited to the Foothills
Parkway and not across Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Senator Akaka. Before we conclude this hearing this
afternoon, I would like to announce that the hearing record
will remain open for one week, if anyone wants to submit
additional comments on any of these bills. And I would like to
take the time to thank all the witnesses for their testimony
this afternoon. And I would especially like to thank Mr.
Parsons for staying here the entire afternoon.
Mr. Parsons. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is
a good idea to have rather than the administration witness just
run through their testimony as to get the panels together. And
it is much more productive I think.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. The hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Subsequent to the hearing, the following was received for
the record:]
National Parks Conservation Association,
Washington, DC, July 16, 2001.
Hon. Daniel Akaka,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and
Recreation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: S. 281, proposed education center at Vietnam Veterans Memorial on
the National Mall
Dear Senator Akaka: The National Parks Conservation Association
(NPCA) is the only national nonprofit organization dedicated solely to
protecting national parks for future generations. On behalf of our more
than 450,000 members nationwide, I am writing in opposition to S. 281,
a bill to construct an education center near the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial on the National Mall.
In 1986, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed into
law the Commemorative Works Act to regulate the placement of
commemorative works on Federal land in the District of Columbia and its
environs. Congress took this action in direct response to the
proliferation of memorials, monuments, and other structures that would
encroach on the open spaces and national significance of the National
Mall, a National Historic Landmark.
Building on the intent of the Commemorative Works Act, in 2000 the
federal National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) proposed
establishment of a Reserve on the Mall's central cross-axes in which no
new memorial sites would be approved. The Reserve would encompass the
Mall's central cross-axis formed by the U.S. Capitol, Lincoln Memorial,
White House, Washington Monument, and Jefferson Memorial. NCPC designed
a draft Master Plan to encourage the location of future memorials,
museums, and monuments at other prominent locations throughout the
Nation's Capital. NPCA strongly supports establishment of the proposed
Reserve.
We agree that as the years pass it is important to teach future
generations about the Vietnam War and other conflicts. However, we
encourage the Subcommittee to consider reasonable alternatives to S.
281. In addition to locating the proposed education center somewhere
off the Mall, other possibilities include designating a site to provide
substantive interpretation for all of the memorials and monuments
currently on the National Mall. As the draft Master Plan demonstrates,
there are a number of readily available nearby sites.
The emotional and aesthetic power of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
derives in part from the simplicity of its design and the natural
serenity of its immediate environment. The proposed museum/education
center would disrupt that serenity. Four times the size of the existing
kiosk located nearby, the proposed structure would cause a major
alteration of historic views of the Lincoln Memorial.
The National Mall is America's ``Town Square,'' a place where all
can gather and learn about our common heritage. We are concerned that
its historic open space and vistas will be compromised, and the impact
of existing memorials and monuments diminished if they have to compete
with numerous other sites. Without a change in policy, the Mall's
traditional Monumental Core may have to accommodate at least 50 new
memorials and numerous new museums by 2050. In seeking to continue to
add to this area, we risk greatly diminishing it.
It is therefore critical that Congress support establishment of the
Reserve, and that the Commemorative Works Act be amended to encourage
meaningful, early public involvement in site selection and memorial
design processes. Such involvement is necessary to avoid the intense
controversies provoked by other recently proposed memorials.
We urge the Subcommittee to support the ``Reserve Area'' as
proposed by the NCPC and amend S. 281 to seek other sites that can
serve to educate future generations about the Vietnam War.
Sincerely,
Kevin Collins,
Acting Director, Government Affairs.